Thoughts on socialism

Once the capitalist class have been able to concentrate wealth into their hands they have, throughout history, emasculated government, turned the press into lap dogs and courtiers, corrupted the courts and hollowed out public institutions, including universities, to justify their looting and greed. Today capitalists have created grotesque financial mechanisms that do not make money directly from the means of production.  The banking business are parasites. They feed off the carcass of industrial capitalism. They produce nothing. They make nothing. They just manipulate money.

It is labour alone which supplies all human wants. It has produced in the past all the capital it now employs, and it is producing all the capital which will be employed in the future.  Dividends do not create themselves – they are all filched from labour. Thus all workers are bled.

And what about the capitalist? What is his place in our social system? That the present social system has failed must be apparent to all who have studied it. It has rendered the many subservient to the few and facilitated every method of exploitation. It disinherits the great mass and foreordains their lifelong misery before they are even born. It creates jealousies, hatreds, and mutual injustice. All  political institutions are destructive and those in power are self-seeking, dishonest, and tyrannical, and ever ready to dominate and oppress those over whom they exert authority. Our social system is continually driving people to poverty. The world’s wealth is concentrating in fewer hands; millionaires and paupers are both on the increase and the bIg capitalists are swallowing up the little ones. The governments of the world are at the beck and call of its plutocrats while life is getting intolerable precarious to the many. Men and women are wretched with discontent everywhere.  Laws are made to protect property and proprietors alone. There is no law for the poor. Plutocracy rules the world.

The fact that the Left over the decades has suffered a serious set-backs; in numbers, spirit, organisation, and ideology, is no secret. Some of the causes for the Left’s decline were outside its own control. The truth of the matter is that the long-sustained boom and its long prosperity had undermined  the confidence in Marxist economic analysis. The end of World War Two was firmly expected to produce a return to the depression of the thirties as post World War One had done - it didn’t happen. But the 2007/8 Great Recession changed that perspective. Now ‘radical’ economists working as research directors for labour unions secretly believe that they are surreptitiously bringing back Marxism when they present superficial analyses  about ‘the worker not being able to buy back what produces’, misrepresenting this redistributionist under-consumptionist theory as Marxist economics. The over-simplified theory of the reformists is that in a boom, profits rise faster than wages, thus producing a shortage of purchasing power. This takes effect for cause, and fails to dig deeply enough for the underlying reasons. The theory falls down when one considers that the remedy it proposes—rising wages—is a feature of every boom period has never yet succeeded in preventing the collapse.

Frederick Engels dubiously attributed the slowness of socialist development in English workers to the ‘share’ in the benefits of ‘England’s industrial monopoly’ which fell to the working class.‘With the breakdown of that monopoly, the English working class will lose that privileged position; it will find itself generally—the privileged and leading minority not excepted—on a level with its and these soon install themselves as the new elite. Such is the eternal design of the universe fellow workers abroad. that is the reason why there will be socialism again in England.’ The same proposition holds here. Socialism will come again  only when economic conditions prepare the way.

In ‘Poverty of Philosophy,’ Marx states: ‘The domination of capital has created for this mass a common situation, common interests. This mass is thus already a class as against capital but not yet for itself. In this struggle of which we have noted only a few phases, this mass becomes united and constitutes itself as a class for itself. The interests it defends become class interests.’

Whether one agrees or not, Marx’s thought seems perfectly clear. The working class is formed and exists through the organization of the social process. It is an objective fact regardless of anyone’s understanding, or how various individuals picture to themselves their class position. But for a class to understand its own interests and engage in political battles in its own interests, it needs class consciousness. This consciousness is attained however in the course of its inevitable experiences and conflicts with the employing class.

The unique feature of the Marxist analysis is that it describes a basic problems in the capitalist economy which cannot be solved short of doing away with capitalism. Every boom hits its stride because of a growing strength in purchasing power, but this in turn produces a frenzy of competition and expansion in industry which is bound to far outrace the population’s consuming power. The mechanics which force capitalism to this end are not primarily psychological, although that element plays a role in the later stages of an upswing, but are directly economic in character. In the law of the jungle of capitalist competition, each capitalist is forced to fight for his profit position and competitive standing; the race of technology and productivity grows exceedingly swift; every possible particle of capital and credit is drawn into the maelstrom in which money miraculously breeds money; and every encouragement in the way of a boost in purchasing power drives the boom to more dangerous speculative heights and over-expansion of industry. To eliminate depression by a rise in wages adds a trifle of consuming power and keeps the bubble going a while, but only inflates it bigger in the long run.

Poets have written of the existence of a golden age in the dim past. This was just poetic license and an effort to escape from an unsatisfactory present. There never was such an age in antiquity. Man’s ascent from the jungle has been painful and slow, and his history since the dawn of civilization is written in agony, in and in violence. But a golden age has now become a possibility. The means are at hand to abolish poverty and to eliminate want, to escape from drudgery, to alleviate the struggle between man and man for the good of life by providing abundance for all.

