The Migrant Rules

The number of asylum seekers in Europe has soared over the past 10 years. In that time claims have increased fivefold to more than 1.2m last year, unleashing a populist backlash that could yet affect the outcome of elections in France and Germany this year.

The Guardian newspaper has analysed the experience of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy – and found the conditions in Britain do not compare well. Only Italy, on the front-line of hundreds of thousands of people crossing the Mediterranean, fares worse. Its analysis found that Britain takes fewer refugees, offers less generous financial support, provides housing that is often substandard, does not give asylum seekers the right to work, has been known to punish those that volunteer and routinely forces people into destitution and even homelessness when they are granted refugee status due to bureaucratic delays.

 Alex Fraser, director of refugee support at the British Red Cross explained, “Roughly 3% of asylum applications in Europe were lodged in the UK. I don’t think we will see a reduction ... by making the experience tougher. All it will do is make the experience of people in the system more difficult.”

Britain consistently has the lowest approval rates for asylum seeker claims of the five countries. “The average grant rate in Europe is 63 to 65%,” said Fraser, which compares with a grant rate of roughly a third in the UK, dropping to 28% in the third quarter of 2016, which Fraser called “really low”.

Britain has been rebuked for not taking its “fair share” of refugees. In 2016, Britain received 38,517 applications for asylum (1 per 1,664 people in the population). This compares with 722,370 claims in Germany (1 per 112), 123,432 in Italy (1 per 485), and 85,244 in France (1 in 775). The only western European country home to fewer asylum seekers is Spain, which had 15,500 applications in 2016 (1 per 2,971).

On top of this, most of these countries are involved in refugee resettlement programmes with more ambitious aims than the UK’s commitment to taking 20,000 Syrian refugees from refugee camps by 2020.

France, which has a similar population to Britain, will take 30,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2017. Germany will begin a new humanitarian programme in 2017 to resettle 13,700 of the Syrians living in Turkey, despite the fact that an estimated 600,000 Syrians have arrived in Germany since the outbreak of war in 2011.

The British government also provides less in the way of financial support for asylum seekers than Spain, France and Germany (though not Italy). While people wait to hear if they have been granted asylum in Britain they are provided accommodation and £36.95 a week to cover food, clothing, toiletries, transport and all other costs. In France, asylum seekers are given almost double this amount – €11 (£9.40) a day, or £65.59 a week – as well as accommodation. In December 2016, the French Council of State found that this rate was “manifestly insufficient” and ordered the French government to increase it in early 2017.

In Spain, asylum seekers are either housed in refugee reception centres where they are provided with food, clothing and other essentials and a small cash allowance, or in apartments, where they receive up to €300 (£256) a month to cover expenses and food. Germany gives asylum seekers €31.15 (£26.50) a week on top of accommodation, but this does not have to cover their food, as it does in Britain.

The condition of the accommodation provided for asylum seekers in Britain has also been condemned. A recent home affairs select committee report into asylum housing said the quality of accommodation provided to asylum seekers was “disgraceful” and cited cases of mice, rats and bed bugs.

Britain is also the only country out of the five examined that does not set a maximum time limit for holding asylum seekers in detention facilities and the only country that does not allow unaccompanied children who arrive and claim asylum the right to apply to be reunited with their parents.

Judith Dennis, policy manager for the Refugee Council, said a major concern was the high rate of destitution and homelessness experienced by refugees in Britain.

After being granted refugee status, people stop receiving the support they have been getting as an asylum seeker and must apply to receive mainstream benefits and have 28 days to leave the accommodation provided to them by the Home Office. Because of the difficulties involved in applying for benefits, very few refugees are able to register for benefits in this 28-day period, forcing them to go to food banks and charities for food and meaning many find themselves homeless. “What we do is force refugees into homelessness and destitution almost routinely,” said Dennis. “It’s hard to see how someone without an advocate or a special need that makes them a priority for council housing will be able to move on within 28 days. We’d expect the majority of those who have to source private sector housing will become homeless.”

Britain also has the strictest restrictions on asylum seekers working. They are not allowed into paid employment unless they have been waiting to hear about their asylum claim for 12 months. Then they are only allowed to work in occupations featured on the government’s “shortage occupations” list, a limited set of professions including classical ballet dancers, orchestral musicians, , medical practitioners and engineers.

Fraser said that while on paper asylum seekers are allowed to work, he has never met an asylum seeker who has been able to. “It doesn’t seem to be a reality,” he said.

This contrasts with Spain where asylum seekers can work from the day they apply for asylum and are given their “red card” identification document. Vocational and language training classes are organised at Spanish reception centres in which asylum seekers first live to help them find work. In Italy, asylum seekers can work after six months. In Germany, asylum seekers can apply for work three months after submitting their asylum claim, with certain vetting conditions.. In France asylum seekers can work nine months after applying for asylum in limited occupations.

A Capital Idea

In Capital Marx examines the working of capitalism in detail. He takes as the basic unit of the capitalist economy the commodity, an item of wealth produced for sale. Where goods are produced for sale then, and only then, do they have a value. The law of value operates only where there is commodity-production. For thousands of years goods, produced for sale under pre-capitalist conditions, exchanged more or less at their values. Capitalism, which is a system of production for profit as well as for sale, is more complex and commodities only accidentally exchange at their values. Nevertheless the law of value still operates. In fact, under capitalism all the paraphernalia of exchange—money, prices, trade, banks, bills, bonds, credit—are developed to a high degree.

For Marx the classless society that would replace capitalism—which he called either Socialism or Communism— would not be an exchange economy. Wealth would be produced for social use and not for profit or for sale. Hence the law of value would not operate in Socialist society. There would be no commodities, no money, no prices, no trade, no banks and the like.

This was also how all the Social Democratic writers on Marxian economics, people like Kautsky and Luxemburg, saw it.

The standard textbook on Marxian economics used by all sections of Russian Social Democracy, including the Bolsheviks, was A Short Course of Economic Science by A. Bogdanov first published in 1897

“The new society will be based not on exchange but on natural self-sufficing economy. Between production and consumption of products there will not be the market, buying and selling, but consciously and systematically organised distribution.”

