Utopia: Nowhere or Now Here

 Utopia is possible

If you're deaf, dumb, and blind to what's happening in the world, you're under no obligation to do anything. But if you know what's happening and you don't do anything but sit back idly then you are complicit in the exploitation and oppression taking place. It is already clear that business as usual is leading toward catastrophic collapse of the natural eco-systems that billions of people depend upon for their livelihood. Social and environmental problems are not accidental, but are direct consequences of our capitalist system of production and consumption. The logic of profit is to clear-cut every tree and move on to the next forest.  Greenhouse gases will increase as long as our economy depends on fossil fuels, controlled by some of the wealthiest corporations in history. Converting the whole economy to recycle materials and use renewable energy, abandoning fossil fuel investments, would impose huge costs on business budgets. Under capitalism, decisions on what and how to produce are made by owners and executives maximising profits by increasing sales and decreasing costs. Securing an environmentally sustainable production system will require fundamental political and social change. Human and environmental needs can be brought into sustainable balance only if production and distribution takes account of all environmental consequences. This requires conscious planning and foresight.  For all the impacts to be taken into account, the people affected must participate in planning and decision-making. Rather than trying to just patch up a system that isn't working, let's work for a system that really meets human needs.

Another world is really possible. Imagine a world guided by a "caring economics." Complete detailed “blueprints” are both impossible and unnecessary but the project of elaborating on the outlines of a future socialist society is essential. A sustainable economy requires production to be democratically planned and controlled by well-informed people. The environment can be sustained by sharing of resources and by cooperation rather than acquisition and competition.  We call this socialism.

After socialism is achieved there will be an initial period of rapid expansion to provide a decent way of life for those currently in poverty and destitution, a steady state society will emerge where the enormous power of planning, combined with the release of human resourcefulness will enable huge steps to be taken to preserve the environment. What will it actually consist of? It involves allocating resources of labour and materials for the production of goods and services for the benefit of society as a whole, rather than to make profits for the capitalists. It will operate at three levels, locally regionally and globally and will be implemented either industrially or at the individual enterprise.

Since Marx’s day, economists and academics have written books about why socialism cannot work. One of those criticisms is that planning the efficient allocation of resources is impossible because of the vast complexity of modern industrial society where millions of economic transactions take place every day. However most of these economic interactions are between enterprises, they do not involve consumers, and it is quite clear that present day multinational corporations conduct planning of a similar complexity to that required by socialism all the time. The activity of the multinational companies answers a further criticism that the operation of supply and demand to determine price is the only efficient way to proceed in the exchange of goods. In their operations companies simply allocate resources between factories without reference to the market. Boeing uses central planning to develop and build new airplane designs, when a sky scraper in built it's based on central planning. Central planning brings water to your house and empties it back out to the sewer. What planning isn't central? It's the only way planning can be done, otherwise CEOs couldn't run their company, you would get airplanes that couldn't fly, skyscrapers that collapse and sewage backup. Yes, there will be a need central planning in socialism!  But since the system will decentralised, all of the day to day planning on energy production, manufacturing, food harvesting, etc., is done locally and automatically, based on algorithms and feedback loops. There really isn't that much for a command economy commissar type to screw up, and actually, there isn't any room for a government bureaucrat.

As far as planning for consumer needs are concerned the key point is that means exist that can respond to their demands. Today, supermarkets use bar-codes and scan the consumers’ purchases and technology link that to their warehouses and these in turn are connected to suppliers and growers. It is an automatic process. In addition to this, techniques such as market research and using the internet feedback will make the tasks faced by future socialist planners enormously easier. It is important, though, not to exaggerate the role that will be played by the internet or look for a ‘technical fix’- the existence of democratic institutions such as consumer co-operatives will be paramount. The role of democratically elected and powerful consumer bodies will also make sure that shoddy goods are not produced and quality is maintained. Here as well, the advances in modern production management techniques can be applied, since the future socialist society will inherit a culture, associated with the highest levels of technique developed by capitalism of the “the customer comes first.” Planned obsolescence will itself become an obsolete concept, where good will be designed and made to be recyclable and repairable. The condition of the environment will not be subject to the whim of the capitalist market, where it will always have a low priority.

The Socialist Party hopes to connect the struggle at the ballot box of today with the struggle for a socialism that is implemented once victory is won. 

Mental Illness and the Poor

 People from Scotland's most deprived areas are more than three times as likely to be treated for mental illness than those in more affluent communities, according to a report.

The study looked at the numbers of people treated for mental health problems during 2013 and 2014.

Official figures stated a discharge figure of 649 in 100,000 people in the most deprived areas This compared to a figure of 197 per 100,000 people in affluent communities.

The report stated there was "a strong and consistent relationship with deprivation", adding: "The more deprived an area, the higher its rate of psychiatric inpatient discharges".

Socialism is No Ownership

Marx was not the first to condemn capitalism for the poverty and inequality that it creates, neither was he the first to fight for a society in which poverty and inequality would be eradicated. Before Marx, utopian socialists, such as Fourier and Owen, believed that an alternative society could be built within capitalism. They drew up plans for societies in which neither exploitation nor oppression were needed to maintain economic production. Once these model communities were established they would rapidly prove to be superior to what already existed. They eschewed class struggle and dismissed the doctrine that the road to socialism passes through the revolutionary capture of the state. Marx realised that societies do not develop as a result of clever plans or individual dedication. Marx’s insight was his realisation that had to be taken into account “people” had to become organised in a very definite way – as a class through a political party to take hold of the state machine from the ruling class. The utopians were unrealistic: their means could not lead to the desired ends.

Another of Marx’s contributions was to shift the axis of the socialist movement from equality in the sphere of consumption to entirely overcoming economic scarcity by calling for the common ownership of the means of production by the producers themselves in voluntary associations so that the division of resources among individuals will no longer be a source of social conflict. Socialism is more than the provision of hospitals, schools and houses, however necessary and important that is. It is more than just planning. It is also about exploitation and about workers controlling their working lives and working environment. In short, it is about industrial democracy. In this respect, neither private capitalist ownership nor bureaucratic state ownership is the answer. In fact, state ownership itself is not even a requisite. There is no reason why enterprises should not be owned by the workers themselves in the form of autonomous worker-employee cooperatives competing for tenders to supply the state with their services.

The syndicalist programme for the post-capitalist reorganisation of the economy is that the workers should exercise total managerial authority in autonomous enterprises or at least in some branches of the economy. There would be no higher authority above the industrial syndicates. The workers of each factory is an autonomous unit, who govern their own affairs and who make all the decisions as to the work they will do. The problem with syndicalism is that it would necessarily replicate many of the inequities and irrationalities of capitalism. If economic units are genuinely autonomous of one another, they can only interact through market relations governed by changing conditions of supply and demand. Inevitably, this means that some workers will have to be unemployed or have to take cuts in income when the market turns against them. Workers to succeed will compete with another co-operative, even extolling one another to work harder and for less reward. Let’s consider the shoe industry under the model of a syndicalist economy. The shoe-producing industry is organised as a single autonomous syndicate. This syndicate gets revenue by selling shoes to individuals and stores. In turn, it purchases leather, rubber, plastic and other inputs from other autonomous syndicates. Let’s say leather happens to be in oversupply. More leather is produced than is demanded by the shoe-producing syndicate for its current output and the consumer demand. The directors of the shoe-producing syndicate tell their counterparts in the leather processing syndicate, “We only need 80 percent of your leather, we’re not going to buy any more because we don’t need any more than that.” So what is going to happen? These are autonomous enterprises. Some of the workers in the leather-producing industry are going to have to be laid off or, alternatively, all or some of them are going to have to take cuts in income and benefits because it is suffering reduced revenue. Even though people who advocate syndicalism think they are militantly anti-capitalist, their programme would actually reproduce many of the inequities and irrationalities of capitalism, despite their good intentions. We are opposed to the syndicalist program of workers’ management of autonomous enterprises.

