NOT SO COOL

When workers use new up-to-date technology they imagine they are being ultra cool and extremely modern, but they are supporting work practices that would put Victorian sweatshops to shame. The new cheaper iPhone that Apple will unveil to a global audience is being produced under illegal and abusive conditions in Chinese factories owned by one of America's largest manufacturing businesses, investigators have claimed. 'Workers are asked to stand for 12-hour shifts with just two 30-minute breaks, six days a week, the non-profit organisation China Labor Watch has claimed. Staff are allegedly working without adequate  protective equipment, at risk from chemicals, noise and lasers, for an average of 69 hours a week.' (Guardian, 5 September) RD

CRIME AND CAPITALISM

According to TV dramas the police are depicted as extremely successful at solving all sorts of crimes, but it turns out they don't even investigate most of them. 'The head of one of Britain's largest police forces admitted yesterday that his officers did not investigate 60 per cent of reported crimes. Sir Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, said that his force was only able to to "actively pursue" 40 per cent of cases due to priorities and funding.' (Times, 5 September) It is also reported that the Metropolitan Police, Britain's biggest police force, are just as bad. Almost 50 per cent of crimes are being "screened out" because they are deemed too difficult to solve. Why don't they call in Hercules Poirot or Miss Marples? RD

Planning for Socialism

Capitalism has become an obsolete system that ought to be got rid off. A relatively small minority recognise this and are consciously anti-capitalist, but most continue trying to satisfy their needs within the system rather than by overthrowing it. It is natural that the question of what is the alternative to capitalism should be raised. It is frequently said that there can be no blueprints for the future because the people themselves will decide how to build the new society as they are building it. Too many talk about “revolution” in the abstract, and fail to put any flesh on to the bones of it. And when they do,  people are rightly cynical about the “policies” and “programs” whether “revolutionary” or not. Once bitten, twice shy.

If the revolutionaries do not form a political party that aims to take power from the capitalist regime then the old regime must continue. It will not just disappear in a burst of anarchistic enthusiasm. If the revolutionary party does not propose alternatives that are more desirable and effective than those capitalism, then why should anyone support a revolution? So we need to go beyond denouncing the existing system and start offering constructive options for workers to choose from, even though any such proposals are bound to be more generalisations at this early stage.

Socialism” would NOT have wage labour,  NOR commodity exchange through money. It would be quite possible to abolish these social relations left over from capitalism all at once. Wage- slavery will be eliminated by abolishing the social institutions of wage-slavery themselves, not by regulatory reforms and prohibitions against maltreatment of workers. It is a social revolution as profound as abolishing the ownership of slaves by slave owners.

 Critics of socialism point to the drab, boring existence of the old Eastern European bloc where everything was subject to central planning, everything subjugated to the state-owned enterprises. Socialism does not imply the restricted range of products available in those economically backward so-called socialist countries any more than it implies the lower standard of living, longer working hours or lower cultural levels common in those countries as compared with advanced Western countries. However socialist advocate society planning its production and distribution but are not advocates of THE PLAN.  We seek to co-ordinate the requirements for labour of different occupations and skills in each industry and locality and in each establishment. Far from discouraging new technology, to save jobs, we would facilitate its speediest implementation, to provide leisure. When production is geared to social needs rather than profits, it is quite feasible to cope with increased labour productivity by simply reducing the hours of work which can then become a voluntary activity.

 No matter how much state ownership and “planning” there may be in a market economy, if production and investment decisions are at all regulated by “the market”, they must be subject to market movements. Simply directing state owned enterprises to adhere to a central plan could not work while they were still basically oriented towards a market economy. If the products have to be sold on a market, and there is no market to sell more of that product, then its no good having the government telling a state owned firm to hire more workers. Those workers might just as well be paid unemployment benefits direct - their services are not required.

Many on the Left feel that all problems of control should be resolved by “decentralisation of authority” to permit more room there is for local level units to determine their own affairs. It, however, does not mean that the every problem can be mysteriously avoided by “decentralisation”. Some anarcho-syndicalists seem to imagine that if everybody democratically discusses everything, production units will be able to exchange their products to supply each other’s needs, and to supply consumer goods for the workers, with no more than ’co-ordination” by higher level councils of delegates from the lower level establishments. Actually things are not so simple, and any attempt to realise that vision would only mean preserving market relations between independent enterprises, still not working to a common social plan. The concept of the right to vote at the work-place can not in itself transform bourgeois social relations into co-operative ones. Modern  industry in capitalism  has always been based on capitalist production for profit, and nobody actually has much experience in how to run it any other way. Indeed many people allegedly on the “Left” seem to be unable to conceive of it being run any other way, and dream of somehow going back to a smaller scale of production, for it to be “more human”. On the contrary, it was precisely small scale production that was suitable for capitalism, while the development of huge transnational corporations with a single management for entire sectors of the world economy, proves that the socialisation of production makes private ownership an anachronism. The only experience we have of labour for the common good has been in a few community not-for-profit projects and some co-operatives. Everything else is based on people working for wages under the supervision of bosses to produce commodities for sale on the market. Often voluntary community projects also end up adopting a boss system too, or remain hopelessly inefficient and get entangled in factional disputes that can not be resolved without a clear chain of authority, and in effect, “ownership”. Then they go under and reinforce the idea that capitalist production is the only system that can really work.
The mentality that equates “popular”, “democratic” and “co-operative” with “local” or “community” projects is a  mentality that accepts the necessity of a  ruling class to manage the affairs of society as a whole. We do not just want to create some free space within which slaves can manage some of their own affairs. We want to overthrow the slave owners and abolish slavery altogether. The question of centralisation and decentralisation of enterprise management, is quite separate from the question of abolishing commodity production.

