Caledonia and Catalonia

A useful article on the Counterpunch website about Scottish and Catalan nationalism by Boris Kagarlitsky, a historian and sociologist who lives in Moscow. It is worth quoting extracts.
"...The situations of Catalonia and Scotland are, in fact, similar in two respects. To begin with, in both places we are dealing with the revolt of the rich against the poor. More developed regions with a high standard of living do not want to give up their resources to support less prosperous and backward provinces. ”We don’t want to feed Andalusia anymore”, they say in Barcelona. “We don’t want to feed Belfast anymore”, they say in Glasgow and Edinburgh. The local bureaucracy dreams of having an exclusive control over the financial flows. The reluctance to share with the neighbors is being justified by cultural and racial claims. “We are the real Europeans, not provincial islanders, like the English”, they say in Glasgow. “We are the real Europeans, descendants of Goths, not dirty descendants of the Arabs, like the Spaniards”, they say in Barcelona..."

"...The unexpected aspirations of Scotland and Catalonia for independence have one more, less public, though no less significant underlying reason. For many years, both regions have been implementing European Union programs aimed at creation of a new system of institutions, separated from the regional state and directly tied to the Brussels bureaucracy. This is the essence of the program entitled “Europe of the Regions”. Every Scottish county has a program financed by the EU, while England or Northern Ireland do not get help on a comparable scale. Brussels was consistently and consciously created the “Scottish factor” as a counterbalance to Britain, which traditionally opposed the Eurocrats.

Of course, like any nationalism of a small nation, the ideology of Scottish and Catalan independence appeals to various injustices of the past, representing its nation or territory solely as a victim. For Scotland this does not work very well, since the last serious oppression of the Scots happened in the middle of the XVIII century. The main oppressors were not the English, but the Scots themselves, the inhabitants of the lowlands, who were settling scores with the inhabitants of the mountains, who, previously had been robbing them. Now, in the process of enclosure these were the inhabitants of highlands, who were ruined so much that they had only two options – to sign up with the royal army or brew a local moonshine that became known throughout the world as Scotch whiskey. In the next two centuries, the Scots became the most privileged population of the British Empire, constituting a disproportionately large part of its military and civilian elite, forming key cadres of the colonial administration in India and Africa...

...The transformation of national discrimination from real experience into a political myth is the most important factor conducive to the rise of nationalism. Those who are discriminated against are fighting for the abolition of discrimination, whereas the nationalists turn the grievances of the past into symbolic capital to justify their ambitions...Catalonian rebellion, like Scottish separatism is the uprising of the rich against the poor, the protest of a liberal society against the remnants of a redistributive social state...  This is a continuation of the general logic of de-solidarisation, privatization and fragmentation characteristic of neoliberalism. It was this political economic logic that underlay the collapse of the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.  This logic assumes not only rejection of solidarity based on class and rejection of common humanistic values, but also substitution of the national values by the ethnic ones. It is ethnic nationalism that proves to be an ideal “substitute” for class or civic solidarity. It preserves the necessary sense of “community” for people, while narrowing it down to the size of an imaginary large family...

...Rosa Luxemburg cautioned other leftists of the dangers of flirting with the petty-bourgeois nationalism of small nations...Alas, the modern European left, which developed in the context of deindustrialization and decline of class solidarity, is itself a product of neoliberalism and is completely imbued with the spirit of petty-bourgeois romanticism. Therefore, the left does not dare to openly say that the nationalism of minorities in no less damaging for the working class cause than any other nationalism..."

Socialist Courier blog finds much of worth in the analysis. Sadly, his conclusion does not stand up to closer scrutiny. 

"...The success of Jeremy Corbin and his renewed Labor Party in Scotland returns class agenda to the region once considered the backbone of the labor movement. Nationalist demagogy quickly loses appeal among the masses whenever a real, substantial left alternative appears..."  

All belongs to all

Socialism has meant many things to many people. Ask someone what socialism means and you get various responses - it means government control, state ownership, regulations and legislation, economic intervention by government, redistribution of income, progressive taxation. It’s the welfare state, the mixed economy, or the command economy and central planning. When someone does proclaim that he or she is “a Socialist”, they have difficulty defining what that actually means other than they are for good jobs, full employment, national health care, etc. The problem with such “Socialisms” is that they all leave capitalism in place. By understanding capitalism and how it works, we come to a clearer understanding of what socialism should mean.