We socialists are up against the fact of life that another new generation has to be convinced afresh that socialism does in fact represent a superior system for the people, that the idea of the  withering away of the state is not a pipe-dream, but a realistic if rough sketch of the future state of human society. The most basic criticism of the Socialist Party is that we have succumbed to utopianism by imagining that socialism will bring an end to the class struggle and usher in a new classless and stateless society of free brotherhood.  Socialism will be created only when people believe these things again, and only by reasoned argument can we hope to convince them.

The labour movement arose not to mirror the corruptions and exploitations of our acquisitive society, but to eradicate them. To the extent that trade unionism succumbs to the practices of the business world, it loses its raison d’etre.  It does not evoke an image as the protector of the underdog, the champion of progress, the advocate of the brotherhood of man. It is, in the mind of the general public, another special vested interest lobby group. But socialists to be realistic, cannot demand very much more from trade unions than they are doing, that unions by its nature cannot go beyond the specific job of rendering a business service. We hold that they represent the wishes of the union membership. Left to their own devices, the union officials will perpetuate themselves in office and continue to follow the lines of least resistance. A basic redirection of union policies can only be visualised  as a consequence of an insurgent mood sweeping the working class as a whole, and finding reflection in union ranks. It is hard to see the unions as initiators of such a change. They will, rather, be beneficiaries of it. But there is no reason to suppose that the pendulum will not swing again in the opposite direction from the present depending on economic and social  circumstances. And any new upheaval inside the unions will necessarily assume different forms from previous upsurges to meet new conditions and situations.  The union becomes vibrant only when workers are in motion and  are interested in alternative lines to official policy,  seeking to participate in decision-making. It is a historical fact that democratic participation and spirited controversy occur most commonly when the membership is in a militant state. Discontent can spread through a number of unions, and reflect broader social issues rather than particular local grievances.

Many critics of the socialist idea rest their case on the argument that all previously studied societies have been dominated by a ruling elite, and since it has always been that way, it will always be that way. And of course as their coup de grace those critics eagerly point to the Soviet Union  to prove that socialism represented simply the rule of a new elite based on the control of the state assets which was more  tyrannical and ruthless than any capitalist free-enterprise system. The supposed rule of the majority, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat’, for the first time in history, has been proven a utopia; that given the opportunity, the working class demonstrated its incapacity to rule, and spawned out of its midst a new exploitative bureaucratic elite. Socialism has unfortunately been presented as a system not of abundance but of scarcity, as a system not of increased leisure and comfort, but of unusual sacrifice and back-breaking toil.  Decades of Russian ‘socialism’ has  appeared as a system which offered not political democracy and a wider freedom, but conspicuously less freedom than exists in the most advanced capitalist countries. Workers knew they ate and lived better than the Russians, and that was good enough to hold them as camp followers of the capitalists. Socialism renounced its old ambition of world revolution and has shrunk into a number of separate ‘national liberation’ movements

Many so-called thinkers believe in a veritable law of the social development, namely, that in all society there is, and must always be, a ruling minority that grabs all sorts of special privileges for itself, and a ruled majority, whose destiny is to be directed and controlled by the minority and to toil on its behalf. This remains true whether the society is feudal, capitalist, slave, or socialist, or whether its form be monarchical, oligarchical, or democratic, and this will always remain the situation because the majority cannot rule itself.  So, while revolutions are sometimes necessary in order to pep up an old worn-out elite, or replace it entirely with an new fresh elite, it does not and cannot change the basic law of minority rule. Even where majority enter into the revolutionary fray, nothing is changed, because masses can only succeed when the have leaders, because that’s the way human nature works. Such a world-view is expressed by Robert Michels in his “iron law of oligarchy” supporting such the proposition that society cannot exist without a dominant ruling group and that “The social revolution would not effect any real modification of the internal structure of the mass. The socialists might conquer, but not socialism, which would perish in the moment of its adherents’ triumph.” It is a view of history according to which, humanity continues to wage its fruitless struggles over and over again, with society ever revolving around the same series cycle of stages, almost without any sense or reason. The career politician, with his or her inevitable pre-occupation with maneuvers and expediencies, dominates the political field.

This constitutes just one more capitalist attack on socialism which is largely a variation of the "you can’t change human nature” argument.

Which Way Forward For The Unions?

In every country capitalism has produced a highly developed trade union movement. Workers have struggled to build trade unions and long before there was a political party of the workers there were trade unions. Their history is a record of  workers who fought the laws which prohibited the existence of the unions, who dared imprisonment, deportation, victimisation and persecution in order that their unions could become strong and powerful. One generation succeeded another in continuous effort, in great strikes, massive demonstrations, political struggles, until to-day millions of workers are organised in trade unions.

Have you ever stopped to ask why and for what these organisations have been built? Trade unions were not formed to fight for socialism. They defend the wages and conditions of the workers, their wages, their hours of labour and so on. This is clearly revealed by the way in which the trade unions have grown.

