Russia's capitalists (1985)

Russia's capitalists (1985)

Book Review from the November 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

What is the nature of the ruling class in Russia? Who are they and what is the basis of their power and wealth? Obviously, the answers to these questions cannot be found by simply comparing the Russian rulers with the capitalist class in the west. For example, no one in Russia has legal title to any of the factories, mines, mills, transport and communications systems, and to underline this there is an absence of shareholding and stock exchanges. Nevertheless, there is a social class there whose members live privileged lives in comparison with the vast majority of Russian people. Indeed, the higher ranks of this class enjoy luxurious lifestyles and have an army of servants to look after their every comfort.

How can all this be in a supposedly “socialist" society and how does this privileged class get its wealth if not from legal ownership? These questions, and many more, are dealt with by a dissident Russian scholar, Michael Voslensky, in his book Nomenklatura - Anatomy of the Soviet Ruling Class, published by The Bodley Head (£12.95). This book was first published in German but the English edition has been brought right up to date to include the periods in office of both Andropov and Chernenko.

Nomenklatura is a Latin word meaning an index of names. A more meaningful definition is contained in Structures of the Party, a manual of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union:

The Nomenklatura is a list of the highest positions, the candidates for these positions are examined by the various party committees, recommended and confirmed. These Nomenklatura party committee members can be relieved of their positions only by authorisation of their committees. Persons elevated to the Nomenklatura are those in key positions (p 2).

Anyone admitted to this magic circle is issued with a document confirming his or her exalted status and membership is virtually guaranteed for life.

Voslensky, who now lives in the west, was himself an important figure in Russia and writes with insight about his subject. He identifies the Nomenklatura as the secretaries and heads of departments and divisions of the Communist Party, Komsomol (communist youth) and trade unions; the central committees of those organisations at both national level and in the various republics; the heads of state administration and their deputies at national and republic levels plus a host of representatives of the state security services, the armed forces, the KGB, the diplomatic services, education, science, industry and agriculture. According to Voslensky the Nomenklatura totals about 750,000 and together with their families at around 3 million, or 1½ per cent of the population. So it is only those who have reached a certain rung on the Communist Party ladder who can become members, and even the international fame and personal wealth of such as writers, artists and film stars do not gain them admission.

Even if we could not put our finger on the exact point in the Communist Party set-up where someone becomes a member of the Nomenklatura, this need not concern us any more than what is the exact amount of capital someone in Britain must have invested before becoming a member of the capitalist class - is it £100,000 or £1 million? The undeniable fact is that despite any grey areas there is a capitalist class in this country which, because of its legal ownership, monopolises the means of production and distribution. Similarly there is a class in Russia, the Nomenklatura, which, because of its monopoly of political power, does exactly the same there.

Voslensky argues that the Nomenklatura are in fact the collective owning class in Russia. He points out that ownership does not have to be by individuals with legal title and cites the nationalised industries in the west where the state undertakes their management on behalf of the national capitalist class. If those industries show a profit then the capitalists will get their “dividend” in the form of tax cuts or of not having to pay tax increases to finance them. At the very least they will get industries which, even if not profitable, they can use to service the enterprises they themselves own. The capitalists in this case own not as individuals but collectively, as a class.

And collective ownership exists not only in nationalised industries. The Roman Catholic church owns vast wealth in property, investments, art treasures, etc, but no individuals, not even the Pope, have legal title to any of it. This wealth is owned collectively by the church hierarchy who use it to protect and extend their power and influence and, incidentally, to live very well, but none of them could, for instance, sell St Peter’s. Any such decision would have to be taken collectively because that is the basis of their ownership.

It is the same with the Nomenklatura. They own as a class and the state manages the production of wealth on their behalf. Their pay-out comes in the form of inflated salaries, the free use of luxury apartments, Black Sea villas, country houses (dachas), more or less free food, free use of cars and many other perks. Also, many of them are allotted more than one official post and receive a separate salary for each. This may not compare with the huge incomes of some western capitalists but, what the Nomenklatura get is a fortune to the average Russian.

Of course the top ranking members of this class do have incomes on the scale of western capitalists. How else can we view the disclosure that a district committee first secretary paid 192,000 roubles (about 160 years’ pay for the average Russian worker) into his wife’s bank account? Moreover, they have an open account at the state bank which allows them to draw out any money they require. Even western capitalists cannot do that. Those at the very top have no need to touch their salaries as everyone at this level simply lives at the state's expense. Stalin’s daughter, Svetlana, recalled how her father never touched his wages: “The drawers of his desk . . . were full of these sealed envelopes" (p 231). And yet the Nomenklatura denies its own existence as a class of exploiters and try to pass themselves off as “workers”.

This personal wealth is only a fraction of the surplus value which the Nomenklatura robs from the Russian workers. The entire state apparatus which keeps them in power is financed from this source. The armed forces, the arms industry and the spy and espionage systems which are used to protect their interests from the threat of their international rivals, the massive police force, prisons, labour camps, courts, militia, phony trade unions, all of which are employed in keeping the workers in line, are paid for from the proceeds of this robbery.

One significant similarity the Nomenklatura has with the capitalist class in the west is that it endeavours to hand on its privileges to its children. Although it is true that membership is not hereditary in any legal sense, in a practical sense it may as well be. Voslensky gives several examples of how the children of the Nomenklatura are as good as guaranteed important, well paid positions irrespective of their personal abilities and concludes that although entry to the Nomenklaturacan be obtained by ordinary careerists, "... the chance of entering it by that route are becoming more and more restricted, while the royal road of birth is more and more frequently used” (p 102).

The most important difference between the Russian rulers and the western capitalists is explained by Voslensky.

What matters to the Nomenklatura is not property but power. The bourgeoisie is a class of power owners and is the ruling class as a consequence of that. With the Nomenklatura it is the other way around; it is the ruling class and that makes it the property owning class. Capitalist magnates share their wealth with no one, but gladly share power with professional politicians. Nomenklaturists take care not to share the slightest degree of power with anyone. The head of a department in the Central Committee apparatus never objects to an academician’s or a writer’s having more money or worldly goods than he, but he will never allow either to disobey his orders, (p 72)

So, in the west it is money which is paramount. In Russia what counts is power of which privilege is the proof. This explains why the Nomenklatura apparently have no wish to actually own a dacha. What is more prized is having a state-owned dacha made available to them. That is a sign that they have really arrived, and to actually own a dacha is considered to be bad form.

On occasion Voslensky reveals a sound grasp of the theories of Karl Marx. For example, he approvingly quotes an old Bolshevik ruefully explaining to him, as a schoolboy, why Russia was not ripe for the socialist revolution.

