$1.5 million per hour!

Alan Greenspan, former golden boy of the monetarist camp until that is, the recent financial meltdown, advises us in all his glorious wisdom that capitalism is not to blame for the growing and obscene income inequality. No, what is to blame is innovation and globalization (?). As if all the capitalist class, or any of them, were great innovators or workers. George Soros reputedly made $3 billion in a recent year, that's just $1.5 million per hour on the average forty-hour week, or about two minutes to earn the average worker's wage! That's some innovation! Some hard worker! John Ayers.

Our need is socialism

The capitalist system causes wars, disease, famine and misery and is killing our planet. Capitalism is threatening the very future existence of the planet. It is incapable of providing for the needs of humanity or of protecting our fragile planet. By contrast, a socialist society would be able to harness the enormous potential of human talent and technique in order to build a society and economy which could meet the needs of all. Growing numbers of people are taking part in anti-capitalist demonstrations. Many people do not like the way the world is at the moment. It is not just only the arguments of socialists that are changing peoples’ outlook, it is their experience of the system we live under - capitalism. Today socialism remains the only viable alternative in an increasingly unstable and brutal world. This ensures that socialism is not a spent force but the wave of the future.

In a society where all of the means of production are socialised, blind market forces would be replaced by democratic planning. A blind system based on profit and competition will never be able to be planned beyond a certain limit. The working class exerts its power, first through its ability to shut down production—the strike weapon. But if it is to assert its collective interests on society as a whole and against the employers as a class, it must seize political power. Only after the working class has seized political power can it begin to reorganise production and distribution in such a way as to abolish the market and production for profit’s sake, and replace those relations with a purely socialised system of planning. Even on the basis of current production, measures could be taken to meet the needs of the majority. A democratic, planned economy could develop production to much greater levels than is possible under capitalism. It is simply common sense.

What does it mean to say, as Marx does, that workers must achieve political power? Needless to say, the political and business establishment won’t relinquish their wealth, power, and privilege without a fight. Socialism represents a break with the present system and depends on the active struggles of workers and their subsequent engagement with every aspect of governing society in their own interest. There is no contradiction between developing technology and production and safeguarding the planet. What is needed if we are to save the world is long-term planning that would be able to develop alternative technologies that did not harm the environment. This could only be achieved on the basis of democratic socialism. A democratically run planned economy would be able to take rational decisions on the basis of aiming to meet the needs of humanity. It would decide what technology to develop and use, what food to produce and when and where to build, while taking into consideration the need to protect and repair our planet for future generations.

There is no way you can sustain socialism without a healthy and sufficient production of goods and services for all. Socialism would be a truly democratic society. It would be necessary to draw up a series of plans, involving the whole of society, of what industry needed to produce. Capitalism today has provided the tools which could enormously aid the genuine, democratic planning of the economy. We have the Internet, market research, supermarket loyalty cards that record the shopping habits of every customer and so on. Business uses this technology to find out what it can sell. We could use it rationally instead to find out what people need and want. At every level, in communities and workplaces, committees would be set up and would elect representatives to local and regional administrations. At every level, elected delegates would be accountable and subject to instant recall. If the people who had elected them did not like what their representatives did, they could make them stand for immediate re-election and, if they wished, replace them with someone else.

Changing economic relations, the abolition of class divisions and the construction of the society based on democratic involvement and co-operation lays the basis for a change in social relations. Society would move away from hierarchies and the oppression of one group by another. Human relations would be freed from all the muck of capitalism.

Human need, not capitalist greed

The meaning of socialism is fairly wide and often open for interpretation. Today, both "socialism" and "communism" have been wrongly associated with false definitions. The most commonly misconstrued definition of socialism is it a form of government that owns, regulates, and administrates the production and distribution of goods and services or it is a government that attempts to reduce social, economic, medical, and political inequalities among people by reform legislation. Thanks to the so-called social democrats, or reformist "socialists" (for example, the Socialist Party in France or the Labour Party in Britain), many people have come to equate "socialism" with any industry or program that is administered by the capitalist political state, be it a nationalised health service, the postal service or a welfare programme.

Frequently dictionary definitions will support such an answer yet many of those make ideological use of the terms "socialism" and "communism" based more on definitions derived from Soviet-era Russia and Maoist China, neither of which have much to do with Marxist political philosophy. "Communism" has come to be associated with the system of bureaucratic state despotism, run by the so-called Communist parties, which once prevailed in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and now unraveling in China and Cuba. Further adding to the confusion is the false idea presented by those Communist parties and other Leninist organisations -- the concept that a post/capitalist society first goes through a lengthy "socialist" stage, before arriving at the classless society of "communism."

What is the difference between "socialism" and "communism"? The two terms are interchangeable: both describe the classless, stateless society of free and equal producers advocated by socialists. Marx and Engels themselves used the two terms interchangeably. The Socialist Party has established a history of fighting to uphold the correct meaning of socialism or communism. In defending and advocating Marx's and Engels' conception of the future classless society, though, we have focused on winning over workers by using the term that Marx and Engels preferred in their later years -- socialism.

Socialism as proposed by genuine Marxists and real socialists argue that workers – not "the government" -- should own everything in the community collectively; kind of like co-operatives writ large.  Governments in a socialist system would be dissolved -- they being tools of the ruling class to subjugate the oppressed subject class, after all. Contrary to popular misconception, the goal of socialists and communists is to abolish the State altogether. Basic socialist theory holds that the purpose of "the State" is to enforce social and economic disparity. According to Marxist thinking the State developed as a weapon for a minority of people to oppress other people. Socialism is NOT about the dominance of the State.

A socialist economy would replace the anarchy of the market with rational and democratic planning. For a socialist society to succeed, abundance must be the norm.  Capitalism is based on market competition between rival capitalist firms--which, in the rush to edge each other out, unavoidably embark on an irrational and breakneck expansion of production. Socialism harnesses the immense productive capacity that capitalism has brought into existence and gives the power to decide on what and how much to produce to the people who actually do the producing--the workers whose labour is essential to running every farm, factory and office. The immense technological advances in production over the last couple centuries have made such a world feasible--a world based on the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

But without money or some other mechanism to limit what people consume, won't there be chaos with people hoarding goods or wasting food and other resources? Water is readily available for free, or virtually free of charge. Though there may be slight waste this costs less than implementing rigorous methods for controlling its use--which itself would require significant expenditure of resources. The world can already produce more than enough cars, water, food, telecommunications capacity and shelter to meet needs. It's clear that the chief barrier to such an economic arrangement is that the social surplus is controlled by capitalists, who only have an interest in producing things if they can be sold for a profit. The people who do the work in the world's workplaces could--through a process of voting and surveys about consumption desires--decide whether they were interested in working fewer hours or having more consumption choices, or whether they'd like more ability to travel or larger places to live. One workplace or community might choose one mix of work and leisure, and another might chose differently. After all, equal access to resources doesn't mean conformity. The hallmark of a socialist society itself would not be the similarity of the individuals who comprise it, but the greatest diversity within it. The goal of socialism is the fullest possible development of the unique personality of each individual.

