Statistics Canada recently issued some interesting information on young people. Only one in five children in Canada who need mental health services ever receives professional help; about 3.2. million young people in Canada aged twelve to nineteen are at risk for developing depression; One in four will experience clinical depression by age eighteen; in Canada 75% of mental disorders develop by age 24, fifty per cent by age 14; suicide is the second leading cause of death for young people, after accident, accounting for almost a quarter of all deaths among 15-24 year olds. The pressures and insecurity of life under capitalism affect parents and children. Psychologists and other mental health workers do help patients to cope with the stress of life better but removing the cause would be preferable. Socialism offers security, stability and fulfillment. John Ayers.
The Glasgow & Edinburgh Branches Blog. Towards a better understanding of the world, in order to change it.
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Dying For Work
One of the illusions beloved by the media is that the working class are a work-shy, lazy bunch of parasites, but the facts completely contradict that notion. "At least 15 migrants die in "shameful" Calais conditions in 2014. Guardian investigations reveals death toll over 12 months with many desperate trying risky routes into UK to escape makeshift camps without sanitation at French port." (Guardian, 23 December) Workers in those Calais camps are so desperate for work that they risk their lives in pursuit of employment. RD
A Twelve Hour Wait
According to a leaked letter a "worrying increase" in the number of patients waiting on trolleys for up to 12 hours before they are admitted to hospital is being blamed by NHS bosses on the vulnerable nature of the health service in winter. Latest figures show a doubling in the number of patients forced to wait up to 12 hours for a bed on a ward, and the head of the NHS in England has warned that any patient forced to wait that long should be classed as a "serious incident". "There should be a zero tolerance of over 12-hour waits for admission and such a wait should be classed as a serious incident, and we would expect a full root-cause analysis to take place, - Prof Sir Bruce says in the letter. It is signed jointly by Dr Kathy McLean, medical director of the NHS Trust Development Authority, and Professor Hugo Mascie-Taylor, the medical director of Monitor." (Guardian, 24 December) RD
American Nightmare
When Martin Luther King gave his famous "! have a dream" speech many foolishly thought that was the end of race discrimination in the USA. 'US police have clashed with protesters in St Louis after an officer shot dead a black teenager near where Michael Brown was killed in August, a death that triggered national protests. A crowd of about 100 people gathered at the scene early on Wednesday following scuffles the night before. ..... For weeks there have been protests about alleged police brutality.' (BBC News, 24 December) In fact here a few recent facts about racial discrimination in that country. Only two black billionaire exist in a country of 500 white billionaires. Only 9.8% of over 25 age blacks have a degree and 37% of prison inmates are black. More a nightmare than a dream. RD
We need socialism
.jpg)
Many 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 who call themselves socialist say it, too—but not the Socialist Party.
Socialism is a concept that neither individuals nor the government, should have
ownership of land or the means of production but rather the whole community
owns in common and democratically controls the land, goods, and
production. In this system all share
equally in the work, to the best of their ability, and have free access to the
collective fruits of their labour. Socialism we would produce for use and to
satisfy the needs of all the people. In socialism the factories and industries
would be used to benefit all of us, not restricted to the creation of profits
for the enrichment of a small group of capitalist owners or government
bureaucrats. Advanced methods of new technology are not social evils as they
are under capitalism leading to either unemployment or intensified toil and
drudgery but could be a blessing and put to the benefit of the vast majority.
Socialism is based on the idea that we should use the vast resources of society
to meet people’s needs. It seems so obvious--if people are hungry, they should
be fed; if people are homeless, we should build homes for them; if people are
sick, the best health-care should be available to them. We could use our
technological knowledge to eliminate boring or dangerous jobs as much as
possible--and share out equally the tasks we couldn’t automate. The goal would
be to free all people to do the work they enjoy--and to give them the leisure
time to take pleasure in the world around them.
It is within the power of the working class to establish
such a society as soon as we recognise the need for it and organize to
establish it. There’s no blueprint for what a socialist society will look like.
That will be determined by the generations to come who are living in one. The
means of production--the factories, offices, mines, and so on--would be owned
by all of society. Under the current system, important economic decisions are
left to the chaos of the free market and to the blind competition of
capitalists scrambling for profits. In socialism, the majority of people would
plan democratically what to do and how do it.
The kindness and generosity of ordinary people is boundless.
Even to-day’s rat race society simply couldn’t function without a basic sense
of cooperation and sacrifice among ordinary people--within families, among
coworkers, and so on. Capitalist society obscures this basic decency. Working
people are forced--whether they like it or not--to pit themselves against one
another and to compete just to keep their job or maintain their standard of
living--much less get ahead. As a result, the idea of people uniting for social
change can seem distant and unrealistic. For most people, the experience of
their lives teaches them that they don’t have any power over what happens in
the world--and that they don’t know enough to have an opinion about it anyway.
Powerlessness produces what appears to be apathy among people, about their own
future and the future of society.
Fighting back requires unity. Activists committed to the
fight around a particular issue have to grapple with questions about their
aims. What kind of change do they want, and how do they achieve it? Their
answers evolve with their experiences and convince them that the struggle
against one injustice can only be won by linking it to the fight against all
other injustices--and for a different kind of society completely. People begin
to see the connections between the struggles they’re involved in and other
issues--and the nature of the system itself. Ideas can change very quickly. An
organisation of socialists can unite people so they can share their experiences
and hammer out an understanding of how capitalism works. We need these
socialists working nonstop on political discussions. Socialists need to show
how the current day-to-day fights are part of a bigger fight for bigger
political change, putting forward a vision of a society that is radically different
from the status quo. Imagine a society where all its members organise
production and distribution on a cooperative, democratic basis according not to
profit, but solely on the basis of need. Huge wealth is created under
capitalism so are we in a state of poverty. We are living under a system that
impoverishes the planet. Far from being a society languishing in poverty, a
socialist society would be a society of abundance. Such a society has no
exploiting minority or exploited majority. All property other than personal
property is held in common, for the benefit of all. Consequently, there is also
no money. If you are hungry, you can eat from the collective store of food. If
you want to work, work is always available, and each contributes what he or she
can. When you are sick or old or too young, society always takes care of you.
Society's vast wealth would be collectively used to enhance the welfare of all
rather than that of a small group. Such a society is not utopian.
The word socialism can be replaced/overlapped by many other
terms. Communism. Cooperative Commonwealth, Resource Based Economy, Sharing
Society, Gift Economy. It is all the same thing. It doesn’t really matter what
we call it, as long as it has the basic notion of an economic system where no
money is used, ownership and trade is abandoned and replaced all resources
shared and managed properly. People do not “own” anything, but have access to
everything. Anything ever needed, like food, clothing, housing, travel, etc. is
provided in abundance through the use of our technology. There’s no “state”
that is the owner of the resources, and nothing is privately owned. Imagine a
world without money, barter or exchange, where everything is provided for
everyone, and everyone can pursue their own interests and dreams and live in
the way they want. In a society where we don’t have to think about money and
profit, we can truly develop ourselves and the humanity into something
wonderful.
