Sunday, December 14, 2014

Socialism – The Resource of Hope


'The greatest cause of poverty is hover-population,' remarked Harlow.
'Yes,' said old Joe Philpot. 'If a boss wants two men, twenty goes after the job: ther's too many people and not enough work.'
'Over-population!' cried Owen, 'when there's thousands of acres of uncultivated land in England without a house or human being to be seen. Is over-population the cause of poverty in France? Is over-population the cause of poverty in Ireland? Within the last fifty years the population of Ireland has been reduced by more than half. Four millions of people have been exterminated by famine or got rid of by emigration, but they haven't got rid of poverty. P'raps you think that half the people in this country ought to be exterminated as well.'
The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, Robert Tressell

In ‘Imagine’ Lennon was asking us to imagine a place where things that divide people (religion, possessions, etc.) did not exist. The thing that set us apart is class. He felt that would be a much better place. Lennon said this song is "virtually the Communist Manifesto." Lennon added: "even though I am not particularly a communist and I do not belong to any movement." Take a moment to think about living in a world as imagined by John Lennon in this song, take away material possessions (wealth, status, greed, envy); religion (holy wars, terrorism, religious persecution); countries (war, tyranny, oppression.) And to all those who speak about socialism never ever working. Think of this: early man for thousands of years lived in a society based upon communism. The community was needed to survive. The community or tribe or clan or herd was all that mattered. Share and all survive. That is communism. We as humans have the ability to shape the world into whatever we want.

The Economic Research Service estimates that over 130 billion pounds of edible food goes uneaten per year at the retail and consumer levels in the United States, equating to over 1,200 calories per day per man, woman, and child.  On average, this suggests that as a nation almost one-third of the edible food that could meet our caloric needs goes uneaten. Globally, in developed countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia, almost 40 percent of the food is wasted after the dinner table.  In contrast, in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and South America, almost 40 percent of the food is lost before the dinner table, owing to pests and supply chain issues, including inadequate storage, transportation, and marketing challenges.

The food waste in landfills decomposes, emitting carbon dioxide, methane, other gases, water vapor, and leachates, thus exacerbating our ecological footprint.  Additionally, consider the land, water, fertilizer, labor, energy, and other inputs that went into producing that food, which is now wasted. Indeed, globally food waste/food loss is contributing to the estimated loss of one quadrillion liters of water per year—enough to fill Lake Erie approximately eight times over.

Studies point to the need to double food production to feed the nine plus billion people predicted to populate planet Earth by 2050.  Imagine the possibility:  By eliminating or significantly reducing food waste and food loss, humanity could be closer to achieving food and nutrition security without having to bring in significantly more arable land, energy, water, labor, and other inputs needed to double food production. Mitigating food waste and food loss globally is the “low hanging” fruit in our toolkit to ensure the food and nutritional security of humanity, while husbanding our natural resources such as water and land, and minimizing our ecological footprint.

Americans have steadily moved from farms to cities. The country was 95 percent rural in 1900. Today, 81 percent of Americans live in metropolitan areas. It is predicted that 70% of the entire world will be urban by 2050. For most of human history, food was produced within walking distance of where it was consumed—a way of life in which people maintained a direct connection with the land and their food. Urbanization and the industrialization of food production have rendered this a distant memory for most of us.

Too many households abound in areas that have little or no access to healthy fruits and vegetables. Most of our food is grown from genetically modified and hybrid seeds, sprayed with chemicals and shipped to us from around the world. Quality food is the most important part of being healthy and we are not getting it. Fast food is killing us. We’re eating 31 percent more packaged and processed food than fresh fruits and vegetables. We are consuming more packaged food per person than people in nearly any other country. And food insecurity is growing. Americans spend considerably more on healthcare than any other country. Yet, too many of our children are unhealthy. Our elderly are sicker for longer periods of time.

How will we feed, clothe, shelter, and educate these steadily swelling urban populations? Up until now, too much of the discussion surrounding global warming and the climate crisis has been cloaked in gloom and doom. The fact is, we have the power to reverse, not just mitigate, global warming. We can avert the impending climate catastrophe, mass starvation, resource depletion and endless wars. And while we’re at it, we can also restore soil fertility, eliminate poverty and hunger. We need a global grassroots movement. Our immediate task therefore is to spread this profound message of hope. What is important is that we identify the different messages that will motivate different segments of the population, and then build upon our shared concerns. Through a diversity of messages and campaigns we can build the largest grassroots coalition in history—for our survival, and the survival of the future generations.

Humanity has a shared history and culture, came into being based on some very specific factors. Principle among these was/is a population having access to food and natural resources. Throughout history, population centres formed in the most fertile places – river deltas (Nile, Amazon, Ganges) and those places where plentiful rainfall allowed cropping (Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, SE Asia, where rain-fed agriculture is a viable way to produce food. If we look at a world population distribution map, there is a very strong correlation between rainfall and where people live. The density in South East Asia is incredible, something only possible by historical high rainfall and fertile land. Also, in India, Pakistan and China, this rainfall fed agriculture is supplemented vastly by annual glacier melts that feed their inland river systems. Agriculture is the foundation of life, as we know it. It is what led to our contemporary human societies. “There is no culture without agriculture.” Civilization began when humans settled in one place and started growing crops. We cannot live without a system that grows our food. We cannot flourish without healthy food. Most experts agree that despite advances in modern medicine (or perhaps in part because of them), as a population, we face a serious health crisis. This is particularly apparent in western nations, where there is plenty of food—but much of that “food” is highly processed, nutrient-deficient junk food. Yet the food produced by our modern industrial agriculture system debilitates, rather than enhances, our health.

Why does it matter if the temperature changes? Hotter earth means more energy, which means more frequent violent storms. The NAOO in the US believes that once a century storms will occur every two-three years with 1.5-2 degrees warming. Storms like that wipe out crops, destroy homes, ruin infrastructure, in places where the majority of human beings live. It matters because if the temperature changes, the location and degree of rainfall will change as well, because of changed ocean and atmospheric conditions. 70% of African food is produced by farmers at or close to subsistence level and in SE Asia the level is around 50%, any substantial change in yields will impact those populations hugely. By definition, subsistence farming produces no or small surpluses. We live in a hungry world already. If yields drop too far, literally billions of people will face chronic food shortages. Who cares if the globe warms up? Well, all those hungry people will. Drought, storms and changing rainfall patterns will combine to drastically reduce crop yields. Massive storms will destroy homes and infrastructure. What will hundreds of millions of hungry, homeless people do? What would you do, if your home was repeatedly blown away, and you couldn’t feed your family? You’d find somewhere else to go, just as sure as they will. It’s demonstrably clear that most Australians don’t like boat people. Imagine if millions of starving boat people made their way to Australia?

The hour is late. We are facing the life or death challenge of our lives. Each and every one of us must join the world socialist movement. Environmentalists have argued that waiting for "the revolution" in order to try to save species from extinction, or prevent the planet from boiling over because of climate change, is denying the urgency of environmental problems. They have argued that, given the urgency of environmental problems, we have to use whatever mechanisms are available to us, from high-tech geo-engineering solutions to market mechanisms, to rich philanthropists. Critics of many environmentalists, however, accuse some in the environmentalist movement of willing to accept compromises with elites in ways that ultimately compromise and undermine the environmental cause. Socialists draw attention to the common cause the myriad of different ecological problems share and point to the common enemy, capitalism. Socialists grasp the conclusion that many greens are reluctant to accept, society will have to make massive changes to the economic system, and that the reforms being offered up are not deep enough to stabilise the climate change much less reverse the consequences of global warming. The reformists’ compromises and concessions with capitalism is like driving towards the edge of a high cliff. It doesn’t matter if we roar at it at 150kmh or trickle towards it at 1kmh. Once we reach that tipping point, where global warming is self-reinforcing, we’re not going to stop until we hit the bottom.