Under capitalism, the majority of people are coerced to work, we have no choice otherwise we would starve! We are compelled by capitalism to sell our labour and, as such, capitalism calls the shots, not the people who produce the wealth in society. In socialism, people would of course be expected to work, but for very different reasons. Instead, workers would be encouraged to work for the benefit of society and not just reasons for of survival. Despite the arguments of conservatives, socialists believe that humanity is basically good but is shaped by the society it lives in. Therefore, I believe that people that believe in a society that works for them, and is, ultimately, run by them will make sure it works. As a socialist society is run by the working class it is in our interests to make sure it works. Every effort will be made to make people’s lives easier and it stands to reason that innovation will still be needed under socialism. The technology exists for environmentally-friendly cars but capitalism will not allow this to happen on a mass scale because it cuts into its profits. Production would be based on human need not personal greed. This only touch’s the surface of the possibilities available to mankind if production was run by and in the interests of the majority rather than the minority. Of course, none of this would be possible without genuine democracy – where working people are involved at every stage of production

Human need, not capitalist greed. Socialism would 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 be housed; if people are sick, the best medical care should be made available to them. A socialist society would take the immense wealth of the world and use it to meet the basic needs of all society. 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. But it seems obvious that such a society would guarantee every person enough to eat and a roof over their heads, free education and reorganized so that every child’s ability is encouraged, free health care accessible to all, and likewise would all utilities like gas and electricity. Public transportation would also be made free.

Socialism will be a society in which the things we need to live, work and control our own lives. Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time. To win the struggle for socialist freedom requires enormous efforts of organizational and educational work. It requires building a political party of socialism to contest the power of the capitalist class on the political field, and to educate the majority of workers about the need for socialism. You are needed to end poverty, racism, sexism and to avert the still potent threat of environmental apocalypse or a catastrophic nuclear war.

Socialists will be heard

Change is needed. The system is not working, at least, not for most people. That is one thing very clear to many. Capitalism requires profit, profit requires growth, and growth means environmental destruction. It is simple as that. Why socialism? Because the future of humanity depends on it. It is easy as that. For those who have decided to make their stand up and say, “No more”, the questions are which way forward now and how can we change the world? The majority of the population believes that future generations will be worse off than the preceding ones, where the social and ecological disasters of an unbridled capitalism plunge millions of workers into poverty, then revolt is not only possible, it is more than justified.

The rule of the tiny minority is supported by a vast network of ideology, myths and propaganda to justify the unjustifiable. Their message is remarkably uniform in that they claim the system of capitalism, despite its problems, is the best of all possible worlds and is based on human nature. It is humanity, itself which is corrupted, by the innate human greed or divinely by original sin and therefore exploitation of man by man is our normal state of being. Business retains all of the power. With billions in profits they have the ability to purchase the votes of MPs ensuring their riches will grow while the wages and benefits of those they employ remain near the poverty level.

What concerns the Socialist Party is that far too many either don’t see or are denying the truth. Don’t listen to the false rhetoric, look at the facts and learn for yourself. Shouldn’t adequate shelter, clothing, food and health care be universal? Shouldn’t everyone be guaranteed well-being. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is that well-known phrase from the United States Declaration of Independence.

People ask us for our definition of socialism. The men and women in the Socialist Party seek a better world founded on common ownership, equality and democracy. Socialism is not government control of the economy. Yet in the name of socialism we saw common ownership changed into state slavery, a barrier to the very socialism which we seek as an aim. Socialists deny that State ownership can end in anything other than a bureaucratic despotism. The political State throughout history has meant the government by a ruling class. Socialism will require no political State because there will be neither a privileged property class nor a downtrodden propertyless class. The core of socialism is the vision of human beings as social creatures linked by the existence of a common humanity. As the poet John Donne put it, 'no man is an Island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main'. As human beings share a common humanity, they are bound together by a sense of comradeship or fraternity (literally meaning 'brotherhood', but broadened in this context to embrace all humans). This encourages socialists to prefer cooperation to competition, and to favour collectivism over. In this view, cooperation enables people to harness their collective energies and strengthens the bonds of community, while competition pits individuals against each other, breeding resentment, conflict and hostility.

For example, our agriculture system should be for sustaining people but today it is denuding the nation’s topsoil while poisoning land, water, workers and consumers and enriching corporations? Food should not be just a commodity, a way to make money, but instead a way to nourish people and the planet and a means to safeguard our future and we should reconfigure the system for that purpose. But without an agreement on goals, without statements of purpose, we are going to continue to see changes that are not in the interest of the majority. Increasingly, it’s corporations that are determining how the world works. Socialism challenges of us to rethink political philosophy and political economy, whose goal should be to create a society in which everyone can flourish. A society so much different from today. The big ideas and strategies for how we should manage society and thrive with the planet are not a set of rules handed down from on high. To develop them for now and the future is a major challenge, and we, ourselves, have to do. No one is going to figure it out for us.

Supporting capitalists with your votes is a vote against yourself and your family. Too often democracy has meant voting every few years for a candidate that is "the lesser of two evils." We need to think, not just who or what we are voting for, but why we should vote at all. What we are severely lacking in is genuine democracy. The concept of ‘democracy’ has been used to curtail both our freedom and our independence of thought. Politicians have told us, over and over again:

“We live in a democracy.  Now exercise your democratic right and vote for us.”

But what is the point of voting if, no matter who you vote for, what you get is the same policies but with just a different presentation. In a survey presented to the UK’s Political and Constitutional Reform Committee when people were asked what would make them turn out and vote, the most popular response was having a “None of the above” box on the ballot paper.  In other words they wanted to vote, they wanted their votes counted, but they also wanted to deliver a vote of no confidence in the current system. The party politicians will argue that we can’t have such an option because it might produce a result that was in support of no party at all; and we must have a government, even if it is one we don’t want.

Many ‘democracies’ end up being dominated by two main parties, right and left, Tory and Labour, Republican and Democrat and so on. To an outsider, there is little difference to be seen between America’s Republicans and Democrats. In Britain, the Tories, Labour and the LibDems are all claiming the centre ground.  No one seems to have realised that the centre ground itself has moved to the right. Not for nothing has the Scottish Labour Party earned the name ‘Red Tories’.  It is now hard to find a genuinely left mainstream party. The Scottish National Party, the Green Party and the Welsh Plaid Cymru are declaring themselves the true left.

Democracy comes from ‘demos’ or ‘deme’, the Greek word for ‘village’. The deme was the smallest administrative unit of the Athenian city-state.  And there, essentially, is the key.  Democracy belongs to the little people and their communities, not Washington or Westminster.  And because there are now such large populations everywhere, the administrative area has become too large to be governed by anything other than draconian methods.  The connection ‘of, by and for the people’ has been broken. Athenians didn’t vote; they chose by lot.  That did mean that sometimes they got a lousy lot of men governing, but that was balanced by occasionally getting a really good council – of men.  Of course, of men.  Only citizens’ names went into the pot; landless men, slaves and women didn’t come into it.  Not that much of a democracy, but a beginning.