Saturday, December 27, 2014
A Money Making Business
On the face of it seems as if Russia and Ukraine are at daggers drawn, but business is business and the state energy firm Naftogaz said Tuesday it had transferred $1.65 billion to Russia's Gazprom - the second tranche of a debt repayment agreed under a deal that saw Moscow resume gas supplies to Ukraine earlier this month. 'In November, Moscow, Kiev and the European Union reached a deal under which Russia would restart flows to Ukraine over the winter in return for Ukraine paying $3.1 billion in two tranches by the end of the 2014. Russia started pumping gas to Ukraine in early December after halting them six months ago due to the dispute over prices and unpaid debts.' (Moscow Times, 24 December) RD
Immigration Desperation
The desperation of immigrants to Italy can be gauged by the latest statistics. 'The Italian navy rescued at least 1,300 migrants in several operations late on Christmas Day, among them a Nigerian woman who gave birth while on board one of the rescue vessels, local media have said . Most of the migrants were on boats adrift off the coast of Sicily and were expected to be brought ashore later Friday. Italian media said one man was found dead on board one of the boats. At least another 1,000 migrants were also rescued by the Italian navy on Christmas Eve.' (Guardian, 26 December) Italy has been trying to cope with a massive rise in the number of migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean to Europe, the majority of them from Eritrea or war-racked Syria. According to the interior ministry, 167,462 migrants have arrived in Italy by sea between the start of the year and 17 December. RD
Food Bank Reality
Despite the claims of various economists that the worst of the recession is in sight the growth of food banks in Wales would seem to contradict that notion. 'The number of people using food banks in Wales has continued to rise, according to latest figures for 2014. In the six months to September, 39,174 people were given three days' emergency food from the network of centres run by the Trussell Trust. This is a 20% rise on the same period in 2013.' (BBC News, 24 December) RD
Orbiston –The New Babylon
 |
| Commemorating Orbiston in Strathclyde Park, the plaque reads "The Babylon Community, Orbiston (1825-1828) The first experiment in communal living in Britain" |
The word ‘socialism’ originates with the followers of Robert
Owen who is still popularly regarded as “the father of British socialism”. It
is not always remembered, however, that the socialism he advocated was
co-operative or community socialism. Owen did not think along the lines of the
later socialists. His approach was basically apolitical and he rejected the
notion of class struggle as a means of social change. Instead, he believed in
communitarianism as a method of social reform. Society, he argued, was to be
radically transformed by means of experimental communities, villages of
cooperation, and this he regarded as a valid alternative to other methods of
effecting change, such as revolution or legislation. The foundation of
communities was not a series of more-or-less accidental happenings, but the
attempt to put into practice a coherent theory of social change. One such
project was a Orbiston, later nicknamed Babylon by the locals, near Motherwell
and not too far from the reknown New Lanark site. Owen subscribed £10,000, but
ultimately withdrew from the scheme because of differences of opinion with
other promoters. Instead Owen himself commenced another at New Harmony, in
Indiana, America which is surprisingly better known than the Scottish attempt.
A proposal by the British and Foreign
Philanthropic Society for the first Owenite Community begn with the purchase of
600 acres of land, owned by Hamilton of Dalzell for the community. After 3 years
of inactivity the Motherwell community never came into existence and the scheme
was overtaken and in its place, in 1825, Archibald Hamilton and Abram Combe
founded a community near Bellshill at Orbiston, the estate of Hamilton’s father.
Abram Combe was born in Edinburgh on 15 January 1775. In
1826, Combe's health began to fail; he suffered from a serious lung disease,
which killed him on 19 September 1827 (11th or 27th
of August according to other sources).
His death spelled the end of the Orbiston co-operative. In 1820, Combe met
Robert Owen and visited his co-operative community at New Lanark. Combe, a
tanner by trade, was quickly converted to the cause of co-operation and became
an advocate of Owen's principles. He wrote ‘Metaphorical Sketches of the Old
and New Systems’ (1823), a critique of competition and exposition of
co-operation. Combe influenced the Ricardian socialist economist John Gray, who
paid tribute to him in an appendix of his book The Social System (1831). In Edinburgh, Leather Workers Community was a
short-lived community experiment set up in Combe's Edinburgh Tanyard - the
leather workers lived communally and operated a profit sharing scheme. The
Practical Society was a co-operative venture set up in 1821 by Archibald James
Hamilton in partnership with Abram Combe. The Society aimed to improve the
lives of members and opened a store for the sale of goods to 500 families. A
school was established and members were required to sign a pledge to abstain
from drink, tobacco and swearing. At first successful, the Practical Society
foundered within a year when the storekeeper appropriated Society funds.
Hamilton and Combe proceeded with plans for a grander, co-operative experiment
at Orbiston. Archibald James Hamilton (1793-1834) was the eldest son of General
John Hamilton, 11th of Orbiston and 6th of Dalzell. Archibald was an idealist
and social reformer, and was chiefly responsible for the establishment of an
experimental socialistic community on Orbiston Estate. Hamilton's prospectus for
establishing a socialistic community at Orbiston was based on Robert Owen's
"Report to the County of Lanark of a plan to relieve distress etc ",
1820. Owen's report had been rejected by Parliament as too idealistic, but
Hamilton was determined to pursue his dream of creating a community in which
"the poor and working classes .. provide themselves…with the necessaries
and comforts of life." His prospectus invited wealthy individuals to apply
for shares in the Orbiston Community. Share-holders would form a company and
could expect in return "full interest and the satisfaction of seeing
poverty, and ignorance disappear from their neighbourhood." Funds for the
project were not initially forthcoming, and it was left to Hamilton and Abram
Combe to bring the project to fruition.
Orbiston Community
The Orbiston Community, dreamt of introducing a new social
order to the world and was situated on 290 acres of land. Separate from Owen,
Combe purchased land in cooperation with John Hamilton with the help of a bond
issued by a joint-stock company, The Orbiston Company. The community did not
see the immediate success that had taken place at New Lanark, nor did it
predicate its existence on that model. In fact, Owen did not learn of its
existence until months after the community was founded. Orbiston was built
around the ideals of liberty, security, and knowledge. Combe was to instill
this in the membership from the beginning. The commune was constructed around a
series of community buildings at its center along a running stream, with a
school being central to this plan. As with Owen, Combe tied the idea of
education to personal and economic advancement. The main building consisted of
a large center building with two wings for living quarters, containing some 120
private rooms. The community also included a theater for cultural advancement,
a foundry and forge, and a press for printing its newspaper, The Register.
Everything was whitewashed with blue slate roofs. The pearl white community was
surrounded by scenic hills and had the appearance of utopia, even if it may not
have reached that goal. Combe would work himself to sickness to see its
success.
Orbiston was built to earlier plans though with
modifications. The main building resembled the design advocated earlier in Relief
for the Poor and the Report to Lanark. A classically styled central block
(somewhat akin to both the Institute and Mill No. 3 at New Lanark) was to be
four storeys high and be intended for community use. It would house the
kitchens, dining rooms (to accommodate up to 800 persons), drawing rooms, ball
room, lecture hall and library. The vast symmetrical L-shaped wings on either
side were to provide private living quarters for the communitarians, with
Orbiston was therefore built to earlier plans though with modifications. The
last consisted mainly of workers who had fallen victim to the on-going slump
following the end of the wars, particularly a group of hand-loom weavers,
casualties of mechanisation. As in the original scheme the poor and unemployed were
being assisted much as Owen intended. Among the educationists were Catherine
Whitwell, and, for a time, Joseph Applegarth, another Owenite teacher, who
later participated in the New Harmony community. Economic foundations, in
common with the majority of the Owenite communities, were shaky, though as the
design suggests, considerable thought had been given to the social and
educational aspects of life.
290 members of the community nicknamed 'Babylon' worked as
weavers, blacksmiths, joiners, cabinet makers, wheelwrights, printers,
painters, shoemakers, tailors, seamstresses and harness-makers. They ran a
successful iron-foundery on the 291 acre site that included a 5 storey main
communal building, school, apartments & communal dining facilities. 75 acres
of the land was cultivated with vegetable garden & orchard. The land being
manured with waste from the community sewage system.
Orbiston community
never became truly solvent and survived precariously as it constantly ran short
of capital due to the little success it had in production and manufacturing in
all areas of endeavor. This had to do with some of the inhabitants it initially
attracted, more than a few of which were unsuited for the hard work and others
who were idlers by nature. Locals came to call the place “Babylon” referring to
the collection of rabble that flocked to the community from the surrounding
area. The community spent its second year ridding itself of these and
consolidating its membership around those that truly wanted to work toward the
commune’s success. Orbiston’s internal government was a further trouble as the
members were divided over the operation of the community. The division of
income also became a matter of contention as well. The community originally was
founded on a system of individual reward for labour, with economic equality to
follow later. By integrating agriculture and industrial manufacturing it was
believed that this would encourage outside capitalists to invest in the
venture. When this did not materialize, the community was hard pressed to survive
on its own capitalization.
