Socialism - Not bread and butter but strawberries and cream

 

Governments running a system concerned above all else to ensure that rent, interest and profit are secured for the capitalist minority are bound to anger and frustrate workers. After all, workers have no real material interest in capitalist prosperity; indeed, the capitalists' privilege is obtained at the expense of our relative poverty. 

In Britain, the richest ten percent own more than half of all the accumulated wealth and just one per cent own more between them than the poorest eighty per cent. 

There is a class division arising out of diametrically opposed material interests. Faced with a multitude of problems arising out of the system where production is for profit rather than need, workers become frustrated, angry and determined to do something to change things. Socialists depend on this active desire to change society: every worker who decides to do something to protest against the way things are — however misguided that action might be — is, at least, proof of the fact that workers are discontented and not brainwashed. After all, if workers were wholly contented and totally indoctrinated, there would not be any socialists.

Socialists stand in uncompromising opposition to reformism. We reject all attempts to make capitalism run efficiently from the working class point of view. That does not mean that we have nothing in common with reformist workers — in fact, we have much to agree about. They want change and so do we; they envisage the possibility of eradicating unpleasant features of society which conservatives say are inevitable, and so do we; they are anxious to alert their fellow workers to particular problems and so are we. Where is the big difference, then? Socialists are aware that the changes which reformists want are futile for three reasons: firstly, they are usually directed to just one problem of capitalism, leaving all the others intact and, even in relation to these "single issues”, the reformists are often willing to compromise (abolish nuclear bombs, but keep conventional ones, for example); secondly, the reformist is unaware of the fact that capitalism produces social problems as a matter of course, and that therefore it is as idealistic to seek to eradicate mass starvation without ending production for profit as it would be to abolish the spots without curing measles; thirdly, socialists want more than to make capitalism tolerable for the working class — we want to end capitalism and, in so doing, to abolish wage slavery as a permanent social condition for the vast majority of people.

The reformist answer to the case for revolution — it will have been going through some of our readers' minds as they looked at the three reasons we have stated for opposing reformism — is that, whatever its limitations, at least the reformists are doing something. Indeed, they are; they are voicing their frustration and that is no bad thing. But a man with a toothache who expresses his frustration by sending a petition to the optician is doing no more than diverting his energies from the practical solution which is to be found in the dentist's surgery. Of course, workers who are mugged and demand that the government publicly flogs criminals are doing something, as are women workers, who, feeling oppressed, conceive of liberation for them as the oppression of men by women. Wrong solutions to real frustration arising out of real problems will not change society.

It is true that many reformist actions alert workers to aspects of capitalism which need to be exposed.   But we must expose futile waste of energy on illusory attempts to change society, because the need to end a system which threatens to blow us all up is more important than humouring the naive sentiments of self-righteous reformists. Workers have nothing to gain by engaging in protests which stop short of confronting the social system as a whole; half-loaves will not satisfy the appetite which most of us have for the best society can produce. That is not to say that socialists oppose reforms or that we deny the usefulness of reforms to certain workers — often at the expense of other workers. Our argument is not that workers would be better off without reforms, although we would certainly be better off without many of them. Socialist understanding starts off with all the recognition of the problems and all the anger about them which reformists show. 

Our opposition to capitalism is not academic, but is based on material experience. The answer staring us in the face is that we are living in a world which organises itself on the basis of producing goods and services with a view to profit. World capitalism forces workers’ needs to be secondary to the purpose of making profits so that capitalists can stay rich. In short, production for profit is at the root of virtually every modern social problem. (Of course, there are natural problems, such as earthquakes, which neither reform nor revolution could eradicate.) The socialist response is to make the one revolutionary demand to abolish capitalism and, in so doing, to carry out the job which all the separate reformist protesters are trying to do — but to complete them all in one fell swoop.

