In the name of humanity

Socialism is the taking, in the name of humanity, of all the wealth that exists on the planet. In the society of the future, socialism will be the enjoyment of all existing wealth, by all and according to the principle: From each according to abilities, to each according to needs.  People will use the planet, the machines, the factories, transportation and will serve everyone in common with them.  We want all the wealth to be taken directly by the people themselves and to be kept in their hands, and that the people themselves decide the best way to enjoy it, be it for production or consumption. In future socialism, production will be so abundant that there will be no need to ration consumption, or to demand from people more work than they are willing or able to give. Right now, we can imagine this immense growth in production through the new technologies and robotics. Future society will see the end of commercial competition, one of the fundamental principles of capitalist production, which has as its motto: Mors tua vita mea, your death is my life. The ruin of one makes the fortune of another. And this relentless fight happens from nation to nation, from region to region, from individual to individual, between workers as well as between capitalists. One industry prospers where another industry declines. A worker finds work where another has lost it.

This individualist principle of capitalist production, every person for oneself against all others, and everyone against everyone will be replaced by the true principle of human society: all for one and one for all.  Imagine how great will be the growth of production, when each of us, far from needing to fight against all the others, will be helped by them when we will have them not as enemies but as cooperators. If the collective work of ten people attains results absolutely impossible for one person alone, how great will be the results obtained by the large-scale cooperation of all men and women who, today, work against each other?

The development automation and cybernetics, these powerful helpers of work, as large as it seems to us today, is quite minimal in comparison to what it will be in socialism. Today, the technology often has the ignorance of the capitalist against it, but more often still his interest. How many machines and inventions are going without being applied only because they do not bring an immediate benefit to the capitalist?  So many discoveries, so many applications of science go unheeded, only because they do not bring enough profit to the capitalist!

Technology is today the enemy of people, and rightfully so, because they are to workers the Frankenstein monster that comes to starve them, to degrade them, to torture them, to crush them. And what immense benefits it would be, if on the contrary, it augmented their labour and we are no longer enslaved by the machine; on the contrary, they would be at our service, helping us and working for our well-being.

Finally, it is necessary to take into account the huge savings that will be made on the three elements of work: the force, the instruments and the material, which are horribly wasted today, because they are used for the production of absolutely useless things when they are not harmful to humanity. How many workers, how much material, and how many tools are used today by the armies of the land, sea, and air to build all these arsenals of arms. How many of these forces are wasted to produce luxury objects that serve nothing but the needs of vanity and corruption! And when all this force, all these materials, all these resources are used for the production of objects that themselves will serve to produce, what a prodigious growth in production we will see.

We can let everyone take according to their will since there will be enough for everyone. We will no longer need to demand more work than anyone wants to give because there will always be enough products for tomorrow. And it’s thanks to this abundance that work will lose the dreadful character of enslavement, in leaving to it only the charm of a cultural and physical need, like that of studying and living in harmony with nature. Socialism is not only possible; it is a necessity.

Some on the Left support the individual attribution of products by worker-owned cooperatives. If we preserve the individual appropriation of products of work, we will find ourselves witnessing an accumulation of greater or lesser wealth, according to more or less to merit, or rather, to the skill, of individuals. Equality would thus have disappeared because those who had managed to accumulate more wealth would already have been thus elevated above the level of the others. But the individual attribution of products would re-establish not only inequality among men but also inequality among different forms of work. We would almost immediately see the reappearance of “clean” and “dirty” work, of “noble” and “ignoble” work: the former would be done by the rich, the latter would be the assignment of the poor. So it would no longer be calling and taste that led a person to dedicate oneself to one type of activity as opposed to another: it would be self-interest, the hope of gaining more in a certain profession. In this way, laziness and diligence, merit and lack of merit, good and bad, vice and virtue, and, by consequence, “reward” on one hand and “punishment” on the other, the law, the judge, the henchman, the prison, would all reappear.

With collective work, that imposes upon us the necessity of large-scale production and large-scale implementation of machines, with this ever-growing tendency of modern work to serve itself of the work of preceding generations – how will we be able to determine which parts of the product belong to whom? It’s absolutely impossible, and our adversaries themselves know this so well that they end up saying “Well, we will use as a basis for distribution the hours spent working,” but, at the same time, they themselves admit that this would be unjust, because three hours of work from Peter might produce as much as five hours of work from Paul. We call ourselves socialists because this was the word that distinguished us from individualists.

The Socialist Party unmasks these Leftists who would like to limit the range of revolutionary thought.

Nationalism is no solution

Various little bands of quasi-socialists in a patriotic effort try to persuade the working class that Scottish independence would mark a step forward towards its own liberation, a step towards socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. With the conditions that prevail today, the independence of Scotland would not mean a step forward towards socialism. it would be a step backward. The people who parade behind the banner of “Scottish sovereignty and socialism” catch the attention of Scotland's workers by perpetuating a number of falsehoods.  lf Scotland gains its constitutional sovereignty, it will not be independent. The reason is quite simple: it goes against the interests of the native capitalists.  the unity of capital and commerce goes from sea to shining sea, for the good of all of the capitalist class. The SNP is a capitalist party. It works on behalf of the capitalists. The difference between the SNP and the other capitalist parties is not that it is calling for a different social system. What’s different is that they are looking for a new sharing of powers. The sharing will just be between groups of capitalists. Keep it in the family. But that’s not fair, the supporters of left-wing independence and socialism declare. “What we want is real independence. What we want is freedom from imperialist domination.” Our left-nationalists should stop playing with words.

