People, Planet and Prosperity

Everywhere we look, some part of the environment is under threat. For every one of these that the environmental movement tries to address, more arise. The number is growing daily and giving greater cause for concern. Our natural surroundings has always been under attack since the development of the capitalist system of production and distribution. Today’s worries are seemingly fraught with far more potential disasters than those of the past. Chemical waste is poured by the thousands of gallons into rivers daily, stretching to the limit the biosphere’s ability to cope with such problems. Raw and partially treated sewage is pumped into the seas while oil-based chemical fertilisers, with their own production pollution, are used in ever increasing quantities on the land which will result, some say, in the eventual breakdown of the delicate natural structure of arable land. More and more information is coming to light.

The more an environment campaigner studies such problems, the more he or she is convinced of the inevitable long-term result of such seemingly careless attitudes throughout the modern world — catastrophe. So why are such policies and production methods continued?

The Socialist Party answer to this question is that it is the capitalist economic system which gives rise to such policies and production methods. The unfortunate truth in the world today is that it is profitable to pollute.

Many environmentalists seek to slow down growth which they say will lead to a stable sustainable society. Far from being a stable society capitalism fosters competition, waste, alienation, frustration and war.

Capitalism is fuelled by growth and expansion and must strive for larger and larger markets. Listen to the businessmen’s complaints, if GDP growth is only forecast at a small increase. We must have bigger growth rates say the government, the CBI and the trade unions all concurring that what is required is higher productivity.

We call on environmentalists to study the Socialist Party’s case for a society not owned by a small minority who run a society geared to the buying and selling of commodities including our labour power. Until workers, including the environmentalists, use the vote to oust the capitalist system and install socialism, the environmental movement will be another dead end for genuinely concerned individuals to travel. At best the environmental movement can act as a brake, a brake easily released when economic constraints permit. At worst it engages enthusiastic, vigorous individuals in a futile struggle for reforms which even if ‘won’ only lead to further problems.

 Join the Socialist Party the world over to prevent the disastrous future that capitalism represents. Society needs to be changed. Few people doubt that. To the members of the Socialist Party the answer to the problem of capitalism would seem obvious. Food, fuel and clothing, like all other needs should be freely available to all human beings. The revolutionary understands that one single cause creates the social ills which face us and that is the capitalist system. A system called world capitalism is the root cause of the social problems which afflict us and therefore it is world capitalism which must be abolished and replaced by a totally new social system where production is solely for use: socialism. That is the analysis and the objective of the revolutionary socialist.

The Socialist Party is not in the business of reforming capitalism, for to do so is to make repairs to a structure which is only fit for immediate demolition. That is not to say that socialists oppose reforms: we do not. Our opposition is not to reforms, some of which will have a benefit but to reformism — the belief that it is worth bothering to reform capitalism.

The Socialist Party does not advocate reforms. If we did we would be conceding that socialism is not an immediately practical proposition. We say that the socialist way of running society could now solve the global warming problems facing humankind and that no amount of reforms, however long we would have to wait for them, could improve society in the way that socialism could as an immediate change. If we adopted a reform programme as a "meantime" or "minimum" policy there would be two consequences: firstly, all kinds of people who accepted our reform demands but who regarded socialism as being of little or no practical importance, would join us and become a majority, so converting the Socialist Party into yet another "radical" capitalist party; secondly, as soon as we went into the game of competing with other parties to offer reforms it would be a sure thing that the revolutionary aim of socialism would be transformed into a utopian demand for the future, to be brought out on ceremonial occasions to satisfy the minority of revolutionary members. Other parties which started out with socialist intentions have gone that way but the Socialist Party, based in all ways and at all times upon firm revolutionary principles will not be diverted. No environment activist looking for a way out of the mess of the present social disorder can be allowed to waste their hopes and energies on the treadmill of futile reformist politics. That is why The Socialist Party is hostile to reformism — not to reformers as fellow workers, but to reformism which wastes their sincerity and that is why if you are a reformist now is the time to make the great political step forward from struggling to mend capitalism to uniting consciously to end it. The conflict between human needs and the needs of the buying and selling system can be seen throughout society today, together with the universal insanity which it breeds. Technology could be adapted for useful purposes, to satisfy human needs in health, housing and food.

