Things you should know

CAPITALISM is the sort of society you live in now. It is a system of wage-slavery in which a small minority owns most of the world and (sometimes) employ the rest of us. In capitalism, most things are sold for a price — production is for profit rather than for use. The world is divided by frontiers into warring factions known as "nations". Symptoms of capitalism include war, hunger, boom-slump cycles, strikes, widespread loneliness and despair. Countries like Russia or China, whose governments claim to be "socialist" are, of course, capitalist like their western rivals.

COMMUNES (kibbutzim, and similar communities) are attempts by a few to get some shelter from the capitalist rat race. Whilst they may benefit their members, from the standpoint of abolishing capitalism they are a waste of time. Socialism in one country is not possible, let alone socialism in one farm. Socialism could, however, be described as a world-wide commune.

HUMAN NATURE is a most frequent objection to the idea of a socialist society. It is supposed that human beings have some fixed patterns of social behaviour which are especially conducive to capitalism. In fact, what is normally termed "human nature" is the result of social conditioning. Private property, leadership, aggressiveness and monogamy are no more congenial to human beings than alternative forms. A knowledge of different societies, historically and geographically, is sufficient to knock the human nature myth on the head.

LABOUR PARTY is often called "socialist" (less now than in the past, it's true) but in fact never has been. The Labour Party was formed to improve the conditions of workers by reforms within capitalism. It sought gradually to change capitalism; instead capitalism has gradually changed it. The Labour Party is now no more than an alternative team for the management of British capitalism.

PATRIOTISM is irrational from the point of view of humanity as a whole and runs counter to the interests of the working people. It is therefore opposed by socialists, who do not offer "policies for Britain" or for any other of the artificial political entities into which the world is now divided but demand a world community without frontiers.

POPULATION EXPLOSION is certainly a reality, but it is a myth that it is responsible for hunger, pollution or overcrowded living. The world can easily support many times its present population in comfort and plenty of room. Hysterical Malthusianism diverts attention from the real problem: production is geared to the market, rather than to the satisfaction of human needs.

REFORMS are basically attempts to solve problems within capitalism rather than by doing away with it. Capitalism never runs out of reforms. Socialists are not opposed to all reforms, but we don't think it is our job to propose them or campaign for them. Reforms are usually of negligible value to the working class, and often create new problems which require further reforms. Fundamental social problems are always untouched because these are rooted in capitalism.

RELIGION is opposed by all rational people, but especially by socialists who see it as compensation for social misery, and a diversion from the urgent problems of the real world. Happily, religion is steadily ebbing away in the most advanced areas of capitalism.

REVOLUTION is the process of changing from one social system to another. It is not necessarily a matter of barricades and bloodbaths, and not at all in the case of the socialist revolution, which requires mainly mass understanding and democratic organisation. It is part of the job of socialists to hasten this revolution by spreading socialist understanding.

SOCIALISM is the next stage in human social evolution — unless capitalism destroys us first by means of nuclear/chemical/ biological war, or ecological collapse. Socialism will mean the abolition of private property, money and the wages system; the introduction of voluntary work and free access to necessary goods and services. Socialism is a world-wide society of voluntary co-operation. It will put an end to wars, poverty and unemployment, enabling our species to concentrate on the less serious problems of everyday living.

Class is a redundant issue. Everyone's a worker now.

Class is still very much the basis of present-day society. In this society people are divided into those who own the workplaces in the form of capital, the employers or capitalist class, and those who do the work but do not own what they produce, the working class.

As a system of society which predominates throughout the world, capitalism is based on the extraction of surplus value through the wages system. Even if there has been some separation of ownership and control in capitalist enterprises, this does not affect the inherent class antagonism between those who own and those who produce. Ultimately, those who benefit are still those who don't need to work because they enjoy an unearned income derived from the exploitation of those who do.

Exploitation is a thing of the past. If you don't like your job you can always leave it.

Exploitation exists because of the very fact that people work for employers. Employers buy our capacity to work with a wage or a salary and then extract more work out of us than it cost them to pay us. This unpaid surplus work is the source of their profit. So there’s a conflict of interests at work: they want to get as much out of us for as little expenditure as possible, and we need the money in order to live. It's the only way this competitive organisation of society can work, since their success depends on our exploitation. It's nothing to do with morality or low wages. It's all about the employers owning the workplace and us earning our livelihood by being a wage slave. And it really is a form of slavery, because although we can leave our particular job we can't leave that class of people who are compelled to get a job.

As long as I get "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work" I don't mind if my employer makes a fair profit.

There can never be anything fair about the wages system for workers, since this is the mechanism of our exploitation. It pre-supposes that workers do not own or control the workplace. Wages and salaries are the price of the value-creating ability we sell to employers. We produce goods and services worth more than we receive in pay, whether the pay is high or low. This socially-produced surplus value is the source of the employers' profit. Employers operate in a competitive world economy and will, irrespective of the size of their profits, pay their workers only what they must. Without the resistance of workers, wages and salaries would be lower than they are. So we have a class struggle at work.

