Elections – yes or no?

Engaging in the bourgeois democracy process and contesting elections has always been the position of the Socialist Party of Great Britain and the World Socialist Party of the United States. It has brought us up against those who disagree and who otherwise would have been comrades such as Proletarian Party of America and the council communists such as Paul Mattick.

The SPGB position as it presently stands is that this should not be an either/or issue. Neither action is exclusive but extra-parliamentary activities should be engaged alongside electoral action in a coordinated complementary strategy.

We suggest a read of the SPGB pamphlet (if you have not already done so)

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/whats-wrong-using-parliament

Having fought and died for the ballot, we tend to forget it is not the X on the voting paper which counts but the person's consciousness behind it. We want the working class to take over the State and convert it into an unarmed democratic administration of things. We want to see an end to capitalist class rule not the breakdown of society. The workers en masse don't need to create a different and more democratic decision-making structure from the ground up. What they need to do is to take over and perfect the existing, historically-evolved structures. We don't need to construct a socialist society from scratch; this is not the way social evolution works; there will be a degree of continuity between what exists now and what will exist in socialism as there always has been between one system of society and another.

We are not utopian system-builders. You don't abolish the state, getting rid of your control of your society at the point of actually having won the thing, and then play at utopias. You grab it and hang on against anything and everything the capitalist class, nationally and internationally, throws at you. During this process also you are transforming the institutions you hold from capitalist into socialist ones. People recognise it will be by both parliament and non-parliament means to socialism. It is the democratic result that we want. Our case for Parliament is that it is the most efficacious application of the workers' will to establish socialism. We seek the least disruptive method of revolution and in the UK, at this moment in time, parliament is that route. It is by no means a universal one size fits all prescription.

Socialists appreciate that many people focus are engaged in all kinds of worthy projects and struggles, but why do they often focus on the ephemeral and ignore the serious issues and their consequences. The Socialist Party seeks to conceivably become a lasting democratic participatory organization preserving and enriching the movement for social change. We also expect many new organizations to emerge from neighborhoods and workplaces but, alas, we are not there yet. The SociaIist Party endorses both electoral and social activism without letting either be exclusive political strategies. The Socialist Party seeks to capture the state for the purpose of abolishing the state which will ‘wither way’ and be replaced merely with an ‘administration of things’. There is no necessary clash between socialists and anarchists in their conception of future society – both are state-free.

Unable or unwilling to look beyond the short-term horizon of the next election, politicians are essentially prohibited from taking a long view of things. To avoid making hard decisions on the environment costs are pushed into the future, glossed over by an optimism on the technological innovation and market mechanisms. From this perspective, there is no need for urgent change. We must, therefore, reinvent democracy at the ballot box. The Socialist Party rejects the need for a ‘vanguard party’ to capture the state through forceful means, instead calling for the democratically mandated institution of socialism via the mechanisms of parliament. The Socialist Party argue that the state under capitalism is merely an instrument or tool of the capitalist class, meaning that politicians (knowingly or unknowingly) can only enact laws and policies that furthered the narrow interests of that class. We do not think that political representatives of the ruling class will advance the genuine interests of the working class.  Socialism is the alternative to the capitalist mode of economy. What is needed is a revolutionary movement, driven by the working class, which would dismantle the capitalist state, abolish private property, and establish socialism which means ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.’ Various revolutions have taken place, masquerading as socialist, but none Marx nor any Marxist would consider genuine.

One of the most common objections to the Socialist Party’s vision is framed in terms of ‘human nature’. The criticism is that free access and production for use sounds all very nice in theory, but it would not work in practice because generally human beings are too weak in character, selfish, or lazy to be able to function without being ruled over either by employers or government with their structures of laws, deterrents, and incentives. We view people who are capable of living co-operatively without coercion. And indeed there is much evidence indicating that societies based on cooperation rather than competition are most likely to prevail in the long term. Our case denies that there is such a thing as a fixed ‘human nature’ that we are born with. Granted, human beings are products of a long evolutionary history that doubtless shapes our psychological constitution, but ultimately we are free to choose how we behave through our decisions (which means we have no pre-determined nature, as such – humans are neither inherently good nor inherently bad). Socialists can turn the human nature objection on its head, arguing that even if it is true what our critics claim in human beings are inherently weak and greedy, that is all the more reason not to uphold the concentrations of power. Socialists recognise the reality that structures and systems within which we live deeply shape and influence us. It is all well and good to try to ignore the state or to ignore capitalism, such as to ‘build the new world within the shell of the old but from the perspective of socialism may be naïve. Establishing environmentally sound public transport networks or extending bike lanes, creating co-operatives and credit unions, are more readily achievable in the short term via state policy. Likewise, looking towards a crisis or collapse situation for capitalism may not be at all an unrealistic scenario  but it would be the case where the the state would be strengthened and reinforced to maintain and administer the most basic social services and infrastructure (e.g. electricity, water, hospitals, food rationing etc.). A complete societal breakdown and the suffering such would bring would prove counter-productive for any socialist revolution. The Socialist Party believes it is better to plan and design a post-scarcity economy rather than rely upon the crises of capitalism to deepen and intensify further.

If a mass movement is what is needed and desired then recognising the importance of ‘presenting’ our visions in the best way possible is an issue that cannot be dismissed as secondary. Socialists need to think about how best to ‘brand’ our political perspectives. We have to be as clear as possible. We need to be heard and that means understanding different audiences and adapting our language when we need to. In other words tailoring our message and using a diversity of mediums to express our ideas yet somehow managing to remain united under one banner.

Goodbye money

However the Labour Party reconstitutes itself, it can only run capitalism in the interests of the capitalist system, which means waged slavery for the vast majority and wealth, ease, and luxury for an economic parasitic, capitalist class, living off the wealth created by the immense majority. Time for a post-capitalist upgrade, a democratic, commonly-owned, production-for-use world, of free-access to the common wealth without any elite parasite class.

Communism/socialism is a post -capitalist society, means exactly the same thing to us as they did to Marx also. The common ownership and democratic control by us all, of all the means and instruments for creating and distributing wealth. 'Common' and 'social' mean the same. Nothing to do with state ownership or corporate or private ownership. Nothing to do with central control either. It is a post-capitalist system which utilises the technological advances of capitalism to produce for use to satisfy human needs, using self-feeding loopback informational tools for stock measurements and control with direct inputs at local regional and global levels to allow calculation in kind, as opposed to the economic calculation of capitalism, only necessary to satisfy profit taking.

If you are born poor you will most likely die poor. Poverty is both absolute and relative. All wealth comes from the exploited labour of the working class which creates a surplus value above its rationed access (wages). A commonly owned society, would not have rich or poor, we would all have free access to the commonly produced wealth, with no elite classes creaming it off and storing it.

