This is Real Socialism

"While theologians are disputing the existence of a hell elsewhere, we are on the way to realising it here: and if capitalism is to endure, whatever may become of men when they die, they will come into hell when they are born." – William Morris

Socialists reject the argument that the wealthy deserve their wealth because that wealth is created by the working class and wrongfully appropriated by the rich who benefit disproportionately from their unpaid labour. The socialist idea of revolution was always one of the vast majority of society seizing power from a tiny minority of capitalists for the common good of all. The goal of the Socialist Party is socialism and we argue for an authentic social revolution. The Socialist Party’s aim is a classless society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the industries and social services administered in the interests of all society. Production will be carried on for  use instead of profit and this revolutionary change can only be achieved through the class conscious action of the working class itself.

Socialists wish to replace the State with a society self-managed by the people, and replace capitalism with socialism. Socialism is a money-less system in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the workers and the people of the community, rather than by capitalists. The creation of a socialist society would mean that production would be carried out for human need, instead of for capitalist profit; and that every person would have access to that which is necessary for a happy life. In today’s world production is carried out to make money, not to provide for all the people with needs — this is why millions of people starve when there is plenty of food. The end of capitalism would mean the end of poverty, hunger and of economic strife between nations – the root cause of war. The capitalist economic system lies at the root of all of modern society's major social and economic problems. Abolish strife-breeding capitalism and those problems are either eradicated or left to die.

The Socialist Party has long contended that only socialism can solve the major social and economic problems plaguing our society today. But many people have been taught all their lives that "socialism" means the state-controlled system that once existed in the Soviet Union, exists today in China or Cuba, or bureaucratic state control of society in general. The socialism advocated by the Socialist Party, however, is completely different from the Soviet or Chinese systems, or any existing system. It has nothing to do with nationalisation, a welfare state or any kind of state ownership or control of industry whatsoever. On the contrary, it would give power not to the state, but to the people themselves, allowing collective control of their own economic future. Far from being a state-controlled society, socialism would be a society WITHOUT a state. Marx once said that "the existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery." Consonant with this truth, socialism would have administrations, but not a separate, coercive body standing above society itself -- a state. The people themselves, through the democratic associations of workers, would be the “government”. Far from being a bureaucratically controlled system, socialism would bring democracy -- the rule of the people -- to all parts of our lives

Socialism means a classless society. Unlike under capitalism, where a tiny minority owns the vast majority of wealth and the means of producing it, everyone would share equally in the ownership of all the means of production, and everyone able to do so would work. There wouldn't be separate classes of owners and workers. The economy would be administered by the workers themselves through democratic "associations of free and equal producers," as Marx described it. The people collectively would decide what they want produced and how they want it produced. The producers – the workers- would control their own workplaces and make the decisions governing their particular industry. As Engels once described it, socialism would be a system in "which every member of society will be enabled to participate not only in the production but also in the distribution of social wealth."

Socialism can only be built by a working-class majority in a developed, industrialised society. Without a majority and the ability to eliminate scarcity of needed goods and services, creation of a classless society will be impossible. In a socialist revolution, the industrially organized workers take possession of the means of production, abolish capitalist- class rule and supplant the state by the self-organisation of communities. The Socialist Party is needed to educate the working class and to recruit workers to the socialist cause.

Although no blueprint can possibly exist for what the workers themselves must ultimately build, socialism's general mode of operation can be broadly described. In every factory, every office and every workplace in socialist society, the workers themselves will meet in democratic assembly to determine their own workplace policies and elect committees to administer and supervise production. To administer production at higher levels, the workers will also elect delegates to local, regional and global councils of their respective industry but also to bodies  representing all other industries and services. This all-industry congress will ascertain what goods and services are wanted and will determine the resources needed to supply them. It will draw up the necessary plans to carry out production and allocate the resources. All persons elected to posts in this economic administration, at whatever level, will be subject to recall and removal whenever a majority of those who elected them deem it desirable. Instead of economic despotism, socialism means economic democracy. Instead of production for sale and the profit of a few, socialism means production to satisfy the human needs and wants of all. We all will be useful producers, working but a fraction of the time we are forced to work today. But we shall not only be useful producers, we shall all share equitably in the wealth we produce.

Under capitalism, improved methods and machinery of production kick workers out of jobs. Under socialism, such improvements will be blessings for the simple reason that they will increase the amount of wealth producible and make possible ever higher standards of living, while providing us with greater and greater leisure in which to enjoy them. With socialism, we shall produce everything we need and want in abundance under conditions best suited to our welfare, aiming for the highest quality with minimum harm to the environment, conservation and replacing our natural resources. We shall constantly strive to improve our methods and equipment in order to reduce the hours of work. We shall provide ourselves with the best of everything. It will be a society in which everyone will have the fullest opportunity to develop his or her individuality without sacrificing the blessings of cooperation. Freed from the compulsions of competition and the profit motive socialism will also be a society of peace. Socialist society will be a society of secure human beings, living in harmony with nature.

The world has the productive capacity to provide a high standard of living for all, to provide security and comfort for all, to create safe workplaces and clean industries. The only thing keeping us from reaching these goals is that the workers don't own and control that productive capacity; it is owned and controlled by a few who use it solely to profit themselves.

The poor die young

A MAN’S life expectancy in Scotland can vary by as much as 34 years depending on where in the country he was born. The astonishing gap — which is widening and is equivalent to almost half a man’s average lifespan — is revealed in a NHS report on the state of the nation’s health.

It shows a boy born in Whitehirst Park and Woodside in Kilwinning, North Ayrshire, a rural pocket of southwest Scotland, could expect to live to about 92, whereas a boy born in Greendykes and Niddrie Mains in Edinburgh is unlikely to live much beyond 58.

The Choice is Ours

In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels write “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles….a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes” The Marxist scholar Hal Draper explains this as “either a revolution that remakes society or the collapse of the old order to a lower level.” Engels restated this in his Anti-Duhring. He writes that the modern working class must make the socialist revolution or else face “…sinking to the level of a Chinese coolie,” while the bourgeoisie is “a class under whose leadership society is racing to ruin like a locomotive [with a] jammed safety-valve…” For the capitalist class, “…its own productive forces have grown beyond its control, and…are driving the whole of bourgeois society toward ruin, or revolution”. When the capitalist system turns most people into proletarians, “…it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution.” Socialist revolution is not inevitable. But if it is not made, society faces ruin and destruction, with the working class reduced to the level of the starving, super-exploited, Chinese workers of that time. Therefore the working class and its allies should consciously and deliberately decide to make the revolution. Rosa Luxemburg, said the alternatives were “socialism or barbarism.” Luxemburg wrote, “In relation to capitalism as a whole, that society’s objective development merely gives us the preconditions of a higher order of development, but that without our conscious interference, without the political struggle of the working class for a socialist transformation… [socialism will never] come about.” If capitalism is left to itself, continuing to operate blindly by its own laws, it will eventually collapse into barbarism. To prevent capitalist collapse and barbarism requires that the working class make a conscious decision to overthrow it and create a new society. Socialism is not a gift to be given to the working class. It must be fought for and won by the working class itself. There are many possible forms of catastrophe in which capitalism may end, and there are many different ways in which a revolution may happen. There are many possible concrete ways in which “socialism or barbarism” may become realised. Ruin or revolution!