Planning decisions will have to be taken by somebody, whether they are called the workers council, Industrial Union or the factory committee. The communist solution is to dissolve the antagonism between separate enterprises so that each is directly aiming to meet social needs as best it can, rather than responding in its own separate interests, to an external compulsion to do so. Having a factory management (the workers themselves), who are dedicated to meeting social needs, would solve it completely, since they would interpret planning directives from a social viewpoint rather than a narrow one.

How do you decide whether to build a steel mill, or a hospital, or a  power station? Not just by democratically consulting steel workers, or hospital patients, or construction workers, or delegates from all three and others concerned. There must be some definite economic criteria for decision making. It is no good just saying we will build socially useful things like schools and hospitals instead of profitable things like steel mills or power stations. You need steel to build schools and hospitals, and you need electric power to run them. At present the only criterion according to which goods and services are produced and investments are made to produce them, is market profitability. Some public services superficially have different criteria, but the “cost-benefit analysis” they use includes interest on capital as part of the costs, and measures benefit by what would be paid for the service if it was marketable. Government funds can only be invested if the overall social rate of return is sufficient to allow payment of interest on borrowings directly, or by taxes raised from sections of the economy that have benefited indirectly. Despite loud squeals from the “private sector”, no government projects are based on expropriation. It all has to pay for itself on the market, and return interest on the funds borrowed from the private sector. It is a specific function of the capitalist (or state official) to allocate investments. It does this rather blindly, and with colossal waste, but it does do it and whatever is wasted, is often a loss to the particular capitalists concerned, as well as to society as a whole. The capitalist parasites are not even very good at keeping track of their own wealth, as is shown by the various multi-million dollar frauds that have been coming to light. In fact even their investment function is carried out for them by accountants, advisers, brokers etc who receive a share of the spoils, but are not the actual owners of the capital they invest.

Workers and the communities they live in and serve, will communicate with others similar bodies and determine what needs to be done, what tasks requires accomplished and what should receive the priority. Human need rather than capitalist greed. It is not utopian, much of the technology and information exists now, they simply have to be deployed for the common good instead of individual gain. 

Food for thought reforms one and two

The futility of reform - This week marks the fiftieth anniversary of Martin Luther King's famous "Dream" speech. It has been described as a defining moment in American civil history. But Americans are still debating how much of the dream has taken hold -- not bloody much!
Modern economic realty has got in the way. Long-time labour activist and author, Stanley Aronowitz, who helped to make the march a
reality, comments (Toronto Star, 24/08/2013), "On a scale of 1 to 10, Americans as a whole have gone from one in 1963 to minus three in terms of economic well being, and African Americans today are now at minus-five." We need a lot more than stirring speeches, maybe a class consciousness would help?

The futility of reform II -- Layoffs in Japan have always been taboo. Workers got jobs for life in return for fierce company loyalty and hard work that produced the Japanese economic miracle after WWII. Now Sony are forcing the issue by putting those who refuse early retirement in a special room with nothing to do hoping that the workers in question will be so bored they will be glad to go. This is part of a general movement by companies and supported by
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to end the 'privilege' of a job for life. A stagnant economy for years has prompted the capitalist class to go after this particular perk and to get a more 'flexible' (read poorly paid, no benefits and no security) work force. Easy come, easy go for reforms -- time to ditch them and the system where workers must beg for decent treatment and standards! John Ayers.

THE BED AND BREAKFAST FARCE

When on the prowl for votes one of the politicians' favourite dodges is to put great importance on the value of families and to portray themselves as stout champions of the family.  In practice however it is a different story. 'The number of families without accommodation being put up by local councils in B&Bs has risen to its highest in 10 years. New government figures show that 2,090 families with children were living in a B&B at the end of June. That is the highest figure since September 2003, and an 8% increase on the same month last year. ........ The figures also show that one in three families have been living in a B&B for more than six weeks, the statutory maximum.' (BBC News, 5 September) RD

What we need is understanding

The vast majority of us are wage-workers. Wages are our main source of income.  Or we receive a pension because we were once workers. Or we are the dependents of workers. We are just cogs in a giant machine. We are seen primarily as a cost that reduces profit. Some lip service given to workers as a resource; words to the effect that “we’re all in this together” might be spoken, but real examples of workplace democracy are few and very far between. If workers were truly valued as people “all in this together”, wouldn’t there be at least some semblance of democracy at work? There is a pretence  under capitalism that employees are treated as humans instead of as expendable resources like oil and there is a charade that the corporation has its employees’ best interests at heart, usually acknowledging and supporting employees’ collective bargaining rights. Instead, under our current economic system, the master-servant relationship is the legal framework that dominates workplaces. Reality for most people is a fundamental lack of respect at work.