 Labour  is a commodity and those who sell their labour power, the members of the working class, manual and brain-worker alike, also compete like other commodities. Unions represent in one sense an attempt to organise monopolies of labour power in order to break down the competition between the workers who in the labour market are commodities for sale and to establish monopoly prices for labour.

 The more trade unionism advances in this direction the more difficult it becomes for the capitalists to make profit. Hence the everlasting cry of the capitalists for “lower production costs” and its opposite the workers’ struggle for higher wages and improved conditions. Unions are the movement of wage-workers. All its problems are based upon the fact that the members of the unions are wage-workers who, to live, must sell their labour power to the owners of the means of production.

 They are parts of a competitive system, the motive of which is that of production for profit. The labour it uses is a commodity subject to all the laws of commodity production. The fundamental purpose of the trade unions, therefore, must be the pursuit of the interests of the wage-workers.  The unions regulate wages, hours of labour, etc., by means of collective agreements with the employers. In some industries, where the workers are well organized, the unions have agreements covering the employment of labour, the regulation of overtime, protective safety regulations, etc.

Unions have many agreements governing allocations of work schedules, decasualization schemes for workers, etc. Probably the largest field of influence is that of the unwritten rules and customs. These extend in many directions, such as the distribution of work, overtime regulations, starting and stopping times for meals, the introduction of new machinery, the transfer of labour, limitations and training of apprentices, etc.

During the last few years the trade union movement has experienced changes of the most deep-going nature which have affected vitally its whole structure and altered its outlook in many important respects.

The trade union movement is conditioned in its development by the economic and political framework within which it exists. The problems of the trade union movement can never be separated or isolated from the general political situation. Its internal dynamics do not operate independently of these conditions. The  working class as a whole is not yet politically conscious. It does not yet act as an independent class. It goes without saying that reformist illusions among the masses have been developed.

 Nevertheless, workers have demonstrated a remarkable tenacity in clinging to their unions. Whatever may happen to this or that union or any number of unions, the workers do not wish to abandon the union movement but to broaden it, increase its militancy, etc. So long as capitalism endures, organisation of some kind on the job to deal with the boss is indispensable.

Generally speaking, we cannot conceive of an advance of the working class to a point where it can enter upon a struggle for power, without an advance in the economic organisations in the direction of industrial unionism. The unions have become repositories of an immense amount of information about the operations of industry – technical, engineering, administrative, etc.

 This also makes them exceedingly important agencies in the process by which the control of the workers over industrial operations is made actual. Workers possess an  organisation, through which they have been accustomed to carry on their struggles, would make use of this  ready-made machinery for communication. Is it not likely that the unions as a whole will become the workers’ councils, the instruments of workers’ power?

 Theoretically this possibility cannot be excluded.  It is also save to say that they may not be ready or entirely fitted to conduct the process of administration of production. The union organisation is after all primarily sectional, representing the interests of its own members and may not be  equipped to deal with the larger  issues.

The labour movement currently lacks social vision. It has not yet raised the inspiring banner of working class emancipation. It is still timidly and blindly trying to patch up wage slavery and make it endurable. It has still to learn that the only solution of the labour struggle is by the abolition of capitalism. It is time for all workers to look upon capitalism as an obsolete social system which must be eliminated and look forward to the establishment of a new society in which parasitical capitalists will be no more.

It's a big club, and you ain't in it

By the third quarter of 2013, the share of corporate-sector income accruing to profits and other forms of capital income had reached 25.8 percent, the highest share ever recorded. To put this number into perspective, if the share of corporate-sector income accruing to capital owners in the third quarter of 2013 were 20.4 percent (the 1969–2007 average), every worker in the U.S. economy would have earned $3,200 more in wages.

Comedian George Carlin -- It's a big club, and you ain't in it:

"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying ­ lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else."

"But I'll tell you what they don't want.  They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

"You know what they want? Obedient workers ­ people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club."

endangered lists

 "Taxi dispatching is a vanishing job" said Workopolis that based its findings on evolving technology. Jim Bell, the president of Diamond Taxi, 'credits' the automated system with, "…more efficiency. We are able to match up a customer and a driver much quicker. Also on Workopolis's endangered list are grocery cashiers, postal workers, word processors/typists, and social media experts. Evolving technology that in s socialist society would mean greater leisure time for all, is, under capitalism, a means of throwing people out of work to reduce labour costs and greater profits. John Ayers.

Green Capitalism

A monetary valuation of nature is something new. Pricing nature is viewed as a potentially powerful way of of communicating with broader groups, and also of integrating the value of ecosystems in socioeconomic analyses that form the basis of decision-making. But seeing nature as a living, beautiful web that we are connected to and pricing it for the services that it delivers to us, are incompatible. These two positions reflect values that are very difficult, or impossible, to hold simultaneously. Life is being converted to money.  It implies that humanity is a consumer of nature, instead of a connected part of the living web. And that creates further distance between us and nature. Especially when money is involved, this approach undermines social and environmental motivations. When we are told to care about nature because it is profitable it also diminishes us. We know that we are an integral part of the world, not nature’s customers.