This is Capitalism

Capitalist society is based on exploitation is one in which one class, through its ownership of the means of production, is able to live as a parasite class, not producing, but living on the labour of—that is, exploiting—the other class, or classes, who are obliged to do all the real productive work on which the life of the society as a whole depends. But though all class societies are based on exploitation, the form of the exploitation, and therefore the character of the classes and of the societies themselves, differ. Capitalist exploitation is clearly understood by every worker. We know that while we and our fellow-workers do all the work, it is the small class of capitalists who enjoy the lion’s share of all that he produces. The nature of the exploitation, that is to say how we are exploited, is not however so obvious, because, unlike the slave or the serf from past epochs, the wage worker is not legally forced to work for a master. Yet in fact, like the serfs, we work part of the time for ourselves and part for the employer. Like the slave, what we produce is not ours but the employer’s, who owns the means of production.

In order that production may be carried on in capitalist society it is necessary that there should be, on the one hand, capitalists who have at their disposal sufficient resources to buy or rent factories, to purchase raw materials and to pay wages; and, on the other, workers who will be prepared to work for wages because they have no other means of livelihood. The capitalists then set the workers to work on their raw materials, in their factories; and therefore the goods which the workers produce also belong to the capitalists to dispose of as they wish. Since the goods produced are neither for the personal use of the capitalists to whom they belong, nor of the workers who make them, the capitalists must be able to find someone who will buy them, i.e., find a market for them. Such goods, that is to say goods produced for sale on the market, are known as commodities. Now though a commodity must be wanted by someone (must have use-value) or else nobody would buy it, the decision of the capitalist to produce a given commodity is not determined by the needs of the people, but by the expectation that he will find someone able to pay for it. If more profit can be made from selling television sets to the rich than by selling tables to the workers, more television sets than tables will be produced, however great the shortage of tables. In other words, the motive of capitalist production, the reason why capitalists decide to produce what they do, is not the needs of the people: but the search for profits.

Profit is the difference between the cost of production of a commodity and the price for which it sells on the market. It is sometimes argued, therefore, that it is the result of cheating, of selling commodities above their value. But, if this were so, the profit made by one capitalist would simply cancel out the loss made by another. We must therefore be able to explain profit on the assumption that commodities are bought and sold (are exchanged through the medium of money) at their value.

If commodities exchange at their value, there must be some property common to them all by which their values can be compared. It is not their “use value,” referred to above, or otherwise the necessities of life as would sell (that is exchange for) more than the luxuries. But there is another factor, and only one other, that is common to all commodities; and that is that they are produced by human labour. Thus the exchange value (or simply “the value”) of a commodity is determined by the amount of labour (i.e., the labour-time) that goes into its production. More accurately, it is determined by the “average socially necessary labour-time,” since the amount of labour-time required at any particular time for producing commodities of that sort will depend on the technical methods available at that time.

But since commodities exchange at their value, how does this explain profit? We can only answer this if we can find a commodity which actually creates value in the course of being used. This Marx was the first to do by discovering the difference between labour and labour-power.

When a capitalist employs a worker, he is not buying the worker’s labour. He could only buy that in the form of the finished article after the worker has made it. What he does buy is the worker’s ability to work, his or her labour power; and the value of this is determined like that of any other commodity, by the amount of average labour-time necessary to produce it. This means, in the case of labour-power, the time required to produce the food, clothes and other necessities that are needed, in a given country, at a given time, to keep the worker and his family alive and able to work. (The more skilled a worker is the more training required, and therefore the greater the value of his or her labour-power.) And it is this value which determines the general level of wages paid to the worker by the capitalist.