I work in an office. I don't produce anything physical, so how can I be exploited?

The life-blood of this economic system is the making of profits through the exploitation of the whole working class. This is a social process which involves the whole workforce in a complex division of labour in which some physically alter materials while others are involved in planning, design and organising. All of these roles are part of this economic system and all those who perform them are exploited as they all contribute in one way or another to the production of profits for the employing class as a whole. As a class we run society from top to bottom. We do not run it in our own interest, however. We run it for the profit of the employing class, a minority of people with most of the power and wealth and the freedom this gives them.

I am not working class: I earn a good salary, own a house and big car; I've been to university and take a Mediterranean holiday every year.

You may think of yourself as being a "professional" or "middle class" but this doesn’t affect your basic economic position. Because the property you own does not bring you in a regular income large enough for you to live on, like the rest of us you are compelled to sell your working abilities. Your pay may be called a salary but you still belong to that class of people forced to hire themselves to an employer. From this perspective, things like status, level of earnings, education, type of job or occupation are besides the point. They do not affect your exploited class position in society, even if you arc in some respects better off than most other workers. Salaried doctors, managers, teachers, scientists, and so on are comprised within the working class.

There will always be classes; there will always be rich and poor - it's only human

nature.

It is class society which operates against human nature. Capitalist exploitation creates rich and poor people, with their opposing interests. But there is no reason why our rational desire for mutual aid should not allow us to establish a classless society. To end class exploitation requires class-conscious political action by the working class to establish common ownership and democratic control of the places of work. This will do away with the wage slavery of working for an employer and open the way for work based solely on human needs and abilities

Life without money

Capitalism seems a very complicated affair, requiring complicated plans. To our fellow-workers, the simple socialist proposition of converting the means of production from private or state ownership to common ownership, and thus making all the wealth produced freely available to everyone according to their needs, is too difficult to comprehend. So accustomed are they to have placed before them the complicated plans, programmes and policies of other political organisations that the simplicity of the Socialist Party proposition makes them suspect that there must be a flaw somewhere. The cunningly conceived schemes of governments and the hotch-potch of incomprehensible “immediate demands” of the reformists give them the idea that politics is a most profound business. Then to be told by a member of the Socialist Party, an ordinary worker like themselves, that all society's problems have a common cause in the capitalist system and that the solution just rests in the abolition of capitalism, leaves our fellow-workers somewhat suspicious that they are somehow being tricked. They take fright at the idea of a society without buying and selling, without prices or money. Not only is the money system inefficient, wasteful and socially destructive, but it will corrupt any system in which it operates. This means that there can be no fundamental social advance while we retain a money system. Like all radical concepts, a social organisation without money is difficult to envisage and therefore seems impossible, but we ignore the implications of refusing to do so at our peril. The idea of socialism as a world without money can be found in sources covering a wide historical span and a great diversity of authors.

The case against money is the case against capitalism which is an irrational system of “production for production’s sake”, of “growth for growth’s sake”, leading to recurring economic crises and slumps like the one we’re in now. Wars and preparation for war with armament production and defence spending arise when capitalist states compete over sources of raw material, trade routes, markets and investment outlets. Capitalism puts short-term cost and profit considerations before protecting the environment and respecting a balance of nature. Capitalism does not allow production to be geared to meeting the needs of people for food, clothes, housing, healthcare, education and the other amenities for an enjoyable life. People’s needs are met but only to an extent that they possess money to pay for them.

The Socialist Party wants to replace the present capitalist system with a new system based on common ownership instead of ownership by the few and with production directly to meet people’s needs instead of production for sale on a market with a view to profits. In such a socialist (or communist the two words mean the same) society – money would be redundant. So we don’t want to “abolish money”. We seek a change to a social system in which money would be redundant and so would disappear. The Socialist Party says capitalism must go if we’re going to provide a decent comfortable life-style for every man, woman and child on the planet. What is needed is for the Earth’s resources to become the common heritage of all. Then, they could be geared to satisfying people’s needs. If productive resources were commonly owned, then so would what they produced. The issue to be dealt with would be, not how to sell to people what had been produced (how could you when they’re already the joint owners of it?) It’s how to distribute what’s been produced. In other words, the exchange economy (buying and selling) is replaced by distribution (sharing). For this, money is not needed. Given the capacity of modern technology to produce abundance, the aim to be reached as soon as possible would be free access to goods and services. The implementation of the principle of “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”  there would be no requirement for money.

