Who Owns the North Pole - Part 82

The People’s Republic of China has systematically increased its activity in the Arctic high north through various avenues. The region’s massive resource reserves, China’s growing presence, Chinese challenges to regional Arctic governance, and the current standoff between Russia and the West are a potentially potent combination. China’s wealth and capital make it an important partner for Arctic nations in developing the high north. China declares itself to be a “near Arctic state” and an “Arctic stakeholder,” even though its northernmost territory lies more than 1,000 miles south of the Arctic Circle. As the most populous country in the world, China claims that it should have a say in Arctic policy and disagrees with Arctic issues being decided by Arctic states alone. More broadly, given the region’s resource reserves, shipping lanes, and implications for global warming, China argues that Arctic state interests and claims must be balanced against international interests in the seas and resources of the region. Very prominent and influential Chinese scholars and officials push this rhetoric. For example, the head of the European department of the China Institute for International Studies recently pronounced: “Countries closer to the Arctic, such as Iceland, Russia, Canada, and a few other European countries may tend to wish the Arctic were private or that they had priority to develop it, but China insists that the Arctic belongs to everyone just like the Moon.” Similarly, the director of the Chinese Arctic and Antarctic Administration has stated that “Arctic resources…will be allocated according to the needs of the world, not only owned by certain countries.” And in response to Russian Arctic territorial claims, Chinese Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo declared that “the Arctic belongs to all the people around the world as no nation has sovereignty over it.” In the context of the country’s quest for natural resources, Chinese attitudes toward the Arctic are unprecedented. While it has been aggressive in pursuing resources around the globe, China has also maintained a clear respect for sovereign claims in doing so. Its rhetoric concerning the Arctic diverges from this practice.

China’s growing physical presence in the Arctic, the statements of prominent government officials, and the region’s significant potential benefits encourage the sense that China may label its activity in the region as a core interest. The introduction of such a large actor into Arctic international relations with interests beyond mere investment and trade – i.e., claims and ownership – is a recipe for elevated conflict in a region that already possesses its share of tension due to the often incompatible claims of Arctic littoral states. The economic dependence being nurtured between China and certain Arctic nations has the potential to hasten the arrival of the situation noted above. This dependence could give China an amplified voice in northern affairs and an ever-deepening Arctic presence. For Iceland and Denmark, Arctic trade with and investment from China are significantly more important to them than the reverse is for the PRC. This gives those countries a strong incentive to support China’s regional ambitions and, accordingly, affords China significant leverage. As Russia becomes increasingly isolated and its economy suffers due to its actions in Ukraine and resulting sanctions, it will find itself in a similar position in Arctic interactions. Russian support for Chinese Arctic ventures and interests will begin to grow in attractiveness out of a desire to gain investment and trade, and not to offend its sole significant partner.

The Arctic offers China diversity, security and savings. Despite significant inroads with Russia, China is largely dependent on oil imports from the volatile Middle East that must pass through the chokepoint of the Strait of Malacca in Southeast Asia. In 2011, approximately 85 percent of China’s oil imports transited this passage. The source and travel path for these resources, and China’s current lack of alternatives, are not ideal. Arctic energy sources and shipping lanes provide attractive diversity and security.

Arctic shipping would also substantially reduce transport costs. The distance from Shanghai to Hamburg along the Northern Sea Route over Russia is approximately 30 percent shorter than the comparable route through the Suez Canal. Such a reduction in shipping time and distance will yield large savings on fuel and increase China’s export potential to Europe. In 2013, 71 vessels sailed the Northern Sea Route, moving 1,355,897 tons. This is a substantial increase over the four vessels that did so in 2010. China hopes to send 15 percent of its international shipping through the Arctic by 2020.

 China has taken substantial steps toward establishing a financial and physical presence in the Arctic and placing itself in the conversation on Arctic affairs. China is spending approximately $60 million annually on polar research (more than the U.S., which actually controls Arctic territory), runs the Chinese Arctic and Antarctic Administration, opened the China-Nordic Arctic Research Center in Shanghai in late 2013, and plans to dramatically increase its Arctic research staff. China’s physical presence in the Arctic has also increased considerably in the past decade. In 2003, it completed the Arctic Yellow River Station, a permanent research facility on Norway’s Spitsbergen Island. China also currently possesses one icebreaker directed toward Arctic operations, with another to be completed by 2016. Despite being a non-Arctic nation, it will soon have the same number of Arctic icebreakers as Arctic littoral states Norway and the U.S.

In the realm of international organizations and politics, China has joined a litany of international Arctic scientific groups. In 2013, it also became a permanent observer to the Arctic Council – the eight-member intergovernmental forum that is the center of international Arctic policy formulation. Similarly, with respect to bilateral relations, the PRC has actively courted northern states, and made substantial progress with both Iceland and Denmark. Following Iceland’s 2008 economic crash, China provided it with large aid packages. In 2012, then Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao began his tour of Europe in the small country, and a Chinese-Icelandic free trade agreement was inked in 2013. China is also seeking energy projects in Greenland and courting Danish leaders. The targeting of small countries in great need of capital, investment and labor allows China to use its wealth and resources to cultivate economic entanglement and, ultimately, degrees of dependence. As a result, Iceland and Denmark have become very supportive of China having a louder voice in Arctic affairs and policy.

Now, something similar is developing between China and Russia. While energy trade between Russia and China has been steadily advancing since the mid-2000s, early 2013 saw the first major Arctic cooperative deal between the countries. The China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC) contracted with Rosneft to survey three areas of the Arctic in the Pechora and Barents Seas. Later that same year, CNPC announced it would partner with Novatek, Russia’s largest independent natural gas producer, and take a 20 percent stake in the Yamal Project tapping the resource rich Arctic South Tambey gas field. Although Russia’s turn east has thus far been largely on its terms, this year’s sanctions are changing the dynamic. Compared to smaller countries, Russia has traditionally not been as susceptible to foreign influence. Yet the sanctions are taking a significant toll and severely limiting its potential Arctic partners, leaving Russia with few places to turn. When it comes to its needs and bargaining stature with China on Arctic issues, Russia is progressively finding itself in an even weaker position than that which Iceland and Denmark occupy: in need of capital and funding but severely limited in partner choice.

The resource rich Kara Sea is likely the first place where Western sanctions will significantly benefit China. Exxon and Rosneft jointly discovered a massive reserve in the region estimated to contain 11.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 750 million barrels of oil. After completing the much more complex tasks of exploration and drilling but before pumping any gas or oil, Exxon was forced to pull out. Now, Russia is faced with an expensive undertaking that necessitates a partner – and China is in an excellent position to assume Exxon’s stake in the resource operation for several reasons. For one, Russia has already begun talks with China to sail rigs from the South China Sea to the Arctic Ocean to replace exiting Western installations. Rosneft, which is currently studying Arctic offshore cooperative offers from Asia, has also contracted to sell a 10 percent percent stake in one of Russia’s largest oil fields and “Rosneft’s biggest production asset” to China, evidencing its readiness to partner with China on nationally important projects to ease sanctions-related burdens. In addition, Chinese prospecting areas in the Pechora and Barents Seas in the Russian Arctic directly abut the Kara Sea. Just as with Iceland and Denmark, China will slowly increase its trade and Arctic partnerships with Russia to substantial levels. This will breed a level of economic dependence. Trade between Russia and China was already trending upward before Western sanctions were levied; these measures will serve to speed up this process. Russia’s lack of alternative partners gives China a distinct advantage in any negotiations, and the PRC has displayed this new dynamic by driving hard bargains in energy deals reached with Russia since the Ukrainian crisis began.