Socialism and nothing less is the object of the Socialist Party. But as we have been advocating this for a very long time, are not reformists entitled to tell us that the failure of the revolutionary movement to win over a majority of workers is as much a demonstration that we are wrong as is the failure of reformists to achieve their limited aims? The answer is that socialists are not criticising reformists because they have failed to win support — on the contrary, millions of workers have been attracted to the slogans of reform; our disagreement with the reformists is based on the fact that, even with mass working class support for their aims, they have failed to change society in such a way which leaves them with no more reforms to enact. Indeed, the essential problem about the reformist strategy for change is that it envisages no prospect that the problems will be solved and reforms will not be necessary. In this sense, reformism presents the working class with a never-ending operation of gradual improvement to a fundamentally rotten structure. Socialism, on the other hand, has never been tried and has never had support from millions of workers. We are not able to force workers to be socialists, and we would not wish to do so if we could, because only conscious men and women of the working class who want socialism will be able to establish the new social system.

 

There is no certainty that workers will turn their attention from attacking the effects to abolishing the cause. But workers do inevitably learn from history and it is to the lesson of revolutionary success which the experience of reformist failure must lead. It is. therefore, to workers who have swallowed the illusions of partial change, and have become disillusioned, that socialists present the case for fundamental social change. Instead of banning nuclear bombs, let us ban every weapon from the face of the earth, by removing the cause of their existence. Instead of pleading for better let us demand the best. And to those who, with a sneer, tell us that they have no time for such grand aims because they are engaged in bread and butter politics. we respond that they are free to demonstrate for their bread and butter but we social revolutionaries will not be content until we have the strawberries and cream.

This is what socialism really means

 The number of people living in poverty is rising relentlessly. All the summit meetings, all the hand-wringing, all the reports, have been to no avail. With every passing year, it becomes more and more obvious that nothing short of a revolutionary transformation of society will serve to wrench the mass of humanity out of the debilitating cycle of deprivation and despair. The Socialist Party puts forward the socialist proposition that the only solution to social problems is the establishment of a world without frontiers, based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living, with production solely for human need. 

How many more years will be wasted on a system which is utterly unworkable as far as the interests of the whole community are concerned? Only one interest rises above the economic, political and military divisions of national and international capitalism—our single, worldwide common interest as working people. Its political direction is clear—we must ensure the growth of the world socialist movement with the object of capturing political control of all the powers and machinery of governments by democratic political activity. From this position, we will enact the common ownership of the means of living. This will strip the capitalist class of their monopoly of land, industry, manufacture, transport and resources, whether maintained by private ownership or state control. We will establish free access by the democratically organised community to all these productive means and resources so that they can be freely used to provide directly for human needs.

 

This will involve the abolition of the state and the conversion of all useful government functions for the democratic administration of needs, operating through a decentralised system of decision making on world, regional and local levels. Socialism will remove all economic constraints on social action, and will involve the abolition of all distribution by buying and selling through the use of money; and therefore will establish free access to all the goods and services which the community could more freely make available. The wages system, which is the market for labour-power, will be replaced by direct co-operation between people. With this world co-operation, socialism would abolish all armed forces and armaments production. Thus all the potentially useful resources of labour, materials, technique and equipment now used for the military would be re-directed for human needs. During all the years which have been wasted on support for capitalism, socialism could by now have solved the major social problems. The urgent priority is for our fellow workers to join the growing world socialist movement. This is the only practical activity that is now being directed at the solution of social problems. 

Socialist democracy requires the widest participation in decision-making at all levels. Socialism is fundamentally the opposite of capitalism, substituting social ownership of the means of production for their private ownership. Market relations would have to be eliminated.

Capitalism has become an obsolete oppressive system that ought to be got rid of. Very few are consciously anti-capitalist, with the vast majority trying to satisfy their needs within the system rather than by overthrowing it. All that is needed is for workers to produce goods that people want and need, a  system of production for use instead of profit. Revolution does not mean that we would “demand” that the governments and corporations do this or that. It means that we, the working class take over the running of society and make the decisions ourselves and proceed to abolish the market economy. The injustices of slavery and serfdom were eliminated by abolishing the social institutions of slavery and serfdom themselves, not by prohibitions against the maltreatment of slaves and serfs. The injustices of wage labour will be eliminated by abolishing the social institution of wage labour itself, not by legislating employers to treat their workers better. We do not just want slaves to manage some of their own affairs. We want to overthrow the slave owners and abolish slavery altogether. Electing new bosses does not abolish the boss system. Elected cooperatives or workers’ councils would be in exactly the same position of having to lay off staff if there is no market for the goods they produce. 