Even today within capitalism, some things are free at the point of use such a the National Health Service and people know they will continue to be freely available they only take what they need. In Scotland, there is the Entitlement Card for the over-60s to free bus travel from Berwick-on-Tweed to John O' Groats. Do we spend all our time going from one end of Scotland to the other? Of course not. We only travel when we need to. Maybe more than we would if we had to pay, but there’s nothing wrong with that. It only shows how having to pay means that some needs have to go unmet. Over-use or over-consumption is not going to be a problem. The issue will be ensuring that the distribution centres are always stocked with what people are likely to need. The supermarkets have already solved much of the problem with elaborate supply-chains to keep their shelves filled. If stocks run short, bar-codes signal to order or produce more. If the warehouse fills up, that’s a signal to order less. This system stock-control works irrespective of whether gods are bought or taken freely. Organising production and distribution through money is not necessary. In a money-free society production and distribution could be largely self-regulating, monitored by check-outs without cashiers.

Adapted from a talk by Adam Buick, contributor to  'Life Without Money'

Giving/receiving not buying/selling.

The Socialist Party proposes to end private and State ownership of the means of production and distribution and instead create a social system which will satisfy the economic needs of the community and where those means of production and distribution are owned and controlled by the whole of the people. There were no class divisions. When all those things necessary for the well-being of the community no longer belong to any individuals but are owned are owned collectively by the whole people, none are possessors and none have any advantage over others. All are in the same situation, all have the same interest. Society loses its class nature with the abolition of private property and being class-free, there can be no class interests.

Alongside this abolition of class inequality, the wage-labour system will also come to an end — that is to say, men and women will cease to work for wages. To-day, people work for wages because they do not get an opportunity of working directly for themselves. All the instruments of labour, all the raw materials, all means by which alone men and women can gain their livelihood, are in the hands and under the control of the few hence all others have no opportunity of gaining a livelihood except by placing themselves at the disposal of the owning class. In today's capitalist world we sell our labour-power to employers, whose object in buying it could be is to make a profit out of it, that is, to pay less for it than the amount we can produce. Therefore, once the private ownership of the means of living is abolished, men and women will cease to sell their labour-power for wages. But the means of production and distribution have developed so much that it has made it impossible for them to be owned by the individuals who operate them and even beyond the stage where they could be owned and controlled by the actual groups operating them. The vast and complex system of industry can only be efficiently owned and controlled as a whole and by the whole community.

Socialism does not require that people should put the interest of others before their own (altruism) but merely that they should recognise that it is in their own best interest to co-operate with others to further the common interest. To establish socialism people do not have to stop being selfish and become saints; they merely have to remove, by conscious political action, the barrier which coercive, class society represents to the free exercise of their nature as co-operative, social animals.  Socialism will be a society based on giving/receiving rather than buying/selling.

Scientists and technicians like the rest of us they are constrained by the system we live in. They are not directed by the wishes, needs and aims of society as a whole but have to follow the logic of their master, the market. Everything becomes possible when the tools are in the right hands, the hands of the producers. It becomes a matter of organisation to bring in the new society. There is plenty of work to be done to achieve the satisfaction of everyone's basic needs but is deliberately left undone as the profit motive dictates. It takes a fundamental shift in emphasis away from the dictates of a small minority to the wishes and needs of the overwhelming majority.

This requires that majority populations worldwide capture the state apparatus politically in order to restructure social decision-making and administration.  Depriving the capitalist class of the state and its functionaries are the first objective. Once the decision is made, then it becomes a matter of organisation. Suffice it to say there will have been a period of planning and co-ordination by mass organisations in work places, in neighbourhoods, in educational establishments, in organisations with international links and in civic organisations, which will culminate in the collective and proactive decision of the people to take control over the direction of their lives immediately and for the future. A totally democratic system, from the broadest possible base, representing the widest possible views will be bottom-up, proactive, participatory democracy at all levels: local, regional and world with delegates elected to carry forward the message and speak for the whole community.  With ever-increasing numbers involved, discussion and debate will determine the direction of the variety of paths to be taken. It just seems common sense to place the role of social, political, environmental and whatever other decisions firmly with the people. Why complicate what could be a perfectly simple arrangement with meaningless and pointless monetary budgets. The inputs required for allocating resources need only be manpower and materials. Why suffer a price system that only confuses and complicates every issue. Buying and selling and the exchange economy will be redundant as we shall willingly share in the work with our hands and head.

'Practical Socialism - Its Principles and Methods'. (Part 2)

 We live in a time when change brings more disillusion than hope. To shift socialist ideas from the fringes of politics to centre stage we must be able to present it as a positive and practical alternative to the present capitalist system.  We live in a world of change which includes the world of ideas. This means that the differences between socialist ideas and popular politics are neither static nor fixed in time. Sadly, not all developments have been progressive and sometimes moves backwards such as the resurgence of militant religion and nationalism. This need not be the whole story.  Regardless of how divided the world may seem to-day, all people share common needs which can only be served, ultimately by cooperation. These needs arise from our human make-up, are expressed in the best ways to live, and are inescapable. They rise above national divisions or differences of race, culture and language. Throughout the world, all people share a common need to live in peace and material security and to be at friendly ease with their communities and with other peoples in other countries. Beneath all the conflict and the divisive politics that prevent people of all countries from coming together as a united humanity, there is the small voice which is always present which may lack systematic thought yet expresses a yearning for a better world. So when The Socialist Party proposes a world of cooperation organised solely for needs, in which all citizens will stand in equal relation with each other, this does echo the universal interests of all people. Socialist ideas may seem, on the present face of things, to be estranged from popular politics, they are in harmony with the real hopes of all people.   It is when socialist ideas become the conscious political expression of these hopes that socialism will become an irresistible force for change.