What is concerning about the impact of Western sanctions on China’s entry into the Arctic is not the PRC potentially “locking up” a substantial portion of the Earth’s untapped resources. Rather, the issue is the introduction of a large, assertive, and potentially combative actor into already tense Arctic relations where Arctic states have a host of conflicting claims to the region that will likely only be exacerbated as global warming opens it up.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/russian-sanctions-china-and-the-arctic/

How The Rich Get Richer

 

    The world's richest people, about 1 per cent of the population, have accumulated so much money that they now have about 48 per cent of the world's assets. The remaining 52 per cent is not distributed equally amongst the average-income earning citizens, according to Oxfam, almost  all the remaining 52 per cent are in the pockets of the richest people in the world , which is just about 20 per cent of the population.       

    This means of course that 80 per cent of the population own only 5.5 per cent of the wealth. Their average wealth is only $3.8851 (Dh 14,000) per adult, which is 1/700 th. of the average wealth of the 1 per cent. These statistics leads to this conclusion. 'Winnie Byanyima, executive director of Oxfam International , says the scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering and despite calls for eradicating poverty, the gap between the rich and the poor just keeps getting wider each year.'               

    A recent Oxfam research paper revealed how the super rich invest their money. According to it a large number of the richest billionaires like Warren Buffett, George Soros or Michael Bloomberg have all invested in financial and insurance sectors. They have seen their wealth grow  by 15 per cent in a single year, from $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion.                                                   

    Other billionaires like Ludwig Merckle from Germany and Dillip Shanghvi from India invested in healthcare and pharmaceuticals and witnessed their fortunes  grow by 47 per cent. Merckle saw  his wealth grow in one year by 21 per cent, from $7.1 billion in 2013 to $8.6 billion last year.                                       

    Not only do these billionaires invest in lucrative deals they also have to protect their investment so they spend large fortunes influencing government officials to pass the  necessary legislation to protect their investments. Last year the finance sector spent more than $400 million on lobbying in the US alone and according to Oxfam spent $150 million on EU institutions.                                   

    It is difficult to convey the immense wealth enjoyed by these billionaires but here are a few figures that might convey how crazy capitalism has become in modern times.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Warren Buffett: Source of Wealth: Berkshire Hathaway Wealth in 2014 :$58.2 billion increase in wealth between 2013 & 2014: 9%.                                                                                                                   

Michael Bloomberg: Source of Wealth Bloomberg LP Wealth in 2014, $33 million  Increase in wealth between 2013 &2014:  22%                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                George Soros: Source of Wealth : Hedge funds Wealth in 2014 : $23  billion Increase in wealth between 2013 & 2014: 20%.                                                                                                                                           Amidst these dizzying figures one simple concept should not be lost however. It is simply that all wealth is produced by the working class. The owning class produce nothing. They live of the exploitation of the working class. It is the surplus value that the workers produce that allows these capitalist parasites to live in ease and luxury.           RD

(Main source gulfnews. com, 20 January)

 

 

Sacrifice For Others

Doctors performed the first organ transplants from a newborn in the UK. Described as a milestone in neonatal care, a six-day-old baby girl's kidneys and liver cells were given to two separate recipients after her heart stopped beating. 'Experts argue there is potential for more life-saving donations, but say current UK guidelines are prohibitive. An official review is expected by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health this year. We praise the brave decision of the family to donate their baby's organs.' (BBC News, 20 January) Prof James Neuberger of NHS Blood and Transplant, said: "We are pleased the first transplant of organs from a newborn in the UK was a success and we praise the brave decision of the family to donate their baby's organs for the survival  of others. RD

Why Socialism

The alternative to capitalism — for better or for worse — has historically been called socialism. The widespread misunderstanding and confusion about socialism has profound consequences. Just what do we mean by socialism? Many groups and individuals advocate a “socialism” without any of the features that a socialist society is supposed to have, adding to all the confusion about the meaning of socialism. Many who know better cynically accepted these distortions to misrepresent what socialists aspire towards. Radicals or ex-radicals already brought to a reconciliation with capitalist society describe their concessions and compromises as socialist policies. Identified with the name of socialism, this identification has been taken as a matter of fact, for the academics and media prejudiced against genuine socialism, gives those socialist imposters credibility. No party has a right to call itself socialist unless it stands for workers’ self-emancipation from wage slavery, their course determined and directed by their own actions themselves and not of any leader or elite.  

We don’t know what exact form it will look like as it’s not the place of socialists to make predictions. Our task is to help the working class to build socialism for themselves and it will be they who will shape the socialist society. Previous systems like feudalism were overthrown when they outlived their usefulness and could no longer bring humanity forward. Likewise the capitalist system is now retarding further advances for humanity. The vast majority of workers have no real stake in maintaining capitalism because we don’t own any means of production or businesses; we aren’t bosses. Indeed, workers have to sell their labour power to the bosses in exchange for wages. By using our power and by learning through the lessons of the class struggles that went before us, workers develop class consciousness which means not only the ability to recognize the working peoples’ interests in today’s class war but also to understand our need and ability to organise to overturn the capitalist state, and create socialism. Socialism can only be built upon abundance -- which could only be achieved by pooling the combined resources and productive power of the world. We argue that socialism is the only solution to win security and abundance for all.

What are the prospects for socialism? Many are now understandably pessimistic, disillusioned with the prospect of a socialist transformation of society within the foreseeable future. They have witnessed the abandonment of socialist objectives and the open acceptance of the capitalist market by much of the labour movement. The idea that socialism has been finally eclipsed has been reinforced by a swing to the right and the rise of the nationalists. As a result the working class has been to some extent weakened economically, socially, and politically, left increasingly vulnerable in opposing the renewed capitalist offensive. It can be no wonder that many have been demoralised. There is not one of the traditional workers' organisations which is not currently in a state of decline.