You and your friends, Misha, would like to be airmen or arctic explorers, but with the best will in the world it is impossible because you are still children, and you can no more skip your age than I, unfortunately, can become a schoolboy again. It is not we who determine the various stages of our life, it is those various stages that determine us. And that is true not only of individual human beings, it also applies to human beings in general, to human society. Could Russia or any other country at the same stage of social development, by a mere act of will take a single leap that would put it ahead of the most advanced countries? Marx said it could not and it was obvious (p 15).

He denounces Leninism as not Marxist at all but merely “. . . a strategy and tactics for the seizure of power decked out in Marxist slogans” (p 289) and goes on to pour scorn on the idea that the Nomenklatura are Marxists - "Marx would have turned away in disgust from the system they have established” (p 290).

Voslensky’s own conception of socialist/ communist would seem to be the same as our own, for he says

I believe the idea of a classless communist society as a free association of producers of material and intellectual goods to be a fine one (p 347).

Against this he shows some weakness on Marx’s theory of surplus value, confusing surplus labour - which is present in any society - with surplus value, which is produced under the specific conditions of capitalism’s commodity production. He also shows a certain naiveness in stating that government ministers in the west "live on their pay, just like other people”, and that their wives do the cooking and housework themselves (p 178)!

We can easily forgive Voslensky’s slips. By throwing more light on Russia’s rulers and by highlighting the class divided nature of Russian society together with its repressive state, his valuable book is surely one more nail in the coffin of the idea that socialism or communism exists in that tortured land.

Vic Vanni

Glasgow Br.

You Can Never Be Secure

If you think things could not get worse, economically, just reflect on these three cheering captions from the Toronto Star of December 30 - "Dupont will cut 1,700 jobs in its home state of Delaware and thousands more globally as it prepares for its merger with Dow Chemical", "If the trans-Pacific Partnership is ratified in 2016 it could lead to the loss of 20,000 jobs in Canada",. Those who think they have a secure job aren't getting off lightly, either. The University of Guelph's food institute said that with rising food costs and the sinking loonie, the average household in Canada will see an increase of $345 on their grocery expenditure in 2016. So, Crappy New Year, everybody. 

There is no such thing as security for the worker in capitalism where profit trumps people every time.

 John Ayers.

Lunatics Rule

Another of capitalism's wonderful necessities is war. 

The New York Times book review of the Iran-Iraq conflict of the 1980s ("The Iran-Iraq War" by Peter Razoux) tells us that the eight-year conflict killed one million people. In one brief offensive in 1983, the Iranians are believed to have sustained 7,000 dead; thousands of men were electrocuted while wading across a swamp; Saddam Hussein sacrificed a whole battalion to test out a new nerve gas; the Ayatollah Khomeini ordered a southern Iraq city to be 'a Persian Stalingrad'; Hussein commissioned a toy company to manufacture gold-colored plastic keys that children could wear around their necks "as a reminder that their detonation by mines or slaughter by machine gun fire would unlock the gates of paradise." 

 Clearly we are still in a very primitive state when lunatics like this can command and rule a country. Only a social and political revolution will rid the world of this type of behaviour.

 John Ayers.

who owns scotland

It has been claimed that 432 private land owners - 0.008% of the Scottish population - owned 50% of the private land in rural Scotland in 2012.

Scottish children and inequality

 Scottish children suffer some of the highest rates of health and social inequality in Europe and North America, new research has found. The World Health Organisation Europe (WHO) Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study found Scottish boys showed the highest level of inequality for multiple health complaints. Scottish girls have above average levels of inequality in regards to the same health complaints but also face more pressure from schoolwork than most others.

The report, which was led by academics at the University of St Andrews, presents new data on adolescent health, health behaviours and social determinants from 42 countries. It found young people in Scotland from the least affluent households (lowest 20%) report poorer results on a number of health indicators than those from the most affluent households (highest 20%).

As well as inequality with regards health complaints, the findings found Scottish boys showed the highest level of inequality for taking part in moderate physical activity and tobacco and cannabis use. Scottish girls showed the highest levels of inequality for ease of communication with their fathers and 15-year olds were more likely to report multiple health complaints compared to the average. The proportion of 15-year olds in Scotland who report feeling ‘some’ or ‘a lot’ of schoolwork pressure was shown to be increasing. In 2014, Scottish 15-year olds ranked 2nd out of 41 countries on this measure.

While the prevalence of drunkenness among 15-year olds has been on a downward trajectory since 1998, Scotland remains one of the countries with the highest prevalence in this age group of around one third. Alcohol consumption is one of the few topics in the HBSC survey for which there are no socioeconomic differences in Scotland.

Dr Inchley, deputy director of the Child and Adolescent Health Research Unit based at St Andrews, said:  “Particularly concerning is the increase in school-related stress which may be contributing to poorer mental wellbeing especially among 15 year old girls. It is essential that we look at ways of providing support to young people to help them navigate the challenges they face during adolescence.”

Jamie Hepburn, minister for sport, health improvement and mental health, said although there were some positive findings, particularly with regards to 11-year-olds, the government acknowledged Scotland does face problems.

“We recognise that there are deeply ingrained health inequalities in Scotland - something which has existed for generations and which will not be solved overnight,” he said.

"At its root this is an issue of income inequality - and we need a shift in emphasis from dealing with the consequences to tackling the underlying causes, such as ending poverty, fair wages, supporting families and improving our physical and social environments…”

http://thirdforcenews.org.uk/tfn-news/scots-children-face-some-of-the-worst-health-inequalities-in-europe

Socialism - Real Liberty for Everybody

 “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” ― William Paley

Private ownership of the means of production and distribution is responsible for the ever-increasing uncertainty of livelihood and the poverty and misery of the workers, and it divides society into two hostile classes — the capitalists and wage workers. The once powerful middleclass is rapidly disappearing in the mill of completion. The struggle is now between the capitalist class and the working class. The possession of the means of livelihood givers to the capitalists the control of government, the press, the pulpit, and to schools, and enables them to reduce working people to a state of intellectual, physical, and social inferiority, political subservience, and virtual slavery. The economic interests of the capitalist class dominate our entire social system; the lives of the working class are recklessly sacrificed for profit, wars are fomented between nations, indiscriminate slaughter is encouraged, and the destruction of whole races is sanctioned in order that the capitalists may extend their commercial dominion abroad and enhance their supremacy at home. But the same economic causes which developed capitalism are leading to socialism, which will abolish both the capitalist class and the class of wage workers. And the active force in bringing about this new and higher order of society is the working class. All other classes, despite their apparent or actual conflicts, are alike interested in the upholding of the system of private ownership of the instruments of wealth production. The Conservatives, the Labour Party, the other bourgeois ownership parties such as the nationalists, which do not stand for the complete overthrow of the capitalist system of production, are alike political representatives of the capitalist class. The workers can most effectively act as a class in their struggle against the collective powers of capitalism by constituting themselves into a political party, distinct from and opposed to all parties formed by the propertied classes.

