A Money-free Aim

In the Chartist journal, The Red Republican, 27 July 1850, a letter, from George Smith of Salford, was published under the heading “ABOLITION OF MONEY” He argues that:

“ . . in order . . . to prepare the way for the absolute supremacy of the working classes, preparatory to the abolition of the system of classes, what should be done? Evidently something more than getting possession of political rights, or even destroying those twin monsters, rent and usury; for had we possession of the one and had successfully destroyed the other, there would yet remain in existence a monster which would reproduce its kind to torment humanity; and that monster is money! Sir, in my opinion, so long as mankind will agree to have a circulating medium — will allow everything in life to be measured by money — so long will they suffer the evil consequences springing therefrom . . .”

By 10 August, Smith’s letter had provoked a response. The writer, who signed himself “A Wage Slave”, opposes the need to abolish money, stating that “What society wants is just social institutions”. He argued that capitalism survives because workers are not paid the full value of their labour power and that the real need is for an equitable distribution of money. (The Left has not advanced beyond such theoretical fallacies.)

The Red Republican of 24 August contains two letters on the money question, taking up three columns. The first is from RPP, who states that the abolition of money “is the most important subject for discussion at the present time”. He goes on to agree that money should be abolished:

“I would root out and abolish a system that compels man to give the sweat of his heart’s blood to the great money-mongers, wasting his own time, strength and happiness, as wealth may command. It is the slavery of the many for the sake of the few. Such a state of things must no longer exist, for man was made to enjoy all things equally with his fellow-man”

But — just as the reader is thinking that the correspondent has hit the nail very close to its head — RPP proceeds to argue that “the working classes must return to barter”. The second letter is from George Smith, who initiated the correspondence, and contains some excellent answers to the arguments of “Wage Slave”:

“Strange, that in the 19th century, any wage slave should be found to advocate the continuance, in any shape, of that which, whilst it shall last, must perpetuate his vassalage, to its “fortunate possessors”. Does not my friend see both the craft and the hellishness of money? Who produces everything which sustains life, and feeds our desires for luxuries? The workers! Through the instrumentality of their labour, and by no other means can these things be produced. Then by what chicanery do those who “work not, neither do they spin” obtain all they want to superfluity, whilst those who produce are kept almost without? Why, by the crafty invention and use of money, with which they, like true “philanthropists”, come to the producer, and assure him that the food he is taking home is not “the stuff of life” but that which they will give him in return for his food is the real sustainer of existence, and thus he is cheated out of his produce for a shadow.”

Smith rather confuses cause and effect — it is not money which produces class division, but the other way round — but nevertheless he is clearly moving in the direction of the ideas later to be elaborated by Marx. Responding to “Wage Slave’s” advocacy of a “just commercial system”, Smith rightly states that:

For a man to dispose (or sell) of his labour at the “public mart” presupposes a buyer of that labour, and, according to our friend’s just commercial system, I am afraid that no buyers would purchase unless they could live out of such purchases. To live by buying and selling is to live nefariously.

“Wage Slave” replies on 7 September, stating that he can now see the importance of Smith’s idea, but doubts whether everyone else will be intelligent enough to live in a moneyless society. (A familiar argument from modern Leftists.) “Why propose to do that which is impossible at the present time?” asks “Wage Slave”. This question was asked of the SPGB when it was formed in 1904 and it was for this reason that our members were labelled “the impossibilists”. If those who took this view in 1850 and 1904 had spent less time running away from the need to convince people of a good idea, and telling its advocates that they were wasting their time, we would have achieved the seemingly impossible long ago.

On 14 September Alexander Bill contributed a letter to the correspondence, in which he argued (rather confusedly) that he was opposed to “the total and unconditional abolition of money”, although he did agree with Smith “when he says that our present monetary system is the basis of all those social evils under which we labour”. His answer was to introduce a “prohibition of private trading” and “the establishment of public marts”. Effectively, this was an argument for state capitalism.

The final letter on the subject was published on 28 September and came from George Smith. To “Wage Slave’s” claim that workers could not arrive at the point of intelligence which would make a moneyless society possible, Smith responds:

“Intelligence! What is it? Walker says intelligence is “perception, understanding”. Now, will my friend say that it is impossible for the intelligent to excite the perception of the, at present, ignorant, and give them understanding?”

No further letter appeared on the subject. Smith’s question remained unanswered. But since 1850, the post-Chartist Left has responded to the question in the negative. While claiming to be fully committed Marxists, they refuse to advocate the case for the abolition of money because they consider the working class too stupified by capitalist conservatism ever to accept or understand it. Instead, they argue in favour of state capitalism. It is because of this that socialists are fundamentally hostile to the left-wing parties and groups.

The Socialist Party stands for a society in which all factories, farms, offices, docks, mines — indeed, the entire means of producing and distributing wealth — will be owned by the entire world community. The resources of the earth will belong to everyone. No laws will exist to preserve the right of one section of society to use things and another section to be denied the use of them. World socialism will be a social order based on free access for all people to all the goods of the earth. In such a society money would be an out-dated relic. Nobody will buy anything or sell anything or pay for anything. Those who cannot easily imagine such an arrangement should remember that people in pre-capitalist societies would have found our present social order equally difficult to comprehend. Those who have made the mental leap from the prison of the money system to the freedom of world socialism are urged to join us now in our struggle to create the society of tomorrow. The objective is urgent; we have waited for too long.