We are all component parts of the wealth producing social class, called the working class, comprising 90-95% of the world population, who collectively produce all of the world’s wealth, effectively runs capitalism from top to bottom, in conditions of wage slavery. Our attribute is to assist in the re-focusing of the attention of my class, from the foolish notion of ever reforming this abominable system, in which the richest 300 capitalist parasites have more wealth than the half of all humanity, in favour of a revolutionary change, to a post-capitalist society, in order to make all wealth to be held, produced for use and distributed according to self-assessed needs, in common for all on this planet, all of its human family.

The new Duke of Westminster is set to inherit his family's £9billion fortune aged just 25 following his dad's tragic death. Hugh Richard Louis Grosvenor is already godfather to Prince George after being asked to accept the prestigious role by Prince William in 2013. And now, he will be among the richest people in the world after his 64-year-old dad, Gerald, passed away at Royal Preston Hospital in Lancashire yesterday. Hugh, who is the 7th Duke of Westminster, will receive his father's estimated £9.35billion wealth - including the family seat, Eaton Hall near Chester. He will also gain a staggering property portfolio, including land in the wealthiest areas of London.

In Capital, Karl Marx describes how an aristocratic lady’s lands were accrued because of her skills at performing fellatio “Lady Orkney’s endearing offices are supposed to have been foeda labiorum ministeria,” (base services performed with the lips).

 July 28, 2013, Washington Dateline Report said:

“Four out of 5 US adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives …” And, “measured in terms of a person’s lifetime risk … 4 in 10 adults falls into poverty for at least a year of their lives.”

A report in The Asahi Shimbun on June 23 presents a poverty-picture in Japan, an economic model to a section of mainstream economists in poor countries. The report “Young people struggle to emerge from poverty” by Masaki Hashida mentioned a middle-aged person. To save money, the person’s only meal is breakfast, and the breakfast is with rice, miso soup, fermented beans and broiled fish. The person has lost 30 kilograms in two years. The man, according to the report, is a victim of a “black company”, an employer that harasses employees, forces them to work long hours often without pay, and presses them to resign. The monthly pay from these companies appears limited to 200,000 yen ($2,104). The AS report cited Haruki Kono, head of nonprofit organization POSSE: The black companies “exploit employees by forcing them to work for the same job as stated in manuals to such an extent that they get sick and eventually quit.”

Hence, it comes out: Big entrepreneurs irrespective of poor and rich societies are the same while they compete in the market. They harass, they force to work long hours, and often they don’t pay, and these give them a competitive edge. How much value, after the above fact, sermons from rich societies carry?

Doesn't it sound like Marx, as he detailed back-breaking work of industrial labour in the capitalist economy in Europe? Too many fellow workers are servile, unable to comprehend the world where all would be freed from wage slavery, able to freely partake of the wealth from the common store which they had collectively created, so conditioned had he become to accept what his master taught him.

The class system is a result of varied, succeeding minority revolutions and the economic modes which prevailed up until the advent of the capitalist class, another minority led revolution, which displaced the landowning aristocrats as the ruling class and absorbed them into itself, establishing bourgeois democracy in its wake as a method of social control.

Effectively, there are only two economic classes. The ruling capitalist one which exists in a parasitic relationship to the immense majority working class , wealth producing one, by virtue of its ownership of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth. Wielding this ownership to exploit workers in waged slavery, for rationed access to the wealth only workers produce, in return for producing vast surplus value for the parasite class.

Changing the class system is straight forward, as changing the mode of production and distribution from private, corporate, state or any combination of those ownerships, into a democratic, commonly owned, production for use , free-access, post-capitalist, class-less, elite-free society, eliminates the economic foundation of the class system. There is then, no need for any representative government over us anymore, as a government is the executive arm of the dominant parasite class, which 'represents' in capitalism, the economic interests of its ruling class. What we would have would be an administration of 'things' rather, than one in control over people, but it would be self-administered with delegated recall where this was deemed appropriate. Workers, unlike the peasants before who at least had some land and crops of their own, have no country to be independent in. It belongs to a local, regional and global capitalist class. Capitalism is a global system which requires a global working class response to it.

Abolish the wage system.

Wee Matt

The One Percent and the Rest of Us

The case for socialism is one which has to be understood and implemented by the world's working class seizing control of their own destiny. It is not something which can be given or gifted by a political party dropping it onto people’s laps like the proverbial 'Manna from Heaven'.

It requires the development of a political consciousness which understands that capitalism is already obsolete as a useful social system. Which draws these conclusions from its never-ending crises, wars, two world wars last century, war science on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, still doing war dances in the North Sea, the Arctic Circle, the Middle East and the South China seas over raw materials, trade routes and spheres of geo-political interests.

On June 20th the United Nations Refugee Agency released their annual global trends report which contained the startling news that 65.3 million people have been forcibly removed from their homes. This is an all time high record and it means one in every 113 people is a refugee. The causes are due to on-going persecution, human rights violations and war. In 2015 more than 1 million reached Europe, fleeing conflict and persecution in Syria, Somalia, and Afghanistan. If this 65.3 million were a nation it would be the 21st largest in the world.

The dominant ideas of any time are those of the ruling class (Ideology). How can it presently be any other way? The electorate is persuaded through the education system, the media, slavish fellow workers espousing 'common sense', that capitalism is the only system around.

To this end all capitalist political parties do attempt to appeal to electorates that all of the above madness is quite normal, inevitable, due to human nature, but with their husbandry, as the 'lesser of the other's evil', war-mongering, poor-bashing, immigrant and refugee scapegoating, better outcomes or reforms can be achieved. A demonstrably monstrous lie. Capitalism cannot be reformed. All the above are not fixable, nor reformable aberrations of capitalism, but entrenched parts of it.

The onus is not on us to put it to the electorate, but for you to engage your intellect, to put it to yourself and ask yourself the question, why so many wonderful things are happening lately. In Britain the Brexit vote caused stock markets to plunge trillions of dollars. Five cops were shot dead in Dallas. Suicide bombers killed 36 at Istanbul airport. In the U.S. they seem ready to elect a racist moron as president. In Venezuela, starving people were shot dead as they stormed grocery stores to get food which their fellow working class people produced. In Africa and Asia women are being violated by the armies of war-lords. Global warming continues unabated.

Doesn't it occur to you that something is fundamentally wrong in society and that being such, something should be done about it?  Poverty absolute or relative, war, (business by other means) either total or by proxy, are inevitable concomitants of capitalism. The world’s workers produce all of the world’s wealth yet can only access a fraction of it rationed by wages or salaries. The world’s workers run capitalism from top to bottom although this is not in their ultimate interest.