Yet, saying all this, the working class remains the decisive force for change. They will not passively allow a worsening of conditions, of mounting unemployment and increasing impoverishment, which are clearly on the capitalists' agenda. Moreover, the workers cannot resist these attacks upon itself without challenging the whole system. Far from seeing the end of the working class struggle, we are about to experience the beginning of a new phase of the class-war. The desertion of the union and political leaders from the battlefield and the rout of the traditional workers' parties is clearing the ground for a renewal of anti-capitalist, socialist struggle. We can already see the signs of democratisation and renewal in peoples’ resistance. Far from fading, the working class is drawing towards it wide sections of the middle strata of society, who are themselves being squeezed and in reality have been proletarianised and politicalized by the capitalist recession. Increasing class consciousness will be driven by current conditions and the events which will unfold. Workers will be impelled to search for an anti-capitalist solution. It is impossible to defend living standards and democratic rights, to halt the devastation of the environment, let alone end the various bloody conflicts internationally, without confronting the power of the capitalist class. A future of increased social polarisation in unavoidable and inevitable. The only viable alternative remains socialism. Only in a balanced way, can production be made to meet human needs and to permit the harmonious development of society in the interests of the majority.

Our task is to engage in a dialogue with our fellow workers re-establish the credentials of real socialism and cease the current capitulation to capitalism.

In-work poverty

52% of adults in Scotland are in in-work poverty, meaning they live in a household where at least one adult is working, and that number is increasing. 59% of children in poverty are living in households with someone in employment, according to research.

The Socialist Party’s own research shows that 100% of adults and 100% of children are living in relative poverty, when living standards and equality of life are contrasted with the wealth that is created and potentially possible for all. 

Danny Lambert on socialism

Lower Prospects

  The forecast for global economic growth for this year and next has been lowered by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). 'The IMF now expects growth of 3.5% this year, compared with the previous estimate of 3.8% which it made in October. The growth forecast for 2016 has also been cut, to 3.7%. The downgrade to the forecasts comes despite one major boost for the global economy - the sharp fall in oil prices, which is positive for most countries. The IMF expects that to be more than offset by negative factors, notably weaker investment.' (BBC News, 20 January) Lower forecasts don't look good for workers' prospects. RD

Below The Minimum

Despite the boasts of the Scottish Nationalist Party the Scottish working class are far from living in ease  and affluence going by the the latest statistics. 'The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) estimates that the total income of 22.8 per cent of Scottish homes lie below the Minimum Income Standard(MIS), up from 17.8 per cent in 2008.' (The Herald, 19 January) RD

Preserve Capitalism Or Conserve the Planet

The growing global environmental crisis is in the opinion of many the greatest challenge mankind has faced. Species and entire habitats are disappearing at a pace unseen since the extinction of the dinosaurs. Natural resources are being consumed far faster than they can regenerate. It is already clear that climate change is leading toward catastrophic collapse of the natural systems that billions of people depend upon. These problems are not accidental, but are symptoms of the irrationality of our capitalist system of production and distribution. Greenhouse gases will increase as long as our economy depends on coal, oil and natural gas, controlled by some of the wealthiest corporations in history following the logic that accumulating profits over-rides all other concerns. Abandoning fossil fuel investments and converting the whole economy to the use renewable energy would impose huge costs on corporate bank balances. The UK government has provided well over a billion pounds in loans to fossil fuel projects around the world despite a pledge to withdraw financial support from such schemes, an analysis of loans made by the UK’s export credit agency has revealed.  Gazprom in Russia, Brazil’s state-owned oil company and petrochemical companies in Saudi Arabia are among the companies benefiting from around £1.7bn in government funding over the course of the parliament. Coal-mining, petrochemical complexes, and oil and gas exploration and infrastructure are among the industries benefiting from the loans and guarantees, which cover projects in countries including Slovakia, Russia, Brazil, India, Germany, Norway, Vietnam, the Phillipines and Saudi Arabia. MP Joan Walley, the chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, which has investigated the government’s fossil fuel subsidies, said: “At the UN Rio+20 Earth Summit [in 2012] the UK government agreed to phase out harmful and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, so I am disappointed to discover the government is still providing billions in loans to fossil energy projects around the world that are fuelling climate change. Taxpayer cash should not be used to subsidise the fossil fuel industry in the twenty first century.” 

Under capitalism, decisions on what and how to produce are made by CEOs seeking to maximise return by raising sales figures and cutting costs. Individual lifestyle changes and some new technology may buy a little more time but are grossly insufficient to save the planet while capitalist industries are given free rein to continue polluting. Achieving an environmentally sustainable social system will require fundamental political and economic change.  The entire production system must be transformed; we must change the way society allocates its resources. We call such a system socialism which has at its material roots the inability of capitalism to solve humanity's problems.

We are approaching tipping points that if reached will give global warming a momentum that human actions will have little or no control over  where human intervention will be unable to slow down and stop this process. Obviously civilization as we know it will change drastically. It is easy to make a case that global warming is the preeminent challenge for humanity to tackle. Every new scientific finding makes it imperative to immediately recognise the need to reduce carbon emissions. This degradation of nature is a compelling argument for the new urgency of socialism - a society that protects people and the environment. World socialism will put the preservation of the ecosystems of the entire planet above the self-interest of nation-states and prevent widespread ecological collapse. Freed from national rivalries this new society can share scientific knowledge and technology with unprecedented planet-wide cooperation of scientists and the involvement of local communities, learning from the experiences and insights of all people around the world. We depend for our survival on the natural world. We are linked with the natural world through complex evolutionary chains and through networks of ecosystems. There is now pressing time-line for our actions act. If we do not move quickly to stem climate change by protecting and preserving our fast-disappearing flora and fauna this planet could very well become uninhabitable for billions of people, and possibly all of humanity who may well also vanish from the face of the Earth.

Socialism makes it possible for us all to live lives worthy of human beings while at the same time living in harmony with our environment and heighten our determination to make the socialist revolution happen.  Socialism requires a conscious collective decision about the lives we want to live and the communities we want to live in–and it takes a collective effort in that goal – in order to create truly sustainable communities–socially, economically, and environmentally sound.  Even if you personally reduce, reuse and recycle the changes necessary are so large and profound that they are beyond the reach of individual action. Sadly, individual action does not work. It distracts us from the need for collective action, and it doesn’t add up to enough. Getting people excited about making individual environmental sacrifices is doomed to fail. The reality is that we cannot overcome the global threats posed by greenhouse gases without speaking the ultimate inconvenient truth: we need a socialist revolution.

It’s capitalism, a global system based on prioritising profits over people, which has brought us to the brink of a climate-induced catastrophe that can destroy humanity. In a world with billions of people living in poverty and exclusion, production is determined by the profit motive, not human needs. In a world with millions of unemployed or low-income workers, access (distribution) to wealth is conditioned to having a job. In a world of globalized market, there is no coordination to supply and what is produced. Instead there is a killer competition for profit between companies. There is no "sustainable capitalism". There is only "disaster capitalism". Green reformism – the default position of most environmental campaigners and thinkers, pursue change through existing structures and it does not seek to replace capitalism or challenge class structures. It isn’t revolutionary, but attempts to work with government and business interests to affect change. Ecological degradation is not halted; it is instead measured, monitored, and manipulated within capitalism, Marx and Engels showed that capitalism is driven to constantly “revolutionise” industry and commerce, continually transforming the globe. This is not to satisfy basic needs or to genuinely improve the quality of life of the population. Capitalism seeks to create new needs, destroying what it built only yesterday and governments will continue to bend to capitalist interests. In contrast socialists seek all people, co-operatively and together, to be in control of their lives and work would be for the long-lived benefit of all, caring for the whole global ecology and all its inhabitants. Only mutual aid, not self-sacrifice, is enough to motivate real changes. People can build their collective knowledge through the organisations they need to advance their interests and build the confidence needed to take on capitalism as they win a larger hearing from more and more people, and make the socialist revolution possible.