 

Opponents of socialism usually fall back to one argument – human nature,  suggesting people have a tendency towards competitiveness and violence   Rather, we possess human behaviour which is flexible and variable according to the situation in which people find themselves. Humanity has lived in many different sorts of society. Socialism brings — or is it at least more conducive to — the end of alienation and commodification, sexism and racism, environmental degradation, militarism and nationalism.

Capitalism IS the problem

The real enemy of the working class is, and always has been the capitalist class of every country and the system of wage-slavery it represents. Workers must grasp the real meaning of the facts presented to them, and find and apply the only remedy or once again pay the penalty for allowing a privileged class to direct the course of events. They must recognise that they are the producers and distributors of the wealth of the world, but an idle class lives on the results of their toil because the workers allow that class to retain the ownership and control of the means of wealth production although constitutional means are at their disposable to dispossess that class.

Poverty, hunger and war are not caused by human frailty, but by the greed of capitalists for profit. When the population of the earth owns in common the means of production the product of human labour will be distributed to each according to the needs of each. Then no one will make a profit out of another’s labour and the scramble for markets will disappear. This is socialism, and it is for this alone that socialists are struggling. When the workers have made up their minds to build a socialist society, and have set about doing so, the ills of capitalism will disappear.

 The world is divided into two classes—those who own, the capitalist class, and those who are property-less, the working-class. The capitalists live on income derived from ownership and the workers live on wages obtained by selling their energies. The income of the capitalists arises from the unpaid labour of the workers and exists in the form of rent, interest and profit. This income cannot be obtained until the goods produced by the workers are sold. Control of markets, sources of raw materials, spheres of influence and control of strategic military areas are among the factors essential in the competitive struggle between capitalist powers. The struggle is fierce and although disputes are settled sometimes by diplomatic means, ultimately the decision rests on the weight of the armed forces of the rival powers. Force is the final arbiter.

The Left scorn the idea of socialist propaganda and jeer at our insistence on the need for socialist understanding. They guide the healthy discontent of workers into political activities harmless to the capitalist system, but dangerous to the working-class. Workers need not accept the blind and stupid policies of the left-wing leaders; they can hammer out a policy independent of the capitalist parties. The strength of the capitalists rests on the political ignorance of the working class. Growing socialist knowledge amongst workers will rob the capitalists of their strength. When large numbers of workers understand that whether they are British, Chinese, American, European, they have a common interest in the abolition of capitalism, the capitalist diplomats will be unable to come to the defence of capitalist interests. Our immediate task is to make socialists and the conditions for propaganda have never been more favourable. Capitalism is still torn with suffering.

 Socialism has come to be associated with any activity of the government or municipality in an economic direction, irrespective of the nature of the activity. Hence any industrial or commercial enterprise undertaken by a governmental body is labelled socialism nowadays. The mere form is here confounded with the content. Mere State involvement does not mean socialism. The State is mainly an agent of the possessing class and any economic undertakings by governmental bodies largely run in the interests of that class.  Their aim is to show a profit, in the same way as ordinary capitalist enterprises. This profit goes to the possessing class in the form of relief of taxation, mainly paid by them, interest on loans, etc. In other words, the government economic activity is for-profit and not for use and their employees are little, if at all, better off than those of private employers.

 If we look around, we find many benevolent and useful institutions established by many or by the whole people in common. In one place associations are formed, for instance, the lifeboat institution, to rescue and save shipwrecked persons; at another place, the community erected a school or medical clinic. In life, everybody cares for oneself, but people also unite for advancing a common, social purpose. Experience teaches that they do admirably well; every one of us must admit that our own welfare is greatly advanced by such mutual cooperation. What would people be without community? We should be in a terrible situation if we didn’t work together for shared practice and lightened one’s load among many. We could mention here a thousand other common institutions will be sufficient. Now all these are nothing but socialism. For socialism is nothing but the principle of the common interests of society. Without socialism, there will be no fundamental changes. There will be and must be, worsening of all the old problems of capitalism and insecurity more threatening. Who declares oneself an enemy of socialism declares oneself an enemy of common interest, an enemy of society and mankind. Socialism has its origin and root in public welfare.