 The object of work is to make enough money so that we can consume what we want and enjoy the good life, nothing more. What we do —  our work — defines us. We seek a source of lasting satisfaction in our work. When the system does not provide that sense of satisfaction at work alienation is the result. This leads to stress, addictions and other forms of ill health.

 Common sense must replace “business logic.” Workers believe in and accept capitalism, or are at least reluctantly acquiescent to their personal situation under capitalism and they buy into the ideas of capitalism.  If people think capitalism is the best that is possible, of course they will continue to follow the true believers in the system. If people believe there is no better way, disenchantment with the existing capitalist system will breed nothing more than cynicism and a retreat to private spaces. In fact, that is the result purveyors of capitalism are banking on. The more people are dissatisfied with capitalism, the more people believe another economic system is possible and  can help bring about change. If we want to organise the we need to focus on the flaws of capitalism and begin defining an economic system that is a realistic and attractive alternative. We need to develop a vision of a better system that can be a powerful motivation to do the hard work that is necessary to create a better society. Socialists want a world where the fruits of our labor, the immense social wealth we create each and every day, will be shared based on the needs of people rather than profit.

Workers and their unions must learn to aspire to greater. We must learn to demand more than simply more. What socialism proposes to do, in order to get wealth for all, is to take possession of the means of production and run them for the use of all. The great present mission of the Socialist Party is to gather together all those workers whose real interests lie in abolishing the private ownership of the means of production, and also to shut out of the party the class whose real interests lie in the preservation of the present system. Socialists  believe the working class can and must have its own political party, a party that will serve its own interests, not those of the exploiting class. Socialists understand that politics is essentially a war between the two main classes in modern capitalist society: those that work (the working class or proletariat) and those that exploit those who work (the capitalist class or bourgeoisie).

But knowing where we’re going and knowing how to get there are two different things. Socialist organisation means getting together with a common understanding and a common end in view, and working systematically for the attainment of that end. For the workers to organise effectively, they must have a correct understanding of their position in society and of the conditions under which they live and work. If they fail to understand these things, they will either not organise at all or will organise in an ineffective manner. The effectiveness of their organization depends on the correctness of their understanding. The better they understand conditions the more effectively they will organise. When workers study conditions and get a true understanding of the essential points, they can neither be chloroformed into inactivity nor carried away by half-baked theories. They do their own thinking instead of trusting would-be leaders to do it for them. Joseph Dietzgen expressed it this way:
 "If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class, the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself."

If workers understand that "The working class and the capitalist class have nothing in common,"  This constitutes the common understanding necessary for organisation. The common end in view is the "Abolition of the wage system."

There can be no organization without action, and it must be systematic, not haphazard action. Systematic action means in co-operation with every other member. It means each one doing his or her part, and all co-operating in the production of the whole. When people organise, they do so because they can work or fight more effectively collectively  than alone. When the workers get together on the street to make a "demonstration"  they are only making a demonstration of their own ignorance, and a target of themselves for police clubs and tear gas. They are a powerless mob The power of the workers is not on the street but at the ballot box. Every worker can take part in this activity.

So let us understand  and agree on a common end, and all work with one another for the attainment of that end, which can be none other than to take over the means of production and distribution and operate them for use instead of profit.

Partly adapted and inspird from the writings of Gary Engler of the website “New Commune-ist Manifesto"

Food for thought

The futility of revolution without real purpose --The New York Times reported (25/08/13), reported "Promises of Arab Spring Prove Elusive". The author writes, " It is clear that the region's old status quo, dominated by rulers who fixed elections and quashed dissent, has been fundamentally damaged, if not overthrown,
since the outbreak of the Arab Spring uprisings. What is unclear is the replacement model. Most of the uprisings have devolved into bitter struggles over the relationship between the military and the government, the role of religion, and what it means to be a citizen." The real reason for the apparent lack of success is the fact that there has been no real understanding of the problem, the capitalist mode of production, and the only alternative, socialism. John Ayers.

Plan for Revolution

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is a political party, which means that its concern is the struggle of the working class as a whole for political power and the capture of the State. The primary concern of the trade unions is the economic struggle for better conditions. The Socialist Party strives to fill our fellow workers with the spirit of the class struggle, focusing upon overthrow of the capitalist system.  It looks upon every activity of the workers from this point of view. The Socialist Party participates in the election campaigns as a separate and distinct political party. We are not there to help the capitalists govern the working class. We do not spread the false belief that there can be cooperation between the exploited and their exploiters. It is idle to deny the war between the classes and we will go into Parliaments in the spirit of the class struggle. The Socialist Party does not solicit votes in order to reform the capitalist system and thereby to make it more effective for the capitalists. We go into Parliament not to tinker with the system for the benefit of the capitalists.