 If Socialist politics means a radical break from capitalism, then all the premises of capitalism must be fundamentally challenged. Capitalism is a system of capital creation and accumulation. Capital must not only be created, it must be necessarily accumulated and expanded (and unless accumulated to a great extent the system breaks down resulting in recession and economic crises). The existence of capital presupposes two things - first, a working class which is divorced from does not own the means of production. The only thing that workers really possess is their labour power, their ability to labour which they must sell for a wage or salary. Secondly, the existence of a class which owns or controls capital, which buys the labour power of the workers and uses it for the creation of surplus value, profit. Thus, capitalism is a class-divided society. On the one hand, those who own only their labour power, on the other hand, those who own capital. On the one hand, those who survive by selling their labour power, on the other hand, those who gain their existence by living off the profit (surplus value) created by the other class. The distinguishing feature of capitalism is not that capital/property is privately owned or that production is anarchic, that there is no planning. It is that labour is alienated, exploited.  If the State intervenes or nationalizes property and eliminates private capitalists the State itself becomes the single capitalist, its bureaucracy the de facto owners of capital. Capitalism as the ‘system of capital’ remains unchanged. It simply transforms into state-capitalism. The actual existence of capitalism as a ‘system of capital’ imposes limits to what that system can do. In the end, the system cannot work in a way that is detrimental to capital and all action within this system of capital (reforms, taxation, public works, health care, issues of the environment and ecology, etc.) are determined and restricted by the inevitable fact that capital must accumulate. Capital not only limits what one can do it also divides people against each other in an acknowledged ‘Rat Race’ that lays the foundation for the politics of despair, racism, sexism, ethnic division as people compete for the crumbs offered.

One of the criticisms hurled at Socialist Party is that we are starry-eyed, utopian dreamers, not versed in the art of ‘practical politics’. The answer to this is that those who defend and work through the system of capitalism and expect a society fit for human beings are the ones who are the utopians.  Their pragmatism cannot go beyond the limits of capital. Their proposed solutions to very real problems are bound up with this inevitable limit.  Socialism is desirable, necessary and achievable. It is in every way feasible, not a utopia conjured from out of the sky and imposed upon society. In place of profit-seeking enterprises,  organisations would be formed by people themselves for the purposes of self-help and mutual aid. The tendency to this free association even exists in modern capitalist society - in the form of people supporting strikes and other forms of working-class solidarity, international railway and air networks, even the Red Cross and the RNLI  lifeboat associations. These voluntary associations are limited and distorted by capitalism; however, they give us a glimpse of what free agreement has in store for us if we establish a stateless society in the future.

People think economics has something to do with bosses, accountants, economists, money, the market, profits, production, the division of labour, work or wage labour. Capitalists claim that all the things listed above like money and the market are natural, and it is impossible to have anything else.  Instead, we need to talk of the economic means for the satisfaction of the needs of all human beings with the least possible expenditure of energy and resources to achieve them.  To satisfy these needs, we need to re-organise society. We need to have a revolution to abolish all classes and wage-labour.

 Socialists reject the market, money, and profit as both exploitative and unnecessary. Instead, we need a society of common ownership and voluntary labour to meet these shared needs and wants. 
The first is the taking into possession of all of the wealth of the world, on behalf of the whole of humanity, because that wealth is the collective work of humanity.  This requires the abolition of all property and the holding of all resources in common for the well-being of all. The abolition of property requires the abolition of the wage system.

The second is organising society around the principle “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” This means everything should be produced, distributed and exchanged for free according to need. Everyone would be the judge of their own needs and take for free from the common storehouse whatever they needed. If there was scarcity, things would be rationed according to need.

Socialism is not some impractical dream. Even in today’s capitalist society, we have public roads, parks, museums, libraries and piped water which is 'free' for anybody to use according to their needs. For example, the librarian does not ask you what your previous services to society have been before they get you a book from the shelves or stacks. Again, these are token examples which give us a glimpse of what is possible under a class-free and money-free society.

In summary, socialism is :
(1) The means of production will be owned and controlled communally, and production will be geared towards satisfying everyone’s needs. Production will be for use, and not for sale on the market;
(2) Distribution will be according to need, and not by means of buying and selling;
 (3) Labour will be voluntary, and not imposed on workers by means of a coercive wages system;
 (4) A human community will exist, and social divisions based on class, nationality, sex or race will have disappeared
(5) opposition to all states, even the ones who falsely proclaim themselves to be ‘workers’ states’.