But, with the technical methods available in modern society, it only takes the worker part of the working day to create, and embody in what he or she is producing, the equivalent of his or her keep ( wages). In four hours, say, a workers creates sufficient value to pay the wages. But since what he or she has sold to the capitalist is labour-power, the ability to work for, say, eight hours, the surplus value created in this further four hours also belongs to the capitalist, though the capitalist pays nothing for it. It is out of this surplus value that the capitalist makes his profit; and, since it has not been paid for, it is clear that the capitalist is therefore exploiting the worker.

So far we have been considering how value is determined—the value of labour-power or of any other community. It must, however, be borne in mind that the actual price of commodities may in practice, and usually does, vary from the value at any time as a result of competition between the capitalists or of the working of supply and demand—the fact, that is to say, that there is sometimes an excess, sometimes a scarcity, of a given commodity on the market. In the same way, the price of labour-power (i.e., wages) will vary from its value as a result of trade union action.

It follows that the economic interests of the capitalists and those of the workers are diametrically opposed: for the more the capitalist can exploit the worker the greater will be his profit. This he can do in two ways. He can lengthen the working day, which means that, since the amount of labour-time necessary to create the value of the worker’s wages remains the same, the additional hours are devoted to creating more surplus value. This is called increasing absolute surplus value. Or, on the other hand, he can increase the relative surplus value, which is achieved in the following way: As improvements in technique increase the productivity of labour, less labour is required to produce the means of subsistence of the worker. As a result of this a smaller part of the working day is devoted to producing the value of the workers’ subsistence (of the wages, that is to say), and a larger part is available for creating surplus value. In both cases the exploitation of the worker is therefore increased.

Inevitably the workers resist these attempts of the capitalists by fighting for higher wages and shorter hours; and, since they soon discover that their individual efforts are ineffective, they organise themselves in trade unions for the purpose. This is the first form that the class struggle takes. But trade union action alone can only modify the exploitation of the workers, can only effect reforms within the capitalist system. 

Once, however, the workers begin to understand the real nature of capitalist exploitation—the fact that the capitalists are appropriating for themselves the unpaid labour of the workers—they see the necessity for political action; that is to say, for putting an end to the capitalist system and building socialism in its place.

One Socialist World

For the Socialist Party socialism will be a world without frontiers; a world in which there will be no such thing as nations or national boundaries. 

Nationalism is skilfully masked by socialist phrases, but it is all the more harmful for that reason. Protected by the language of socialism, it is less vulnerable and more tenacious. It spreads mutual distrust among the workers of the different nationalities.

The Socialist Party does not see secession as a way to liberation. It is not a cure for the economic social problems of Scotland and Wales. The remedy can only be socialism. Neither Welsh or Scottish sovereignty would not aid the class struggle against capitalism. Nationalism is altogether a mirage. Nationalism ties the working people to their own ruling class. Socialism unites the working people of the world against the capitalists. That is why many capitalists promote nationalism.

The Socialist Party has always held that socialism could not be established just within the framework of a single state, but only on a world basis. This was not because "socialism in one country" was necessarily a bad aim in itself, but because the development of a world economy under capitalism had made it a practical impossibility. Once capitalism had become an economic system dominating the whole world — as it did in the age of imperialism that culminated in the significantly named first world war — then the only kind of socialism that was possible was a world socialism.

Within the context of world socialism we still do not see a role for states, certainly not as coercive political institutions but not in the economic sphere either. There would indeed be a need for administrative and decision-making bodies at what today is called the national level, but these would not be "states” in the sense of a body exerting coercive political authority over a territory and its inhabitants. They would not be institutions ruling over people with the coercive force to impose their own will, but would be part of the institutional structure that would allow people to participate on an equal basis in the democratic running of their common affairs including the production and distribution of wealth. In short, genuine democratic control would replace rule by states.