 Social revolution is the essential objective of the labour movement, the end towards which every step it takes must directly tend. If we look at the production of wealth in present-day society, we find that that production of wealth can only take place through the co-operation of many diverse trades and industries interlocked one with the other. Within a given workshop, the whole variety of workers, manual and mental, co-operate together in order to produce a common product. Within society as a whole all industries co-operate together in order to produce wealth, the raw material of one industry being the finished product of the other. Without this co-operation of all the useful elements of society in production, there can be no society as we understand it to-day. Wealth to-day can only be produced and industry maintained through this co-operation. The vast industries in which men and women co-operate to produce wealth to-day are not the creation of any particular class, but have only been created and can only be maintained by the co-operative labour of all useful elements in society. The ability to produce wealth grows every year, and therefore the welfare of the mass of the people should grow also. However, in capitalist society the opposite process is taking place. Alongside growing power to produce wealth there is growing poverty. In a period of the greatest expansion of capitalism, colossal wealth exists alongside the most heartrending poverty. It is not the case the more capitalism produces wealth the better off everyone will become. The more wealth capitalism produces the greater its difficulties as a functioning system; the more difficult it is to obtain resources and gain markets, the more intensive international competition becomes; the greater becomes the danger of the antagonisms created by this competition ripening into war.

In a single factory, or even within a single industry, production may be planned according to the most scientific methods, but in capitalist society as a whole there is no plan regulating the production and distribution of wealth. Marx called it the anarchy of production. The whole system is based on the pursuit of profit by the owners of the means of production. The regulator of the whole system determining whether industry shall be expanded or shall go on short time is the rise and fall of prices on the market, reflecting the rise and fall in the possibilities of profit for the capitalists whose industries produce for the market. The scramble for profit leads also to the scramble for markets for sources of investment and raw materials on an international scale, and leads inevitably to war.

The Socialist Party make it their business to talk and explain to our fellow workers the meaning of socialism. We distribute our journals  pamphlets and books. Once workers has begun to read a paper or pamphlet explaining the class struggle, they soon recognises the truth of that explanation which they can supplement by numerous facts from their own experiences. Reading about the class struggle is a step to actual participation in the class struggle.  Let the workers recognise their class interests, and they will fight for the final liberation of his class.  In this current economic crisis  the reformists stand for concessions to capitalism, in order to help capitalism to get back to “normal,” while the socialists stand for a resistance to the demands of the capitalists, not “business as usual”, but support the struggle for social revolution.

Fact of the Day

Glasgow has the highest percentage of workless households of any area in the UK, new figures have shown. Information from the Office of National Statistics showed that 30.2% (almost one in three) of Glasgow households had no-one aged between 16 and 64 in employment during 2012.

National average figures showed Scotland with 20.6%

The statistics showed there were 3.5 million such households in the UK between April and June this year, about 17.1% of all households containing a working age adult. This was down from 3.7 million, or 17.9%, a year earlier.

PROGRESSING BACKWARDS

It suits politicians to portray UK workers as living in a society that gives them a steadily improving economic position, but recent figures completely deny that claim. 'The number of UK workers earning below the so-called living wage has risen to 4.8 million, research suggests. The figure, equivalent to 20% of employees, is up from 3.4 million in 2009, the Resolution Foundation think tank said. .......Although employers are obliged to pay the minimum wage, there is no legal requirement to pay the living wage. ......It found that 25% of women and 15% of men were paid below the living wage in 2012 - up from 18% and 11% in 2009.' (BBC News, 4 September) R D

Food for thought

Columnist, Rosie DeManno (Toronto Star, 17/08/13) while investigating the expense scandal of several senators, revealed how celebrities moonlight for extra money, "Some have made a significant Second Act career out of it, occasionally with hilarious exploitation of repute, and clearly for money. They're whores of a
kind." For example, General Norman Scwarzkopf took a seat on the board of The Home Shopping Network. Henry Kissinger went for Revlon among his many post-White House gigs. Boxer, Evander Holyfield, was considered a coup for the board of Coca Cola. The Canadian senators are cut from the same cloth and naturally are attracted to money, anybody's. John Ayers

From Rags to Riches

Socialists don’t hanker after the “increasing misery” for the working class. We don’t look forward to the attacks on the workers’ standard of living in the hope that we may attract more members.  But what we do is recognise economic facts.

Capitalism is an economic system based on three things: wage labour (working for a wage), private ownership or control of the means of production (things like factories and farms), and production for exchange and profit. Capitalism is based on a simple process – money is invested to generate more money. When money functions like this, it functions as capital. For instance, when a company uses its profits to hire more staff or open new premises, and so make more profit, the money here is functioning as capital. As the amount of capital increases (or in the bigger picture, the economy expands), this is called 'capital accumulation', and it's the driving force of the economy.