Adapted from here
https://libcom.org/files/CommonVoice2.pdf

Finding a solution to crime (1987)

From the November 1987 issue of the SocialistStandard Never a day goes by without politicians, policemen and the press calling for measures that will make "law and order" enforcement more effective. Many of these schemes are suggested by fully-fledged crackpots like James "off with their goolies" Anderton and are viewed as ridiculous by most people. Heart of the Matter (BBC1. 10.40pm. 4 October) offered us an insight into the latest schemes for detecting and solving crime. We were given a glimpse of the pilot scheme known as "Crimestoppers Anonymous" which is currently in operation in Great Yarmouth where you stand to gain a reward for information that leads to the apprehension and conviction of someone who has committed a serious crime. The local media are used as a means of advertising the specific crime that the police want solved, and of course the reward money. Who are the sponsors of this reward money? Well, guess what, they just happen to be local businessmen who of course want to retain their anonymity. No doubt they just couldn't stand being congratulated for their humanitarian service to the community! Some expert saw it as an extension of the neighbourhood-watch schemes and the high-profile TV programme Crimewatch UK. A holy bloke from the Church of England Board of Social Responsibility came on and was sad that "Merrie England" seemed to be losing its sense of "civic duty". A lefty came mumbling in with remarks like it was a scheme for Thatcher's '80s. ie the privatisation of criminal information. The most sensible statement about Crimestoppers Anonymous was that it resembled game shows —simply phone in and get your reward. Think of the possibilities and the TV ratings. You could grass on your grandparents, finger your father, nark on your neighbours, or simply find the felon in The Price is Right. None of the experts and civil libertarians on this show had anything to say about why people commit crime, they simply talked about the morality of paying for information and wondered why people didn't come forward with information to help the police solve crimes. No one seemed aware that the porkers have been paying for information (unofficially) since they were set up. No one accepted that many people may well be justified in their suspicion of the police, and of course nobody phoned in with information about the cops having assaulted demonstrators, black youths, passers-by. or men and women on picket-lines. And. incidentally, no one asked why local businessmen were putting up the reward money! Derek Devine (Dundee and then Edinburgh Br)

The Sanity of Socialism

We are aware of the fact that the majority of the people oppose so­cialism, but we are equally aware that the majority is not acquainted, for the most part, with what the socialist case is all about. And one of the obstacles has always been the alleged urgency of things that seem to be of greater priority. There is always a crisis. These crises, such as war, un­employment, oppression of particular groups or other social grievances are always held to be more important. It is difficult for socialists not to feel irritated at times because the urgency is exactly the clue to the lack of comprehension of what the problem is about.

The latest crisis is the environment. In the last few years, a movement has come on the scene to save the environment. The environment has become the great discovery of the past decade. It is being treated as if it were a territorial discovery and has been made into a new area of activity with departments set up in most com­munities and states to supervise ecological activities. The word ‘ecology’ has become a household term. Business enterprises have been formed to make a profit in this new arena. The end of the world is at hand unless we do something about the environment!

The socialist feels that long before fighting pollution became a popular cause and the word ‘ecology’ a fashionable term, capitalism was indicted on this specific charge, along with many others. We maintained that as long as we had the relationships of a market economy, that is, the pro­duction of commodities to be sold for a profit — the environment be damned, profits come first.

Factories along the banks of rivers pouring their poisonous effluents into the water year in and year out — this was normalcy. Factories with their smokestacks belching noxious, toxic fumes into the atmosphere — this was business as usual. These are still typical symptoms of what is called prosperity — people are working, getting wages, everything is ‘normal.’

But what do the environmentalists advocate? They deal with all the visible effects but continue to be blithely unaware of root causes. Sure, they can slap a fine on a factory that pollutes — they can chastise a public utility that blackens the sky. But what motivates business is not the same concern that our ecologist friends have.

The conflict of interests comes up constantly. When the Sierra Club, a group of environmentalists, was confronted with the fact that its funds were invested in companies that are among the prime polluters, its re­sponse was that they had to be practical.

Of course, on the other hand, the prime concern of business is to keep the costs of production as low as possible. Profits have to be of paramount priority.

We are convinced, based on the facts available to anyone, that in our enlightened, technological age, almost all our problems can be solved. A planet fit for human beings to inhabit has become the question of ultimate survival.

Our case boils down to this simple premise: Let us eliminate the rela­tionships of commodity production — let us produce goods to serve the needs of humanity instead of producing in order to make profits — let us organize our world on a democratically planned base instead of working for the benefit of the stockholders — let us harness the natural wealth of the universe and match it with the trained technology of the workers who live on this planet.