Working class unity is a must right now if effective resistance is to be mounted to the crisis measures imposed by the capitalists. Unity is necessary to stand up against all the austerity attacks upon our fellow workers across all the borders. Unity is the key to putting an end to capitalism.  The working class faces a powerful and aggressive enemy which is solidly united despite the real contradictions within its ranks. The people are not going to win by dividing themselves along national lines. Those political activists who dress up as socialists in order to push nationalism in the working class are the objective allies of the capitalists. The “left” nationalists would have us believe that the welfare demands of the people can only be met through independence. Thus, they claim, the task is to transform bourgeois home-rule into a socialist independence. In reality, they find themselves in the camp of those promoting division of the working class.

Supporting Scottish independence in the name of socialism is a monumental hoax.  It is the same pattern of thinking which leads some to preach nationalisation as the cure for all our ills. It is up to the working class to show it will not be duped by political nonsense and deceitful rhetoric. 

In Harmony with the Planet

People often wonder about the environmental movement and its inability to effect a discernible change upon the devastation done to the environment due to the corporate pursuit of profit. Centuries of Christian ideology and the capitalist mindset have convinced us that humankind is above nature and that nature's needs must accede to the needs of the dominant life-form on Earth. Now, we are collectively paying for this, as the environment continues to decline, and cancer-causing chemicals invade our water and poisonous pesticides are introduced into our food. Not to mention the nuclear waste that piles up as industry refuses to find safer sources of energy due to the nature of financial expense and the harmful genetic engineering that threatens to create new organisms that are not an accepted part of nature.

 Many high ecology advocates would exclaim that human civilisation itself is the cause of this destruction and that the Industrial Revolution and the enormous amounts of waste it produces are to blame. Some ecologists advocate that we must return to a more austere way of living, that the benefits of modern technology must be given up and we must all take voluntary vows of poverty to accommodate the needs of nature. In actuality, however, it is merely the capitalist mode of production that deserves the finger pointing, not the human race and its accompanying technology. One must understand the true nature of our economic laws to fully understand why the existence of the human race appears to be in opposition to the rest of nature. As socialists will correctly point out, it's not humanity that is the problem, but rather the way our current system of production for profit works. To do this, a brief recap of why production under capitalism occurs is in order.

Under capitalism, industry produces goods for the sole purpose of making a profit. Everything else takes a back seat to this profit motive. The spectre of financial expense hangs over every endeavour. As a result, the most financially inexpensive methods of waste disposal will be used, as well as the most financially expedient means of controlling pests of crops. Thus, safer and less environmentally hazardous methods of energy production, such as solar and wind, are set aside in favour of financially "cheaper" but non-renewable fossil fuels. Destructive and environmentally dangerous methods such as nuclear power are used in place of other sources that may be far safer, because the development of these safer sources would be more expensive from a "financial" standpoint (actually, under socialism, it's quite possible that nuclear power would be used in a safer and more responsible way than under capitalism). To compound the problem is the fact that the vast majority of the people in a capitalist world, the working class, do not make production decisions. These are made by the capitalist class, and these decisions are made solely towards the goal of increasing corporate profits. These firms are each in vicious competition with each other, and they must outperform other businesses on the market or fold. Thus, safer but costly methods of waste disposal and safer energy sources, all of which are currently technologically possible, are too financially expensive to utilize. Hence, the needs of the corporate hierarchy come before the needs of the working class and the biosphere itself. Attempts by regulatory bodies of the capitalist government to control these abuses amount to almost nothing, since the capitalists are the ones who ultimately fund the nests of the politicians. As a result of the above, safe environmental measures aren't enforced.

Even worse, the working class is blackmailed into choosing between jobs or the environment, i.e., they are told that in order to bear the costs of implementing expensive safety measures for the safe disposal of waste, downsizing on jobs must occur. Faced with this Catch-22 situation, and being dependent upon the capitalist class for their wages, the working class usually decides to keep their jobs and pray that the resulting environmental damage won't destroy human life on the planet during their lifetime, or cause horrific outbreaks of cancer and other diseases on the next generation. We can only hope that things do not get too bad in the next few decades, and that the planet Earth will continue to be able to sustain us. Never is capitalism blamed for the problem. Instead, we are told that the causes are unknown, that they are an unavoidable fact of living in an industrialised world, or that humankind is naturally "evil" and that our dominance of the Earth is to be expected and even encouraged for metaphysical reasons.
In a socialist world, these problems would be entirely avoided under the new world economic order. Without profit as the determining factor of production, and since society and all of its industries would be based on cooperation and not competition, different industrial facilities would not be engaged in a mad competiton to outdo each other. The concept of financial cost wouldn't exist; hence, any feasible method of containing waste would be enacted quickly and efficiently, with no need to worry about money. Also, since we would be collectively in control of the economy, rather then having the facilities privately owned and controlled, it would be easy for the working class to vote for technology and research to find safer methods of energy production. No longer would the human race be at odds with nature. We also wouldn't have to give up the benefits of advanced technology. Further, because we would not have an advertising market, we would not be constantly told that we need huge amounts of useless gimmicks and wasteful junk, nor would be compelled to purchase huge amounts of goods for the purpose of looking "wealthy" or to provide us with status symbols, since personal enrichment would no longer be a factor in the cultural mindset. All of the waste produced by capitalism, such as the plastic used to wrap items that are mostly only good for advertising, and the resulting garbage that it creates, would be eliminated. Thus, the high ecology advocates insistence on only "appropriate" technology being used would probably be fulfilled, for the most part.