A global poll of more than 6.5million people has placed climate change at the very bottom of a long list of priorities, with the finding being consistent across both genders, almost all age ranges, all education levels and in most regions of the world. Across the whole of Africa and Asia climate change rated last, but Europe, Oceania and the Americas promoted the issue to around half way up the table. In the US it ranked 10th, whilst in the UK it was placed 9th. Participants are offered a choice of sixteen policy issues, which also include “a good education”, “Political freedoms”, “Protecting forests, rivers and oceans”, and “Equality between men and women”. We are failing to communicate the urgency and the seriousness of the threat to the environment and the planet.

Many socialists are willing to concede that a key problem is failure to point to solutions. We tend to point to problems - endlessly - as if that will somehow automatically generate action.  In the city of the future we will no longer jump in our cars, burn fossil fuels to go and buy “food” at giant suburban shopping malls that is grown on farms far away. Instead, we will walk to a farm or garden in our neighborhoods to get fresh, nutritious food harvested by urban growers that we know personally. We will no longer pass empty blighted waste-ground. We will eat, work and play close to home, in beautiful spaces. Urban agriculture empowers people with food self-sufficiency, maintains stewardship over the environment and builds a sense of community. And all of it can be done with just a hoe, a rake and a spade. Urban agriculture and the development of local food systems is a way to bring city dwellers closer to their farmers and provide an abundance of natural, nutritious food. In the city of the future, wholesome food will be a right for all, not just a privilege for the few. Urban agriculture transforms both people and places. Growing food in urban areas will grow remarkable cities. The Chicago city planner, Daniel Burnham, famously said, “Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood”. We have no other choice. We must become advocates and campaigners for socialism.


Saturday, December 13, 2014

Murphy's Law

Blairite Jim Murphy, a former shadow defence minister, has been announced as the new leader of the Scottish Labour party. Since 2001 Mr Murphy has claimed over £1 million in expenses, voted to cap benefits in March 2014, failed to show up for the vote against the Bedroom Tax, voted for tuition fees despite being NUS president, went on 100 day tour of Scotland campaigning for a no vote, which meant leaving his Eastwood constituency without an MP for almost a third of a year. Yet claimed over £200,000 in Westminster expenses, is a major figure in Labour Friends of Israel, who refuses to recognise of the state of Palestine and strongly supported the illegal invasion of Iraq and unaligned himself with Ed Miliband when he apologised for said invasion. Murphy has never rebelled against the party line in Westminster. Murphy has been sharply critical of any left turn, saying that “galloping off leftward” would be a big mistake. “The SNP would love it if we did that.” [FT, 09/11/14]

All Socialist Courier can say is “Who cares?” According to the best political pundits in the business, the bookies, 90% of the money they had taken for the contest had been for Murphy. But what does it mean? Very little, the Socialist Courier blog says.

The SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN has consistently maintained that the 'left-wing', despite their claims to being socialist are, in reality, reformist rather than revolutionary organisations, with no more than a sentimental attachment to the working class. The rise of the Labour Party has caused inestimable damage to the revolutionary movement for Socialism. The SPGB argued from its formation in 1904 that only socialism can provide a solution to the problems of the working class. Genuine socialists have to be prepared to swim against the tide of popular sentiment, clearly have to combat all manifestations of chauvinism, both unionist or separatist.

The Labour Party in Scotland has consistently shown a readiness to reshape itself, discarding principles, to acquire votes yet even its opportunism has been unable to avoid the slide in support that has been going on for years. Although Scottish Labour has never won over 50% of the national vote, the party did hold the overwhelming majority of parliamentary seats and had control over local government for decades. This was not least because Labour was associated with mass council house building, the formation of the NHS, and other reforms following the second world war. Former Labour voters feel ignored and betrayed by the party. Infested with careerists, it has lost touch with the people it was supposed to represent. Labour has become increasingly viewed as simply another party of the Establishment, which, of course, it always was. At present many are disenchanted, disgusted or outright hostile to Labour, The party is largely empty of active workers.

 Capitalism can no longer afford reforms and as a result we have capitalist austerity and he probably realizes that any promises he makes will never be achieved. Capitalism has no reforms to give. We have seen bursts here and there which are expressions of the deep discontent, frustration and anger that exist in society. There is a deep appetite in society for a greater and more fundamental change. The ideas of reformism or nationalism, which attempt to patch up capitalism, offer nothing for working people. Elaine C. Smith argued that the reason for Scottish Labour’s  poor performance was a lack of socialist analysis and socialist solutions. “The root of the problem is class society; the root of the problem is inequality; the root of the problem is in-work poverty; the root of the problem is unemployment. The root of the problem is avaricious capitalism and our job and the job of the Labour Party, surely, is to root it out.” Yet all she offers is neo-Keynesian state investment that is utopian and undeliverable.


 Socialism, in its modern sense, was born in Scotland. Robert Owen at New Lanark is where it all began. It is the task of the Socialist Party to win those open to revolutionary ideas and offer a real alternative to capitalism and nationalism. What we need is a revolutionary socialist transformation of society! Let this be the message to those who believe in real socialism, we are the party for them, we are the rightful home for you. 

Future Health Dangers

Under the headline "Oceans drowning in a a sea of plastic" we learn the alarming truth about the dumping of plastic waste on the world's oceans. 'What is made up of 52 million pieces and weigh 250,000 tonnes? The answer is the mountain of plastic floating around the world's oceans. The first comprehensive study found that the Mediterranean had more plastic than anywhere else at 90,000 pieces per sq km. Most other  oceans had up to 100,000 pieces sq km.' (Times, 12 December) This dumping is going on at a time when there are growing fears about the capacity of fish and seabirds to absorb potentially harmful plastic compounds and to pass the effects RD

On Course For Tragedy

Talks have reopened in Peru on the final day of a key UN climate summit aimed at advancing a new global treaty. 'But long-running divisions between rich and poor continue to hamper progress. US Secretary of State John Kerry warned the world was "still on a course leading to tragedy", saying a deal was "not an option, an urgent necessity". Negotiators have been meeting in Lima for almost two weeks to prepare the elements of the new treaty. A new text has been produced by the chairman of the talks in an effort to get a decision. But environmental groups say that it is far too weak and threatens to leave many issues unresolved.' (BBC News, 12 December) Despite all the well-meaning sentiments expressed capitalism places the environment concerns way behind that of the profit motive. RD

A Class-For-Itself


When fear and terror become the organising principles of a society in which the tyranny of the state has been replaced by the despotism of an unaccountable market, violence becomes the only valid form of control. The net effect is an entirely intentional grinding down of the majority of the population in order to maintain the dominance of the rich and powerful. The system has not failed. It is doing exactly what it is supposed to do, which is to punish those it considers dangerous or disposable - which increasingly includes more and more individuals and groups.

 In an age when the delete button and an utterly commodified and privatised culture can erase all vestiges of memory and commitment, it is easy for a society to remove from itself sordid memories that reveal the systemic injustices and inequalities which disconnect broader understanding of the past that no longer has any connection to the present. For those who are able to find work, the workplace is increasingly precarious. Whether due to zero-hours contracts, the threat of cuts-related redundancies or the removal of funding, our pay packets are constantly under threat. It has been a case of ‘death by a thousand cuts’ accompanied by a barrage of scapegoating propaganda in the media. While capitalists have acquired increasing financial gain at the expense of now stagnating workers’ wages and from the slashing cuts to healthcare, housing, education and welfare it is not safe to assume that the working class, have finished reacting to all this. Many believe that the imposition of austerity policies would rally people to their cause. This is not an entirely baseless assumption. Today is a new day, particularly for those who embrace and proclaim the need for a total change — a new civilisation.