The SLP

When the Panama Papers tax-havenscandal broke two years ago, few would have thought such murkiness would wash up on the shores of Scotland. The use and abuse of shell companies to facilitate massive tax evasion, money laundering and organised crime didn’t happen here. Or so we thought. A naïve belief that Scotland was somehow beyond the shady world of global finance and international crime has been shattered confirming that we are not so different to Panama.

Scottish Limited Partnerships (SLPs) have been used by those with something to hide. In the four years before 2016, the number of SLPs registered in Scotland increased by 237 per cent, while those registered elsewhere in the UK increased by 43 per cent. 16,461 new SLPs were registered at just 10 addresses in Scotland. Something was happening.

The attraction of SLPs is a combination of their secrecy and separate legal persona in law. Unlike in England, a SLP is a legal entity in its own right that can enter into contracts, own and control assets. As a partnership it is ‘tax transparent’ so only the partners are taxed as individuals, and no accounts need be filed with Companies House. Until last year, the owners of a SLP were entitled to secrecy. In short, it was the perfect partner to a shell company in Panama City.

Responding to growing concern over the abuse of SLPs for criminal activity, the UK government introduced new transparency regulations last June requiring SLPs to disclose the identity of “people with significant influence or control” (PSCs) over them. Companies House maintains a register of PSCs, and it was thought that removing the secrecy of SLPs would dissuade those with unlawful intentions. However, many partners of SLPs routinely flout these new regulations.

 While SLPs and company law is generally reserved to Westminster, the regulation of Scotland’s professions isn’t. Why should Scottish solicitors, accountants and others act for SLPs who flout the law? Simply explaining that the responsibility for compliance with transparency regulations rests with the SLP isn’t good enough. This should be a matter of professional conduct and ethics.

For example, it isn’t in the public interest for Scottish solicitors to continue to provide services and/or host SLPs who ignore transparency regulations. There is a very real risk that continuing to act for SLPs with something to hide will damage the public interest and reputation of the legal profession in Scotland. There is nothing to prevent the Law Society of Scotland introducing a professional conduct rule to prohibit a Scottish solicitor from acting for a SLP who fails to demonstrate compliance with the transparency regulations. It should be a matter of professional ethics. The power to do so exists under section 34 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. Scottish law firms could be required to declare the number of SLPs they act for on a six monthly basis, and give a declaration they are satisfied the SLP has complied with the transparency rules. The professional regulatory bodies for accountants and other professionals could easily do likewise using conduct rule making powers. No professional in Scotland should act for a SLP flouting the 2017 transparency regulations. To do so should give rise to professional misconduct. If regulatory bodies in Scotland are unwilling to do more to combat the misuse of SLPs then there is nothing to stop the Scottish Parliament from legislating. 

Streets of gold

Here is the list of the 10 most expensive streets in Scotland, for the period between January 2012 and September 2017:

1. Golf Place, St Andrews, £2,179,000
2. Ettrick Road, Edinburgh, £1,899,000
3. Capelrig Lane, Glasgow, £1,550,000
4. Regent Terrace, Edinburgh, £1,371,000
5. Heriot Row, Edinburgh, £1,334,000
6. Ann Street, Edinburgh, £1,280,000
7. Deeview Road South, Aberdeen, £1,232,000
8. Rubislaw Den South, Aberdeen, £1,224,000
9. Northumberland Street, Edinburgh, £1,162,000
10. Friarsfield Way, Aberdeen, £1,132,000

Marx's conception of socialism

(The following is a transcript of a talk.)

As Marx envisaged society moving forward from capitalism to socialism, anything he had to say about the society of the future is of interest, but it is important to notice two things about what he said. Firstly, he never set out a comprehensive outline of socialist society. Secondly, he made scattered incidental references to the society of the future at different times in his life and in dealing with different subjects, so a lot of these ideas are in the air, as it were, and we have to do our own thinking about them.

About never having set out a comprehensive view of socialism, one of his French critics of Capital asked Marx why he didn't write "recipes for the cook shops of the future". Marx accepted that he was not doing so. Marx was not outlining future society and he explained what he meant about this. In The German Ideology he said this: communism (by which we mean socialism) "is not for us a state of affairs, an ideal to which reality will have to adapt itself. We call Communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things, and the conditions for this movement result from the premises now in existence". What Marx meant by "movements" we find in what he set out in his introduction to Capital. This "movement" was the economic laws of motion of modern society and he explained that his purpose in writing Capita was to discover these economic laws. So the only worthwhile ideas you can have about socialist society have got to be related to what Marx insisted was the existing state of society. You cannot just pluck these ideas out of the air.

This introduces an immediate complication. You have Marx or Engels writing in 1848 or even earlier, producing ideas about the socialist future, but the existing state of affairs is very different now to what it was in 1848 and also different to what it was in 1875. In his 1867 preface to Capital, where he referred to the progress of the Trade Unions. Marx talked about "a radical change in the existing relations between Capital and Labour". They show that the present society (that is capitalism) is no solid crystal but an organisation capable of change, and is constantly changing. So whatever was in Marx's mind in 1848, he would have thought differently in 1875, and we of course would have to think differently now.