But we are for the maximal democratic participation of the workers in economic decision-making at the level of the factory and other work-places. What we mean by workers control of production in a socialised economy is that the democratically elected representatives of the workers would have an authoritative, consultative voice in all economic decisions at the enterprise as well as higher levels. The designers, engineers, technicians, those in the offices and the shop-floor would get together as an elected factory committee and jointly work out a concrete plans for the enterprise. Unlike syndicalist “workers management” schemes, society as a whole does not allow individual factory committees to have the final say on the scope and composition of production and distribution. These are social allocation of commonly owned resources for the wider community to decide upon.

Socialists could be perhaps accused of some degree of naivety, but our simplicity has this virtue: the propositions we advance are directly linked to the aims we seek to achieve. We strive towards a better world founded on common ownership, equality and democracy. We want to raise personal and individual development to the greatest possible height.

William Paul, while a member of the Socialist Labour Party, explained "The revolutionary Socialist denies that State ownership can end in anything other than a bureaucratic despotism…the Republic of Socialism will be the government of industry administered on behalf of the whole community. The former meant the economic and political subjection of the many: the latter will mean the economic freedom of all – it will be, therefore, a true democracy... Socialism will require no political State because there will be neither a privileged property class nor a downtrodden propertyless class; there will be no social disorder as a result, because there will be no clash of economic interests; there will be no need to create a power to make ‘order’. Thus, as Engels shows, the State will die out. In the last analysis State ownership is more a mean of controlling and regimenting the worker than of controlling industry ... The attempt of the State to control industry is therefore the attempt of the ruling class to dominate Labour."

State-owned enterprises are expected to be run on commercial lines, that is, to compete on the market, sell their products at market prices. The British coal industry was a case in point. The fact that it was nationalised did not insulated it from the market. Nor would the introduction of workers’ control in the coal mines and power stations stop unsaleable coal stocks accumulating at the pit heads. To demand that no pits be closed, that all the pits be kept open irrespective of whether there is a need for all the coal they could produce was nonsense. So, in the case of the motor industry would their demand be valid that it should continue to put millions of new cars on already congested roads and add to the pollution of the environment or rather better they followed the instructions of an environmentally aware population. Syndicalistic workers control, nationalisation and state ownership does not resolve the problem of effective rational social planning. If transport and mines and factories are be run by democratically-constituted bodies, the question of ultimate ownership is really a formality. The important thing is who controls, who makes the decisions. Social democracy and mass participation are not optional but a necessary condition for socialism and its development.

The Socialist Challenge

Socialism, in its traditional and true definition, means workers democratic ownership and control of the means of production. Such a definition implies that rather than state ownership and a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on every individual becoming an active, rather than passive participant in the decision-making that which effect their lives. Advocates of nationalisation have repeatedly re-defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", a political con-game in which “socialism” is little more than capitalism with a few adjustments to make it more bearable.

Human beings are social and need and prefer to live in collectives. For most of our existence the vast majority of people were nurtured by extended families, tribes, clans, village communities. A problem of the modern world is that the state has become conflated with the idea of community. For example, nationalists and patriots feel that they are standing up for “the people”,  “our” army is out there fighting for “us.” But this viewpoint is based on a delusionary perspective. A distinction needs to be made between local/regional community and what constitutes the nation-state.

Socialists offer an eco-communitarian model of decentralisation that would restore our social heritage. A severe weather event doesn’t need to become a natural disaster.  Under dire circumstances, people try to cope and solve problems together. Communities and their social bonds foster that cooperation. However, the overarching concern of the authorities is to keep people passive, to keep people in place, and to keep people under control. This is a system in which a small owning-class of capitalist-imperialists controls the economic lifelines and resources of society. It is a system where profit rules. It is a system where state power is used to preserve and extend global exploitation and misery, and to suppress resistance. When the exercise of that control is broken by something such as an earthquake or typhoon then there is indeed a crisis.

The disruptions in transport and power generation, the dislocation of basic services, and the fact that the city stopped working when people could no longer work—all this revealed how densely interconnected are the activities of social and economic life is. Yet there is no conscious social planning to meet human need, to mobilize for emergencies, to protect vital ecosystems. The capitalist financial-administrative command-and-control is centred upon the globalised market. It is profoundly parasitic. Resources are siphoned towards real estate, speculative construction, and development. People are atomized by the very workings of the capitalist system. They are forced to compete with each other for jobs, for housing, for higher education. Why? Because of private ownership and control over the means of producing wealth and over the resources of society. It is a system where people are compelled to sell their labor power to survive. At the same time, the system promotes its ethos of each for him or herself, and sets people against each other. People who have a great desire to join together to respond in a crisis like the aftermath of a hurricane have to have that potential held in check and even quashed by this system. Only the organs of the state are permitted to act.

In socialist society, the means of production—the factories, transport, telecommunications, land, raw materials, and so forth—will no longer be the property of a small handful of exploiters or the government but will be under a system of common ownership. This will enable society to utilize these resources for what is useful and important to the betterment of humanity. People will be guaranteed work; and instead of being drudgery, work will be contributing to the development of society and people's all-around capabilities. The new socialist society will develop an economy that is no longer based on oil and other fossil fuels and long-distance supply systems. This will require extraordinary innovation and effort, but it will be a priority. The new society will aim to create sustainability—more capable of producing to meet basic needs, including food. Rather than being isolated and penned up in an urbanized sprawl, people will be able to interact with each other in meaningful ways, to organize socially, to create and enjoy culture, and to forge vibrant community.

In a tsunami, for example, socialism would allocate the needed resources, like food, temporary shelter, building materials, equipment, to where they would be needed most. This will not have to go through the patchwork and competing channels of private ownership and control that exist in capitalist society. The allocation of resources would not be contingent on the preservation of private property and the profit system. All that it would be doing all is tapping into and unleashing the power of people to step forward and to help on all kinds of fronts. Relying on your fellow workers would be at the heart of everything that would be done in the wake of such a disaster. Emergency priorities would be established—for instance in identifying the most vulnerable sectors of the population, helping the most devastated communities or areas of environmental degradation, and restoring critical links. Calls for volunteers would be issued and the means provided for them to become involved in relief efforts. Medical personnel, civil engineers, and so forth would be dispatched to where they were needed. Underlying this would be that inside socialism the division of labour would be more and more eroded. Specialised knowledge of experts would be popularised — for instance, ecological science, civil engineering — among broader sections of the people. But these experts would also be learning from the knowledge and direct experience and aspirations of others. Architects and city planners would be conducting investigations among the people, adapting themselves appropriately to the feed-back. Medical personnel would be gaining a deeper sense of local conditions and needs — and training para- medics and setting up local clinics. Incredible initiative and experimentation would be the norm and since conditions are not the same everywhere there will be constant discussion and debate on how to make the most of older equipment? How to conserve limited resources? What are the local priorities in rebuilding? Disseminating details of fact-finding missions. Group meetings in neighborhoods. Streamlining administration. Transmitting ideas to and criticisms of higher levels. In the aftermath of emergencies, big questions and controversies will pose themselves. Yes, there is acute short-term necessity to provide shelter, food, and health care, and to rebuild.