Brian Montague on Socialism

Forgetting About Planet Earth

 Once again, climate talks have produced little beyond minimal, voluntary actions to avert climate disaster. Once again, countries bickered over their own self- interests until the last minute when the weak agreement was cobbled together to save face. They could not agree to keep the warming to two degrees Celsius due to the long-running rift between developed and developing countries. The rich, developed countries can afford to call for sanctions because they have sent their dirty industry to the third world looking for cheaper labour and their capital now sits there collecting high profits. The developing countries see this as their chance to become rich and are therefore loath to consider the strong sanctions necessary. We are still in a primitive world when two hundred countries can forget about the planet as a whole and simply pursue their own petty interest.

 John Ayers.

The Rich Get Richer

Capitalism is becoming more and more inequitable as the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. 'The wealthiest 1% will soon own more than the rest of the world's population, according to a study by charity group Oxfam. The charity's research shows that the share of the world's wealth owned by the richest 1% increased from 44% in 2009 to 48% last year.' (BBC News, 19 January) , On current trends Oxfam says it expects the wealthiest 1% to own more than 50% of the world's wealth by 2016. RD

Legal Action

LEGAL ACTION                                               

Scottish health boards are fending off more than 1,500 legal actions from patients and staff who are seeking millions of pounds in compensation for negligence and and medical errors. Recent figures show that Grampian NHS is facing up to £24 million for alleged failures in treatment. 'NHS Dumfries and Galloway said that more than 50 claims had been made against the health board ....' (Sunday Times, 18 January) RD

Socialism cannot wait

The Socialist Party believes that socialism is the alternative to capitalism. Socialism requires the joint efforts of workers worldwide. Socialism is the only answer for the working class. And that we must organise as a class whose goal is that. The Socialist Party has never had as a policy that “socialism can wait.”

The Scottish National Party is the party of a certain segment of the Scottish capitalist class. Brian Souter, the owner of the Stagecoach transport network has given more than a million pounds to the SNP. Needless to say, he did so knowing full well that the party would not challenge his wealth or power. In particular, the SNP has made it clear that the bus system and the railroads will remain in the private sector. The SNP has gone out of the way to reassure the business community, including the transnational corporations, that they have nothing to fear because an independent Scotland would not threaten their interests. There can be no question that the SNP will act to protect the interests of the capitalist class, even though this means defending the interests of huge transnational corporations based outside of Scotland. The SNP has been skilful in presenting one face to the people and a very different one to the corporations. To the former the SNP claim to be social democrats who believed in greater equality and to the latter, the SNP stands for a strong economy and continued growth. The SNP leaders support a continuation of capitalist exploitation in an independent Scotland. This was summed up in their White Paper that proposed cuts to corporation tax for big business while seeking to bind the trade unions into ‘partnership’ and a ‘Team Scotland’ approach. In practice, this means accepting attacks on their wages and working conditions for the so-called “national interest”. The SNP has "tacked leftwards" in rhetoric, though not at all in policy implementation. Voting for nationalist parties simply helps to confuse and divide an already confused and divided British working class even more.

For too long, the left has accepted the orthodoxy that there exists a “right to national self-determination”, and that we should support any struggle to that end. The left is wrong, and that the damage caused by this mistaken idea is second only to that caused by the corruption to the socialist cause from the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.

At first hearing, the very sound of a “struggle for national self-determination” suggests that it is democratic and progressive. To throw off the yoke of imperial government, to fight the occupiers and the foreign-appointed governors: it all sounds just. And yet what does it amount to? Having thrown off the yoke of foreign rule, the ex-colonies of the European empires have largely established their 'own' governments. Has this seen their peoples achieve freedom and plenty? In most, undemocratic foreign rule has been replaced by undemocratic home rule. Different face in different uniforms hold the same guns, and the people still stare down the barrels.

Worse, the old colonial rulers retain all their former power through overpowering military supremacy and economic dominance. What the UK once controlled through occupation, the US now controls through their manipulation of trade backed by the implicit threat posed by their sole superpower status. The EU and China desperately compete, and the 'great game' of rival empires continues. The new 'home' governments of ex-colonies are allowed to line their own pockets and bully their populations, but are otherwise kept it in line. The question remains, when the left have supported demands for 'national self-determination' - which can only mean the right to form nation states - have they expected it to bring freedom and plenty? The answer is no. Socialists are internationalists, and do not believe that socialism can exist within a single state: the results of Stalin's 'socialism in one country' proved that forever. It can be seen that when the left limit their demands to what they see as the 'limited’ perspective of the people they claim to 'lead', this patronising nonsense does enormous harm. As a result, our most famous slogan must always be: “Workers of the world, unite!” We demand open borders, and the abolition of states altogether. We believe that states exist to oppress!

If socialists oppose the state, how much more that we oppose the nation state. It is bad enough that people should be penned by the world's rulers like cattle owned by farmers. It is worse that such states should attempt to exclude those of the wrong 'nation' or 'people' or ‘race’. In attempting to harness the power of struggles for national self-determination to the socialist cause, the left have dragged the workers’ movement into the mud and mire of nationalism. The right of self-determination is not national, but the right of every individual, and of all humanity. It includes to right to determine where to live and work, regardless of states, or borders, or 'nationality'. Humanity's freedom will not be won by building new states, but by destroying them all. The problem with countries is if you love your country or only your ethnicity, you separate from others like you. We become divided as a human race. Countries divide us; governments divide us; when we truly are one global species, one people.

We know that the future belongs to us, the workers. We know socialism is possible. We know that only the working class can bring socialism about. We need to build a society where we own the factories, the land, the transport—a society where we are guaranteed housing, education, healthcare and jobs. A society where there will be no borders for people. Rosa Luxemburg’s once wrote “socialism or barbarism” but these days we may very well qualify it by adding “Barbarism… if we are lucky”. Our choice in these days of environmental cataclysm is one world or none.

Clifford Slapper on socialism

$95,000 For A White Truffle!

Recently released figures by Oxfam clearly show the inequalities in society. Eighty-five of the world's billionaires collectively have as much money as the 3.5 billion poorest people. Between March 2013 and march 2014, those eighty -five had their wealth increased by $668 million – that's $1.8 million a day just for the increase! Russian mining 'tycoon', Vladimir Potanin spent $95,000 on a 1.8 kg white truffle – he's worth $13.9 billion so can afford it. It would take Bill Gates two hundred and eighteen years to spend all of his money if he spent a million dollars a day, not taking into account interest on what would be left each day. It would take ninety three years for a South African platinum miner to earn the average CEO's annual average bonus. Sound crazy? You bet. We must get rid of such stupidity. John Ayers.