Bukharin and Proebrazhensky's  The A.B.C. of Communism, wrote of Socialism (which he, for political reasons, calls Communism):

“The communist method of production presupposes in addition that production is not for the market, but for use. Under communism, it is no longer the individual manufacturer or the individual peasant who produces; the work of production is effected by the gigantic co-operative as a whole. In consequence of this change, we no longer have commodities, but only products. These products are not exchanged one for another; they are neither bought nor sold. They are simply stored in the communal warehouses, and are subsequently delivered to those who need them. In such conditions, money will no longer be required”

The question no reformer ever face is, if society’s ideas are “bad”, what makes them so? Why are they not “good” ideas? Why is society so “unreasonable” that it accepts an arrangement which allows a few people to enjoy almost boundless wealth while the condition of the vast majority is never better than insistent poverty and can sink as low as outright starvation? Why is society so “foolish” as to waste so much of its resources on destruction? Such questions are endless but had we known, or cared, the one logical and consistent answer to them had already been found, by that man whose beard caused us so much amusement. The Materialist Conception of History which, among other things, sees ideas in their place as the products of material conditions and not as the makers of those conditions:

“. . . economic production and the structure of society of every historical epoch necessarily arising therefrom constitute the foundation for the political and intellectual history of that epoch . . . “ (Engels — Preface to the German edition of the Communist Manifesto, 1883).

From this viewpoint, history is not the jumble of accidents, personal misdeeds and romantic mysteries which was served to us as the staple diet of our schooldays. History is a continuous process of social development, passing from one system to another, marking its way with periods of social revolution and with each system giving rise to its own class antagonisms. Man’s history, in other words, has been a process of class struggles which have brought him now to capitalism, a system with only two classes and therefore with only one class to struggle for its emancipation. Capitalism has done many things. It has broken the customs and taboos of earlier society, it has massed its people into great productive units. It has entirely separated one of its classes from the means of production and by so doing has brought into existence the most explicit of class divisions in human society. Capitalism has developed—and continues to develop—the process of extracting a surplus product, from the unprivileged class for the privileged class, into an unprecedented science.This, then, is capitalism. But how do we examine the system, how explain its workings, its class relations, its method of exploitation? How do we come to an understanding of capitalism’s tendencies and the process by which it nourishes the seeds of its own destruction? This analysis was the work of Marx’s Capital.

The first question Marx had to ask was—what is the mode of production in capitalist society? The answer was commodity production, that the mass of wealth under capitalism was produced as commodities. “Our investigation” said Marx, “must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.” 

Marx’s method is to isolate the commodity, as ". . . in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another.” From this simple statement he goes on to examine the commodity in detail; the limits within which one will exchange with another, the implications of the social relationship of value, the way in which commodities perform their function of exchanging so as to realise a surplus value for the capitalist class.

Marx examined the nature of the commodity which all workers possess—human labour power—and he revealed the process by which the working class are exploited, he revealed the reasons for their alienation from the means of production and he charted the course of their ever-deepening misery and degradation:

. . . within the capitalist system all methods for raising the social productiveness of labour are brought about at the cost of the individual labourer; all means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over, and exploitation of, the producers; they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work, and turn it into a hated toil . . . (Capital).

This passage, which ends with the famous statement that “Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, i.e. on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of capital,” has come in for much criticism from those who argue that the opposite tendency has taken place, that capitalism has solved its problems and makes its people ever happier in a flood of washing machines, cars and television sets.

But is what Marx said true? Misery? Agony? Join the rush-hour, take your place on a fast assembly line with everyone trying to keep up the bonus, have a go at finding somewhere to live which is bearable and within the pay packet of an average worker. Look into the figures of families who are suffering extremes of poverty amid the so-called Welfare State, which was another of those things which were supposed to have proved Marx wrong.

Brutality? Look up the recent crime statistics, with their evidence that we live in times of almost unprecedented violence. Consider the fact that men now earn their living by making the things which have the power almost to wipe out settled life on the earth. Mental degradation? This is the age when capital accumulation usually means the use of computers and automated techniques of production, when human beings are reduced to simply numbers, when exploitation is constantly being refined and intensified.

Capital probes the entire mechanism of capitalist society. While the “orthodox” economists grapple with their feeble expedients—their selective employments taxes, their import restrictions, their manipulations of Bank Rate—the Marxist analysis explains it all. And not at all in the popularly supposed manner of the unsmiling “Red Prussian.” Although he deals with a difficult and intricate subject, Marx never leaves his readers in doubt that he is a human being. His writing not only has power, but wit and movement as well:

Our capitalist, who is at home in his vulgar economy, exclaims: “Oh! but I advanced my money for the express purpose of making more money." The way to Hell is paved with good intentions, and he might just as easily have intended to make money, without producing at all. He threatens all sorts of things. He won't be caught napping again. In future he will buy the commodities in the market, instead of manufacturing them himself. But if all his brother capitalists were to do the same, where would he find his commodities in the market? And his money he cannot eat, (Capital, p.172).

Marx shows how capitalism develops and how and why it will end. He shows that there is now only one subject class, and that it is their historical function to abolish private property and build the new society of Socialism. All this is in his works, in Capital and others. But at the same time Marx was clear that none of this was inevitable; he knew that men make their own history and that, working within the society they find, they must carry out their historical task.

What this means is that capitalism is not a matter of mankind, in some blindingly tragic mistake, getting onto the wrong path. It is not a matter of incorrect or anti-social ideas. In the same way, socialism will not happen simply because we think it is a "right” idea. Both systems are part of man’s social evolution, both have their own super-structure of institutions and ideas springing from a basis which can be scientifically examined and classified.

Socialists are distinguishable for their grasp of all this. Non-Socialists, however sincere they may be, however pressing the problems they protest against, can be identified by their failure to appreciate the scientific case for socialism. The reformers:

:They all want the impossible, namely, the conditions of bourgeois life without the necessary consequences of those conditions.” (Letter to Paul V. Annenkov, December 28, 1846)

Telling it like it is

Never before have objective conditions been so favourable to socialism. Never have the workers been more ready to listen to and examine the socialist case, but with this decline of hostility has come a corresponding disinclination to give enthusiastic support, due, no doubt, to the disappointment born of repeated disillusionment suffered at the hands of professional politicians of the old school, or at the hands of the new and numerous brood of Leftist who distort and bring into disrepute the principles of socialism. Remember that you and we are of the working class and we cannot, if we would, wash our hands of working class troubles. Their problems are also yours and ours, if they sink further into the mire so do we and you. If we cannot win the workers for socialism, they will be retained for the capitalist system and you will share the suffering that will ensue.