The Occupy movement was not exactly anti-capitalist, though it did take aim at key aspects of the neo-liberal model of capitalism such as financiers and bankers. Because the movement gave expression to what many people were feeling, and because it was leaderless and non-ideological, it grew rapidly. Still, their numbers were only in the thousands, or perhaps tens of thousands. However, support for Occupy’s goals and for what Occupiers were doing was more widespread. Their slogan “we are the 99%” rang true. Nevertheless, Occupy melted away. This remind us, of a few things. One is that relief from systemic oppression requires radical solutions. Calls for punishing the Wall Street crooks who caused the financial crisis will not reform the system that produced the financial debacle. Such reforms simply give the system a veil of legitimacy, suggesting it can be fixed. It can’t be fixed. The other is that for popular is not enough and that political action must be taken. The people it mobilised expressed rage and celebrated the realization that “a different world is possible.”  But they had no idea how to change the world; and, even if they had, they lacked the means to advance it.

In capitalism’s current phase, it is often expedient for capitalists to export high paying manufacturing jobs overseas. This keeps wages down, even as profits rise, harming all workers, and putting the unions that still represent them in jeopardy. It is a vicious cycle that is especially harmful to those who are least well off. Many people know that instead of bringing the bottom up capitalism pushes the bottom down. Austerity has had the effect of wearing people down, of creating fears, anxieties and deprivations that have forced many to fight simply to keep their own heads above water. The tightening of belts of essential services has meant that those already suffering are made to suffer again. Capitalism is the root of the problems that Occupy protesters onto the streets but this understanding has got lost. It is not enough merely to attack the symptoms of disempowerment; the solution must be more radical. In short, the remedy for political disempowerment is the economic empowerment of the disempowered. This cannot be achieved at the individual level; it requires restructuring the economic structure itself. Since capitalism has always been the main obstacle in the way of empowering people the time to once again make it Public Enemy Number One.

The Occupy movement was moving towards this understanding, but never quite got there. For socialists, changing the world for the better has always been the aim. It can sometimes be useful to vent anger at oppressive circumstances. But, in the end, political struggle is indispensable. The debate among the earlier socialists was not over whether struggles to end oppression should move into the political arena, but how. Every conceivable way was envisioned and tried – violent and peaceful, legal and extra-legal, vanguardist and mass-based. Many lessons should have been learned yet for all practical purposes, the lessons learned from bitter experience it is now lost knowledge. This has been the painful realization for many in the Socialist Party that instead of building upon the past, it seems we now once more require to re-invent the wheel. What is important is that we work out what has happened and learn from the past so that the coming struggles can be better comprehended. As long as solidarity cannot be extended anti-capitalist social movements will remain of limited effectiveness. When there are significant barriers to solidarity, the state can govern unimpeded. What is needed is a wholesale change, a revolution, and end to the misery of private property and the inevitable inequality which goes with it; a new system of society which integrates everyone and distributes its wealth according to the reasonable needs of its members. This new socialist society would abolish at a stroke the problems of deprivation and exclusion. It would enable the wasted talent of those who are presently excluded on economic grounds from a proper participation in the life of society to be properly developed.

The goal of a socialist society based on human values and not economic ones, means that the machines and technology serve the operators and not the other way round. Freed from pointless drudgery, more meaningful work can be developed by those who, for example, want to pursue a craft, but have had no time to develop skill, or those who yearn to do a socially useful task, but couldn’t afford to before. Scores of socially useful tasks, many related to restoring the environment, that today go undone will attract people to work for pleasure. We are not talking about eliminating all jobs, just the most stupid and boring of them, and reducing the time people spend at the rest. Necessary work, the kind that often is undervalued today, may be the most physically exhausting and should be shared in a just society.


But to achieve such a world people need to form themselves into agents of change – or as Marx said, a class-for-itself – to agitate for common ownership. Our ruling class is expert on creating dissension within the workers. One need only refer to the social divisions employers enforced in the early labour movement. However, women, blacks and immigrants often find themselves in identical situations, and the recognition of commonality in struggle begins to define class and galvanise into a force of class struggle. Socialism simply will not come about by wishing it so but requires action. We need a new politics of real change. One thing is certain, no social change of any significance will occur without a re-newed class struggle.

Friday, December 12, 2014

No Longer the North Sea bonanza


North Sea oil was central to the dream of Scottish independence in this year’s referendum. The wealth stored under the waves would buttress public spending, said the SNP, and it would also enable Scots to set up their sovereign fund as Norway has to hold some of its fruits for future generations.

The SNP predicted that oil would be selling now for $110 a barrel. Unusually, however, it forecasted that the price would stay constant over the next five years. Yesterday, North Sea Brent crude traded at one point at $64.24 (and could drop further). The world is now facing an era of cheap oil so the SNP is joining a long queue of people who got their predictions about oil wrong.

 Between 1991 and 2008, tax receipts from the North Sea grew strongly, reaching £12.4 billion, on the back of prices reaching an all-time high in 2008. From 2009, however, revenues have fallen, from £6.1 billion in 2012-13 to £4.7 billion in the last financial year and to £2.8 billion in the one ending next April. The drop equals roughly half of what Scotland spends each year on education.

The price drop may not be temporary. Global demand is “very subdued” and “buoyant” supplies are available from the US where shale is becoming increasingly significant. Some producers may increase, not cut, production.  Banks are rationing lending for energy giants. Projects must show that they can survive at less than $75 a barrel. North Sea investments are competing for cash that has other places to go. The North Sea fields are ageing. New discoveries are being made, but they are smaller than before. Existing fields are also becoming more expensive to run, and more prone to breakdowns. In the North Sea last year only 15 wells were drilled as production costs soared more than 15 per cent. The sharp rise in costs has led oil and gas companies to focus their investments in Norway and North America rather than the North Sea.

The Office of Budget Responsibility believed that oil and gas tax receipts would fall by £100 million between 2014-15 and 2019. Production would stay flat. However, the figures from the independent budget watchdog are already significantly out of date for now, since it was based on a $100-a-barrel price this year. North Sea crude, they estimated, would fetch $85-a-barrel for the rest of the decade.

Falling production and exploration will see employment numbers in the North Sea drop by around a tenth, a report has found. North Sea oil and gas could lose up to 35,000 jobs in the next five years, industry experts have warned. Although some of the job losses will come with the retirement of older workers, the report reveals that more than half of the workforce is under the age of 45. For every offshore job that is lost, three more industry jobs are lost onshore, according to union officials. North Sea oil represented 30% of Scotland's GDP (last year on $113 oil)

Jake Molloy, regional organiser of the RMT union in Aberdeen, said: “The offshore industry is facing what amounts to a perfect storm of a falling oil prices on global markets, the shale revolution, rising costs to extract oil and gas from the North Sea, and smaller and harder-to-access fields.”


An independent Scotland with a budget surplus and an oil investment boom? A fairy tale. 

Crime pays a dividend

Peter Tait, a fishing skipper and a director of the Fraserburgh-based Klondyke Fishing Company, two years ago was fined £40,000 after he and three other members of his family admitted landing illegal catches worth more than £6.5million in Shetland and Peterhead. They were also ordered to forfeit more than £700,000. A total of 31 skippers and three firms were fined just under £1.8 following the “Operation Trawler” inquiry. They falsely declared catches to evade the EU fishing quotas allocated to their vessels and broke European regulations introduced to preserve fish stocks by landing tons of herring and mackerel between 2002 and 2005.