Abram Combe produced a newsletter "The Register",
which reported on progress being made within the community as well as on
lectures, plays and other events organised for the edification of Society
members. The first edition of the Register was issued on 10 November 1825.
Abram Combe wrote of his perplexity at the pessimistic views on the commune's
viability being expressed by two Orbiston Company members, who opposed moves to
transfer proprietorship of the commune to the tenants, believing that the
members were not up to the task. Combe was confident that a restructure of the
community into departments was showing signs of success and that an audit of
accounts for each department would produce a favourable outcome. Combe
disapproved of the thoroughly communistic principles which were adopted in
September 1826, after the scheme had been at work for a year. 1827 had begun as
a period of hope and renewal at the Orbiston Community. The old payment system
had been replaced by one of total communism: communal ownership of property,
and equal distribution of wealth. The division of the community into 6
departments or companies was showing signs of success. Weavers were
manufacturing cotton for shirts, trousers and jackets. Bookbinders and printers
were gainfully employed, and the foundry and horticultural departments were
planning to provide goods for the Glasgow market.
The community could satisfy certain personal goals,
particularly of people who were in some way social misfits. It offered a
solution to problems of personal deficiency or social maladjustment, and had an
obvious appeal to those who sought security or escape from the world. Communities
such as Orbiston collected their share of such types. Combe’s views of the earliest members of
Orbiston were recorded in the Orbiston Register of 19th August 1827:
“A worse selection of individuals, men, women and children,
could scarcely have been made — a population made up for the most part of the
worst part of Society. The adults were steeped in poverty ; lazy, dirty and
thriftless : the smell of tobacco in almost every house, and a dunghill
beginning to rise under almost every window. The children and youths were no
better ; they were quarrelsome, unmannerly”
It is clear that Combe believed that the poor folk seeking
refuge at Orbiston were fleeing the designs and misery of the Old System,
“rather than to seek the advantages of the New.”
The death of Combe in 1827, the single point of commonality
for the community was lost and signalled the beginning of the end for the
socialistic community at Orbiston. With the loss of Combe came a loss of
direction. Funding for the community was becoming scarce. Pressure for
repayment of a loan forced William Combe to announce the abandonment of the
bold social experiment in December 1827. In November 1828, Thomas Lawrie from
Edinburgh compiled a report on behalf of General John Hamilton advising on the
value of the lands, and on the best method of dividing the estate for a
sell-off. The proprietors soon suspended all further proceedings and disposed
of the property after two years and the buildings were pulled down. The demise
of the community at Orbiston was attributed more to a lack of interest and
desire by its residents in its success, than to its economic failure. More to
the truth was its problem with under capitalization. Profits could not overcome
the community’s early over expenditures. At least one of Orbiston’s investors
was placed in “debtors prison” for advances made to the community, and this
fact cannot be discounted as a detriment to future undertakings.
The last remnants of the "Orbiston Community"
experiment in social reform can be found in Strathclyde Park, North
Lanarkshire; close to the park's Visitor Centre on the Bellshill side of the
park. Stone pillars or Key Stones mark a spot near where the Orbiston Community
was sited. Known locally as "New Babylon" on account of the
unorthodox views and behaviour of residents, the lands and buildings of the
Orbiston Community were sold on 7 December 1830, bought by Mrs Douglas, a local
landowner who ordered all trace of the community to be removed. A housing
estate now covers part of the site and the community is remembered in street
names such as Babylon Rd., Community Rd., Hamilcombe Rd. and Register Avenue.
The Influence
Pioneer socialist, John Gray, published a criticism of Combe's experiment, entitled:
A Word of Advice to the Orbistonians, on the Principles Which Ought to Regulate
their Present Proceedings. The co-operative, anti-capitalist nature of Owen's
New System created tension between the administrators and the communitarian's
themselves. And, although various trade persons and artisans were initially
attracted to Orbiston, the community itself could not generate enough wealth to
permit complete autarky and it began to borrow in order to remain buoyant.
Internal factionalism and animosity began to tear Orbiston apart. His death
marked the end of the scheme; the buildings were pulled down in 1828. Still,
Orbiston came closer to success than some later communities would. But Robert
Owen appeared blind to the eminent failure of Orbiston and in 1828 he wrote:
“It will gratify you to learn that the good cause is
progressing substantially in all countries, and that your exertions, although
not crowned with immediate success at Orbiston, have contributed essentially to
make the principles known, and to prepare the way for their practice in many
places.”
Some previously involved in the Orbiston project later
become active in the trade union and Chartist movements, but most slipped back
into what Owen had termed the Old Order.
Henry Jones, who was to become founder of Canada’s only
Owenite community and perhaps the earliest avowed socialist in British North
America, came to Scotland that year making
a loan of £5,000 (approximately a third of his assets) towards its funds that
was given to Hamilton Jones was already sufficiently involved in the Owenite
movement to become a member of the society’s committee and became one of its
auditors. In the summer of 1826, when
Combe had to leave Orbiston temporarily because of illness, Jones took charge
of it. But by 1827 the difficulties caused by the poor selection of members had
made him apprehensive of its future. In a letter of 23 March he broached to
Hamilton the matter of a return of his loan to the Motherwell community and
accused him of an “Aristocracy of decision” in his “pronunciation respecting
the identity of the friends of the New Views, – and the proper understanding of
the principles of the System.” Nevertheless, Jones continued, “We may go on,
separately, to exert ourselves in what we believe will best advance the object
which we profess to have in view, and where we can, conjointly.” His
forebodings were justified when the Orbiston community came to an end after
Combe’s death in August. In later years the loan was to prove the cause of
litigation that would consume much of Jones’s time and energy. Archibald James
Hamilton had died in 1834 and for several years Jones was involved in complex
litigation to get back from Hamilton’s estate the money he had advanced to the
Motherwell community.
In 1827 Jones sailed to New York and travelled, mostly by
water, to Lake Huron, where Jones found suitable land for a new cooperative community
in Upper Canada near the mouth of Perch Creek, about 10 miles northeast of
present-day Sarnia. Jones returned to Britain later that year. In 1828 he
gathered together a group of settlers from the Glasgow area… the community,
which he called Maxwell, reputedly after Robert Owen’s residence at New Lanark,
Scotland. He hoped eventually to settle between 50 and 100 families. The first
contingent of 20 people, which arrived early in 1829 accompanied by a surgeon,
consisted mostly of former members of the Orbiston community, almost all of
whom were Lowland Scots and unemployed hand-loom weavers. A log building was
erected that year with Orbiston as a model, for there were individual family
apartments and common kitchens and dining-rooms. A contemporary sketch shows
the building, not entirely completed, occupying three sides of a rectangular
green; there is a central, two-story block and the wings are single-storeyed.
Jones also established a store and a school on Owenite principles.
In 1834 on 17 May after Jones had left on a trip to England
and Scotland a fire started in the community house and, as Henry John Jones,
his son, recorded, “in less than an hour Maxwell had disappeared – the greater
part of the books and light furniture was saved.” The few people remaining in
the community after the fire lived in the barn and above the stables until a
new building was erected. Jones returned to Upper Canada some time after July
1843, he may have partly shed his Owenism and may have largely remained immune
from phalansterianism. In 1840, after Owen’s presentation to Queen Victoria had
resulted in vigorous criticism of his principles, Henry John Jones had noted
that his father seemed “a little ashamed of ‘Socialism.’” He nevertheless
appears to have remained a utopian thinker and planner and, in the sense of
desiring a social change in the direction of voluntary association apart from
the state, a kind of libertarian socialist. Henry John Jones, remarked in 1839,
that his father became “further gone in Socialism than ever.” He bombarded his
reluctant relatives in Canada with letters suggesting that they should form a
kind of “family community” with the few settlers who remained at Maxwell. He
talked “of bringing out another ragged regiment to form a community in case his
own family shd fail to come to terms.” Jones’s days of activity ended. He found
that the few people at Maxwell who remained from the original settlement had
established their own households and had no interest in forming a new
community. The family home at Maxwell had been burnt down in 1839 but was
rebuilt in 1842 and there Jones lived the rest of his life. Nobody in Canada
was influenced by his utopian ideas,
Conclusions
A study of Orbitson reveals the following:
The creation of a new community is likely to attract those
who seek an immediate escape from the old order and interests are liable to
conflict. And of course there can be no islands of socialism in an ocean of capitalism. The rules of finance still rule.