One thing to notice about this in the Communist Manifesto is that Marx and Engels talked about the "spectre of communism haunting Europe", but in fact they did not think that there was the slightest possibility of communism being established at that time. This is clear from a reference they made in the Communist Manifesto to the "utopians". They criticised the "utopians" on the ground that "the economic situation does not as yet offer to them the material conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat". What was true of the "utopians" was also true of Marx and Engels. They were looking in the future in the light of the unready conditions of the time. So, in fact, socialism was not a practical proposition at that time.

Quote of the Day

 "I'm the least patriotic man in the world. I do love Scotland, but if the love for your country is all you have, you're in a desperate state. I dislike people that write England off because they're Scottish. It's unfair and brutal." - Billy Connolly 

It All Boils Down To Money

I live in a condo, the residents of which employ a company to manage the rec. center. In our monthly newsletter we read the following, ''The increase in the Ontario minimum wage increased the fees of our contract with Results Lifestyle by $5,531.88 annually.  To offset the majority of the increase, the management committee decided to reduce the daily shift of onsite staff by one hour during the week.'' 

  Now this isn't a case of capitalists working their way around some new law, but members of the working class doing it.    This just emphases what a crazy system capitalism is and how everything eventually boils down to money.

If there is anyone who believes no Canadians live in conditions that are typical of third world countries they should type in, ''Sanford Apartments Residents Pleading For Help'', on the internet. All your illusions will be destroyed

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

Humans Can and Do Combine Fraternally

In Toronto's ravines, parks and under bridges there lives hundreds of people who are unable to get into the homeless shelters.  For Canada's most populous city, where the cost of living continues to rise, the authorities don't keep track of the number of such ''homes'', but do record the number they've removed. In 2017, 313 encampments were removed, in 2016 it was 204, in 2015, 142, and 110 in 2014.

 The city cited a by-law preventing people from camping in parks overnight.  Some ''residents'' prefer the ravines to the shelters because they are within walking distance to the downtown area, so they can panhandle, go to a nearby church where they can get hot meals and are close to mental health services. There is a feeling of community among them in the way they look out for each other. 

According to Greg Cook, of the Sanctuary Ministries Toronto, a charity that seeks to help those in desperate situations, ''They don't even know each other's names and don't really hang out, but they keep an eye on each others stuff.'' The rest of us should also have such fraternal feelings and combine to eliminate the conditions that make the above possible.

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

What population explosion?

The number of births in Scotland has slumped to a 17-year low . Scotland now has the lowest fertility rate across the UK, where the birth rate has also been falling at a slower rate over the past decade.

Scotland’s population has failed to keep pace with those of other European countries, despite immigration boosting the numbers in recent years. The Scottish population is still continuing to grow but this is down to immigration, as the deaths outstrip births by 5,000 annually. Along with improved healthcare, this means that a greater proportion of older people make up the profile of the population. This puts increasing pressure on public services, with the latest figures showing that Alzheimer’s and dementia now account for more than one in every ten deaths in Scotland – double the rate of a decade ago. The most common cause of death was cancer, which accounted for 4,242 deaths – an increase of 5.9 per cent.

The working age population in Scotland’s rural areas will plummet by a third by 2046, new research has found. The very existence of communities in remote corners of the Highlands and islands is threatened by a “spiral of decline” caused by depopulation. A report by the James Hutton Institute found that “sparsely populated areas” - defined as those where fewer than 10,000 people can be reached within 30 minutes of travel - account for almost half of Scotland, but just 2.6 per cent of the population live there. It is these areas that are projected to lose more than a quarter of their population within the next 30 years, with Western Isles, Argyll and the Southern Uplands among the worst affected.

A study of statistics from 1850 to the present day reveals that Scotland is the only country in western Europe where the home population is barely higher than it was 40 years ago.

The contrast with England is particularly stark. Over the past 150 years numbers south of the border have grown by 216 per cent while in Scotland they have risen by less than a third of that. Ironically, the increase owes much to immigration from England.

A detailed study of population figures by Michael Anderson of Edinburgh University shows that Scotland’s poor growth figures have less to do with mortality, poor health. Across Scotland the population is predicted to grow slightly but the increase would be entirely as a result inward migration, as deaths will outnumber births in each year. Western Isles, Argyll and Bute, Highland, Moray, Shetland and Orkney are all expected to witness a decline in the number of young people in the area, as well as rises in those above pensionable age, of up to 33% in the case of Moray.

The majority of councils will experience fewer births than deaths, leaving migration as the driving force behind the growth.

Official forecasts show that the number of people living in the Western Isles could drop by 14% over the next two decades, while the Outer Hebrides could also be hit by a 28% fall in the number of children – the largest decreases in Scotland. Argyll and Bute is also predicted to lose 8% of its population by 2039, the third highest reduction in the country. Highland, Moray and Orkney are among seven other areas where the population will rise, but the growth is expected to be made-up entirely of older people, putting additional strain on social care services. Aberdeenshire is expected to have had the third highest population growth in Scotland by 2039, increasing by 20%, with Aberdeen City due to rise by 17%. Much of the increase would again be among pensioners, particularly in Aberdeenshire.