 Capitalism cannot measure or value non-monetised, more human and relational sources of wealth. Were it to attempt to systematically do so by internalising all costs such as the costs of pollution to the environment capitalism wouldn't come close to being profitable and, hence, would be a non-viable system.

 The idea of competition lies at the heart of all capitalist  thinking. The argument says that human beings excel when they are competing with one another for dominance. The free market is the best economic system in the world, we’re told, because private enterprises compete with one another for market share. This is the thinking behind the movement to privatize government services. People who are motivated to act out of self-interest will do whatever it takes to enrich themselves, even if that means damaging the entire society.

In the realm of food production and population, it doesn't matter how many times Malthusian arguments of overpopulation are factually refuted. Those arguments buttress the dominant classes' explanations for hunger and environmental degradation, and refute alternative, less palatable, explanations and, thus, continue to resurface as "truth."

The environmental destruction is the direct result of the crazy, profit-motivated system we live in. And so long as that system is allowed to continue, pollution, global warming and climate change  will continue and increase. The problem is not technology itself but capitalism and capitalist technology.  Many blame droughts for the famines of Sahel and the Horn of Africa  but is capitalist relations of production, distribution and exchange which bring about starvation. Contraceptives, irrigation schemes and alternative technologies do not change the structure and effects of capitalism.  Socialists have always argued the case for alternative production in one sense -  the idea that in a socialist society production will be for need and not for profit. Socialists will go to war against the enemies of Mother Nature in defense of the environment against defilement by profiteering special interests and the the waste of the natural resources by these same forces. The purity of air, water, soil, are vital to humanity. More than 8 million acres of China's farmland is too polluted with heavy metals and other chemicals to use for growing food. It would be about 2 percent of China's 337 million acres of arable land. Some scientists have given higher estimates of as much as 60 million acres, or one-fifth of the total, though it is unclear how much of that would be too badly contaminated for farming. The growth of Chinese industry, overuse of farm chemicals and lax environmental enforcement have left swathes of the countryside tainted by lead, cadmium, pesticides and other toxins.  Authorities launched an investigation of rice mills in southern China after tests found almost half of supplies sold in Guangzhou, a major city, were contaminated with cadmium.

Socialists fight destruction of the forests and resist over-concentration of population in vast industrial centers.  We expose the system that pollute streams, lakes and seas. We must bring to bear every social, political and educational pressure against such farm-husbandry abuses and unscientific crop practices. Socialists raise the whole question of energy at the base of modern industry. When people have mastery of society, we will turn to the great non-depletables, the sun, the tides and the winds. The inexhaustibility, from the view-point of mankind, of three the power resources of sun, water, and wind is indisputable. The problem of the conversion of power from these various re-newable, sustainable energy sources has never been given any serious inquiry in capitalism.

The Cancer Industry

The international tobacco industry makes about £30 billion in profits each year – a profit of approximately £6,000 per death from smoking.

Tripling tobacco taxes around the world could cut smoking by a third and prevent 200 million premature deaths by the end of this century, researchers claim. In the European Union, a doubling of cigarette prices would prevent 100,000 deaths a year in the under-70s. 

The new tax would encourage people to quit smoking rather than switch from more expensive to cheaper brands, and help to stop young people taking up the habit, say the scientists. They came to the conclusion after conducting a systematic review of 63 studies on the causes and consequences of tobacco use in different countries. In high-income countries, 50 to 60 per cent of the price of a pack of cigarettes is tax. But in low- and middle-income countries, tax makes up only 30 to 40 per cent of the cost. Tripling tobacco taxes would also increase global government revenues from tobacco by a third, from £180bn a year to £240bn, said the researchers.

“Globally, about half of all young men and one in ten of all young women become smokers, and, particularly in developing countries, relatively few quit. If they keep smoking, about half will be killed by it, but if they stop before 40, they’ll reduce their risk by 90 per cent.”

Mind That Gap

At a time when many workers are concerned about losing their homes nothing illustrates the gap between them and the owning class than the housing market. 'The Bishops Avenue in Hampstead, or"Billionaire's Row" as it is commonly known, has been named by Lloyd's Bank as the second most expensive street in England and Wales - the average house price of £6.2 million still, incredibly, putting it below Egerton Crescent in Kensington and Chelsea, where houses sell for an average of £7.4 million.' (Times, 31 December) Not much concern here about the "bedroom tax" or difficulties in meeting the mortgage payments. RD

Folded Arms

The old “folded arms” theory of  syndicalism is the belief workers could topple capitalism without violence and merely by folding their arms and stopping work. This theory sprung forth in the period just after the Paris Commune when the workers were still  recuperating from the slaughter. It was also a response to the growing accommodation that the workers parties developed with the status quo. Syndicalism represented an extreme reaction against reformist, parliamentary socialism which can be viewed as the father of syndicalism.The restiveness of the working class is constantly working out new forms of struggle under changing circumstances that invariably lead towards the question of some sort of workers control over production.