All of the solutions of these problems would then fall into place. Thus, we are now able to eliminate waste. The waste of war. The waste of dupli­cation on the part of many competing companies. The waste of countless unnecessary industries such as banking, insurance, and advertising.

We contend that potentially the problem of production has already been solved. We can produce enough food and in infinite abundance. We can build as many homes as may be needed. We can fabricate endless miles of clothing and in infinite variety. And ALL WITHOUT POLLUTION.

And now we come to the question: ‘Is there enough?’ We are told that the mineral resources are running out. Consumption is running ahead of production. On this score, socialists are not interested in a system of production and distribution that ignores the basic purpose of satisfying social and human needs in favor of profits.

Any science, in any field of production which does not take into ac­count its social background and human purpose, is no science but merely technology.

The benefits of science and technology have yet to reach the multi­tudes. They have arrived only for a few people who own and control their operations.

Much scientific information available in many books on a variety of subjects concerning the natural and mineral resources of the world con­cludes that there is no shortage. No shortage of oil, coal or agricultural land; no shortage of any form of natural wealth, including energy.

Capitalism, which is based on a market economy, has been known to create shortages in order to boost prices. In order to attempt to affect prices, capitalism will curtail production, oft times squandering natural resources.

Many resources are considered in short (sometimes dangerously low) supply due only to the fact that they cannot be brought to the market profitably.

Every assessment of wealth is judged in this way. It would not be judged in this way in a socialist society.

The resource that commands the most attention at the present time is energy. Right now fossil fuel, mostly in the form of petroleum, is the dominant source of energy. Mainly because in the recent past few genera­tions it has been relatively available on the basis of supply as well as cost.

And under the ground lies a huge reservoir of coal and shale, largely untapped due to the uneconomic mining and processing involved. However, petroleum is getting more and more expensive due to real or imaginary shortages or political jockeying by the oil-producing countries versus the major multinational oil companies. And everyone and his brother and cousin is searching for alternative sources of the stuff that will run his automobile or heat his furnace at home.

This can be a fun game: An example of another source of clean, non-­polluting energy is geothermal. In the permeable rocks beneath the earth’s surface, water is heated by molten magma creating steam. You have often seen pictures of the geyser ‘Old Faithful’ spouting a jet of steam with age-old regularity. This steam can be harnessed. It can be brought to the earth’s surface through bore holes and used to drive generators producing electricity. Once the steam has cooled and condensed it can be returned via other bore holes back to the permeable layer where it is again heated, returning to steam — and so the process continues in constant recycling.

Perfectly practical? Too good to be true? What’s the hitch? It sounds too much like sanity.

There is a theory that comes up over and over again. It states that population, if not checked, would always increase faster than the available food supply. And further, this Malthusian theory argues that the way na­ture checks this imbalance is through war, poverty, and pestilence.

Some people fall for this and conclude that famine is, in a way, a good thing. It keeps the growth of population in check.

Actually, the theory is false. It assumes a premise that does not hold true. Overpopulation does not breed poverty but rather poverty breeds overpopulation. Hunger is usually not caused by the insufficient production of food in the world but by social factors that prevent the required distribution of food. The issue is clear. Improvisation within the limits of the capitalist mode of production cannot solve the problem of over-population. Only the sanity of socialism can offer the answer to this fearful problem. The fact is that today, not in the future, mankind has reached a potential super-abundance of all of the requirements to sustain life. Famine in 2017 is inexcusable.

Technologically, modern agriculture in the United States alone could produce enough food to feed the entire world. The application of science to soil — even soil-less agriculture — gives the lie to the Malthusian premise about food supply. And just around the corner stands the prospect of desalinization of sea water on a greater than the experimental basis. We literally will be able to irrigate the deserts of the earth and produce food anywhere.

We may say of the food problem, as we have said of the energy problem: We are not facing some final exhaustion of the world’s sources of food. The economist who sees capitalism as the best of all possible worlds says that we are simply short of capital. Any worldwide solution to the food problem will require the massive investment of resources. We, socialists, say the solution is obvious: Produce only to satisfy human needs and wants.

What will happen to the environment when working men and women decide to establish socialism? We cannot give a detailed account, but cer­tain things are clear. Instead of society being hell-bent on profit, the prime motivation is providing the population with food, clothing, and shelter (with a big plus) at a level that makes sense in every sense:

Energy — that which is the most efficient and environmentally satisfy­ing at the same time.