Doubtless the whole matter now appear Utopian to present‑day “revolutionaries”. The point of view of ourselves in the World Socialist Movement does not coincide with the present policies of the various “radicals”. We even believe that their policies are, in many respects, reactionary, and often narrowly opportunist. World Socialists appeal to the reason of men and women who are capable of understanding, to urge them to utilise and spread abroad everything that is rational; everything that represents technical progress and helps to destroy the obstacles which impede the advance of the workers. We refuse to participate in any national fight, and recognise only the class struggle as necessary and profitable for the exploited workers, with the object of abolishing classes, national characteristics and all kinds of exploitation. We support everything which helps to annihilate differences between the peoples and which leads towards a rational economic organisation of the earth. We think that everything which mixes and welds the peoples together is good for humanity. We hold the firm conviction that only the exploited class, the workers, can be the historical force, which shall establish a society in which there shall be no nationalities and no exploitation. Not because the workers are essentially different in themselves from the members of other classes, but because their class struggle for emancipation urges them towards union on a world scale, and at the same time compels the exploiters unceasingly to perfect and rationalise the means of production.

Global capitalism is preparing a world culture but that does not mean that socialists advocate that people become all of one pattern. There will, indeed, be created a kind of uniformity in the mental outlook and character of men and women. National distinctions will pass away, but there will always be individual differences. And people, being able to come into contact with all parts of the world, having several hours free every day and the opportunity of devoting them to personal work and individual culture, one may reasonably suppose that from all this there will emerge strong personalities with original thoughts and feelings, which will find expression in various forms of art capable of being understood and appreciated throughout the entire world.

The vote is the people’s voice – Let it be heard – The Socialist Party is their megaphone

Curing the disease of poverty

The level of food poverty in Scotland is on a different scale to that experienced in parts of the developing world, but the fact that a significant number of families now rely on foodbanks remains a shocking indictment on our society.

Linda de Caestecker, director of public health in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, believes forcing people to depend on such services poses a risk to their mental, as well as physical, health. "It is dispiriting, it makes you lack hope and wonder if things will ever change," she says."If you can't feed your children, how do you feel as a parent?"

The "diseases of poverty": heart disease, diabetes, addictions, suicide, makes grim reading. So does her reminder that the 13.5-year gap in life expectancy between men living in Scotland's most poorest and most affluent areas has remained stubbornly persistent for 15 years, and that while women fare slightly better, the equivalent gap in female life expectancy has actually grown wider.

De Caestecker and her Lothian counterpart, Prof Alison McCallum, are calling for a raft of measures, including community supermarkets, improved childcare and support for lone parents to work, as well as a national healthy food policy. They also demand action on benefits and a living wage for everyone: a timely call, following the Office for National Statistics' report that 700,000 Britons now rely on a zero-hours contract for their main job.

As scientists they should understand that trying to remove symptoms and effects of a disease does not cure it. They should know they have to tackle the root cause for a solution – the capitalist system.

Socialism: Emancipatory and Liberatory

If survival as a human species is our primary long-term goal, then deep changes are necessary to the way we organise ourselves socially. Socialism seeks the end to artificial scarcity of all essential commodities.  Promoting the common good is the only way to create a sustainable future that ends deprivation of the poor and the profit-seeking of the upper-classes. Socialism replaces failed capitalism.

How has capitalism failed? The current situation is that capitalism has failed to provide the basic needs of society; even the “social welfare” state only manages to mitigate the misery and suffering of people. The rich are seen as successful by virtue of being rich and the poor are seen as unsuccessful by virtue of their poverty. This is a “Social Darwinist” view of human achievement which makes implicit that having money with little regard to how the money is made. Socialism begins with the assumption that lack of money should not be associated with lack of nutrition, health care, clothing, housing, education and the ability to pursue a productive work and social life. Universal entitlement eliminates desperation. Unlike capitalism, socialism supports the individual – no matter his or her background – in the pursuit of a better life. There will no longer be any starving artists living from hand to mouth in the garrets.

Under the economic system of capitalism, the capitalist class owns the means of production (factories, transport, etc.) as private property. Capitalists hire workers to produce commodities, which are socially produced, but privately owned by the capitalists, and then sold for profit. The state provides an infrastructure to assist the capitalist class in maximizing profit and towards this end provides some basic necessities (such as schools, unemployment insurance, and social security) to maintain a workforce and ward off starvation, social chaos, and revolution.

In socialism, the means of production are not in the private hands of the capitalists, but are socially owned and capable of producing abundance sufficient to meet the needs of all of society. The use of money disappears because commodities are no longer produced for a market, but for distribution on the basis of need. Technology has reached a stage where goods can be produced with little or no labour. This is the turning point at which we stand today. Humanity today faces the choice: will we do away with private property and build a future for all or will a system of private property be preserved at the expense of human beings and the planet?

More and more people are joining the ranks of those dispossessed by capitalism world-wide. A class that has nothing to gain from private ownership of the means of production has to take the reins of power and construct an economic system that can sustain a better world. In theory, physical labour may become totally obsolete. If every house has a decentralised energy source like solar panels and reliable energy storage, as well as an advanced 3-D printer or molecular assembler that can produce almost physical object imaginable from a few basic recyclable chemicals then human poverty will essentially have been abolished. We can just spend the vast majority of our time doing things that we enjoy, while spending only a few minutes or at most hours a day programming our machines to fulfil our material desires. That is the more optimistic vision.

In a less optimistic vision, only a small minority of people will have access to such technologies as while the technology may exist, the costs of mass distribution remain too high (at least for a time). The vast masses, will be stuck in impoverished material conditions — dependent on welfare, and charity — without any real prospect being able to climb the ladder through selling their labour. Only a lucky few — who have an inimitably good idea, or a creative skill that cannot be replicated by a robot — will have a prospect of joining the capital-owning upper class. Not man or woman but technology must be the slave of tomorrow's world.

Socialism says: "Let us go about the task of making machinery provide abundance directly. Let us begin by asking, not what price will bring profit to private owners, but how much food, clothing and shelter do we need for the good life for men. Then let us produce for the use of men, women, and children, in order to supply them with abundance."

 Clearly this requires social ownership of the principal means of production and distribution. This in order to give to the exploited workers, for the first time in the long history of mankind, the good things of life. We may make mistakes in social planning, but we can learn by our experience. Abundance is possible when we can set our engineers and technicians to planning for society, instead of planning, in so far as they can plan at all, for the profits of an owning class. The achievement of Socialism will be the result of struggle, and the successful application of socialism requires intelligence and the capacity for co-operative effort. The collapse of capitalism is inevitable. But there is no inevitability about socialism or shared abundance. We may have a long stretch of chaos, wars, dictatorships, and regimented poverty. This can be prevented only by men who will not accept poverty in the midst of potential abundance, and the eternal exploitation of workers.

It is not merely plenty that we want, but peace. Mankind is divided not only into economic classes but into nations. And nations as well as men are divided into the Haves and Have-nots. We live in an interdependent world where not even the capitalist nations with the most resources, the United States, the British and French or Germans, are fully self-sufficient. Yet each nation claims absolute sovereignty, absolute sway over its citizens, and blindly sees its economic prosperity, not in cooperation, but in shutting out its neighbors from its own markets. Meanwhile it seeks aggressively to capture the markets of the world, to obtain sources of raw materials outside its borders, and a place for its capitalists to invest more profitably than at home the surplus wealth they have acquired by the successful exploitation of the workers who are their own fellow countrymen. Modern wars arise out of the clash of nations for power and profit. Patriotism makes men blind and drunk so that they cannot see that out of this struggle for power and profit there can be neither true prosperity nor true peace. One of the hardest task for socialists, as recent history shows, is to bring about a real unity of workers across the lines of nation, race and creed. Yet it is only in the cooperative commonwealth that there is hope of lasting peace.