Working people have been impoverished. Poverty is necessitated by an economic system based upon individual ownership of the means of production and distribution utilised for exchange and private profit. It is fully understood that low wages, long hours, and scarcity of employment — that is, poverty — can only disappear with the disappearance of the capitalist system of which these things are the inevitable outcome. Political parties, like individuals, act from motives of self-interest. The platform of a party is simply the political expression of the economic interests of the class it represents. The Tory Party differs from the Labour Party as the manufacturing capitalist differs from the large financier capitalist; it is a difference in degree only. We find by an examination of their manifestoes that substantially the same statements are made. Both the Tories and Labourites are in favour of competition, the existing system. They condemn its anti-social tendencies, its fraud, but they still favour the system itself. Corporations are organised purely for private profit; the rights of the corporations to exploit the working class and exact tribute from the people are to be respected.

The Socialist Party differs from them both as the exploited wage worker differs from his or her exploiter; the difference here is not in degree but in kind. The Labour and Conservative parties are in favour of the private ownership of the means of production and distribution. They are in favor of the existing wage system. There is absolutely no difference between them. Upon the other hand, the Socialist Party, standing upon principle declaring in favour of common ownership of the means of production, declaring to the world that there is no other solution of this economic problem. The Socialist Party will do whatever it can to hasten to coming of the day when war shall curse this earth no more. We are pressing forward step by step until the minority becomes the majority, and inaugurates the system of the cooperative commonwealth. We ask you to join and cast your lot with socialism to stand side by side with us. It is infinitely better to vote for economic freedom and fail than to vote for continued wage slavery and succeed. Cooperative industry carried forward in the interest of all the people that is socialism. Real liberty for every human being on earth; no person compelled to depend on the arbitrary will of another for the right or opportunity to create enough to supply his or her material wants. There will still be competition among men; but it will not be for bread, it will be to excel in good works. Every person will work for the society in which he or lives, and society will work in the interests of those who compose it. We look into the future with absolute confidence we will enjoy a land without a master, a land without a slave.

The trades union movement and independent political action are the emancipating factors of the wage working class. The trade union movement is the natural result of capitalist production and represents the economic side of the working class movement. We consider it the duty of socialists to join the unions of their respective trades and occupations to assist in building up and unifying the labour organizations. We recognize that trade unions are by historical necessity organized on neutral grounds, as far as political affiliation is concerned. We call the attention of the trade unionists to the fact that the class struggle so nobly waged by the trade union forces today, while it may result in lessening the exploitation of labour, can never abolish that exploitation. The exploitation of labour will only come to an end when society takes possession of all the means of production for the benefit of all the people. It is the responsibility of every trade unionist to realise the necessity of independent political action on socialist lines, to join the Socialist Party and assist in building upon a strong political movement of the wage-working class, whose aim and object must be the abolition of wage slavery and the establishment of a cooperative commonwealth, based on the common ownership of all the means of production and distribution

Welcome to the Class War

The socialist movement is as wide as the world, and its mission is to win the world — the whole world. The world the socialist movement is to win from capitalism will be filled with wealth for all to have and to enjoy in its abundance. The worst in socialism will be better than the best in capitalism. And why not? Nothing is so easily produced as wealth. The earth is one vast mass of raw materials. The era of invention and technological transformation has brought us to this common point of view. With the advent of socialism the machine has come to free, and not to enslave; to save, and not to destroy. To realise this great social ideal is a work of education and organisation. The working class must be aroused. They must be made to hear the call of solidarity. When enough have become socialists — a new power will be in control! The people! For the first time in history the working class will be free and no class will be in subjection. Democratic and Republican, Labour and Tory, politicians sneer at us because we are “idealists.” Socialism is defined by ourselves as the common ownership of the social means of production and distribution. It is the name given to the next stage of civilisation, if civilisation is to survive. This class struggle will not, cannot cease. It is simply the manifestation of the law of development and evolution. Through all the centuries of the past man has enslaved and preyed upon his fellow being. For thousands of years there has been masters and slaves. Today we have employers and wage slaves. It is now the task of workers to dispossess the small possessing class in the name of the whole people. To accomplish this where all men and women have the ballot, political organisation is an absolute necessity, and hence the organization of the Socialist Party to represent the interests of the working class. The prevailing economic system can only be abolished in two ways; namely, by securing control of the state machine or by violent revolution. No sane person prefers violent to peaceful measures, and hence socialists rely upon the efficacy of a united class-conscious ballot to accomplish their end.

We have two nations in every country. One nation is very large in number, but poorly-fed, poorly-educated, and suffering from overwork and misery; the other nation is tiny in number, but over-fed, degenerate from too much luxury and too much idleness. Some day in the near future the hungry millions will turn against the sated few. A fearful retribution will be enacted on the capitalist class as a class — and the innocent will suffer with the guilty. Such a revolution will  throw back the human race into barbarism. Socialists do not want to destroy but to build anew and we do not intend for humanity to regress to the dark days of the middle ages. But as long as the means of production — land, machinery, raw materials, transport, communications and media remain private property of the comparatively few such will be the case. There is but one deliverance from the rule of the capitalist — and that is the rule by the people. The Socialist Party is the only party that is or can be truly representative of the interests of the working class, the only class essential to society and the class that is destined ultimately to succeed to political power, “not for the purpose of governing men,” in the words of Engels, but “to administer things.” The present form of government based solely upon private property in the means of production is wholly coercive; in socialism it will be purely administrative. The only vital function of the present government is to keep the exploited class in subjection by their exploiters. The owning class is necessarily the ruling class. It dictates legislation and in case of doubt or controversy has it construed to its own interest.

 Economic freedom can result only from common ownership, and upon this vital principle the Socialist Party differs diametrically from every other party. The Socialist Party is a class party and frankly admits that a political organization is but an expression of class interest. The Socialist Party therefore exists for the sole purpose of representing the producers, that is to say, the working class. Seeing clearly the age-long struggle between the producers of the world’s necessities and the parasites upon their backs, the Marxian philosophy of the historic “class struggle” is the foundation of its propaganda and organization work. The Socialist Party did not create class lines or class distinctions. Whoever or whatever is to blame for the situation, there is no controverting the fact that The world is divided into two well defined groups: first, a very large number workers in mines, factories and fields; second, a comparatively small group who own and control those mines, mills, factories and land. Between private ownership and common ownership there can be no compromise. You might as well try to harmonise fire and water. One produces for profit, the other for use. One produces millionaires and beggars, the other equals. One gives us palaces and hovels, robes and rags, the other will secure to every man and woman their full product of his or her toil, abolish class rule, wipe out class distinction, secure the peace of society, and make of this world an earthly paradise.