Friday, December 26, 2014
Build the Social Revolution!
.jpg)
The debate of revolutionary or reformist approaches to
social change have been argued through the ages. After several years of
capitalist crisis and the imposition of anti-working class austerity, socialism
still seems as far from the political agenda as it has ever been. We live at a
time when resistance to capitalism and the struggle for a better world are
almost totally detached from any striving for socialism. Instead we hear the
calls for the British Left either to “reclaim Labour” or to build a new “Labour”
party (e.g. Left Unity.) The capitalism versus socialism distinction is largely
irrelevant for many political campaigners who see socialism as constituting
neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for overcoming the specific
injustice they happen to be concerned about. This is also true of many that
call themselves “socialists” but who we can label as Left reformists. While
they may still believe in a vague and distant vision of socialism, this vision
is so vague and distant that it makes no material difference to their
conception of political action and who are willing to make whatever compromises
are deemed necessary for the realisation of immediate demands. "Reformism",
in short, has replaced socialism; and paradoxically, the most militant protests
of today are fought for the cause of "reformism" rather than of
socialism. The fact that protests or struggles today are informed not by
socialism but by "reformism" makes the contemporary period rather
unique in the history of capitalism, since from the days of the "utopian socialists"
right until late into the last century, capitalism had always been haunted by
the spectre of socialism. The vanishing of this spectre therefore makes the
contemporary period quite unprecedented. At present, the working class movement
is clearly dominated by reformist forces, trade unions and “social-democratic”
parties that are not oriented towards overcoming of capitalism. The prevailing
narrative is that there is no alternative to "reformism" and a virtue
is made out of necessity by pretending that "reformism" also works,
that it is in fact the only thing that works. The danger of reformism is clear
for all see, with any social democratic or labour party that has ever been in
existence being dragged to the right by the flawed idea that by creating a
catch-all broad front based on reforming capitalism, with socialism as some
'abstract' distant goal. Trying to create a mass movement of people united
against austerity attacks is one that must be supported, however not providing
a clear and detailed path towards a socialist society to that mass movement,
and trying to convince them of socialism as a "long term aim" is a
mistake. A party without a clear commitment towards socialism will be mired in
long term reformism. We don't need to wait until sometime in the future, the
time has arrived a long time ago.
It must be recognised that reformism is a cancer to the
socialist movement, and its only cure is a principled objective towards a
socialist society that is under the democratic control of the working class. Perhaps
one of the most difficult things many have in understanding the Socialist
Party’s almost unique political position is our attitude towards the practice
of reformism and actual reforms, which we differentiate between. There is an
essential difference between practical struggles for reforms and the ideology
of reformism. Although reformism partly grew out of the struggle for reforms,
there is a difference. To contrast socialism with "reformism" is not
to run down the reforms in which the "reformists" are
interested. Socialists too are in most
cases interested in struggling for those very "reforms". The point is
not the "reforms" as such but the context and perspective within
which the struggle for them is carried out.
And here the contrast between socialists and "reformists"
could not be sharper. Surprisingly, Stalin before Stalinism expresses a broadly
similar attitude to our own.
“Reformism regards socialism as a remote goal and nothing
more, and actually repudiates the socialist revolution …Reformism advocates not
class struggle, but class collaboration.” (Anarchism or Socialism, 1907)
The struggle for reforms is a much more mundane aspect of
capitalist society. Capitalism is in a constant process of change. These
changes generate innumerable and continually varying conflicts which underpin a
diversity of social movements for change within the system. Though these
movements are typically reformist in scope, it is perhaps of more importance
that they move. Workers are brought up to believe that capitalism is normal.
Society tells us that anyone who believes the status quo can be changed is
simply extremist, utopian or unrealistic. This leads people to believe that
capitalism cannot be brought down by working class people, and that we have to
rely on reformism.
Socialists and left reformists differ not merely in their
methods but in their very goals. Left reformism often involves a state-led,
top-down conception of social transformation and frequently does not aim at a
genuine form of socialism at all. Left reformists intend merely to take over
and transform the existing state into a form of “state capitalism”. Left
reformists suggest that a government that is not committed to a socialist
perspective can be induced to enact a series of radical reforms which seriously
undermine capitalism and galvanise a revolutionary challenge against it,
holding to a mistaken view of the neutrality of the capitalist state, totally
ignoring the constraints which entail that “realistic” politics is restricted
to change within the system and in line with the perceived imperatives of the
system. States are capitalist institutions and act as conduits for capitalist
“common sense” by constraining the parameters of the reforms considered
reasonable. Reformist politicians quickly shift from leading movements to
acting as a brake on their further radicalisation if they dare to place
unrealizable demands within the limits of the system. The tragedy of reformism
is that it tends to become a prisoner of capitalism. It leaves the essentials
untouched and doesn’t challenge deeper economic relations. The assumption
underlying "reformism" is that an improvement in the condition of the
people is possible within the system, and that successful struggles for
"incremental" improvements can cumulate to an overall change that
constitutes the achievement of a noticeably better world. What this assumption overlooks is that
capitalism is not a malleable but a self-driven system which is governed by its
own immanent tendencies. The "normal" role of the capitalist State is
to facilitate or aid its development and progress by hastening changes or
removing impediments to it.
The argument against "reformism" can also be put
as follows. The proposition that the
condition of the workers can be improved under capitalism through
"reformist" struggles assumes that an advance made by any segment of
the oppressed is a durable one over time, that the system will remain
"frozen" in the new state where this advance will become incorporated
into it, and that from this state a further advance can be made. "Reformism" in short believes in
incremental improvements where each improvement is irreversible, and sets the
stage for the next improvement; it visualises a sequence of ever shifting, ever
forward-moving "equilibrium" states.
But the immanent tendencies of capitalism entail that from each
improvement there is a "spontaneous" slide-back towards the
pre-improvement situation, unless the balance of class forces is such that the
improvement is defended and further extended as part of the dialectics of
subversion of the logic of capital, which must be prepared to transcend
capitalism and move on to socialism. There exists no possibility of a
"frozen" state or "equilibrium", let alone an
"equilibrium" from which we advance to another, the next higher
one. Nothing is irreversible, as we
witness in the rolling back of the Welfare State, and there is a continuous
struggle between moving ahead and moving back. What we see in these times of
austerity is that to sustain the initial improvements, more and more intensive
intervention by workers in the class struggle becomes necessary, which, if not
effected, leads to a slide-back. In times of boom capitalism might concede
small demands to workers, but in times of bust bosses always try to claw back
their profits by attacking workers.
Is it never possible then for the workers under capitalism
to improve their condition within this system? To argue from an absence of
class-struggles that such struggles are unnecessary, that the system that
prevents the building up of resistance is benign enough to effect improvements
even in the absence of such resistance, is spurious. Because the system has successfully insulated
itself against resistance and has successfully blunted working class action,
its transcendence becomes all the more necessary. Even the capitalist is not the hero of the
capitalist system acting on the basis of his own free will but an economic
agent coerced by the system into behaving in a certain manner. Under capitalism
it is economics that drives politics which makes democracy in capitalism
hollow. The "individual" who
is supposed to arrive under capitalism undertakes actions not of his or her own
volition but under the coercion of the system and hence becomes devoid of
"subjectivity". The
"people", far from being the "subjects" as is claimed under
bourgeois democracy, i.e. democracy in its capitalist integument, become mere
"objects", victims of the inherent tendencies of a system over which
they have little control. In fact the objective of socialism is to transform
people from being "objects" to becoming "subjects" who
collectively take charge of their lives and destiny through political action, under
a system where politics drives economics rather than the other way around. It follows then that authentic democracy can
get realized only under socialism. Social ownership of the means of production,
which simultaneously entails the end of labour-power as a commodity, puts an
end to competition, and hence to the immanent tendencies that originated from
it. Social ownership therefore is a
necessary condition for socialism and the realisation of authentic democracy
and freedom. Socialism necessarily entails the creation of a new
"community". Socialism is essential
for the authentic realisation of democracy then democracy too is essential for
the authentic realisation of socialism. Socialism, it follows, is not a
happening that takes place on the morrow of a revolution.