Capitalism may prepare the ground in people's minds, but that alone will not produce socialism. The growth of socialist knowledge requires effort; the effort must be organised and the organisation must have resources. Knowledge of socialism, the Socialist Party possesses as well as the fundamentals of organisationbut resources are far below even our present needs and a measure of effort quite inadequate to the task we have in hand. We have a few hundred members, a limited circulation of our journal and pamphlets, a not very visited presence on the internet and social media and with this we propose to conquer the world— to the not mirth and amusement of our class enemies. Why is our membership numbered in hundreds instead of thousands? Why not ten of thousands readers of our printed literature, and why not a daily or weekly paper? Why not twitter and Facebook accounts too numerous to mention? These things, even our members, at the moment dream about but realise are no way near on the horizon as practicable propositions.

We are a working class organisation and our funds are accordingly very strictly limited. The whole of the work of the organisation has so far depended entirely on the voluntary unpaid services of our members. This must, of course, remain generally true, however our activities may grow, but there are many things which can be done so much better, and others which can only be done at all by full time paid officials. We cannot, for instance, have organisers at work in the provinces until we can afford the expense, and only those who have tried know that there is a soon reached physical limit to the spare time work that can be performed after our employers have had their eight hours of the best that is in us. Much as we should like to attain a level of efficiency in internal administration equal to that of the best business concerns, it is a sheer impossibility to do so with the necessarily irregular and haphazard efforts on which we must rely.

But there are other developments by no means beyond our range, only waiting for just that little extra effort. Many who know the Socialist Party and its principles sympathise with us but have never yet felt the urgency of joining actively in our work. Many of them would justify standing aside, perhaps, with the remark that they would willingly join in if they could see some signs of activity; if only we would be more engaged and do something. To which we can only reply that with their help, perhaps, we might, and in any event if they would join they would better realise how great are the difficulties to be overcome before we can do even what little we succeed in doing now. We cannot compete in advertising and publicity with the numerous purveyors of political clap-trap who are our rivals for the attention and support of our fellow-workers. If, then, you already understand and accept our principles, why not apply for membership? To do so will give encouragement to us; it will keep you in touch with the internal work of the party, show you our difficulties and open up forms of activity you had not considered. You can, perhaps, find ways of co-operating with other members, at present isolated.

If you dislike what we say or how we say it, in our publications and websites and of the manner of their representation and presentation you can send us your criticisms of the matter. If you dislike what we say or how we say it we can promise to consider your points and endeavour to meet them so far as our limited powers permit.  Above all, if you have difficulties or want particular subjects dealt with and explained, do not hesitate to tell us. Without some such guide it is difficult indeed to know to what extent we are making the best use. of our limited resources.

A new way of working

To the man or woman with imagination, who recognises variety as the spice of life, there can be little that is more detestible than the idea of having to hold on to the same job for life. To be chained to an office desk, or a drilling machine, or a steering wheel, or a kitchen sink for all one's working days is to know boredom in the extreme. The worker's eyes wander continuously to the clock, knowing that the same process will go on day after day, week after week, year after year, then he or she experiences one of the most cruel curses of capitalism.  Workers may laugh and joke and appear contented with their jobs, but usually they are simply resigned to the monotony, making the best of necessity. The eagerness with which they welcome finishing time is evidence of their anxiety to escape the boredom.

Even the worker who is fortunate enough to capture a job where he or she can still use a little initiative and set their own pace is not free from the boredom of repetitive tasks. Capitalism calls for specialised efficiency and that is best obtained by keeping a worker at one task so that they will become as speedy and faultless as mechanical action can make them. It is speed of production that matters, not the nerves of the worker who does the producing. Profit is the motive, not the satisfying of human wants or the comfort of the workers. The inventor and the investigator, are being drawn from their fields of adventurous exploration and discovery into the laboratory to perform their jobs in a routine repetitive and mundane manner.

In addition to the repetitive nature of many of the tasks that capitalist production demands, the worker is deprived of an interest in the product of his or her toil. Unlike the craftsman of bygone days, we can have little joy in our work and even less pride in the product. The process of production is too impersonal. We perform just a part, a small part, in the chain of production. Frequently we do not see the finished product at all and, maybe, does not know how it will look or be used. We are just a cog in the process of producing wealth for his employer. There is nothing about our job to stimulate our enthusiasm and relieve the monotony of our work. With the ever increasing sub-division of work that capitalism imposes, together with the process of making production more and more automated, there is removed the final remnants of anything that might have held the worker’s interest and saved us from complete boredom.

In a world where people can, at any time, lose their livelihood through no fault of their own, a job that offers a prospect of continuous employment is one to be sought after, no matter how dull or monotonous the task to be performed. Such a job implies being a loyal and docile worker so as not to displease the employer and invite dismissal.

When the profit motive is removed from production and men and women produce things in order that they may enjoy them, they will have a different outlook on the tasks that they will have to perform. Making life more pleasurable will involve giving men and women opportunities for variety in their occupations. High-speed automated production can still be an asset, but to tie a person to one routine job for years will be a torment that must be abolished. Interest in the work can be instilled by allowing people to engage in the various processes necessary to convert raw materials to finished products, or to formulate and perform social services. Just as men nowadays can become highly skilled in the tasks that they undertake as hobbies so they can become highly skilled in a number of branches of activity and have changes of job that will retain their interest and enthusiasm. With variety of occupation boredom will be banished, with an interest in the work, "auto-monotony” will end. With goods produced for use instead of for profit, pride in production will return. An individual can be proud when he or she is doing a socially necessary job for the society of which they are a member, but not when toiling to fill the pockets of parasites.

Whilst the profit motive remains there will still be insecurity and workers will crucify themselves to their jobs in an effort to avoid it. When the workers abolish capitalism, the clock-watching commodity, labour-power, will be abolished with it.