As long as workers think in terms of “the country,” it is logical for them to be prepared to defend it. Thus all the horror weapons become “necessary” in the name of “defence,” because if “they have got them we have to have them.”

No ruling class is willingly going to “set any example” which would mean saying—“these are our oil-fields, markets and vested interests, but you, our rivals, can move in at will because we have no military might to support our claims.” It only has to be put like that to show how futile the peace movements are.

The present owners of the oil-fields, the land, investments etc., only came by them through robbery, plunder and force of arms. They realise that what they took by force can only be held by force; no national capitalist class is going to contract out of the rat-race in order to make way for their rivals. And if one ruling group did contract out, their loot would soon be snatched by whoever got in first and was militarily strong enough to hold it. Nothing basic would be changed. There would be one rival less and those remaining would be a little fatter. The capitalist classes of the major power blocs maintain their military machines for the purpose of protecting or expanding their spheres of profitable influence, nationally and internationally. This minority of people own the factories, the land and all those assets which go to make up the country. At the same time that the majority of people—the working-class—own nothing to fight about. Workers in all parts of the world have a common interest to get rid of the social system which condemns them to exploitation. They cannot do this in ignorance; they must realise what capitalism means and how to change it.

Our Purpose is Socialism

The aim of the Socialist Party is to build a socialist society. Our party is the party of revolution. The revolution is the only solution. Our revolutionary goal shapes our principles and policy. We stand up and fight for the true interests of the working class as a whole, at every turn of the road. The Socialist Party is not afraid to take an unpopular stand when it is necessary in order to combat the prejudices of our fellow-workers. We would not be worthy of the name of socialist if we evaded such a fight. The conscious support of the workers is what we want. We are fighting for their minds and hearts. Our party is a party of revolutionary workers, a party of political struggle against capitalism and all its works. We are not liberal nor are we progressives, but revolutionists. The workers will understand that the overthrow of capitalism is the only road to social justice. Socialism cannot arrive from nowhere.

Capitalist society is a society divided into two main classes: the capitalists, (or bourgeoisie); and the working class, (or proletariat). The former own the land, the factories and the machines, and all the means by which wealth is produced (the means of production), and are therefore the ruling class, though they do no productive work themselves. The latter though they do all the real productive work of society, own neither the means of production nor the wealth they create; and, therefore, are forced to sell to the capitalists their ability to work and produce. Numerically, the capitalists are an insignificant minority, while the workers constitute the vast majority of the people.

Capitalism is not based on plenty. Though it has developed, for the first time in history, the possibility of providing enough for everybody, it has always condemned a great part of the people to live in poverty and insecurity. This is because the capitalist class, who decide what is to be produced, base their decisions not on what people need but upon how much profit they will make when the goods are sold in the market.

Capitalist society is not a peaceful, international society, but, on the contrary, nationalist in a narrow, selfish way. Just as within each capitalist country the various capitalists and groups of capitalists compete with each other in order to sell their goods at a greater profit, so capitalist countries as a whole enter into competition with other capitalist countries. This competition inevitably leads to wars: on the one hand to enslave more backward countries; and on the other, to redivide the countries which have been enslaved between the different capitalist countries. Such wars are not in the interests of the working class, but only of the capitalists.

Because capitalism is a class society, in which the small class of monopoly capitalists exploits the great majority of the people—not only the workers, but also the professional and technical workers, and the small farmers and shopkeepers—it is necessary for the capitalists to impose their will upon the people. It does this, partly by filling all the key posts in the armed forces, the Civil Service and all legal institutions (that is, in the State) with members of its own class; partly through its control of the Press, the films and so on, by which public opinion is influenced.

Thus, while in a capitalist democracy it is true that the majority of the people have the opportunity of taking part every few years in the election of the Government and of the local authorities, and in addition have won a number of democratic rights such as the right to organise in trade unions and political parties, freedom of the media etc., nevertheless the real power of the State remains in the hands of the capitalists.