Most importantly, production under socialism would be geared towards meeting the needs of everyone, including the collective need for a healthy environment and a peaceful co-existence with the other lifeforms on this planet, and not simply a privileged few's need to make a profit.

Hence, the existence of the human race and its industrial society is not inherently at odds with the environment; only the continued acceptance of a socio-economic system based on production for profit is.

From here
http://www.angelfire.com/co2/socialism/theenvironment.html

How to recognise socialism

Capitalism takes several forms, be it the pure, privatized version of the system which exists in the U.S., Japan, Germany, etc., or the state capitalism, or Leninism/Stalinism, that exists (or has existed) in Russia, China and in all the nations that falsely claim the mantle of "communism" or "socialism." The name "socialism" has also been claimed by the liberal form of capitalism that exists in Sweden, France and previously, in Great Britain.

 The bottom line is that socialism has been terribly misrepresented. If we are ever to move beyond the current social system that is killing us and rapidly leading to global chaos. We must understand what capitalism truly is, how we can organise against it and what the next form of society should take. That system should be the humane, class-free society. It should be pointed out that human beings lived in peaceful cooperation for hundreds of thousands of years before the first class-divided society, chattel slavery, appeared. The fact that this happened was one of necessity. Despite the equality of humanity's first economic system, often called primitive communism, it was an equality of poverty. Once material conditions advanced to the point where a small surplus was available to society, the concept of class divisions emerged. In that primitive world, society lacked the industrial capability of producing an abundance for everybody. Hence, the only way for society to advance was for class divisions to emerge. Now, however, thanks to modern technology of production, we will have an equality of abundance, and not an equality of poverty that once made class divisions necessary for our distant ancestors. Ruling classes no longer serve a useful purpose in society, such as advancing culture and science, that they did in the class-divided systems of the past when the primitive levels of production didn't allow human progress to occur any other way

The ruling class can maintain their despotic wealth and privilege, continue fighting their useless and bloody wars with the full support of the general public and continue to dominate the world economy with their ideas and interests. The cost to the working class, i.e., the vast majority of citizens of the world, is poverty, massive unemployment, a culture dominated by nihilism, despondency, crass materialism, avarice and selfishness, crime, violence, constant attacks on our basic civil rights, repressive laws, environmental devastation and the continued threat of a nuclear war. All this so a few individuals can live in luxury, while the rest of us do not.

Genuine socialism has NEVER been tried in any country. In fact, socialism is a system that will be worldwide and isn't intended to function in just one country. The principle of "socialism in one country" was expounded upon by the Russian dictator Josef Stalin in a self-serving attempt to convince the world that the country he ruled was indeed socialist. Furthermore, socialists firmly believe that socialism will be brought about by working class organisation, and by no other means. It will never be brought about by politicians, whose purpose is to control the working class on behalf of their capitalist masters, not to liberate the working class from oppression, or to meet the needs of the working class.  Diversity will be tolerated as never before, as no one will have the power to gain dominance for a particular group of individuals. No one will have economic control over anyone else, everyone will be free to choose a job that they are suited for and have the talent to perform well, and the media, as it's called today, will be completely free and in control of the public. This is the society of the future, and we have the technology to achieve it now. All we need is to organize to establish it, and this future is ours for the taking.

Genuine socialism is a socio-economic system in which all of the industries and services (stores, restaurants, hospitals, mines, farms, etc.) are socially owned, not privately owned, as in capitalism, or state-owned, as in Leninism/Stalinism (i.e., often referred to as "state capitalism" due to its extreme similarity to "pure" capitalism). The industries would serve the needs and wants of everyone, not just the profit interests of the few. In fact, production is carried out exclusively for the needs of everyone, and not for private profit. People will work to improve society and to produce what we need, not to personally enrich themselves or to make the "owner" of the industry rich. Under socialism, no money or system of currency would exist.

 Instead, people would work according to their abilities and take according to their needs. Society would be one of free access, where no items were held from those who need them due to lack of ability to pay. We would live in a truly free society, with no political state to control our actions, and none would be needed in a system without the material conditions that breed crime and violence, thus making it "necessary" to pass laws to control our behaviour. We would be free from want, with no poverty or unemployment. As a result, crime would virtually vanish altogether, and we will have a society that functions with far less friction than any previous system in existence. We would be free from the violent and disturbed individuals that are bred by a capitalist society, which fosters ruthless competition among people, both within and across nations, and which routinely creates such tragedies as school massacres. Education would be free to all, without having to put ourselves into massive debt. The very idea of "financial debt" wouldn't exist any more. We would still be allowed to have personal property, such as a decent home. Although we would still have vehicles, it has often been stated that we would no longer have a need for separate cars to the degree that we do today. Instead, superior forms of mass transportation would probably replace cars to a large extent. Because the profit motive would no longer exist, sufficient health care, food, education, and recreation would be given to all directly in exchange for their work. No longer would anyone be forced into debt, and no small class of individuals would control the economy and use it for their own personal enrichment. Socialism will be a worldwide system. An exact detailed and specific blueprint for how this future society will be run isn't advisable before the system is actually established and the people have the opportunity to vote on it. 