Tait has now paid just over three million pounds for the B-listed, six bedroom Edwardian mansion in the upmarket Rubislaw area of Aberdeen in what is believed to be the most expensive house sold in Scotland this year.


So crime pays after all.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/black-fish-scandal-skipper-snaps-4795558

The Youngest Outcasts

A recent report on homeless children in the USA claims that one child in every thirty is now homeless. 'Titled "America's Youngest Outcasts" the report being issued by the National Center on Family Homelessness calculates that nearly 2.5 million American children were homeless at some point in 2013.' (Yahoo News, 17 November) The richest country in modern capitalism and yet we have kids living without a home. RD

Sporting Madness

Capitalism has some strange sense of values. At a time when world-wide we have families living in penury and near-starvation we have sportsmen signing million dollar contracts. The baseball team Miami Marlins signed Giancarlo Stanton on a 13 year contract for $325 million. 'His contract tops the $292 million 10 year deal Miguel Cabrera agreed with the Detroit Tigers in March. Alex Rodrieque signed a the largest previous deal, a $275 million 10 year contract with the Yankees before the 2008 season.' (Huff Post, 18 November)   RD

Thursday, December 11, 2014

More Double Dealing

When news broke about the the CIA carrying out torture in questioning al-Qaeda suspects it originally was claimed that they had not informed the government, but that turns out to be untrue according to Dick Cheney, the vice-president at the time. 'US President George W Bush was "fully informed" about CIA interrogation techniques condemned in a Senate report, his vice-president says. Speaking to Fox News, Dick Cheney said Mr Bush "knew everything he needed to know" about the programme, and the report was "full of crap.' (BBC News, 11 December) RD

A Dangerous World

It is often difficult to get accurate figures about deaths due to terrorist activities but by combining the journalistic and professional resources of the BBC World Service, BBC Monitoring, and the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King's College London we learn the following. 'The findings are both important and disturbing. In the course of November, jihadists carried out 664 attacks, killing 5,042 people - many more than, for instance, the number of people who lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks.' (BBC News, 11 December) In so-called local skirmishes capitalism with its economic and military rivalries slaughtered over 5,000. RD

War Against War



Honeyed phrases about ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ is a minor issue from the standpoint of the working class. As is the question ‘Who started the war?’ because politicians on either side of a war will always portray the ‘enemy’ as the ‘aggressor’, and usually successfully to sway public opinion. John Pilger quotes the journalist who exposed the Iran/Contragate:
"If you wonder," wrote Robert Parry, "how the world could stumble into world war three - much as it did into world war one a century ago - all you need to do is look at the madness that has enveloped virtually the entire US political/media structure over Ukraine where a false narrative of white hats versus black hats took hold early and has proved impervious to facts or reason."

At the height of World War One’s slaughter, British prime minister David Lloyd George confided in C.P. Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian: "If people really knew the truth the war would be stopped tomorrow, but of course they don't know and can't know."

It's time they knew and that is part of the task of socialists.

Socialists have always claimed that at the bottom of all war there is an economic cause. This claim is substantiated by a careful study of the causes and results of wars. Economic causes are, of course, the root of wars. But today, with all this nationalistic preaching it is easier than ever to obscure this fact. Nationalism is the cloak behind which the economic causes work.

The position that socialists take in a war is of the utmost importance. It is an acid test, for us. Many people are anti-war. There is a more fundamental reason why socialists reject a strategy that leaves the causes of war untouched. So long as we simply aim at putting a halt to the latest barbarity in which our rulers are engaged we will always leave them free to prepare another war. The drive to war is inherent in the way capitalism works. As long as the antiwar or peace movements and the working class in general refuse, or are unwilling, to recognize the cardinal point that capitalism with its production for profit and private ownership of the tools of production is the cause of war, they will find themselves fighting endless reforms or effects under capitalism which never lead to a solution but only to frustration and despair.

The real roots of the war can be seen in the class system of society. The narrow interests of each “national” capitalist class conflict one with the other. It is notorious to all students of history that “spheres of influence” and “places in the sun” are only elegant phrases that really mean exclusive possession of foreign markets and trade privilege. But these things are known only to the careful investigator into facts and to the unprejudiced historian.Kings and capitalists may fight for these things — people, never! Yet it is peoples that must fight the war and die in war.

Internationalism means no nationalism. Nationalism always claims certain virtues as the peculiar, exclusive possession of certain nations. If individuals make such claims, they are laughed to scorn. Why — with what logic — may nations make such claims? Nationalism claims that the culture belonging to one nation is distinct from that belonging to any other. This was so in the past, but the natural evolution of mankind is making it less so. Increased means of communication has created a world where  there is no essential difference between any one of the countries of the world. Even language is tending to become universal. More people understand each other today than ever before. Governments are coming to resemble each other. Codes of ethics are becoming international. It is only by the most artificial kind of propaganda that nationalism is kept alive. Nationalism is an unmitigated curse. It leads inevitably to chauvinism and to national aggression. It leads to a patriotism for the soil, for the particular bit of the earth’s surface on which a particular person has been born. It leads to narrowness and bigotry, to national jealousy and petty pride. In the end nationalism is the best of cloaks for the intrigues and machinations of capitalists.

When people attack 'militarism' yet uphold the capitalist system, they are fighting an effect while defending the cause. The politicians are elected and sent to parliament to protect the economic interests of the capitalist class. That's just one little lesson in political economy that the anti-war movement badly needs. The function of the political State is that of the executive committee of the capitalist class. The only road to permanent peace lies in the abolition of capitalism and its replacement by genuine socialism under which goods will be produced for use and the means of wealth production will be socially owned.

Socialism being a classless and cooperative there will be no exploitative capitalist class as at present to fight over the surplus wealth stolen from the working class and encourage wars to get rid of it. The causes of war that existed under capitalism will no longer exist under socialism. Only under socialism can permanent peace become a reality instead of just a dream as at present. All of the energy, enthusiasm and sacrifice of the present anti-war movements will come to naught unless they quickly learn that capitalism is the cause of war. Capitalism and its nation state system is the root cause of war. The danger of war can only be prevented through a struggle to abolish the profit system and reorganise society on the basis of socialism.


Wars are not accidental. An accident can sometimes spark off war but only if all the other conditions for war are present. But there is no such thing as an “accidental war”. The only way to end the possibility of such madness as war is to destroy the system which inevitably leads to these horrors. 

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

The Godly Scots

A Freedom of Thought report, published by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) criticises Scotland for the religiously privileged position afforded to three “religious representatives” who are required by law to be appointed to all 32 local authority education committees.

These positions require at least one Roman Catholic and one Church of Scotland representative, but non-religious people are excluded. The report also highlighted the disparity of sex and relationships education, and religious education between Roman Catholic faith schools and others in Scotland.

Douglas McLellan, Chief Executive of the Humanist Society Scotland said:
 “Many commentators in Scotland still seem unable to mention humanists or atheists without adding the term ‘militant’ or ‘aggressive’. I hope this report will make them reflect on how hurtful that is to the many millions of Scots who wish to lead an ethical and fulfilling life without reference to religion.”

Capital Can Dominate

Google has actually come out and said that climate change facts are no longer in dispute and has cancelled its membership in The American Legislative Exchange Council, an organization founded in 1973 that  brings corporate and elected officials together to work on hundreds of model policies and bills that are meant for introduction in US state Legislatures. This is how capital can dominate an elected assembly for its agenda. Not surprisingly, it denies the science behind climate change. John Ayers.