 “The implications for councils with a decreasing population include: fewer people to pay council tax, a lack of local workforce which may make the area less attractive to businesses, and low population figures making some local services harder to sustain.”

 A Moray Council spokesman said: “We have known for some time that Moray is facing a ticking time bomb in terms of its increasing ageing population and the demands that will place on our care services."

What Socialists Mean by Poverty

The number of people in Scotland living in poverty is a disturbing 20% (one million) and it provides an opportunity for politicians to blame other politicians for a problem. Holyrood blames Westminster, Westminster blames Holyrood. That is poverty defined as after housing costs, people are left with a household income that is below 60% of the national median? Can the fifth annual increase in the number of people in Scotland who are living this way be viewed as anything other than a problem?

The Socialist Party blames capitalism.

'What do YOU mean by poverty, then?' asked Easton.

'What I call poverty is when people are not able to secure for

themselves all the benefits of civilization; the necessaries, comforts,

pleasures and refinements of life, leisure, books, theatres, pictures,

music, holidays, travel, good and beautiful homes, good clothes, good

and pleasant food.'

'If a man is only able to provide himself and his family with the bare

necessaries of existence, that man's family is living in poverty. Since

he cannot enjoy the advantages of civilization he might just as well be

a savage: better, in fact, for a savage knows nothing of what he is

deprived.

 What we call civilization--the accumulation of knowledge

which has come down to us from our forefathers--is the fruit of

thousands of years of human thought and toil. It is not the result of

the labour of the ancestors of any separate class of people who exist

today, and therefore it is by right the common heritage of all.

Every little child that is born into the world, no matter whether he is

clever or full, whether he is physically perfect or lame, or blind; no

matter how much he may excel or fall short of his fellows in other

respects, in one thing at least he is their equal--he is one of the

heirs of all the ages that have gone before.'

'Why is it,' continued Owen, 'that we are not only deprived of our

inheritance--we are not only deprived of nearly all the benefits of

civilization, but we and our children and also often unable to obtain

even the bare necessaries of existence?'

'All these things,' Owen proceeded, 'are produced by those who work. We

do our full share of the work, therefore we should have a full share of

the things that are made by work.'

'As things are now,' went on Owen, 'instead of enjoying the advantages

of civilization we are really worse off than slaves, for if we were

slaves our owners in their own interest would see to it that we always

had food and--'

'Oh, I don't see that,' roughly interrupted old Linden, who had been

listening with evident anger and impatience. 'You can speak for

yourself, but I can tell yer I don't put MYSELF down as a slave.'

'Nor me neither,' said Crass sturdily. 'Let them call their selves

slaves as wants to.'

At this moment a footstep was heard in the passage leading to the

kitchen. Old Misery! or perhaps the bloke himself! Crass hurriedly

pulled out his watch.

'Jesus Christ!' he gasped. 'It's four minutes past one!'

Linden frantically seized hold of a pair of steps and began wandering

about the room with them.

Robert Tressell, Ragged Trousered Philanthropist

So all workers are poor on Owen's first definition of poverty. But how many workers in Britain are poor on his second definition of poverty as lacking or only just getting the "bare necessaries of existence" (what might be better called "destitution")? Owen is giving two different definitions of poverty here. One, that someone is poor if they don't have access to "all the benefits of civilisation" and, two, that someone is poor when they can only access the"bare necessaries of existence".

The ambiguity arises with someone who has access to more than the "bare necessaries" but not to "all" the benefits of civilisation but only to some of them, e.g. from Owen's list to books, music, holidays.  Which is the situation of most workers today and always has been the position of some. This no doubt is what is behind the claim that most workes are not poor.

The Party used to get round this by drawing a distinction between "destitution" (access only to the socially-determined mimumum necessaries) and "poverty" (exclusion from ownership and control of means of production). This definition of "poverty" moves away from access to means of consumption to access to means of production, even if it goes against the popular usage of the term.

On Owen's second definition, most workers are not poor (only about 10-15% in Britain are). On Owen's first definition all workers are (as are many small business owners). On the definition the Party has used, all workers are too (but no small owners).

Agreed that what constitutes "the bare necessaries of existence" is socially-determined and in Britain will be higher now that it was over a hundred years ago in Tressell's time but I don't think we could get away with saying that a worker living in a centrally-heated house with two or three rooms, hot and cold running water, freezer, television, computer, mobile phone, three meals a day, etc is only getting the "bare necessaries of existence". Such a worker is only "poor" in the sense of being excluded from ownership of means of production and therefore forced by economic necessity to sell their mental and physical energies for a wage or salary in order to live. Also, of course, in some parts of the world, there are people not getting enough to stay alive properly. Few people in Britain are in that position.

From Political Power to Popular Power

 

Often one of the essential points brought forward by opponents to socialism is the part played by the so-called "captain of industry” to-day. It is urged that production on a large scale is impossible without them, that their energy and enterprise depends upon self-interest which signifies the pursuit of wealth and power, and that such incentives being absent from the proposed new social order captains of industry will not develop and large scale production will therefore languish. We know from innumerable events which constantly make plain the weakness of this position, but its supporters continue their advocacy unabashed, partly from interested motives and partly from the sheer incapacity to see and understand the facts in front of them.