The Socialist Party with its clear cut understanding of the class struggle is the political expression of the dispossessed class and holds out hope of liberation and for a place beneath the sun. An enlightened and class-conscious working class will be satisfied with nothing less than the common ownership and democratic management of the means and instruments of production and distribution.

Crime figures

• Almost three quarters of the 688,000 crimes committed in Scotland last year were related to property.
  
  
  Vandalism accounted for 26%; vehicle theft 6%; personal theft not including robbery 15% and housebreaking represented 3%.
• people's perception that they could be a victim of crime continues to be higher than the actual risk - for example nearly 4% of people fear their vehicle being stolen while the risk is 0.1%

Unsolvable In Capitalisml

We are frequently seeing an advertisement on TV to boost membership in C.A.R.P. (Canadian Association of Retired Persons). The ad shows an old man faced with a terrible dilemma – he has to choose between buying food or the medicine he needs. CARP may protest this situation vigorously but it would be insane to think they can solve the guy's problem. 

Under capitalism, only money counts, human needs do not. Let's work for a society where food and medicine and other needs are freely available to all.

 John Ayers.

Lunatic Economy

Here's another marker of capitalism – the same issue of the paper reported on Donald Trump and his former debt. In 1991, Trump had $900 million in personal liabilities and his corporate debt ran into the billions. The New York Times noted, "Having billions of dollars of debt is a powerful bargaining chip." 

One could only say that in a lunatic economy! 

John Ayers.

Pimping for Capitalism

"I love my country too much to be a nationalist" - Albert Camus

It is rare to meet anyone whose world view is not framed by nationalism in one way or another. This is hardly surprising. The world is constructed on national lines: nation states, national languages, national education systems and national laws. And from a very early age, we are taught about our shared national culture and encouraged to embrace “national identity”. We reflexively support “our” country, “our” military, “our” national sporting teams. Nationalism is not a coherent argument. Nor could it be, because, while the sentiment is in part a reflection of how the world is structured, its purpose is to obscure, rather than clarify, the nature of society.

“National interest” and “European unity” are disguises donned by various vying groups of capitalists in order to lead the workers to abandon resolute defense of their own interests.  The working class has no interest in strengthening its own class enemy whether it is those defending “national sovereignty” or those who call for a stronger European “superstate”. Virtually every political party, regardless of ideological stripe, has to varying degrees been complicit in the closing of minds. Even the Left, can maintain a deafening silence when unpopular views and ideas are under attack. Nationalism is the natural enemy of dissent. Nationalist thinking lies at the heart of the difficulties in managing the migration crisis. Nationalism is an outdated idea, a relic from bygone times. We are living in a globalised age, where collaboration between people across the geographies is what’s helping us solve problems of poverty and disease etc. The evolution of human civilisation is about discovering that there is more to the world than what our ancestors believed. In such a context, we should be looking for ways to connect through concepts of shared values, rather than shared national identity. We need to look beyond our borders to allow a free flow of ideas, no matter how much they offends some people and as long as they don’t call for violence. We need to shed the idea of nationalism.

We have a Hungary whose Prime Minister says he intends to build an “illiberal state,” a Czech President who attends anti-Muslim rallies with the far right, a Polish leadership that declares the media should do the government’s bidding, and a Slovak neo-nazi prime minister. There has been an upswing in xenophobic rhetoric and oligarchs are capturing politics and media. In Czech politics is the rise of Andrej Babiš, the second richest man in the country. He founded his own political party ANO in 2011, “to fight corruption and other ills in the country’s political system.” He is now Finance Minister in the coalition government and bought a significant percentage of Czech media. There are worrying trends in Germany too. Launched at the end of 2014, the social movement “Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the West” (Pegida), quickly gained momentum, especially in its birthplace of Dresden and other east German cities such as Leipzig. Pegida’s demonstrations against the perceived Islamisation of Germany, have attracted tens of thousands of protestors. Pegida especially benefited from the refugee crisis, but wasn’t the only far-right movement to do so: the right-wing populist “Alternative for Germany” has now become the third most popular party in the country, and will likely enter the Bundestag after the federal elections in 2017.

Nationalism should be placed alongside a range of other taken-for-granted capitalist ideas. It is part of the reflection in people’s consciousnesses of the experience of living in a capitalist world. Just as living under capitalism makes the great mass of people take for granted that commodity production, alienated wage labour and competition are more common than co-operation, so it makes them take for granted the necessity of the nation state. And nationalist consciousness makes sense so long as they do not challenge the system as a whole. As the rich of every country get richer, they are forcing a race to the bottom on the rest of us. Everywhere, workers are being told to expect less, not more, to work harder and longer with fewer social protections and a continually eroded welfare state. The super-wealthyhave constructed their own way of life that excludes workers. Those at the top – whether Chinese, US or British capitalists, top government bureaucrats from poor African states or Middle Eastern oil sheiks – stay in the same international hotels, enjoy meals from the same top restaurants, live in similarly fortified gated palatial estates and send their children to elite private schools where they mix with others of the same class background. At the same time, workers around the world today more than ever share similar conditions of life: tempos of work, patterns of consumption, forms of recreation and leisure, increasingly cut across the old national barriers. Struggles between workers and bosses in one country often combine with struggles in other countries.

If we want to overcome the real divisions between rich and poor, we need to break down the invented divisions between peoples across the globe. Marx and Engels recognised that “working men have no country” and it was a call for overcoming division and uniting working people across borders. No one would suggest that this is an easy task. But all workers have an interest in adopting this spirit, rather than succumbing to nationalist arguments. Working people often will find that their views accord with those of other workers of different nationalities around the world. Starving people could be fed by mobilising the world’s extensive transport networks to get the 1.3 billion tonnes of food that are produced each year to those who need it. There is no technological or logistical barrier to this: every day McDonalds already supplies millions of Big Macs and fries to its 35,000 outlets in 118 countries without too much trouble. But because there’s no money to be made in getting food to poor people, it doesn’t happen. In terms of climate change sufficient wind farms and solar panels to supply the world’s energy needs. These could be built in a matter of months if there was the political will. Poverty could be alleviated without too much trouble in a socialist society. We need to resurrect Marx and Engels’ call to arms: “Workers of all countries unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!”

Introducing the Socialist Party (short version)

Socialism is common-sense

Commodity prices wobble and economic disaster looms. We have been here before, if we could but remember. We are not the first – or the last – to feel that market is beyond our ken and beyond our control but which shape the realities of our daily lives. We live in an impoverished age. Not only a relative and extreme material poverty but a poverty of ideas, a poverty of possibilities. We need to exert democratic control over the complex economic activity that governs our lives. Poverty is almost like a prison, where freedom of choice is heavily constrained, surveillance and monitoring is endless, social services’ red-tape directs daily life, “professionals” act with authoritarian condescension and criminal anti-social behaviour and criminal fraud being assumed. Many see people in poverty and seek to try to help. Others, though, see people suffering from poverty and seek to profit. Making money off poor people is a booming business.