The Socialist Party believe that fostering independent working
class political activity is of fundamentally greater value to the socialist
project than winning parliamentary elections or engaging in “united fronts”
coalitions in which socialists work alongside non-socialists to offer a left
electoral alternative to mainstream parties importantly there exists different
goals. By winning parliamentary elections The Socialist Party’s aim is to
achieve socialism. By contrast, the best reformists can hope for by gaining
political office is an improved version of the status quo. Reformists play an
important role for the capitalist class in that they help to propagate capitalist
ideas among the workers and to implement the employers interests. They
politically tie the working class to the prospering of their own capital and
their own national state. The influence of reformism will not diminish even in
periods of revolutionary upheavals. On the contrary, reformist organisations
will play a key role because of their traditional roots within the working
class in appeasing and preventing revolutions.
James Connolly once said "The day has passed for
patching up the capitalist system, it must go." His words ring true more
so now than they ever did. The Socialist Party fully understands the fact that
revolutions are not made, but that they come, that capitalism itself is bound
to create the revolutionary crisis that will ultimately set the working class
into motion. It holds, therefore, that it is the duty of a bona fide party of
socialism always to hold the issue of the abolition of wage slavery up before
the workers and to expose reforms as temporary respite where they are not
concealed measures of reaction.
Why be moderate? Demand the World!
Thursday, December 25, 2014
Black Snow! Time Is Running Out.
Scientists have just become aware of a new aspect of global warming – nearly invisible particles of carbon resulting from incomplete combustion in diesel engines. Some particles are being swept by wind from industrial centers to the Arctic. This phenomenon, called black snow, reduces the ability of snow and ice to reflect sunlight. In fact, in one month this process, called albedo, dropped twenty per cent. A team of French government scientists reported that the arctic ice cap, that is thought to have lost an average of 12.9 billion tonnes of ice a year between 1992 and 2010 due to general warming, may be losing an extra 27 billion tonnes a year because of black snow causing the sea level to rise several centimeters . To put it bluntly, time is running out, and since socialism is the only real solution, we must act fast. John Ayers.
The Election Scramble
As we near the general election we can see the contract between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats beginning to crack up. George Osborne has ben accused by his Liberal Democrat deputy Danny Alexandra of planning the "wilful destruction of key public services if the Tories win the general election". "Danny Alexandra, a loyal ally of the Chancellor since the coalition was formed in 2010, said Mr Osborne would make £60bn of unnecessary cuts by 2020." (Independent, 23 December) Alexander claims that his Treasury boss wants to "shrink the state", he warned that even deeper cuts would be needed to deliver the Tories planned "unfunded" £7.2 bn income tax reduction. RD
Teacher Shortage
In times of economic recession one of the first actions a government takes is to make welfare cuts and education is one of the most likely targets. Teachers numbers have fallen in half of Scottish areas this year. 'The largest fall was in in Fife, which lost 67 teaching posts in 2014. This was followed by Edinburgh where 63 teachers were cut, then 44 in the Borders, 29 in Dundee and 28 in South Lanarksire. ..... Overall, the number of teachers in Scotland have fallen by more than 205 to 50,824 over the course of this year.' (Times, 23 December) RD
Avoidable Deaths
Hospital specialists have protested at plans to reduce funding for specialised operations and treatments NHS trusts provide, including some cancer care. 'Some 345 specialists have written to NHS England saying the changes could mean longer waiting lists and avoidable deaths, the Daily Telegraph reports. Under the plans, centres treating more patients than expected would receive just half the extra treatment costs.' (BBC News, 24 December) Avoidable deaths, so what? Think of the money the owning class are saving. RD
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
It is Not Enough to Be Anti-Capitalist
Capitalism has stopped “delivering the goods” for quite a
while now. Malcolm X once said “Capitalism used to be like an eagle, but now
it’s more like a vulture and can only suck the blood of the helpless”. Capitalism
is marked by wage labour. If the means of production are managed by some group
other than the direct producers then we have capitalism, regardless of who owns
them. Unless the relations of production are revolutionised, the means of
production can change hands (passing, for example, from private to state hands)
without fundamentally changing the nature of society. Whatever the formal
status of property, capitalism will still exist if workers are separated from
the means of production and do not own them in common and manage them directly.
Our aim is to replace capitalism altogether by a free cooperative commonwealth
and we further argue that the social revolution finds its agency in the self-organisation
and the self-education of the working class.
Why isn't socialism dead? Many anti-socialists say it is. As
proof, they point to the failure of the Soviet Union, an undemocratic
government controlling the means of production with bureaucratic planning of
production and distribution. But our own view of undeveloped countries like tsarist
Russia with a minority working class was they were in no position to make a global change from an interdependent world
market to socialism "as the act of the dominant peoples 'all at once' and
simultaneously." If anything the
USSR's failure proved us right! Marx envisioned not government control of the
means of production but control by the working class, joined to democratic
planning not by bureaucrats but "by the associated producers." So
Marx's own vision of socialism was not proved a failure by the demise of the
USSR because it was not tested.
Granted none of us will live to see Socialism, and like
millions before us we will probably die without seeing that really better world
we long and struggle for. No genuine working class fighter fought only because he
or she believed in “Socialism in our time” but simply to bring it that bit
closer. We can understand why workers join and build union, collective
self-interest. We recognize socialist solidarity was built upon the vision of
something better, not just to get ourselves a wage rise. The hope of a
socialist utopia was around long before Marx and continues to this day,
although today it exists only by a thread. At a certain point, a new principle
comes on to the scene, it gets a name which is spoken publicly and understood,
everything else begins to redefine itself in the light of the new principle and
a process of concretisation begins which is the real business of overthrowing
existing social conditions. We are not there yet, so far as the socialist ideal
is concerned. We are living through that period when many different principles
exist side-by-side in mutual contradiction. To abandon the search for such an
ideal however would be just as foolhardy yet interestingly, it is those on the
Left who today are the first to explain to you why genuine socialism is a
fantasy. Hardly surprising since their own activity and relations are so remote
from socialist principles. The majority of young anti-capitalist activists are
blissfully ignorant of the socialist ideal in fact. The Trotskyist transitional
demand programme is the height of deception: politically conscious workers,
including the socialists themselves, understand that the demand cannot be met
other through the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism — otherwise it wouldn’t
be a transitional demand at all — and yet, what is desired is that the mass of
workers shall embrace the demand as if it can be achieved without a
revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of the state, something for which the
workers are not yet prepared — otherwise you wouldn’t need a transitional
demand! How do socialists come by their ideas? By hearing about them from
someone. Isn’t it an insult to think that others in the mass movements are too
dumb to get these lofty ideas, and have to be somehow tricked into becoming
radical?
Capitalism stinks. It doesn’t work for the overwhelming
majority of the globe’s people. The profit system has proved itself unworthy to
exist. And now, with global warming and other environmental crises, it
threatens the very existence of the planet. As for the likelihood of reform,
capitalism has been around since the 16th century. If it were capable of
transforming into a humane and sustainable system, that would have happened by
now! So being anti-capitalist is logical. But to become a socialist means
believing that a collectively owned, planned economy is a workable and
desirable alternative. One basic difference between socialism and capitalism is
that nobody really controls capitalism — even the capitalists! That is why it
regularly runs amok from boom to bust. Socialism short-circuits this insanity with a
planned economy, in which we only produce what we need, without the waste
caused by market competition. Supermarket shelves will no longer brim over with
20 brands of identical toothpaste; buildings lacking occupants won’t go up.
Technology won’t be cornered to drive up prices, or buried when advances might
injure profits.