The Socialist Party seeks a world of freedom. This we do not have and cannot have under the shadow of war and the bondage of capitalist exploitation. All workers live in fear of those who control their jobs. There is, for a great many of us, a kind of haunting fear of a jobless tomorrow or an unwanted and unrecompensed old age. These things can be ended. They can be ended with the end of exploitation which a proper control of the means of production makes possible. They can be ended by a society of comrades. The Tree of Liberty today has feeble roots for itself except as it may grow in the soil of shared abundance. It is asserted that socialism is an end to freedom, not its beginning. Those who make that assertion define freedom only as the right to grab all you can and keep all you have grabbed.

The Socialist Party struggles for freedom, peace, and plenty and know that they can be realised in a cooperative commonwealth. Our goal is a society of abundance, of free men and women who seek life rather than death by the machinery which could produce abundance and which is so desirable that it ought to propel people to make it practicable. Members of the Socialist Party because of our examination of history and the achievements of our class convinces us that socialism is feasible. For sure, workers have made mistakes and it is far from being a perfect record but it is far better than the media and academic intellectuals belonging to Big Business would lead you to believe. Progress has been made in the face of tyranny and counter-revolution. The unions and the class struggle has not fed workers only with the bread of hope in a better tomorrow. The working class will awaken and organise itself in an orderly and peaceful revolution. Once separated from their dupes and lackeys the owning class are weak and ineffectual. The more peaceful the revolution the more priceless will its boon be. This does not imply passivism for we must have the courage to stand up against. We dare not stop with merely asking the ruling class to grant us as a concession what is ours by right. We shall never have a true cooperative commonwealth until men and women think of their reward as workers who create all wealth and not any longer of their reward as owners of property which enables them to exploit other men's labour. That is one of the reasons why our great socialist appeal must be always to the workers with hand and brain, white collar and blue collar, in city and country. It is they who have so long been exploited. It is they who can and must be free. It is only by organisation inspired by socialist principles, that we can fulfill the dreams and hopes of the people. 

Who Owns the North Pole (part 85)

The United Kingdom should select an ambassador for the Arctic or risk being left out of key decisions in the region, a House of Lords report says. It advised the UK should follow the example of nations including France, Singapore and Japan in appointing an ambassador for the Arctic.

Experts have said the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer as soon as 2020, which will give way to extract resources, open up a northern sea trade route and opportunities to “take advantage of the expansion of shipping” on Arctic routes. The committee suggests the interests of British companies need better representation.

Make Everything Owned by Everybody

Everywhere one turns, the bad news just seems to be getting worse. There are times when social and economic problems become so bad that people are forced to choose between the system that makes their lives difficult and a new one that will make their lives better. Times like that are called revolutionary times. They don’t come often, but when they do the question of HOW to make the change that’s needed becomes as important as WHAT that change should be. We face that kind of choice today. Capitalism—the social system we live under—no longer serves the interests of the people. It creates countless problems that it cannot solve. It uses technology to throw people out of work and to make those who keep their jobs work harder. It creates hardship and poverty for millions, while the few who own and control the economy grow rich off the labor of those allowed to keep their jobs. It destroys the cities that we built up. It is destroying the natural environment that is the source of the food we eat and the air we breathe.  Every effort made to prevent these problems, or to keep them from growing even worse, has failed. Should we keep a social system that is destroying the lives, the liberties and the chance for happiness that our work and productivity make possible? Is it really worth the price to keep a small and despotic class of capitalists living in obscene wealth? Or shall we do the common sense thing by making the means of production our collective property, abolishing exploitation of the many by the few, and using our productive genius to create security and abundance for all? If we are to avoid planetary catastrophe we have to rethink what and why we produce, where we produce, how we produce, how we transport things and people. We need a new system that is based of democratic decision making for these questions. You can’t keep a good idea down. As much as politicians and academics try to declare socialism dead, it keeps coming back again. Why? Because it is the only way to understand the insanity of a world governed by an unrelenting drive to profit.

The Socialist Party recognises the need for fundamental change in our society and believe that the problems facing the world, such as environmental destruction, persistent unemployment, and the unequal distribution of wealth and power are not mere aberrations of the capitalist system — they are the capitalist system. This is why socialists are not impressed by political appeals based on the personal qualities or “charisma” of any individual politician. Socialists believe that it is the system — and the institutions which make up that system — that must be changed. The Socialist Party seeks a society in which the production and distribution of goods and services is based on public need not private profit. Production will be carried out to satisfy the people’s wants. Those wants are not the number of commodities we can consume but real needs that will be meaningful in our work, in our human relationships which will not be based on exploitation and oppression, but will rest upon cooperation and not competition.

Marx and Engels called this a society of associated producers where “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” – a socialist society. That is a world fighting for. And all around the globe, millions of people are mobilising against what the current system is doing to us. People are saying another world is possible. We need to be looking for every opportunity to link hands in solidarity – in our local communities, in our workplaces and across the globe – with a vision of what that world could look like. If you agree with us that the time for such a change has come, then there are certain things we must all understand. Workers can only rely on themselves to build a better world and free themselves through their own class conscious efforts. Workers makes everything and we make everything work. Collectively, we possess tremendous potential power. However, we can apply their collective strength only through organisation. First, they must form a socialist party to assert their right to make the change that’s needed and to challenge the stranglehold the ruling class has on the political government. The working class runs the industries from top to bottom. The potential economic power rests in our hands but political power for the moment remains within the grip of the capitalist class. The only alternative is to take back the immense wealth accumulated by a tiny minority at the expense of the majority, and use it to democratically serve human need rather than corporate greed.

While many people have become increasingly cynical about this social system, their growing dissatisfaction is combined with political indifference that only exacerbates their alienation. It is the class consciousness that people acquire from political struggles that is critical for real change. The present feeling of impotence incapacitates many people’s ability to participate in political struggles against the system. This sense of powerlessness will always be able to sap the will to struggle. We must admit it has been the failure of the socialist movement to provide a genuine alternative to capitalism which has been perhaps the biggest tragedy of the 20th century. This failure drove many millions who were willing to fight for socialism to a state of despair and demoralisation. The decay of the socialist movement resulted in the rise of reactionary and nationalistic movements throughout the world. The roots of the failure are not the socialist ideas themselves but the distorted and betrayed ideas of socialism arising from the establishment of a monstrous state capitalist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union and the rest of the “socialist” countries and, of course, the reformist degeneration of the social democracy parties and their integration into the capitalist political and economic structure. Steered by these two conflicting factions unity against capitalism proved impossible. Social protest and political action against the common capitalist enemy often became ideological bickering sessions rather than class mobilisations. When loyalty is to the party or to political leaders rather than to class it is not possible to build solidarity. A change in the consciousness can occur only in a change in the way humans relate to each other and themselves. It is impossible to change the fundamental economic and social system without a fundamental change that uproot and transform the entire system from top to bottom. But without a transformation of those who want to bring about this social change, it is difficult to fight the system effectively and bring about this fundamental change. We need change we can believe in. The Socialist Party strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control, not mere government ownership, welfare state, or a benevolent bureaucracy but a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers administer their work-places and communities and their neighborhoods. The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth. People across the world need to cast off the systems which oppress them, and build a new world fit for all humanity. Democratic revolutions are needed to dissolve the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government. 