Answering our critics

A conservative think-tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs gave the Socialist Party a mention.

https://iea.org.uk/has-real-socialism-never-been-tried/

“Every socialist experiment has, at some point, been waxed lyrical about by Western intellectuals, including Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao’s China. It was only when their horrors could no longer be denied even with the best will in the world that the blue tick was withdrawn retroactively.
And yet, there are exceptions to this, such as the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB). They are not, and as far as I know, never were, apologists of Soviet-style socialism, which they describe as ‘state capitalism’. They are among the few socialists who have at least some idea of what they mean by ‘real’ socialism. They use that term to describe a hypothetical system in which working-class people own and control the economy’s productive resources directly, not via the state; a system in which public ownership is not mediated through a government bureaucracy. I have no idea how this should work in practice, but I suppose we could imagine some combination of public ownership with Swiss-style multi-level direct democracy.”

Socialism obviously isn't going to be an endless series of referenda about how many tins of baked beans we produce.

The long shadow cast by the centrally planned model of socialism has done incomparable damage to the socialist  cause and - lets face it - this is what lies behind this grotesque caricature of the "economic planning process" in socialism - that all decisions affecting the production of goods will be made democratically by the population as a whole on a society-wide basis and hence in a centrally planned manner

This has become a stick with which to beat the socialist cause - to demonstrate its alleged impracticality - and the Leninists and their ilk have conspired to give credibility to this ridiculous accusation with their loose talk of a "planned economy".  As if the totality of production can ever be planned  in advance. there is much mileage to be made for socialists to emphasise instead that real socialism must of necessity be a self regulating system of production in the same sense that a capitalist market economy is self regulating - except of course that a socialist system will be completely devoid of any kind of market transaction. 

Sure, there will be a role for democratic decision-making within the vision of socialism and no doubt it will be much enlarged by comparison with today but we should not make the mistake of confusing the part with the whole

 Socialism as understood by the Socialist Party is namely, a non-market, non-statist system of society based on the common ownership of the means of wealth production in which goods are freely distributed and labour is performed on a purely voluntary, self-determined basis. Socialism would necessarily be a decentralised system of production in which the great bulk of decisions would be effectively communicated via a self regulating system of stock control using calculation in kind. In fact, this kind of production model already to an extent exists today under our very noses. A supermarket for example makes use of two systems of accounting – calculation in kind and monetary based accounting. In socialism we will completely dispense with the latter but continue to use the former. Democratic decision-making will of course play a role in socialism and a much enlarged one by comparison with what is the case today

A Political Party Proposing Freedom

How do you know when politicians are lying? When you see their lips move.

The Socialist Party possesses a position, a philosophy and a policy, which has been tested in every possible way. Social cientists, economists, politicians, have attacked it, belittled it, sneered at it, but here we remain undaunted.  As a policy, we of the Socialist Party have always realised that socialism can only come when the majority of people want it. We conceive it our task therefore, to convert a majority of people to our point of view. With this clear object before us, we believe there cannot be too much opportunity for discussion. We are so convinced of the strength of our position that our platform is open to anyone who cares to try to prove us wrong. We have nothing to hide, no secrets to keep, no leaders to apologise for, nothing but straight socialism to advocate. So we have nothing to fear. If anyone thinks we are crying for the moon, or are on a wild-goose chase, he or she is at liberty to tell us so. One of our earliest decisions of policy, was that we allow an opponent access to our platform. Having heard our case, and subject only to the common usages and decencies of debate, we offer any opponent the right to oppose us, on our own platform. We believe that, as a party, we are unique in this respect. To allow questions is not enough. Do not be led hither and thither by leaders of any sort. Do not read the exclusive literature of any one party; read all, and come to your own conclusions. Read and think deeply. Do not hurry to a decision, but let what you read and hear, have time to digest in your brain and then stick to your own opinion. Politics is essentially a subject for public discussion, and that cannot be called discussion which says "These are our views. You may ask us questions about them, but we will not allow your contrary views to be heard.”

Politicians have failed us so many times it is a standing joke. They pass comfortably through disaster after disaster while in power, but when elections loom they panic completely, lose all dignity and promise anything they can think of. Each election they beg for another chance. Each election we give it to them. And the starvation and misery in the world, the poverty, the pollution, the stress in our lives and the despair of so many, all of these get worse instead of better. In spite of "greening" themselves politicians can do almost nothing to stop the immense destruction caused by pollution, basically because it's cheaper to pollute than to reprocess waste.

And what could they do about poverty? Abolish it? If they do that then they must also abolish riches, surely, because you can't have one without the other. And what will the rich have to say about that? Can they abolish homelessness, perhaps by giving people free houses? Again, what would the rich building contractors say? Can they abolish hunger by making food very cheap? Not if they want the support of rich food producers. Politicians who are smart know this.

They know exactly how helpless they are in the face of problems which defy any attempt to control them. But they know also that to admit defeat is political suicide. Somebody else will make the same promises and get all the votes instead, as we've been seeing with the Greens. So instead they always beg us for one more last chance.

But there could be a better way. The Socialist Party makes proposals. They are not "common sense" proposals, so "realists" won't be interested. We think, however, that it is time to think big. The proposals we make are ambitious. Probably more so than any you will have heard before. Because the problems are world-wide, we think that the solutions have to be world-wide. First, we are going to propose that the world organises itself democratically. It is not so at the moment, because we rely on leaders. We put people into positions of power, where they can control vast fortunes and vast armies, and then we expect them to act in our interest. That's like putting children in charge of a sweetshop. We should not be surprised when they let us down. But the world is no sweetshop, it is a matter of life and death. If we cannot trust leaders, we must learn to stand on our own feet - without leaders. We are not children, however much we are treated like children. We do not have to be helpless and weak. If we decide to make our world into a democracy, we are well able to do it. If we decide that we should not be ruled over by tyrants and masters, we are well able to do that too. If enough of us organise together, we can accomplish anything. Which is just as well, because not everyone would welcome more democracy. In fact, there is a tiny minority of people who would not be at all pleased if we decided to run things ourselves. And that's because they happen to own nearly everything on this planet. There's nothing wrong with owning things per se. We all do. But when somebody owns the food you need to live on, it's as if they are holding a gun to your head. They can make you do almost anything. The world we live in is so arranged that a small minority of people holds that power over a very large majority, simply because of what they own. And this affects everything we think, feel and do.  If we want a real democracy, we must face the fact that property stands in the way. However huge a step it is, we cannot ever be free until we have abolished the ability of people to hold such terrible power over each other. Property and money are worldwide institutions. To uproot them would mean turning the world as we know it virtually upside down.