As a system, capitalism creates the possibility of socialism. This includes a high level of productivity, higher than ever before in the history of humanity; the proletariat, a collective working class, trained in cooperation and joint action by the system itself, living in the centers of capital production, and international in scope. In many ways capitalism pushes the workers to move toward a new, cooperative, world order. It also has mechanisms for holding back the struggle, for dividing the workers into a million distinct groupings. The better-off workers may feel satisfied and conservative. The worse-off workers may become demoralized. But capitalism finally threatens the workers, and all who live under its sway, with catastrophe, mass destruction, and barbarism, and this also pushes the workers to overthrow it, to end it, and to build a better society. This will not happen inevitably. It is a matter of struggle, of consciousness, and of making a collective decision—of breaking with fatalism and mechanism. It requires the efforts of the big majority of workers and oppressed.

James Connolly once said "The day has passed for patching up the capitalist system, it must go." He also said “Our demands most moderate are – We only want the earth!” The danger of reformism is clear for all to see, with any social democratic or labour party that has ever been in existence being dragged always to the right by the flawed idea that by creating a catch-all broad front based on reforming capitalism, with socialism as some 'abstract' distant goal. Trying to create a mass movement of people united against austerity attacks is one that must be supported, however not providing a clear and detailed path towards a socialist society to that mass movement, and trying to convince them of socialism as a "long term aim" is a mistake. We don't need to wait until sometime in the future, the time has arrived. A party without a clear programme towards socialism will be mired in long term reformism. Socialists must have trust in the working class. In reality, it shows a lack of confidence in the socialist case.

Each day life itself is more and more forcefully presenting people with the question: capitalism or socialism? The Socialist Party says that socialism is the solution. The necessity for socialism arises, in the first place, from the struggle of the working class for emancipation from capitalist wage-slavery. In addition, it is only through socialism that society can overcome the chaos and crises of capitalism and bring the social relations between human beings in harmony with the productive forces and the level of social development. The change from capitalism to socialism is absolutely necessary in order to open the way for the all-around progress of humanity. From its very emergence, the working class has been locked in a struggle against capitalist exploitation and the capitalist class. Workers have won some victories in their economic and political battles but still the fundamental problem remains unresolved and the same issues come up again and again. The vast majority of the workers still live in a state of insecurity. Workers’ gains are again under attack as the capitalist government keeps stripping away vital welfare safety-nets. The root of the problem is precisely the capitalist system which, at its very foundation, is based on the exploitation of wage-labour. Under capitalism, society's means of production (the tools used to transform nature and satisfy the needs of human beings) are owned by a tiny percentage of the population. Thus the working class – the class whose labour produces all new values – is separated from the implements of labour and the workers have no way to secure a livelihood except by selling their labour-power, day in and day out, to the capitalist owners. The capitalists in turn exploit the labour of the workers, returning in wages only a small fraction of the new values created by the workers. Under capitalism, the living human labour of the workers is looked upon solely as a means for enriching the capitalist owners. Capitalism recognises the worker only as a beast to be exploited.

Anyone who thinks even for a minute about the enormous productive capacity of our planet cannot but ask: why with such modern means of production unable to guarantee the economic rights and well-being of the masses of people? Why is the curse of unemployment and the plague of falling wages and living standards undermining the lives of millions? Why, in a world with such modern medical facilities, do millions of people go without needed medical care?  The answer comes almost as soon as the questions are posed. It is the capitalist system which is holding back the vast productive forces at the disposal of our planet. Capitalism has failed the entire world.

The Land War

432 people own half of Scotland’s private land, ten per cent owned by 16 individuals or groups while 0.025 per cent of the population owns 67 per cent of Scotland’s rural land. In terms of distribution of ownership, Scotland is one of the most unequal countries in the world.

Dr Jim Hunter, historian and land reform expert, says:

“There’s nothing like that anywhere else in Europe, and the reason for that is based in history. If you go back a couple hundred years, the pattern of land ownership was very similar, it would have been roughly the same concentration across Europe – the difference is that other European countries have at various times in the last hundred years had sweeping land reforms, which has changed the pattern completely, sometimes in the shape of revolution, sometimes through legal or constitutional reform. In Denmark, for example, land ownership was reformed over 200 years ago before they had democracy – the monarchy decided to take land ownership away from the aristocracy and give it to its tenants, in an owner-occupier system.

He continues: “Land reform in Europe has almost always meant shifting ownership from the landowners – in Scotland, historically, aristocrats – to their tenants, though in Scotland the move has been more towards community ownership, which is quite different. The idea of reforming land ownership was started by the Tory government, then pushed on by the Labour-Lib Dem administration in Scotland, but interestingly, since the SNP took power, the steam has gone out of the reform. In fact up to now they’ve done nothing at all.” 

Have labour power, will travel

From the August 1997 issue of theSocialist Standard Inside a feudal, pre-industrial society it could be said of the majority of those who worked that they would live, work, marry, procreate and die within walking distance of the place in which they were born. Modern capitalism has changed all that. The needs of the market have torn asunder all the old social ties of community. Families are spread all over the world as workers desperate for employment seek to sell their labour power wherever possible. They enter into competition with resident workers and thus the seeds of suspicion and hatred are sewn. The driving force of capitalism is competition. Capitalist against capitalist for a bigger share of the product of labour. Worker against worker in the search for a job.It is into this desperate struggle for a job that various politicians spread the poison of nationalism and racism. This poison is world-wide. In France at the recent election, one-in-ten voted for the openly racist, anti-immigration National Front. Every European country has its adherents of the same political poison. In the United States of America various America-first groups scream abuse at Mexican and Central American immigrants. In Africa tens of thousands of refugees cross borders escaping the growing tribalism that mirrors the ethnic cleansing of eastern Europe. Everywhere you look modern capitalism presents the same awful tragedy of lives ruined by the obnoxious hatreds of xenophobia. Inhuman nature So widespread is this nationalistic nonsense that many defenders of capitalism can claim that it is an innate human trait. These people talk glibly about "human nature" when dealing with such horrors as Zaire or Serbia. Socialists do not share that view. Far from being innately murderous and competitive human existence itself was only possible because of a history of co-operation and tolerance. In order to survive in a hostile environment human beings had to be theuniquely social animal. We do not deny the existence of such horrors as Hiroshima or Buchenwald, but we know that these are the products of a property-based society that alienates and destroys all decency in its drive for more and more profit. The product of a Glasgow slum does not travel to a remote island in the South Atlantic to maim the slum product of Buenos Aires because of some genetic urge. Behind all these atrocities lies the capitalist imperatives of markets and sources of raw materials. A world to win It is but one of the many paradoxes of capitalism that it has shrunk the world only to divide society into smaller and smaller fragments. That it has progressed at breakneck speed in the fields of travel and communication yet it has divided and alienated us from our true humanity. Technically we can travel half-way round the world in a day, communicate instantly with almost anyone on the planet; and yet find ourselves artificially divided on the basis of differences of custom, language, diet, culture and skin colour. Capitalism is a frightening, hate-filled system that turns everyone's hand against everyone else. Inside socialism, where the whole Earth is the common property of the whole world's population, we will all be able to travel our planet to work wherever we desire, safe in the knowledge that our brothers and sisters will welcome us on whichever shore we land. That is the aim of the World Socialist Movement. Shouldn't it be yours? Richard Donnelly Glasgow Branch