But these needs cannot be met by disregarding longer-term effects on ecosystems. There will be disagreements over specific policies. And in times of disaster, some will be intensely agonising over the overall direction of society. In a crises there will be contention and dispute. This process, if handled correctly by the new society, will actually enhance both the knowledge and understanding of reality of society as a whole, and serve to forge unity on a new and stronger basis of social bonds. It will mobilise the understanding of people that makes it possible for human beings to become caretakers of the planet. It makes it possible to bring a new world into being, a community of world humanity. Socialists do not hold a vision of an imagined “golden age” from a nostalgic past but instead plant the idea of a better-than-the-present in a potential and desirable future.

Figures Do Lie.

Recent figures released by Statistics Canada revealed that youth unemployment (15-24 year-olds) now stands at 14.7%. However, figures do lie. This does not count the youths who have returned to school because they couldn't get a job, or those who are underemployed in part-time jobs, or those who have used up their unemployment benefits. It is pointless to publish such figures unless the object is to hoodwink the public. One more thing is pointless – the continuation of a system that creates unemployment. John Ayers.

The Tip Of The Iceberg

 Recent headlines in the business sections of the newspapers have highlighted the doom and gloom of the current recession – " European Auto Manufacturers heading into a Fifth Straight Year of Falling Sales"; "Yahoo Looks to Right its Sinking Ship…thousands of Layoffs"; "Tortuous Recovery Spurs China to Lower Growth Expectations"; "Global Growth Fears Hammer TSX"; "Toronto Hydro Dropped by Insurer – Power Provider Warns Decision to Curb Equipment Renewal Will Lead to Blackouts" This is just the tip of the iceberg, of course, but it's enough to show a system in deep trouble and should make everyone think about something better. Let's work to make that something socialism! John Ayers.

There is no third way

Utopia now: we can bring it about. The power is ours if we have the will!

Those of us in the World Socialist Movement have often been told our objectives are impossible but events throughout history prove that what is considered impossible aren’t. The past few weeks show how people have the power to bring about change. Socialists are people who ruthlessly criticise the capitalist system we consistently attack the widespread but false illusion that there can be no alternative to it. Capitalism is not only basically unjust but radically unsustainable as well, the prime obligation of a Socialist Party is to spread the information, to tell the inhabitants of a structurally unsound house doomed to collapse of what awaits them unless they take drastic measures. We attack the false idea that all we can seek to re-decorate and re-arrange the furniture for we are, so to speak, trapped in this house, with no hope of getting out. Socialism is very different from the failed mis-labeled workers’ states. The “dictatorship of the proletariat,” in Marx, is not the rule of an elite or a party on behalf of the people: it is rule by the people, their actual running of society.

Capitalist production, in its endless search for profit, seeks to turn everything into a commodity. Only in this way can accumulation continuously expand. By releasing us from the tyranny of private ownership of the means of production, socialism makes it possible to reverse the trend for continuous growth, which is effectively driven by the competition between capitals for ever greater market share. It is plain that production will have to shift from being dominated by exchange—the path of the commodity—to that which is for use, that is for the direct meeting of human needs. Humanity can only flourish in circumstances in which the damage to nature that capital has wrought is overcome.

What is socialism? It’s a social system that guarantees for everyone what we’re not getting under capitalism: decent jobs, health care, education, a place to live, an end to invasions, wars and occupations. It’s possible to produce for people’s needs, not to profit the very, very rich few. People know in their bones that this economy can produce all these things and more. There’s an abundance of everything. Millions of empty housing units, enough for every homeless person! Plenty of land and food. High-tech factories not fulfilling their productive potential. Everything that workers need could easily be produced under socialism. We say that technology is so developed that everything can be produced in abundance with fewer and fewer workers. The technology is rapidly advancing everywhere. The whole world, which today has billions of people in poverty, could quickly satisfy all human needs under socialism.

The new society will be based not on exchange but on a natural self-sustaining economy where between production and consumption of products there will not be the market, buying and selling, but rationally planned organised distribution based on needs. The scale of the organisation must from the very beginning be world-wide or nearly so, in order that it may not be dependent in its production and consumption upon exchange with other countries which do not enter it. Experience shows that such dependence will immediately be converted into a means of destroying the new system. The type of organisation cannot be other than coordinated; not, however, in the sense of the old authoritarian centralism. For a real revolution it is not enough to replace the old boss with a new boss. If replacing one tyrant with another with a new lexicon constitutes “revolution,” then every U.S. election is a “revolution” equivalent to Lenin assuming power in Russia…and we’re back to the word “revolution” being meaningless. If you put a Trotsky goatee on the CEO and call him “comrade,” that doesn’t stop him from exploiting you. The oxen never plowed the field “for the good of the People.” The ox plowed the field under the weight of the yoke on its neck, under the threat of the lash on its back, and under the terror of starvation if it refused. Eliminating the position entirely is revolutionary. Anything less is reformist continuity with a reformist end result.

All reforms are transient and temporary and can be (will be) undone by counter-reforms. Thus, reformism is delusional in its belief it can offer any permanent solution. One could argue of course that the conditions of life for the average Cuban are much better under the Castro regime than under Batista’s dictatorship–and this is certainly true: Cuba has the highest literacy rate in the Western Hemisphere, more doctors per capital than any nation in the world, and a homelessness rate of virtually 0%. But, this is also irrelevant, as life for the average U.S. citizen was more comfortable under Clinton-Gore than under Reagan-Bush, but this does not qualify Clinton’s reformist election as a revolutionary. Also, such an argument opens the door for other comparisons: If the standard of living in capitalist Belgium is higher than in Cuba, does that make Belgium’s regime more “revolutionary”.

We stand for a system which will be world-wide, democratic, and based on a community of interest of the individual and society. Reformists do not stand for abundance, they stand for the restriction and waste. The Socialist Party holds that reformism has no value whatsoever. Individual reforms – that is legislation aimed at altering particular aspects of life under capitalism – may be to the advantage or disadvantage of the working class but as a policy such legal alterations are not "stepping stones to socialism" but the road to nowhere. Capitalism reformed is still capitalism. However beneficial (or otherwise as is now usually the case) individual reforms might be, the interest of the working class lies in overthrowing capitalism, not altering its workings.

For People, Peace, and the Planet - Not Profit

SOCIALISM - A BRIGHT IDEA

The failure of socialism to replace capitalism is perhaps the biggest tragedy of modern times. The failure has driven many millions to a state of disillusionment and demoralization and that has resulted in the rise of reactionary movements throughout the world. The roots of the failures are not the socialist ideas themselves but their distortion and corruption. So-called Communist and Socialist parties perverted the socialist idea, misinterpreting the meaning and manipulating its message for new rulers and leaders to defeat their opponents and to wrest control. With a near monopoly on news media and academia, they have successfully waged an ideological battle against what socialism really stood for. They use their revolutions and national liberation struggles to defend their lies and falsehoods denying the socialist tradition as “not really socialist” but unachievable utopian aspirations, discrediting the authentic voice of socialism.