Someone Can't Be A Sinner!

According to Papal doctrine, popes are infallible. The New York Times writes (November 2), "On paper, that doctrine seems to grant extraordinary power to the pope – since he cannot err, the first Vatican Council declared in 1870, when he 'defines doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church." John XXIII said, " I am only infallible if I speak infallibly, but I shall never do that." And I thought we were all sinners! John Ayers.

A Torturous Society (2)

It is not only Britain of the so-called free nations that  carries out torture as the  US has recently confessed. 'The CIA carried out "brutal" interogations of al-Qaeda suspects in the years after the 9/11 attacks on the US, a US senate report has said. The summary of the report compiled by Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee said that the CIA misled Americans about said it was doing.' (BBC News, 9 December) RD

Steady State Socialism


Socialism is often called the society of the free and equal while democracy is defined as the rule of the people. These simple definitions still ring true. But when some say they too call for a socialist democracy it is incumbent upon us to enquire “Just what do you mean by socialism, and what do you mean by democracy?” and ask “Do you mean what Marx and Engels said? Or do you mean what Lenin and Stalin did?” Workers around the world have become more acutely sensitive than ever before to the value and importance of democratic rights and there is no doubt that mass media propaganda has profoundly affected the sentiments of the working class in regard to socialism. The one-party dictatorship that was in Russia and elsewhere has been identified with the name of socialism and it is perhaps understandable that workers have been prejudiced against socialism. The socialist movement will not advance significantly until it regains the initiative and corrects the misrepresentations of socialism and the misinterpretations of democracy. Our strategy, as socialists, is simply to restate what socialism and democracy meant to the founders and pioneers of our movement and to bring their formulations up to date and apply them to present conditions. There is no room for misunderstanding. It requires a clean break with all the perversions and distortions of the real meaning of socialism and democracy and their relation to each other, and a return to the original definitions. Nothing short of this will do. The authentic socialist movement is the most democratic movement in all history.

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto linked socialism and democracy together as end and means. The “self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority” cannot be anything else but democratic, if we understand by “democracy” the rule of the people, the majority.  A society where the people are without voice or the is just as foreign to the thoughts of Marx and Engels as the reformist idea that socialism can be handed down to the workers by degrees by those who exploit them.

Marx and Engels reiterated their position that “the emancipation of the working class is the task of the workers themselves”. That is a way of saying that a socialist a revolution is unthinkable without the active participation of the majority of the working class. Nothing could be more democratic than that. Only the revolution that replaces the class rule of the capitalists by the class rule of the workers who constitute the vast majority of people can really establish democracy.

Marx and Engels never taught that the nationalisation of the forces of production signified the establishment of socialism, still less could they have sanctioned, even if they had been able to imagine, the monstrous idea that socialism was without freedom and without equality, or that people controlled by a ruthless police dictatorship, complete with prisons, torture chambers and forced-labour camps, could be designated as a “socialist” society. Marxists defined socialism as a classless society—with abundance, freedom and equality for all; a society in which there would be no state, not even a democratic workers’ state, to say nothing of a state in the monstrous form of a bureaucratic dictatorship of a privileged minority. The Communist Manifesto said: “In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association.” NB: “an association”, not a state—“an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”

Just as those travesties described as “ peoples democracies” cannot be passed themselves off genuine workers democracies, nor should  those who claim describe capitalist countries as democratic succeed in duping us. What is termed bourgeois democracy is a system of minority rule, and the beneficiaries of it are the small minority of exploiting capitalists; scarcely less so than the slaveowners of ancient times were the actual rulers and the real beneficiaries of the Athenian democracy. Within bourgeois democracy people can exercise the right of free speech through a free media. But this formal right of freedom is outweighed rather heavily by the inconvenient circumstance that the small capitalist minority happens to enjoy a complete monopoly of ownership and control of all the big presses, and of television and radio, and of all other means of communication and information as right now we witness the endeavours of the authorities to control the internet and the world wide web.

The right to join or form union organisation is a precious right, a democratic right, yet workers have neither voice nor vote in the management of the industry which they have created, nor in regulating the speed of the assembly line. Full control of production is still the exclusive prerogative of “management”, that is, of the absentee stock-holders. Workers have no democratic rights in industry at all, as far as regulating production is concerned; that these rights are exclusively reserved for the parasitic owners, who never see the inside of a factory. What’s democratic about that? Another word to express socialism is “industrial democracy”, the extension of democracy to industry, the democratic control of industry by the workers themselves, where private ownership eliminated.

But even so, with all that, a little democracy is better than none. We socialists have never denied that. Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet peoples’ needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, the many structures of economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that people can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives. Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. Socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. Socialists do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the economic institutions should commonly owned and collectively controlled by the people themselves. Democracy does not come from the top, it comes from the bottom.

“Dictatorship of the Proletariat” is perhaps the most misfortunate of expressions and perhaps one of the most misunderstood phrase that has been seized upon by followers of Lenin to justify the idea of the existence of a coercive State after the establishment of “socialism”, that stage various Bolshevik-type  groups believe that we must go through as a lengthy transition before "real communism" can be brought about. Marx did believe that a period known as "the dictatorship of the proletariat" would separate capitalism and socialism/communism. However, this phrase was consciously and dishonestly distorted by Lenin.

Marx meant by the word dictatorship in an explicit sense to mean the domination of society by one class through its control over the state machine. He often, for example, referred to Britain as a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", though he was freely allowed to write and work in the country. Marx took the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" from the French revolutionaries he met when he lived in Paris in the mid-1840s. Only, whereas they saw this as being a minority dictatorship supposedly on behalf of the working class (or proletariat) Marx gave it a democratic content and saw it as the unlimited exercise of political power by the working class by and on its own behalf. What Marx envisaged was a period between the end of capitalist political rule and the establishment of socialism (or communism, the same thing) when political power would be exercised by the majority working class within a democratic context. So, yes, he did envisage democracy and freedom of speech for all people, even capitalists and former capitalists, under his interpretation of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Engels referred to the Paris Commune of 1871 as an example of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and, although we can doubt that it really was a beginning of a transition to socialism, it was an elected council with competing parties-quite unlike Russia under Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin.  Leninism made what can only be construed as a quite deliberate play on words, using the term dictatorship in its popularly understood sense, to mean the denial of basic democratic freedoms, the maintenance of rule by force and the ruthless suppression of political opponents. Lenin gave special emphasis to the concept of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” to identify the term with a state ruled by a vanguard party. It is noticeable however that Lenin's Three Sources of Marxism article contained no mention of the phrase or Lenin's particular conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Although, the Socialist Party say that the working class should still organise to win control of political power and use it in the course of establishing socialism - and would call this the "dictatorship of the proletariat" if pressed - we don't envisage this as lasting for any length of time and think the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" to be so open to misunderstanding as to be counter-productive. If used by Socialist Party members it is meant the working class conquest of power, which should not be confuse with a socialist society. We prefer to speak simply of the (very short-term democratic) exercise of political power by the working class.