Tim Di Muzio, senior lecturer in international relations and political economy at Wollongong University in Australia, in ‘The 1% and the Rest of Us: A Political Economy of Dominant Ownership’. He further states that “The market and price system were imposed on humanity not as a matrix of choice but as a mechanism of domination.” Di Muzio reveals that the 12 million high net worth individuals (HNWIs) on a global scale represent 0.2% of the population. the top ten percent own 85 percent of the world’s wealth, the bottom 50 percent scarcely one percent. The 1%-ers have almost 40 times more than the bottom 50 percent. The goal of capitalists is differential accumulation – to primarily increase the wealth gap between themselves and others: i.e., they seek greater wealth inequality. At the corporate level, the goal is the same: to gain a larger share of the wealth pie than competitors. For this reason, the capitalist system cannot rid wealth inequality or significantly reduce the inequality. Di Muzio writes: “this addiction for wealth and power is destroying the planet for future generations.”

All of the above problems can be swept away easily as anything by the establishment of a commonly owned production for use society, without markets, without buying and selling, without money, where we would all be better off and in delegated democratic control of our commonly owned world as a fellow human family.

The task of creating the socialist post-capitalist, production for use, free access, commonly owned, world is that of the working class itself. There is no short cut to this. It is you, and I and our fellow workers worldwide who have to aspire to this task. There are some anarchists with whom we can share a degree of affinity, Bookchin,  anarcho-communists or such, others are as crazy as fervid leaderist bolsheviks and would get workers heads blown off, instead of trying to capture the state initially, to prevent this outcome backed up by the populace already organised to implement common ownership and production for use. For us, it is peacefully, if we can violently if we must. The end determines the means, which is why it has to be a democratic majority-led movement and not seized or gazumped by a political clique.

We still had to have two world wars, innumerable small ones and wars by proxy, over trade routes, raw materials, spheres of geopolitical interest, war science on civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, fire-bombing of Dresden, by the 'good guys', bombing of Britain by the 'bad guys'. 'Homes fit for heroes after WW1, the introduction of reforms ,'from the cradle to the grave’ after WW2, the failure of state capitalism in Russia all to show that, war and poverty absolute or relative are intrinsical concomitants of capitalism and that capitalism cannot be reformed.

Capitalism is based on the ownership and control of the means of production by a 'privileged few' and production for the market with a view to profit, the source of their high incomes and privileged lifestyle. Capitalism runs on profits. Any government, whatever its intentions, has to respect this and give priority to profits and conditions for profit-making, unless they want to provoke an economic crisis and slump. This means putting profit-making before meeting the needs of 'ordinary working-class families'. All governments have done – have had to do – this, some Tory governments with relish, some Labour governments reluctantly, but they've all done it. Capitalism cannot be 'socially responsible', i.e. responsible to society as a whole. It is a profit-driven system that can only work in the interest of the privileged few who are the profit-takers.

The reason given by the majority of Labour MPs for wanting to depose Corbyn is their perception that, with him as leader, the Labour Party is unelectable and so cannot, as some of them have been tearfully proclaiming, get into a position where it can govern in the interest of – of course – the working class.

Are they any more sincere – or insincere – than May and her Conservatives? Not that it matters. It is not a question of sincerity but of what is practicably possible, and it is not possible to govern capitalism in the interest of the majority class of wage and salary workers. Both the Labour Party and the Tory Party stand for capitalism, and no government, not even one under Corbyn, can make capitalism work for the working class.

It is time we all got a life, ended the tyranny of capitalism, its anarchy of the market place and production only for the profit of the few and ushered in the, commonly owned, democratically controlled by us all, free access, production for use, post-capitalist future.

We have a world to win for all the world’s people. Socialism would be a global system, as capitalism is at present. There wouldn't be any foreign powers organised in nation states. Workers worldwide would be organised by themselves, locally regionally and globally, to administer resources in the cooperative world commonwealth There would be no government over people, (this is only needed in a minority class dominated competitive society), government ceases to be, other than the collective administration and sharing of resources, (an administration of things rather than people) that in capitalism war is waged over.

It is workers who presently run capitalism from top to bottom in the interests of the capitalist parasite class, they will be more than capable to run the post-capitalist world with a production for use, free access distribution, with no top-bottom dichotomy, or elites in privileged conditions.

We don’t really care less what it is called, socialism, communism, anarchy or macaroniHow long, how long? We advocate what socialism was, originally prior to the reform parties of capitalism utilising its popular appeal to their own, doomed to failure, gradualist and reformist ends and Lenin's gross distortions into two phases, to justify Bolshevik control of their aspiration to state capitalism revolution. They called us "Impossibilists", but reforming capitalism is what proved impossible.

Educate! Agitate! Organise!

"From each according to their ability to each according to their needs".

Wee Matt

Victims Of Drug Abuse

On July 20, April Corcoran, 32, was sentenced to 51 years in prison in Ohio after pleading guilty to raising money to feed her heroin addiction by loaning out her 11 year old daughter to her drug dealer, who, with the mother's blessing, raped and abused her, sometimes videotaping it, reported the Cincinnati Enquirer.

According to Corcoran's lawyer, "they tell me before she became hooked on heroin she was a very loving and attentive parent." As horrifying as all this is to most of us, it wasn't the rural area of Ohio where Corcoran lived. "I mean things like this happen a lot down here," said resident Keith Benson.

It's another appalling example of what a very sick world we live in. Socialists cannot say there will be no use of narcotics in a socialist society, but we can say the awful pressures that drive people to take them will not exist in it. '

John Ayers.

All for one, one for all

The future does not look good. Things are dark. Another financial crisis and economic collapse are just around the corner. There should not be this many this much unemployment and underemployment, this much homelessness, hunger, poverty, this ever widening gap between the income and wealth of the rich and everyone else. Another World War is increasingly possible while innumerable smaller wars proliferate. The wealthy control the world. There are no genuine democracies in the world, only oligarchies and plutocracies.

The capitalist class has never had it better. Never in recorded history has this class had higher income and wealth compared to the average working family. Oxfam reported that the richest 50% of the people own over 99% of the world’s wealth, the richest 1% of the world’s population hold over 50% of the world’s wealth, and the richest 62 people in the world has as much wealth as the poorest half of the global population, about 3.6 billion people. Yet, 32,000 children die around the world every day from hunger and hunger-related diseases. They die because their parents do not have enough money to feed them a nourishing diet. The ruling class has brought the world to a lamentable state. Make no mistake about it, the wealthy class and their lackey politician are responsible for the wretched misery of the world today. They looted the assets of countries around the globe and stole our future. We are left with nothing but confusion. Our confusion is rapidly turning to anger as we learn more about how they deceived us, betrayed us, and ruined our lives. They have robbed us of our hope and dreams.