To-day the duty of those captains of industry, the CEOs, is to overreach other corporate bosses and collect willing tools to aid them in the work of extracting the greatest amount of surplus value from the working class. It is not a question of running an industry but of piling up profits, and the CEO sometimes seeks to obtain the lion’s share of these profits. When industry comes to be organised to meet the needs of everybody without distinction, the various tasks necessary will be distributed and controlled on behalf of all. There will be neither opportunity nor incentive for one to achieve power and wealth at the expense of another, and there will be every inducement for each to give of one's best in the way that is most congenial for the benefit of oneself and the rest of society.

Leaving aside those who set out from a fraudulent beginning, ambitious men, brought up on maxims of wealth and power, set out to build up large enterprises and use all the capital and credit they can lay their hands on. A business slump, which these optimists rarely foresee, a shortage of available capital, or something similar, interferes with, their projects or stands in the way of some greater achievement, and induces them temporarily to resort to methods which come under the legal heading of fraud, in the expectation that they will be able to put matters right when their designs have been accomplished. Sometimes they are successful and live on as highly respected pillars of society, with the probability of a monument after their deaths. Sometimes they are unfortunate, then economic rivals, frightened financiers, maddened shareholders, and the moralists, unite in condemning them and bringing them to “justice.” The larger the concerns involved the larger is the scale of fraud.

Big industry strives to utilise all the funds it can lay hands on for the purpose of expansion and of enriching those at its head. It puts its hand into the pockets of small capitalists and shopkeepers, and uses the savings of the “better-off” for its schemes. Consequently, it is the heartbroken cry of the small shareholder that usually makes the most noise when a collapse comes, because it is just these people, with economic security in sight, struggling fiercely to get there, who are being constantly ruined and flung into the more hopeless sections of the propertyless class. And yet they are the fruitful soil for the blooming of all the pernicious doctrines of self-help and the like. Striving for economic freedom, unable to accomplish it by their own efforts, they look hopefully to company promoters, provide funds for all kinds of hare-brained schemes, and sing the praises of “great” men whom they trustfully expect will lift them out of the mud. They cannot find words harsh enough for those who let them down and shatter their delusions

History shows that meaningful social change is not possible through reformism. The basic characteristic of reformism remains the support, within the working class, of the capitalist state and through it, of the native capitalist class. The Socialist Party supports a working class standing erect on its feet; refusing to be pushed to its knees. A working-class resorting to independent political action and class struggle. A working class fighting for socialism.  The first step towards socialism is to organise in a socialist party so that at least all the workers will recognise that they must act according to their class interests politically just as they do economically in their unions. Once such a socialist party has captured state power, we can proceed to reorganise the whole of society to serve the interests of the vast majority instead of the few.

Patriotism - Perfumed Poison

LEFT NATIONALISM

 We should not be at all surprised that some “theoretical” support to Scottish nationalism is peddled by certain spurious “socialist” groups. In 1891 Engels referred to the British Isles “where the two islands are peopled by four nations”. The Socialist Party is not bound by any Marxist holy writ.

Capitalism cannot be improved gradually; neither can it be managed in a decent human way. It must be overthrown by the working class in a revolutionary way.  The left and right compete and bid against one another in their patriotism, accusing the other of being weak on the national interest, in the same way, they dispute over the management of the capitalism system. Patriotism, even if it becomes prevalent amongst our fellow workers provokes us to stand against the stream and to defend, against this stream, the real interests of the working class. 

The Socialist Party is neither loyal servants of the masses nor their would-be saviours who would be their future oppressors. Our purpose as a conscious element of the working class is to show the direction and the objective that the class struggle has to take against capital, to radically criticise capitalist society, to support the interests of the working class as a whole and to help the proletariat to constitute itself a class in order to overthrow the capitalist system and to establish the socialist society which a world without classes, without exploitation of man by man, without mechanisms of organised violence and oppression in general, without the whole of capitalist relations that are governed by property, commercial exchange, exchange value, surplus value, money and wage labour. It is a world community of freely associated producers, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all, each member of which contributes to social welfare according to his ability and enjoys the social goods according to his needs and participate directly and actively in the collective management of common affairs. We must show to people the need and the vision of socialism because it is the only way out of capitalist barbarism. If they will not organise and mobilise by themselves, nobody can save them. If they raise the nation's flag nothing can be done. 

The Socialist Party remains faithful to our principles. We are together with our class, we are together with it in the everyday struggles that carry on as a class against class, raising its self-confidence, encouraging its self-organisation and contributing to the rise of class consciousness. We neither worship nor carry the working class. If they will not struggle, inspired by a different future,  they will remain slaves. Nationalism is a chain which shackles the wage-slave.