Organising for a Better World

The Socialist Party position is often caricatured yet our goal is a society in which capitalist class oppression has been ended. And in which exploitation, oppression, all forms of discrimination, war, are all ended. We have a society in which there is no state. We have a society within which the resources, the wealth of society, are owned in common and managed democratically by society at large. For that to be achieved, the working class first of all has to get rid of the capitalist system; has to get rid of the private ownership of the means of production. It has to bring about the rule by the working class and that achievement has to be an act by the working class itself. The act of changing society, that revolutionary act, that transformative act by the working class is, in a sense, the most democratic act ever in history; it is the majority class in society acting in its own interests to change society for the benefit of all humanity, now and in the future.  So, the first thing is that the party has to be socialist, needs to understand what it is about, needs to have a clear understanding of its ultimate objective and needs to try to inspire millions and millions of people about that objective. What could be more inspiring than getting rid of poverty, getting rid of oppression, getting rid of the exploitation of the vast billions on the planet? It is a goal that could mobilise millions of people and it is one that we shouldn’t shy away from. It must be our aim to build a mass party. We cannot achieve the socialist transformation of society, without a party that comprises millions of people. Not small ‘revolutionary’ parties acting in their own name, their own interests, but a mass party. Because if the act of changing society is the act of the working class itself, then it can’t be achieved by an individual, an army or a generalissimo; it can’t be achieved by a small party, however good the Marxist of that small party might be. These could not carry out a democratic transformation. There will be social situations that will raise questions to which people will want answers and if the party is capable of giving answers to those questions then it will draw larger numbers of people to it. It will be a process of patience, of slow accumulation, of rapid accumulation and so on, by intervening in all of the struggles of the working class, whether in the workplace, in local communities or wherever they arise.

Some people think that by arguing for a party that sets its goal as being transformative of society, of ending capitalism, that somehow that is all it’s interested in is just abstract propaganda for some pie in the sky that you are not confronting the issues now. Nothing could be further from the truth. If we want to build the sort of party we have to involve ourselves in all the struggles of our class. We participate, as individual socialists, in all struggles to win concessions if we can, to stop attacks that make our situation worse. But we should always try to explain the link between the attacks that we are facing now with the general struggle being waged against us by the capitalist class that is an integral aspect of the present system of organising society. We should explain that if we want to end the constant, repetitive attacks on our class, then the only way to do that is to end the system that drives those attacks, that is, we need to end capitalism. We, as Marxists, explain that the austerity agenda, for instance, did not just come out of nowhere; it does not come out of the blue and it is not simply a matter of an ideological attack by some right-wing politician who are merely mean-spirited. What makes them carry out these attacks is the nature of capitalism itself. Capitalism now is generally not producing the same rate of profit as it did in earlier periods. This drives the capitalist class to find ways of restoring the rate of profit. This means intensifying the rate of exploitation and opening up public services to the private profit-seeking sector. This determination to restore the rate of profit drives the attacks on the working class in an attempt to take back gains that have been won in the past. We might achieve a reprieve but if we do then that reprieve can only be temporary because the capitalist class will be forced by the demands of the profit system to keep coming back and attacking our class because they have to make our class pay for their crisis of profitability. Our class is the sole generator of the surplus that makes their profit. We are returning, in a sense, to a more ‘normal’ form of capitalism that existed before the Second World War; a capitalism ‘red in tooth and claw’.

The question that The Socialist Party pose to our class is why do we tolerate this? Why do we accept the perpetuation of a system in which we work but they benefit? When we say ‘we’ we’re talking about the overwhelming majority in the world. There 7 billion population of whom the overwhelming number are toilers, workers or those who have to work to survive. Very, very few are those who own the means of production, who own the profit made by others. Surely, if you think about it in terms of those numbers, it would be a simple matter of turning the world upside down in a flick of a switch but, of course, it’s not that simple. The working class has the power to change society but it does not know it. It does not know how to use that power, or for what purpose.

Socialism is not won at the ballot box but when we, the people, working together, take over the means of production, deciding what to produce and how, and getting us all able to participate in the production and distribution of all goods and services we need and like to the degree any of us is able. The objective of socialism is that we're all able to enjoy the fruits of our labours. We know that we would require at most only a four hour work week and could afford ourselves the opportunity to enjoy our ability to provide for all, as well as to live most fulsome lives. The inevitability of capitalism's collapse is not an automatic process. Capitalism has to be overthrown. Work for these changes wherever you are. We certainly do in the Socialist Party. 

Capitalist Despotism or Socialist Freedom

We are the political party of the working class. This is so, despite our meagre membership because the Socialist Party is the sole protagonist of the principles that the working class must adopt if it is ever to achieve its complete emancipation from wage slavery and, at the same time, save society from catastrophe. The Socialist Party is the only organisation demanding the abolition of capitalism and advocating the socialist reconstruction of society. It has been doing so for over 100 years. It is, in short, the organisation through which the workers can establish their right to reorganise society. In the battle between capital and labour, one must take sides. The utopias of old, for all their limitations, fundamentally challenged the existing society. Across the centuries, utopian writers sought a different world rather than simply some institutional changes. Long before Marx, they insisted that a utopia that accepted private property—and therefore the existence of classes—as a given wasn’t worthy of the name. To-day’s radicals advocate alternatives that down-play the scale of economic transformation in the name of “getting real”, abandoning any project for system-change and futilely seek to cope with actual existing capitalism and the capitalist state. They underestimate the social power of capital every time they advance “pragmatic” demands which fail to see that the whole point is to liberate ourselves. Their so-called alternatives can only take us backwards.

The present system of industry is directly the cause of the many evils which now prey upon society. Under capitalism, the proceeds of labour go to the profits of the wealthy few. Socialism is workers' democracy. A truly democratic society should also be cooperative and democratically managed so that citizens can be active in the running of their workplaces as well as planning the direction of economic development. The product of labour power and natural resources of a society should be used in an ecologically compatible and sustainable manner for the benefit of all, including future generations. The capitalist system, which has profit as its only consideration, promotes and relies on unsustainable growth in population, expansion and consumption and does not take the needs of people or the planet into account. Capitalism denies the masses a just share of production or satisfying work. Capitalism invites competition, individualism and disparity; fraternity cannot prevail. With socialism, production is planned to meet human needs. Either the working class takes control of affairs out of the hands of the capitalist class, ends the system of capitalist private ownership, and rebuilds our society on the basis  of social ownership of the means of production, democratic management and  production for use; Or, as surely as night follows day, the capitalist system will lead us to barbarism.