 We know how much is against us, and we know what the rich and powerful might try to do to stop it. Yet we believe it can be done, that it can be done quickly, and that it can be done without violence of any kind. 

We need a new kind of life

BREAK THE CHAINS

 We are living through a period of mounting populism. The aim is to divide workers by nationalist and racist rhetoric. Against this, we need to tear down all walls and connect workers to solidarity and mutual aid. Let’s make our struggles for better living conditions and for a world without exploitation and oppression. Today, more than ever, we insist that the working class and the capitalist class have nothing in common and any hope in governments is not part of the solution, but part of the problem. We could spend the rest of our days trying to solve social problems one by one, but they stem from the same source – our capitalist economic system. No piecemeal solution will serve; we need to rethink everything according to a different logic. To change anything, start at the cause.

Are you living the way you want to live, or the way the ruling class wants you to live? You have a choice, but do you choose based on your own decisions or on the decisions imposed on you by this capitalist society? You act, but are you acting out of your own volition or because you have been conditioned.  Even those with the best hearts- including ourselves- have been raised in ignorance, with disinformation. Our examples of happiness are fake, sponsored, and used to sell products.  People are immensely repressed and experience tremendous suffering. Their lives are a slow torture. The 'haves' only retain higher status and power by making sure they use every means at their disposal to limit and control the 'have nots'.

Yet, life can be lived in a totally different way — a way that allows us to live up to our fullest potential, that helps us to find joy and contentment and peace, that brings us freedom to be spontaneous and make the most out of our life’s journey. A way that turns existence into a celebration, filled with beautiful moments that make life truly worth living.

For this to happen, however, we need a big shift in our consciousness. A good first step to achieving this is to escape the herd mentality that surrounds us by rebelling against anything that is imprisoning our minds. When you acquire the courage and the strength to say a big NO to capitalism and break free from the mental shackles that were imposed on you since the very day you were born, great things will start happening. Most workers don’t think for themselves — instead, they let others like politicians and the bosses media do the thinking for them. They are easily persuaded by the herd mentality and never stop for a moment to question anything that they’ve been told. Today's "heroes" are manufactured, phony, and are just successful brands used to promote other brands. The examples we're encouraged to idolize are all wealthy individuals famous for superficial trend reasons, not for any inherent genuine value of character or contribution to the world. Once your way of thinking stops being influenced by our social and economic system, you start using your reason more.

Our fellow workers when faced with any problems, place their only hope in some leader who will help them. But by themselves, our fellow workers feel totally helpless. We must begin to hone the art of free thinking, by not believing anything without evidence, by not accepting what doesn’t resonate with our own experiences. Responsibility and freedom always go hand in hand. Learn to take responsibility into our own hands. Do not trust in saviors of any kind, for example, politicians. Socialists don’t allow leaders to dictate to us or to control our thought and behaviour A marxist materialist doesn’t walk on a predetermined path — we create our own path.

Understand the system. Attack the cause. Channel all our outrage into building a new world. A sense of purpose could be found making our lives our own and worth living again by striving to create socialism.

The Socialist Case

 

 

Many on the Left continue to see the immediate struggle for civil and human rights and against fascism and racism as having top priority. Other activists continue to argue that we have to lead with an all-consuming effort to eliminate fossil fuels and environmental destruction. The threat was, is and always has been capitalism. A well-functioning capitalist economy depends on maintaining large, competing pools of vulnerable docile and compliant labour force and on the continuously increasing exploitation of energy and natural resources. It has been obvious for decades that we can have either capitalism or a liveable planet but not both. We know that we can have either capitalism or economic democracy but not both. For most of us, there’s no dilemma there; only for capitalists themselves does the need to preserve capitalism warrant ruining the Earth for human habitation or having the majority of our fellow human beings live in misery. But in coming years we will have to face this question - are we prepared to make changes to the way the world is run. If folk continue to elect supporters of capitalism, the consequences will be terrible. Within a couple of decades, millions of people around the world will have lost their homes to flooding, and others will be going hungry because of crop failures. Socialism will ensure that you have access to sufficient food, basic goods, in a cleaner, healthier world.

Where do you go from here as regards politics. The Socialist Party's answer is unequivocal: the full programme of socialism. A money-free, state-free, and classfree society based upon the production of use-values rather than exchange-value, and from each according to his or her ability, to each according to his or her needs. And moreover this programme is to be carried out at a planetary level.  Our first task is to seek a better understanding of the world,  in order to change it. The world we live in is a world of contradictions. The environment is in a state of decline, yet industry continues to pump pollutants into the atmosphere whilst non-polluting technologies are neglected. Thousands starve, while food stocks remain unused. We can communicate with strangers from all around the globe, yet no-one knows their neighbour. Automation could free us from labour, yet we are chained to the machine. We live amongst vast material possibilities, yet poverty is the universal experience - not just in the narrow economic sense but also in terms of the quality of lived experience.    Never in history has there been such a glaring contrast between what could be and what actually exists.

Central to all these contradictions and reshaping all previous antagonisms is the global commodity-capitalist system. A system characterised by the production of  commodities,  wage labour  and the  market economy. A commodity is what is produced by the worker under capitalist conditions, its purpose to reproduce and enlarge capital (stored-up labour). The pursuit of ever increasing profits is the driving force behind the whole process – the fulfilment of peoples needs is a secondary and not always occurring result.

Commodities are only available in exchange for other commodities, money being the universal commodity and measure of all others. Since all goods have been turned into commodities and access to non-commodified materials restricted , those without the means of producing anything to exchange must sell the only thing they have, their physical or mental labour-power. The logic of the market economy treats this labour like any other commodity; to be bought, sold and discarded as the market dictates. In effect the worker becomes a commodity. This transformation of living activity into an object creates an  alienated  or estranged world in which humankind does not recognize or fulfil itself, but is overpowered by the dead things and social relations of its own making.