The organised use of resources and the end of war will make
the Earth a far richer place in a hurry. We will be able to turn to solving the
problems of climate change and toxic waste, stopping the destruction of
cultures and species, developing renewable energy and aiding the world as a
whole to develop in a rational, sustainable, and humanitarian manner. Imagine the
freedom of never knowing the struggle for survival that occupies so much of our
lives today! Contrary to myth, it is not “human nature” for people to be at
each other’s throats. Rather, dog-eat-dog attitudes are learned behavior,
taught by a ruling class based on theft, competition and greed.
In becoming whole people, and a whole society, we will
naturally get rid of all the hateful divisions that mark society today. There
are those who argue that the bigotries of racism, sexism, homophobia, and
national and religious antagonisms are so deep-seated that it is naive to think
socialism can get rid of them easily. But all of these things are driven by
poverty and under-privilege. Humans are a social species. We succeeded in
evolution because we worked together cooperatively for survival or all would be
chaos. Socialism will be far ahead of what we can even imagine today!
The Socialist Party spreads the word that socialism is not
only a workable alternative, but the only alternative — that capitalism has proved
itself incapable of permanent, significant reform and that reformism is the
real utopian delusion. We spread the word that socialism is the next step of
human evolution, in which we as a species can fulfill everyone’s needs, and
then proceed to find out what humanity is really capable of achieving.
homeless at xmas
Shelter Scotland who say over 4000 youngsters across
Scotland will spend the winter in temporary accommodation. Glasgow with the
most in the whole of Scotland, with 1088 homeless kids. 353 children in South
Lanarkshire will be homeless this Christmas.
Graeme Brown, Director of Shelter Scotland work said: “No
child should be homeless at Christmas but each December Shelter Scotland’s
helpline advisors have to help hundreds of families at risk of losing their
home.”
Rutherglen MSP James Kelly described the situation as an
“absolute scandal…Despite this crisis 23,000 homes across the country are lying
empty, and the Scottish Government’s own figures have shown a 22 per cent drop
in social house building in the last year.”
Unpredictable Capitalism
Once again the British economy has shown its unpredictable nature by growning more slowly in the past year than previously thought, official figures indicate. 'Revised figures show gross domestic product (GDP) in the third quarter of this year was 2.6% higher than in the same period in 2013, down from an earlier estimate of 3%. Also, the UK's current account deficit widened in the third quarter to £27bn. That put the difference between the country's export and import of goods and services at a record 6% of GDP. (BBC News, 23 December) The current account widening to £27bn points to troubles ahead. RD
A Grim Future
The plight of hundreds of thousands of pensioners receiving care at home is so poor that they have to choose between eating or being taken to the lavatory. 'Three quarters of councils in England are offering pensioners just 15-minute visits from carers, a Freedom of Information survey has disclosed. The number of local authorities booking carers for the shortest possible time slot has risen to 74 per cent from 69 per cent in the same survey last year.' (Daily Telegraph, 23 December) Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, described the figures as "unacceptable", saying there were "too many examples of councils buying rushed care visits". RD
More Cuts To Come
Thousands of police officers around the country face losing their jobs by the end of the decade as part of George Osborne's plans to shrink the size of the state, if Labour's analysis of figures compiled by the House of Commons library is correct. There is a warnings of a return to the emergency-based policing of the 1980s and the analysis suggests that the Metropolitan police, Britain's largest force, may have to cut between 1,300 and 5,200 police officers - out of a total strength of 31,000 - if the full planned cuts are introduced. 'The Commons library made the assessment after it was commissioned by Gareth Thomas, shadow London minister, to assess the impact of a recent warning by the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, that he has to cut his budget by £1.4bn over the current decade.' (Guardian, 22 December) RD
Make Socialism Our Future
.jpg)
Every human transaction is tainted by the influence of
money. We are shackled to it, deprived of our liberty. Money and barter were
required in times of scarcity. Today we live in abundance. There is enough for
all to thrive. Totally sustainably. We now have the knowledge and technology to
provide easily for all human need. Without war, poverty or exploitation. There
is no shortage of land, food, building materials or the capacity to produce the
things we need. Most things can be unlimited, there is plenty for all, for the
benefit of all. (But some things may be rationed, like some rare metals
perhaps, so that they can be used in science or healthcare.) The technical
advancement has been incredible, and logically should be helping us to lead
less stressful lives and lessen global inequality. Ironically, the opposite has
happened and global inequality continues to rise more and more people are
suffering from stress. When technical advancement is applied to the work place,
the worker is made unemployed, economically and socially punished through a
severe drop of income. When capitalism takes one of its regular down turn, the
corporate media blames the world’s woes on the least powerful of society, the
unemployed, refugees and economic migrants, all of which are victims of the
capitalist system and not controllers of it. Pollution which now kills another
6 million people on the planet every year (and the numbers are rising) is also
a problem, yet any attempts to reduce emissions are bad for business and
profits so are not implemented.
Most people are kind, caring and responsible and wish to
contribute. We all want a good society don't we? As understanding grows, people
from wider and more diverse groups are realizing that common ownership is the
answer. Once a majority of the population understand and want socialism the change
can take place. It can happen just as soon as enough people desire and work for
it. The Socialist Party is a political party to promote the values and benefits
of a global, stateless, moneyless society, embracing the values of human
freedom, social equality and sustainability, a worldwide production and
distribution network, that allows all people free access to sustainable
housing, shelter, food, healthcare, education, communication and
transportation.
It isn't human nature to be greedy. Most people are
perfectly content once they have enough. Enough is easy to sustainably produce
today but the 'infinite growth' that the money system needs ensures we are
being continuously bombarded with marketing trying to convince us we need more
to make us happy. After money there won't be advertising or marketing. Nor is
there any need to possess everything you want. When humans have a decent
standard of living, they behave very differently. Currently we are perpetually
starved of our humanity by falsely induced poverty and subtly marketed
brainwashing. People can share from a pool of resources such as car-sharing.
Nor are people lazy
and require the incentive of money do anything. The vast majority want to help
each other and take care of their communities. At the moment, they simply can't
afford to. Once all our needs are provided freely and easily, as they can be
now, we will be free to do what our conscience tells us. If a job is worth
doing for society then society will see that it gets done. Like volunteer
firefighters or the RNLI today. There will be fewer really unpleasant dirty
jobs left anyway. Humans have already invented systems and machines to do them
much more easily, if not eliminate them altogether. It has been estimated that it
will require an average of 16 hours per week, per person to contribute their
time, their skills in order to allow the system to operate efficiently. When
almost everyone enjoying leisure time people will offer their services because
there will be social status and admiration from their peers for those who
contribute the most. When people aren't treated like slaves and are secure and
contented, they will volunteer their time to do what's important. Under
capitalism, we look up to those who take. In socialism we will look up to those
who have given.
The psychopaths and corrupt people who currently control us
through money, without the bribing power of money can ever force people to
things they otherwise wouldn't. When everything is voluntary, just like in any
voluntary organization today, the members vote democratically for whoever they
think would be best for the job. The
Socialist Party doesn't pretend to be able to deliver what you won’t do for
yourselves and will only pledge to act in the best interest of the people
within the limits of our ability. People have had enough of broken promises and
lies from politicians. The Socialist Party strongly opposes the manipulation of
people against their will. People are social beings and express and realise
their potential within a free and open community which they can trust and
relate too. The core tenets of our party are free access to goods and services,
and open access to all the decision making processes.