The present system cannot be patched up. The Socialist Party calls upon the people to organise the co-operative commonwealth. We aim for a socialist society of solidarity where people respect mutually each other and cooperate for the common welfare. They do not exploit each other, they do not take advantage of society in pursuit of egoist aspirations. The struggle for the right to live in freedom and dignity is conducted all over the world. Across the world hundreds of millions live in submission; hundreds of millions know hunger. Despair must be turned into hope. The economy must serve the entire society and the welfare of all the members of the society. Common interest must always prevail. Freedom, equality, solidarity and peace belong to all, everywhere in the world. Socialism is based in natural human needs, wants, and human development. Socialist society will be fundamentally different in that the ownership and control of resources rests in the hands of the community. Control will devolve to the local community or workplace as expediently as is practical. Through planning and co-operation, private ownership of wealth and materialist accumulation would cease to be an economic stimulus. Everyone would be a worker and society would be the employer. Exploitation, or the capitalist command over the labour of others and the appropriation of non-labour income, would end with socialisation.

We seek to realise the implementation of an idea first articulated by Louis Blanc - "from each according ability, to each according needs" - requires a classless society where everyone is an employee of the community, enjoying custody over the means of production, and in pursuit of providing for every public need. Capitalism can neither be reformed nor legislated out of existence. Capitalism degrades the dignity of all people. Our vision of a free society includes the opportunity of each individual to reach their full potential in harmony with one another. Capitalism cannot exist without the exploitation of workers. The Socialist Party is the champion of equality, liberty and fraternity. The socialist conception of equality envisions a society free from class and hierarchy, bonded by an overriding fraternal spirit, and comprised of individuals equal in worth and potential. Equality cannot be exact, but any differences in power, wealth, status or acquired abilities would be marginal and socially acceptable.

The Socialist Party was founded to pursue a radical objective; to transfer political power from the privileged to the people.  The pursuit of this radical cause has always meant that we face opposition from the entrenched forces of the status quo. But that does not mean we shirk from the challenge of pursuing the great cause of our movement. We are socialists. And we are proud of that fact. It’s what keeps us from being just another political party peddling a panacea of palliatives. Socialism is everything we have ever stood for and it continues to define our mission for social and economic change. It’s what makes us truly the party of labour.

As it should and ought to be

Humanity has at last conquered scarcity and achieved abundance. Enough for all is too much for the Capitalists, who find that they cannot distribute plenty - at a profit. Of course they can't. Their remedy, therefore, is to stop the machinery, as they are doing and hereafter to control production to keep it well under human need and so maintain prices and profits. Post-scarcity may seem like something from a work of science fiction. But rapid advances in seldom-reported technologies, coupled with sociological forecasts of our transition towards a new kind of civilization, say otherwise. Take, for example, 3-D printing which may someday inspire the development of a nanotechnology “everything machine,” a perfect panacea to all scarcity and disequilibrium in the world economy. Imagine if people could make anything in the household? What need would there be? Today’s 3-D printers maybe crude compared with what is going to arrive in coming decades. Strides in nanotechnology and biotechnology could potentially move us away from a profit-oriented economy to a post-scarcity situation that fits the description of a socialist mode of production with maximal freedom. Nano and bio machines may someday be household appliances that can literally do anything we want of them, and so our capacity to help ourselves and our fellow man will be so high that “economics” itself will become an outdated word describing a concern of primitives. The idea of post-scarcity might seem fictitious still, but it is every bit as plausible as democratization of information and press power through the Internet would surely have seemed twenty years ago. Technology reports are worth reading in combination with political and social theory, because many developments in science and technology are making a post-scarcity world seem more and more possible every day.

The myth of scarcity has one purpose: to justify not sharing the social wealth. There is no evidence that society does not have, and never could have, sufficient resources to meet human needs. On the contrary, the resources spent on war alone could provide everyone in the world with a very good life. The myth of scarcity was invented to justify the growing gap between what is possible – a world of plenty for all – and what exists – fabulous wealth for a few and declining living standards for the rest. If production was directed to meeting human needs, instead of making profit, there would be no scarcity. When one need was filled, we would fill the next; and when all needs were filled, we would have leisure time for other pursuits.

In most nations, the production of wealth has consistently outpaced the growth of the populations that produce that wealth. However, capitalism is not about sharing. Because the means of producing wealth and the wealth produced are both privately owned, only a small elite benefit from rising productivity. Workers were promised that the new automated technology would raise productivity so high that people wouldn’t know what to do with all their leisure time. However, like the rise in wealth, the rise in leisure went only to the leisured class. Since the 1970s, the amount of time Americans spend on the job has risen steadily, and leisure time has declined by one-third. Workers have less time to sleep, eat and relate to their children. Overwork exists alongside chronic under-employment. Twenty percent of workers are unable to secure as many hours as they need to make ends meet.

Most of the world’s starving people live in nations that export food. In India, where more than half the children are malnourished, the government spends more to stockpile food than it does to feed the hungry. In the world’s richest nation, 40 million Americans have difficulty putting food on the table, while up to a third of all food produced is discarded. Over the past 30 years, food production has consistently outpaced population growth. The problem is not too many hungry bellies, but that food is sold for profit, and too many people can’t afford it. The same is true for medical care. There are not more people than can be cared for, but more people than can be cared for profitably. Because these truths cannot be admitted, social problems are blamed on over-population and too many people wanting too much. Sadly, many in the environmental movement have largely embraced the myth of over-population and creating a fear of human beings. In t seminal work, the 1962 book, ‘Silent Spring’, Rachel Carson rightly lays the blame of the destruction of the natural world where it deserves - on the “gods of profit and production” and a world “in which the right to make a dollar at any cost is seldom challenged.” The belief that social and environmental problems are caused by too many people persists, not because it is true, but because it serves the ruling class. The unpalatable truth – that capitalism builds wealth for the few by impoverishing the many and destroying their environment – cannot be acknowledged. To do so would be to admit that what is good for the capitalist class is bad for the world. The myth of scarcity is necessary to reconcile the obscenity of growing wealth alongside growing poverty.