Workers have no interest in supporting nationalism. Times of crisis and upheaval have always provided fertile ground for conspiracy theories and fantasies, creating a social climate marked by the mass growth of nationalism, racism and reactionary ideas. The Socialist Party is faced with the challenge of swimming against the tide and defending our ideas without compromise. The alternative is not to support nationalism. Much less is it about joining in the calls for a return to ‘Old Labour’. For the Socialist Party, socialism isn’t an idealist utopia which has to be sacrificed in the real world. On the contrary, the revolution to overthrow capitalism and replace it with the cooperative commonwealth is the only solution to world capitalism. In this globalised world the material conditions exist to establish a community without classes and national borders, where the questions of who gets what and how are determined not by money and profit but by administrative decisions taken by ‘freely associated producers’. For anyone who shares this view there is only one political option: join the struggle to win the working class over to the only really anti-capitalist programme: socialism, the real hope for the future. Get involved! 

The Old Tax Routine

So the Ontario P.C.s have, in their infinite wisdom, seen fit to elect Doug Ford as leader and the first thing he said was if he became Premier he would abolish taxes for anyone making less than 30 grand a year. Well way to go, Doughy, baby, ain't we all a dumb buncha saps by not seeing through that one.

 Employers would use that as an excuse to not grant a raise. Governments may sometimes pass laws the capitalist class doesn't like, even if it is their job to run the day to day affairs of capitalism, but they'll find a way of getting around it. 

So let's scrap this whole damn nonsense and scrap crapitalism.

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

Why the Socialist Party

There is only one necessary characteristic of a leader and that is he must have followers. Take away the followers and he ceases to be a leader. It seems too obvious to need mentioning, but whenever a plea is raised for a new leader or whenever disgust is shown against an old one this truism appears to be forgotten.

The Socialist Party holds that the emancipation of the working class must be the task of the working class itself. There is no secret formula. The main outlines can be grasped by any reasonable person. No need for a political shepherd —only those who do not know the way need to be led. Up to the present, the mass of the workers have lacked political knowledge and have voted for people instead of principles. They have given their votes to the people who made the most alluring promises, and as time proved the hollowness of the promises, the workers turned in disgust from one group of people to another, and then back again as the memory of previous disappointments faded. This fact has led many to question the usefulness of Parliament. They have forgotten that whenever the workers have placed their trust in leaders they have almost always been let down. The workers have been as readily betrayed on the industrial field, as they have on the political field. The trouble has not been due to the field of combat. It has been due to the method adopted. When the workers cease to regard certain individuals as endowed with some special capacity of "leadership,” they will adopt the method of issuing instructions to delegates that are to be carried out regardless of the delegates' own views or wishes. The ground will then be cut from under the feet of those who prosper out of leadership, and such people will no longer have a saleable article for the capitalist in the shape of a blind following. There have not yet been a Parliamentary test of the power of delegates acting on instructions given them by a large body of workers who knew exactly what they were after and how to get it. In fact, outside the Socialist Party, the method has never been really applied. Time after time the specious words of some acknowledged leader have diverted groups of workers from their original aims, generally on the plea of “expediency." The word “expediency" has acted as a useful veil for generations to cover the compromising activities of leaders, but of late there are indications that “tactics" will replace it. The truth is that the foolish and cowardly belief in this fetish of leadership has been a considerable barrier to working class knowledge and progress. The power and wealth leaders acquire induce them to fortify their positions and insist on the necessity of leadership as a permanent institution with the development of appropriate means for wire-pulling and mutual bargaining for position. The Labour Party has given the striking proof of this in recent years.

Socialism will not be possible until the mass of the workers understand it and are prepared to vote for it. If a working class that did not understand socialism were to vote for it, the result would only be chaos, as the first attempts to put it into operation would bewilder the majority of people and leave the way open for a counter-revolution. When the workers understand Socialism they will know what to expect and what will be involved in putting it into operation, and here they will defeat the efforts of any delegates ready to sell themselves to the opposition. In such circumstances a delegate could only sell once; he would not get a second chance. 

There is but ONE remedy for all the evils of working-class existence, and ONE only — it is the solution which does not pay the “leaders of labour ” to propagate. For that task, the Socialist Party has been established. We insist that these evils are all part and parcel of, and inseparable from, the present social order—capitalism—a system of society in which the means of wealth production are owned and controlled by a small section, on whom the mass of the people are dependent. These evils will persist and glow unless and until the working class, organised in the socialist parties, make an end to private ownership so that no individual will be dependent on another private individual for his material subsistence. In socialism, such absurdities as poverty in the midst of plenty, which is the outstanding feature of capitalism, will be unthinkable, because society will produce all human comforts and conveniences for USE only and not for profit. The product of men’s hands will then cease to play tricks with them, and the further improvement of machinery, which spells wreck and ruin to the workers to-day, will then only increase the real well-being of all. We insist that no proposition can be sound and worthy of working-class support that respects the present social order and does not aim at the destruction of a system that deprives millions of people of a chance of earning a living, that humiliates and degrades, and drives thousands to despair and suicide. Any proposition that does not establish equal right for all to the means of life, deserves nothing but the contempt of the workers. Workers of the world! It is high time to rid yourselves of your illusions and of your leaders! Join our organisation and so leave your mark to posterity as men and women of whom they will be able to say that you assisted in the great task of saving the planet from the fangs of the monster incubus of capital!

 Let us spread the knowledge of socialism and hasten its establishment.