All those academics and media intellectuals concur: Socialism is a dinosaur.  All of them will tell you socialism is extinct.  It didn't work, they say.  Anyone who imagines a different system of social organisation is an impractical dreamer. Capitalism is the best economic system possible.  They tell us that the market encourages efficiency through competition, creates an unequaled range of consumer goods, permits people to get ahead if they work hard, that capitalism respects the individual and promotes democracy.

If so then does the socialist idea keep returning? You can’t keep a good idea down. As much as they try to declare it dead, socialism keeps coming back again. Why? Because it is the best way to understand the insanity of a world governed by an unrelenting drive to profit, and it is a road-map to fight for a better world. We know that if we let capitalism run its course it will lead to ruin. 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.  As unrepentant socialists we want to share a different perspective with you. We maintain that capitalism, not socialism, is the dinosaur.  We seek to replace capitalism - which by its nature produces oppression and exploitation - with a new society, a new form of democracy confident in purpose and open to new ideas, vigorous and self-critical, free and cooperative, humanist and ecological. We seek to unleash the full potential of human ingenuity. We call that alternative socialism.

The task of Marxists around the world is to build a new socialist party that encompasses all the working class that must organise in their workplaces and communities to build the real revolutionary struggle against capitalism. By revolutionary 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. By fielding Socialist Party candidates in elections at all levels of office, we educate the public about socialism, agitate against the capitalist parties and advocate the politically independent organisation of working people. We need to clearly state our values even if they are considered “radical” and “not popular” with “public” opinion. By gliding toward the compromise and concession, we run the serious risk of moving farther away from where we want to be. Even those who only seek moderate reforms, it’s in their best interest to support those of us pushing for the creation of a movement for social change. If the activists have the goal for making a better world, they should be allowed the loudest and most recognised voices to denounce the continuation of our oppressive, repressive system than any who suggest collaboration and accommodation. In other words, those who point the need for revolutionary change shouldn't be asked to be silent. The effect would be that the ruling class will let bigger crumbs to fall off their table, they will offer larger slices of the pie to divert and disarm protest and resistance.

The challenge now is to expand solidarity and build toward radical change. Life is getting worse, not better. It’s the system which is our real enemy, not its particular sectors or individual actors. Capitalism is designed to profit a privileged few, not to nourish a humane, productive, sane civilization. Unbearable conditions are causing upheavals globally, and rulers are desperate to clamp down. Reforms under capitalism are temporary and the ruling class reverses them as soon as possible. It’s going to take a revolution to abolish this system. Crucial to protest and direct action is organisation. Capitalist barbarities are global and cooperation across borders vital. And the essential form of organisation to achieve that goal is the socialist party, which studies the lessons of history and dedicates itself to working-class capture of the state machine. Such a party’s arsenal of know-how and confidence is pivotal to building mutual solidarity across the world. The current ecological crisis results from the capitalist system, which places profits for a global ruling elite over people and the planet. It must therefore be confronted through a mass movement of working people around the world. The thirst for change runs deep.

We should be clear about what we don't mean by socialism.  Certain governments calling themselves socialist or communist distorted socialist theory offering the illusion that socialism could be constructed by insurrection or by gradually altering the government without winning mass support from the majority. Rather than persuade us that socialism is wrong we understand the prerequisites of building a socialist society better. Socialism offers the best hope for humanity.  We aren't idealists who think people can be made perfect. We simply think a society run by people themselves would, freed from both bosses and bureaucrats, be far more democratic and liberatory than capitalism ever has been. We think that a society constructed on upon the basic foundation that enhancement of life rather than the perpetuation of profit would stand the best chance of putting a halt to the environmental devastation now ravishing the globe. But we can't get there on our own. Although for many people the prospect of a revived socialist movement seems but a pipe dream, capitalism is showing its impracticality and obsolescence in a host of ways at this very moment.  A rebirth of socialism is possible, just as periods of calm in the past have been interrupted by resurgences of radicalism.  Socialism will only be worth the effort, though, if past socialist conduct is subjected to an unflinching criticism.  Many reservations that people have about socialism are the result of a perfectly healthy revulsion against the monstrosities which have masqueraded as "socialism" throughout much ofmodern history.  Around the world, states ruled by single parties and dictatorial autocrats draped themselves with the trappings of Marxism , minuscule groups announced themselves "the vanguard" of the working class, where the stifling of democratic norms was as " democratic centralism", supposedly crucial for political effectiveness. Others tried, with miserable results, to dispense with political parties and structured organisations in the belief that these automatically authoritarian and a tiny minority of self-styled direct-actionists have acted out infantile, self-indulgent acts of rage. While other workers organisations resorted to parliamentary lobbying and reformism that don't challenge people to act on their own behalf. The Socialist Party is confident that reflect the rejection of elitist, condescending, top-down politics and offer socialism from below, based on one central conviction: that human beings can construct a society without exploitation and oppression through, and only through, the maximum extension of democratic control, not only in the political-electoral arena but throughout economic and social life. Freedom will be won by people on their own, together, in collective and democratic action, firstly, organized for basic self-defence in the unions and in socialist parties for political action to expel the capitalist class from their position of state power.

Democratic planning and control of society, a social system not based upon profit or the power of a bureaucracy, will be exercised through participatory decision-making bodies, based on the shop-floor and workplace and extending to communities and then further afield.  A society not based upon profit or the power of a bureaucracy

Socialism will be a time for culture and imagination, relaxation and leisure, self-expression and education - would expand dramatically as social wealth is diverted from the obscene enrichment of a few toward the vast benefit of many.  People would be free to live and love without the prejudices and restrictions fostered by all exploitative systems.  When the social consequences of  production and manufacturing rise to the forefront of economic decision-making, as has never been the case in capitalism the environment will be integrated with economics.  Conserving and recycling resources, growing food naturally and organically, clean and efficient mass transportation - all are thwarted by the needs of today's agri-business, chemical and automobile industries.  Modern technology and science have created the potential for sustainable abundance, but only if reason and rationality is the basis for their use rather than profit and class greed.

The emancipation of humanity from capitalism will only come about when people act in their work-places and neighbourhoods on their own behalf. It cannot be achieved through any shortcut, though many have been tried. Socialist action does not rely upon the layers of intermediaries - professional politicians, union officials, and community “leaders” whose interests are distinct from and, in key ways, opposed to those of the working class. Paradoxically, reformism it's not the way to win reforms. We don't object to reformism because it advocates reforms, but because it has such a sorry record for obtaining them. Social gains can only be won through the militant collective action of working people and mass movements aiming at the democratic conquest of social power.  Without such pressure from below, the election of well-intentioned reformers is basically meaningless. In the absence of revolutionary politics, the aim of socialism can be sacrificed at crucial moments to the error of moderation. We have no callous desire to "bring the system down" by letting people starve, as is sometimes attributed to revolutionaries.  On the contrary, we aim to show people that by organising and struggling, they can win. 