According to the World Health Organization, 10 million children died in 2004 from largely preventable causes like malnutrition and infections. At least two million child deaths a year could be prevented by existing vaccines and most of the rest could be prevented by access to clean water, sanitation and other basic necessities. Nearly 1.3 billion people live in absolute poverty, and more than 15 million adults aged 20 to 64 die every year from preventable causes. The pro-capitalist lobby so to continue the rule of the few and the misery of the many is to obscure what would otherwise be obvious: that ordinary people create all of society’s wealth and deserve their share of it. The elite who rule society can never accept this account of the matter. If they did, they would have to abandon their system of private ownership and competition for profit. Because they cannot do this, they promote the myth of scarcity instead. The central concept of capitalism is the idea that there isn’t enough to go around. Hence we are confronted with the idea that there isn’t enough food, aren’t enough jobs, isn’t enough housing, or aren’t enough university places because there is a certain fixed amount of all these things. We then compete in the “market” where the victory of one person necessarily comes at the expense of someone else.

Historically, control over land has always been vital to the livelihoods of the world's poorest people. Lack of access to land not only denies people the ability to grow or to gather their own food: it is also excludes them from a source of power. Who controls the land -- and how they do so -- affects how land is used and to whom the benefits for its use accrue.

Highly-concentrated land ownership is now a feature of agriculture in both North and South. In the US, nearly half the country's farmland is held by just 124,000 corporations or individuals -- just four per cent of the total number of farm owners.

 In Guatemala, 65 per cent of the best agricultural land is owned by just two per cent of the population -- a figure that is not atypical for other countries in Central America.

In Brazil, a mere 340 of the largest landowners, many of whom are foreign-owned transnational companies, own more land than all the country's peasants put together. The 18 largest landowners own an area equivalent to that of The Netherlands, Portugal and Switzerland combined.

In the Philippines, five per cent of all families control 80 per cent of the agricultural land, despite seven land reform laws since 1933.

In the Philippines, about 72 per cent of rural households (three-fifths of the Philippine population) are landless or near-landless. Tenant farmers must contend with rents which account for between 25 and 90 per cent of their production costs. Usury at rates of 100 per cent in three months or 50 per cent in one month is common. Half of all those who make a living from agriculture are farm workers, often earning as little as $1 a day.

In Central America as a whole, small and medium-sized farms producing for local consumption and local sale represent about 94 per cent of existing farms but use only 9 per cent of the farmland. Meanwhile, 85 per cent of the best farmland is used to grow crops for export.

In Costa Rica, 55 per cent of all rural households are landless or near landless, whereas the cattle owned by 2,000 politically-powerful ranching families occupy more than half of the nation's arable, most fertile land. As in other countries throughout the region, smallholders have been pushed from their land into areas where soils are poor and prone to erosion.

In Guatemala, huge swathes of land owned by the biggest landlords -- an estimated 1.2 million hectares -- lie idle, either because the price of export crops is too low to justify planting or because the land is being held simply for speculation. Meanwhile, some 310,000 landless labourers over 20-years of age are without permanent employment.  A complicating factor is that ownership or continued access to land is not secure for many people. Some 22 per cent of farms in the country are held by squatters with limited rights.

Landlessness and poverty go hand-in-hand.

 Eight out of ten farmers in the Central America do not own enough land to sustain their families, forcing them to look for seasonal jobs.

 In Guatemala, government figures from the mid-1980s estimated that 86 per cent of families were living below the official poverty line, with 55 per cent classified as "extremely poor". Rates of malnutrition reflect these figures: a national survey in 1980 found that only 27 per cent of all children between six months and five years showed normal physical development, with 45 per cent showing moderate to severe retardation in their growth.

Land concentration in the Third World is not accidental . It has always been fiercely resisted, not least by popular movements demanding land redistribution. Imbalances of power, however, have enabled landowners to ensure that, by and large, land reform programmes have either been put on hold, subverted or short-lived. In other instances, they have been framed, not as a means of addressing insecurity of tenure, but as a means of replacing peasant systems of farming with industrialized agriculture. Some governments, in alliance with richer farmers and international development agencies, used "land reform" to appropriate land for the Green Revolution instead of freeing it up for peasant agriculture. The ultimate aim of such "reforms" was to transform Third World farming into "a dynamic productive sector" by extending export crop production and by drawing peasants still further into the cash economy where they were at a disadvantage.

The promotion of off-farm inputs -- chemical fertilizers, pesticides and improved seeds -- has forced farmers to buy what was previously free, in addition to locking them into a cycle of diminishing returns on fertilizers and increasing pesticide use. As a result, thousands of small farmers -- including those who had gained land under previous land reform programmes -- have fallen into debt and their land holdings bought up by richer neighbours. In South Korea, where the army was mobilized to rip up traditional varieties of rice and to compel farmers to plant Green Revolution varieties, the number of rural households in debt rose "from 76 per cent in 1971 to 90 per cent in 1983 and to an astounding 98 per cent in 1985." As a result, farmers have left the land in droves: 34,000 migrated to the cities in 1986, 41,000 in 1987 and 50,000 in 1988. Many of the farmers who remain have now abandoned the new varieties and are returning to planting traditional seeds.

Thus, for marginal groups of people, the promotion of Green Revolution technologies -- the hallmark of "efficient" farming -- has generated yet more scarcity of land and of food as the land becomes further concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Widespread ecological degradation has also followed the systematic undermining of ecologically-sound systems of agriculture and the adoption of Green Revolution techniques. Such degradation is now in itself a major cause of socially-generated scarcity. In the Sudan, for example, the combination of mechanized farming, monoculture growing and the search for quick profits has caused an estimated 17 million hectares of rain-fed arable land -- almost half the country's potential arable land -- to lose its topsoil. In central India, for example, the preferential diversion of limited groundwater supplies to richer farmers growing sugar cane and grapes has created severe water scarcity for poorer sections of the community. In many states, the mining of groundwater for commercial agriculture has led to ground-waters declining by 5-10 metres, generating a scarcity of water for subsistence farmers and villagers whose water demands (unlike those of large industrialized farms) are minimal. In the state of Maharastra, some 23,000 villages are now without water, while in Gujarat the figure is 64,500 villages. In such areas, access to water is increasingly restricted to those who can afford to deepen their wells regularly.

As land and water become increasingly degraded, and control over such resources increasingly concentrated, so the livelihoods of peasant farmers, the landless and the near-landless become increasingly precarious. No longer able to rely on growing their food, the vast majority have to buy their food. How much and what they get to eat depends on their ability to earn money or on the state's willingness to support them.

Discussions of population and food supply which leave out power relations will always mask the true nature of food scarcity -- who gets to eat and who doesn't -- and lead to "solutions" that are simplistic, technocratic, frequently oppressive and gender-blind -- all of which, ultimately, reinforce the very structures that create ecological damage and hunger. To reiterate: so long as one person has the power to deny food to another, even two people may be judged "too many".

Those committed to fighting for a better world should focus on the real cause of mass starvation and ecological crises: the capitalist system itself. If we got rid of the warped priorities of capitalist accumulation with all its gargantuan waste of resources, the environmental “footprint” of humanity, even with ten billion of us, would be far less than it currently is with seven. For a socialist society to succeed, abundance, rather than scarcity, must be the norm. The immense technological advances in production over the last couple centuries have made such a world feasible--a world based on Karl Marx's famous principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Socialism is based on the idea that we should use the vast resources of society to meet people’s needs. It seems so obvious--if people are hungry, they should be fed; if people are homeless, we should build homes for them; if people are sick, the best medical care should be available to them.