Transportation — no competing brands of vehicles; only the best will do. Probably more public transportation, but with a view to comfort and convenience.

Manufacturing — any process that despoils nature and endangers man obviously will be discontinued. The inventiveness of our age will overcome any short-range difficulties.

It may sound strange, but really what we are advocating is sanity. We call it socialism.

Abridged and adapted from here

http://www.wspus.org/2016/06/a-tv-program-the-sanity-of-socialism/

From Glasgow's rich history

Party News from the July 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Kelvingrove Branch is now 15 strong having recently recruited three new members. The discussion group started in November of last year, is still running with a satisfactory attendance. Outdoor propaganda meetings were started about the middle of April, but up to now, they have not been a great success owing to lack of experienced speakers among the branch members. But the meetings are a useful training ground and young speakers are gaining the necessary experience with each meeting held. Next year should find the branch with an established propaganda station, qualified speakers and good audiences. One meeting held this year, on the first Sunday in June at Drury Street was a fair success, a young member of the branch holding an audience of 200 workers for nearly two hours.

Kelvingrove members have recently finished the first month of a door-to-door literature sales drive and they have sold a considerable number of Party pamphlets. During May the Glasgow members completely sold out their stock of the current issue of the Socialist Standard and during June and July, they anticipated increased sales of our paper. Comrades Turner and Millen visited Glasgow during May, Turner speaking at the May Day rally and Millen addressing the branch's first indoor propaganda venture on the subject, “Your Vote—Did it Matter?" The Kelvingrove members are pleased with the response.

Something Could Go Wrong

We are all aware of the rapidly increasing tension between the US and North Korea, the latest development being the Koreans threat that they may test a Hydrogen bomb in the Pacific Ocean. This would mean a nuclear-armed missile flying over Japan. 

It must surely occur to many that something could go wrong and it might actually land on Japan.

 For many years the world was haunted by the fear of a nuclear war which was gradually replaced by the threat of global warming, now the old threat has returned. 

This shows how nothing has changed under capitalism, which is a good reason to abolish it.

For socialism, 

Steve, Mehmet, John & all contributing members of the SPC.

One Real Democracy

Speaking of Ms.Freeland - on Sept.22 she informed the government of Venezuela that Canada has imposed sanctions against 40 members of the regime of President Nicolas Maduro, including himself. Since taking office in 2013, Maduro has ruled by decree and ignored the elected national assembly. These individuals are, to quote Ms.Freeland, ''Helping to undermine the security, stability, and integrity of democratic institutions in Venezuela.''

Many capitalists would like to abolish democratic institutions so they can do exactly as they wish and many who defend political democracy do so to conn the working class into thinking by electing the upholders of capitalism to office they are the ones who rule.

 In the final analysis, there is only one real democracy and its called Socialism.

For socialism, 

Steve, Mehmet, John & all contributing members of the SPC.

Freedom from Capitalism

 People are looking for an alternative to austerity and assumptions that “common sense” which “everyone knows” works such as lower taxes and privatisation are being increasingly discarded. The society in which we live makes it almost impossible for most of us to be healthy, happy, or wise, no matter how hard we try. How can we become more healthy when the environment in which we live is profoundly unhealthy? How nice a person can you afford to be in a world that is not nice, where competition and aggression are highly valued attributes? And how can people become wise when they are constantly being fed misinformation, distortions of the truth and downright lies fro Wealth, over-abundance, misery and suffering side by side! When will our fellow- workers see this glaring contradiction and recognise the remedy as the dispossession of the owners of the means of living, and the establishment of socialism?

The capitalist buys labour power at its value, yet robs the worker. The value of labour power depends upon the cost of production of the labourer, and the cost of production of the labourer depends upon his cost of living. Inside this, however, is the fact that standards of living for different types of workers vary, and standards also vary between one country and another. The capitalist aims at lowering the general standard of living to the lowest possible level.

The labourer, when working, produces a greater value than the value of his means of living, and the capitalist takes the extra value produced. Our correspondent argues that this is exploitation, but not robbery because the capitalist pays the labourer the value of his labour-power. In his eyes, only that which is illegal to-day is robbery. But although the capitalist pays the labourer the value of his labour-power, he does not pay him the value of his product.