There is no solution to this insane economic system except socialism. We, the people of the world now have an important decision to make; we can continue to curse the wealthy or, we can begin seeking and employing methods of uniting us so we can defeat our common enemy and move us to a better way of living together. If we do not have a clear picture in our minds of how we want to live together in peace and harmony chaos will occur when the socio-economic system collapses. We have to know where we are going, or we are lost. Where do we go? The answer is obvious; we are all human beings we are all brothers and sisters and all have exactly the same innate needs for food, water, shelter, warmth, sleep, social order, safety, security, stability, employment, a sense of belonging and love, and the opportunity to develop to our fullest potential. Simply put, we want and need to live in a world where people around the globe are at peace with each other and live in harmony with each other and where we have the opportunity to develop our lives to our fullest potential. The only way out is if a vast majority of people around the world solidly unite as brothers and sisters under the motto, “All for one, one for all.” Brothers and sisters take care of each other. The human family looks after one another.

Abridged and adapted from here 

The Vision of the Socialist Party

The Socialist Party is anti-capitalist, anti-statist and anti-reformist. One of the tasks of the Socialist Party is to help inspire a vision of an alternative way of living where all the world’s resources are owned in common and democratically controlled by communities on an ecologically sustainable and socially harmonious basis. Socialism will be a society based on cooperation and solidarity, meeting human needs. Instead of ownership or control of the means of production - land, factories, offices and so on - being in the hands of private individuals or the state, a socialist society is based on the common ownership and control of those means. And instead of production for exchange and profit, socialism means production to meet human needs. It is we, the workers, who produce everything and run all the services necessary for life. We build the roads, lay the rail tracks and drive the trains, we construct the houses, care for the sick, raise the children, grow the food, invent and design the products, manufacture the clothes and we teach the next generation. And every worker knows that often the system hinders us more than it helps. There is ample evidence demonstrating that we do not need the threat of destitution or starvation enforced by the wage system in order to engage in productive activity.

Capitalism is an economic system that necessitates continuous expansion, exploitation, and the concentrated ownership of wealth. The driving force of capitalism is the competitive market. The market economy's essential purpose is to sell commodities for profit. Profit has to be made, regardless of the impact on the environment or society at large. In order to gain a competitive advantage over other businesses, the capitalist is compelled to exploit labor and lower the cost of production.  Due to the “grow or die” imperative imposed by the market, economic growth cannot be contained by moral persuasion, it must continue to expand without any regard for human needs or environmental impact. Thus, capitalism should be seen for what it is, malignant cancer.

Amongst some of those who advocate their version of “socialism” are those who insist that nationalisation of industry, land, and services are the basis of socialism. Yet across the world, there are countries that have nationalised all or a part of their economies so one would expect them to have wised up. It could be suggested that they really do not want to acknowledge the failure of state-ownership AKA state-capitalism because they aspire to be leaders and become a new state bourgeoisie. The very act of nationalisation implies state control over all that is being nationalized and it means the extension of the state instead of the socialist principle of the withering away of the. An expanding state is the very anti-thesis to a state that should be withering away. Since the state and not the working class would control the means of production, the working class would still be alienated and would still remain commodities. State-appointed managers would use the same methods that the capitalists used to extract surplus-value. Socialists have no interest in reforming capitalism; we want to end it. We have no interest to make capitalism more rational or livable, a utopian venture. Reformism is in practice an appeal for government intervention to rectify a defect in the system. Remember anything that governments grant today can easily be taken back tomorrow by another government in office. Socialists seek to create permanent change. There is no shortage in the world of politicians or political parties claiming to have ready-made blueprints for creating a fairer society. However, socialism is not something which can be decreed into being by political parties or individual politicians but must be created, through mass participation and by workers ourselves.

Humans are the most adaptable of life that ever existed. That is why we are a reflection of the education we receive. The forms of interaction from birth and then for at least the first half of a decade determines the way we function. All individuals need that early education to have any meaningful social interaction in their life. This would indicate that our human nature will take on whatever hue of interactions we are exposed to from birth. The different relationships we have observed over the last few centuries show an amazing variety of beliefs or non-beliefs and ways people relate to one another and to nature. We feel better and live in more harmony in some systems and condition than others. The kind of life that can give everyone the greatest security and satisfaction is likely to correlate with the most social life; whatever system people live in, we’re always social even as we have strong antisocial elements in our economic system.

 An economic system can contradict our genetic makeup; provided there’s some sociability in that life we can get by, but it does produce physical and mental strain on us and the environment. When one looks around the world one can hear so many languages and many lifestyles, cultures and viewpoint, yet none of those particular qualities are inherited, they are all learned. Our body shape and skin colour is due to the environment we have adapted to and are then in our genes, but the way we feel and interact with our companions and nature is learned due to our physical and mental ability to learn and be social. We are educated to fit into society’s structure, but does that structure suit human needs, does it harmonize with nature, can it be sustainable?

If we could abandon all the bad things in capitalism, we would be left with people and our knowledge. We would then see ourselves as the most extraordinary and wonderful life, our sociability is supreme it even shines through whatever shocking type of civilisation we ever had. The learning process is the way life survives. All living things maintain life due to that process. Nature produced the first life by trial and error; we learn by that process, our information is the outcome of that. Many folk tend to minimise the hopeless conditions our children will encounter but if we don’t have united action soon to stop the capitalist wasteful destructive activities and establish socialism there will be no hope.

Various Tyrannies

Russians have lived under various forms of tyranny in the 20th century. First the tyranny of the Czars and their dreaded secret police, the Okhrana.

Then that of the provisional government of 1917 which prolonged Russian participation in World War 1 and prosecuted those who wanted to end it.

Next of course were the Bolsheviks who, though ending the war, employed officials of the Okhrana and instituted a ruthless police state.

Now the Russian people have supposedly a democratic form of government, but, nevertheless, gangsters have enormous power economically, which they use to gain political influence.

Capitalism can be administrated in various ways but all of them are, to one extent or another, tyrannical. Another good reason to abolish it. 

John Ayers.

Capitalism is a failure

We work because we need money to buy the things we need to live. In a socialist society, we would be provided for, but we would still work as we would wish to contribute to society. The socialist transformation of society does not mean ‘self-management’ or the nationalisation of the economy. Socialism requires the conscious abolition by the working class of capitalist social relations: wage labour, commodity production, national frontiers. It means the creation of a world community in which all activity is oriented towards the full satisfaction of human needs. Socialists believe is that it is the working class that constitutes the only force in society that has either the interest or the capacity to eliminate capitalism while synthesising its achievements into a new, higher form of human society. A rational, planned use of resources, the achievement of a stable and sustainable human population, a living plan for the human species, will be key components of the socialist future.