Adapted from here

James Maxton

Book Review from the August 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

"If it were not such a dreadful thing to say of anybody, I should say he meant well"

- The Way of All Flesh

A biography can be written in one of two ways. It may be an "objective" study, an attempt at critically assessing the man, his work and his place in history. On the other hand, it may be a personal piece—an extended obituary notice, wherein the author pays his tribute to the departed. John McNair's James Maxton, the Beloved Rebel (Allen and Unwin, 12s. 6d.) is unashamedly the latter: a chronicle and eulogy of a leader whose faults, if he had them, are allowed no place.

Maxton is presented as a man of deep, passionate sincerity, devoted to the welfare of the poor, earning the affection even of opponents by his integrity and his refusal to compromise. He opposed the two world wars which his Labour colleagues supported; in the first he was imprisoned, in the second he led the tiny I.L.P. group of M.P.s that constituted the permanent opposition to all war measures. Above all, Maxton is shown as a Socialist, aiming to abolish exploitation and misery, working for the unification of all interested parties towards that end.

The book is heavily—perhaps unavoidably—weighted with reference to Maxton's Scottish background: for example, the poverty of the working class seems, at any rate to this writer, to be made almost a regional affair. Nevertheless, it provides an informal, informative history of Labour politics from 1920. The growing Labour movement threw up men like Maxton, protesting against the degradation of the working class. From 1920 to 1939 there was never less than a million unemployed. Towns became derelict; children were born, grew up and married on the dole. "Ten million working men, women and children underfed, underclothed, badly housed at a time which was 'generally regarded as prosperous.'" (J. Kuczynski, A Short History of Labour Conditions in Great Britain).

Maxton's party, the I.L.P., supplied most of the Labour leaders of the "twenties"; of the 192 members in the first Labour Parliament, 120 belonged to the I.L.P. Describing itself—in the New Leader in 1923—as "the militant Socialist wing of the Labour Party" the I.L.P. pressed vigorously a "living wage policy" aimed at "a narrowing of the gulf that separates rich and poor." Mr. McNair makes much of this policy and its advocates, and thereby raises some awkward questions. It may be protested that his is a work of biography, not of political theory, but since much of the praise of Maxton rests on the policies he pursued, facts must be faced.

For the truth is that, however ardently Maxton spoke of Socialism and the abolition of poverty, he and his party had contracted for neither: the "wild men from the Clyde" were as dangerous to the Capitalist system as a pantomime lion to its audience. Leave aside, if you like, the economic aspects—for example, that Socialism has nothing to do with wages; leave that aside and consider merely that many of the men Maxton supported and Mr. McNair praises were avowed upholders of capitalism.

Thus, a whole chapter of the book is given to reporting Maxton's allegation of murder against the Tory Government for the malnutrition deaths of poor people's children, and his subsequent suspension from the House of Commons. But in 1924, when Labour was in office, Ramsay MacDonald—Prime Minister, a leader of the I.L.P.—told the House: "We are not going to diminish industrial capital in order to provide relief." There was no denunciation by Maxton, nor is there any reference by Mr. McNair. Again, John Wheatley is praised for his work on housing as Minister of Health in the first Labour Cabinet. But Wheatley himself made quite clear what his position was. Introducing his housing bill in 1924, he said:

"Labour does not propose to interfere with private enterprise in the building of houses . . . It says to the man with small capital: 'Instead of putting your private capital into a risky investment, lend it to the local authorities at 4½ per cent. Without your having any trouble at all you will get a safe return for your money . . . ' The Labour Party's programme on housing is not a Socialist programme at all."

What is more, he repeated it a week later:

"I notice that the Right Honourable member for Twickenham in criticizing my proposals the other day, said: 'This is real Socialism' . . . The proposals which I am submitting are real Capitalism½an attempt to patch up in the interests of humanity, a capitalist ordered society,"

Maxton's hope was that the Labour Party would become Socialist. In 1929, seeing his lack of an overall majority, he urged that it should attempt sweeping legislation on behalf of the workers; it would fail, of course, but then could turn to the electorate and ask for the mandate it would undoubtedly receive. Perhaps in that one incident is shown what Maxton really failed to perceive. All his life he had hopes in the Labour Party as the agent for emancipating the working class; he never saw that the Labour Party had never set out to that end—or, when he did see it, he hoped he was mistaken.

Maxton lacked, in fact, any clear-cut conception of Socialism, much as he talked about it. In 1928 he debated with the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and expressed his entire agreement with the case Fitzgerald put forward—adding that he appreciated also the Fabians and the Communist Party! He held that Socialism was a question of "human will and human intelligence," to be attained by any variety of possible means.

Indeed, the I.L.P.'s attitude to the Communist Party and to Russia comprises one of the more curious matters in the book. One might set aside Maxton's early co-operation with Gallacher, but McNair will not do so. He writes with undisguised sympathy for the Russian Revolution and the early Bolshevik Government, condemning the British Government's attitude towards it. The I.L.P. today condemns the Russian dictatorship as strongly as everyone else, but Mr. McNair does not explain the difference. Would it be too uncharitable to suggest that the I.L.P. was "taken in" by the illusion of Russian "Socialism" and can deal with its mistakes only by ignoring them?

Maxton's lack of understanding is made the more regrettable by his undoubted sincerity. He was a fine orator, commanding respect and sympathy, but his moral indignation against injustice was never supported by analysis of the real causes of that injustice. Those who followed him were impelled by the same emotional force that drove him: "beloved rebel" is an apt and proud title, but its pleasant emotional sound is the key to Maxton's weakness.

Much has been written in recent times about the "decline" of the Labour movement. The phrase lacks accuracy, since a decline implies a height previously reached. The Labour movement gained its strength from the hopes of working people: men were sent to Parliament who spoke fervently of their opposition to capitalism, inequality and privilege. Many of them, unlike the Tories and Liberals, were from the working class itself, had experienced poverty, knew the problems. When at last they came to govern with an unassailable majority, after the war, their policies gave birth to nothing; the real truth is that they had always been barren.

The I.L.P., a negligible force today, was nothing more in its strongest days. It stood for a benevolent capitalism, its leaders for the most part unaware that capitalism contained no seeds of benevolence. Only Maxton's idealism distinguishes him from the MacDonalds and Hendersons and Snowdens; had he attained parliamentary office, he would have been no more able than they to deserve the title of "beloved rebel," or even rebel. Perhaps the most pointed comment on all that Mr. McNair's book describes is contained in two recent death notices—David Kirkwood and George Buchanan. These, with Maxton, were firebrands among the "wild men" of the 1920s. They died reconciled to capitalism: the one titled, the other with his wildness tamed by service on the National Assistance Board.