 Those who call for a politicalised socialist trade union should understand that a union needs to recruit all workers to be able to put up resistance to the bosses. Can it possibly wait for all the workers to become socialists before inviting them to organise themselves or before admitting them into the organisation.   Any fusion  between the socialist  and union movement ends either by rendering the union helpless and  powerless to obtain improvements or result in the socialist party committing its socialist principles to empty paper promises of reform.  Socialists must work  for socialist ends and not engage in the horse-trading of the labour market although, naturally, socialists within the unions will strive to ensure that they remain open to all workers of whatever opinion or party on the sole condition that there is solidarity in the struggle against the employers. They will argue against the unions becoming the tools of the politicians. Socialists are minded that the workers’ organisation is not the end but just one of the means, however important, of preparing the way for the achievement of socialism. It is the system and not our remuneration or  the “boss” which must be changed.  Socialism is not achieved  through public (state) ownership or workshop committees or trade union representation on this or that management board, but through a fundamental change in class relations. It is necessary to have a clear understanding as to what differentiates syndicalist theory from the orthodox socialist doctrine.

The essence of syndicalism is social revolution by means of the trade unions while the essence of socialism is the revolution by voting.  The syndicalists recognises but one “field” of working class activity — the economic; only one kind of social question — the economic. To solve these economic questions it uses, in all cases, direct action tactics alone. It forces the state to pass laws in the same manner as it forces a private employer to raise wages, or to better working conditions — by strikes and other forms of industrial action. And not only does syndicalism feel perfectly sure of its ability to force the state and private employers to grant concessions by its direct action tactics, but it also intends to overthrow the whole capitalist edifice by the supreme, ultimate application of direct action, i.e., the general strike. It makes absolutely no provision for the conquest of the political power by the political party via the ballot box. Syndicalism bases the whole workers movement upon economic action, not political actions. It sees in the immediate struggle of the unions a preparation for the revolutionary strike that will overthrow capitalism; and it organises the working class in a way that provides the means of assuming control of society by building in its organisation the structure that will function as the administration of the new society on the day of the revolution. Even the Left SPD Marxist Karl Kautsky, in an article in the International Socialist Review, April 1901, said:
“The trade unions...will constitute the most energetic factors in surmounting the present mode of production and they will be pillars on which the edifice of the socialist commonwealth will be erected.”

Some in the history of the socialist movement such as the De Leonists have sought a hybrid theory of syndicalism insisting it needs a guardian and helper — a political “shield.” and tries to force the guardianship on the unwilling syndicalists  but in doing so creates a situation where two movements cannot exist in harmony as they are intent upon trying to absorb each other.  The two movements become competitors for the undivided support of the working class.

Thomas Tait - of the SLP

OPEN-AIR MEETING AT THE MEADOWS

The Socialist Courier blog has in the past posted about Scottish political activists who may never have been members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain but who the blog consider have contributed to Scottish socialist history.

Remembering our working class history.

Thomas Tait was born in Leith on 11 January 1889 and served in the Army during the Boer War where he became a socialist  through reading the pamphlet, What means this strike? by American socialist, Daniel de Leon. He joined the Edinburgh Branch of the Socialist Labour Party around 1905. The Party later split in 1912 and Tait continued in membership of the British Section of the International Socialist Labour Party, of which he was Secretary in the 1930s. There were 22 members of Edinburgh Branch in Dec 1932. In 1936 the Party was meeting at 55 Elder Street in Edinburgh. However, by 1939 they had moved to 1 South West Thistle Street Lane.The BSISLP in turn became the Revolutionary Socialist Party in 1936. Tait was a powerful orator. He was unsuccessful in contesting the municipal elections as a socialist, standing 17 times. He died on 12 May 1941.

"It was as a speaker that comrade Tait excelled. And it was as a speaker that he was known to thousands of workers. At the Mound and the Foot of the Walk he propagated revolutionary socialism for thirty years, amusing and educating his hearers in his own inimitable way. His ability to mix socialist propaganda and humour, indignation against capitalist exploitation and a shrewd common sense made him a powerful influence for socialism. His kindliness, his simple directness, above all, his honesty, compelled the recognition of even his opponents."
From Thomas Tait's obituary, the RSP's Workers Weekly, No. 61, 16th May 1941

The SLP on the march

Election Manifesto

Happy New Year?

Much Ado About Nothing

The new year will bring no doubt a heightening of the independence referendum debate, with the politicians and press and TV pundits declaring themselves for or against.