Socialism can and must be established before capitalism brings our world into a second Dark Age. Currently, the working class is not class conscious. the working class is miseducated into playing the capitalist class' game for it. In our education, we are taught to support the government, to believe that the politicians are looking out for our needs and that we live in a truly democratic society. We are taught this in the capitalist-controlled media, schools, television and other sources of information. Most people never even consider questioning such tactics...we simply believe the propaganda that we have been fed all of our lives, and never think to question it. We may dislike certain politicians and policies, we may hate the crime, poverty and environmental destruction that capitalism creates, but never do we actually blame capitalism itself or even consider capitalism as the problem. Always do we consider "solutions" to the problems within the framework of capitalism, and never do we oppose the politicians and the capitalist class that controls them.

We are encouraged to work our jobs, grind our noses and ignore the daily exploitation that we suffer. We believe that the capitalists are necessary for production, that at least some of them deserve their wealth, that they earned their vast wealth through "hard work" (that we've never seen them do) and that all the social evils of capitalism are "necessary" for a democratic society. We dismiss socialism out of hand as that thing that Russia used to have, never knowing that this is a lie crafted by the politicians so that we will never question the power that they and the capitalists hold over us. We have had the technological capability for socialism for about 120 years now, and socialists will always recognise the 20th century as the "wasted century," as capitalism endured throughout the entire hundred years.

We must recognise ourselves as members of the working class, regardless of our occupations, income or employment status. Anyone who must work for a living is a member of the working class. Anyone who owns enough property to live off of the labour of others, yet never needs to work themselves, is a member of the capitalist class. It's that simple. We must cast off social mythology that casts us into fictitious classes such as the "middle class."  We must recognise this fact and unite. We must form our own political party which will be organised solely on the basis of fighting for socialism. Not for reforms, not for "nationalisation" of the industries, but for genuine socialism only. In short, the socialist political party will present us with the revolutionary ballot. The Socialist Party will capture the state with the express purpose of dismantling it. The Socialist Party will then vote itself out of existence.


 Poverty, hunger, racism, sexism, environmental destruction, unemployment, rampant crime, and war will become things of the past. Education will be given to anyone who has the desire to learn, This new society will herald a Golden Age for humanity, and it is within our grasp as soon as we organise to establish it.

Socialists for World Socialism

Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP and First Minister of Scotland will "restart the debate" on Scottish independence, according to the media outlets.

Just as capitalism is a world system of society, so too must socialism be. There never has been, and never can be, socialism in just one country. Socialism will be one world-wide community without national boundaries, a united humanity, sharing a world of common interests, would also share world administration. This is the socialist alternative to the way that capitalism divides the planet into rival states and sets people against each other.

But this does not rule out local democracy. It is sometimes said that world administration would mean power of central control over local democracy. In fact, a democratic system of decision-making would require that the basic unit of social organisation would be the local community. However, the nature of some of the problems we face and the many goods and services presently produced, such as raw materials, energy sources, agricultural products, world transport and communications, need production and distribution to be organised at a world level.

"Because the condition of the workers of all countries is the same, because their interests are the same, their enemies the same, they must also fight together, they must oppose the brotherhood of the bourgeoisie of all nations with a brotherhood of the workers of all nations." - Engels, 1847.

We are revolutionary

There is a considerable amount of confusion over what genuine socialism is. For decades, capitalist spokesmen, politicians, educators, and preachers have been telling us numerous falsehoods about this socio-economic system of the future. We have been told that it existed in the former Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, that it's been active in Sweden and Great Britain, that it's a dictatorship or that it means state control over the economy. Capitalist speakers have been spreading these lies because it's within their interests to promote the falsehoods so that the working class never understands or supports, en masse, a viable alternative to capitalism or any other system based on class rule and exploitation of labour. As a result, since it was first conceived in the early 19th century as the next step in social evolution after capitalism (just as capitalism replaced a previous economic system, feudalism) the tenets of socialism have been suppressed by the ruling class. No school textbooks, from elementary school to graduate school, accurately promote it, all spread one or more of the aforementioned falsehoods, and all attest that such a system is impossible and that capitalism is the pinnacle of socio-economic evolution

At this moment in history, it is understandable that the revolutionary movement for socialism is fragmented, yet in time perhaps, a new, far larger party of socialism will appear, whereupon all socialists will fight united for economic freedom. Unfortunately, that is not the case presently. Ultimately, it will be up to the vast majority of the people at the time to determine which policies will be utilized, such as how to bring about socialism, how to run the system after it's established and what method will be used to distribute the output to the workers. It must be left to the people to decide after, or perhaps just before, socialism is established as to how the society will be run, and all the genuine parties agree that it is not appropriate or desirable for a small party to decide on specific details of how to run the system without the consent of the vast majority, since socialism will be a complete democracy and not the nominal one we have under capitalism. The Socialist Party is adamant that no blueprint for running the future socialist society can be administered now. It must be done by the vast majority of the people at the time of the system's inception, and not by the socialist minority that exists today.  Many questions exist unanswered at this time, such as what family structure, sexual relations, popular culture, romance, and philosophy will be like under socialism.  We won't know these things until after the system becomes a reality. 