Capitalism has largely created an abundance. For example, world agriculture produces more than enough to feed the world population - but much of the world population can't afford to buy the food and therefore lives in a permanent state of semi-starvation. There is thus a contradiction between demand (in terms of hungry people) and market demand (hungry people who can afford food). Every year more and more and more farms go out of business because there's no market for their products. Capitalism had exhausted its progressive role in building the foundation for the future society and was now an obstacle to human progress. Our failure to destroy it has now let it evolve to such a point where it has now become a threat to the survival of human civilisation, perhaps even the human species. Unless the working class successfully manage to build a new society this is exactly what will happen. This is not simply a matter of hundreds, thousands, and millions but billions of human beings dying in a most horrible fashion. Not only is civilisation threatened, the worse-case scenario of capitalist decomposition could possibly threaten the future of the human species, perhaps even the entire ecosystem of the planet. We can already see the beginnings of this process happening today. An apocalypse is not far away and the only question remaining is whether socialist revolution, still remains a feasible alternative. Civilisation is being torn apart by murderous internecine conflicts that leaves entire countries, even whole geographic regions, in ruins. Storms, drought, disease, starvation, pollution of air, land and water creates a nightmare world where capitalist civilisation finally dies at its own making, sinks and disappears into an abyss.

In implementing the long-standing socialist principle of “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”, socialist society breaks the link between work done and consumption. Rather than being “allotted” what to consume, people would be able to take from the common store of wealth set aside for individual consumption what they judged they needed to live and enjoy life, irrespective of what they had contributed to production. Every able-bodied person would be expected to contribute something, but we don’t share the bleak view that, in this event, not enough would be produced to satisfy people’s needs (that “demand would exceed supply”, as it is put it) - and that therefore, not just profits, but the wages system too would have to be retained as a means of both obliging people to work and of limiting their consumption. Socialists aim to end buying and selling, exchange value, prices, pay for work and the pursuit of a monetary surplus by enterprises.

"From each according to their ability" means in practice the abolition of work/wage labour and that means productive activity cease to be a separate domain of life, something that people do under constraint, determined by their situation in class relations. "To each according to their need” means the abolition of commodity. So we don't buy things and also don't produce commodities but products, services, etc fulfilling the needs of individuals and of society. Our class is global and so should be our solidarity. We oppose all nationalist movements, whether openly conservative or supposedly progressive and ‘anti-imperialist’ in nature as both are based on the unity of workers with their rulers. We never take sides in wars between states or would-be states, instead always supporting fraternisation and the working class acting in its own interest.

The Socialist Party looks forward to a time when solidarity and mutual aid rather than greed,  and individualism inform the way we relate to one another.  As class-conscious workers we value class solidarity, recognising that capitalist society is divided into propertied and non-propertied classes, and that the propertied classes use their ownership and control of the means of production to force us, the non-propertied classes, to work for wages. We are aware then that the wage system does not function in our interests. The wage system has always functioned by coercion and that the primary function of the state is to enable the perpetuation of the wage system and class society to permit some to prosper while others to suffer misery. The capitalist views the worker as an object whose value is our exploitability. As members of the Socialist Party we want to abolish capitalism, class society and the wage system. We envision worldwide confederation of democratically controlled and self-managed communities and workplaces that facilitate economic and social justice by virtue of the fact in the first instance that they provide for the ability of each to control the product of our labour.  We anticipate that the guiding principle of production and distribution will be, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” 

Rather than seeking to dominate the world, as members of the World Socialist Movement we seek the ability to control the course of our own lives, and for everyone else on the planet to have the same control. We are against all forms of capitalism whether private, state or self-managed. In its place, we want a class-free, state-free and money-free society based on solidarity and co-operation .

It's No Joke

An SPC'er recently came across two interesting comments. In Lost Battles, by Jonathan Jones, which deals extensively with the rivalry between Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, we find the following gem regarding Florence's attempt to conquer Pisa: "But there could be no bigger joke, it might seem to us, than a republic that fought year after year, wasting blood and money, causing misery and suffering, just to conquer a neighbouring city thirty or so miles away."

This and similar wars in Italy were caused by powerful families who wanted to unite Italy into a capitalist state like their western European counterparts. The pressure of commercial interests was obviously of much greater importance than years of misery and suffering, and, certainly, no capitalist would be in the front line.

It might be a joke to Mr. Jones, though one doubts those affected with "misery and suffering" were laughing. 

John Ayers.

Away with the market economy

The Socialist Party advocates a worldwide society in which the means of life are controlled democratically by and for the whole community. Today’s world is an interconnected whole or “global village.” So it is no longer possible to create a new society in a single country. World capitalism must be replaced by world socialism. This refers to the common ownership and democratic control of the natural resources, production facilities, transportation networks, and distribution centers used to satisfy human needs. It does not include personal belongings. Socialism extends democracy to the economy. The means of life are controlled democratically by the community, which owns them in common.

Socialism is the abolition of the whole market economy, the wages system, money and the political state, with free access to goods and services according to individual wants. Only within this framework can people live in harmony with each other and the world around them, and have the opportunity to fulfil their human potential, as individuals and as a community.  Socialism involves major changes in everyday life—in education, work, the family—as well as in the ownership and control of the means of production.

Socialism can only be established by the revolutionary transformation of society through the conscious action of the working class, democratically organised in all areas of political, economic and social activity. The working class gains the knowledge, confidence, and democratic organisation necessary to carry out the socialist revolution in the course of their struggle to assert their needs, in every sphere of social activity, against the profit-seeking needs of capital and its functionaries, the ruling class. Our task in the Socialist Party is to encourage working class struggle, with a view to the emergence of a socialist consciousness. Socialists oppose reformist movements which seek government power to modify capitalism, or which rely on the capitalist state to deal with working class problems. Many so-called socialists’ idea of socialism consists in various reforms of the capitalist system: Parliamentary legislation to secure either things that is charity towards the poor or closer supervision over them, higher taxation or taxation on a new basis to pay for the reforms and government subsidies and other encouragements to enrich capitalism, even more so.  Self-styled Communists are found whose aims differ little if any from those of the most confused and vague of the reformists.

 The Socialist Party has always objected to the idea of state capitalism propounded by Bolsheviks (Leninist, Stalinist, Trotskyist, or Maoist). Members of the Socialist Party do not regard ourselves as a ‘vanguard’, and we do not want to be the new leaders who will manage a new state in the name of the workers. We would have nothing of dictatorship: we believe that a public opinion can be treated which will produce a general willingness to serve the community. Our aim is socialism which is not a One-Party State affair. It is a theory of life and social organisation. It is a life in which property is held in common; in which the community produces, by conscious aim, sufficient to supply the needs of all its members; in which there is no trading, money, wages, or any direct reward for services rendered. We aim at the common storehouse, not the individual hoard. We desire that the common storehouse shall bulge with plenty and  insist that none shall want.