Tuesday, December 09, 2014

Won't be fooled again

Socialism is often called the society of the free and equal while democracy is defined as the rule of the people. These simple definitions still ring true. But when some say they too call for a socialist democracy it is incumbent upon us to enquire “Just what do you mean by socialism, and what do you mean by democracy?” and ask “Do you mean what Marx and Engels said? Or do you mean what Lenin and Stalin did?” Workers around the world have become more acutely sensitive than ever before to the value and importance of democratic rights and there is no doubt that mass media propaganda has profoundly affected the sentiments of the working class in regard to socialism. The one-party dictatorship that was in Russia and elsewhere has been identified with the name of socialism and it is perhaps understandable that workers have been prejudiced against socialism. The socialist movement will not advance significantly until it regains the initiative and corrects the misrepresentations of socialism and the misinterpretations of democracy. Our strategy, as socialists, is simply to restate what socialism and democracy meant to the founders and pioneers of our movement and to bring their formulations up to date and apply them to present conditions. There is no room for misunderstanding. It requires a clean break with all the perversions and distortions of the real meaning of socialism and democracy and their relation to each other, and a return to the original definitions. Nothing short of this will do. The authentic socialist movement is the most democratic movement in all history.

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto linked socialism and democracy together as end and means. The “self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority” cannot be anything else but democratic, if we understand by “democracy” the rule of the people, the majority.  A society where the people are without voice or the is just as foreign to the thoughts of Marx and Engels as the reformist idea that socialism can be handed down to the workers by degrees by those who exploit them.

Marx and Engels reiterated their position that “the emancipation of the working class is the task of the workers themselves”. That is a way of saying that a socialist a revolution is unthinkable without the active participation of the majority of the working class. Nothing could be more democratic than that. Only the revolution that replaces the class rule of the capitalists by the class rule of the workers who constitute the vast majority of people can really establish democracy.

Marx and Engels never taught that the nationalisation of the forces of production signified the establishment of socialism, still less could they have sanctioned, even if they had been able to imagine, the monstrous idea that socialism was without freedom and without equality, or that people controlled by a ruthless police dictatorship, complete with prisons, torture chambers and forced-labour camps, could be designated as a “socialist” society. Marxists defined socialism as a classless society—with abundance, freedom and equality for all; a society in which there would be no state, not even a democratic workers’ state, to say nothing of a state in the monstrous form of a bureaucratic dictatorship of a privileged minority. The Communist Manifesto said: “In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association.” NB: “an association”, not a state—“an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”

Just as those travesties described as “ peoples democracies” cannot be passed themselves off genuine workers democracies, nor should  those who claim describe capitalist countries as democratic succeed in duping us. What is termed bourgeois democracy is a system of minority rule, and the beneficiaries of it are the small minority of exploiting capitalists; scarcely less so than the slaveowners of ancient times were the actual rulers and the real beneficiaries of the Athenian democracy. Within bourgeois democracy people can exercise the right of free speech through a free media. But this formal right of freedom is outweighed rather heavily by the inconvenient circumstance that the small capitalist minority happens to enjoy a complete monopoly of ownership and control of all the big presses, and of television and radio, and of all other means of communication and information as right now we witness the endeavours of the authorities to control the internet and the world wide web.

The right to join or form union organisation is a precious right, a democratic right, yet workers have neither voice nor vote in the management of the industry which they have created, nor in regulating the speed of the assembly line. Full control of production is still the exclusive prerogative of “management”, that is, of the absentee stock-holders. Workers have no democratic rights in industry at all, as far as regulating production is concerned; that these rights are exclusively reserved for the parasitic owners, who never see the inside of a factory. What’s democratic about that? Another word to express socialism is “industrial democracy”, the extension of democracy to industry, the democratic control of industry by the workers themselves, where private ownership eliminated.

But even so, with all that, a little democracy is better than none. We socialists have never denied that. Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet peoples’ needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, the many structures of economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that people can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives. Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. Socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. Socialists do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the economic institutions should commonly owned and collectively controlled by the people themselves. Democracy does not come from the top, it comes from the bottom.

“Dictatorship of the Proletariat” is perhaps the most misfortunate of expressions and perhaps one of the most misunderstood phrase that has been seized upon by followers of Lenin to justify the idea of the existence of a coercive State after the establishment of “socialism”, that stage various Bolshevik-type  groups believe that we must go through as a lengthy transition before "real communism" can be brought about. Marx did believe that a period known as "the dictatorship of the proletariat" would separate capitalism and socialism/communism. However, this phrase was consciously and dishonestly distorted by Lenin.

Marx meant by the word dictatorship in an explicit sense to mean the domination of society by one class through its control over the state machine. He often, for example, referred to Britain as a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", though he was freely allowed to write and work in the country. Marx took the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" from the French revolutionaries he met when he lived in Paris in the mid-1840s. Only, whereas they saw this as being a minority dictatorship supposedly on behalf of the working class (or proletariat) Marx gave it a democratic content and saw it as the unlimited exercise of political power by the working class by and on its own behalf. What Marx envisaged was a period between the end of capitalist political rule and the establishment of socialism (or communism, the same thing) when political power would be exercised by the majority working class within a democratic context. So, yes, he did envisage democracy and freedom of speech for all people, even capitalists and former capitalists, under his interpretation of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Engels referred to the Paris Commune of 1871 as an example of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and, although we can doubt that it really was a beginning of a transition to socialism, it was an elected council with competing parties-quite unlike Russia under Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin.  Leninism made what can only be construed as a quite deliberate play on words, using the term dictatorship in its popularly understood sense, to mean the denial of basic democratic freedoms, the maintenance of rule by force and the ruthless suppression of political opponents. Lenin gave special emphasis to the concept of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” to identify the term with a state ruled by a vanguard party. It is noticeable however that Lenin's Three Sources of Marxism article contained no mention of the phrase or Lenin's particular conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Although, the Socialist Party say that the working class should still organise to win control of political power and use it in the course of establishing socialism - and would call this the "dictatorship of the proletariat" if pressed - we don't envisage this as lasting for any length of time and think the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" to be so open to misunderstanding as to be counter-productive. If used by Socialist Party members it is meant the working class conquest of power, which should not be confuse with a socialist society. We prefer to speak simply of the (very short-term democratic) exercise of political power by the working class.


Monday, December 08, 2014

The "poverty premium"


In Scotland the poorest households are paying £1,300 a year more than their wealthier neighbours for everyday goods and services. Thereport by a coalition of churches andcharities draws on a year of grassroots research conducted in Glasgow and charts the so-called "poverty premium"; the high prices charged for everyday essentials including food, fuel, finance, furniture, and even funerals in the city's poorest neighbourhoods.

Niall Cooper, Director of Church Action on Poverty, said: “It shouldn’t cost money to be poor. It is unacceptable for companies to exploit their most vulnerable customers by charging them the highest prices.”

Peter MacDonald, leader of the Iona Community, said: “It is clear from this report, consistent with several others, that we are not ‘all in this together’. The poorest among us are paying the price of austerity. This is morally and economically just plain wrong.”

Martin Johnstone, chief executive of Faith in Community Scotland and secretary of Scotland’s Poverty Truth Commission, said: “This report highlights what many of our poorest citizens already know. If you are poor then food, fuel, furniture and even funerals costs you more than if you have spare money in the bank. That is ludicrous but it is reality. It’s a scandal, a scandal that we must overturn, once and for all. Having read this report no politician, no business and no citizen should rest content until things are different.”

Socialist Courier would say that this confirms what the Socialist Party has been saying for decades. Poverty is an inherent part of capitalism and rather than expecting supporters of the capitalist system such as businesses and politicians to remedy the failure to provide for all, no citizen should rest until things are different and we have socialism.