The Socialist Party does not hold a monopoly on social concern but share the hopes and intentions of thousands in many organisations. Despite the fact that many thousands of people in such organisations as OXFAM are battling against worsening problems with their efforts bringing little success, the indignation they feel and their willingness to act as a signpost towards a better world. The Socialist Party would draw their attention to the need to alter the present economic and political framework which is so destructive to their efforts.  We would urge upon charities and humanitarian NGOs that action to solve such problems, ie world hunger, must include social and political action to bring about a society where individuals and communities will be able to act more effectively. The action to solve problems and the work of creating the conditions in which they can be solved, cannot be separated; these go together.

  A global socialist movement that is growing would not be "demanding", from a position of weakness, for governments take policies to deal with this or that problem. There would, of course, be demonstrations but only to demonstrate, from a position of gathering strength, a democratic movement with developing plans for a new society; projects that could be activated when the capture of political control has been accomplished. This would confirm the beginnings of socialist organisation within the heart of capitalism. The challenge of building a new world society is a daunting task and involves great change and a re-organisation of the way we live. When we speak of a "new world society", we should add the caveat that the use of the word "new" should be qualified because there would be nothing in socialist society that would be outside age-old human experience. In this sense very little would be new.

Socialism will depend on voluntary cooperation and there would be nothing new about this. Cooperation is a vital part of any society, even capitalism. It was through social cooperation that humanity emerged as modern mankind. Countless generations of early people could only survive in groups based on cooperation and in doing so we became a social, thinking, tool making species with increased powers of providing the means of life. In looking forward to a society organised through cooperation we do not imagine anything new, on the contrary, we recall age old relationships which have always been in harmony with our basic human make up. It is for this reason that every person is capable of cooperating with others to the benefit of all. Cooperation is not simply a moral choice, it is a relationship that enhances our lives and is in every person's material interest. In setting out the practical ways in which society could be organised through cooperation we are proposing that cooperation be brought back to the activity that matters most, that is, in the entire organisation of our lives. The need for cooperation is also a response to the growing contradictions that arise from the pace of technical development which the market system can never freely use for the benefit of people; the economic forces that drive technology forward prevent us from using it to solve problems. At our present stage of advanced technology we have a potential for abundance which is in contrast with the economics of scarcity on which the market system depends. As this gap between possible production and actual production widens, the capitalist system becomes more anachronistic, a straight jacket on our powers of action and historically redundant. The campaign for practical socialism will find growing support from these deepening failures of the capitalist system.

Now is a time for looking at the past, learning from its mistakes and for carrying the hopes of past activists forward in a more effective, sound way. The fact that the capitalist system is stronger and more extensive than ever is disappointing by it should also give fresh impetus to the work for socialism. We now have the advantage of global development in all spheres of life, enabling us to propose practical ways it could be organised. This has the prospect of creating a body of political ideas, based on socialist principles, presented in every-day language of description rather than being asserted as great abstract concepts of the the Socialist Party aims of common ownership, democratic control and production solely for use. Practical socialism translates them into what they could mean in the every day lives of people. This not only makes the meaning of socialism more readily understood, it projects life-styles with which people can identify, it gives individuals a view of their greater possibilities, seeing themselves not just in the role of wage-slave, but as constructive people in cooperation in a society organised solely for the well-being of all citizens.

The values of a socialist society centre upon freedom. Common ownership will mean the freedom to place production and resources at the disposal of the whole community; democratic control will mean freedom for every person to relate to others on equal terms when making social decisions; production solely for use will mean the freedom to use production directly for needs. Above all, its social relations will empower every person with the freedom to control their own lives, to decide on what skills to have and what part to play in the community's programmes of action. This is what is meant by self-determined individuality.

Socialism has to be clearly defined and systematically argued as a distinct political choice, it rises above the traditional political differences that have existed between radical, conservative and liberal views. The various creeds that divide people into separate parties can be seen as motivated by aims which have many things in common. To argue and organise for a world in which each person would be responsible for their own lives and by working in cooperation, for the lives of other citizens; a world where this is made possible by the use of all resources, solely and directly for the interests of communities, is not an objective that should runs counter to the basic hopes of anyone. Whilst a work on politics cannot avoid the use of political labels it is all too often the case that labels act as a barrier to communication. Look beyond unavoidable labels to simply consider its proposals, and its supportive arguments. A better world need not wait on future events. Even as individuals, one way of participating in a better world is to work for it. The more people that work for it the better the world shall be.

Adapted from the late Pieter Lawrence's work, 'Practical Socialism - Its Principles and Methods'.  