Robert Barltrop  

Socialism is our hope

PRODUCTION FOR USE AND FREE ACCESS

Many say socialism will never work but exactly where on this planet is capitalism working except in the interests of the privileged few? Ask yourself “Is this is as good as it gets?” Pro-capitalist apologists for the system will often readily admit that capitalism is “far from perfect,” but as socialist society is utopian, capitalism remains not only practical, but the best system we could possibly have. The terms socialism and communism are also often associated with the murderous dictatorships set up by the Bolsheviks in Russia and later copied by their followers all over the world. Although these State socialists talked of creating a free and equal communist society, their authoritarian methods ensured that they ended up creating the opposite, a totalitarian nightmare. The revolution will not be made by a socialist party. The task is too complex to be accomplished by a minority. A free socialist society needs the active participation of millions of people. And crucially that participation can only happen voluntarily. Socialism cannot be imposed on the people. It has to be a voluntary libertarian process. It does not matters what term we use: we can speak of "communitarianism” and so forth; what matters is its content.

If we are serious about achieving new society, then we have to start about it now. It isn't going to fall from the sky. The longer we wait to begin acting for ourselves the longer it's going to be till we achieve our aim. Also many people are used to letting others run society for them. Sure they might get indignant over corruption or a particular war, but it's fair to say that their actual involvement in changing anything is pretty low. Much of the time we're powerless to control things in our lives and our apathy is understandable but it is a game changer when we, the people, get a taste of our collective power. Suddenly, politics become relevant in a way they never were before. The whole point of having a minority of brainy and benevolent leaders is that they will do the difficult work for you. As such it follows that you yourself don't need to change, to participate on an equal footing with everybody else, to think about why we need socialism, you don't need to get deeply involved in making it happen. This will be fatal for any revolution because the new society will face tough times. But if people have a good understanding of what they are fighting for and have made a deep personal commitment to achieving it, it's unlikely that they are going to let it go easily.

There is a common criticism of the Socialist Party that we just say we have to wait until socialism and then racism, sexism and homophobia will all disappear. But there's no way we will ever see a successful socialist revolution unless we fight against these oppressions in the here and now. Without presenting arguments against such prejudices and promoting sympathy and solidarity, scape-goating the disadvantaged and the vulnerable can appeal to people.  It's one of a time-honoured tried and tested strategies used by the ruling class to sow divisions between workers to keep us from blaming them. Mankind faces many challenges which are not a direct result of capitalism, yet cannot be solved because of capitalism’s peculiarities. Socialism does not automatically solve these issues, but rather it merely removes the barriers to solving them.

The system is capitalism. Under it a small minority rule in fact if not in name, and profit is the be-all and end-all of economic life; human needs come second—if at all. Freed from the clutches of the profit-gougers, the major industries must be brought under common ownership and the economy must be planned by the people themselves in their own areas of work. The profit system cannot make use of automation for the benefit of society; socialism will! The future society that will be constructed under socialism will reduce work to an insignificant part of daily life and offer the individual the fullest possibilities to pursue his own abilities and interests. Socialism is governed by a logic of humanism and solidarity aimed at satisfying human needs, rather than the pursuit of profit. For social wealth to satisfy the needs of everyone in the country, it is essential that the fundamental means of production are not monopolized by a few and used for their own benefit, but are collective, social ownership. But social ownership is not the same as state property. What happened in the Soviet Union and the countries that followed its example was not real ownership of the production process by the workers, but simply a nationalization of the means of production. The state become the legal owner of the means of production. They ceased to be owned by a few, to become property of the state supposedly representing the workers. However, the production process itself underwent very few changes: a big socialist factory differed little from its capitalist counterpart; workers continued to be a mere cog in the machine; they had little or no participation in decision-making at the work- place. This "state capitalism" retained the hierarchical organization of production; the manager had "dictatorial" power, and orders were transmitted from top to bottom. Workers need to take in their hands (appropriate) the production process and be involved in organizing it. Instead of feeling like one of many cogs in the wheel; they can contribute with their ideas and knowledge acquired through practice, combining thinking and doing, so that through work they reach their full development as social human beings.

If the means of production are to be socially owned -- and this means owned by all -- the products should satisfy the needs of the people, and the surpluses thus obtained cannot be monopolized only by one specific group of workers, but must be shared with the community. Who determines these needs? It must be the people themselves who define and prioritize, through a participatory planning process.

Socialism is all about producing abundance and worldwide, there is an abundance of resources to take care of everyone. As the American Trotskyist James Cannon explained:

“In the socialist society, when there is plenty and abundance for all, what will be the point in keeping account of each one's share, any more than in the distribution of food at a well-supplied family table? You don't keep books as to who eats how many pancakes for breakfast or how many pieces of bread for dinner. Nobody grabs when the table is laden. If you have a guest, you don't seize the first piece of meat for yourself, you pass the plate and ask him to help himself first.”

It’s Time Now To Demand True Freedom!

Boundless Possibilities  

Simply reiterating the slogan “another world is possible,” as occurs so often today, hardly adds up to a convincing vision of a society that points beyond the limits of both “free market” capitalism and the failed “socialist” regimes that once competed with it for world dominance. Why have so many movements stopped short of challenging capital itself, in favour of instead emphasizing relatively restricted social reforms and self-limiting revolutions? Socialists should take some responsibility for failing to providing a viable alternative to capitalism. The discontent with the many ills of existing society falls short of a serious challenge to the system as a whole.

A common cliché in regards to the writings of Karl Marx is that he had little to say about what might replace it. This is not quite true. For sure the technical details of socialist society or a comprehensive blueprint for such is missing but there has been more than one attempt to clarify the nature of the post-capitalist classless society, which Marx alternately labeled “socialism” or “communism” from what he actually wrote.

Raya Dunayevskaya wrote back in 1950, the important “opposition is not between ‘anarchy’ and ‘plan,’ but between the plan of the capitalist, which is always despotic in form, and the plan of freely associated labor, which is always cooperative.”

Socialism can be defined as the democratic management of society’s vital resources.  Socialists condemnation of capitalism is not be that promote excessive individualism. On the contrary: This market society is far from individualistic enough. We should ask: How liberating, for the individuals, is a world economy that plunges millions of people into unemployment and poverty? Is it out of consideration for the individuals that those who remain in waged labour are exposed to ever higher work pressures, enforced overtime or equally as damaging, contracts that cut hours? And what on earth has it got to do with individualism when the marketing and advertising business put billions of dollars into a most cynical manipulation and exploitation of the emotions and social insecurities of individuals?

Socialists assert that for us common people, increases in individual liberty has always been achieved through collective struggle. Personal sacrifices were made for a concrete, attainable goal of increased liberty and dignity for all individuals. The same holds true for the labour movement: The worker surrenders some part of his or her individual time and resources to the collective movement because this in return strengthens her or his position as an individual in a society dominated by capital. It holds true for any example of this enlightened form of self-interest we call solidarity. The unions and reform organisations fight to defend what already exists. To socialists, the welfare state is not sacred. But neither is it to be dismantled and privatised. But socialists fight for what does not yet exist.