We in the World Socialist Movement reject all independence or national liberation movements that seek only to establish new ruling classes in power and to re­divide the world into different, but equally irrelevant frontiers. Socialists also oppose all wars as conflicts between rival ruling classes over capitalist interests not worth the sacrifice of a single working class life or a single drop of fellow-workers blood.

The Socialist Party understands that socialism must be built by working class people, acting in their own class interests. Socialism cannot be imposed by force or delivered as a gift from above. Working people today face a future of low wages, worsening conditions and increasing domination of our lives. To secure any sort of decent life, we need to educate ourselves about how this whole system works, and what our interests are as workers.

 Recognising capitalism’s catastrophic effect on the natural environment the Socialist Party seeks to develop a future based on sustainable communities. A social revolution has to mean control of production by the producers. A social revolution has to mean production for the use of those who need it. A social revolution has to mean the classless society  — a society in which the antagonisms and divisions between classes, races, and people of different national backgrounds are eliminated and people can develop among themselves civilized and cooperative relations, relations which are possible today as never before because there need no longer be any problem of scarcity of material goods and services. All the problems of scarcity which up to now have required the exploitation of various ethnic and immigrant groupings have now been outmoded by the technological advances of production. Let us produce in abundance; let us secure plenty for all; let us find pleasure in producing. It is with these thoughts we must pervade the community if we are to be able to provide, in a lavish measure, plenty for all-in material comfort, in art, in learning, in leisure. In the socialist system at which we aim all will share the productive work of the community and all will take a part in organising that work. Such a community is socialism.

Is this all utopian and far-fetched? Some may say so, but what is the alternative, apart from the continuation of the current system.

Quote of the Day

Peter Kelly, director of The Poverty Alliance said: 
“Foodbanks have become the clearest sign of our failure to provide a decent income for everyone who needs it. Volunteers across the country have been stepping up to help those in crisis, those who have been failed by a social security system that have borne the brunt of cuts as a result of austerity. The work that these volunteers have been doing has been critical in providing an emergency response to real need, but it is clear that we need a longer term, more sustainable response. He added: “Foodbanks will be around for some time to come, providing important help to those who really need it. But we need to start developing alternatives now before foodbanks are seen as a normal part of our social security system. Community based initiatives like this one should be welcomed whilst we redouble our efforts to fix our social security system.”

Real Social Democracy

When the Socialist Party talks and writes of democracy we mean democracy must entail the involvement of the community at every level in political and economic decision-making, something very different from what the mainstream media which informs us that we require to elect a professional career politician, to represent our political interests every five years or so. Do we really need to depend upon professional a minority of specialists who claim their expertise and knowledge cannot be easily understood by the ‘layman’ and who is therefore excluded from democratic debate and decision? Are these aspiring statesmen (and women) the only ones with the talent and ability to make decisions concerning our communities?

The Socialist Party declares that socialism can be summed up as the conscious social control of all aspects of life, including the production and distribution of wealth. Under capitalism, we are victims of blind economic forces beyond our control but with the establishment of socialism people would be carrying out their own desires and decisions. What will give humans this freedom in socialism is the fact that all the Earth's resources, including the means for producing wealth, will have become the common heritage of the whole of humanity. Actually, this is just another way of saying that the world will belong to nobody: there will be neither property nor territorial rights over any part of the globe. Humanity will, therefore, be free to organise its social life in accordance with its wishes. To do this—to decide on and carry out its wishes—humanity will have to organise itself, inevitably democratically, since if decision-making were left to a permanent minority they would constitute a new owning class.

Socialism will be a society entirely geared to satisfying human needs. What human beings decide they want will be paramount; everything else will be subordinate to this aim. It is difficult for us, living in a capitalist society where time-measured cost as reflected in accounting in monetary units is paramount, and where human energies are no more than a costed factor of production, to appreciate how enormous a change this will be. Today time is money and the economic pressure is to do everything as quickly as possible. In socialism not only will there be no money but time will no longer be so important. Men and women will be free to choose to take longer to produce something if, For instance, this slower production method endows the product with a  more aesthetic appeal and offers the producers more pleasure in its creation, or results in a manufacturing process that is better for the health and the welfare of the producer. Satisfying our needs will be the sole determinant of production.

The decision of the allocation of resources within socialism would have three stages: Dissemination of information, debate and vote. The first part would rely on the expertise and talent of those involved within the relevant industries, in this case, scientists and technologists. Because of the absence of political pressures, they would be free to articulate candidly about the benefits and risks of developing certain productive technologies. There would have to be an element of trust in taking this advice but as in criminal trials, this will be balanced by experts who take a different perspective. A debate by the wider community would then take place using this information and evaluating possible contrasting opinions. Again, as in present day trials, the community will be asked which course to take based on their assessment of which evidence they find the most compelling. As is the case now mistakes will be made but at least they will be the result of honest error rather than Machiavellian political intrigue and corruption which is so ubiquitous today.

We maintain that no meaningful democracy is possible until the decisions concerning the production of the means of life are taken under the democratic control of the whole community. That this is a possibility will make the motivation for democratic activity so much more exciting – in contrast to the obvious impotent and cynical gatherings which parish, county, regional and national councils/governments now represent. Production for profit is the antithesis of democracy because it can only ever work in the interests of the parasitic minority. Democracy is still a concept that waits in the wings of history’s theatre, ready enter centre stage.

Humanity is One Family

Each person in the world is family. The people in a society founded upon common ownership orient themselves toward what is necessary for a good life, and not towards what makes the most profit. Economic, ecological and social crises are merging to form a single one, a crisis of civilization and sheer existence. We need a worldwide shift away from capitalism. Common ownership reflects people’s understanding of the nature of human life, we are not commodities to be traded. We, the people, need new societal institutions that are bound to a new relationship of humans and nature. Common ownership builds the bridge between the individual and society. Common ownership will be a society without money, barter or trade, where technology and science is used to their fullest to develop and manage the planet’s resources to provide abundance for everyone in the most sustainable way. This is the vision of a peaceful and cooperative world that the Socialist Party aspires to.

As long as we continue to live in a world where we are in conflict with one another we are bound to experience suffering, on a collective level. We don’t have to live this way. As Marx said “Doubt everything”. Question all beliefs and ideologies that have been handed down to you from tradition, no matter how back in time they go. We need to question everything: our personal assumptions, social and political institutions, ways of relating to one another and the planet. We have to be willing to change it all. Educate yourself about a better, alternative economic system. Stop supporting and voting for those who want to keep humanity enslaved, the ruling class and their political protectors. Let’s support one another to change ourselves, so that, together, we can change our world. They keep telling us that humans are selfish and greedy. It is not true.