Will “independence” make the Scottish workers better off and happier?  Is it “London rule” that is responsible for the problems faced by workers in Scotland, or is it capitalism?  It can be seen in retrospect that independence for the vast majority of the people has simply meant the exchange of one set of exploiters for another. The realisation of "political independence" by a country leaves the workers' conditions untouched (or actually worsens them in some cases). As socialists, we don't take sides in this inter-capitalist argument. We don't support one section of the capitalist class or the other, and we don't have any illusions about the "sovereign power" of Parliaments to pass reformist legislation that can make capitalism work in the interest of the exploited class of wage and salary earners. Capitalism just cannot be reformed to work in this way; so transferring  the powers of the House of Commons to a Scottish Parliament sitting in Edinburgh makes little difference.

We are all one species. Our world is the only one we've got and we must share it with everybody. Socialists do not stand for world government because we are opposed to governments everywhere. A socialist One World represents an entirely different vision of the future to the "United Nations" or "Internationalism" which, as their names imply, are attempts to improvise a patchwork from the fragments which capitalism makes of the world. We are for the planned production and distribution of wealth on a world scale to meet human needs. To move forward the dispossessed of the world must now look beyond the artificial barriers of nation-states and regional blocs, to perceive a common identity and purpose. We seek a global community with no private property beyond immediate possessions, no need for money, no racism or sexism, no enslavement of children, no profit motive to drive the oppression of working people, no battles over personal interpretations of spirituality, and no disrespect for the 'other'.

The socialist aim is a world where we peacefully cohabit our home planet. There never has been, and never can be, socialism in just one country. No longer will there be governments and their state machinery, or national frontiers. Instead of government over people there would be various levels of democratic administration, from the local up to regional and world levels, with responsibility being delegated if necessary to groups or individuals. A united humanity, sharing a world of common interests, would also share world administration. It is sometimes said that world administration would mean power of central control over local democracy. We, however, envisage an integrated system that would be adaptable and could be used for decision-making and action on any scale between the local and the world. In socialism, for the first time, local communities will be free to make decisions about the development of their areas. These would be decisions about local services such as health, education and transport; public facilities such as parks, libraries, leisure centres and sports grounds; local housing, the siting of production units, management of farming, care of the local environment, cultural events, and so on. The principle of local democracy would be that decisions affecting just local populations would be made by them and not for them by any larger or outside body. Local communities, nevertheless, cannot be completely independent or self-reliant as far as meeting their material needs goes; they are interdependent. People in small communities aren't able to produce all they need, or anything like it. The final stage of the production of a range of goods for everyday use could be done locally -- food, clothes, shoes, furniture -- as well as repairs but most of the raw materials cannot be produced locally. It is a question of them being interlinked in a single network of production which in the end embraces the whole world.

There is in reality only one world. Capitalism brought into being the one world. It is high time we reclaimed it. We have no country but have a world to win. Socialists aren't dreaming up a “perfect” or an “ideal” world. What we struggle to establish is a better world. Why we should prefer Scottish rather than British police to be used against strikes and pickets? Why we should want the government that presides over the operation of capitalism in Britain to be situated in Edinburgh rather than London? We remain unconvinced that we should take sides in the referendum debate about the political structure for running capitalism today.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is part of the World Socialist Movement which didn't get its name for nothing. Unique amongst all political parties left and right we have no national axe to grind. We side with no particular state, no government. We have no time for border controls. The Left nationalists claim that if only Scotland was politically independent then this would lead to universal social justice. All over the world there are independent nations and yet we still have the very opposite of what the Left thinks political independence will bring. Many of these independent nations have had leftist governments, which all claimed they could solve capitalism’s problems but failed because the system’s problems are inseparable from it. The nationalists of the left-wing simply havn’t noticed that we live in a global economy over which they could have no control. Capitalism’s problems are global so their solution can only be global. This means world socialism and not any narrow, nationalist proposals.

Many on the Left advance nationalism and the nation-state as a bulwark against imperialism. This is a dangerous fallacy. The role of nationalism has always been a source of conflict on the Left. For those on the Scottish Left the Socialist Party's consistent anti-nationalist position seems to support imperialism. But, imperialism functions quite independently of socialist attitudes toward nationalism and, furthermore, socialists are not required for the launching of struggles for national autonomy as the various independence movements have shown. Also contrary to some Leftist expectations, nationalism could not be utilised to further socialist aims, nor was it a successful strategy to weaken and hasten the demise of capitalism. Does national aspirations  hasten the end of capitalism by weakening the capitalist class? Contrary to expectations, nationalism could not be utilised to further socialist aims, nor was it a successful strategy to hasten the demise of capitalism. Rather, nationalism destroyed socialism by using it for nationalist ends. It is not the function of socialism to support nationalism. Nationalism divides workers. We advocate class war and declare that the capitalist can never have interests in harmony with the worker. We hold up socialism as the only hope of the workers.

The population of  Scotland have nothing to gain from the return of nationalism. No “national” solution is worth considering. The stakes of today clearly are international, nobody can make it “on his own”, we are all interdependent.  Nationalist divisions hide class relationships. As long as the Scots let themselves be taken in by national adventure their situation will only worsen. Like anywhere else, the Scottish people must envisage their power as the base for new, democratic, cross-border and equal solutions.  We must seek a true solidarity-based federation, not just of the UK or within Europe but of all mankind.  This is the viable and desirable project. Working for this means fighting against nationalism and against the different ruling cliques which try get a bigger slice of the cake, and building through the struggle an international social movement.