Is all this talk about socialism and the working class old stale stuff, no longer appropriate for today?  Many on the left of the political spectrum have come to believe so. They argue that the hope for liberation is a romantic hopeless dream. They seek to focus on identity politics class such as race, gender, nationality and other such factors used to oppress us rather than class. Socialism won't solve your personal problems or bring you eternal peace. Nevertheless, the revolutionary potential of the working class has been demonstrated many times. Through debate and analysis, socialists help one another understand what's happening in the country and the world and how best to face the challenges working people confront. History is full of examples of workers’ struggles. Our political practice has to be conducive to better activism. The main reason to join a socialist organisation is work toward socialism. We constantly keep your eyes on the prize. Membership in a socialist group ought to complement your practical and theoretical work - not compete with your activism, drag you into sectarian irrelevance, or hold you prisoner to rigid schemes inappropriate to the world around you.

Alright for some

THERE was a boom in sales of £1million homes in Scotland just weeks before a new sales tax came into force. A total of 36 properties with a £1m price tag were sold in March – the highest number ever in a single month. It came before the Land and Building Transaction Tax replaced stamp duty on April 1. Two thirds of the £1m homes sold were in Edinburgh. There was also a spike in sales of properties over £400,000 in March, with 644 sales registered compared with 238 in the same month in 2014.

Estate agents Strutt & Parker, said: “The massive spike in both Edinburgh and Scotland in the month before LBTT saw the average sale price in Edinburgh rise to £280,000. It had not risen above £240,000 since 2008.”

Cynical Piece Of Underhand Work

The recent federal budget was presented as a reasonably benign affair but careful scrutiny reveals a massive move towards getting government out of all kinds of public services. Apart from the thousands of public service job cuts, the budget ended the National Council of Welfare that advises the government on poverty (ignore it and it will go away!); closed the National Aboriginal Health Centre; trimmed funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by $115 million; scrapped the National Roundtable on the environment; cut funding to Transport Canada that regulates airline safety; cut foreign aid and over 1 000 positions from the Canadian Border Services Agency; eliminated over 2 000 professionals and scientists who protect the safety of Canadians in the food, product testing, and environmental fields. It is a sly and cynical piece of underhand work, and the only way to deal with it is to eliminate capitalism altogether, and soon. John Ayers.

Our goal - the common good.

A SOCIALIST WORLD 

Capitalism 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 labour 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. The reason is that society is controlled by a small capitalist class that owns the industries and services that everyone depends on. The workers built and they operate all of those essential industries and services. However, they do not own and control them. They are the majority, but they have no voice in deciding what to produce or how much to produce. Their needs and desires count for nothing when those decisions are made. When that small group makes every important decision that affects the lives of the vast majority, it is called despotism.

Capitalism is an economic despotism, and like any other form of despotism, it spoils and corrupts everything that is good and decent. Look at what it done to us. Capitalism has twisted this great achievement of labour’s collective genius by causing wealth and power to collect in the hands of a few. Technology that could and should be used to lessen the need for arduous toil and to enhance our lives is used instead to eliminate jobs and increase exploitation. Poverty is as widespread as it has ever been. Wages go down even as productivity rises. Joblessness, homelessness, helplessness and despair are spreading. Economic insecurity and social breakdown place an unbearable strain on our families, our children and ourselves. Emotional stress, crime, prostitution, alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide, and many more signs of unhappiness and hopelessness, are on the rise.

Is this what we want? Is this what we have worked so hard to build? 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? Wouldn’t it be more 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? The workers can only rely on themselves to build a better world and free themselves through their own class conscious efforts.

People can apply their collective strength only through organisation. This means that the working class organising a political party of its own to speak out for social change, to explain the socialist to all workers, and to vote for the change they want. This is the non-violent method to declare the purpose in the open, and to mobilise themselves for the conquest of the capitalist state. With socialism all power to make social decisions will be vested in the people. Production will be carried out to satisfy the people’s wants. Every person will share in that abundance. The allocation of resources will be democratically planned by a society in full control of its productive forces. In socialist society, for the first time, the people will consciously direct their economic activity and democratically provide for their own well-being and security where the fruits of that labour will be available to all.

Production and distribution, together with modern communications and transportation, are much more complicated today and they form a web of connected parts that cuts across all arbitrary borders. National government based on territory is outdated. Nation states are redundant. We need a new form of worldwide administration that fits in with modern conditions. We need social democracy. WORLD SOCIALISM. 

Stagecoach

How did Stagecoach tell the workers at Cowdenbeath Bus Garage that their jobs were on the line?

They put up a poster making the announcement, then gave 150 photocopies to the employees. No letters, no meeting, no management briefing, no support.

Please show solidarity with and support for Unite brothers and sisters who will be out in Kelty and Lochgelly.

Where are their goals?

Only 10 of the 50 biggest employers in Scotland said they pay all staff working for them the living wage, according to the BBC.

The living wage is a voluntary hourly rate that is calculated according to the basic cost of living in the UK. At £7.85 an hour, it is 21% higher than the legally-set minimum wage of £6.50.

Most Scottish Premiership football clubs were paying some of their off-pitch staff less than the living wage. Celtic, in particular, has been pressed on why it has not introduced it. A group of fans lodged a resolution at the club's AGM last year, on behalf of shareholders, asking the club to implement the Living Wage. The chief executive of Celtic, Peter Lawwell, has a pay package worth nearly £1m a year.

Peter Kelly from the Poverty Alliance, which promotes the living wage, told the programme that the clubs needed to do more. He said: "It's really unacceptable, I mean we would say the same about the majority of businesses in any other sector not paying the living wage - we really think that they can. "These are clubs that are leaders very often in their communities. They need to be showing leadership in terms of pay as well, there's a lot more they could be doing."

ABERDEEN Rate starts at £6.50 although there is some progression. Below Living Wage

CELTIC The BBC was told Celtic employ their own staff for hospitality and pay them £6.70 an hour. Team member visited a Celtic FC club store on Argyle Street and discovered from an assistant manager and two store associates that they are paid just above minimum wage at £6.70 an hour. Below Living Wage

DUNDEE UNITED The BBC was told wages are "not far off minimum wage." Below Living Wage

HAMILTON Representative said work was at minimum wage (he guessed that at £6.51). Below Living Wage

MOTHERWELL Bar work sometimes available. The wage is between £6.58 and £7.00 - offered to take a CV. Below Living Wage

PARTICK THISTLE Partick Thistle confirmed bar work is minimum wage - happy to take a CV. Below Living Wage

ST JOHNSTONE Confirmed there are vacancies at minimum wage, paid hourly. Below Living Wage

Capitalism Is A Dangerous Business

While austerity measures and economic downturns may save money for the owning class, they are decidedly unhealthy for the working class. All over Europe suicides by economic circumstances are on the rise, especially in the fragile nations. In Greece, suicides increased 24% from 2007 to 2009, in Ireland by 16%, in Italy suicides rose from 123 in 2005 to 187 in 2010. Capitalism is a dangerous business. Time to make our lives safe! John Ayers.