The future depends on what we do now

 

By definition, socialism is a society of free people. They cannot be compelled to do what they do not want to do, either by brute force or (as in capitalism) by threats to their livelihood. We have to assume that they will be sufficiently responsible and self-disciplined voluntarily to do whatever may be required to implement a democratically made decision, even if they disagree with that decision – unless, arguably, they have good reason to regard the decision as dangerously incompetent (if, say, a council has approved an unsafe design for a nuclear reactor). Otherwise, socialism will have to acquire effective means of compulsion, but then it will be socialism no longer. This is one reason why socialism has to be established by a majority of conscious socialists.

Recent left-wing writers on post-capitalist society, such as Richard Wolff advocate a ‘market socialism’ in which worker-owned firms still hire labour and compete with one another to sell commodities on the market. We argue that even if such a system were initially to differ in some ways from current forms of private or state capitalism it would inevitably degenerate into them. Our conception of socialism production is guided not by blind market processes but by decisions consciously and democratically made in the interests of the community as a whole. Exchange is replaced by distribution. The World Socialist Movement does not relegate this non-market system to the remote future of a ‘higher stage’ of the new society. It is to be established immediately upon the conquest of power by the working class.

Production in socialism will be for use not for profit and that its purpose will be to meet human needs. This the question of how to determine what human needs are.  Ours is a simple answer to this question. Individuals will decide for themselves what goods they need. They will have free access to distribution centres where all desired goods are available in abundance. The advance of automation and robotics has made it technically possible to generate such abundance with a minimum of human labour. Elimination of the waste inherent in the money system will also play its part. A socialist society may for various reasons make a democratic decision not to produce certain things even if quite a number of people want them. The WSM says needs for specific kinds of goods will be met only after they have been ‘socially validated’ – that is, after all the possible negative, as well as positive consequences of their production and consumption for people and for the environment, have been assessed through the democratic institutions and procedures of socialist society. The needs of the community are to be determined socially and not just by aggregating the expressed needs of individuals. Although we propose a society of abundance, we do add a caveat that possibly by the time that socialism is established the humanity will have to deal with severe climatic, environmental and social disruptions and priority will have to be given to the tasks of coping with and gradually overcoming these dislocations. Efforts will be required to halt and reverse global heating, care for environmental refugees, and improve the living conditions of the world’s slum dwellers. Therefore, an abundance may not be immediately fully realized. For instance, the choice of crops to grow will have to depend not primarily on what people prefer to eat but on how susceptible their cultivation is to drought, floods, and other extreme weather events.

Decision-making in socialism consists of two elements. The first is the proceedings of elected councils at various levels, supplemented by procedures of direct democracy such as referenda. The second is the ‘requests’ or ‘orders’ that circulate within the network of production and distribution for material inputs required to maintain stocks of consumer goods at levels sufficient to meet individual needs. It is necessary for the division of tasks between the two elements and their mode of interaction to be clear and effective. For example, the councils could concentrate on major decisions concerning the overall pattern of production facilities and supporting infrastructure. In order to prevent overloading of their agendas, fraught with the risk of neglect of their proper function, they must avoid entanglement in detailed decision making – although they might issue guidelines to assist those responsible for making detailed decisions. Routine operational issues are better handled by direct consultation between workgroups. Provided that requests are reliably fulfilled, their circulation should achieve the desired result automatically.

Teen Mums

 Scotland’s teenage pregnancy rate has reached a record low, dropping 60 per cent since 2007, figures reveal.

The number of women under 20 who became pregnant fell for the 12th year in a row to 3,814 in 2019, down from 9,362 in the recent peak of 2007.

Public Health Scotland said: “The teenage pregnancy rate in Scotland is at its lowest level since reporting began in 1994. 

 NHS Fife had the highest rate at 35 per 1,000 women.

While teenage pregnancy rates have fallen across all levels of deprivation over the last decade, “rates in the most deprived areas have fallen more rapidly”. But, despite this, the teen pregnancy rate was still more than four times higher in the most deprived parts of the country than it was in the least deprived, at 52.6 per 1,000 compared to 11.8 per 1,000.

For the first time, more than half of teenagers who conceived in 2019 opted not to continue with the pregnancy, as 50.3 per cent went for a termination.

Public Health Scotland noted: “Teenage women from the most deprived areas are more likely to deliver than to terminate their pregnancy. In contrast, those from the least deprived areas are more likely to terminate than to deliver.”