Members of the Socialist Party are “commoners”, advocates for common ownership of the means of production and distribution such as factories and transport. We seek the democratic association of society, based on the self-organisation of people. Our perspective is the view of human society that is for the shared good – a commonwealth – which we shall shape together to satisfy our needs. However, at present, humanity seems to be very distant from this aspiration. The Socialist Party is a democratic organisation of people united on certain basic beliefs. The Socialist Party has always held that the widest possible discussion of conflicting views is desirable. Our case for socialism is based on the proposition that the socialist-conscious working class, once they want to change society, are capable of establishing a Socialist system and running it without any orders from above. In other words, will run society without leaders, bosses, managers or any Party claiming to speak for them or represent "their interests". Socialism means no more elitism. The view that workers can only learn the futility of reformism or the limitations of trade unionism by their own personal experience is not one we fully concur with. We point out that by far the greater part of what people knew came from being taught the experiences of others. Of course, strictly speaking this learning is also experience. The task of the Socialist Party is to see that hearing or reading the socialist case is part of workers’ experience. It is not just experience of factory life (after all many workers do not work in factories), but of generally having to live on a wage or salary and all the problems which lack of money brings in housing, education, health, transport and the rest. It is their general social experience, rather than their narrow experience at the point of production, that can bring workers to a socialist understanding.

The idea of socialism as a solution to working class problems arises out of capitalism partly because it is the solution and partly because people’s experience of capitalism teaches them that it is. The role of a socialist party, at the present time, is to put socialist ideas before the working class to ensure that hearing the socialist ease is a part of their experience. This is our participation, as a party, in the class struggle. Later a socialist party will be the instrument which the working class can use to win power for socialism and will disappear as soon as socialism has been established.

Members of the Socialist Party, as workers, are engaged in the day-to-day struggle to live under capitalism. They could not avoid this even if they wanted to. In so far as this struggle is organised our members are active mainly in the trade unions but also in unofficial workers committees, tenants associations and  environmental anti-pollution groups. We see it as having the practical aim of protecting workers’ living and working conditions under capitalism. The effectiveness of this struggle, we might add, is limited not only by the economic workings of capitalism but also by the ideas of the workers involved (which is why the spread of socialist ideas, in which we are engaged, helps the day-to-day struggle.) If we are to appreciate how the revolution in ideas (a necessary precondition of the social revolution) will occur, we must first rid ourselves of the simplistic fallacy that people change their minds only when they burn their fingers.

Under capitalism production is not just a technical question; it is also a question of exploitation. Thus, in varying proportions, a manager’s function is partly technical and partly disciplinary (“order-giving”, as some put it). In socialist society production will just be a technical question; there will be no “discipline”. Work will be voluntary and democratically-controlled — though of course we cannot now give a blueprint of the way this will be done. The division between “order-givers” and “order-takers” arises out of the capitalist exploitation of the workers through the wages system. This is why genuine democratic control of work demands the abolition of the market and working for wages. To retain these is to retain the same economic pressures on the workers even if exercised through a workers’ management committee rather than a capitalist-appointed manager.

Socialists are hardened by now to meeting the opinion that the system of production for profit is essentially sane and efficient. The opposite is true. Capitalism wastes its wealth and its abilities. The profit motive cannot work efficiently. Capitalism cannot cater for the needs of its people. It produces waste and it produces want and both are profitable only to the minority who hold positions of privilege. This is now a world of potential plenty. Yet all but a few are deprived in some way and many starve. Common sense would suggest that, to take full advantage of this world-wide productive system, it should be owned and controlled as a unit. That it should belong in common to all mankind and be controlled by them for their own benefit. But of course, this is not so. The means and instruments for producing wealth are not owned in common by us all. They are the property of a few. Nor are they used to make what we need. They are used to make things to be sold. This is what is behind the paradox of waste amidst want.

The truth about Trump

In this race for the White House, Trump, the billionaire, is the candidate who reminds us that money has the magical power of turning things into their opposites. 

“Gold! Yellow, glittering, precious gold”, can, as Shakespeare said, “make black, white; foul, fair; wrong, right; base, noble; old, young; coward, valiant.” 

The person without artistic taste can buy and hang pictures in his mansion, or put them in a safety vault, while the creator and the genuine appreciator cannot view or enjoy them. 

The meanest scoundrel can purchase admiration from sycophants while worthy individuals go scorned and unnoticed. 

Under capitalism, where everything enters the field of exchange and becomes the object of buying and selling, a man’s worth comes to be estimated, not by his really praiseworthy abilities or actions, but by his bank account. A man is “worth” what he owns and a millionaire is “worth” incomparably more than a pauper.

 Isn’t this the message we receive from the Trump campaign as he tries to buy the presidency? 

Socialise Our Democracy

What is socialism? If we are socialists, what are we actually fighting for? The aim of socialism is to take the means of production and distribution out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the people. This aim is sometimes spoken of as common ownership. This should be distinguished from ‘public ownership’ or nationalisation or municipalisation which is the ownership, i.e. the right of disposal, by a public body representing ‘society’, by government, state power or local authority or some other political body. The persons forming this body, the ministers, civil service department heads, appointed managers, are the direct masters of the production apparatus; they direct and regulate the process of production; they command the workers. Common ownership is the right of disposal by the workers themselves; the working class itself — taken in the widest sense of all that partake in really productive work, including employees, farmers, scientists — is direct master of the production apparatus, managing, directing, and regulating the process of production which is, indeed, their common work. Under ‘public ownership’ or ‘state ownership’ the workers are not masters of their work; they may be better treated and their wages may be higher than under private ownership; but they are still exploited. Exploitation does not mean simply that the workers do not receive the full produce of their labor; a considerable part must always be spent on the production apparatus and for unproductive though necessary departments of society. Exploitation consists in that others, forming another class, dispose of the produce and its distribution; that they decide what part shall be assigned to the workers as wages, what part they retain for themselves and for other purposes. Under public ownership this belongs to the regulation of the process of production, which is the function of the bureaucracy. This was the case in the old Soviet Union where bureaucracy was the ruling class, the masters of production. Those who work the most and hardest are still deprived of all say in the organisation of their industry, just the same as in all private enterprises. Working people, which means the vast majority of people, should rule society in their own interests. Socialism unleashes the creativity of working people, who are capable of tremendous advances when not toiling under a system of exploitation.