One Gigantic Fraud

A federally funded study, conducted by researchers at the university of Guelph, Ontario, and commissioned by the Canadian Food Inspection agency, early in August, found that 20% of sausages sold, across Canada contained meats that weren't on the label.

Some of the supposedly pure pork sausages contained horse meat. Of 20 chicken sausages, four also contained Turkey and one also had beef. Five of the 15 Turkey sausages had no turkey at all and were entirely chicken.

Though edible the advertising was false, which indicated a breakdown in food processing, or intentional fraud. One can hardly wonder that fraud exists under capitalism. The whole damn system itself is a gigantic fraud. 

Steve and John

Teachers pay drop

Scotland’s teachers have seen salaries drop by six per cent in a decade while their counterparts in many other countries received pay rises, an international study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has confirmed.

Teachers’ salaries in both Scotland and England fell in real terms between 2005-2015.

Trotskyism; Stalinism; What's the Difference? (1973)

From the October 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard

Trotskyists frequently bemoan the outcome of the power-struggle between Stalin and Trotsky. While the former became undisputed dictator of the Soviet Union, the latter was exiled and was eventually assassinated in August 1940. It is claimed that the many atrocities committed by the Stalin régime were a departure from Bolshevism and that if Trotsky had held power, then the course of events would have been different. What Trotskyists label the “degeneration” of the Russian Revolution is blamed on Stalin.

George Novak, in his introduction to Trotsky’s pamphlet Stalinism and Bolshevism, makes the claim that Lenin’s Bolshevik party represented the working class “in its striving for equality, democracy and Socialism” while Stalin’s regime merely represented a bureaucracy which seized power after Lenin’s death. Now this is the standard Trotskyist position; Stalinism is somehow alien to Bolshevism. Socialists reject this view. Far from Stalin undoing the “good” work of Lenin and Trotsky, he merely continued the anti-working class policies of those two dictators. If Trotsky rather than Stalin had succeeded Lenin, the history of the Soviet Union, in the years that followed, would not have been substantially different. To say that Trotsky’s actions, while he held power, left a lot to be desired would be an under-statement.

Trotsky, in exile, seldom refrained from denouncing Stalin’s dictatorship. However, he was being inconsistent in his concern for lack of democracy. In his Where is Britain Going?, written in 1925, he defended Lenin’s dictatorship on the grounds that a strong leader was essential after the 1917 Revolution. Trotsky was no democrat. Provided it was the “correct” type, he favoured dictatorship. (“Correct” is a favourite word in Bolshevik circles). Stalin’s dictatorship, in Trotsky’s view, did not come into this category. Undoubtedly this was mere sour grapes.

In his Terrorism and Communism he replied to critics of the Bolshevik substitution of Soviet rule by party dictatorship by claiming that the Bolsheviks represented the interests of the working class. Whether or not the workers agreed was, of course, irrelevant. Lenin refused to accept the results of the 1917 elections to the Constituent Assembly because the Bolsheviks polled a minority of the votes.

Trotsky fully supported Lenin on this issue. It was claimed that the voters changed their minds almost immediately the election was over. After all, the vanguard always knows best.

“Those who do not work shall not eat” was a slogan used by the Stalin regime. However, even this appears somewhat mild when compared with what Trotsky said in 1921 — “It is essential to form punitive contingents and to put all those who shirk work into concentration camps.” (Quoted by D. and G. Cohn-Bendit in Obsolete Communism, The Left-Wing Alternative — which itself fails to present an alternative). Present day Trotskyists would undoubtedly be horrified if, as has been suggested in some quarters recently, conscription was re-introduced. We can envisage the countless demonstrations against the move. Trotskyist journals such as Workers’ Press would denounce it as a step towards fascism and inform its readership that in order to deal with the crisis revolutionary leadership would be essential for the working class. What, we wonder, do they think of their hero’s view that the young Bolshevik government should have had the “call-up” in operation to direct workers to where the State needed them? Cohn-Bendit quotes Trotsky as saying "The workers must not be allowed to roam all over Russia. They must be sent where they are needed, called up and directed like soldiers. Labour must be directed most intensely during the transition of capitalism to socialism.”

“Hands off the Unions” is a favourite slogan of the Trotskyists. But in Leon Trotsky’s “workers’ ” state trade unions were necessary, not to protect working class interests, but on the contrary, “To organise the working class for the ends of production, to educate and discipline the workers” and “teach them to place the interests of production above their own needs and demands”. (Also quoted by Cohn-Bendit). Forced labour; the working class organized like a military unit; trade unions shackled to the state; and all this from a Socialist! Who needs enemies?