Socialism is our vision

Socialism replaces a capitalist system that has served its purpose and no longer meets the needs and requirements of the people. The goals of socialist society is a life free of exploitation, insecurity, poverty; an end to unemployment, hunger and homelessness, an end to all forms of discrimination, prejudice and bigotry. Socialism is the creation of a truly humane and rationally planned society that will stimulate the fullest flowering of the human personality, creativity and talent. The apologists of capitalism hold that such goals are utopian; that people are inherently selfish, greedy and evil. Others argue that these goals can be fully realised under capitalism by reforms. The Socialist Party say that such goals can be realised only through a socialist society.

Why Socialism? Capitalism’s inherent laws - to maximise profit on the backs of the working class - give rise to the class struggle. History is a continuous story of people rising up against those who exploit and oppress them, to demand what's theirs. The ideals of justice and equality have inspired peoples for centuries. Socialists say that capitalism won't be around forever. Just like previous societies weren't around forever either. Slavery gave rise to feudalism and feudalism to capitalism. So, too, capitalism gives rise to socialism. Political and economic power would be in the hands of the people. It eliminates forever the power of the capitalist class to exploit and oppress the majority, replacing their control with the participation of the people which will harmonise the interests of all, ending all the conflicts arising from exploitation of workers, ending dog-eat-dog competition. Poverty will be ended quickly with the recovery of the vast resources now wasted in poverty will be ended quickly with the recovery of the vast resources now wasted in accumulation of profits and war production. With capitalism gone, crime will also begin to disappear, for it is the vicious profit system that corrupts people and breeds crime.

By what stretch of the imagination is capitalism really successful? Is it because this wonderful system has eliminated the scourge of war? Of nationalist hatred and neo-colonial exploitation? Of racial, gender, and class inequality? Is capitalism successful in Haiti? Or the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Actually, even in the midst of staggering poverty and failures of economic policy, for a privileged few it is. And that is the problem. Even in the best of times, capitalism really only works for a minority of people. This is how capitalism works. If you happen to be a capitalist it’s a charmed life. Indeed, even when things go bad, they turn out good.    

We say that it may be possible to bring socialism through peaceful means through the ballot box. One thing is clear, there won't be socialism until the majority of the people want it. Socialism is a vision winning more and more people because it is the next inevitable step up the ladder of human civilisation. Despite endless grounds for cynicism, there are reasons to be hopeful. In cities across the country now we are witnessing a rebirth of dissident activism, as tens of thousands protest the culture of institutionalised, sanctioned brutality shown by police and the criminal justice system. In many places we see examples of spirited, courageous resistance. If the future is not guaranteed, at least the fight is on. Our vision is of democratised workplaces and communities and for an end to the top-down, authoritarian capitalism. Our vision is of a world free of the scourge of militarism that torments modern life, and instead one in which the weapons of warfare have been transformed into the proverbial plough-shares of peace and prosperity. This is a socialist vision of a society guided by the deepest values of human solidarity, equality and concern for others, one that values the community over personal gain.

Given the nature of the capitalist system, unable to offer a better life to present and future generations there is little doubt that out of present turmoil and struggle new forces will emerge to create new ideas and new forms for building working class unity. We need to be open to learning as well as teaching when we discuss politics with others. After all, we are asking people to reconsider their most basic assumptions when they think about politics, and we should be committed to doing the same. We can choose to be part of the social discourse by helping to shape it and being shaped by it.

A great many regard nationalised property, government ownership under a State Central Plan, controlled by the “vanguard” Party, as socialism, or at least as the basis for a transition to socialism and many on the Left have been complicit in this crisis of socialist thought. They  have failed to articulate a liberatory alternative an immediate demand thus offering private- and state-capitalism the ideological room to dominate.  Is it now possible to make the vision of a new socialist society more concrete? According to critics, it is not viable, and instead we must continue with half-measures and palliatives. The pragmatists argue that to define the character of the new society is premature and can only be fixed by practice alone, in the course of trying to remake society. Those who believe that there can be no change in the foreseeable future will put up with almost any degree of suffering. One important reason why socialists reject utopian schemes is simply that they are not “utopian” enough and some are actually obsolete. People demand greaterdetail about socialism.  How do we satisfy this real movement from below?  Given the direction in which the peoples’ thinking is moving, hasn’t resistance to presenting a blueprint of what socialism may be like also become obsolete? Of course our basic tenet that working class liberation must self-emancipation means that the actual details about the nature of our future society is to be decided by the liberated working class itself, not by a clique of intellectuals. Andrew Kliman, a Marxist scholar, writes: 

“All proponents of workers’ self-emancipation agree that the policies of the future economy are to be decided upon by the working people themselves, but thinking simply cannot be shoehorned into the old problematic of “who decides?”  Once again, a well-meaning attempt to posit spontaneity as the absolute opposite of vanguardist elitism ends up by placing the entire burden of working out a liberatory alternative to capitalism on the backs of the masses.  And the newly liberated masses must somehow do this from scratch, having been deprived of the ability to learn from the theoretical achievements and mistakes of prior generations.”

He points out that there are limits to what can be worked out in advance.  In part, we face limits because we are the products of this society, not the new human beings that might emerge in a free society.  But this does not imply that concretization of the vision of the new society is a task that can be foisted onto future generations.  Because there are limits to how concretely the vision of the new society can be worked out in advance, we cannot give a blueprint for the future.  He then approvingly quotes Raya Dunayevskaya, “The fact that we cannot give a blueprint does not absolve us from the task. It only makes it more difficult.” 

Capitalism has no solutions

Socialism is a form of society in which the whole community owns the means of production—the land, factories, mills, mines, transport and all the means whereby wealth is created and distributed to the community. Socialism is also the name given to the body of thought which explains why the Socialist form of society is now a necessity, the forces upon which its achievement depends, the conditions under which and the methods whereby it can be achieved. Socialism stands for common ownership. Capitalism stands for private property. Socialism is a society without classes. Capitalism is divided into classes. Socialist society are diametrically opposite to those of capitalism. We can easily understand, therefore, why landlords, employers, financiers and the like are opposed to socialism. Their very existence are at stake. They do not merely reject the theory of socialism, but fight every movement which is in any way associated with the struggle for socialism.

For many, it is clear what we are fighting against but it can be harder to picture exactly what we are fighting for. In concrete terms, how might a new society work? In what way would our lives be affected? What will socialism look like? Socialists aren’t crystal-ball gazers. We cannot predict the future with absolute certainty and so we cannot say exactly what socialism will look like. Nonetheless it is still possible to make some deductions about what socialism will look like. We can make reasonable hypotheses about the future, based on the evidence from the present and the past, although this is not an exact science (just as a geologist cannot give the date and time of the next earthquake or volcano eruption), so socialists cannot predict exactly when a revolution will break out or the specific form that it will take. By looking at capitalist society we can see the potential for what a socialist society will look like. We can see the embryo of socialism within capitalism and by examining the contradictions and barriers that capitalism – a system of private ownership and production for profit – imposes on society, we can see what the potential for a future, socialist society might be; a society where these barriers are removed, and where production is instead run on the basis of human needs.

We are frequently told that capitalism is the most efficient of all economic systems – yet if this were the case, why would factories and offices lie idle and empty, despite being able to produce an abundance of goods and services that society needs? Profit stands in the way of distribution as well as production under capitalism. There is no reason fertile land in some regions could not be used to produce food to be distributed to people living in harsher environments. The only reason it is not done is because it is not profitable to do so, and because of the enormous barrier of the nation state, which prevents a genuinely worldwide solution from being implemented. Under capitalism, wasting food is preferable to feeding those who need it most.