By revolution we mean a radical and fundamental change in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations. The building of socialism requires widespread understanding and participation, and will not be achieved by an elite working "on behalf of" the people. The working class is in a key and central position to fight back against the ruling capitalist class and its power. The working class is the major force worldwide that can lead the way to a socialist future – to a real radical democracy from below. Socialists participate in the electoral process to present socialist alternatives. The Socialist Party does not divorce electoral politics from other strategies for basic change. We advocate electoral action independent of the capitalist-controlled two-party system. By fielding socialist candidates in elections at all levels of office, socialists educate the public about socialism and promote the politically independent organisation of working people in direct opposition to the capitalist parties.

Who Owns the North Pole Part 84

Russia may consider protecting its national interests in the Arctic with military means if necessary, the country’s defense minister said, pointing to the increasing interest in the region’s resources by countries with no direct access to the Arctic.

“The constant military presence in the Arctic and a possibility to protect the state’s interests by the military means are regarded as an integral part of the general policy to guarantee national security,” Sergei Shoigu said at a Ministry of Defense meeting. “It’s not a secret that the Arctic is turning into one of the world centers for producing hydrocarbons and is an important junction for transport communications,” he said. “Some developed countries that don’t have direct access to the polar regions obstinately strive for the Arctic, taking certain political and military steps in that direction.” Shoigu said, “To secure the safety of navigation on the Northern Sea Route and of the response to possible threats in the Arctic region, a force grouping has been increased at the Chukotski Peninsula.”

Brand new Russian submarines have been rehearsing actions in the glacial conditions of the north since the beginning of this year. These actions follow last year’s drills of the quick reaction mobile forces that took place in the Arctic. The New Siberian Islands, Novaya Zemlya, Frantz Josef Land Archipelago, and Wrangel Island – all located in the Arctic Ocean – have seen a continuing creation of modern military infrastructure. At the end of last year, Russia adopted a new version of its military doctrine until the year 2020, which for the first time named the protection of the country’s national interests in the Arctic among the main priorities for the armed forces. Within its framework, a joint strategic command was organized as part of the Northern Fleet in order to control and coordinate troops.

Russia has recently commenced to develop its northern regions, which includes the production of hydrocarbons, with national companies developing the exploration and construction of drilling facilities in the north of the country. The Northern Sea Route is becoming a more attractive option for shipping goods as ice melts. The United States hopes to begin drilling for oil and gas in offshore areas of Alaska. Last week, the White House produced a set of rules to govern exploratory drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas that would ensure companies and contractors are prepared for the Arctic conditions. Last month, Denmark filed a claim with the UN for a total area of 895,000 square kilometers of the potentially resource-rich Arctic Ocean sea floor, provoking much criticism from Canada – who considers the territory its own

Shoigu also noted that countries that are adjacent to the Arctic are all trying to expand their presence. According to existing international law, Arctic nations – Russia, the US, Denmark and Greenland, Norway, and Canada – have a right to develop the continental shelf limited by 200 nautical miles. Should a state claim further territory, it should provide a special UN commission with scientific and technical data backing the claim.

Tell no lies – claim no easy victories

Language is powerful. Let's use it wisely. For many centuries people have fought for freedom and fairness. From olden days, the red flag was the emblem of the slave rebellions. It symbolised the red blood that flows in the veins of all humanity, with no distinction as to race or nationality, sex or social position. The red flag has been pulled down many, many times, only to be hoisted again. Why? Because it is the flag of the exploited and the oppressed, the flag of those deprived of their freedom, their labour, who are forced into slavery and eventually into revolution. It will be raised again in a thousand places as the workers' struggle for socialist emancipation revives.

If we keep our economic system it will eventually destroy us all. The more of the same will only speed up our demise regardless of technological abilities. It’s necessary to be aware that the 1% has about the same wealth as the rest of us, that’s due to legal robbery; that unfairness dates back to the first warriors who took over community’s resources. But instead of the theologians, it’s now the ‘economists’ who rationalises the theft and disseminate it through educational institutes and the media.

The whole of human history has consisted of a sequence of systems for social interaction, each with its own effects on the people living at that time and in that way. But we can, through careful historical and anthropological observation, reach certain conclusions about what it is to be human. Some of those key constants are social interaction and co-operation: homo-sapiens is, like most animals, a social being. We also plan, review, analyse and practise ways of becoming more and more in control of ourselves and our environment. The present, capitalist system of society is working against the most natural human instincts, inclinations and needs. It stifles and frustrates the human need to co-operate, to solve problems and even to collectively and individually meet all of our needs for good food, shelter, health, education, travel and recreation. Socialism is technically feasible in terms of the supply of food, energy, and so on; moreover, it is humanly feasible, in that people are not naturally lazy, greedy or selfish.

An alternative to capitalism requires an organised movement with a clear vision of what it wants in order to obtain them. The Socialist Party aims to create meaningful common ownership of the means of production and distribution. The most important feature that distinguished the Socialist  Party from the other so-called socialist groups is that it is “revolutionary”. Not in the sense that it is insurrectionary but by revolutionary we mean that the aim is the total transformation of society to the socialist mode of production.

Under capitalism the allocation of labour happens in a deeply impersonal, but nevertheless social, way. Instead of relying on interpersonal relationships, we rely on mediation through money, in markets. We try to find organisations which will pay us a wage so we can buy the things we need and want, and these organisations are responsible for allocating our labour in order to produce one or some of these commodities which are then sold on the market.

Those of us who happen to be capitalists will attempt to arrange socially useful labour by finding firms which can produce at profit, or simply invest in organisations who will do this for us.

The means by which the new society can be achieved are determined by its nature as a society involving voluntary co-operation and democratic participation. It cannot be imposed from above by some self-appointed liberators nor by some well-meaning state bureaucracy but can only come into existence as a result of being the expressed wish of a majority—an overwhelming majority—of the population. In other words, the new society can only be established by democratic political action and the movement to establish it can only employ democratic forms of struggle. Because the present system is, as a system must be, an inter-related whole and not a chance collection of good and bad elements, it cannot be abolished piecemeal. It can only be abolished in its entirety or not at all. This fact determines the choice as to what we must do: work towards a complete break with the present system as opposed to trying to gradually transform it.

A key element of socialism is meaningful participation and control of daily life at work and in the community (workers’ and community self-management), with administrators (where needed) elected by and responsible to workers and community members. This is incompatible with the current system of private ownership and control of the economy, and requires various forms of social ownership of the means of production and distribution — in other words, the abolition of the capitalist system. Instead of understanding socialism as a movement for the liberation of humanity many of its supposed adherents understood it as being exclusively a movement for economic improvement by government reforms and through state ownership. Thus what passed for socialism became the vehicle for the workers to attain their place within the capitalist structure rather than transcending it. The leaders of the labour movement considered as their most radical measures the nationalisation of certain big industries. Only to have many discover that the nationalisation of an enterprise is in itself not the realisation of socialism, that to be managed by a ministerial-appointed officials is not basically different for the worker from being managed by a board-appointed directors and CEOs. A change in the formal ownership of industry does not end the basic social exploitation and alienation of the employee.  So distorting has this development been that the average worker has little conception of what really is socialism. The problem for socialists now is how to move people towards independent political action without creating, or contributing to, the illusions about a state-managed capitalist economy and that workers aspirations can be achieved by reforms. Our objective is now to make authentic socialism a matter of urgency.