All over the world there is a feeling that something is deeply wrong. Many are filled with cynicism, general conformism and apathy. On the one hand, there is growing interest in social activism and political participation. Our so-called leaders only talk about economic growth at all costs as the only viable solution to mass poverty, wealth inequality, the climate crisis. The question of money is often raised in discussions about the realization of alternatives to the growth-based economy of capital accumulation. The logic of money is a fundamental built-in error of current-day thinking. For the civilization based on the economy of maximization, monetary value becomes the touchstone of all values in the sense of morality and ethics, namely the debate is about the fact that nobody should remain hungry as long as others, have enough to eat. We should not quibble about the World Bank’s $1 or $2 a day definition of poverty. The blind pursuit of money are by those whose actions destroy the life-giving capacities of the Earth, who place profit above all else. People are consumed as a “resource” to fill the coffers of the wealthy. For the sake of share-price on the stock-market, forests and soils are depleted, fish stocks exhausted, pollution poured into the rivers and seas, and fossil fuel emissions spewed into the air.  The prevailing power institutions within capitalism are doing everything they can to convince us that the solution to our social and environmental problems is going to be found in the very same policies that have created them in the first place. The T.I.N.A. [There is No Alternative] narrative continues to dominate. For a lot of folk the characterization of the today’s system as a democracy is an oxymoron.

It is a personal dilemma for many to know how much the world is screwed up yet still be hopeful about the future. The more we learn about what it means to be human, however, the more hopeful we can become. We increasingly recognise how profoundly social and cooperative society is despite the many problems the system possesses. The more we look for solutions to our collective problems, we find that indeed there are solutions to be had. We realise we don’t have to sit back and watch the world collapse around us. It is in the world socialist movement that a solidarity spirit wins out over self-interest. In a socialist party, working people hone a sense of obligation to one another and build a fierce loyalty to a vision of a sharing economy where labour is treated with dignity. As socialists we experience the class power of coming together and standing up against the ruling class.  Important as the struggles in the streets, communities and workplaces are, it is the mass socialist party where people have real defining experiences. 

The Calton Weavers Cemetery

We’ll never swerve

We’ll steadfast be

We’ll have our rights

We will be free

Calton Burial Ground in Glasgow is the memorial cemetery to the six Calton weavers who were killed on September the 3rd, during the 1787 strike by troops of the 39th (Dorsetshire) Regiment of Foot, called ut by the magistrates. The burial ground is located on Abercomby Street.

The Calton Martyrs of 1787

A small green grave lies down by Calton

In the heart o' Glasgow town.

Men of honour, men of courage,

Their names are honoured with renown.

Two hundred years ago they suffered

For the workers glorious Cause,

They were shot defending Freedom

Against the boss and Tory laws.

On Glasgow Green the weavers gathered,

For Tyrants might cared not a fig,

They marched from Calton up towards the Highgate,

And faced the army at Drygate Brig.

At the provost's order the coward soldiers

Opened fire and six men were slain,

And the people's anger it spread like wild-fire

From Glasgow Cross out to Dunblane.

These were the lads who wove all clothing,

Shot for upholding a scanty wage,

While the boss and soldier are damned forever,

Brave names will glow on history's page.

In a small green grave down by Calton,

Spare a thought and a prayer as you pass on,

These were the pioneers of Freedom,

And heralds of a brighter Dawn.

Freddie Anderson

'They are unworthy of freedom who expect it from other hands than their own'

St. Kilda memory

 From the October 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are familiar with the work of anthropologists who have studied the life-styles of pre-capitalist societies and shown that human beings have not always been competitive, money conscious owners and non-owners; but their examples have usually been regarded as rather exotic—Amazonian Indians, Polynesians and the like. It was all the more interesting, therefore, to see in the Guardian(July 25) an article written in commemoration of the evacuation a mere 50 years ago of the last inhabitants of the island of St Kilda in the Hebrides.

It is fascinating to read remarks about these people (some of whom are still alive in England) that recall very similar observations about savage tribes. We read, for example, that for hundreds of years the islanders existed without the use of money, something that seems to baffle those workers who imagine that apes made money their first priority as soon as they got down from the trees. “There was virtually no crime and no policeman ever landed on their shores.” The island was owned by the McLeods of Skye. “All work to pay the rent (in kind) was done communally as was the sharing out of the sea-bird harvest which was divided according to need.” “Every member of the community relied on the others for survival and notions of individual payment were strange to them. Sheep, a secondary source of wealth, were owned individually but if one man lost some, the others would make up his losses.”

The island was bleak and windswept (still is) but there is no evidence from 17th and 18th century accounts that “the islanders were wretched or dissatisfied. On the contrary, authors wrote of “the relish and gaiety with which they went about their work and of their great love for poetry, music, dancing and other jollity”. But the outside world of capitalism could not leave St. Kilda alone. “The ministers and missionaries proved a decisive influence, mostly for the bad . . .  their poetry and music, banned by the ministers, died out . . . A community, which had been a weather-beaten anachronism for a millenium and flourished with it — declined and died.”

Is it democracy?

In the run up to their annual conference, the Socialist Workers Party publishes Pre-conference bulletins. One such bulletin from 2012 bulletin contains the SWP constitution.  Some snippets:

“Branches and/or districts elect delegates to Conference on a basis proportional to their membership, as determined by the Central Committee.[...]

(5) Central Committee The CC consists of members elected by the Conference according to the following procedure: The outgoing Central Committee selects and circulates a provisional slate for the new CC at the beginning of the period for pre-Conference discussion. This is then discussed at the district aggregates where comrades can propose alternative slates.

At the Conference the outgoing CC proposes a final slate (which may have changed as a result of the pre-Conference discussion). This slate, along with any other that is supported by a minimum of five delegates, is discussed and voted on by Conference.

Between Conferences the CC is entrusted with the political leadership of the organisation and is responsible for the national direction of all political and organisational work, subject to the decision- making powers of Conference.”

Note: there is no specification of the size of the CC, so they can always co-opt oppositionists to the official slate.  Also note the CC controls the size of conference which can make it more manageable.

This is justified thus:

“The necessity of a revolutionary party flows from the fact that although the working class must collectively emancipate itself, the ideological domination of the ruling class means there is considerable uneveness within the working class in terms of its confidence, organisation and ideas. The role of a revolutionary party is to draw together the militant minority who understand the need for revolution, not to substitute for the class, but to constantly seek ways to act to increase workers’ combativity and confidence and in the process win wider layers of workers to socialist ideas.[...] And the existence of a leadership is a necessity. Uneveness in terms of experience, confidence and clarity of ideas exists not just inside the working class as a whole, but also within the revolutionary party. The more roots the party has inside the working class, the more it is able to intervene in the class struggle, the greater this uneveness will be.” (CC statement). 

Note, it assumes that the leadership is the pinnacle of this uneven consciousness, and instead of seeking to challenge the "unevenness" seeks to work within it, and in effect justifies a technocratic/theocratic elite dictating to the ignorant, rather than a two way dialogue between revolutionaries and workers.  After all, for all we (naturally) assume that we are right, we enter into debate and have to withstand the possibility that we may be proved wrong.