Edinburgh Branch Meeting

Thursday, 5 April- 7:00pm
The Quaker Hall, 
Victoria Terrace (above Victoria Street), 
Edinburgh EH1 2JL

 Against All Nationalisms

“The basic law of capitalism is you or I, not you and I.” Karl Leibnecht

Nationalism is a poison in the veins of the working class. Wherever we look nationalism and racism is on the rise. These are dangerous and unpredictable times. The rise of so-called populism and the far right has been a global trend.  The working class stands divided and helpless, riven by xenophobia. Nationalism and religion have been skilfully employed by the ruling class in destroying the most basic elements of class-consciousness and solidarity among the workers. Wherever you look the “patriot” card is being played more often. Nationalism isn’t “natural”. It is manufactured. Nationalists and populists if they are not fomenting wars or supporting one side or another in conflicts across the planet, they are calling for trade wars. The working class is being enticed by all kinds of reactionary political agendas. Nationalism, as has been demonstrated in every national liberation struggle, is no friend of the working class. The capitalists who control the nationalist movements (however “socialist” they claim to be) either become the cats paw of one or other super-powers or when they get into power they oppress and exploit the workers just as before. 

The working class has no country. We are, and always have been, a class of migrants.  The real issue for the world’s workers is that they face an increasingly dire future under whichever capitalist regime rules us. The world capitalist crisis has seen living standards falling across the planet. The aim is to divert attention from the real crisis onto the “other”, the foreigner. The politics of prejudice have always been part of the capitalist game but now the situation is more desperate. Finding a scapegoat is a lot easier than solving the real economic problem. As long as the workers spills their blood for a nationalist solution, they will always face class defeat. Our solidarity is our weapon and we cannot let anything undermine it. This is why our slogan is still “workers of the world unite.” The unification of the dispossessed for a society without classes or borders requires a return to the path of class struggle. This is the only solution to the perpetual devastation of war and to nationalistic self-interest. As Edinburgh-born James Conolly put it in 1910, nationalism of any kind is:

“a movement which would lay aside class contentions to gain national ends, so enabling the bourgeoisie to prevent working-class expression.” (Connolly, of course, later capitulated to that very nationalism when he took part in the Easter Rising but his earlier words ring truer than ever.)

Capitalism has created the possibility of a world of abundance yet continues to inflict misery on millions, if not billions. The fundamental reason is to be found in the laws of capitalist production themselves. The same laws which drive capitalism on are also the ones which produce its crises.  Health and social security spending have been slashed. The only alternative is a job with low wages, zero hour contracts and no security. This is accompanied by media accusations that it is all the fault of “foreigners”. Either it’s those migrants who “steal our jobs” or it is some foreign government like Putin's Russia with its dirty tricks which is the cause of the problem. Racist and nationalist parties are playing on fear but they are nothing compared to the mainstream capitalist parties of both left and right who use it to divert attention from the real cause of our misery – capitalism.  Either we follow the logic of capitalism towards more and more warfare and the ecological rape of the planet or we reconstitute society anew on the basis of a common ownership of the world’s resources, a society without states, without borders, without money and without war based on the principle “to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities”.  

Let’s not fall for nationalist nonsense. Whatever other differences we have, we are united as a class by the fact that we are all the exploited victims of capitalism. This makes the working class the internationalist class. Collectively it is the only force capable of putting an end to the infernal cycles of crises and war. Today it’s not so much that we have a world to win – we have a world to save from a system which offers only social and environmental devastation. Only the working class, once aware of its own interests, is capable of changing the world.  

Are we sectarian?

The Socialist Party is criticised for its hostility to other organisations which profess to be socialist. We are attacking capitalism, and all who defend it are to that extent our political foes. Our appeal must be primarily to the workers in order to interest and enlighten the workers as a preliminary to getting them to become active and understanding socialists. We are not surprised, therefore, when the avowedly capitalist parties stand firmly for capitalism, and grudgingly yield small concessions only in order to lessen discontent which may appear to threaten their hold on the machinery of government. Likewise, we expect the capitalist-controlled media, the and the various hangers-on of capitalism to defend capitalism. We expect this, but we must constantly expose it and explain it. That is part of our work of winning over the working class for socialism. The Left is not identical, but are separated by a very real difference? The people who control and finance the Tory Party are consciously defending capitalism and their own class privilege—even if they are fortified by the erroneous belief that in so doing they are defending the best interests of humanity as well. The Left approach the issue from a very different angle. They are essentially movements of discontent, representing the workers’ more or less blind retaliation to the downward pressure of capitalism. Where the Tories offer reforms deliberately with the idea of buying off discontent or directing it into harmless courses, the Left is trying to encroach on capitalism by means of reforms. They hope to use discontent as the road to power, then use that power for a more or less drastic reconstitution of society. Apart from a certain amount of political dishonesty and the desire for personal advantage associated with those parties, we have no objection to the motives behind their activities. We criticise because whatever the motive may be behind the activities of the Left the activities are harmful. We do not charge these men with consciously wanting to uphold capitalism, nor do we suppose for one moment that their activities do, in fact, constitute the main defence of capitalism and main obstacle to socialism. 