The class struggle varies over time and place, depending on social-economic, political conditions and organisation. The nature of the struggle between labor and capital vary in terms of comprehensiveness, intensity, geographic location and class interests. Class struggles involve two basic antagonists. The ruling class struggle “from above”, in which various sectors of capital use their social power, economic control of the state to maximize present and future profits. We the working class, struggle “from below.” The class struggle in its multiple expressions is a ‘constant’ moving force and the organizational form which it takes changes. Trade unions and community-based movements have great variations in make-up and mode of operation. The bulk of the class struggle against exploitation finds expression in movements by the oppressed and dispossessed  who rely mainly on their own resource.

The class struggle is the conflict between those of us who have to work for a wage and our employers and governments. Socialists argue that our lives are more important than our boss's profits, which attacks the very basis of capitalism, where profit is the reason for doing anything.  Nor does the class struggle take place only in the workplace. Class conflict reveals itself in many aspects of life. For example, affordable housing is something that concerns all working class people. However, affordable for us means unprofitable for builder or landlord. Government attempts to reduce spending on health-care by cutting budgets and introducing charges shift the burden of costs onto the working class, whereas we want the best health-care possible in free NHS, or at worse, as little cost as possible. Workers have an interest in fighting to improve their housing, health, education and protection from destitution. There is therefore an inbuilt potential for conflict over welfare provision. The outcome depends on the balance of class forces.

Every state of society admits of certain improvements called reforms. These reforms are either required by the interest of the whole ruling class, or they are only for the benefit of a particular fraction. In the former case they are carried without much agitation; in the latter, that fraction for whose benefit they are to be carried, call themselves reformers; these form a distinct party, and appeal to the oppressed to aid them in their endeavours  by means of placing bait on the hook.

Reform can be viewed as a response of behalf of the ruling class to pressure from below, an attempt to buttress the existing class structure by making minor concessions. Reform is the reply to the threat of revolution. A reform is infinitely better than allowing the pressure of discontent to build up until it explodes with revolutionary force.

 Reforms make the system run more smoothly by helping to foster illusions about the state. Instead of seeing the state’s  real role of protecting capitalist exploitation, it is seen as eliciting rewards from the state and that there will be a the expectation of a better tomorrow. Like the casino, the best publicity for it is the occasional winner even though the house is always ahead in the end. It pays the capitalist state to appear to be generous since this conceals the true nature of its being.

Some reforms are a boost for the capitalist class. Improvements to the educational system can be construed as a victory for the workers. On the other hand, they provide employers with a labour force better qualified able to cope with modern production techniques. Likewise the National Health Service is regarded as a great boon for the working person. But it also helped the employers, who have known for a long time that personnel who are healthy are also more productive.

Any meaningful pro-worker regulations eventually become fetters to capital’s well-being, so it becomes necessary to neutralise or dismantle them - to “save” business from an unnecessary burden of extra expense. Each piece of legislation has a cost. Consequently, it is likely to squeeze profit margins and damage the competitiveness of the economy. The laws of capitalism are designed to facilitate the smooth-running of capitalism within the limits they impose which precludes effective amelioration of conditions. Even when face by a discontent the ruling class may wish to grant reforms but this is not always feasible. Indeed, even those concessions that have already been made can conflict with the system’s ability to meet them. In deteriorating economic conditions, when capitalism no longer can concede reforms, or when workers defend past gains the situation can turn into an intensified class struggle.

This is what we’re experiencing now with government austerity cut. Reformers are spreading illusions that divert energy away from the vital struggle. To be a real socialist is to be a revolutionary socialist – there is no other kind. So the Socialist Party says that it is reformism which is “utopian” and the only “realistic” way out of this mess is to go beyond legislation and regulation. What the Socialist Party insist upon making clear is that we can and we must establish a socialist society now, not in the long distant future. Taking control over the means of production in order to make things we require and share them out  according to need without the mediation of money is not a far off aspiration but a society  we could have right now. Too often the “realistic’, the “practical” activists, insist that we must lower our expectations and aim for achievable reforms. They present capitalism as a “natural” system which happen to possess some flaws that can be remedied.  There is nothing intrinsically socialist or even working class about reformism. These reforms alter nothing in the fundamental system of the existing state of things. The Socialist Party has opposed such reformists. We say to them that they deal with effects and ignore the cause. We can point to history and demonstrate that the reformist programme has failed repeatedly. The reformist message preached has brought disillusionment, apathy and despair.

The present crisis will not end until the capitalist’s expectations of higher profit margins is met. This requires the rate of exploitation to be increased and the main way would be by continuing to lay off workers (or make them part-time, or impose zero-hour contracts) and cut wages. If wages are lowered then obviously what is often described as the social wage, made up of welfare benefits  (paid indirectly by capitalists to particular workers via taxes.) The capitalist class can also do so better when they can shift costs onto others. If companies can cut costs by not protecting the environment, they will.