It is said that competition is the secret to capitalist efficiency; but in reality competition leads to greater waste. For example, there is significant duplication of work between businesses performing similar functions – meaning that time and money is invested twice into the same things. Take supermarkets as an example: if food distribution were carried out by one organisation, then economies of scale would make the process cheaper and centralised planning would make it more efficient. Competition also forces companies to create needs for their particular products through advertising, the cost of which is passed onto the consumer. Trade secrets and intellectual property rights mean that the best ideas and innovations are not pursued as fully as they could be Instead of the world’s best and brightest minds being employed in tandem to produce the things that society needs, scientists, engineers, and designers are split up into different corporations and set against each other in competition, resulting in completely unnecessary duplication of effort and resources.

Socialists are often asked what will be the incentive to work in a socialist society. The incentive to work under capitalism takes the form of requiring people to work in order to earn money so that they can live their lives. This is why people demand the freedom to work – to be able to live. Socialism, by contrast, is about freedom from work. The incentive to work under socialism will be that we are working to build a society in which we will be free from the necessity of labour. This freedom could be won by the collective efforts of society to develop the economy and forces of production to such an extent that little human labour would be required to keep it moving, leaving us free to lead our lives however we like. Capitalists have a very narrow and incorrect conception of what motivates people to do things – they see it all as a question of money, despite the fact that there are many things that everyone does (hobbies etc.) which are motivated simply because we like doing them; things that develop us as people, give us a sense of purpose, and help us to form bonds with others.

Instead of alienating us from our work, socialism will gives us a real stake in the economy and in society, by giving us collective ownership over it. The work itself, not just the wages derived from it, will therefore have a more direct purpose and be clearly for our own benefit and the benefit of others around us, instead of for fat-cats in a far off boardroom.

Socialism means the end of a society in which human beings are oppressed and exploited by other human beings. It promises a system that is capable of developing the forces of production to such an extent that humans can stop destroying themselves and their planet, and instead begin to take conscious control of their own lives.

The Race To The Bottom

 Thomas Walkom writes in the Toronto Star that there has always been a tacit agreement in Canada that Canadians would welcome new immigrants as long as the government didn't use them to drive down wages. This is very shaky reasoning considering that Marx showed 150 years ago that the reserve army, including immigrants, is there to do just that, drive down wages. Walkom reports that even that agreement has been abandoned by the Harper government. Ottawa will now allow employers to pay temporary foreign workers less. Just who qualifies as a temporary worker is cause for stretching a point. By 2011, there were over 300 000 temporary foreign workers in Canada. What the government is saying, according to Walkom, is that if Canadians don't want to see jobs going to foreign workers they should quit whining and accept lower wages. Right! John Ayers.

Re-Learning Socialist Ideas

Mushrooms are valued as food and some types are considered delicacies. Many species of mushrooms are edible, but proper identification is essential to avoid illness and even death by consuming toxic toadstools. These look the same, they taste the same, but they can kill you. We’re all familiar with the fear-mongering that goes on when it comes to socialism and socialists deemed outside the “mainstream” politics. Usually politicians use the term socialism as a synonym to "dictatorship" and "totalitarianism". "Socialism" usually means "state control of the economy". But today there many countries in which there are some socialist features used and they are nor dictatorships nor totalitarian and do not have too much state control of the economy. Some on the libertarian right would say that the US has become socialist because workers in this country have 40-hour work week and a minimum wage. Most of the workers have some medical and dental benefits paid by their companies or business owners. Also all workers are guaranteed to have Social Security retirement income. The main question is still remains "How you can separate real socialism from pseudo-socialism?” The World Socialist Movement disagrees with anybody who can say that socialism has failed at the end of the 20^th century. How something what never existed can ever fail? Pseudo-socialism (Bolshevism) did fail but it is very important to know the difference between capitalism, pseudo-socialism and genuine socialism in the 21st century. There is a lot of misapprehension about socialism in the public mind, many of which are lingering relics from the past.

Socialism is the idea that each individual should have the means to live a life of dignity, without exception. Socialists think each person should have the means to develop to their full potential. It means a society focused on restoring ecosystems and promoting sustainable human development. It means a society based on ongoing, participatory democracy. It means people-power. Socialism means workers' democracy: workers make the decisions about what to produce and how to produce it. Liberated from the constraints of the profit system, creativity and innovation will explode. Nothing's too good for people.

For Marx, socialism is neither the transition to communism, nor the lower phase of communism. It is just communism, simple as that. In fact, Marx calls capitalism itself the ‘transitional point’ or ‘transitional phase’ to communism. For him socialism and communism are simply equivalent and alternative terms for the same society that he envisages for the post-capitalist epoch which he calls, in different texts, equivalently: communism, socialism, Republic of Labour, society of free and associated producers or simply Association, Cooperative Society, or (re)union of free individuals. Hence, what Marx says in one of his famous texts – Critique of the Gotha Programme – about the two stages of communism could as well apply to socialism undergoing the same two stages. To drive home our point that socialism and communism in Marx mean the same, and thereby to refute the uncritically accepted Bolshevik tradition of socialism being only the transition to communism, we can cite at least four of Marx’s texts where, referring to the future society after capital: Marx speaks exclusively of ‘socialism’ and does not mention ‘communism.’

It must be stressed that capitalist relations are not revolutionised within capitalism automatically even with all the requisite material conditions prepared by capital itself. It is the working class which is the active agent for eliminating capital and building the socialist society; the proletarian revolution is thus an act of self-emancipation: “The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves”.  Marx and Engels equally underline that “consciousness of the necessity of a profound revolution arises from the working class itself”. The starting point of the proletarian revolution is the conquest of political power by the proletariat – the rule of the “immense majority in the interest of the immense majority,” the “conquest of democracy”. This so-called ‘seizure of power’ by the proletariat does not immediately signify the victory of the revolution; it is only the “first step in the worker revolution”, which continues through a prolonged “period of revolutionary transformation” required for superseding the bourgeois social order.

Until capital totally disappears, the workers remain proletarians and the revolution continues, victorious though they are politically. “The superseding of the economical conditions of the slavery of labour by the conditions of free and associated labour can only be the progressive work of time,” and the “working class will have to pass through long struggles, through a series of historic processes transforming circumstances and men,” wrote Marx with reference to the victory of the  1871 Commune . Later he reminded Bakunin that even with the installation of proletarian rule “the classes and the old organization of society still do not disappear”. At the end of the process, with the disappearance of capital, the proletariat along with its “dictatorship” also disappears, leaving individuals as simple producers, and wage labour naturally vanishes. Classes disappear along with the state in its last form as proletarian power, and the society of free and associated producers – socialism – is inaugurated.

The outcome of the workers’ self-emancipatory revolution is the socialist society, an “associationof free individuals” – individuals neither personally dependent as in pre-capitalism nor objectively dependent as in capitalism – and there arises, for the first time, the “true” community where universally developed individuals dominate their own social relations. Correspondingly, the capitalist mode of production (CMP) yields place to the “associated mode of production” (AMP). With the disappearance of classes, there is also no state and hence no political power in the new society. We cited Marx above holding that with the victory of the proletarian revolution politics ceases to exist and socialism throws away its political cover.