People will achieve the social revolution. Each day brings
fresh evidence of the anomalies of capitalism: each day opens some worker's
eyes. As the wheel of capitalism with its ever increasing slumps and wars
accelerates, so their realisation grows. One day it will reach its crescendo
and the revolution will take place.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Internal Criticism
The Roman Catholic Church for centuries has basked in the the reputation of the highest possible standards of moral and spiritual reputation, but its latest Pope has called that reputation into question. 'Since his election last year, Pope Francis has launched a clean-up of the Vatican Bank, officially known as the Religion Institute for the Works of (IOR). The IOR has long had a poor reputation, after a succession of scandals. He has appointed a team of advisers to tackle corruption and poor administration in the Vatican.' (BBC News, 22 December) RD
Booms And Slumps
Chancellors of the Exchequer like to claim that they control capitalism but in fact they are controlled by capitalism. 'On December 3rd, George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, in his Autumn Statement, announced plans to turn Britain's deficit, which stood at £108 billion ($169 billion) last year, into a surplus of £23 billion by 2020. Because the government does not want to raise taxes to fund these plans, public spending is forecast to fall from 41% of GDP today to just 35% by the end of the decade.' (Economist, 20 December) Osborne's attempt to control capitalism is futile it will boom and slump beyond his control. RD
Cooped up in Co-ops
Socialists should learn from history and experience. The
idea that society can be transformed by the introduction of cooperatives is not
a new one. The first cooperatives represented a peaceful attempt to build an
alternative economic system by organising peoples' institutions that would
co-exist alongside capitalist ones, and would gradually expand to involve the
majority of the population as cooperative producers and consumers. The first
American dairy cooperatives were founded in the Goshen, Connecticut and South
Trenton, New York, both in 1810. A decade later a group of Ohio farmers formed
America's first agricultural marketing cooperative on record. In 1822
Pennsylvania barley farmers set up the first cooperative brewery. The first
cooperative wheat elevator was opened in Dane City, Illinois, in 1847. The
Amalgamated Houses is the oldest non-profit housing cooperative in the country
established in 1927, now with 1500 families in 11 buildings on 15 acres between
Van Cortlandt Park and the Jerome Park Reservoir, New York.
In 1933, the author turned activist, Upton Sinclair,
outlined a plan for ending the depression in California, in a
widely-distributed pamphlet. His plan, EPIC (End Poverty In California), was to
create "land colonies whereby the unemployed may become
self-sustaining" in the countryside, while in the cities EPIC would
procure "production plants whereby the unemployed may produce the basic
necessities required for themselves and for the land colonies, and to operate
these factories and house and feed and care for the workers." These two
groups, in the cities and countryside, would "maintain a distribution
system for the exchange of each other’s products. The industries will
(constitute) a complete industrial system, a new and self-sustaining world for
those our present system cannot employ." EPIC planned to incorporate the
widespread "self-help" cooperatives into the program. The plan's
supporters began forming EPIC clubs; in less than a year Sinclair won the
Democratic Party nomination for governor, dumping out the "regular"
machine. With the slogan Production for Use, Sinclair and EPIC waged an uphill
campaign against both the Republicans and the Democratic machine, who joined to
defeat him, spending twenty to thirty times as much and controlling virtually
every major newspaper and radio station in the state. Still, Sinclair got 38%
of the votes but not enough to jettison the Republican/Democratic political
machine from the driver's seat and seize control of the steering wheel.
With the collapse of the campaign, numerous EPIC clubs
turned their energies to organizing co-operatives, mostly stores and buying
clubs, reviving the consumer movement. Consumers Cooperative of Berkeley, which
became the largest consumer cooperative in the United States. But reckless
expansion undertaken in closed-door sessions by a “conservative” board, without
membership input or approval, brought it to ruin. The Berkeley Co-op expanded
into surrounding areas where there was no base of support, simply taking over
other (and already failing) supermarkets. The whole house of cards came
tumbling down in 1987 when the Berkeley Co-op filed for bankruptcy and
dissolution.
In the 60s, thousands of people, mostly young, moved out of
the cities into rural cooperative communities and communes, and tens of
thousands stayed in their own communities and worked to create a survival
network outside of and against the capitalist system, with a common ideological
base of working to build a new social system based on cooperation and sharing
"within the shell of the old.' At first the mass media called it the
"counterculture" or "alternative." Although most of its
participants did not know it at the time, it was stemming from one of America's
oldest and deepest traditions. Groups such as the Quakers and Mennonites have
used the collective form for hundreds of years and before them the Iroquois
Confederacy. The basic idea was to withdraw, (drop-out) from the system of
competition and exploitation, and create a new system based on cooperation
(tune-in) which could expand to embrace all of society when the old system
collapsed, as many naively expected to happen imminently. Very old forms of
cooperation found rebirths. The San Francisco Diggers' built a system of
gathering necessities and giving them away. But the need was endless. The class
problem ran through all countercultural organisations, including rural
communities: since it was only people with access to money who could gather the
resources to get the projects started, they usually wound up in control, at
least in the beginning. Many founders never relinquished control, and those
projects never became truly cooperative.
Cooperatives did about a third of the total farm production
and marketing in the US in 1980, with 7500 farmer co-ops and almost six million
members. But these numbers have been shrinking continually through the century.
Twenty-five years previously there were 1600 more farmer co-ops with 1.6
million more members. Most rural people today are no longer independent farmers
as they once were, but wage-earners, part of a fast-growing "rural
proletariat."
Millions of people around the world are desperately
searching for a way out of the misery inflicted by capitalism. Within the
constant mass upheavals taking place in many parts of the world, many are
debating new and old ideas of how to change society for the better. The idea of
worker’s and consumer’s cooperatives is one issue that has regained some
attention. In the United States the current popular advocates are David
Schweikart, Richard Woolf and Gar Alperovitz. The problem to get around is that
cooperatives are established in the context of the capitalist market and so
must compete in order to survive, and if the rate of exploitation is high among
your competitors, then you must match it. Co-operatives means a continuation of
the market. Some cooperatives find small niche markets in which to survive, but
the majority will either be driven out of business or be forced to copy the
practices used by other employers. Co-operatives are bound to fail within the
confines of capitalism. Cooperatives that exist within a general framework of
capitalism are still subject to the laws of capitalist operation. They often
must seek loans and finance from capitalist banks and they must compete on
price against other privately owned capitalist businesses, amongst other
restrictions. This means the cooperative workers are pushed and pulled to play
the contradictory role of exploiter to themselves. If they refuse to play by
the rules they face the prospect of the cooperative collapsing.
In Rosa Luxemburg’s words:
“The workers forming a co-operative in the field of
production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing
themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward
themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur—a contradiction that accounts
for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure
capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate,
end by dissolving.”
There is also the related argument that co–ops by themselves
do not challenge the system and may divert energy away from doing so. Individual
co–ops do not threaten the system, are likely to degenerate, and can absorb
time and resources that could be used for other kinds of organising. Workers
can potentially learn about the need to take economic and political power from
the capitalist class through this process. However people tend to lean towards
what seems to be the least complex or easiest solution to any problem they
face. Rather than grapple with broader political, economic or social questions
those involved in the cooperatives often take on the outlook of small business
people or focus exclusively on commercial problems that face their own
cooperative. Many of the old cooperatives around the world have ceased to be
cooperatives except by name. Many are out and out capitalist enterprises now. Cooperatives
under capitalism are ‘islands of socialism’ in a sea of capitalism. They are
battered by the storm forces of that capitalist sea i.e. credit conditions, the
price of raw materials, rent, competition, the ability to make profitable
sales, etc. They can only temporarily shelter from some of these pressures by finding
a guaranteed market to avoid ‘free competition’.
Co-ops are not a microcosm of a socialist society any more
than socialism will be simply co-ops writ large. Worker collectives and
cooperatives keep a vision of a different and feasible system alive in daily
practice. Cooperatives can be a legitimate way in which workers attempt to
better their circumstances. But some people go much further, arguing that
establishing cooperatives is a strategy capable of fundamentally transforming
the world. But is it possible that capitalism can be overcome and replaced by a
critical mass of producers and consumers cooperatives? The answer is no. Cooperatives
offer no ability to take this power away from the capitalist class. As such, it
is impossible for a cooperative movement in and of itself to overwhelm
capitalism. Luxemburg put it cooperatives are “an attack made on the twigs of
the capitalist tree”.
For sure, the history of the 20th century shows that
centrally planned economies don’t work.
Knowledge is too widely distributed in society for a tiny group of
masterminds to be able to direct the economic activities of everybody
else. But unfettered capitalism isn’t
working either. Power has migrated into
the hands of financiers and corporate executives who are rewarded for
exploiting their positions. Cooperative movements will almost certainly find
new life as capitalism rolls on. The working class will instinctively and
understandably seek ways to patch over social wounds to improve their quality
of life. Both producer and consumer cooperatives can provide some immediate
relief from the various symptoms of capitalism. Cooperatives can also act as an
important school for those involved. They are real-life examples that it is
possible to organise production and distribution without greedy private
capitalists at the helm. In doing so they help dispel the myth that working
class people can’t organise or run society and go some way to showing that the
capitalist class is unnecessary and parasitic. They make a vision of an
alternative society seem more practical and possible.