 The important question as to when socialism will come about is also unknown. At the present time, no large revolutionary movement or challenge to capitalism exists; the working class of the present time remains a sleeping giant with few signs of an awakening. Pro-capitalist advocates hang on to the belief that their beloved system of power and privilege for the few over the many, class rule, will somehow manage to cheat history and scientific advancement and continue for as long as the human race exists. We also do not know if the people will rise up before the planet's ecological collapse, or sometime after; if it doesn't rise up beforehand, then a system of industrial feudalism and the dawning of a second Dark Age may well be the result. If the working class turns to the capitalist government for a "solution" to the collapse of capitalism rather then finding one themselves, we can be rest assured that the government will do everything it can to preserve class rule and to initiate the preservation of the class privilege of its masters by any means necessary.

In fact, if capitalism were to collapse tomorrow, chaos would almost certainly be the result. At the present time the vast majority of the working classes of the world remain apathetic, distracted by the modern equivalent of "bread and circuses" (sports events, mindless television shows), involved with futile reform measures to make capitalism easier to live with or attacking one specific problem of capitalism rather than the system itself, overcome with cynicism against the human race, ignorant of a viable alternative to class rule, misinformed about the true nature of socialism and, ultimately, still loyal to capitalism. Thus, the relatively small number of socialists that now exist can only continue with their education and agitation, and hope that the vast majority of the working class becomes class-conscious and initiates an organised resistance to capitalism before yet another of capitalism comes about, so that we can hopefully avoid a worldwide despotic reign of terror if civilisation collapses before the eventual establishment of socialism.

The Socialist Party supports the establishment of an economic system that is not divided into two contending social classes; there would be no minority class that owns all the property involved with the production or distribution of the goods in society and which thereby forces the majority class to work for them in exchange for only a tiny fraction of the wealth, while the ruling class appropriates the lion's share for themselves simply because they own. The Leninist system utilised by the former Soviet Union and China (as well as Cuba) do not fit the criteria of a class-free society, as they too were/are divided into a tiny and very privileged ruling class that owns the industries and services, and a very large working class that does all of the labour in exchange for a very minuscule portion of the social wealth. No genuine socialist political party would support this system of "state capitalism", or refer to them as being socialist.

The Socialist Party advocates a system that functions without money; in other words, there would be no type of circulating means of currency which can be used to purchase the means of production and distribution and be used by individuals for their own personal enrichment, and thereby acquire a disproportionate amount of the wealth in society, as under capitalism. Once again, the Leninist countries operating under the guise of "communism" or "socialism" in the world today all possess circulating monetary currency necessary to acquire the goods and services, and which limits the amount of goods the people can obtain.

The Socialist Party insists that there will be no political government, a point to be emphasised. The Socialist Party does not favour the continuation of the State or believes that the State is anything other than an oppressive tool of a ruling class used to enforce class rule. All of the other parties claiming to be "socialist" endorse the continuation of the political state and foster the belief that the state can be goaded into administering society for the benefit of everyone. True socialists realise that the political state is not needed in a genuine socialist society, and agree that it only serves the interests of the ruling classes, and would not and cannot serve the interests of a classless society, and that the latter would be quite incapable of existing harmoniously alongside a coercive entity like a state. 

The Socialist Party recognises the modern reality of potential abundance which will take over the outmoded principle of artificial scarcity and promotes the concept of common, ownership of the industries and services, with no ruling or boss class as part of the equation. Such social ownership exists nowhere in the world today.

Musings From Our Past

Musings from our past . . .

The Making of the English Working Class, E.P. Thompson's classic text, takes the interested reader far in illuminating the brutal social upheavals emerging capitalism caused monopolizing economic and political power in its violent thirst putting money of its class before humanity's need.

V. The Sherwood Lads

“Luddism lingers in the popular mind as an uncouth, spontaneous affair of illiterate hand-workers, blindly resisting machinery. But machine breaking has a far longer history. The destruction of materials, looms, threshing machines, the flooding of pits or damage to pithead gear, or the robbing or firing of houses or property of unpopular employers – these, and other forms of violent direct action, were employed in the eighteenth century and first half of the nineteenth, while 'rattening' was still endemic in parts of the Sheffield cutlery industry in the late 1860s. Such methods were sometimes aimed at machinery held to be obnoxious as such. More often they were a means of enforcing customary conditions, intimidating blacklegs, 'illegal' men, or masters, or were (often effective) ancillary means to strike or other 'trade union' action.” Although related to this tradition, the Luddite movement must be distinguished from it, first, by its high degree of organization, second, by the political context within which it flourished. These differences may be summed up in a single characteristic: while finding its origin in particular industrial grievances, Luddism was a quasi-insurrectionary movement, which continually trembled on the edge of ulterior revolutionary objectives. This is not to say that it was a wholly conscious revolutionary movement; on the other hand, it had a tendency towards becoming such a movement, and it is this tendency which is most often understated.”