The working class is the social force in the struggle to replace capitalism with socialism. For socialism to be more than an idea it has to be a political movement of the working class. This proposition is at the heart of Marx’s theory. The crucial place of wage workers in the productive process gives them the social power to overthrow capitalism. No other social class or group has the power to achieve this. All the necessary material conditions exist for this social revolution. But the existence of the necessary material conditions is by itself insufficient. Unlike all previous social transformations, the socialist revolution demands conscious action by the working class. Socialism can only be achieved through the united action of millions of working men and women conscious of their social interests and take the steps necessary to realise them. Unlike the capitalist class, which carried out its social revolution after it had developed considerable economic power the working class can only realise its potential economic power after it has overthrown the old social order. And to do so it has to overcome a very powerful and influential capitalist ruling class. The main tool of the working class in its fight against capitalism is the potentially immense power of its collective action. The working class is capable of reaching the level of class consciousness necessary to create a mass socialist party suitable for challenging the capitalist class on the battlefield of politics to acquire political supremacy. We admit no such mass workers’ party exists today. The current Socialist Party is just the beginning of a new party.

Poverty is Child Abuse

The Child Poverty Action Group calculates that 220,000 children live in poverty in Scotland. That’s one in five children, but we know that in some areas, that figure is one in three. We know that in some areas out of a class of 30 children, ten of them can be living in poverty.

Living in poverty puts health, wellness and the ability to do well at school at risk. It’s not just a case of not having nice clothes and not being able to go on holidays. We are dealing with families who rely on food banks and emergency grants, not to get over a difficult time, but to survive. We are living in a society now where GPs routinely ask people, when they can find no other cause for their pain or illness, if they have enough to eat.

Living in poverty creates long-term difficulties for these children, who grow up at greater risk of mental ill health, chronic illness, unemployment and homelessness; and so the cycle continues.

 The Institute of Fiscals studies acknowledges that poverty increased quickly between 2011-12 and 2014-15 and further states that it will continue to increase with the introduction of Universal Credit, the latest iteration of the welfare reforms. It’s a well-acknowledged fact that only around 40 per cent of the cuts have so far impacted and that 2015-16 is to be the harshest year to date. And literally, we haven’t see the half of it yet. Many of the people are fearful for what the future holds, some are looking at a further reduction in benefit of £70 per child. Can you imagine the despair of parents who are fully aware of being unable to meet the basic needs of their children? Can you imagine the impact of the indignity of living in long-term poverty? And most importantly, can you imagine the impact on children’s confidence and self-worth?

Most people think that child protection is about abuse. The common perception is that if an issue is deemed to be a child protection matter, then the child is being physically or sexually abused or neglected. The image that the public often come up with is a child whose parents are drug addicts or alcoholics. A single mother with a violent partner. When you mention child protection, one thing people are unlikely to think of is poverty. Poverty is a child protection issue and with the increase in the numbers of families living in poverty it is becoming more and more of a problem in Scotland. If you don’t have enough money to buy food, your child goes hungry. If you don’t have enough money to heat your home and buy clothes, your child will be cold. If you don’t have enough money to pay your rent, your child will be homeless. This is child abuse committed by capitalism. 

From here

Turning the screw

From the February 1984 issue of the Socialist Standard

Three years ago the company I worked for announced it was closing. It was part of an ailing industrial giant which was itself finally sunk soon after when the banks withdrew their support. During the three month run-down period rumours that a "consortium" of managerial staff was trying to buy the place kept our hopes alive. Those of us who had been kept on to finish outstanding work knew that if the consortium didn't employ us then we would have little chance of a job anywhere else so we worked like we've never worked before. That deal fell through but an American multi-national moved in and bought the company. We soon learned that not everyone still working there would be employed by the new owners so each of us redoubled his efforts in the hope of being offered one of the available jobs.

A week after the old company finally closed some of us, the lucky ones, started work for the new company. A few days earlier we had been interviewed and the terms of employment had been spelled out to us. The wages would be increased by a few pounds but there would have to be "flexibility" which meant doing work previously done by other workers, and although there was to be no anti-trade union policy there would be no closed shop either. This last part didn't bother me, for workers who have to be forced to join a union are no asset to it and may actually be a source of weakness.

None of us will ever forget the first few months of working for the new owners. If we had been going like the hammers of hell before then it was nothing compared to what we now had to go through. The management, obviously wishing to impress their bosses, hounded us from clocking on till clocking off. No longer did we dare linger over our newspapers for another minute after starting time, take an unofficial cup of tea in the afternoon or wash up five minutes early. Some of us, even though we had a job, were applying for every job we saw advertised in the press, even if it meant working away from home. Nothing, we felt , could be worse than this.

Around this time government ministers were crowing about how the growth of unemployment had produced a different climate in industrial relations. "There is a new sense of realism among workers today" they said, and added that because of this productivity in Britain was rising. If what was happening to us was typical of the rest of the country then no wonder!

Frequent reminders of what job prospects were like outside were provided by former workmates whenever we met them. "It's hopeless" they told us. "I've been everywhere and there's nothing doing". On top of this we were hearing of other places in our line of work having redundancies or even closing and so increasing the supply of labour on an already glutted market. In the circumstances the management could walk all over us and we just had to take it, even when the heating was left off as an "economy measure" during the bitter cold at the end of 1981.

As time passed the pace became less frantic and gradually conditions changed to something approaching sanity, although we still had to work harder than any of us had been used to. At the end of the first year we had a 10 per cent rise without any haggling and the order book, we were told, was full enough. More men were being taken on and extra machinery installed, so the future was looking more secure. We should have known better.

Then last month came the visit from "the Yanks". The place was spruced up for these representatives of the parent company and they duly paraded through the factory wearing safety helmets, protective ear-muffs and big smiles. It was noticeable that the works management who accompanied them weren't smiling. All week we heard stories that the visitors were less than impressed with how things were going and that harsh words were being spoken.

On the following Monday afternoon the shop stewards were sent for. When they returned they called a meeting of all the hourly-paid employees and broke the news that there would be ten redundancies. The men were stunned. How could this be?, they asked. There was plenty of work now and for some time in the future. No matter, the visitors had decreed that the work must be done with less employees. The factory, they had said, was still only breaking even and would have to become profitable by mid-1984 when the situation would be reviewed. The ten men to go (plus one from the office) would be told next day and everyone at the meeting began to look around and calculate how much better or worse his chances were compared to the others.