We will leave aside the question of depressing the standard of living, wherein the capitalist obviously robs the worker of former advantages. It is to be assumed that the critic does not suggest the worker willingly agrees to wage reductions, etc. As the worker is deprived of wealth that he does not willingly give, he is plundered by force.

The workers fight for a larger amount of the total wealth produced but are defeated in the long run by the power of the capitalists. The capitalist shows his power by the giving and withholding of jobs, which signifies inviting the workers to produce on certain terms or starve. Dick Turpin used a pistol to force wealth from his victims; the capitalist uses the threat of starvation for the same purpose. The one method is illegal robbery; the other is legal robbery. In the present discussion the main difference between the two is the question of legality. There is another difference. Dick Turpin did the job himself; the capitalist pays others to do it. When Dick Turpin met with opposition he had only his own arms to call upon. When the worker resists the capitalist, the latter can call upon the State power to bring the worker to subjection and force him to produce.

The difficulty is that the mass of the workers do not realise that they are being robbed.

The original accumulation of the capitalists, by means of which they were able to obtain control of the means of production and subject the worker to exploitation, was also robbery. The plundering of the Eastern and Western countries, the plundering of the monasteries and the enclosing of lands by driving the original owners off, form the principal part of the capitalists’ early accumulation of wealth.

The capitalist deprives, plunders and strips the worker of energy, leisure, pleasure, the product of his labour, and a host of other things, and it is done by force, and secretly or clandestinely by gradual and imperceptible means. Therefore the capitalist robs the worker. The customs of savage society do not permit this form of robbery, but the laws of capitalist society do. Therefore it is now legal robbery.

It is true the capitalists rob and cheat each other, but the robbery of the worker is the basis of the system.

Irrespective of who gets in or the size of their vote, life for the working class will remain the same. Our poverty, our unemployment. our slums and mean living will still be with us for these are the constant realities of capitalism, however, we may perceive it. One of the most exciting prospects of socialism is that for the first time since the beginning of property society we shall regain control of our time, of our lives. If our fellow- workers would only understand that present social system runs for the benefit of our masters, and leaves us who do the work every day in more abject poverty. We could so easily be free from the anxiety of insecurity, free from the blight of never-ending toil.

SNP - Fake Promises

Scotland’s finance secretary has dampened hopes of a substantial pay rise for public sector workers, claiming he needed more money from the UK government. His remarks irritated Scottish trade union leaders, who believe Mackay is shifting the blame for a poor pay deal on to the UK government because Scottish ministers are unable to afford all their election promises.

Derek Mackay said his ability to offer Scottish nurses, police, teachers and civil servants the proper wage increase he had promised depended on whether Philip Hammond, the chancellor, increased public spending in the next UK budget.

Nicola Sturgeon’s government has repeatedly promised to end the 1% public sector pay cap, particularly after she endured difficult exchanges with nurses and teachers who complained about their financial problems during the general election campaign. The Scottish TUC issued a statement warning Mackay it expected both governments to honour their pay promises.  Trade union leaders are pressing for an above inflation pay rise. They suspect Sturgeon and Mackay are shying away from using Scotland’s new income tax powers to fund higher pay, but the STUC said it ought to use those powers regardless of the UK government’s decision.

“The Scottish government has responsibility for 90% of public workers. Half a million workers are depending on the SNP government taking action now for a fair pay deal... Public workers won’t wait for Westminster.”” the STUC said.

Class Struggle Reality

The class struggle arises in the economic field, but that the workers can only be victorious in that struggle by becoming conscious of their class interests and controlling political power. The objection is often raised that the workers are "robbed” in the process of production and that it is on the industrial field that we must fight for emancipation. These objectors do not realise that economic systems are controlled politically and that material conditions give rise to political institutions by means of which ruling classes dominate the economic world. The materialist view of history shows that the material conditions of production, etc., make necessary political machinery to govern or control the economic life of society. Every class struggling for control of the economic basis of society has to become politically supreme in order to maintain or obtain economic possession.  On the political field, the class struggle can be explained and driven home far more effectively than in the factories and offices, where the sectional rivalry between workers obscures the class line.  Practically all political activists who talk about socialism gained their ideas about the nature of socialism outside the work-place and inside political agitation.

We are often told that "economic power” is the key to the situation. The working class, however, have no economic power. The working class cannot live except by being employed by the masters. The instruments of production, as well as the products, belong to the employers, which leaves the workers in the position of constantly struggling for a job and wages in order to exist. It has been claimed that because the workers are necessary to production, their "indispensability" is an economic power. But the workers can’t live on their quality of being necessary to industry. And as soon as they enter into production, they do so on the employers’ terms. If “economic power” depends upon possession, as in the employers’ case, then it at once rules the workers out from “economic power. ” The employing class have to "back up” their economic possession by controlling the political machine.