A Desperate Plight

Immigrants trying to reach Europe highlight the dangers of their would-be ocean crossings.  'Last year, at least, 3,419 migrants lost their lives trying to cross the Mediterranean,according to the UN refugee agency, making it the deadliest migrant route in the world. ...Spanish coastguards rescued 3,500 of them last year, a 55 per cent increase on the previous year.' (Times, 17 January)The desperation of these workers and their attempts to create a new life away from the dangers of North Africa can only be imagined. RD

Capitalism must go

Socialism has gone beyond the patchwork of anti-capitalist slogans, utopian proposals, and romantic hopes. One group of workers co-opting a factory in a capitalist society doth not a revolution maketh. Let's imagine a single factory closes down, and is occupied, taken over and self-managed by its workers. This may or may not be a good thing; Even those most critical of self-management would not begrudge workers trying to survive, although some may argue occupying to demand a higher severance package would be a better approach than assuming management of a failing firm. But a single act like this doesn't challenge the totality of capitalist relations, it would just swap a vertically managed firm for a horizontally managed one, leaving the 'totality' of the system unchanged.

 However, if factory takeovers were happening on a mass scale, such that they could start doing away with commercial/commodity relations between them; and at the same time there were mass refusals to pay rent/mortgages and militant defence of this resistance from the States subsequent coercion subsequent... And if this was happening across several countries then we might be looking at a social movement at the level of toppling state power, superseding commercial relations, making possible social reproduction (housing, food, health) without mediation by money, self-management of the activities necessary for this (rather than self-management of commodity production and wage labour). This would only be the case to the extent the movement grows and extends; if it was contained within a couple of countries say, then the movement could go into reverse and the acts may lose their revolutionary transformative character.

Self-management of production within capitalism can be seen as an integral part of the revolutionary process only if it becomes part of a greater social political movement where capitalism is challenged in other ways and only if there are as soon as possible moves made to abolish wages and markets. Self-managed industry operating under a market system by definition does not involve the undermining of exchange relations, value - workers are continuing to sell their labour-power on the market; their relationship to capital is little different to if they worked for a private capitalist.

Another argument which comes up when discussing struggles against the closure of workplaces due to unprofitability or capital flight is that the conditions that made the business unprofitable doesn't vanish, so long as the workplace still exists to sell stuff on the market (and workers continue to sell their labour-power on the market). The most that can be achieved by occupying and self-managing the workplace in such a context is to keep on working, competing with other producers on the market, subject to the same market conditions that made the workplace close in the first place only with workers enforcing pay cuts and job cuts on themselves, rather than a boss doing it.

Defenders of capitalism often say that socialists fail to recognise gains under capitalism that make socialism unnecessary. This sort of criticism is considered superficial, not because its claim to progress under capitalism is unfounded but because it fails to meet the major point of socialism that, whatever the record of economic progress under capitalism, the existence of private property and the profit motive inherently limit the potential of capitalism to serve human needs in an adequate way.

Socialism tends not to offer a blueprint of the future organisation of society and hold the belief that working people, once given the chance, are able to democratically choose their own path. Socialism remains an impossible dream only to those who denounce it as utopian even though every advance in technology and science turns the potential into more of a reality that is possible to realise. Today's production of goods in abundance and the accompanying knowledge, have transformed the utopias of an earlier time into practical alternatives to our everyday existence. The trouble with capitalism is that in this system production is for exchange not consumption. The merchants offer food to sell, not for people to eat. If you've got money to buy this food then you won't starve. If you have no money you will. This explains famine in Africa and the slow increase in malnutrition starting to show itself in Europe. It's a shortage of money not a shortage of food.

Inside a socialist society the major aim initially will be to produce enough food to feed everyone. That's all of us; the whole of humanity, all over the globe. Planned production worldwide will do away with malnourishment and starvation forever. Capitalism could never achieve this spectacular improvement in everyday life if they lasted another hundred years, because they only produce things to sell. That is the sad heart of this miserable life destroying system called capitalism. It's just production for exchange, so the ruling class can collect the profits contained in the commodities they sell. They have no interest in people's needs. Just their own greed for profit. We need is more and more planned production, so that all human needs can be satisfied and humanity grow, mentally and physically, so that its enormous and as yet untapped potential can begin to be realised. It's the same with health and education. With communism we will produce more hospitals and better schools so that everyone can have a proper chance to grow. We will produce better people and a better society!

Neither the Saltire or Union Jack but the Red Flag (video)

We may take issue with Maxton and Hardie being included in the ranks of Marxists but the anti-nationalist sentiments of the song, can be shared by many in the Socialist Party .

British Threat

After raids on a Jihadi cell which appears to have been planning to murder officers There are fears that  the British police may be the target of an attack similar to that which was narrowly averted in Belgium. 'Worryingly for authorities fears that, the suspects had police uniforms and radios in their possession. The elevation of the threat level brings the police service in line with the general threat level which has been at severe for some time.' (Daily Telegraph, 16 January) There are just as many crazy terrorists in Britain as in France or Belgium. RD

More Platitudes

In a new book edited by the Archbishop of York, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have called for an end to "income inequality" in the UK, warning that some people and communities are being left behind. 'In his essay collection, called On Rock or Sand? Firm Foundations for Britain's Future, the Most Rev John Sentamu says the country is facing "a new poverty". Dr Sentamu writes: "The poor in this 'age of austerity' experience what I call a 'new poverty', where many of the 'new poor' are in work. "Once upon a time, you couldn't really be living in poverty if you had regular wages. You could find yourself on a low income, but not living in poverty. That is no longer so." (BBC News, 15 January) Men of the cloth are forever uttering platitudes about poverty but of course they all support the system that produces poverty. RD

Whisleblowers Beware

A paramedic whistleblower has been banned from two hospitals after he reported overcrowding in A&E. Stuart Gardner, of West Midlands Ambulance Service, received the ban after  telling the BBC under-pressure emergency units were "not safe". 'He said the chief operating officer (COO) of Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust has told him he was "not welcome" on either of its sites. The trust said the ban was imposed as Mr Gardner's comments had upset staff.' (BBC News, 15 January) Things have come to a strange conclusion when whistleblowers are disciplined for doing what their job dictates they should be doing. RD

For a social revolution

One of the successes of the capitalists is convincing us to accept the status quo as normal - inevitable even - and forgetting just how absurd a system it is. Inequality is at grotesque levels. 1% owned 40% of all wealth and the top 10% owned 85%. Meanwhile, the poorest 50 percent--half the world's population--own barely 1% of all wealth. It is impossible to justify such vast wealth when 800 million people go to bed hungry every night. This is getting to the heart of what is so crazy about capitalism, the gap between what is possible and today’s reality. Take food production. There's enough food produced in the world to make everyone fat, yet millions of people starve. The logic of the system is that the food must be destroyed rather than given away at a loss, or otherwise profits would suffer. When they say socialism will never work, socialists simply ask: Exactly how is capitalism working? With capitalism this is as good as it gets. But it's not enough to just hate the capitalist system. We need to believe a better world is possible.  A socialist world, is possible, not to mention necessary if we want to survive as a species.