 This system ensures that a minority owns and controls the means with which wealth is produced and distributed whilst the vast majority who actually does the production owns nothing. The resources and wealth of the world must be owned and controlled by all humanity. No-one will care who goes where or who belongs where. We will recognise ourselves, not as Scottish, British, French, or any of the other labels our rulers impose on us, but as members of the human race, citizens of the world, Earth-people. Then nationalism will have been well and truly buried.

“Let's not be English, French or German anymore. Let's be European. No not European, let's be men. Let's be Humanity. All we have to do is get rid of one last piece of egocentricity - patriotism.” -Victor Hugo

Socialist Standard No. 1313 January 2014

• Editorial: 2014 - Year of Xenophobia?
• Pathfinders: Please Don’t Feed the Drones
• Letters
• Where Mandela Failed
• Halo Halo!
• Tribal Politics in Africa
• Cooking the Books: ‘I’m Not Going First’
• Material World: Myth of Peaceful Buddhism
• Greasy Pole: Catching The Eye
• What About the Roma?
• What is History?
• Nationalism and Destruction in the Balkans
• Marx, Co-operatives and Capitalism
• Cooking the Books: Co-ops Again
• Book Reviews: 'The Revolution Will Be Hilarious', ' Can Income Redistribution Rescue Capitalism?' & ' Spindleopolis - Oldham in 1913'
• Proper Gander: Screening The Working Class
• 50 Years Ago: Death of a President
• Action Replay: Counted Out
• Voice From the Back
• Cartoon: Free Lunch

Revolution by the people for the people

War sometimes breeds revolution. Continued for any length of time, it seems to defeat revolution. The working class should not adopt the same methods as the capitalists. Socialists do not hide the fact that we are consistent enemies of capitalism unlike those “friends of labour” in the ruling class who mask their anti-worker agenda with fake promises.

The most important issue confronting the working class to-day is the question of the proper method, the proper tactics, to adopt in order to attain our aim, the overthrow of the capitalist system. Our aim is to take into our possession of the tools of production and the means of distribution from the capitalist class and operate them for the benefit of the whole of society. It is important that this question should be openly and widely ; that the uncertainty which now divides workers should be dispelled and we arrive at a position upon which all workers may unite. Without the organisation to realise our objective it will always remain an ideal. The question is how to attract support that will constitute that much needed organisation.

The capitalists maintain their power due to their economic strength to control the government and use it as an instrument of oppression against the rest of society. It is on the issue of the taking of political power by the workers that the widest division of opinion exists. Whether this taking power by the working class, or the Social Revolution as it is called, will be accomplished gradually or suddenly, legally or illegally, peacefully or violently is the most vital question facing those in the labour movement. It is the view of the Socialist Party of Great Britain that achieving socialism is based on the education of the working-class. The socialist revolution cannot contently  rest upon its laurels after it has abolished capitalism; it must create the new types of organisation and administration  under which production is to be carried on and the relations of property are to be regulated. But this new social system cannot be implemented by a minority. In the enormous task of social construction, the immense majority of citizens must co-operate and create the various forms of social property and firmly established the foundations of the socialist order that is to be maintained not by the authority of one class over another but by free will of the community members,  a system based on free collaboration.  How can such a system be instituted against the will of the greater number? Any opposition or reluctance would hinder and obstruct socialist production, causing frictions, that the whole system would end in disaster. Socialism can only succeed by the general and desire of the community.  If the majority of workers are hostile to the ideas of socialism, it will be crushed.

The basic premises of socialism is that we live in a class society, that the dynamic force of that society is the class struggle, that the capitalist class maintains its position by control of the government, and that labour can only free itself by wrestling political power from the capitalists for the purpose of building a classless society. No member of the Socialist Party will disagree with these fundamentals. We further agree that the owning class are the ruling class because it controls the government. The government protects the capitalist class by protecting the source of its economic strength private property. It is the will of the capitalist class that the rights of private property be protected. It uses its control of government to write down its will and call it law. It uses its control of government to enforce its will, the law. The law is the voice of the ruling class. The process of government by which the capitalist class rule is called, democracy,  literally means “rule of the people”. But as we live in a class society in which one class maintains its favourable and advantageous  economic position because it controls the rule by the people, since the capitalist class is a small minority. The capitalist class controls the government only as long as  the majority of people support the present system and therefore the majority of the voters permit them to. The ruling class maintains the education system and owns the media that it uses to control the views and opinions of men and women, that pollutes and poisons the minds of the people. Capitalism controls the channels of information to teach the masses to vote against their own. interests. Why is such power necessary? Because we, the working class, outnumber the ruling class at the ballot box. Among the valuable things that capitalism has introduced is the idea of peaceful methods for settling disputes. In doing so, capitalism provided a weapon against itself. Democracy offers the revolution a weapon that is indispensable. Political agitation enables the revolution to be preached in the open, and thereby enables the revolution to be brought before the millions.