The Making of the English Working Class in England, 1963.

https://uncomradelybehaviour.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/thompson-ep-the-making-of-the-english-working-class.pdf

Capitalism's Pressures? What We Can Say.

Like everyone else, socialists are shocked and saddened at the senseless slaughter that happened on Toronto's Yonge St. on April 23 and need not be described here.

Obviously, it was the behaviour of a very mentally ill person which we socialists can never condone. Nor can we condone a society which creates such pressure on individuals that cracks them to perform anti-social acts. We cannot argue that there will be no mentally ill people in a socialist society. What we can say is with the removal of the pressures capitalism places on us, it will be considerably less, and if someone is showing signs of mental sickness, they will quickly receive treatment. 

Until then, violent antisocial acts, which crapitalism engenders year in and year out, will undoubtedly continue with no end in sight until it ends.

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

Lothian Socialist Discussion (23/5)

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is not the socialist "party" that Marx (or even our Declaration of Principles) envisages, ie the working class as a whole organised politically for socialism. That will come later. At the moment, the Socialist Party can be described as only a socialist propaganda or socialist education organisation and can't be anything else (and nor would it try to be, at the moment ). Possibly, we might be the embryo of the future mass "socialist party" but there's no guarantee that we will be (more likely just a contributing element.) But who cares? As long as such a party does eventually emerge. At some stage, for whatever reason, socialist consciousness will reach a "critical mass", at which point it will just snowball and carry people along with it. It may even come about without people actually giving it the label of socialism.

In 1904 the Socialist Party raised the banner for such a single, mass socialist party and proclaimed itself as the basis of such a party. Not only did the working class in general not "muster under its banner" but neither did all socialists. So although with a long history as a political party based on agreed goals, methods and organisational principles we were left as a small propagandist group, but still committed to the tenets set out in our Declaration of Principles. But we have never been so arrogant as to claim that we're the only socialists and that anybody not in the SPGB is not a socialist. 

There are socialists outside the SPGB, and some of them are organised in different groups. That doesn't mean that we are not opposed to the organisations they have formed, but we are not opposed to them because we think they represent some section of the capitalist class. We are opposed to them because we disagree with what they are proposing the working class should do to get socialism -- and of course, the opposite is the case too: they're opposed to what we propose. Nearly all the others who stand for a class-free, state-free, money-free, wageless society are anti-parliamentary (the old Socialist Labour Party being an exception). For the Socialist Party, using the existing historically-evolved mechanism of political democracy (the ballot box and parliament) is the best and safest way for a socialist-minded working class majority to get to socialism. For them, it's anathema. For the members of the Socialist Party, some of the alternatives they suggest (armed insurrection or a general strike) are anathema. We all present our respective proposals for working-class action to get socialism and, while criticising each other's proposals, not challenging each other's socialist credentials.

Mandating delegates, voting on resolutions and membership referendums are democratic practices for ensuring that the members of an organisation control that organisation – and as such key procedures in any organisation genuinely seeking socialism. Socialism can only be a fully democratic society in which everybody will have an equal say in the ways things are run. This means that it can only come about democratically, both in the sense of being the expressed will of the working class and in the sense of the working class being organised democratically – without leaders, but with mandated delegates – to achieve it. In rejecting these procedures what is being declared is that the working class should not organise itself democratically.

We need to organise politically, into a political party, a socialist party. We don't suffer from delusions of grandeur so we don't necessarily claim that we are that party. What we are talking about is not a small educational and propagandist group such as ourselves, but a mass party that has yet to emerge. It is all about understanding limitations and they will be subject to change when conditions change. The main purpose of the SPGB at the moment is to (a) argue for socialism, and (b) put up candidates to measure how many socialist voters there are. The SPGB doesn't go around creating myths of false hopes and false dawns at every walk-out or laying down of tools but will remind workers of the reality of the class struggle and its constraints within capitalism and as a party, unfortunately, suffers the negative consequence of this political honesty.

Anton Pannekoek, the Dutch writer on Marxism, writing in an American magazine, Modern Socialism, said: "The belief in parties is the main reason for the impotence of the working-class . . . Because a party is an organisation that aims to lead and control the workers". He qualified this statement. "If . . . persons with the same fundamental conceptions (regarding Socialism) unite for the discussion of practical steps and seek clarification through discussion and propagandise their conclusions, such groups might be called parties, but they would be parties in an entirely different sense from those of to-day."

The Socialist Party position is that it was not parties as such that had failed, but the form all parties (except the SPGB) had taken as groups of persons seeking power above the worker. Because the establishment of socialism depends upon an understanding of the necessary social changes by a majority of the population, these changes cannot be left to parties acting apart from or above the workers. The workers cannot vote for socialism as they do for reformist parties and then go home or go to work and carry on as usual. To put the matter in this way is to show its absurdity. The Socialist Party of Great Britain and its fellow parties, therefore, reject all comparison with other political parties. We do not ask for power; we help to educate the working-class itself into taking it.

Pannekoek wished workers' political parties to be “organs of the self-enlightenment of the working class by means of which the workers find their way to freedom”and “means of propaganda and enlightenment”.

Which is almost exactly the role and purpose hoped for by the Socialist Party of Great Britain's present members.