When reading Trotskyist accounts of the 1956 Hungarian uprising and of the 1968 Czechoslovakian events, we are informed that the Russian-led suppression, in both cases, was the work of the wicked Stalinists. But in 1921 Leon Trotsky was active in the suppression of a revolt against Bolshevik rule by workers at Kronstadt. In their programme the Kronstadt rebels demanded such elementary rights as freedom of speech for workers; right of assembly; liberation of political prisoners; new elections to the soviets. Trotsky, with other leading Bolsheviks, vehemently denounced the revolt. Groundless accusations that the uprising was a royalist plot, and that English and French imperialism were involved were levelled at the mutineers. Extreme dissatisfaction with the Bolshevik dictatorship — that was what the revolt was about. Needless to say to the self-appointed guardians of working-class interests this was intolerable. Clearly the Bolshevik regime was no dictatorship of the Proletariat. (Engels, in his introduction to Marx’s Civil War in France spoke of the democratic Paris Commune as an example of the dictatorship of the Proletariat).

Trotskyism and Stalinism are both branches off the same tree — Bolshevism. To the Bolsheviks the working class is too stupid to understand the Socialist case. Their view is that only an intellectual élite, a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries can lead the workers to Socialism. Compare Lenin’s view in What is to be Done? that “on its own the working class cannot go beyond the level of trade union consciousness”, with Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto — "The proletarian movement is the self-conscious independent movement of the immense majority.” (Emphasis added). Socialism is only possible when the majority of the working class understand and desire it. This is the Marxian view. As Karl Kautsky put it in The Dictatorship of the Proletariat — “The will to Socialism is the first condition for its accomplishment.” (Prominent Trotskyist Ernest Mandel reluctantly admits, in his Leninist Theory of Organisation, that Marx “totally rejected the idea of a vanguard organisation”).

When the working class reaches political maturity the theories of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and all other Bolsheviks will be thrown where they belong — on the political scrap-heap. All leadership will be shunned as being unnecessary and irrelevant.

Bob Battersby

Bathgate

'Practical Socialism - Its Principles and Methods'. (Part 1)

The Socialist Party is a thorn in the side of the left-wing and our mere existence means that the Left are required to meet the arguments of traditional Marxism. Part of its task is to liberate the idea of socialism from the immense accumulation of ideological baggage that has become its burden. By stripping this away the Socialist Party reveals the core simplicity and practicality of socialism. It has been said that the capitalist system digs its own grave; it does not! The only way it will be consigned to history is when a majority of people take political action to end it. What the capitalist system does do, and has no choice about it, is develop a material basis for what could be a new socialist society. These developments are in the global fields of production, distribution, administration, and communications. They bring with them the possibility of a different world system with a good life for all people in conditions of peace, cooperation and well being.  The Socialist Party analysis of social problems and their causes clarifies what is happening in the world of economics and politics from the point of view of working people, searches out the causes of problems and is a pointer to solutions. Without this socialist criticism, clear understanding would be lost, leaving only a veil of mystification which conceals the real interests and motives of dominant power groups.

Those who take a 'gradualist' view believe that a new society can only be introduced piecemeal through policies of reform. For this, the all-important issue is to capture political control to form a government. It is assumed that such a government would be not just in political control but also economic control. Then, through legislation on such problems as housing, health care and education and pensions, living standards for working people would be raised. Such a government, working in close collaboration with the trade unions, would be able to raise the level of wages for all working people. At the same time, through the nationalisation of industry, and through corporation tax, inheritance tax, and death duties, the owning class of capitalists would be removed from all sectors of production and taxed out of existence. This we can describe as the reformist road to socialism and has been adopted by the progressives and liberals of the left-wing and has filled manifesto after manifesto with lists of demands.

The Socialist Party takes a different view which argues that the condition for the establishment of socialism was not simply the capture of political power. To be successful, political control had to be supported by a majority of people who fully understood the meaning of socialism together with what would be involved in the change from capitalism to socialism. It was held that unless this majority of socialists was achieved, capitalism would continue. Their campaigning is directed at raising socialist consciousness through meetings, leaflets, pamphlets and a socialist journal. It argued that the best way to defend worker's interests within capitalism was to build up a strong, principled socialist movement. Members of the Socialist Party have based their criticism of the reformist route not primarily on political theory but on economic theory. This was a crucial difference between what came to be the reformist policy and the revolutionary policy. The reformists began with a political objective which was the capture of political power. The SPGB began with an economic analysis of the capitalist system which set out the limitations of political action within capitalism and therefore the need for a revolutionary change. They understood that no government, however well intentioned, or given to revolutionary aspiration, could direct the course of capitalist economic development simply by the application of political hopes. They argued that the mechanics of the market system are driven by economic laws which are inherent in the system and which are not susceptible to ideological direction or government control. It was accepted that politics could make a marginal difference but ultimately, economic factors would be decisive in setting a framework of constraints on what governments and therefore society can do. In this view, production is both regulated and limited by what can be distributed as commodities for sale at a profit in the markets. The idea that class ownership and the profit system could be subjected to gradual abolished through reform change was an illusion.  It meant that socialism could not be introduced gradually by reform but only as a result of conscious political action by a majority of socialists.