 The Socialist Party case can explained very clearly - to people whose clothing is in rags we don’t offer to stitch them together: we offer them new ones.

Food for thought

Just a few years after the Ontario Liberal government promised to reduce poverty, and failed miserably, blaming the current recession (of course), the City of Toronto is looking at identifying new neighbourhoods to add to the priority list of needy areas that need cash to provide some services and relief. Spokesman, Chris Billinger, said, " If we've achieved nothing in eight years...then there's a different set of questions to be asked." How right you are, Chris, ask away.
In 1983, 30,000 people, mainly women, filed a pay equity complaint against Canada Post. Thirty years later, they are still waiting, although a settlement worth about $250 million has been handed down. Many, of course have died or moved away. This gives new meaning to 'the cheque's in the mail!' John Ayers.

The nationalist follows the capitalist flag

The Socialist Party fights nationalism by rejecting it and exposing it's racism and xenophobia. Nationalism is a fraud whereby would-be rulers “self-determine" to impose their vision of nationhood on an entire community. Nationalism is an ideology of separation, of hatred for the “other” and the “outsider” It has been a creed of violence and war and oppression. And it has absolutely nothing to offer the world’s oppressed. What is necessary is to develop human solidarity, the instincts of mutual aid that enable us to survive and which have fueled all human progress.  Patriotism, in its essence, is a readiness to die and to kill for an abstraction, for what is largely a figment of the imagination. Nations are in no sense natural communities; they stand in stark opposition to  the principles of mutual aid and solidarity upon which our very survival depends. This community of interests and of relationship or neighbourly feeling, does not necessarily or exclusively apply to nationality. As a matter of fact, in ancient times it was the city-state rather than the nation-state which was its boundary.

Patriotism, as generally understood, is an objectionable sentiment since it means the placing of one’s own country, its interests and well-being, above those of the rest of humanity. The man who “wants to see his country great and strong” invariably wants to see it so, if need be, at the expense of the welfare and interests of other countries. The principle of nationalism as a positive political platform involves always (in practice if not in theory) the doctrine of “my country right or wrong.”

Nationalism groups men and women according to their land of origin, as decided by the chance events of history; within every country, thanks to the patriotic propaganda, rich and poor unite against the foreigner. Socialism groups men and women, poor against rich, class against class, without taking into account the differences of race and language, and over and above the frontiers traced by history.

 No socialist party can serve the “Nation” so long as the nation is divided into two warring classes—one which owns the wealth and one which produces the wealth and does not own it. No socialist party can serve the robbers and the robbed at the same time. To speak of the “Nation” when it is thus divided is camouflage to hide their support of the robbers because the great majority of the nation belongs to the class which is robbed.

Socialists are intent upon building something better than a nation. Socialism will be attained, by a working class movement fighting a class struggle for the ending of the capitalist system, which cannot be done by an alliance with the very enemy we are fighting. That is the impossible task being before the Scottish working class by those urging independence. Why should workers let themselves be diverted from the class struggle by the national question? How can a supposed socialist  demand that worker  support the party of one capitalist against another in a competition between capitalists which ultimately every national struggle is? Why cannot those “oppressed” nationalities wait with their emancipation until the hour of freedom arrives for the proletariat too? The Socialist Party strives to make the workers of the “oppressed” nation recognize the workers in the ruling nation as their comrades-in-arms and subordinate their particular national goals to the interest of the common struggle for socialism.

The nationalist Left argue that socialism is not yet possible and so present a programme of  reforms where business enterprises controlled by the working class is to be preferred to everything else. Where would the State get the funds necessary under this programme? The funds must in some way come from production; either from the profit on State industries, or from taxes paid by small enterprise. Of course, capitalists would not be content to pay to increase workers’ living standards; they would try to lower them, in order to restore the pressure of unemployment on the wages to keep that at a minimum. Here arises the natural and fundamental enmity of the classes, the chief opposition of their interests, the impossibility of peacefully combining their efforts. As long as capitalism exists, it must try to hold itself against competition by lowering the cost of production, or else be ruined. It cannot be content to secure a fixed living to the workers.

Thus the so-called Common Weal  programme from the Jimmy Reid Foundation is not the programme of socialists desirous to show to the workers the way to freedom; it is the programme of politicians desirous to win the great mass of adherents from various poor classes, by a programme of reforms that means coalition of workers, small farmers and petty bourgeois. And we have witnessed such coalitions before which uses the force of the working class  to promote the formation of a numerous class of small land owners and businessmen, extremely hostile to any socialism, thus it throws obstacles in the way to socialism. It fills the minds of the workers with illusions, diverting them from the only way to freedom; the way of class struggle, clear class-consciousness and confidence in their own power.