Lothian Socialist Discussion

Wednesday, 23 May 

 7:30pm - 9:00pm

The Autonomous Centre of Edinburgh,

17 West Montgomery Place,

Edinburgh EH7 5HA

This is what socialism might look like

Why didn’t the environmental movement fully succeed? Some theorists now calling themselves “bright greens” have abandoned the fight altogether. The reason for the failure thus far of the environmental movement and fell short because it wasn’t able to alter industrial society’s central organising principle, which is also its fatal flaw: its accumulation of capital and ever-expanding market and pursuit of growth at all costs for profit. 

Why have environmental writers and advocacy organizations succumbed to tunnel vision? Perhaps it’s simply that they assume systems thinking is beyond the capacity of policy-makers. It’s true: If climate scientists were to approach world leaders with the message, “We have to change everything, including our entire economic system—and fast,” they might be shown the door rather rudely. A more acceptable message is, “We have identified a serious pollution problem, for which there are technical solutions.” Perhaps many of the scientists who did recognize the systemic nature of our ecological crisis concluded that if we can successfully address this one make-or-break environmental crisis, we’ll be able to buy time to deal with others waiting in the wings (overpopulation, species extinctions, resource depletion and on and on). Their justification for doing so is that people want a vision of the future that’s cheery and that doesn’t require sacrifice. 

The first task for socialist politics is to direct the cause of the environmental crisis to the world dominated by market and profit accumulation. The system of capitalism must be placed in the dock as being culpable of the abuse and destruction of nature. The Socialist Party calls upon the people to organise with a view to the substitution of the co-operative commonwealth for the present state of unplanned production, commercial rivalry, and social disorder; a commonwealth in which every worker shall have the free exercise and full benefit of his or her faculties. We call upon them to unite with us in a mighty effort to gain by all practicable means the political power. Science and technology are diverted from their humane purpose to the enslavement of men, women, and children. Ignorance and misery, with all their concomitant evils, are perpetuated, that the people may be kept in bondage. Workers robbed of the wealth which they alone produce yet are even deprived of the necessaries of life by wage slavery.

Socialism would mean organising human societies in a manner that is compatible with the way that nature is organised. Capitalist society robs us of community with each other and communing with nature.  We have arrived at a turning point in human history. Multiple and massive environmental problems will soon become irreversible and relatively soon the planet will no longer be capable of supporting civilisation. The unfolding crises make the environmental movement a crucial arena for socialists. The logic of curing the environmental problems will lead participants in a socialist direction, but this is not an automatic process. Without clear and concrete ideas, the environmental movement will not bring about the fundamental change needed to resolve the crisis.  We can shape our own destiny only by embracing a society of “associated producers.” When the world recovers from the globalisation of greed, the human species can join together in its quest for social justice and solidarity.

The Socialist Party envision the end of the exchange economy. In short, free access simply means that workers will be allowed to take freely of the goods and services available to them, and in which they had a hand in collectively producing. Common sense will prevent over-consumption, and due to the fact that we will be allowed to work at jobs which we have a natural interest and aptitude in, the enforcement of work entailed by wages or even labour vouchers will be seen as unnecessary. Therefore, free access consumption will not be based on how many hours we work, but on the self-defined needs of the individual. Of course, if we don't collectively agree not to overconsume, or if we collectively choose not to work, socialism in general and free access, in particular, will not work. However, since everybody in a socialist society will be working at jobs in which they have an aptitude for and personal interest in, and since work will encompass only a fraction of the time for each worker that it does under capitalism (with far more leisure time available to workers than under capitalism), the need for some medium to enforce work will be unnecessary. It is very possible that as technology continues to advance, and as production becomes more and more efficient over the course of time under socialism, it will become increasingly easier to produce what we need and want in greater abundance, making artificial limits on production for the purpose of limiting consumption and enforcing work to appear more and more absurd in the eye of the worker.

Free access can basically be defined as no medium of exchange necessary for taking goods and utilising services. If we need a certain item from the store, we will simply walk in and sign it out of the inventory. Any type of barter in an advanced industrialised society is believed to be ludicrous by people who are aware of the material possibilities in an era of abundance which we live under today. In fact, it will be probable under a free access system that people will keep consumption in check by agreeing to share items in which we now purchase for every family, such as methods of transportation and home maintenance. As has been pointed out, lawn mowers, for example, will probably be shared by several families on one block, and future means of superior public transportation will lessen the demand for personal means of transportation, such as automobiles. Also, without the need for market hungry advertising, needs will not be created, and the demand for outlandish and unnecessary devices sold in abundance under capitalism will be seen as a waste of production under socialism.


It should be restated that work under socialism will be completely voluntary, and should have no need to be enforced as under capitalism. Goods must be free to all in addition to the required services, and since people will be able to work jobs in which they have a personal aptitude, work will be a pleasure under socialism, and not the unmitigated burden that people try to avoid under capitalism. Hence, virtually all individuals will be happy to do their share of the useful work required in society, and much leisure in which to enjoy it will be available (there is a saying that goes "those who love their occupation never work a day in their life", a saying very applicable to what our life will be like under socialism concerning our jobs).