Getting Burnt

That Russell Hobbs has withdrawn thousands of irons after customers have reported them bursting into flames in their hands should come as no surprise. The company knew about the problem for sometime before withdrawing the faulty models. 'Tim Wright, the vice-president of Spectrum Brands, Russell Hobbs parent company, admitted the company discovered the problem 18 months ago, and apologised for all who had been hurt. ..... Questioned about the delay in recalling the faulty products, he said: "We did actually discover it over a year ago as you say. We recognised that we had a flex in our irons which is actually UK and European compliant, but in certain occasions was causing an issue.' (Daily Telegraph, 6 December) The whole motive force of capitalism is to make a profit. Everything else is secondary including safety. RD

A Torturous Society

Torture according to the press is something carried out by unscrupulous foreigners but just isn't British. So how come  a letter discovered in Downing Street at the National Archives has placed Britain in the dock at European Court of Human Rights accused of torturing detainees in Northern Ireland in the 1970s? 'The confidential memo written in March 1977 by Merlyn Rees, then Labour home secretary, states that, six years earlier, Tory ministers had authorised the use of torture in Ulster. Mr Rees told prime minister James Callaghan that he thought individuals or soldiers should not be prosecuted because "a political decision was taken" to use the so-called deep interrogation techniques.' (Times, 6 December) These techniques included wall standing in stress positions, white noise, hooding, sleep deprivation and withholding of food and water. RD

Taking on Trotskyism

The first things that Lenin and Trotsky destroyed, immediately after the October revolution, were the soviets, the workers' councils and all the democratic bodies. In this respect Lenin and Trotsky were the worst enemies of socialism in the 20th century.

Certain characteristics are shared by most Trotskyist groups.

(1)   They are committed to the outdated concept of Bolshevism and fail to see revolution as involving the vast majority of the working class, but as a minority action in which the party leads the masses to the violent overthrow of the existing State. All Trotskyist organisations start from the premise that workers are too stupid to understand or want socialism by their own volition. Therefore, revolutionary ideas have to be introduced from outside the working class by all-knowing 'professional revolutionaries' who will lead workers to the promised land.
(2)   Trotskyists have a Bolshevik attitude to political democracy. Not only are their organisations based on Leninist democratic centralism whereby power flows from the leadership downwards.
(3)   They accept the Leninist conception of socialism (the dictatorship of the proletariat) as 'the first stage' of Communism and reject the claim that socialism and communism both mean a stateless, propertyless, classless society which can be attained immediately.
(4)    Trotskyists are reformists, advocating a list of what Trotsky called 'transitional demands'. These range from demands for a minimum wage to giving advice to the Government on how to run foreign policy. In theory, Trotskyists claim to be under no illusion that the reforms demanded could be achieved within the framework of capitalism but are posed as bait to get workers to struggle for them and that the workers would learn in the course of the struggle that these demands could not be achieved within capitalism and so would come to struggle (under the leadership of the vanguard party) to abolish capitalism.
In discussion with them you gain the clear impression that they share the illusion that the reforms they advocate can be achieved under capitalism (as, indeed, some of them could be). In other words, they are often the victims of their own "tactics".
(5)   They usually all advise workers to vote for the Labour Party when it comes to election time despite their professed recognition that Labour is a capitalist party. The sad thing is they think they are changing the Labour Party yet it is Labour is changing them.

The Socialist Party is hostile to all defenders of capitalism, but none more than those who preserve capitalism in the name of fighting for socialism. Trotsky was no different in principle than Stalin. As Anton Ciliga  put it:
“Trotsky as well as Stalin wished to pass off the State as being the proletariat, the bureaucratic dictatorship over the proletariat as the proletarian dictatorship, the victory of State capitalism over both private capitalism and socialism as a victory of the latter.”

 In exile Trotsky played the role of "loyal opposition" to the Stalin regime in Russia. He was very critical of the political aspects of this regime (at least some of them, since he too stood for a one-party dictatorship in Russia), but to his dying day defended the view that the Russian revolution had established a "Workers State" in Russia (whatever that might be) and that this represented a gain (whatever that was) for the working class both of Russia and of the whole world. how could the adjective "workers" be applied to a regime where workers could be sent to a labour camp for turning up late for work and shot for going on strike? Trotsky was only able to sustain his point of view by making the completely unmarxist assumption that capitalist distribution relations (the privileges of the Stalinist bureaucracy) could exist on the basis of socialist production relations. Marx, by contrast, had concluded, from a study of past and present societies, that the mode of distribution was entirely determined by the mode of production. Thus the existence of privileged distribution relations in Russia should itself have been sufficient proof that Russia had nothing to do with socialism. Trotsky rejected the view that Russia was state capitalist on the flimsiest of grounds: the absence of a private capitalist class, of private shareholders and bondholders who could inherit and bequeath their property. He failed to see that what made Russia capitalist was the existence there of wage-labour and capital accumulation not the nature and mode of recruitment of its ruling class.

Trotsky entirely identified capitalism with private capitalism and so concluded that society would cease to be capitalist once the private capitalist class had been expropriated. This meant that, in contrast to Lenin who mistakenly saw state capitalism as a necessary step towards socialism, Trotsky committed the different mistake of seeing state capitalism as the negation of capitalism. Trotskyism, the movement he gave rise to, is a blend of Leninism and Reformism, committed on paper to replacing private capitalism with state capitalism through a violent insurrection led by a vanguard party, but in practice working to achieve state capitalism through reforms to be enacted by Labour governments.

Our analysis of Trotskyism is not based upon some narrow sectarianism—it's based upon principle. We do not, nor have we ever, supported capitalist parties, especially those that dress up in revolutionary garb in order to hoodwink the workers. Trotskyists represent all the political mistakes made by the working class last century—from the Labour Party to the Soviet Union. Trotskyism is the mirror image of Stalinism. Trotskyists have never liked to admit that they are simply Leninists who did not like Stalin's continuation of what Lenin began. We do not doubt that well-meaning individuals get caught up in such chicanery for no other reason than a desire to see a better world. However, sentiment can never be a substitute for truth.


Sunday, December 07, 2014

God And Mammon

The Christian churches are adamant that they care nothing for the material aspects of this world and concentrate on spiritual values. The Roman Catholic Church, with its new Pope is particularly concerned about its recent past history. 'The Vatican's bank - which he threatened to shut down - is now closing hundreds of suspect accounts as it tries to shrug off its scandalous reputation after decades in which it was a by-word for money laundering and tax evasion.' (Times, 5 December) RD

An Unhealthy Society

According to a study by the Royal Brampton and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust merely going shopping inside capitalism at Oxford Street in London can be dangerous. 'A study found that even healthy people suffered damage to their arteries after spending two hours exposed to fumes from buses and taxis on the famous shopping street.' (Times, 5 December) Earlier this year scientists at King's College London revealed that Oxford  Street had the world's highest recorded level of nitrogen dioxide pollution, caused mainly by diesel vehicles. The solution? Ban diesel vehicles? You have got to be kidding this is capitalism. RD

Abolishing money

If you simply define socialism as merely anti-capitalism, then all sorts of things become “socialist” and ending up with absurd propositions such as a “socialist” system which would have the capitalist mode of production as dominant or a mutualist society where people enter voluntary slavery or simply sell their liberty piecemeal. How is it possible to imagine fighting an adversary without understanding its functioning and by only attacking one aspect of its domination such as the banks or financial sector? Socialism is a profoundly anti-propertarian proposition as it would prevent the basic concepts that make capitalism capitalist.