It is our duty as socialists to warn our fellow-workers in Scotland of the futility of the nationalist independence policy as far as they are concerned. There can be no relief for the oppressed Scot in changing an English robber for an Scottish one. The person of the robber does not matter—it is the fact of the robbery that spells misery. National divisions are a hindrance to working-class unity and action, and national jealousies and differences are fostered by the capitalists for their own ends. Our purpose is to show both the "nationalist" and "unionist" worker, that the struggle "for" or "against" independence does not materially affect the lot as a worker; that the "freedom" much-talked of on both sides, is but the right of a minority class (the capitalists) to exploit the mass of the people.

Those "intellectuals" and “professionals" clamouring for jobs within a Scottish Parliament do not represent the interests of the working class in Scotland. They do not, indeed, profess to favour other than capitalist interests, provided that the landlord or capitalist be a Scot, but the Scottish employer is in no more wise, no more merciful than the English one. The national sentiment and perennial enthusiasm of the Scottish people are being exploited by the so-called leaders in the interests of Scottish capitalism, and the workers are being used to fight the battles of their oppressors. The Scottish capitalist rebels against the English capitalist only because the latter stands in the way of a more thorough exploitation of the Scottish  workers by Scottish capital. Let the thieves fight their own battles! For the worker in Scotland there is but one hope. It is to join the international socialist working class and to make common cause with the socialist workers of all countries for the end of all forms of exploitation; saying to both English and Scottish capitalists: "A plague on both your houses". For the true battle-cry of the working class in broader, more significant and more inspiring than mere nationalism, and that rally cry is: THE WORLD FOR THE WORKERS!

Food for thought

Economics 101 -- how to solve your recession woes, Russian style. Apparently, in Russia, a business owner has a better chance of ending up in a penal colony (i.e. gulag) than a common burglar does. More than 110,000 out of a population of small business owners of three million are incarcerated. But with hard times, President Putin has devised a plan -- release many of these individuals to kick-start the economy and create jobs.

Socialists always knew capitalists were crooks, now we have proof! (New York Times 10/08/13) John Ayers.

Even The Smiles Are Fakes

Not only do the capitalist class demand that workers produce surplus value for them they want them to smile while they do it. 'Smiling all the time can be hard work, which is why airline crew and shop workers are turning to the latest plastic surgery fad, the "perma-smile". South Korean surgeons are removing nerves and muscle at the corners of the mouth to mimic the ancient expression of welcome." (Sunday Times, 1 September) Guest speakers from South Korea will inform the American Association of Plastic Surgeons how it is done this month. One female who works in a jewellery shop in California has already had the $3,500 operation. A phoney smile for a phoney society. RD

The World Needs A Change

Never has the bankruptcy of our social system been more widely realised than with the current recession and the imposition of austerity cuts. It makes no sense except under capitalism to spend  billions buying bombs or bailing out banks, but can’t afford to end world hunger. We live in an absurd world. Can it get any worse? It will, if we don’t fight back and change things. Once upon a time we did have a vision of an alternative economic and social system to build a better world. But the workers movement never won the most important thing: power, the right of everyone to participate in running both our economic and political system. This power was left in the hands of tiny minorities who ultimately run the world in their self-interest.

Capitalist minorities have increased their wealth and also have more money to finance election campaigns, to lobby and manipulate political agendas to maintain their control of government spending. Roads, bridges, rail lines, sewage and water systems have been allowed to deteriorate. Public services such as schools, hospitals and housing has fallen behind needs. Imagine how many sewage treatment plants need expanding, how many  anti-flooding systems need building, how many bridges need fixing, how many schools need teachers and hospital nurses.

The largest transnational corporations have more revenues than most governments. They patent products, technologies, and processes. They buy up the most profitable sources of supply, control marketing networks, and spend millions on advertising  and PR. Whenever possible, they introduce technologies that increase productivity and reduce employment. They outsource work. The fewer people employed, the less paid for labour, the more profits for shareholders. Finance capitalism adds nothing to the real creation of wealth and  means of livelihood; winners merely gain at the expense of losers. Financial bubbles are followed by crashes. As capitalism hits rises the bosses hold on to what they can by demanding that workers be punished for the sins of management. Austerity leads to further declines in working-class income and markets.

What we must have to have a different better world is a whole world full of people with changed minds. Changing people’s minds is something each one of us can do, wherever we are, whoever we are, whatever kind of work we’re doing. Changing minds may not seem like a very dramatic or exciting challenge, but it’s the challenge that the human future depends on. The Socialist Party purpose is simple. We have to proceed with our educational propaganda until the working class have reached an understanding of the fundamental facts of their position.

The Reality Behind The NHS Myth

TV series about hospitals always present nursing as a worthwhile rewarding occupation, but the TV depiction is a complete distortion of the reality. Almost two-thirds of nurses have considered quitting their jobs in the last 12 months because they are so stressed, a survey has found. Swingeing cuts to the numbers of nurses in the NHS have left many feeling overburdened and unable to give the care they would want. 'A Royal College of Nursing (RCN) survey of 10,000 staff found that 62% had thought about leaving over the last year because they were under so much stress in their job. Sixty-one per cent felt unable to give patients the care they would want to because they were too busy, while 83% believed their workload had increased in the last 12 months.' (Guardian, 31 August) Official figures from the Health and Social Care Information Centre revealed that the NHS has lost more than 5,000 nurses in just three years.