The age-long efforts to prevent the workers having a vote, and the huge funds and resources used to maintain a capitalist majority, show how important a machine Parliament is for the ruling class. It is the seat of power. It is the main machine of the modern State, through which the armed forces are controlled. Before the workers can do anything with the State machinery, they first of all must win possession of it.  If that Parliamentary control is left in the hands of our enemies, the workers are without any means of taking possession of the machinery of wealth production, etc.

Our life in capitalism becomes more and more fragmented, more and more specialised. Capitalism is a system of society which divides people rather than unites them — capitalist from a worker, men from women, blacks from whites, nation from nation. It teaches us competition not co-operation competition for jobs, housing and something that approximates to a bearable standard of living. The division between capitalist and worker is inherent in capitalism — their interests are totally opposed and can never be reconciled. But the divisions between workers are not inherent —they are encouraged by the conditions in which we live and work but could be overcome through a recognition of our common class interests, our mutual inter-dependence and, above all, the need for radical change. The Socialist Party is striving for the real emancipation of humanity.

It's A Barbie Nonsense

One might think the gents elected to office in Ottawa would be above thinking in sexist terms, well think again pally 'cos some of 'em are really goofy.

 Gerry Ritz, Tory MP for Lloydminster really put it on,(sorry folks couldn't resist it, but please keep reading I won't do it again), called Catherine McKenna, minister for environment and climate change ,''a climate Barbie''. 

Nor did his leader Andrew Scheer criticize him. Foreign Affairs minister Chrystia Freedland was laughed at for wearing a red dress and dismissed for her charm. The incoming governor general, Julie Payette, an engineer and astronaut was hounded over the details of her divorce and for having been found faultless in a traffic accident.

It makes one wonder when these clowns will ever wake up and realize that as far as brains, talent and inclination are concerned there are no differences between the sexes, but differences between people. I guess it will take a socialist society to make 'em see the light.

For socialism, 

Steve, Mehmet, John & all contributing members of the SPC

Against Reformism

The Socialist Party holds to a vision of world solidarity where men and women are in control of their own destinies. In socialism there will be no social organ of coercion — in short, no state, not even a so-called "workers' state" — and so no police, no armed forces, no courts, no prisons, no machinery to coerce people to do what they might not want to do.

Socialism will be a state-free society in which people will co-operate, on the basis of common ownership and democratic control. to produce what they need as individuals and as communities. This co-operation will be entirely voluntary and so will have to be undertaken because people want to because they realise that it is necessary and in their best self-interest. In other words, because they have a socialist understanding.

Clearly, since such a society can only function with the voluntary co-operation and conscious participation of its members, it can only be established by people who want it and who understand all its implications. By definition, socialism cannot be established by a minority. It is just absurd — a contradiction in terms — to suggest that some minority could force the majority to co-operate voluntarily. The main features of socialism are world community, common ownership, democratic control, production for use, free access. Socialism is an immediate possibility. All the conditions for its establishment are present except one — precisely the majority socialist understanding we have been discussing. In other words, as soon as this last condition is met. as soon as a majority of wage and salary earners want and understand socialism, it can be established immediately, without any so-called "transition period".

Fellow workers, the only remedy for your precarious and poverty-stricken condition is to be found in the recognition of your class position. You must recognise that you are mere cogs in the industrial machine, that you are permitted to work only so long as there is profit to be derived from your labour. You must understand what you want and how to get it; then there will be no room for labour "leaders." You would not need to be led. and you could not be misled. You must organise then inside the Socialist Party, and work consciously for that revolution which will replace poverty and misery for those who do the world's work with plenty for all.

The Socialist Party shows that the road to socialism does not lie through “palliatives,” and that even where each measure may affect a slight improvement in the lot of any workers, they are by their nature simply patches on a rotten fabric, and consequently in no way installments of the new society. In short, nearly all so-called palliatives do not ameliorate; and even where they may do so, the economic development of capitalism progressively produces ill effects that ever outstrip every palliative effort, and make the need for Socialism more imperative.