Capitalist society is therefore split into two camps, the bourgeois or capitalist class (those who own and control the means of production – the land, equipment, machinery, buildings and raw materials necessary to create the things we need and use every day) and the proletariat (those with “nothing to lose but their chains”). However, both classes are subject to the laws of the market economy - our concern is with the social relation  capital  not the individual  capitalist  - the functionaries of capitalism are more and more disposable as individuals. While the rag wearing classical proletariat of Marx’s time has all but disappeared, at least in the developed countries, the fundamental division remains; power and wealth are becoming more rather than less concentrated under the control of a small minority. The modern proletariat is  almost  everyone; it is the working class which must destroy both alienated work and class.

The “official” history of the working class’s struggle against capitalism is an inversion, what is presented as its greatest triumphs are in reality its most bitter defeats; Leninist “Communism” in the east and reformist “Socialism” in the west where both expressions of a general movement towards  state-capitalism.  The greatest tragedy of these times is that in the minds of the vast majority of workers the project for the dissolution of the commodity economy became associated with its exact opposite.

Though the call for a new society was never thoroughly extinguished; small and often profoundly isolated groups and individuals argued the case for a social reorganisation to bring free access and control of the means of production into the hands of the whole of humanity. “From each according to ability, to each according too need!”

The creation of such a society has two preconditions; firstly that technological production techniques have been sufficiently developed to be able to fulfill the material needs of the whole of society and secondly, that the majority of the population have an understanding of what needs to be done and want to carry it through. Revolutionaries are painfully aware that the first requirement has long since been reached but that the second is still far from being realised.

If we are to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past it will be necessary to develop a theory of revolutionary practice, a theory which seeks to “get to the root of all things” and improve them. It is not a matter of choosing from one of the pre-existing ideologies of the old workers movement and basing our world view around it, but a matter of finding the “moment of truth” in all the theories of the past and synthesising this with our experience of the present.

People, Planet, and Peace not Profit.

We live in dark days where the planet is warming even faster than scientists anticipated, economic inequality is now likely the worst it’s ever been in history, Wall Street investors and large corporations have enormous control over our lives and continues to destroy millions of lives. Capital and the state are fused, and governments are unapologetically the tool for capitalists to enrich themselves and repress resistance. It’s tempting simply to focus on the immediate threat in the shape of Donald Trump and other reactionary populists around the world. Pretending that everything will be hunky-dory with the right leader and the correct policies is whistling into the wind. Socialists must offer a vision worth fighting for, one that people genuinely believe can be carried out. We must break decisively with reformism and palliatives which are perfectly compatible with business as usual and capitalism’s continued functioning. Tinkering around the edges of the capitalist system—increasing the minimum wage or introducing the social wage, increasing taxes on the rich or legislating stricter regulations cannot be our goal. We see this confirmed in the welfare states where capitalism still reigns supreme. We must no longer mince words about what we are against and what we are for.  Universal emancipation will only be attained when the capitalist stranglehold over our lives is forever broken.


We frequently hear calls for system change. The necessity of system change is inescapable. The present system is dependent on the exploitation of nature and the enslavement of labour, unaware of its state. The dying days of a civilisation is not coming because of a looming climatic catastrophe. Our task is to claim the future, and this will not be attainable if the current capitalist system persists. If we genuinely wish to combat global warming, which we know poses an existential threat to humanity, this alone will require us to advocate a socialist revolution. Capitalism will not magically solve global warming. Big Oil, Big Coal, and Wall Street banks heavily invested in fossil fuels.


Socialism is a call for a common-sense path that would secure the survival of the human race. Socialism is also a call for humans to recognise their humanity as one people on planet Earth.  Mankind stands a better chance of survival when we cooperate, live and work in solidarity rather than in competition and when we build bridges and not walls. We need a movement which allows us to move from the pervasive culture of violence, destruction and death to a culture of non-violence and peace. We require a global social democracy movement, providing an alternative world-view that replaces greed, consumerism and competition as objectives of human life. Socialist change will be born by a convergence of movements. It will not be a matter of either/or, but will be a matter for all of us continually reminding ourselves that our lives are formed by a web of relationships, issues and realities, and that we require diversity of approaches to effectively confront and overcome them, a diversity of movements coalescing around common goal and shared organising principles. This is the time for action to bring about ecological and economic well-being to all our communities. Those who benefit from the unjust and unsustainable system – the handful of men that have more financial means than billions of men and women – will not listen to the needs of the people or hear the demands for system change. Capitalism is a system where the poor, no matter how wise, cannot sit at the conference or boardroom negotiation tables. Our political system needs to be purged of all its undemocratic elements and the workers movenment must commit itself to democratic socialism: a movement that will finally, thoroughly, and irrevocably democratise economic, political, and social life.


Socialism will come about only if we stand together. It is no time to be silent.  It is time to speak up and shout out. Socialism will come about when the power of “We, the People” becomes the rallying call for action. Freedom is not something that is given, it is taken. It is unjust that a small elite exercise power over everyone else’s security, happiness, and well-being. 


The principle of profit over all  gives us the politics and economics of violence and death. It legitimises the domination of nature. It yields modern-day enslavement in the form of wage labor, which allows capitalists to essentially own human beings. It unleashes a litany of plagues and social problems and the ruthless suppression of anything which endangers the almighty profit margin. War is motivated by the basest profit-seeking. Poverty and inequality kill people and squander the human spirit. Socialists oppose the politics of death and promote the politics of life. Our socialist goal will eradicate poverty, war, and inequality; end militarism, racism and all forms of discrimination; reverse environmental degradation and global warming; and promote joy, pleasure and happiness.  Unpleasant but necessary work would be automated as much as possible while  pleasant but necessary work would be distributed through a democratic decision-making processes within workers’ councils and cooperative committees and community congresses. A balance would need to be struck between centralised, national economic activity, which can achieve economies of scale and be easily administered, and decentralised, local economic activity, which would give people more direct control over their lives.The leisure time freed up by all this economic rejiggering would be redistributed throughout the population, enabling everyone to work far less, if at all. People would then be free to pursue the things that make life worth living: loving relationships with family and friends; immersion in nature; freely chosen work (as opposed to alienating, degrading jobs); and music, art and learning of all varieties. 