It's no wonder we can't live in harmony with the Earth as we treat this world of ours as a piece of private property, subject to price fluctuations on the stock market. It's no wonder we can't 'live in harmony with the Earth' now as we treat the Earth as a piece of real estate, subject to price fluctuations on the stock market. Most people have been taught to believe that socialism means mass poverty and a lack of liberty.  Of course, most people don't want to sacrifice their standard of living and their freedom.  Yet there is a basic proposition of true socialism that no pro-capitalist apologist will touch with a ten-foot barge pole. That proposition is abolition of the thing that is causing poverty and takes away our liberty - the wages system and its replacement with a system wherein labour will receive directly and indirectly the full fruit of its labour! Workers may well ask themselves what is fair about the conservative motto, "A fair day's wages for a fairs day’s work."? What is fair about a pickpocket economic system wherein capitalist profit derives from labour that the capitalist does not pay for? What is more, some workers are beginning to question the very thing that they are today struggling to get more of! MONEY!

Why is paying wages theft? Picture, for example, a worker paid $80 for eight hours of work, but produces goods worth $80 in only two hours, then the rest of that time, s/he is working without pay. During those other six hours, the worker produces $240 of goods. That amount (minus the other costs of running the industry) is surplus value. The capitalist, who privately owns and controls the means of production, appropriates (steals) the surplus value by asserting ownership over the new commodities. The surplus value is turned into profit when the commodities are sold, and a portion is reinvested as capital for the industry to expand. The capitalist class dominates the working class in three main ways: 1) economically via their ownership of the means of production 2) politically via their state apparatus (including the threat and use of force); and 3) ideologically via their culture (media, religion, education, traditions, etc.). The working class should not abandon its daily struggle against capital, but should continuously advance it for the appropriation of the means of production and the abolition of wages. For revolutionary socialists our criticism of capitalism is based on the identification of the exploitation of wage labourers by capital as the producer of surplus value, and not on finance capital which only valorizes itself on interest raised on the social surplus value which comes from the productive sphere as does the landowners’ rent. Logically therefore, the struggle must begin with the destruction of industrial capital. But the fact is that most “anti-globalists” defend the production of commodities (when it is not “multi-national” and, preferably, when it is carried out in the framework of nationalised industry and/or small units of artisanal production, cooperatives, etc.)

Abolish money? You socialists are mad! Not so. The thing about money that socialists find unacceptable lies outside its use as legal tender or as a medium of exchange. What socialists decry is an abominable aspect of money which appears to be inseparable from it -- its use in the producers' market as CAPITAL. So what should socialism use instead of money? Some advocate labour time vouchers! Unlike money, these will not circulate. Unlike money, the labour voucher will be non-transferable. Unlike money, whose stamp provides no clue as to how its possessor came by it, the labour voucher will record socially-necessary labour time expended by the worker, which voucher (after deductions for retirees and those unable to work, for maintenance and/or expansion of the industrial and service infrastructure, for medical research, for restoration of the environment, etc.) will be exchangeable for an equal amount of socially-necessary labour that is crystallized in consumer goods -- value for value. But some other socialists promote a system of free access according to self-defined needs.  Once free access to goods is made available, why would someone work for someone else in exchange of money? It would be useless. Why should someone buy something, when he can get it for free? Some form of barter, perhaps in cases of rare items, may still exist, but it will be unable to harm the system.

We don't want to "abolish" money, we want to simply make it obsolete. When the means of production are managed by society, they will be run for the benefit of society, which would lead to free access. This would make it pointless to work for money anymore, thus making the monetary system "superfluous." We are at a stage in which we have overcome scarcity. Therefore, goods can be distributed on the basis of free access. Should we limit access to goods merely to "incentive" people? In fact, it is the opposite. In the current system, only a minority can become doctors, for instance. In a socialist society, however, everyone will be able to study and work where he wants. The lack of free access to goods generates inequality, and if you e.g. are born in a poor family, no matter what social-democrat politics are in place, you likely will not be able to study what you want. Even in the case that studying was completely free, you may need to e.g. get a dead-end job quickly because you or your family needs money.

The abolition of commodity production necessarily means the abolition of wage labour itself. Wages are never anything other than the price of a particular commodity: labour power. If products no longer represent values, and if the allocation of labour power is no longer subject to the accidental laws of the market, then it is also impossible to consider labour power itself as an exchange value and to give it a market price. The members of society, henceforth undertaking collectively social labour, which meanwhile has been simplified enormously, will no longer be paid for services. This is what is meant by the abolition of wage labour, which has always been a synonym for socialism/communism. There is nothing utopian or impracticable about it. Men and women will work in order to live, instead of living in order to work. Whatever activities and projects we undertook, we would participate in them because we found them inherently fulfilling, not because we needed a wage or owed our monthly hours to the cooperative. This is hardly so implausible, considering the degree to which decisions about work are already driven by non-material considerations.

The reason for being a socialist is to fight the class system. Like the lyrics of The Internationale says: "There are no supreme saviours, neither God, nor Caesar, nor Tribune” and so a socialism must thus be directed by all of its members, and not entrust itself to the "leaders". The movement towards the emancipation of humanity can only be the result of the action of the majority. Marx attacked the capitalist system for the absence of all provision to render the productive process human, agreeable, or at least bearable. The demise of wage labour may seem like a faraway dream but once upon a time people actually worried about what we would do after being liberated from our daily dreary drudgery. “Economic possibilities for our grandchildren”, John Maynard Keynes predicted that within a few generations, “man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem – how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.” In a 1956 discussion, Max Horkheimer remarks to Theodor Adorno that “nowadays we have enough by way of productive forces; it is obvious that we could supply the entire world with goods and could then attempt to abolish work as a necessity for human beings.” Recent technological advances has created an even more boundless potential for abundance. With some knowledge of what lies ahead, perhaps we will be better able to avoid setting off in the wrong direction.


Saturday, December 06, 2014

Reading Notes.

In "The Spirits of Just Men – Mountaineers, Liquor Bosses, and Lawmen In The Moonshine Capital of The World", author Charles D. Thompson Junior describes the plight of the farmer in the 1930s, " As this upheaval took place (i.e., the agricultural mechanization) subsistence farmers still left on their little farms – those who had learned special skills as intricate as reaching into the uterus of a cow to rearrange the legs of a breech-birth calf, how to repair harnesses and make hinges for doors, or how to butcher their own meats and build barns from timber on their own land – would be told they were unskilled in the search for off-farm jobs. Their choices would be to hang on where they could at least manage their own time or sell themselves to an ungrateful industrial world. Some went willingly off the farms. Others remained and instead turned to the ingenuity they had always relied on." ( i.e., the production of illicit moonshine – even here they were exploited by the gangsters and lawmen who demanded their 'fair' shares that always turned out to be much more then the worker, of course – shades of the closing of the commons and clearing of the land for industrialization in Britain. John Ayers.

Dirty Water And Its Effects

The Toronto Star article, " Retracing the Past of a Nestle whistleblower" (October 4 2014) who publicized the fact that Nestle bribed doctors in Pakistan to push its baby formula over breast- feeding. The result was malnourished and dying babies because the formula was more often than not mixed with dirty water, the only water available to 44% of the Pakistani population. It did not affect the Nestle profit, though – dirty water, clean water, it's all the same to capital! John Ayers.

Capitalism And Cuts

The increasing rationing of state funded care, as councils attempted to slash costs, has left growing numbers of elderly people without access to the care system. In turn it has forced millions of family members to step in, many of them giving up their own jobs. 'The acute shortage of care for older people in Britain is exposed in official figures showing how the population of care homes was left virtually unchanged during a decade which saw the biggest expansion in the overall elderly population ever. According to a study published by the Office for National Statistics the number of people in care homes in England and Wales rose by only 0.3 per cent in the decade between the 2001 and 2011 censuses, standing at just   short of 291,000. But the overall number of over 65s jumped by 11 per cent in the same period - 37 times faster.' (Daily Telegraph, 6 December) Having suffered a life of exploitation and poverty old workers' misery continues. RD