Today the people who run this world speak about
"capitalism", "freedom" and "democracy" as if
they are all synonymous. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Although
individuals are "free" to take a job or quit it, for the vast
majority there is no viable option to taking a job. Others own all the means of
survival, so the only way to survive is to get money, and the only legal way to
get money is to find a job. Being an employee should be considered a form of
bondage – wage slavery. Whoever controls the basic means of survival controls
society. There is no such thing as democracy or equality without the people
having collective control of these means, both locally and on a large scale, in
the neighborhood and the workshop, and the transport and communications
interlinking it all. The fortress of capitalist power is in production a
widespread co-op network is by itself no real threat: for just as long as
capital rules production, all gains can be taken away in a different form. If the
world is ever to become truly free, the organised power of the people must be
used to ensure that everyone has an alternative to wage slavery. That choice
can only be through socialism. The way of capitalism and competition offers
only increasing bondage, while the way of collectivity and cooperation offers
real freedom. Market “socialism” is oxymoronic. These days the '99%' and
'Another World is Possible' are slogans fluttering atop many a radical social
movement. Yet on those occasions activists' deliberations turn to what a
post-capitalist future might look like, there will be a lot of talk about
participatory democracy, community networks, the decentralisation of power and
so on but at the bottom of it all, an acceptance of the basic principles of
capitalist production.
Monday, December 22, 2014
Penny Pinching
The government has come up with a scheme that saves it £74 million and cuts payments to the working class. 'Citizens Advice is urging a rethink of reforms that have caused claims against employers to plunge. Employment tribunal fees have been branded "a barrier to justice", the high charges discouraging four out of five workers from pursuing claims against their employers, according to Citizens Advice.' (Independent, 21 December) Employment tribunal fees were introduced by the Government in July 2013, aiming to transfer the £74m cost of running tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal from the taxpayer to the claimants. Before the fees were introduced, Employment Tribunals (ETs) received an average of 48,000 new claims per quarter. However the most recent ET figures for July to September 2014 show that this had dropped to 13,612 new claims. RD
The Distortion Of Democracy
The UK likes to portray itself as the perfect example of democracy in action, but it is a complete fallacy. Donations to the Conservatives' key marginal and target seats have been provided by David Cameron's exclusive diners' group of top Tory benefactors. 'Fifteen of the Tories' key 40/40 seats "those the party is defending and their top targets" were entirely reliant on the controversial Leader's Group money in 2014, the figures from the Electoral Commission show. Donors can gain access to the exclusive circle by giving £50,000 or more a year to the Conservative Party a year, which wins them access to the Prime Minister and other top Tories over dinner.' (Independent, 21 December) Since the last election, of the £2,638,752 donated directly to the Conservatives' 40/40 seats, £798,120, or 30 per cent, came from organisations or individual members of the Leader's Group. The 40/40 seats are those Mr Cameron's party needs to win to secure an outright majority on 7 May. This influence by the extremely rich distorts democracy. RD
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Free Speech - At what cost?
.jpg)
“Every government is
run by liars and nothing they say should be believed.” I.F. Stone
We have all heard Lincoln’s dictum, “You can fool all of the
people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t
fool all of the people all of the time.” But he failed to add the political
truth “But you can fool enough of the people enough of the time.”
Without objective information, there can be no meaningful
free choices.
Most people believe they have a range of choices in their
daily lives and that they may choose among them freely. That is, they
intuitively believe that their choices are made autonomously and without
outside interference. How many individual daily decisions are determined by
some degree of media manipulation? Well, for many they can include what we eat,
what we wear, how we entertain ourselves, how we groom ourselves. Those that use the media to try to sway our
behavior declare that they are simply providing information that allows
informed choices: “advertising ensures that we don’t have to settle for second
best. It helps us exercise our right to choose.” However, this is problematic.
Advertisers seek to restrict choice, not broaden it and ultimately they want to
determine the choice for you. So, generally, what you see as a range of choices
is really limited options within a predetermined context - the context of the
marketplace. And your freedom of choice? Your choice may well be made on the
basis of which product sponsor is most effective in manipulating your
perceptions. This is media determinism in action and it has proven very
successful. U.S. businesses spend some $70 billion a year on TV advertising
alone. And, as one ad executive comments, “companies would not invest [that
much money] in something they thought didn’t work.” This is discouraging news
for those who believe in the everyday consumer’s freedom of choice. There are,
however, other categories of our lives where media determines our thoughts.
You would think that when it comes to choosing political
leaders and deciding between war and peace, the public would deserve
information approaching objectivity. This is exactly what they never get. For
instance, political campaign promises and party platforms are almost never
scrutinized by the media, nor does the media point out that they are only
rarely translated into post-election blueprints for action. Instead the media present
manipulated information. Yet such is the power of the myth of democracy that
the charade is ongoing
The mass media are quasi-governmental organs, predictably
predictable and predictably dishonest. The truth is not in them. You don’t need
to ban or censor newspapers or critical books, because the only people who read
them already agree with them. You don’t need to kick in doors at three in the
morning to seize forbidden computers or duplicators. People might revolt
against that sort of thing. Better just to keep prohibited topics off the
networks and out of the papers with a well-placed word, a hint that access to
government spokespersons will be withdrawn or that advertisers will go
elsewhere. It is enough.
The alliance between government and media can be seen in
what soon followed. President Bush’s determination to attack Iraq, a country
that had nothing to do with 9-11, led to an orchestrated campaign of
misinformation. In March of 2003, as the invasion took place, polls showed that
between 72% and 76% of Americans supported the president’s war. In doing so,
did they exercise free choice? Most of them would probably have told you that
they did. Yet a strong argument can be made that because of the misinformation
given them in the run-up to the war - for instance, misinformation about the
Iraqi people’s desire to be rescued from Saddam Hussein and the notorious issue
of weapons of mass destruction - they were in fact victims of the media.
This system is breaking down under the onslaught of the
internet. Papers are losing both credibility and circulation. So are the television
and radio networks. We now have a press of two tiers, the establishment media
and the net, with sharply differing narratives. The internet is now primary.
The bright get their news from around the web and then read the New York Times
to see how the paper of record will prevaricate. People increasingly judge the
media by the web, not the web by the media. Before the internet, people who
wanted a high level of intellectual community had to move to a large city or
live on the campus of a good university. Magazines of small circulation
delivered by snail mail helped a bit, but not much. Today, email, specialized
websites, and list serves put people of like mind in Canberra, Buenos Aires,
Bali, and Toronto in the same living room, so to speak. There exists now a decreasing
ability to control opinion. Because growing communication of voiceless groups
to realize that they are numerous and have interests in common. It’s a new ball
game.
The major media are not comfortable with intelligence.
Television is worst, the medium of the illiterate, barely literate, stupid,
uneducated, and uninterested. It cannot afford to air much that might puzzle
these classes. They are dull because they have to be, bland because they must
avoid offending anyone, controlled because they can be. They write to the least
common denominator of their clientele because they have to be comprehensible to
non-specialist readers.
A major component of the free press illusion is the notion
that some media outlets are more liberal while others are more right wing.
Widespread belief in this myth further limits the already limited parameters of
accepted debate. The media are as liberal or conservative as the corporations
that own them. Whether you label them liberal or conservative, most major media
outlets are large corporations owned by or aligned with even larger
corporations, and they share a common strategy: selling a product (an affluent
audience) to a given market (advertisers).
Therefore, we shouldn’t find it too shocking that the image
of the world being presented by a corporate-owned press very much reflects the
biased interests of the elite. That’s why every major daily newspaper has a
business section, but not a labour section.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Paternalism is a common attitude among well-meaning social reformers. Stemming from the root pater, or father, paternalism implies a patria...