The Socialist Party has no illusions about how difficult achieving socialism will be. It’s no exaggeration to say that this will be the hardest task in recorded human history. There has never been an instance of successful peaceful revolution where all forms of oppression are overthrown at the same time but that is not to say it will be impossible. There’s no reason to think that the ugly anti-social aspects of human behaviour are more fundamental than the good ones: compassion, empathy, a passion for equality, and solidarity which are just as basic. What’s more, humanity has incredible powers of reason and has devised countless scientific and industrial technologies which were unimaginable just centuries and decades ago. To think that the human species is in principle precluded from bringing the full force of its rationality to bear on designing equally ingenious social systems is to surrender to despair. Precisely because of how bad life is for so many people socialists have an opportunity to politicise many people who were previously apathetic and disengaged.  Anxiety, rage and resentment are powerful political forces and they are present in large swathes of the population. Capitalism was partially discredited by the 2008 collapse; the inevitable next crash may discredit it even further, if not completely.


Movements need to be capable of recruiting, educating, organizing, and coordinating people locally and nationally. To do this, it’s necessary to have structures in place that create community and foster bonds between members of the movement. These structures need to have a high level of internal democracy. To efficiently coordinate a peoples' movement, delegate democracy is necessary, but which must be democratically accountable.  Social movements often require decades of careful planning; organising isn’t necessarily something that happens overnight. Non-violent civil disobedience can be quite effective in exposing the contradiction between a nominally democratic society’s professed values and its reality, but marches, protests, and demonstrations need to be strategic: they must be directed toward specific goals. We can learn from past class struggles. Politics is a battle of ideas, a struggle over power, and it requires power to win. It relies on culture, a sense of personal involvement, symbolism, and emotion just as much as on reasoned argumentation. Organised people can defeat organised money, but we have to be disciplined to overcome the many hurdles that confront any movement for significant change. We must thoughtfully organise. Our environmental, political, and economic systems are all in crisis right now, and we can’t afford to wait for change.

Adapted from here and here

Liberation

Wealth commands attention. Money talks - people listen. Regardless of how good the idea is to bring change and save lives, nobody listens to you when you are poor. When a rich man speaks, even if it is foolishness, the media, the government - everybody gives attention. When you are poor, nobody listens to you nor takes your word seriously. Immigration problems don't affect the rich as they affect the poor. In this world, money talks and nothing else matters! When a rich man speaks, respect is shown - even if he is speaking nonsense. The rich have also learnt, to some extent, class consciousness. The rich stay in the company of their peers and support each other. The capitalist rulers have intellectuals of all categories to exalt them. The capitalist rulers today have an arrogant faith in the longevity of their system. They firmly believe that the empire of the almighty dollar is assured of perpetual dominion.


Hardly anyone but Marxists nowadays retain hope in the anti-capitalist strivings and sentiments of the working people or believe that they can in time participate in a mighty movement oriented toward socialist objectives. For adhering to these convictions and being guided by them, we are looked upon as ideological and political fossils,ridiculous relics of a bygone era, dogmatists who cling to outworn views and cannot understand what is going on in front of our own eyes. Unfashionable as it may be, the Socialist Party offer substantial reasons for their adamant resistance to compromise and concessions. Our convictions are not an affirmation of religious-like faith. They are derived from a scientific conception of the course and motor forces of world history, a reasoned analysis of the decisive trends of our time, and an understanding of the mainsprings and the necessities of capitalist development. Marxism has clarified many perplexing problems in philosophy, sociology, history, economics, and politics. Its supreme achievement is the explanation it offers of the key role of the working class in history. Socialism is not inevitable. What has been termed its ‘inevitability’ consists in this, that only through socialism can human progress continue. But there is not and cannot be any absolute deterministic inevitability in human affairs, since man makes his own history and chooses what to do. What is determined is not his choice, but the conditions under which it is made, and the consequences when it is made. The meaning of scientific socialism is not that it tells us that socialism will come regardless, but that it explains to us where we stand, what course lies open to us, what is the road to a sustainable society.  


Nothing less is at stake than the destiny of civilization and with it the future of mankind. Those who deny any latent radicalism in the workers seldom appreciate what consequences logically flow from this negative position in the areas of most concern to them. If the working class cannot be counted on to dislodge the capitalists, who else can do that job? It would be exceedingly difficult to point out another social force or find a combination of components that could effectively act as a surrogate for the workers. The struggle against capitalist domination then looms as a lost cause and a socialist world becomes a Utopia. Some present a prognosis of catastrophe and apocalypse and emphasize the powerlessness of our fellow workers. Rather instil confidence many on the Left accept the supposed omnipotence of the ruling class and  succumb to sentiments of hopelessness and despair. Many of today’s left-wingers are far more impressed by the undeniable shortcomings of the labor movement than by any of its positive accomplishments. Sometimes they appear to deny it any progressive features, whatsoever, and retreat into the politics of identity and reformism, rather than class.  They dismiss the potential and latent strengths of the sheer existence of powerful union organizations which act as a shield against lowering wages and working conditions and check the aggressions of the employers in the class war. Many allege that the workers will never become a force ready, willing, and able to transform the world. Their ranks are so smugly and snugly integrated into the “consumer society” that they can have no compelling reasons to turn against it. It is out of the question for them to attain the political or ideological level of a revolutionary temper. The skeptics who suppose unlimited confidence in the longevity of capitalism rule out the possibility that the workers will be any more insurgent.


Under intensified foreign competition, U corporations have been increasingly pressed to shave their costs, beginning with the cost of labor. Big business have reduced the earnings and living standards of the industrial work force. If the unions engage in defensive actions against such attacks, sharp tension can quickly replace the prevailing acquiescence and toleration between the bosses and the workers. It could provoke anger against anti-labor legislation. The possibilities are so diverse that it is impossible to foretell where or how the break in the dyke will come. The widespread under-estination of the working class comes from reliance on short-range criteria. 