Further, even were the work of the Socialist Party simply an attempt to cause the enactment of reform measures that would appreciably benefit the whole working class, it would first be necessary for the Party to conquer the power of the State. Thus even for reform worth the name, a revolution would be necessary, whereas socialism could be had at the same price. Moreover, the workers could be more easily united as a whole for socialism than for a programme of sectional, mutually conflicting, pettifogging reforms.

These are some of the reasons, together with the important fact that the economic trend makes socialism the only practical proposition, that makes it impossible for The Socialist Party to put forward a reform programme.

The task of the working-class party is the conquest of the governmental machinery and forces, for socialist ends. Consequently, support is only useful to the party on that understanding. To pander to the reform mania would attract non-socialists and weaken the party, while the absence of positive or useful result would spread disgust and apathy.

A reform programme is, in fact, fraudulent, particularly from the socialist standpoint. Therefore, while willing to secure any amelioration or help possible for the workers in their fight against capital the Socialist Party realises that socialism transcends all else, and stands distinct from all other parties on a programme of Socialism and nothing but socialism. No palliation could be effective enough, in view of the necessary conditions of the development of capitalism, to put back the hour of emancipation to any appreciable extent. It could only demonstrate once more the helplessness of anything short of socialism. What does put back the hour of emancipation is the false hope in reform assiduously fostered by astute capitalists and ignorant or corrupt Labour politicians. The sooner the working class learn the lesson of the working-class movement the quicker shall we have started on the road to our emancipation. That lesson, surely, is that the position of our representatives in Parliament must be one of absolute independence from any pro-capitalist party, and that such independence most be based upon their hostility to capitalist parties.

The working class, having learnt that capitalist exploitation is the source of their social evils and their enslavement, will seek to emancipate themselves and solve their social problems by the abolition of capitalism through the establishment of socialism. Parliamentary action must always be guided by that object, and no compromise with the enemy is possible or desirable. The essential factor is the education of the workers in the principles of socialism, for on the “rank and file” rests the responsibility of a “leader’s" shortcomings. The failure of the Labour Party to “make good" is useful in showing how it can not be done, but is a useless waste of time to those of us who knew it could not be done that way.

Pie In The Sky

 In The Guardian's 27 September 2017 article, Jeremy Corbyn: neoliberalism is broken and we are now the centre ground, informs us that Corbyn's tax reform platform in the UK is high sounding better news for many workers in Britain as well as the rest of the planet. Rent controls, taxing developer's unused land, 'ending austerity, abolishing tuition fees, and scraping the public sector pay cap' – all music to some workers' ears. But what about this blind alley of reforming old capitalism? 

To good to be true? The globe is a big place, and no one has to look far to learn how capitalists easily move capital country to country, seeking higher and higher returns on capital; the exploitation of the great unwashed and washed alike, endlessly tossing up more human miseries, social degradation, pollution, social strife and inequalities . . . These are ubiquitous features of capitalism functioning in its usual disgustingly healthy way. 

We wish Corbyn and his company of reformists well, who wouldn't, but as long as capitalism is around it is 'pie in the sky' hoping it will ever run in the interests of workers. The point is to dump capitalism altogether.

For socialism, 

Steve, Mehmet, John & all contributing members of the SPC.

Not A Pretty Picture.

Our good friends at the Toronto Star ran an article in their Sept.9 edition which focused on the "benefits" of working for temp. employment agencies, most of which was an exposure of Toronto's Fiera Foods bakery. It made clear that for many of the working class wages and working conditions haven't improved much since the industrial revolution, especially since Fiera aren't the only ferocious exploiters around. 

Since the article is two and a half pages long I would recommend, dear reader, to check it out, on page one, the star.com. There is though one aspect I want to draw your attention to, that of the problems of compensation for injuries on the job. The company doesn't pay up because they say the worker is employed by the agency. Over the last ten years, the injury rate for temps who work with machinery has been double the rate of permanent workers who do. Though exact figures are not available, many temps who are injured do not make claims for fear of losing their jobs. There it is folks, not a pretty picture, but please read the Stars expose.

George owns a coffee stall at the mall across the street from my building. He told me he had worked for ten years in kitchens for low pay, no benefits or holidays. Whenever he asked a boss if he could have a two week holiday the answer was all the same and needs no translation,"Sure you can but I cant promise you'll have a job to come back too". So George never took one. Wanting to be his own boss George opened the coffee stall. Now he works twelve hours a day, six days a week and doesn't take a holiday because he needs the sales to make the business pay. 

That's life under capitalism for most of us, every which way your screwed

For socialism, 

Steve, Mehmet, John & all contributing members of the SPC.