Under capitalism, as we have seen, human society is condemned to a series of bitter struggles; class against class, nation against nation, and individual against individual. Inevitably, therefore, the great majority of the people, instead of being inspired by a common social purpose, are forced to struggle for their own individual and selfish interests. Moreover, since capitalism condemns the majority of people to poverty or insecurity, there is a continual waste of human talent and ability.

Socialist society will be a class-free society, in which all the means of producing wealth are owned in common. Instead of being divided into workers and employers, rich and poor, society will be an association of free people, all making their special contributions to the well-being of society, which in return will supply them with what they need in order to live full and happy lives. Such a society can be summed up in the slogan: “From each according to ability, to each according to needs.” For this to be possible, socialism must be based on abundance. Production will be organised in such a way that there is plenty of everything for everybody: not only food, houses, transport, and so on, to satisfy material needs; but also schools and theatres, playing-fields, books and concerts, so that people can lead full, physical and cultural lives. Socialism will be international. It is not something which can be fully completed in one country, isolated from the rest of the world. On the contrary it must eventually embrace all the peoples of the world; and in so doing it will put an end to war.

Socialism is a stage of human development where many institutions which we accept today as essential, such as policemen and prisons, employers and workers, armies and civil servants, will have disappeared. Because no wars can take place in a truly international society there will be no need for armies. Because it will be a community of plenty, where there is enough for all and therefore no advantage can be obtained by theft or other forms of crime, all need for courts of justice and police will have disappeared. In other words, the State, which is the sum of all these institutions and organisations, will itself disappear. Instead of one section of society ruling and oppressing another, men will have grown accustomed to living together in society without fear and compulsion. Thus, for the first time, mankind, united in a world-wide family, will be free to devote all its creative energies to becoming one with nature.

Such a society implies tremendous changes in people themselves; not only in their economic position, but also in their whole outlook on life itself. For instance, work, instead of being simply a means of earning a living, will have become the natural expression of men and women’s lives, freely given according to their abilities. Moreover, the nature of work will itself have changed. Through the development of science much of its drudgery will have disappeared and every man and woman wild develop their mental and physical capacities to the full; and this will inevitably bring about changes in their outlook.

The first and fundamental contrast between socialist and capitalist society is that under socialism all the means of production and exchange—the land, factories, machines and transport—are owned in common. Thus the exploitation of one class by another is ended. Instead of one small class being able to live on the labour of the majority of the people, everybody is obliged to undertake some form of productive or administrative work on behalf of society as a whole. Socialism, production is organised to meet the needs of the people and not to provide profit for a single class. It will, therefore be possible to plan production; and so to increase enormously the amount produced.

We cannot begin to build socialism while the capitalist class can use the power of the State to maintain its private ownership of the means of production. It cannot take place unless it is the will of the majority of the people. No amount of reforms of capitalism bring socialism any nearer.

One World One People

Nicola Sturgeon condemned the United Kingdom's new post-Brexit border policy saying new rules barring people designated as "unskilled" and those who don't speak English will devastate a number of Scotland's industries and worsen the country's depopulation crisis.

The newly-unveiled "points system" dictating who can migrate to the U.K. spurred officials to reiterate their calls for a separate Scottish visa system which immigrants could use just for Scotland, which employs many people from overseas in its tourism, fishing, and healthcare industries. 

20%  tourism jobs in Scotland are held by people from overseas, according to The Guardian. Migrants hold 16% of healthcare jobs, while more than 70% of those employed at fish processing plants in north-eastern Scotland were born outside the country.

Under the new plan, it's estimated that 70% of the current E.U. workforce would not be awarded enough "points" to move to the United Kingdom. 

But in Scotland, which is projected to have more deaths than births over the next 25 years and whose population growth over the next two decades has been expected to come entirely from migration, industry leaders say people already in the country won't be able to fill roles that would otherwise go to migrants.