Little has changed since the Socialist Party published an educational document on the SWP in 1995. Here's an extract on Conference Procedure from section III:

The main item on the agenda is a report by the Central Committee on the political “perspectives” which is usually a document of pamphlet-length. The Central Committee also submits other reports – on work in special areas of activity (industry, students, women,) internal organisation, finance – for the Conference to discuss. In the SWP, branches still have the formal right to submit motions, but they are strongly discouraged from doing so. As an explanatory note intended for new members, accompanying documents submitted for the party’s 1983 Conference put it:

“Branches can submit resolutions if they wish and these may [sic] be voted on. But in recent years the practice of sending resolutions to conference has virtually ceased” (Socialist Review, September 1983).

What this means is that it is the Central Committee – the leadership – which quite literally sets the agenda for the Conference. The branch delegates meet, therefore, to discuss only what is put before them by the Central Committee. Not that the delegates are delegates in the proper sense of the term as instructed representatives of the branches sending them:

“Delegates should not be mandated . . . Mandating is a trade union practice, with no place in a revolutionary party”.

Since voting on motions submitted by branches is dismissed as a “trade union practice”, another procedure, more open to manipulation by the leadership, is operated:

“At the end of each session of conference commissions are elected to draw up a report on the session detailing the points made. In the event of disagreement two or more commissions can be elected by the opposing delegates. The reports are submitted to conference and delegates then vote in favour of one of the commissions. The advantage of this procedure is that conference does not have to proceed by resolution like a trade union conference”.

No branch motions, no mandated delegates, what else? No ballots of the entire membership either. In the first volume of his political biography of Lenin, Cliff records in shocked terms that “in January 1907 Lenin went so far as to argue for the institution of a referendum of all party members on the issues facing the party”, commenting “certainly a suggestion which ran counter to the whole idea of democratic centralism” (Lenin, Building the Party, p. 280)

In fact, no official of the SWP above branch level is directly elected by a vote of the members. One power that the branches do retain is the right to nominate members for election, by the Conference delegates, to the National Committee, but, as over presenting motions, they are discouraged from nominating people who do not accept the “perspectives” espoused by the Central Committee. So elections do take place to the National Committee but on the basis of personalities rather than politics. However, it is the way that the Central Committee is elected that is really novel: the nominations for election to new central committee are proposed not by branches but . . . by the outgoing central committee! Once again, in theory, branches can present other names but they never do.

It is easy to see how this means that the central committee – the supreme leadership of the organisation – is a self-perpetuating body renewal in effect only by co-optation. This is justified on the grounds of continuity and efficiency – it takes time to gain the experience necessary to become a good leader so that it would be a waste of the experienced gained if some leader were to be voted off by the vagaries of a democratic vote. Choosing the leadership by a competitive vote is evidently something else “with no place in a revolutionary party” any more than in an army.”

This, incidentally, is how the Politburo was (s)elected in the USSR which the SWP admits was state-capitalism. In particular, the slate system of electing (in effect co-opting) the "leadership". This was the practice of Communist Parties everywhere, including those in power. As far as I know, it is still practised in China, Cuba, and North Korea. The thing is of course that for the SWP this would still continue after "the revolution", a recipe for the sort of state capitalism they rightly criticise in the old USSR. But then they always did support state capitalism in Russia under Lenin and up until Trotsky was exiled in 1928.

Note the way the SWP avoids votes.  The CC slate is circulated, and ambitious members who come forward will just be added, there are no votes at conference just summaries of debate.  There is no way to quantify dissent (an important tool for anyone seeking to build a new majority). Of course, SWPers condemn nose counting, asking why the vote of one person should determine the outcome; and I've seen in practice a reluctance to just settle arguments with a vote, with the 'leading' member able to drag out debate in order to try and get their way. This could be sold, we suppose, as an attempt to build consensus (indeed, wasn't that how Occupy worked as well), but we soon see that without the right to be outvoted, a determined minority can come to dominate the discussion.

Other Leninist organisations are criticising the SWP for not applying "democratic centralism" properly. Our criticism is more fundamental: we are criticising "democratic centralism" as such.

The Alliance for Workers Liberty’s constitution clearly spells out what "democratic centralism" means in practice -- a hierarchical organisation dominated by its leaders:

“To be effective, our organisation must be democratic; geared to the maximum clarity of politics; and able to respond promptly to events and opportunities with all its strength, through disciplined implementation of the decisions of the elected and accountable committees which provide political leadership”.(emphasis added)

Below the "leadership", there are two levels of membership: "candidates" and "activists":

“Members will normally be admitted as candidates, to go through six months of education, training and disciplined activity before being admitted as full activists. A branch or fraction may, at the end of six months, extend the candidate period if it judges that the above requirements have not been fulfilled adequately. In such a case the candidate has the right to appeal to the Executive Committee. Candidates do not have the right to vote in the AWL”

On promotion to "activist", members are required to, among other things:

“2. Engage in regular political activity under the discipline of the organisation;

4. Sell the literature of the AWL regularly;”

They have to ask "leave of absence" if they can't do this for some reason:

“A member suffering from illness or other distress may be granted a total or partial leave of absence from activity for up to two months; but the leave of absence must be ratified in writing by the Executive Committee, and the activist must continue to pay financial contributions to the AWL.”

If they stop selling the AWL's paper without this permission, then they are in trouble:

“Where activists have become inactive or failed to meet their commitments to the AWL without adequate cause such as illness, and there is no dispute about this fact, branches, fractions, or appropriate committees may lapse them from membership with no more formality than a week's written notice. Activists who allege invalid lapsing may appeal to the National Committee.”

They can even be fined:

“Branches, fractions, and appropriate elected committees may impose fines or reprimands for lesser breaches of discipline. Any activist has the right to defend himself or herself before a decision on disciplinary action is taken on him or her, except in the case of fines for absence or suspensions where the AWL's security or integrity are at risk.”

As to branches and "fractions" (AWL members boring from within other organisations), they can elect their own organisers but these are responsible to the leadership not to those who elected them:

“Each branch or fraction shall elect an organiser and other officers. The organiser is responsible to the AWL and is subject to the political and administrative supervision of its leading committees for the functioning of the branch or fraction and for ensuring that AWL policy is carried out.”

They can even give orders to those who elected them:

“Branch or fraction organisers can give binding instructions to activists in their areas on all day today matters.”

But if they step out of line the leadership can remove them and replace them with someone of their choice:

“The Executive Committee and the National Committee have the right in extreme cases, and after written notice and a fair hearing, to remove branch or fraction organisers from their posts and impose replacements.”

What self-respecting person would want to be a member of such an organisation?