One of the most significant signs of our times is the readiness with which the capitalist class turns to schemes of State ownership and control, for relief from the economic pressure under which it is struggling. We had Northern Rock and Royal Bank of Scotland being taken over by the government but there has been many more examples before them. Therefore, to repeat, state ownership and control is not socialism. What we merely have a trend towards state capitalism, a despotism that might be worse for the workers than the status quo. State capitalism’s control of the industry will not make it any less ugly than it is under ‘free enterprise’capitalism. Indeed, the direct intervention of the government in its affairs will increase workers’ difficulties. Reforms galore are, of course, promised by the left-wing and right-wings of capitaism, but when it comes to carrying them out, that will be a different question. Reforms that are out-with the framework of capitalism, under the pressures of big business and capitalist reality, are dropped and reversed. Socialists are alert, however, in pointing out the great distinction between "government" or "public" ownership and “common” ownership or “collective” ownership in reiterating the socialist demand for the complete social ownership of all the means of production and distribution as the only cure for the evils of the competitive system. Another way of expressing the socialist aim is to call for a cooperative commonwealth by democratic means of a cooperative commonwealth in which the supplying of human needs and enrichment of human life shall be the primary purpose of our society. Such an economy will yield the maximum of goods and services for the satisfaction of human needs.  

The Socialist Party aims to replace the present capitalist system, with its inherent injustice and inhumanity, by a social system from which the domination and exploitation of one class by another will be eliminated, in which economic planning will supersede unregulated private enterprise and competition, and in which genuine democratic self-government, based upon economic equality will be possible. The present order is marked by glaring inequalities of wealth and opportunity, by chaotic waste and instability; and in an age of plenty it condemns the great mass of the people to poverty and insecurity. Power has become more and more concentrated into the hands of a small irresponsible minority of financiers and industrialists and to their predatory interests the majority are habitually sacrificed. When private profit is the main stimulus to economic effort, our society oscillates between periods of feverish prosperity in which the main benefits go to speculators and profiteers, and of catastrophic depression, in which the common man's normal state of insecurity and hardship is accentuated. We believe that these evils can be removed only in a planned and socialised economy in which our natural resources and means of production and distribution are owned, controlled and operated by the people.

The Socialist Party will not rest content until every person in all other lands is able to enjoy equality and freedom, a sense of human dignity, and an opportunity to live a rich and meaningful life as a citizen of a free and peaceful world. This social and economic transformation can be brought about by political action. We consider that the other political parties are the instruments of capitalist interests and cannot serve as agents of social reconstruction, and that whatever the superficial differences between them, they are bound to carry on government in accordance with the dictates of the big business interests who finance them. The Socialist Party aims at political power in order to put an end to this capitalist domination of our political life. It appeals for support to all who believe that the time has come for a far-reaching reconstruction of our economic and political institutions and who are willing to work together to end capitalism.

Switching Water Sources!

In Flint, Michigan, the city decided to switch water sources from the Detroit system to use the Flint River instead for financial reasons. Unfortunately, there was inadequate water treatment for water from the river and lead leached from the old pipes. Officials of the city were aware of the problem long before it became obvious but kept quiet! Not surprisingly, lead levels in children were found to be elevated. Municipal services around the world continue to deteriorate while profits continue to rise. 

In other words, our economy is ever larger and the portion going to the vast majority is ever smaller. 

John Ayers.

Living In A Gas Chamber

Maybe not an overstatement – The Toronto Star (Jan 2 2016) contained an article, "In China, India, Pollution is the Price of Growth." New Delhi's highest court gave a directive on December 3, ordering the Indian capital to immediately devise a plan to reduce severe levels of air pollution in the city, saying, "It seems like we are living in a gas chamber." 

In China, an estimated 1.6 million die prematurely each year from air pollution, or 4,400 people a day, seventeen per cent of all deaths. 

John Ayers

Introducing the Socialist Party (video)

For people who want to change the world

The American presidential election process is an elaborate, staged event which creates the sense that opposition is futile. It is corporate brainwashing many times a day telling us that we are powerless and the Party machines are invincible. We are presented with two oppressors and our choice is the lesser evil of the two.  It is time to stand up and fight for the greater good. Someday, people tell us, we will have socialism, but the world and its people are not ready for it yet. They argue with us that they are being “realistic.” We say they’re not being realistic; they’re being idiotic. That their position isn’t even coherent. Other critics of our position are merely cynics. The cynic thinks everyone is stupid. They accuse their fellow workers of never being ready for socialism because they’re mean spirited as well as stupid. They don’t want other people to have decent lives, they want people to suffer, they want it so much that they will allow that desire to over-ride their own individual self-interest. Most people don’t realise the socialist ideas they oppose are in their own interest. Believing that one day we will get socialism even though people who like the idea but nevertheless are unwilling to vote for the Socialist Party is not simply unrealistic – it’s fantastic. It’s downright delusional. For the proponents of lesser evilism, winning is everything. There is hardly anything more shameful after all, than losing. Even cheating is acceptable if the cheater manages to win. Lesser evil supporters are cowards, people who are incapable of seeing the incoherence in voting for someone who opposes things they profess to want, while persisting in believing that we will one day get these things anyway, without having to vote for the party who seeks them. If people want socialism, then they’re going to have to vote for candidates who advocate it, rather than for candidates who oppose it. It takes more than one person or one party to change the world.

The vision of the world’s future appears completely dystopian and has descended into the dark abyss where the unimaginable has become imaginable. The politics of terror and the culture of fear legitimises the militarization and regimentation of public life and society and fosters the criminalisation of social problems. Brutal modern-day capitalism has released corporate and military power and throughout the globe we witness particularly savage, cruel, and exploitative regimes of oppression. The planet itself is now under threat. Capitalism has made a virtue out of self-interest and the pursuit of material wealth. Capitalism is devoid of any sense of social responsibility and is driven by an unchecked desire to accumulate capital at all costs. Money now engulfs everything in this new age of disposability. Moreover, when coupled with a weakening of movements to counter the generated power of capitalists, the result has been a startling increase in the influence of predatory capitalism, along with inequities in wealth, income, power, and opportunity. Such power breeds anti-democratic tendencies. As power becomes global and politics remains local, ruling elites no longer make political concessions to workers or any other group that they either exploit or consider disposable. Concentration of wealth and income generate power for the financial elite. Capitalists are no longer willing to compromise and have expanded their use of power to dominate economic, political, and social life. There is the deepening of inequality, one that not only separates the rich from the poor, but also increasingly relegates the working class to the ranks of the precariat. The emergence of new technologies create a large pool of more or less unemployed people. Moreover, as new technologies is also is being used as a repressive tool. Capitalism is a pathological economy. It creates a survival-of-the fittest ethos buttressed by a discourse that is morally insensitive, sadistic, cannibalistic, and displays a hatred of those whose labor cannot be exploited, do not buy into the consumerist ethic, or are considered other by virtue of their race, class, and ethnicity. Capitalism is slavery, exploitative usury of labor to enrich capital holders via violence and subjugation of people, nations and the globe. ALL capitalism is predatory violence, wasteful production and consumption and human subjugation.