Similarly, with the transformation of society’s production relations, its exchange relations – with nature as well as among individuals – are also transformed. Capital, driven by the logic of accumulation, seriously damages the environment and undermines the natural powers of the earth together with those of the human producer, the “twin fountains of all wealth”. In contrast, in the new society, freed from the mad drive for accumulation and with the unique goal of satisfying human needs, individuals rationally regulate their material exchanges with nature with the “least expenditure of force and carry on these exchanges in the conditions most worthy of and in fullest conformity with their human nature”  As regards the exchange relations among individuals, here the directly social character of production is presupposed and hence the commodity form of the products of labour and, therewith, exchange value ceases to exist. “Community” here is “posited before production”.  From the very inception of the new society as it has just come out of the womb of capital – Marx’s first phase of socialism – “producers do not exchange their products and as little does labour employed on these products appear as value”.

Capitalism continues to exist in the advanced capitalist countries through all its ups and downs, and “socialism” arose in societies marked by the dominance of pre-capitalism or backward capitalism therefore according to many writers Marx’s vision has simply proved to be wrong. Now, we have argued that this “socialism”  has nothing in common with the socialism as envisaged by Marx, that is, a society of free and associated individuals. There is a simple answer here based on Marx’s materialist conception of history (often inexactly called ‘historical materialism’): the absence of the material and the subjective conditions for the advent of a society of free and associated individuals. As regards the relatively backward regions, socially and economically, this should be clear. As to the societies of advanced capitalism, it seems, it has not yet exhausted all the possibilities of its creative potential. Particularly — and this is the most important consideration — the ‘greatest productive force’ — to use Marx’s term for the working class — has not yet come to a point where its great majority can no longer accept the system confronting them and are prepared to revolt, though the necessary process might be on the way.

Adapted from this article

 

Lesser or Greater Evil

 

The political commentator Jonathan Cook on the aftermath of the UK general election wrote:

“Just like the political parties, we have been captured by the 1%. We cannot imagine a different world, a different economic system, a different media landscape, because our intellectual horizons have been so totally restricted by the media conglomerates that control our newspapers, our TV and radio stations, the films we watch, the video games we play, the music we listen to. We are so imaginatively confined we cannot even see the narrow walls within which our minds are allowed to wander.” 

The “left” vote will always gravitate to the slightly less nasty party of capital, the lesser of two evils argument. No change is really possible because we can defer the choice to demand real change indefinitely. In fact, what actually happens is the political centre of gravity gradually shifts ever more to the right. It is dangerous to send any party the message that you have our vote no matter what. A man like Blair could destroy another nation, cause suffering on a scale unimaginable to most of us, and yet still claim the moral high ground because the alternative would be even worse. It is ironic that in the present situation, peoples’ anti-austerity hopes now lie with the pro-business, Murdoch supported Scottish nationalists with a policy of cutting corporation tax.

Some say: “People must take into account the real world. Small differences between the major candidates matter greatly to the outcomes for the most vulnerable people at home and abroad. Indifference towards that is callous.”

The small differences between the major parties are of zero interest to the public at large. People who are fed up with inequality, war, and environmental destruction should not hold their noses and vote Labour or Democrat in, not even in the marginal seats or the “swing states” where some leftists advocate doing that. Voters should be encouraged to support the candidate whose platform they agree with the most. Isn’t that what people are supposed to do in a democracy? Left candidates should offer voters that option anywhere they can get on the ballot. Of course an alternative party needs to build credibility in many ways including involvement in non-electoral campaigns. The Socialist Party often advocates spoiling the ballot or abstention.

Some on the left say “vote for Labour or the Democrats but then fight like hell against them”, but it takes time  for anything resembling a “fight the like hell” sentiment to materialise,  for it to sink in that the “lesser evil” really is nevertheless still evil, not simply “flawed”, “imperfect” or “compromised”.

If the left are going to be "pragmatic" If you are recommending people to vote Labour or Democrat, you doing so in the certain knowledge that a Labour or Democrat government is going to disappoint and that as result of that disappointment workers in the long run are almost certainly going to switch their allegiance back to the right.  Given the see saw nature of capitalist politics this is what invariably happens, does it not? Why not then just short circuit the whole lengthy expostion and simply say "Vote Tory!!”, “Vote Republican!!” Because, let’s face it, that is the long term consequence of voting Labour.  You are simply preparing the ground for the return of a future Tory government or Republican president in the wake of lesser evil’s inevitable failure. 

 Even if, for the sake of argument, a Labour government or Democrat President was marginally less harsh in its anti-working class policies in the short term,  it is still in effect a vote for the for the right-wing, the “greater evil”, in the long term, given the see-saw nature of capitalist politics. Invariably the election of one capitalist party to power leads to disenchantment and the subsequent diversion of political support to some political rival, only for the whole process to repeat itself again and again. The political rival gets into power and disappoints its followers who then switch their allegiance back to other one. It is a treadmill we are talking about here and the only way to deal with a treadmill is to get the hell off it. At some point you just have to draw a line in the sand and say "enough is enough". Otherwise you are liable to find yourself sucked into a quagmire with no way out with no end in sight. 

The Socialist Party campaign is issue-based - rather than candidate-based.

Only social ownership can tap into the new sources of energy and creativity which can eliminate the alienating nature of work and the desire to do one’s bit for the common good. Capitalism itself has provided the prerequisites that are essential for replacing production for profit. People  rightly object to the despotic pseudo-socialism which developed in the old Soviet Union. Humanity today faces a stark choice: socialism or barbarism. We need no more proof of the barbarity of capitalism, the parasitical system that exploits humanity and nature alike. Its sole motor is the imperative toward profit and thus the need for constant growth. Capitalism’s need for growth exists on every level, from the individual enterprise to the system as a whole. The insatiable hunger of corporations is facilitated by imperialist expansion in search of ever greater access to natural resources. The capitalist economic system cannot tolerate limits on growth; its constant need to expand will subvert any limits that might be imposed because to do so would require setting limits upon accumulation – an unacceptable option for a system predicated upon the rule: Grow or Die.

Rights Mean Nothing To The Management

 An article in The Toronto Star, March 4, called attention to the plight of non-unionized workers. A hotel worker had her part-time hours cut back to nothing for ten months in 2009 after she spoke at a rally in support of forming a union at her workplace, Novotel, in Mississauga. About a dozen other Novotel workers have been fired, disciplined, or had their working hours cut since 2008 when they began union organization. The fact that, legally, they had a right to unionize meant nothing to the management. It's like it was two hundred years ago when unionization began. This shows that nothing has changed in capitalism, which is an excellent reason to abolish it. John Ayers.

Stringent Rules

Roper, North Carolina has a population of 617, so there are few officials – just four, in fact, including a mayor who works for free, and its annual budget is $360 311. Roper's average annual family income is $20 600 or $2 000 below the poverty level for a family of four. When they can't pay their water bills, neighbour Dorenda Gatling turns it off. Some haul buckets from their neighbour's house but to prevent that, homes are sealed with yellow police tape to prevent entry. So the homeowners are waterless and homeless. In capitalism it's 'can't pay, can't have' no matter what the consequences are. John Ayers.