Marx nowhere in any of his writings distinguishes between a socialist and a communist stage of history. Marx used the word socialism and communism completely interchangeably in his work. In his later work, Critique of the Gotha Program written at the very end of his life, for instance, Marx speaks of a lower and a higher phase of communism, the first, the lower phase, still bearing the birthmarks of the older society, where the higher phase does not bear those birthmarks. But the notion that socialism and communism are distinct stages in history, was alien to Marxist thought because he was really saying a lower and higher phase of socialism.

Marx never identified the dictatorship of the proletariat, a stage in which the working class assumes political control over society with socialism. For Marx the “dictatorship of the proletariat” refers not to “apolitical social relations of production” but to a political form that exists prior to the emergence of a socialist or communist society. He wrote in Critique of the Gotha Program “between capitalist and communist (or socialist) society there lies the period the revolutionary transformation from one into the other. Corresponding to this is the political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship or the proletariat."

Marx clearly refers to this dictatorship which meant to him NOT the dictatorship of the party on behalf of the workers, but rather the rule over society by the working class as a whole democratically. He explicitly says “this lies between capitalism and socialist or communist society.” The failure to distinguish between the political form of transition, between capitalism and socialism, from socialism itself, is extremely widespread in a lot of discussions on Marx and on contemporary issues, but it has no basis in Marx’s writings.

Nor did he refer to it as rule by a state at all in the conventional sense. For Marx and Engels, the most outstanding exemplar of the dictatorship of the proletariat was the Paris Commune of 1871, which “was a Revolution against the State itself, this supernaturalist abortion of society.” The dictatorship of the proletariat was for Marx a thoroughly expansive democratic form, which aspired for the “reabsorption of the State power by society.”

In a word, Marx understood the dictatorship of the proletariat as a political transitional form between capitalism and post-capitalism. It did not refer to a post-capitalist society. A socialist society would have no proletarian “dictatorship”—since with the abolition of classes the proletariat ceases to exist!

Marx left no room for a “transition” to socialism based on the principles of the old society. He conceived of a sharp break between capitalism and socialism.

Marx insisted that only “freely associated people” could put an end to the dominance of capital. Simply replacing the domination of the market by the state is no solution at all. Marx is explicit on this:

“The money system in its present form can be completely regulated … without the abandonment of the present social basis: indeed, while its contradictions, its antagonisms, the conflict of classes, etc. actually reach a higher degree….” This anticipation of state-capitalism that called itself socialism could not be clearer.

“Now if this assumption is made, the general character of labor would not be given to it only by exchange; its assumed communal character would determine participation in the products. The communal character of production would from the outset make the product into a communal, general one. The exchange initially occurring in production, which would not be an exchange of exchange values but of activities determined by communal needs and communal purposes, would include from the beginning the individual’s participation in the communal world of products […] labor would be posited as general labor prior to exchange, i.e., the exchange of products would not in any way be the medium mediating the participation of the individual in general production. Mediation of course has to take place.”

Here, Marx contends that labor in a new society would be radically different than in capitalism, where discrete acts of individual labor are connected to one another (or are made general) through the act of commodity exchange. In a new society, labor becomes general (or social) prior to the exchange of products, on the basis of the “the communal character of production” itself. The community distributes the elements of production according to the individuals’ needs instead of being governed by social forms that operate independently of their deliberation. Marx was not referring to the existence of small, isolated communities that operate in a world dominated by value production. He never adhered to the notion that socialism was possible in one country, let alone one locale. He was pointing instead to a communal network of associations in which value production has been superseded on a systemic level. Moreover, while exchange of some sort would exist in a new society, it would be radically different than what prevails in capitalism, which is governed by the exchange of commodities. Instead of being based on exchange values, prices, or markets, distribution would be governed by an exchange of activities that are “determined by communal needs and communal purposes.” People are no longer controlled by the economic mechanism; the economic mechanism is instead controlled by the people. Marx is envisioning a totally new kind of social mediation, one that is direct instead of indirect.

Within the collective society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products. Marx is not describing a higher phase of socialism or communism, in which “from each according to their ability, from each according to their needs” prevails. He is describing the lower phase of socialism or communism, “just as it emerges from capitalist society, which is in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. And yet even here, at this defective stage of a new society, there is no value production. Indeed, he even says that as of this initial phase “the producers do not exchange their products.” Marx’s is not suggesting that the operative principle of the lower phase of socialism or communism is “from each according to their ability, to each according to their work.” No such formulation appears either in the Critique of the Gotha Program or in any of Marx’s work. Marx’s concept of socialism or communism is based on the abolition of wage labor, capital and value production. The workers are not “paid” according to whether or not their labor conforms to some invariable standard over which they have no control.

Marx gave us an inspiring vision of the future we're fighting for. The more attractive that vision, the more others will wish to join us in the struggle. We have been trained to obey those with money and power, and where it seems natural to spend many hours a day being bossed around while doing labor that others have defined as necessary for profits. We have also been blessed with the traditions of movements that have taken over workplaces and neighborhoods and, in one way or another. It will be the working people of the world who will have to develop ways to make decisions, ways to work together, and ways to protect ourselves and everyone from the damages that capitalism will have created. Given our different histories and different geographical areas plus varying make-ups of the working class, we will have different conceptions of our immediate needs and interests, and of which problems it is most urgent to solve. We will also disagree over the best ways to organize decision-making at workplaces, in localities, and globally. All these disagreements will lead to political disputes within the working-class that we hope and expect will become the united in solidarity across the world. If successful, we will create a world of freely associated labor where we decide what use values need to be produced, make them available to those who need or want them, and do this in an environmentally sustainable way in which we find ways to enjoy our lives and fulfill our potentials through actions that are sociable and helpful to ourselves and others as well.

Socialist Standard No.1330 June 2015

• Editorial: The Aftermath
• Pathfinders: Post-election Blues
• Letter: Who's Spreading Confusion?
• Halo Halo! Pope Francis and the Devil
• Cooking the Books: Marx and the SNP
• Material World: Indigenous Suicides
• Greasy Pole: Wandering in Wolverhampton
• Hype and Hypocrisy – the Magna Carta
• Stressed Out
• ‘Bandh’ Strikes: Not the Answer
• Complicity
• Party News: Our Election Campaign
• Cooking the Books: Property Poverty
• Mixed Media: Bowie's Piano Man
• Book Reviews: 'An Alternative Labour History - Worker Control and Workplace Democracy,' & ' Towards A Science of Belief Systems'
• Silk Roads, Old and New
• Proper Gander: ‘I Love The Smell Of Rubbish In The Morning’
• 50 Years Ago: Where We Stand
• Action Replay: The Big Fight
• Voice From the Back
• Cartoon: Free Lunch