The workers of the nineteen-twenties were far more passive, helpless, and poorly organized than today. Many experts at that time could not figure out how these weaknesses might be overcome, and it was not easy to do so. The touchstone of labor’s impotence in their eyes was its inability to introduce unionism into basic industry where most low-paid workers were located. They marshalled imposing reasons why the workers were unlikely to emerge from disorganization. The workers were divided against themselves: native against foreign-born, white against black, craft workers against mass production workers. The anti-union forces were rich, crafty, and powerful. The magnates of capital had the workers at their mercy. They controlled the courts, legislatures and the press. They used the blacklist, their private police, labor spies, and reserves of strikebreakers to crush and victimize organizers in the shops. Moreover, the mainstream union officialdom was uninterested in bringing unionism to the unorganized. How, then, were the mass production workers to organize themselves? They were considered too unintelligent and unaware of their own interest and bereft of the necessary resources, national connections, and experience. The gloomy prognosis drawn from these empirical facts had one flaw: it assumed that previous conditions would prevail with undiminished effect from one decade to the next. The prophets of gloom may easily mistake the recharging of the energies of the working class for their exhaustion.


It is true that the labor force is undergoing marked changes in all countries. Under capitalism, automation and computerisation do threaten the jobs of skilled and unskilled alike, in one industry after another. The dislocations and job instability caused by these processes have to be guarded against by both the economic action and political organization of the working class. The implications of these structural changes in the work force do not signify that the working class as such has less importance . The main meaning of these changes is that education and skill become ever more vital in the competition for jobs and the scramble for social survival and economic advancement. On the one hand, the low-paid, unskilled segments of the laboring population become more miserable, insecure, ground down. On the other hand, the growing numbers of white-collar, professional, and technical personnel become more subjected to capitalist exploitation and alienation, more and more proletarianized, more responsive to unionization and its methods of action, more and more detached from loyalty to their corporate employers. The capitalist regime is well aware of the latent power of the strike weapon and constantly seeks to hamper its use. In practice, the rulers have little doubt about its revolutionary potential. Capitalist production cannot do without an ample laboring force, no matter how many are unemployed, because profit-making and the accumulation of capital depend upon the consumption of large quantities of labor power which creates value in the form of commodities. Although this or that segment or individual may be squeezed out of jobs temporarily or permanently, the industrial work force as such is not expendable, no matter how fast or how far automation proceeds under capitalist auspices. the inability of the profiteers fully to utilize the immense potential of the new science and technology for reducing the working day and rationalizing production, provide further reasons for breaking their hold upon industry. Socialism envisages the elimination from industry of the capitalist proprietors , rather than the workers. The working class are far from obsolescent and cannot be conjured away by abstract extrapolations because they provide the minds and the muscles for the production of all material wealth.

Break the Chains

We live in a world dominated by capitalism, a system which allows a small minority of capitalists to oppress and exploit the great majority of humankind.  It is capitalism that brings about great inequalities in living standards. The whole world is now chained to the capitalist system. People know that capitalism is no good but few can see a way forward to a better type of society.  Either we get rid of this outmoded and decrepit system or it will devastate humanity.  The only way forward is a class-less and state-less society on a world scale where people where we live in harmony with our natural environment.

The Socialist Party is up against the fact of life that another new generation has to be convinced afresh that socialism does, in fact, represent a better and more rational system for the people, that Marx’s idea of the eventual withering away of the state is not a pipe-dream, but a realistic albeit  rough sketch of the future of human society.  The socialist revolution will not be won not with violence and guns, but with words, with argument, and persuasion. It is difficult to see the connection between the various national liberation revolutions of oppressed peoples with anything that Marx envisaged – unless you believe, as many Trotskyists presumably do, that the destruction of status quo is desirable at any price and in any manner. The Socialist Party has stubbornly clung to the basic concept of Marx, that only the working class, i.e. the mass of all those forced to sell their labour power in exchange of wages, unites the objective and subjective conditions for building a socialist, i.e. classless society.

Socialism is rule by the working people. They will decide how socialism is to work.  To use the word “socialism” for anything but working people’s power is to misuse the term. Nationalisation is not socialism but is simply a degree of state capitalism, with no relation to socialism.The idea that state ownership of the means of production constitutes socialism is wrong.  Engels pointed out in Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, “...the transformation, either into joint-stock companies or trusts or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalist nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious and the modern state, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of the individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution to the conflict...”

Socialism is not spontaneous. It does not arise of itself. Marx and Engels  from the days of the Communist Manifesto proclaimed that the makers of a socialist society will be the workers and that it is the task of socialists to help the workers to power but not to decide for them what a classless society is to be like it.   The task of the Socialist Party, therefore, is to help and guide the transfer of power from capitalists to working people. Socialism is a classless society—with abundance, freedom, and equality for all; a society in which there would be no state, not even a democratic workers’ state, so popular with the Left but where a bureaucratic dictatorship of a privileged minority would prevail.

One of the most common arguments used against socialism is the claim that “it goes against human nature.” Private property, it alleges, is “innate” in the human species. Rich and poor have always existed and will always exist. Anthropology and archaeology teach us that this claim is groundless.  When social classes were eventually established the fact remains that these class-divided societies were challenged repeatedly.  Despite the courage, and the idealism of their social vision these movements failed in the sense that they were not able to establish durably a classless society. They either lost power to their enemies or ended up re-establishing a class regime fundamentally similar to that which they had set out to overthrow. Nevertheless, without these popular revolts and revolutions, the radical ideas that sprung from them would not have resonated as they have down the years.
al class in history ever had to perform: building a new society without ever having exercised either economic, political, or cultural and ideological power before.  What we learn from the past is that the exploited and the oppressed have rebelled, are rebelling and will rebel against their unbearable conditions.  The only alternative would be to tolerate exploitation and oppression as a lesser evil to the emancipation.

The task facing the modern working class is the most difficult task that any socialist has faced. For Marx and Engels, the real measure of human freedom is leisure time, not in the sense of  idle time for doing nothing but in the sense of time freed from the iron necessity of working-hours to produce and reproduce material livelihood, but free-time for all-round and free development of the individual talents, wishes, capacities, potentialities, of each human being. As long as society is too poor, as long as goods and services satisfying basic needs are too scarce that they require rationing only the ruling class become free. The “socialist” vision of Lenin, is the capitalist’s vision of a factory, efficiently run by an overseer.  The Socialist Party envisages a society of true and ultimate human freedom, of fellow workers working together in harmony. In such a society, there would be no State, no criminals, no class conflicts. Each man and woman would find inspiration in their own work and in the work of other workers. They will need no rules imposed from above, no moral exhortations to do their duty, no ‘authorities’ laying down what is to be done. Ours is a vision of voluntary co-operation.