Inevitably, the usual divisions between the workers emerged. The factory personnel raged because only one office staff was to go. "Bloody ridiculous" they said, "we're producers, not them". National prejudices also had an airing. It was the greed of those "Yankee bastards" that was to blame, as if British employers would have acted any differently in the same situation. My workmates, like most other workers, haven't begun to understand that their jobs are only provided on the basis that they will produce a surplus over and above their wages. Some of them even claimed that they have "a right to a job" which also must mean that employers have a duty to employ them whether they need them or not. Investors put their cash in order to make a profit, not to keep workers in jobs. There is no other way in which capitalism can operate. Next day at two o'clock the foremen broke the news to the chosen ten and told them to collect their money and go. Within twenty minutes they had gone with two weeks plus two days pay. The rest of us were shocked at this treatment but there wasn't a lot we could do about it.

Next day our foreman gave us a little talk. What it boiled down to was that the arm and leg we had given the new owners still wasn't enough and we would have to do even better in future. Apparently, the company have a factory in America which makes the same product as ourselves and the visitors claimed that the American workers are making it faster than we do. The implication was obvious enough but it doesn't stretch the imagination too much to picture those American workers being told that it is we who are the danger to their jobs because we get paid a lot less.

What about my workmates, what are their ideas and how have they been affected by all these experiences? Like most other workers they aren't in the least interested in politics. In fact some of them don't even have a reasonable trade union consciousness and blame nearly all their problems not on the capitalist system, but on other workers. A few weeks before the redundancy I overheard one of them saying "What I'd like to see is a wee bit more money for us and a wee bit less for them". Curious, I asked him who "them" was. "The unemployed" he said. When I asked him why, he replied "because there's not a big enough differential between what I get and what they get". He shared the widely-heard belief that people on the dole receive huge payments, although this didn't prevent him being terrified later on when he thought he was to be one of the ten. Luckily for him he wasn't.

Almost all of my workmates buy tabloid newspapers like the Sun which reflect, rather than mould their generally reactionary ideas. The talk at tea and lunch breaks, besides being about the usual subjects like football and gambling, often resolves around pet hates like the English, "poofs" and blacks. Our shop steward even refers to the latter as "jungle bunnies". They have experienced living under Labour governments and they know what life is like in the "communist" countries, so none of them sees any hope that things could ever be different. They imagine that the present social order has always been and always must be. I do my best, but where else do they ever hear anyone arguing the case for a world of production for use, without wages, prices, pensions, privileges and bosses? Because I am on my own I can be dismissed as a political flat-earther.

And yet, I know that they, like me, felt anger and humiliation at having to scramble for a job. Nor do they enjoy the feat of the sack whenever we hit a "quiet patch" or having to jump if the foreman or one of the "big shots" appears. And they worry, not only about their own futures, but of those of their children. The only thing wrong with the socialist case is that is has too few adherents and because of this socialists are unable to take advantage of the massive working-class discontent which exists.

Vic Vanni

Glasgow Branch

Understand the world to change it (2)

The Socialist Party believe that in order to save humanity from the economic chaos, social injustice, and environmental destruction caused by global capitalism, it is necessary to abolish the capitalist system altogether and replace it with a humane, democratically-run planned socialist economy. It will be necessary for people, worldwide, to adopt the principle of socialist revolution. There is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about what “socialism” means. A big barrier to building the alternative to capitalism is confusion about what socialism actually is. This is not accidental. For those who are not familiar with it, let’s get one misconception out of the way right at the start. Socialism is not what existed in Soviet Russia, even before Stalin, or in China, even under Mao. No totalitarian or autocratic system can be considered socialist. Socialism also is not the same as the “social-democratic” capitalism that exists in Scandinavia and some other countries with welfare-states. Socialism is an economic system under which all natural resources, as well as all means of producing goods and of organising the delivery of services, will be owned in common by all and managed by a democratically-run for the benefit of the society as a whole. Rational planning, not competition for profit, will drive the allocation of resources, with the goal of meeting the needs of society as a whole. Under capitalism, advances in technology are used to replace workers, so that the wealthy owners of large enterprises can increase their profits, while the displaced workers are thrown out on the street and left to fend for themselves. Under socialism, in contrast, advances in technology – intelligently designed and environmentally sustainable – will be planned and implemented so as to reduce the level of human drudgery. Advances in productivity will result in reducing the length of the work week and raising the standard of living for everyone, rather than enriching a privileged elite. Everyone will reap equal benefits from, and thus have an equal stake in, improving the way goods and services are created and delivered. All workers – not just those in a few lucky occupations that possess a certain degree of job satisfaction – will be motivated by a positive desire to help others, rather than by the need to avoid hunger and homelessness.

The class struggle -- the conflict between the capitalists and the workers -- is at the very heart of the capitalist system. The great bulk of people would vastly prefer to live in a world free of poverty, unemployment, racism and war. This kind of world is only possible under socialism. Many today would readily agree that this is the kind of world they would want for themselves and future generations. But they think it’s a pipe-dream. Previous historic systems like feudalism and other more primitive societies 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. It is the working class which allows the economic system as a whole to run. Nothing can be built or moved without us. Yet, 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 employers in exchange for wages. As the fundamental source of their profits, our strategic economic position gives the working class the power to forge decisive change but there are good reasons for workers’ current skepticism about the power of our class.  One of the biggest reasons is the misplaced trust placed in leaders. They have engineered decades of defeat for the working class. It is they who have made us feel powerless to change things. The so-called vanguard of revolutionaries undermine the unity of the whole working class. There is no need to “instigate” fellow workers: it is the conditions of capitalism itself which eventually force workers to act to defend ourselves, to engage in mass fight-backs. The best way for workers to see their own power in action and workers become confident and radicalised. The working class searches for its own alternative to capitalism only when it knows its own strength to actually achieve big changes. Today capitalism is on a global offensive that is wiping out past gains. As profit margins have fallen in the system as a whole, competition between capitalist firms and nations has become ever more vicious. The “race to the bottom” in which capitalists try to outdo each other in finding the cheapest labour possible is prevalent. The needs of the ruling class to boost profit rates mean they are well aware of the need to escalate their attacks against workers, to increase the number of low-wage jobs with harsher working terms and less generous benefits.  Workers’ pensions has been one focus of this onslaught. Pension funds have been underfunded for years. The previous stock market boom hid the fact that the bosses weren’t meeting their fund obligations with hard cash. When share prices crashed, the funds ended up short of cash. Now the bosses are demanding that workers either pay into the pension funds themselves, accept inferior plans or give up on their claims. However, now there is the return of the value of stock, there is no reciprocal rise in pensions being offered. The profits are being retained by the bosses.

Given capitalism’s necessary priorities, the desperate plight of people and the planet, only the working class, through socialist revolution, can end this nightmare. Capitalism will destroy the human race. It is absolutely clear that the ruling class will continue to put the drive for profit ahead of everything, even our own existence as a species. Capitalists are incapable of changing. Even when they individually recognise the dangers, collectively they cannot cease doing what they do, making profits, accumulating capital, re-investing for more and more new profit, growth for capital’s sake. If capitalism is not overthrown, humanity is most likely doomed. Socialism is the only solution. The only way out is the abolition of capitalism and its replacement by socialism. And the only means to do this is by socialist revolution.