The chief defence of capitalism is the State, with its armed forces, controlled by the capitalist class, their hold on it being backed up by the concentrated activities of capitalist politicians, parties, press, and propaganda instruments. So long as they retain the confidence of the mass of workers, capitalism is impregnable.  It is harmful to the interests of the working class that they should organise and strive for reforms of capitalism instead of for the abolition of capitalism. It is politically dishonest and harmful to delude the workers with the notion that their problems can be remedied piecemeal while capitalism remains in being. It is harmful when workers are waking up to the nature and consequences of capitalism to turn their energies to the reform of capitalism for, with a little knowledge, honesty and patience, those energies might be turned almost as quickly to the task of abolishing capitalism. In brief, we do not charge these parties with being capitalism’s principal support, but with being obstacles in the way of working-class enlightenment. Were there no such reformist parties capitalism would still stand as long as the majority of workers remained capitalistically-minded, but the work of making socialists would be vastly easier. Socialists would not, having exposed capitalism, then have to take on the additional task of exposing reformism masquerading as socialism. We may sum up by saying that it is a mistake for workers to express their discontent by organising to secure reforms of capitalism, and the Socialist Party must constantly point out that mistake. Further, when the party of reform takes on the administration of capitalism it becomes at once a party committed to the suppression of discontent. 

The Left proclaims that its aim is socialism. They want to claim that they are socialists, but they do not intend to introduce socialism. Exploitation gives the key to an understanding of capital. Today the workers as a class are born, and remain, propertyless; they, therefore, do not own capital which is a form of wealth. Capital is the accumulated wealth of the capitalist class. It is useful for further production, but with only one object — that it may absorb the further unpaid labour of the workers, and thus produce . . . surplus value, the source of rent, interest and profit. Not the means of wealth production in themselves, but the class relations under which they are used to obtain surplus value, realised through sale in the world market — make them capital. The Left does not stand as we do for common ownership, which would mean the abolition of such class relations. It is impossible to exaggerate the harm done to the socialist movement by those who, calling themselves socialists, have taught the workers to believe that state capitalism and social reform are socialism. Workers all over the world have, through this misdirection, been led to support some form of capitalism, trusting that it would solve their problems. 

Our object is socialism, defined as a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests of the whole community. Our definition is not a mere insistence on a formula. We work for socialism and oppose capitalism—including nationalisation or state capitalism—because only socialism will solve the problem facing the working class. We do not want state capitalism and therefore have no interest in associating with those who do. The fact that they call it “socialism” only makes their activities more dangerous to the workers. It is an essential part of socialist propaganda to convince the workers that the advocates of “something less than socialism” is and must be advocates of capitalism. It is our job to demonstrate that their activities are against the interests of the workers; that they are enemies of socialism and of the working class.  Effective unity for socialism can only be on the basis of real agreement about the aim and the methods. 

The Socialist Party is obviously not in a position to ameliorate the conditions of the working class,’ but it can and does support useful action by the workers in their trade unions to resist encroachments on their standard of living.

Lest we forget

Obituary: Hugh Armstrong

It is with sadness that we report the death of Hugh Armstrong at the age of 80. A member of Glasgow Branch for fifty-two years, Hughie, as he was known to his fellow socialists, was born in the Gallowgate in Glasgow's East End and grew up in the Gorbals. As a young man he was dragooned into the armed forces to do his National Service, an experience which left him with a lifetime contempt for authority, strengthened no doubt, by an incident where, after a ‘Disagreement’ with a bullying Sergeant Major – the Sergeant coming off second-best – Hughie was beaten senseless by Military Police thugs.

Hughie was a grafter, and found work as a labourer in the post-war building boom working in various towns and cities in England before returning to Glasgow where he secured permanent employment with the General Post Office.

On a visit to the ‘Barras’ in the early 60s Hughie chanced upon an outdoor meeting of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. It was a turning point in his life, although hearing the socialist case for the first time he was understandably sceptical but curious enough to return, question, discuss and eventually to join in 1966. He became a tireless worker, attending meetings, selling literature and eventually becoming an outdoor speaker. I have vivid memories of Hughie on the platform; not one for fancy rhetoric but putting over the socialist case in a simple but effective way.

One of the less ‘Glamorous’ but necessary party activities was to stick up posters on walls and empty shop windows to advertise upcoming indoor meetings. This necessitated a team of three people, one to paste, one to post, and most essential, one to act as the lookout for the police, who would apprehend you, resulting in a fine. The area they had chosen also happened to be the favoured haunt of some, euphemistically named ‘ladies of the night’ who also had to be wary of the police. Midway through posting, Hughie spotted a couple of beat cops approaching and shouted: ‘Police!’, whereupon the other two members scarpered. The ladies, however, assuming despite his diminutive stature that he was a plain-clothes officer, immediately set about him. Propagating the socialist case can sometimes be detrimental to your wellbeing!

Hughie came from a family who loved singing. His sister Patricia sings jazz in a city centre bar, his ex-wife also sang, and their son Raymond is a professional opera singer. Hughie favoured the Great American Song Book which he would perform at the tea-dances he attended, and in 1990 achieved his dream come true when he saw his idol Frank Sinatra perform live at Ibrox Stadium.

T.M.