There is no need to attach an adjective to the word "Capitalism", as in "Casino Capitalism" "Crony Capitalism", "Neo-Liberal Capitalism", "Financial Capitalism", "Disaster Capitalism", "Shock Capitalism", "Unregulated Capitalism", "Private-Equity Capitalism," or that old standby, "Greedy Capitalism". It is Capitalism, pure and simple, and there can be no confusion. What we see is what it is. Capitalism has brought depression and fragmentation. The idea of capitalism is force fed to all of us at the same level of religion. It's never associated with war, exploitation, oppression, lack of opportunity, discrimination or poverty. It's sold to us as the producer of peace, prosperity and plenty. Instead of bringing democracy and prosperity to the world, it has wrecked societies where they hung on by a fingernail. No extended criticism is needed because criticism itself - social, political, and economic - has become a criticism of capitalism. It has been this way for a long time. In the 19th century, capitalism was that which ripped small holders from the land, chained children to machinery, and pushed entire populations, on threat of extinction, across the surface of the earth. They told you that capitalism changed? They lied. There are no forms of capitalism that aren't damaging to society. There is no such thing as “Compassionate Capitalism”.

Our socialist goal is what some have called the “community of goods”; everything is to be made common property, everything will be everybody’s. “The association of free men who work with the means of production and who employ, following a concerted plan, their numerous individual forces as a single force of social labor … the work of freely associated men who act consciously and are masters of their own social activity”; “free and equal association of the producers”; such was for Marx and Engels the form of socialism. Association—this is the key word of socialism: individuals, instead of acting, as in capitalism, each for himself, associate with one another for the purposes of common labour. This simple definition of socialism already allows it to be distinguished from certain false socialisms. The variety of “self-management socialism” making the workers the owners of the enterprise has no trace in the Marxist conception of any kind of “communitarian social order.” It has changed nothing: the enterprise is still autonomous, and therefore competes with other enterprises in the same sector; for this reason, it is the market rather than a “concerted plan” that regulates production, and is therefore subject to all the fluctuations of the market; finally, as in capitalism, there will be enterprises that will be “winners” (the workers in the competitive enterprises) and “losers” (the workers in the less profitable enterprises who will be laid off). This is not socialism: there is no real association of producers that supersedes the limits of the enterprise.

The other major type of false socialism is the one that, for its part, also expropriates the owners of the enterprises, but this time in favor of a State outside the control of the workers. This State is in the hands of a State bourgeoisie that, by enjoying a de facto possession of the means of production, decides what must be produced and in what quantity, while also imposing the logic of profit. Such a bourgeoisie undoubtedly plans production, but not in order to satisfy the needs of the workers, but for the purpose of capital accumulation, by means of the systematic exploitation of the workers’ labor power. Such a system, which makes the nationalization of the economy synonymous with “socialism”, was already denounced in his time by Engels as a false socialism, because, as he wrote, “the transformation into State property does not suppress the character of the productive forces as capital”. But it is quite clear that Engels had not yet seen anything like State capitalism. This was to be established on a grand scale during the 20th century in the Soviet Union. If socialism is undoubtedly a planned economic system, this cannot be confused with State management of production that escapes the will of the workers: “. . . united co-operative societies are to regulate national production upon a common plan, thus taking it under their own control, and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical convulsions which are the fatality of capitalist production....”

If the form assumed by socialism is an “association of producers”, its content is production that is not undertaken for the market. Since the goal of production will not be profit, that is, money and capital, but the satisfaction of human needs, it is clear that the market will no longer have any reason to exist: the market is not, as it seems at first sight, the showcase of use values offered to the customer, but the network of sales that allow the surplus value seized from the workers in production to be realized in its money form by means of the sale of commodities; in other words, the market is the place where capital realizes its profit, since use values are nothing for capital but exchange values. Hence, Marx explains “within the cooperative society based on common ownership of the means of production the producers do not exchange their products; similarly the labor spent on the products no longer appears as the value of these products....” Engels was just as explicit: “The seizure of the means of production by society eliminates commodity production and with it the domination of the product over the producer. The anarchy within social production is replaced by consciously planned organization.” From this point on, if the producers do not exchange their products and do not have to measure their exchange value, it is clear that socialism has suppressed money.

Running Out Of Breath

A member recently attended a party where a guest was showing on his computer that, because of the CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere, the air could be unbreatheable in fifty years (try telling that to the inhabitants of Beijing or New Delhi – its unbreatheable now!) 

It may have been an overstatement but the message is clear – abolish capitalism before it abolishes humanity! 

John Ayers.

Train For No Job?

An SPCer recently asked a friend whose daughter had graduated from Ryerson University, Toronto, how she was doing. He said she works in human resources and is the only one in her department that the company has not yet fired. Each individual is required to train someone in India through the internet to do their job. When training is completed, the trainer is fired. However, the company isn't all bad – they send the ex-employee home in a taxi. 

The moral is to expect the worst under capitalism and it will happen! 

John Ayers.

The Need for a New Economic System

We have imprisoned ourselves by not looking at making the post-capitalist commonly owned future. It is a question of seizing the present ownership and control of the means and instruments for creating and distributing wealth, in combination with production for sale on a market, in conditions of waged-slavery, for the immense majority, from minority, private, corporate or state ownership and control. By making them the common property of all, with production for use, in conditions of democratic re callable delegated organisation with free access and doing away with wages and prices altogether, whether social wages or any other rationing of access we can make a society of relative superabundance. It is in our own hands. We don't need leaders to lead us up the garden path, but thinkers. We have a world to win.

Capitalism cannot be made nicer and reforms will always be clawed back as the busts are just as much a part of capitalism as the booms. Unions are a part of capitalism. Necessary though they are, they are not yet revolutionary until we become revolutionary, in our outlook and begin to realise the building of the post-capitalist future we wish to see. We need to move to a genuine commonly owned society, not some top down nationalised statist relic of the past, retaining waged slavery, but one where all wealth production and distribution is for use and owned in common, not privately, by corporations or by the state, with democratic control of resources in conditions of free access. Real common ownership is effectively non ownership. In a production for use society money will be redundant, as wages and prices are a part of the market system of production for sale. Money will be unnecessary in a commonly owned, post-capitalist, production for use society.