To win abundance for all, the working class will have to take matters into our own hands. In order to build toward this future we urge interested workers to get in touch with the Socialist Party to learn more. Let us know what you think of our views. If you agree, let us know. If you disagree, let’s discuss it. Members of the Socialist Party are optimistic because we recognise that the best hope for a new future are the resilient working class. Nobody needs fundamental change in this corrupt, top-down economic and political system like we do. We reject in advance any argument that the social problems and crises are so critical that it stands above politics there is no time to wait for socialism to replace capitalism. We don't propose waiting for anything — we are campaigning all the time and are trying to drive the struggle forward right now. But the basic point still stands: the capitalist class is leading humanity to absolute disaster and its class position means it cannot and will not do anything else. What is necessary is to prise their mad grip from the steering wheel and carry out a drastic change of course. Can this be done? Ever since class society that came into existence had to face the resistance of the oppressed. There have been an endless series of revolts and uprisings — whether by slaves, peasants or workers. The dream of a society where there is no inequality, no division into rich and poor — i.e., of a classless society — is a persistent one. As been already said, the working class is essential for the operation of the social means of production but itself owns none of it. Its conditions of life make it cooperative and collectivist in outlook. Its objective interest is to collectively appropriate these means of production and establish a classless society. This makes it revolutionary — at least potentially. It is the sole authentically revolutionary class. It has no interest in setting up a new system of class oppression but can only end its alienation by destroying the whole edifice of class domination. The class at the very bottom of the social heap — struggles for power in order to construct a socialist society where all forms of oppression and exploitation are eliminated.

Reformists have denied the need for revolution and instead held out the fantasy of gradually humanising capitalism. The Socialist Party holds to our basic principle that objective conditions are being created in which the socialist movement can grow and attract a significant working-class following to mount a challenge to the system and allow the real history of humanity to commence, free, cultured human beings living in a collectivist society of social solidarity and cooperation. People cannot live without hope for the future. Our task as socialists are to inspire, to instil confidence that the future will be better than the present if only they strive to make it so. The world will be changed by people who believe in the boundless power of themselves. 

'Against state and capital – for the revolution'

One in five Germans believe that revolution, not reform, is the only way for living standards in Germany to be improved, a new study by the Free University of Berlin suggests.

Nearly a third of Germans believe that capitalism is the cause of poverty and hunger and a majority think true democracy is not possible under that economic system.

The report authors noted overall that a sizeable proportion of the German population are moving increasingly towards the left of the political spectrum, and are more likely to hold both anti-fascist and anti-capitalist views.

They may not mean what we mean but it is a promising sign that ideas are changing for the better

Understand the world to change it

The notion of socialism can be traced back centuries in various forms, notably among the earliest Christians (Acts 4:34-5:11); and the model of “gospel” communism as in the Anabaptist and other religious movements, with individuals owning nothing except what they collectively shared. But the roots of modern socialism lie in the period of the industrial revolution. The goals and ideals of socialism had their beginnings in 19th-century pre-industrial movements and organisations, which cultivated in workers a keen sense of common identity. The Industrial Revolution had many profound effects on European civilization. It rendered much of the old aristocracy irrelevant, boosted the capitalists to economic and political power, and drafted much of the old peasant class into its factories. The result was naturally a shift in attitude toward wealth. Capitalist wealth seemed to have no natural limits. Partly because the new industrial modes of production had no pre-assigned place in feudal order of things, the industrialists viewed themselves as the creators of their wealth. Dependency was considered self-destructive, so the poor were punished for their poverty by harsh laws designed to drive them to work. Ideas still very familiar to us today with attacks on benefit claimants and how investment is viewed, now as then, as the engine that drives the economy. Any measure which can encourage investors to buy more stock is viewed as beneficial to society as a whole. This class also created the various movements for democratic government which swept across Europe; and it was only natural that they should have viewed their economic and political ideals as functioning hand in hand. Democracy was necessary to wrest power from the old nobility, to pass laws enabling business to thrive, and to guarantee their property rights. 

Not everyone agreed that the shift of power into the hands of the new rich was entirely benign. In the newly industrialising countries of England and Germany, people suffered under many forms of exploitation. The old feudal restrictions which had fixed peasants in place on the land and limited their income had also guaranteed them a place in the world. They may not have prospered, but they were often able to fend off starvation and homelessness simply because they had been born onto estates from which they could not be removed against their wills. The dissolution of this old order meant that workers could be hired and fired at will and had to sell their labor for whatever the going rate was--and that rate was determined by their competition with each other to work cheaply enough to gain them an advantage in the job market. Traditional rules and protections went by the board in the new factories, which often ran for twenty-four hours a day (two twelve-hour shifts), seven days a week under the most inhumane conditions. Women and children were absorbed into the work force as well, often preferred because they cost much less than men. Industries severely polluted their environments, their machinery maimed and killed many workers, and food in the new factory towns was often of poor quality and in short supply.  Living standards and educational levels actually declined in many areas. Even many well-to-do people became concerned over the wretched conditions under which the new working class toiled, as reflected in the novels of Charles Dickens.

The late 1830s and 1840s saw the development of a mass movement known as Chartism, which demanded an end to political corruption and the introduction of democratic reforms. Chartism was not exactly a socialist movement, but it was a very important early, mass-political movement that tapped into the political energies of the working class. In the 1840s, Karl Marx was just one of a diverse group of socialist thinkers who gained adherents because he provided a solid historical justification for socialism. According to Marx, human societies had progressed through a series of economic stages determined by the forces of production, each one calling forth the next through an unavoidable conflict between old and new forces of production. Thus, the slave societies of the ancient world had given rise to feudalism, which in turn had been supplanted by capitalism. Marx further argued that capitalism was planting the seeds of its own destruction by first creating - and then increasingly oppressing and impoverishing - the working class (the proletariat.) The logic of competition and profit accumulation inherent to capitalism tended to keep wages at the minimal level necessary to physically sustain the proletariat.

The capitalist class owns the factories, the banks, and transportation, all the means of production and distribution. Workers sell their ability to work in order to acquire the necessities of life. Capitalists buy the workers ability to labour, but pay them only a portion of the wealth they create. Because the capitalists own the means of production, they are able to keep the surplus wealth created by workers above and beyond the cost of paying workers’ wages and other costs of production — unpaid labour that the capitalists appropriate and use to achieve ever-greater profits. This surplus is the source of profit. These profits are turned into capital which capitalists use to further exploit the sources of all wealth — nature and the working class. Capitalists are compelled by competition to seek to maximise profits. The capitalist class as a whole can do that only by extracting a greater surplus from the unpaid labor of workers, by increasing exploitation what capitalists often call increasing productivity. Under capitalism, economic development happens only if it is profitable to the individual capitalists, not for any social need or good. The profit drive is inherent in capitalism, and underlies or exacerbates all major social ills of our times. With the rapid advance of technology and productivity, new forms of capitalist ownership have developed to maximise profit and exploit new markets.

"Socialism" is an exceedingly fuzzy term which has been used to label an extraordinarily wide array of political and economic beliefs. But generally socialists advocate a democratically controlled economy run for the benefit of all. The unfettered competition of capitalists is replaced by cooperation and the anarchic business cycle by planned stability. Private ownership of industry and land abolished and replaced by a moneyless society in which market forces play no role, in which production is for the use of the producers, in which lands and factories are commonly owned and in which the State - and with it, war - is abolished.