It is inherent in the capitalist system that it generates discontent and protest but it has also been unfortunate that the long history of protest has been empty of political action that could end the system. Inevitably, the causes of problems are left intact and lead on to a further rounds of protest. This reduces protest to political theatre.  Because it is impossible for the capitalist system to serve the interests of the whole community it constantly throws up issues that demand action by those who are socially concerned. The great danger in being diverted from campaigning for socialism and swamped by campaigns to "Ban the Bomb", "Stop the War", "Cancel the Debt," or whatever. This becomes not just a diversion but an end in itself. Inevitably, it becomes a campaign for an "improved" version of humane capitalism. Though the scripts may vary and the actors may change the message is the same, "we demand that governments do this, that or the other!"  It is in this process of campaigning for a re-branded or a reformed form of capitalism that the work for socialism tends to become lost. Those who in the past felt that action should be limited to making capitalism a better system, have contributed, albeit unwittingly, to the present state of things. A sane society cannot be postponed without accepting the consequences of the postponement. The spectacle of thousands, demanding that governments act on their behalf is a most reassuring signal to those in power that their positions of control are secure. Repeated demonstrations do little more than confirming the continuity of the system. It is in this sense that most, protest is a permanent feature of the status quo. The point should be to change society not to appeal to the doubtful better nature of its power structures.  The Socialist Party analysis is not only a criticism of the capitalist system, it also a criticism of the political activities of most working people.  However, no matter how true the analysis and how correct the proposed political action required for their solution and the building of a better world, the ideas of the Socialist Party, nevertheless, failed to influence the every-day thinking of our fellow-workers, mostly ignored although it is the party that shines the light of hope in a world heading towards disaster.

Adapted from the late Pieter Lawrence,  'Practical Socialism - Its Principles and Methods

The System Overrules The Good Intentions

Some politicians are well meaning and, as I was once a member of a pro-capitalist party, I can speak from experience. One such person is Al Gore, who, though no longer in office, carries some weight. Watching him interviewed promoting his new movie, "An inconvenient sequel: Truth to Power." One definitely feels he is really concerned about the effects of global warming. Gore makes various suggestions how this can be eliminated and to an extent, it can be slowed down within capitalism, but never stopped.

Gore is oblivious to the fact that the government making decisions concerning global warming are responding to the needs of capitalism in the countries they represent. Does anyone seriously think Trump gives a damn about the effects of it, and he isn't the only one? 

We in the SPC do not sneer at the well-known paradigm of good intentions, which could be a very fine thing if one translates those intentions into working for a society where global warming won't exist. 

John Ayers

Scottish arms traders

28 firms from Scotland are due to attend an arms fair in London dubbed a “festival of violence” – including a US arms giant with a factory in Fife that’s been linked to alleged war crimes in Yemen.

The Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair will take place at the Excel Centre in East London between 12-15 September, with around 34,000 attendees expected. It is one of the largest arms fairs in the world, a bi-annual event that brings more than 1,500 exhibitors together with military delegations from around the world. It includes governments with dire human rights records. DSEI facilitates arms sales ranging from rifles to tanks, and from fighter jets to battleships. Some 56 countries have been invited, including regimes accused of gross human rights abuses. Among them are Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and United Arab Emirates.

Companies based in Scotland due to attend the event include Raytheon, which makes laser guided systems for smart bombs used in Yemen and Chemring, a company based in Ardeer accused of selling weapons to Gulf State countries who use them to suppress pro-democracy demonstrations. Major arms firms with facilities in Scotland also due to attend DSEI include BAE Systems, Leonardo, Thales and Lockheed Martin. Other smaller companies due to take part include Jack Ellis Body Protection, from Kirriemuir, MacTaggart Scott and Digital Barriers, a firm selling surveillance technology.

Campaign Against Arms Trade said the guest list for DSEI includes a range of “despots, dictatorships and human rights abusers” from regimes that have committed “terrible abuses” against their citizens. “Yet UK civil servants and government ministers will be rolling out the red carpet for them. If Theresa May and her colleagues care for human rights and democracy then it’s time to shut down DSEI,” the campaign’s Andrew Smith argued.

Everything Dandy? Well We Have Our Doubts

In "Women and the Vote," by Jad Adams, Oxford University Press, 2014, the author analyses women's struggle for the vote all over the world. The one common trend, which permeates the book, is the main reason they got the vote was that they proved their loyalty to their country; really meaning the local capitalist class. Pretty sickening isn't it? 

We in the S.P.C stand for a society where nobody has to campaign for equality as it will be a given.

Too many people view politicians as stupid, corrupt or both. Though in the SPC, we realise some are, we don't dwell on it too much, as it would be tantamount to saying, "if they weren't a bunch of jerks, everything under capitalism would be peachy-dandy."

 Well, we have our doubts about that.