Away with your capitalist catechism of received absolute truths. Capitalism inevitably divides humanity through wars, racism, sexism, and class antagonism Poverty, absolute and relative, is entrenched within the capitalist system in the enrichment and service of the economic parasite capitalist class whose watchword is Accumulate, accumulate!. War in capitalism, is 'business by other means', a consequence of capitalist competition, and arises out of competition between rival capitalist entities organised in nations, trade blocs, spheres of geo-political interest in the battle for , raw materials, securing of trade routes and economic and politically dominant privilege to further, all those ends. Nothing is forever, there is no absolute truth, social systems come and go, just as chattel slavery gave way to feudalism and feudalism in turn was superseded by capitalism , so too will capitalism's obsolete excrescence of waged slavery perish in arrival of its post-capitalist nemesis. The revolutionary antithesis of capitalism is a post-capitalist society, socialism, not as an idealistic panacea, but as a sensible process of overcoming humanity’s divisions and building economic and social democracy, where the resources and productive capacity of the world belong to its people, who use them to meet human needs rather than to generate private profits for a few owners.

The post-capitalist revolution will be the task of the immense majority, using the flawed , 'representative' democratic means available, (democracy, capitalism's Achilles heel, if you like) to usher in the new society and as it is a commonly owned one, seizing all the advances of capitalist technology and communications structures, with an educated, politically aware working class, (who already run capitalism from top to bottom) then proceeding to delegatory democracy, without ruling elites with free access to the social product, we eliminate the flaws which characterized minority led revolution. We have a productive capacity capable of feeding clothing and sheltering and protecting all of the inhabitants of this planet in conditions of superabundance deployed in the service of a minority parasite class. Capitalism is based on exploitation, on paying workers less than the value they produce, and pocketing the difference, the surplus value.

Wee Matt

The Rich Lie, the Poor Die

Britain's oldest socialist party (SPGB) has always thrown open their platform to debate with opponents however distasteful their views. Over the decades we have challenged the British Union of Fascists, the National Front and the British National Party on the platform.

The idea that immigrants can only have a negative effect on wages and living standards is a common one. Nigel Harris in ‘The New Untouchables’ quotes research that argues that ‘modern econometrics cannot find a single shred of evidence that immigrants have an adverse impact on the earnings and job opportunities of natives of the United States’. And he gives the example of the Los Angeles economy which expanded in the 1970s, largely as the result of increased demand caused by legal and illegal immigration.

Likewise the increase in immigration in Britain in the 1950s and 1960s did not lead to increased unemployment – rather the massive explosion in unemployment levels in the 1970s and beyond was caused by the boom-bust cycle of the capitalist system itself. Secondly, immigrants and refugees are not a drain on the social security system – in fact, as Harris shows, they contribute far more to the ‘system’ than they receive in return. Whether you look at Caribbean immigrants who came to Britain in the 1960s, few of which drew retirement pensions, or whether you take Mexican migrants to California, where a 1980 study found that less than 5 percent received any assistance from welfare services, and in all sectors, except education, they paid far more than they received – a net balance sheet shows that the ‘host’ nation gains far more than it gives in return.

Furthermore, migration has another very favourable benefit for the ruling class in the ‘host’ country – namely that they don’t have to contribute to the cost of raising and educating the immigrant worker.

It is the system of capitalist production that produces unemployment, homelessness, destitution and crumbling health services, – not workers, be they ’indigenous’ or foreign. The bosses hope to keep the worst-off sections of workers fighting with each other over shrinking pieces of a small pie instead of uniting to fight for a decent life for all.

The rationale of immigration control is that such chauvinist legislation is founded on the nation state and the feverish competition in which that nation state is engaged. It splits and divides workers from their main objectives, and, in the long run, weakens their strength all over the world. It cannot be contemplated by a world socialist. The only possible attitude of progressive workers, is opposition to immigration control. We have to reject all laws that divide the working class into legals and illegals. It is the height of treachery to our class and we would do well to remember that the working class stretches far beyond Britain’s borders. It is blatant racism, and opportunism to opt for a policy of blaming the immigrant for all British workers’ woes, even if this will strike a chord with the basest instincts of many workers.

War and poverty existed before capitalism but the forms they take are different. They were previously as likely to be waged by the ruling class themselves, participating in dynastic conquest and getting arrows in their eye, or rewarded with kingdoms.

The means of eliminating poverty did not exist then, so famine and shortages will have a bearing upon the precarious state of the largely peasant population, but they would have had their own parcels of land or commons, upon which they could subsist. Capitalism was an advance upon this, as it made possible the vast production capacity upon which we can presently draw, but it is stifled within its potential by private, corporate and state ownership of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth, with its market system dictating production for profit for the benefit of the new aristocracy, the capitalist class. This is also further exacerbated by the need for waged-slavery, to keep the wealth being produced by the productive underclass, from whom all wealth springs, they can only gain access to a waged ration of the social product in order to keep them showing up for employment. Therefore exploitation takes place at the point of production. Poverty inevitable as a consequence. This is further exacerbated by the intense competition between rival capitalists over market share, leading to alternating booms and busts of the business cycle. Leads to lay-offs with the capitalist taking the spoils and the worker subsisting upon whatever hand-outs, he has won during the boom times from capitalist government. Thus poverty, absolute and relative, is entrenched within the capitalist system in the enrichment and service of the economic parasite capitalist class, whose watchword is Accumulate, accumulate!.

However, war in capitalism, is 'business by other means', a consequence of capitalist competition, and arises out of competition between rival capitalist entities organised in nations, trade blocs, spheres of geo-political interest in the battle for , raw materials, securing of trade routes and economic and politically dominant privilege to further, all those ends.  The nature of war has changed in this regards. The last two world wars evidence of this decadence of capitalism, with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by the 'good guys', for the sake of science.

War and poverty are 'essential' features of capitalism. Socialism is a post-capitalist system which has still to be brought into being.

Wee Matt

More Water Crisis

In Western China, scientists are busy tracking the melt rate of the Mengke glacier. Between 2005 and 2014, the glacier melted 16.5 meters a year, twice the average rate of the previous decade. This is causing the opposite effect to that in Iran, i.e., too much water causing floods, erosion, and mud slides. Temperatures in China are expected to rise 1.3 to 5 degrees Celcius by the end of the century, faster than the global average. Between 2008 and 2010, sixty-two per cent of Chinese cities experienced flooding.

As above, the solution is well beyond the scope of one country. 

John Ayers.

Water Crisis

While business interests may be salivating over Iran's re-emergence into the world economic community, especially over oil and the aircraft industry, a large area in southern Iran is experiencing a severe seven-year drought. Seventy per cent of Iran's ground water has been used up in the last fifty years and drying rivers and desertification of lakes is common.

 While much will be made of the oil and its potential for profit, little seems to be done about the water crisis. It is a problem that needs urgent world-wide attention, the type of solutions that can never materialize in a divided and competitive world. 

John Ayers.