Class against Class

The Socialist Party of Great Britain  is not a large organisation – yet. But its membership has its roots solidly in the groundwork of Marxist theory and practice; its case for socialism is clear, its membership persistent and determined. The members are therefore confident of the future of the Socialist Party and intend to carry on toward the goal of the socialist reorganisation of society. Instead of getting caught up in popular fads,  rushing around  with our eyes closed just to build up the party, we continue our work in trying to bring about the union of socialism and the working class movement.  We must fight against the influence of those who would have us close our eyes to the weaknesses in our movement. We expose shallow thinking which is based more on wishful  desires than scientific analysis. For we must not allow our hearts to run away with our heads.

At present a fierce class war is raging throughout the world.  The two basic classes in our society, the working class and the employing class, are locked in a bitter struggle. The bourgeoisie represents the old system of exploitation and oppression. The working class represents the fundamental progressive force, the most consistent social force in the struggle to eliminate capitalism. All capitalist governments are openly fighting the battles of the exploiters to impose austerity. Capitalists are using the present economic crisis to increase their power of exploitation and oppression. The idea that everyone can get rich under this system has been exposed as a lie invented by the rich themselves. Under capitalism, the only way to get rich is to trample on someone else. This is why workers have only one choice: either submit to this wage slavery or fight it! For the workers, the future is bleak. The exploitation and oppression gets worse every year. The bosses get rich, not because they have “taken risks” or “worked harder,” as they would have us believe. The more they keep wages down and reduce the number of employees with speed-ups in productivity, the more they can steal from us and the greater their profits. And if the boss thinks he can make more profit somewhere else, he just closes his factory and throws the workers out on the street.

In response, political formations in the UK appear to be undergoing realignment with the prospect of new Left party arriving on the scene. Workers do not like division. There is nothing that dispirits them more than to see their own battlefront divided.

The Socialist Party is in fundamental opposition to all pro-capitalist parties. It has as its aims the overthrow of capitalism, the establishment of a socialist society in which the means of production will not be the private property of the few, a society which will not be based upon profit, will not be based on class division, will eradicate both war and class war, as well as  abolish poverty for ever. The Socialist Party participates in elections, in parliamentary action, in all forms of political activity as the means to the preparation of the working class for the act of imposing its will.

The idea of socialism is powerless without a social force powerful enough to see to its implementation. There is but one such force in modern society – the working class and they cannot escape its exploitation by capitalism without socialism. Without socialism the working class is reduced to a constant struggle against the effects of capitalism because without socialism the system of  capitalism remains intact. Socialism is powerless without the working class and the working class cannot advance without socialism.

When the working class has political power it can build socialism.  Real democracy means the mass of the population being at once voters and administrators. The power of the working class is not the power of its spokespersons in Parliament, but the strength of its own organisation.  If the working class is to be successful in its struggles with capitalism, it must be united and organised. Only by all the workers acting together as one can challenge the power of capitalism. By organising themselves they can develop a co-ordinated attack on the capitalist enemy.

The Socialist Party must publish newspapers and journals, it must publish leaflets and pamphlets and books and it must produce videos. It must intensify its activities hundredfold in order that it may inspire workers with socialist understanding and purpose. We must overcome their doubt and hesitation and pessimism, and answer their questions.

September Standard

Socialist Standard September 2013
(These links will take you into the S.P.G.B. site.)

• Editorial: One State, Two States or No States?
• Pathfinders: Birthday Wishes
• Propaganda Power… in Your Pocket
• Halo Halo!
• Cooking the Books: An Easy Match for Mammon
• Material World: Mexico – The Disappeared
• Greasy Pole: All That Stuff – And Nonsense
• Egypt: Workers’ Struggles, Trade Unions and the ‘Left’
• The Civil War in Syria
• Capitalism or Socialism?
• Water, Waste and War
• Book Review: 'Karl Marx - A Nineteenth-Century Life'
• Cooking the Books: A Reply to the New Economics Foundation
• Mixed Media: 'The Hospital at the Time of the Revolution' & 'Ice Age Art'
• Book Reviews: 'The Value of Radical Theory - An Anarchist Introduction to Marx’s Critique of Political Economy' & 'Disassembly Required - A Field Guide to Actually Existing Capitalism'
• Book Reviews: 'How I Killed Margaret Thatcher', 'The Human Front', & ''The Alternative to Capitalism'
• Proper Gander: Smoking Woodbines In The Outside Lav
• Film Review: Searching for Sugar Man
• 50 Years Ago: Mail Train Robbery
• Action Replay: Street Football
• Voice From the Back
• Cartoon: Free Lunch