One way to see the potential of a future society is to look at the workers’ movements of the past that have shaken capitalism. Another kind of society is possible. And the reason we can say this with certainty is a series of historical experiences of struggles and movements that have shown--if only for a brief time--what amazing things are possible when the working class take control of society. Most of the time, as individuals, we're powerless to control most things in our lives. This is often described as apathy, but it's a pretty understandable response. Everything changes when people get a taste of their collective power. Suddenly, politics become relevant in a way they never were before. There are countless examples to show that workers are perfectly capable not only of shutting down production, but also of running things for themselves.

Socialism can only be established on a worldwide level. Capitalism is international; no country today is economically independent from the world market and thus no workers’ government would have on its own all the resources needed to produce an abundance of goods. Socialism is premised on abundance, and worldwide there is an abundance of resources to take care of everyone. In a socialist society, we would have time to focus on the things that really matter to us. We'd also have the time and energy to actively participate in making decisions about how society is run. The communications technology and corporate media that is now used primarily to sell things and perpetuate the ruling ideas of capitalism could be turned loose under public control to facilitate the most widespread and varied debate. All borders will be open and all individuals, regardless of their country of birth, will be free to live and travel wherever in the world they please. And, eventually, all our existing borders and nation-states will fade away. Human solidarity will encircle the globe and conquer it. The state will wither away because it will cease to have any role to play. Who would need to be repressed in a society without exploiters and exploited? The government over people (military, police, courts, prisons) will be replaced by the administration of things (coordination of services, distribution of goods.) A classless society is possible is that the economic and technological potential exists today to produce more than enough goods and services for everybody on this planet — an abundance. It is impossible to overstate the importance of this point. All the enormous cultural changes can only proceed from a dramatic rise in society’s economic productivity, through the use of technology to produce more quality goods, more efficiently and more sustainably. Socialism cannot be created from will alone. For millennia, people have dreamed and fought for an egalitarian social order, but all such past movements were faced with the insurmountable obstacle of the material poverty of their society. No matter who was in power there was still not enough wealth to go around. A democratically planned world economy, even with today’s level of economic development, could guarantee a decent standard of living for everybody on the planet.

Imagine growing up in a world in which you've never known exploitation or oppression, nor deprivation, a world in which the needs of people and the planet come first. Imagine living in a world where you don’t have to worry about how you will pay the bills or whether you will still have a job next month. Imagine a society freed from capitalism’s straightjacket on technology and production.

The potential for exponential progress is truly amazing — a small mobile phone today can process more data than the most powerful computer on the planet 40 years ago. A society of abundance is completely reachable — but we can’t get there until we get rid of capitalism. Imagine if you can simply walk into a well-stocked community “store” and take what you need for free (you could take more than you needed by hoarding but the only impact this would likely have is that the store would have to restock its supply.) Imagine if the principle, “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.”

Who owns Scotland

400 people own half the privately held rural land in Scotland.

Having to beg for a morsel

A record number of adults and children relied upon food banks in Scotland in December, according to new figures obtained by the BBC. Nearly 10,500 people visited the Trussell Trust's 48 food banks for the first time in the charity's history.

The data also reveals a third of users cited low income - and not welfare benefit delays - for their predicament. 3,005 people (28%) said they used a Scottish food bank due to low income in December, closely followed by 2,527 (24%) because of a benefit delay, and 1,555 (15%) due to a benefit change. The Clyde, Avon and Nethan food bank reported that 77% of people given a food package in December cited low income as the main contributing factor. Many users visiting the food banks at Airdrie and Lochaber also blamed low incomes (50% and 48% respectively.)

The figure is a 13% increase from the 9,263 people who used a Trussell Trust food bank in December 2013. In December 2014, 10,489 people visiting Scottish food banks were given a three day supply of nutritionally balanced food by the charity - a third of them children. The charity underlined that the final figure for December visits is likely to be even higher as food bank staff continue to input data into their system.

Ewan Gurr, the charity's network manager for Scotland, said he was concerned that many low income families were forced to face hunger in the run-up to Christmas due to financial difficulties. He said: "Every day we are hearing working people describe the devastating reality of sustaining their families with static incomes and unstable employment against consistently rising costs of essentials like food and rent. In the most harrowing accounts, we hear from the families choosing whether to prioritise heating their homes or feeding their families and parents losing weight because they overlook their own health and wellbeing to feed their children."

The Trust, which partners with churches and communities, currently operates more than 1,200 food distribution centres across the UK. The Trust's figures also reveal Dundee had the highest number of adults (3,750) using food banks in the last year, while south east Glasgow had the highest number of children (1,975).

A government document published last month suggested low income families may face increasing financial difficulties in the future. According to the report, approximately 820,000 people were living in relative poverty in 2013 - an increase of 110,000 from the previous year. This increase in relative poverty - where someone lives in a household that receives less than 60% of the UK average income - was attributed to a continued fall in incomes. The report concluded: "Low wage growth (particularly for those in less skilled employment), changes in the labour market, and tightening of eligibility and conditionality under welfare reform have resulted in lower median income."

Belgian Intervention

Belgian authorities have thwarted plans for massive attacks on police stations, one week after 17 people were killed by Islamist gunmen in France. Police have shot dead two members of armed group and arrested another in a shootout on Thursday in the eastern city of Verviers .  'Police said the three were Belgian citizens and some of them had returned from Syria. Prosecutors said the group was about to launch attacks on a grand scale, and that they raided about 10 locations including some in the capital, Brussels, to block the plan.' (NHK WORLD News, 16 January) RD

Money Money Money

Capitalism distorts everything in modern society. Fine arts are judged by the prices they can command, sport is  evaluated by transfer fees and salaries. Reading a football report today is like studying double-entry book-keeping. Speculation about the possible transfer of Lionel Messi of Barcelona is a case in point. 'Messi's buyout clause from Barcelona is £250 million. He has more than three years left on a contract that is worth £16.3 million a year. Taking the salary and transfer fee together, then, the overall cost of any deal could be well in excess of a quarter of a billion pounds.' (Times, 14 January) To show how crazy some of these deals have become it is reported that Manchester United have a ten-year kit deal with Addidas worth £750 million. RD

Mere Doggerel

MERE DOGGEREL?                                         

Although some may dismiss it as just a piece of doggerel I remember it as being quite memorable when I first heard of the case for socialism and somehow this old burlesque rhyme has stuck with me. 'The banker calls it interest and heaves a cheerful sigh. The merchant calls it profit and winks the other eye. The landlord calls it rent as he tucks it  in his bag, but the honest old burglar simply calls it swag!'   RD       

More Prejudice

There has been an increase of 20 per cent in the past year of Jews emigrating to Israel because of antisemitic attacks and other incidents. 'The Jewish Agency said that there were 620 immigrants from Britain last year compared with 320 in 2013. This coincided with an increase by  by almost 40 per cent of recorded antisemitic incidents in Britain.' (Times, 14 January) Capitalism breeds hatred and prejudice and the main sufferers are always the workers. RD

Capitalism Must End

Today we are faced with multiple interrelated crises, for example the threat of catastrophic climate change or equally catastrophic thermonuclear war, and the threat of widespread famine. These threats to human existence and to the biosphere demand a prompt and rational response; but we are failing to take the steps that are necessary to avoid disaster.