Making money out of misery

Arms giants with factories in Scotland have been accused of profiteering from new border security systems to prevent vulnerable people escaping oppressive regimes and reaching Europe legally in a new report by Transnational Institute (TNI)

.The European Union (EU) has developed a policy of making nations outside of Europe responsible for its border security, which has involved deals with oppressive states to stop refugees from reaching Europe for safety. The rapid growth in border security spending outwith Europe has benefited a wide range of companies, particularly arms manufacturers and biometric security companies. Arms multinationals which operate factories in Scotland – Thales and Leonardo – are both named in the report as prominent players after doing deals with countries with poor human rights records such as Egypt and Algeria. The EU’s approach to migration is called border externalisation and has resulted in other nations effectively becoming border guards for Europe. This means collaboration with third countries accepting deported persons, training of police and border officials, and the development of extensive biometric systems. It also involves donations of military equipment including helicopters, patrol ships and surveillance equipment. But what makes these collaborations problematic, the report says, is that many governments receiving support are “deeply authoritarian”. The support they get often goes to state security organs responsible for human rights abuses.

TNI said that the “plight of the world’s 66 million forcibly displaced persons” seems to only “trouble the European Union’s conscience” when the media spotlight turns on a tragedy at Europe’s borders.

“These tragedies aren’t just unfortunate results of war or conflict elsewhere, they are also the direct result of Europe’s policies on migration since the Schengen agreement in 1985,” TNI added. “This approach has focused on fortifying borders, developing ever more sophisticated surveillance and tracking of people, and increasing deportations while providing ever fewer legal options for residency despite ever greater need,” the report continued. 

There have been EU agreements with, and funding provided to, regimes such as Chad, Niger, Belarus, Libya and Sudan, among others with poor human rights records. French arms giant Thales – which has a factory in Glasgow – is highlighted in the report as a major arms exporter, providing military and security equipment for border security and biometric systems and equipment. Thales serves as a good example too of the way the military and security industry makes money out of the refugee tragedy,” the report says. “It played a significant role in lobbying for security-based EU border and migration policies. It has also won significant border security contracts, for example deploying a complete, integrated system for border security at the Eastern Latvian border, with command and control software, optronics, sensors and a communication network.”  The report goes on to say that when it comes to EU border externalisation, the focus of Thales lies on “capitalising on the growth in security markets” in Africa. Thales has provided nine African countries with control systems for identification documents, the report says.

“For example since 2005, Morocco has been switching to biometric identity cards, based on digital fingerprints, in part to ‘control migration flows’. Thales has helped implement the project – delivering ID document production equipment and software. The relationship with Egypt is especially close,” the report adds. “In recent years, Thales has helped supply Egypt with Rafale combat aircraft and radar for frigate and corvette warships. Egypt’s cooperation with stopping migration for the EU plays a role in this, as it facilitates a permissive application of arms export regulations.”

Thales has a factory in Glasgow employing 720 people. An Italian multinational called Leonardo with a factory in Edinburgh is also mentioned in the report. It makes laser systems for F16 fighter jets and was recently linked to the bombing of Kurds in Afrin, Syria, an attack described as “ethnic cleansing” by Kurdish groups. TNI says Leonardo has benefited from border security work in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.

The report says: “Leonardo is also involved in other border security deals in countries neighbouring Europe. It supplied 15 helicopters for border monitoring to Algeria in 2010 and 2011. And in 2013 AgustaWestland [a Leonardo subsidiary] signed a contract with the Mauritanian Air Force for the delivery of two AW109 helicopters, to be used for border patrol and reconnaissance missions.

“In February 2017, Leonardo announced it was selected by Austrian company Schiebel to supply its PicoSAR radar surveillance system for Camcopter S-100 unmanned air systems (UAS) to a North African country, reportedly Tunisia, for tasks including border monitoring.”

Both Thales and Leonardo have helped shape European border security through lobbying, the report adds, as both firms belong to the European Organisation for Security (EOS), which has promoted increased border security. But TNI claims this has led to a higher death toll for forcibly displaced persons, because measures to block one migration route often result in people taking more dangerous journeys.

“The boosting and militarization of border security has led to a higher death toll for forcibly displaced persons,” the report says. 

In 2017, 1 out of every 57 migrants crossing the Mediterranean died, compared to 1 out of every 267 migrants in 2015. This reflects the fact that in 2017 the longer, more dangerous Central Mediterranean route was the main route for (a significantly lower number of) forcibly displaced people, mostly from West African and Sub-Saharan countries, compared to the 2015 main route from Turkey to Greece, used predominantly by Syrians.”

Andrew Smith, of Campaign Against Arms Trade, said: “Whether the issue is arming human rights abusing regimes and dictatorships, fueling and facilitating war and conflict or enabling the appalling treatment of refugees: companies like Leonardo and Thales are happy to profit every step of the way.”

Pauline Diamond Salim, of the Scottish Refugee Council, said: “The right to seek asylum in another country is enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention – an international UN treaty to which the UK, along with more than 140 other countries, is a signatory.”

Oliver Feeley-Sprague, Amnesty International UK’s Arms Control Director, said: “The EU has robust prohibitions in place against selling arms and security equipment to states where they risk being used for serious human rights abuses. Those very rules explicitly say that other factors, such as the need for security, can’t over-rule the prohibition on supply in these circumstances.”

https://theferret.scot/arms-firms-scotland-deals-states-profit-refugee-crisis/