Our Social Revolution

 Political revolution to describe a change in the class which controls the State, social revolution to mean a change in the basis of society and socialist revolution to describe the particular change of society from capitalism to socialism. We cannot deny that the word revolution has often been used to mean “violent overthrow” and in fact most of the political and social revolutions of the past have been violent. We deny, however, that there is any necessary connexion between revolution and violence. This is an important point, and one we have always made ourselves. In our view the distinction between revolution and reform is not between violent overthrow (insurrection) and peaceful change (using elections and Parliament), but between those who want to replace capitalism by Socialism and those who seek merely to re-form capitalism in one way or another. We claim to be revolutionaries because we stand for a fundamental and rapid change in the basis of society following the capture of political power by the working class, even though we hold that the working class can capture political power peacefully through elections and Parliament. On the other hand, there are many who believe in the violent capture of political power but who would use it merely to re-form capitalism (generally into State capitalism). We deny they are revolutionaries, irrespective of their commitment to insurrectionary tactics.

 The change we desperately need now is a change in the structure of society itself. A change which will give us freedom from their domination and exploitation. So that we shall have control of the technology and science we develop. Control of the production and distribution we need to live on. Control of change itself. Only we can make this sort of change. We are in the immense majority all over the world. We produce and manage everything already. The capitalist class and their power structure contribute nothing. But they consume over half the wealth we produce. This sort of change cannot be gradual.

The e people who own all the industries in the country are few in number—about 10 per cent of the population— and for that reason is very rich. It’s not strictly true that members of this privileged class must have necessarily worked to own all they do. A great deal of their wealth is inherited. But in any case, let’s ask us how these fortunes are made in the first place. After all, they’re so huge it seems unlikely that they are made simply by living a frugal life. These fortunes are made out of you and me. n any industry, the workers produce more in terms of wealth than they receive as wages—because they are not paid for what they produce, but just enough for them to live at a certain standard of living. This is then used up and then back we go to work again the following week. In other words, it’s because wages, on an average, only provide us with enough to keep alive and healthy—plus enough to reproduce sufficient offspring to carry on the job of piling up more wealth than we ever see—that we have to perpetuate the agony in the way described. And it is the difference between this amount and the amount actually produced by workers which accounts for the profits of the owners. So we also perpetuate our compulsory generosity at the same time. The present system, and the way it is run. depends entirely on the effort of people like us, who have to work. We run the whole show from, lop to bottom. For that reason, if all of us united together, it would be in our power to set up a system where there would not be the rat-race that exists at present. We suggest that we set up a system where we all co-operate to make necessary work as pleasant as possible and our conditions of life the best possible, too. This, in turn, we suggest, can be done by establishing a society where all wealth is owned in common.

 The Socialist Party can’t do a thing on its own. What is needed is a majority of people like us to do something. Members of the Socialist Party realise that their interests are identical with the interests of 90 per cent of people in society; and that all of us can only achieve an appreciable improvement in our position by political action. This doesn’t mean going into Parliament and forming a government. Rather it means going into Parliament to end the need for a Parliament at all!  It is from Parliament, you see, that the system of private ownership is ultimately run. The government of the day deals with affairs which affect the owners of industry as a class rather than as individuals. Hence all the time spent on finance, influence and control over whole industries, and so on. All this will go when private ownership goes. This is a task for which the Socialist Party can be used. It doesn’t run for office, as all the other political parties do. It exists as a vehicle which the population can use for ending property society, if it decides to, by sending the party’s delegates to Parliament for that purpose. This is the reason, and the only reason, the Socialist Party contests elections. We always lose, but that doesn’t mean to say we’re wasting our time. We expect to lose elections until enough people have accepted the arguments for the radical change I’ve been talking about. And by contesting elections we help to propagate these ideas. So at this stage we are mainly a propaganda organisation.

There can only be a radical change in the way we conduct our lives if there is a corresponding radical change in society. This must be done ultimately by a majority of the population bringing about the kind of change we've indicated. The task may seem almost hopeless. But there is a slim chance, and the only organisation which gives voice to these ideas is the Socialist Party.

Violence Sells The Product

In, Lemmings don't Leap, by Edwin Moore, Chambers, 2006, the author demolishes popular myths, one of which is the Wild West, which wasn't very wild. Sure there were shoot outs on Main Street but not to the extent we've been told.

In Dodge City's worse year for killing, only 5 were shot, Tombstone also had 5, and Deadwood 4.

Quiet a difference from movies that show the dead littering the street, but, and this is a sad reflection on capitalism – its violence that sells product. 

John Ayers.

Spread The Light Of Socialism

'I'm not the angry racist they see': Alt-Righter became viral face of hate in Virginia — and now regrets it – rawstory.com

Right! All the Nazi officers said they regretted their past actions during the trials. If you ask me, if a person can commit such grave atrocity towards their fellow humans, even once, regret does not absolve them of their crime. Yet the issue is not with individual acts, but the deep current of racist build up in today's society's veins. Until we clear it, it will keep poisoning new minds.

And that is why we are here in SPC. Trying hard to spread the light of socialism as an inclusive and sustainable future for all human kind. 

John Ayers