A serious weakness among activists in movements for social change has been a lack of understanding of the true nature of the system they live under. Instead of naming capitalism as the problem activists often use vague populist terms like “the 1%,” “the rich,” “banksters,” or “greedy corporations.” But the problem runs much deeper than the corruption of any particular individual or institution. It lies in the structural foundation of the entire way of life that currently dominates the globe. This is an integral part of Socialist Party’s function; to educate people on the complex and long history of capitalism. We need to understand how it works and what the nature of the crisis is and the nature of the different moments that it passes through so that we can identify its vulnerabilities and weaknesses. We ask ‘What’s the labor theory of value?’ and say of those militant protesters ‘How can you call yourself a socialist if you don’t even know what the labor theory of value is, one of its basic concepts?”  The labor theory of value means that the exchange value of a product is based on the socially necessary amount of labor power that is generally required to produce it. But under capitalism, one of the key ingredients is surplus value. And under capitalism, the buyer of labor power — the capitalist — appropriates the surplus value generated in the process of commodity production. But theoretical clarity for its own sake is pointless intellectualism; instead, it should be a guide for action. Mastering Marxist political economy is tough enough. But putting it into action is even harder.

One increasingly urgent reason to abolish capitalism is its prominent role in harming the planet. Capitalism possesses an inherent growth imperative. This means that the normal functioning of capitalism is causing water shortages, polluted oceans, destroyed forests and ruined depleted topsoil. But even if the pending ecological catastrophe weren’t upon us, capitalism would still need to be dismantled because it’s based on exploitation. There’s no reason why the social result of production needs to be in private hands and that only a few people should own what everybody produces.

Critiques of capitalism have entered the mainstream debates, with Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century and Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate as notable examples. Both authors, however, approach capitalism from a reformist stance and hold up social democratic versions of capitalism as viable alternatives. For sure, it is worth defending the social safety nets and more enlightened views on environmental issues. But it has to be kept emphasized that capitalism, in whatever form, is inherently destructive because it converts the natural world into commodities. And it’s inherently exploitative because profit always comes from the exploitation of workers. It doesn’t matter if you give them healthcare or a higher salary; you’re still exploiting them for private gain.

The problem with Piketty and Klein is that regardless of intention are complicit in promoting the supremacy of capitalism which remains unchallenged questioned.  They no matter how reluctantly only offer a framework that exists within the system. Their debate has to be inside that framework. Nothing can exist outside. It is not unlike when Thatcher said, ‘There is no alternative. It’s hard for people to imagine that there could be any alternative. People think this is all there is. This is the only way humans can behave. Capitalism is natural. The level of political consciousness within the working class is very low. And that didn’t happen by chance. It is by design and it’s by indoctrination and conditioning. The capitalists and their representatives in government are adept at finding new ways to squash and tamp down threats to their control. So the socialist movement has to keep evolving our tactics as well. The Occupy movement provided a glimpse at what’s possible. It made people realize they can rise up and take collective action. It was very inspiring to people for that reason. It made people feel good that they weren’t alone and it showed the potential of what could happen. But Occupy also was a learning experience. It expressed the discontent, it showed the weakness and the need to be stronger. But if we’re actually going to go up against the system, it can’t just be a spontaneous gathering of a bunch of people. It has to be organized — planned and strategic.

Many are pessimistic about the prospect of a socialist revolution, probably with a certain amount of justification, and they know that eradicating capitalism is a long shot. But it’s our only shot. The reason that socialists are politically active is because there’s nothing else. The only other alternative is to give up, surrender and submit to a slow death for ourselves and our planet.  When we accept things the way they are we’ll end up in a worse situation. If a person really understands what’s going on, he or she cannot stand idle. It’s a matter of human dignity and it becomes part of our historical social responsibility to try and change things. Accepting things the way they are would mean allowing 10 million children under the age of five to die annually because, under the normal functioning of global capitalism, it’s not profitable to save them. It would mean continuing to accept racism, which has always been central to capitalism’s divide and rule manner of domination and control. It means the acceptance of capitalism’s expansion and the unremitting accumulation of capital.

We should never forget that we are potentially stronger than they. We outnumber them. But equally important, we have right on our side.

Capitalism Is Unpredictable

All sorts of self-styled experts claim that they can predict how capitalism operates, but recent developments in the North Sea illustrate how wild that boast really is. Energy firms are pulling the plug on billions of pounds worth of investment in the North Sea, as industry leaders prepare to meet ministers to discuss mounting jobs crisis caused by plummeting oil prices. 'In the latest blow for Scotland's oil industry, the Edinburgh-based global consultancy firm Wood Mackenzie said nine projects that had been earmarked as requiring £2 billion of investment over the next two years and had been awaiting final approval could be axed as a direct result of the dramatic decline in global prices over the last six months. (Herald, 14 January) Capitalism's booms and slumps leave the so-called experts clueless. RD

Anti Semitism

Capitalism is a society based on competition and conflict so it comes as no suprise to learn that anti-semitic views that seem outdated are being revived by recent events. A YouGov poll showed that 45 per cent of Britons agreed with at least one of four anti semitic statements put to them. 'Some 25 per cent agreed with the idea that "Jews chase money more than other British people" while one in five accepted as true that "Jews'  loyalty to Israel makes them less loyal to Britain than other British people". A further 13 per cent said of those surveyed in the poll commissioned by the Campaign Against Anti Semitism (CAA) agreed that 'Jews talk about the Holocaust too much in order to get sympathy'. (Independent, 14 January) All of this nonsense splits workers apart.  RD

Housing Shortage

After World War Two the UK used to build more than 300,000 new homes a year, but recently it's managed about half that. Consequently the country is facing up to a major house building crisis. 'A decade ago, the Barker Review of Housing Supply noted that about 250,000 homes needed to be built every year to prevent spiralling house prices and a shortage of affordable homes. That target has been consistently missed - the closest the UK got was in 2006-07 when 219,000 homes were built. In 2012-13, the UK hit a post-war low of 135,500 homes, much of which was due to the financial crisis.'  (BBC News, 13 January)Needless to say the main sufferers of this housing shortage are once again the working class. RD

Looking Forward

Growing numbers of people are concerned about the state of the world and the fate of the planet. Do things have to be this way? No, there is a real world alternative: socialism. 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. The vision of a socialist Utopia was around long before Marx and continues to this day, although today it exists only by a thread. We all know that Marx founded “scientific socialism” in order to replace “Utopian socialism”, but as a matter of fact, he had some pretty complimentary things to say about Owen, Fourier and Co. We all know that for Marx the foundation of socialism was not the counterposing to the real of an imaginary Utopia, but rather a critique of existing social conditions. This is the great contribution that Marx made to the world. There are people hungering for an alternative to this system. We are bombarded with the idea that there is no alternative, that capitalism is the natural order of things. We are told that as much as capitalism has problems, any attempts to get rid of it will make things far worse.

We live in a world in which 35,000 children die each and every day of malnutrition and preventable disease. We live in a world system in which the three richest Americans control assets exceeding the combined gross domestic product of the 40 poorest countries in the world. We live on a planet whose ecosystems is threatened by the blind workings of an economic system that takes profit as its measure and motor of development. The question is: Do we have to live this way? Can you really radically change things? But it is a problem if people think they have a basis for an opinion about the desirability or viability of socialism, first you need to know what it is. Imagine a society where people consciously learn about and transform the world...where people are no longer imprisoned by the chains of tradition and ignorance...where people not only cooperatively work to produce the necessities of life, but get into art and culture and science—and have fun doing it...where the scientific outlook and the flight of imagination strengthen and inspire each other...where there is unity and diversity, far-ranging debate, and ideological struggle over the direction and development of society—but no longer stamped by social antagonism...where people interact with each other based on mutual respect, concern, and love for humanity. A world that cares about and takes care of the environment. That is socialism.

Socialism is a worldwide society and a community of freely associating human beings — and it is yet to be achieved—in which all classes and class distinctions have been overcome; all systems and relations of exploitation abolished; all oppressive social institutions and relations of social inequality, like racial discrimination and the domination of women by men, put an end to; and oppressive and backward ideas and values cast off. Socialism is a world of abundance, where people together hold all of society's resources in common. Socialism is not some sort of wishful and airy dream or utopia. The productive forces of society—not just machinery, equipment, and technology but also people and their knowledge—have developed to a level that can allow humanity to overcome scarcity, to provide for people's basic material needs, and beyond that to have a large surplus left over to devote to the all-around and future development of society. The productive forces of society are highly socialized. They require thousands and ultimately millions working together to mass-produce the things—whether we are talking about clothing or computers—that are used by people throughout society. And these productive forces are highly interconnected on an international level: raw materials and transistors and machine tools produced in one part of the world enter into the production process in other parts of the world. But these socialized productive forces are privately controlled. A capitalist class of owners appropriates the results of production as private, capitalist property. This is the fundamental problem in the world. And this is what socialism solves. People are unleashed to run and transform society. This is a society in which you want and need. People must feel that they have room to disagree with those in authority. And socialist society must make available the resources and outlets, so people can express these views. Socialist society is organized to achieve the goal of abolishing all classes and class distinctions; overcoming all systems and relations of exploitation; overcoming all oppressive social institutions and relations enabling people to cast off all oppressive and enslaving ideas and values.

We should not assume that such a future socialist society would be without conflicts between people or without problems. Socialism don’t make all problems disappear and create a perfect world; they only solve those problems which stem from class-based society and specifically, capitalism. Mankind already faces many challenges which are not a direct result of capitalism, yet cannot be solved because of capitalism’s peculiarities. Socialism does not automatically solve these issues, but rather it merely removes the barriers to solving them. There are some who wish to sell the workers an ideal Utopia. The Keynesians believe free-market principles plus prudent government intervention and regulation will simultaneously delivering hefty profits to the capitalist class and social welfare benefits to the poorest. While others of the more right-wing “libertarian” variety promise that the elimination of virtually all government interference with the market will lead to widespread prosperity, an idea which is not much more ludicrous than the previous. The more progressive of the dreamers offer us future communities based on state ownership, both national and municipal, plus cooperatives and worker-owned enterprises , with little explanations as to how they will be achieved and with few ideas of how to put such into practice that can put a dent in capitalist global domination.

We must dream socialist dreams. It’s the dreams of the future that give us the strength to fight in the present. The goal of socialism and of the struggle of the working class is freedom. Freedom from hunger and poverty, freedom endless toil, from exploitation, freedom from war, from racism and sexism, freedom to live without the supervision of the state - these are the freedoms.

The purpose of production in socialism is to produce products to meet the needs of the people. Thus, socialism represents a fundamental change in the capitalist relations of production: it is the opposite of capitalism which exists to make profits for the few. State ownership simply means that the state has effective control over the means of production and in no way implies a change in the relations of production. Marx distinguished judicial change of ownership from real change in the relations of production. He cared little of who actually had the property deeds to an enterprise which was merely the legal aspect, not the real form. There is also a myth that in the capitalist countries there is a "free enterprise system" which solely relies on the market mechanism to function. Planning is not the opposite of market, the two complement each other in a capitalist system. State participation in economic planning is extensive. Government intervention either through ownership or planning, cannot, however, change the fundamental nature of capitalism. Many reformists have the wishful thinking that the state can play a major role in altering the purpose of production from capital accumulation to meeting the needs of the people. They fail to realise that capital accumulation is fundamental to the capitalist system; it cannot be altered at will. Instead, the state plays an important role in facilitating the accumulation of capital.

How they own....from your labour

Health Threat

A charity is warning that poor diabetes care in England is leading to avoidable deaths, record rates of complications and huge costs to the NHS, . 'Diabetes UK says the disease is the fastest growing health threat of our times and current care models are not working to get on top of the problem. The NHS spends a tenth of its budget on diabetes, but most goes on managing complications not preventing them. Diabetes is a chronic condition and, if poorly managed, can lead to devastating complications, including blindness, amputations, kidney failure, stroke and early death. (BBC News, 14 January) Another example of the ruthless disregard for the health of the workers. RD

Terminally Ill Left To Die

A NHS report disclosed that 57 patients died after their calls were downgraded after a decision to not to send terminally ill ambulances. 'More than 50 patients have died after an NHS trust introduced a secret policy to downgrade 999 calls and not send ambulances to terminally ill patients. managers at East of England ambulances were accused of "the most cruel form of rationing imaginable" after admitting that 8,000 patients had been affected by the changes.' (Daily Telegraph, 13 January) This callous treatment is typical of how the working class are treated. RD

Coalition Split

As the general election approaches the Liberal Democrats are distancing themselves from Tory spending plans. According to them these cuts beyond 2017-18 will lead to "Dickensian" public services, the Liberal Democrat chief secretary, Danny Alexander, said in comments exposing coalition splits over public spending and the deficit. 'Alexander said that "as a country we should not be wedded to austerity for austerity's stake", adding that he thought the UK would not support an ideological drive for an ever smaller state." (Guardian, 13 January) The coalition was committed to eliminating the current structural deficit by 2017-18, a target that would require cuts of £30bn, he said, but it would be "grossly unfair" to try to reach that figure by spending reductions alone, with £12bn of those cuts coming from welfare. Despite all the fine words both parties are committed to gigantic welfare cuts. RD