 Even if the whole working class abstained from voting, there would be not one single seat vacant, the capitalist candidates would then be elected unanimously by the capitalists themselves.

The Socialist Party is revolutionary because its purpose is to change the foundation of this society from an exchange of commodities to the cooperative commonwealth. The Socialist Party demands the unconditional surrender of the capitalist class. The Socialist Party preaches and teaches revolution, and only recruits those who accept revolution as the solution. The Socialist Party once it triumphs would forthwith dissolve as the political state is abolished and the workers without let or hindrance assume the administration of the productive powers of the land. 

The Burnt-out NHS

Doctors in Scotland are suffering “stress and burnout” as growing NHS workloads take their toll, medical leaders today warned.  BMA Scotland chairman, Dr Keighley has warned that the fall in hospital bed numbers over a number of years has led to rising waiting lists and more pressure on Accident and Emergency.

Health boards and the Scottish Government are struggling to deal with the pressures of an ageing population, Westminster-led funding cuts and rising expectations from patients which include a shift towards a seven day working week in hospitals. New contracts are now being proposed for doctors, along with “radical” changes to training and greater weekend working. Dr Keighley insisted doctors are ready to look at new ways of working.

The crucial contact between doctors and patients has particularly suffered, according to Dr Keighley.

The “inexorable rise of managerialism” in the NHS has been a “major cause of dysfunction”, he added, and there is a need to return to clinical priorities. “I disagree with suggestions that managerial and process change holds the solution to sustaining high quality care and believe instead that it is only by working with doctors and other healthcare professionals that a solution will be found.

The Solution is Socialism

The number of people turning to food banks for emergency aid is expected to hit at least 55,000 by the end of the financial year, the Trussell Trust charity said. Any economic growth is being undermined by rising living costs, welfare cuts and a lack of jobs, the charity says.

Scotland now has 43 food banks which helped around 39,000 people with emergency supplies between April 1 and December 23.

Mr Gurr, the charity’s Scotland development officer, said: “It is not scaremongering, it is reality and the coalition Government can ignore that as much as they want. They can focus on the 0.8% growth in the economy and decreasing unemployment throughout the country. That’s good. That is something we celebrate, but there is more work to be done. The rising cost of living means that those in work are harder-pressed than they ever were. We are seeing an increasing number of people who are in work, who had sustainable incomes five years ago but, because of the rising cost of living, are not able to make that income stretch as far as it used to. People in that position are unable to put food on the table, or have to use a food bank. Work doesn’t always pay a sustainable amount for a family of two or three or more.”

He added “For us as an organisation, the result of the independence referendum or the next general election is irrelevant...The time has now come for creative solutions.”

And all Socialist Courier can say is that the solution has been right in front of Mr Gurr’s face and the rest of the working class for a long time but he and they still fail to see it. Socialism not charity.

The passing of a brain-sucker

From the September 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the 12th of August the death of Andrew Carnegie was reported, and all the capitalist newspapers united to diffuse an odour of sanctity around the man whose fortune—like all other great fortunes—was built up by the sucking of other men's brains.

It was on the shoulders of others that Carnegie climbed to affluence. Unscrupulous, alike in his dealings with his fellow capitalists and his workmen, he crushed out all who stood in his path, until he came up against a more powerful combination than his own, then he stepped quietly down and out of business, leaving Morgan, Rockefeller & Co. a clear field.

Carnegie came at the first flush of the era of speculation and "high finance" in America, and the tide swept him along with it. The keystone of his success was his ability in appropriating the product of other men's brains (as well, of course, as the product of their hands), or, as he himself repeatedly expressed it in relation to his managers, finding better men to look after his interests.

The man who is set up as a model of "self-help" was helped by others all his life. The only direction in which he exercised self-help was in helping himself to the the product of the work of others.

A quotation from the full-page effusion on Carnegie's life in the "Daily Telegraph" (Aug. 12th) gives in a nutshell the story of his life and the cause of his success.
“He began the world without a penny. He retired from business sixty years after one of the richest men in the world—to put it no higher—with a fortune of some 90,000,000 . . . It was won by a man who had no training for his life-work. The greatest of iron masters knew nothing of metallurgy."(Italics mine.) No money—no knowledge of iron—yet the greatest iron master! How did he do it?
“To the progress of the industrial revolution, to the stupendous development of mechanical and scientific methods in manufacture, Andrew Carnegie owed his millions."

Here we have it. Carnegie's wealth was built up by the ingenious brains and hands of working men. In other words, the departed saint stole the product of others' toil. And what of the workers and thinkers whose discoveries brought about the industrial revolution? The main figures in it—Crompton, Cartwright, Stephenson, Kay, Jacquard, Harrington, Lavoisier, Koening, Roberts, Trevithick, Gutenburg, Cart, Bourseul, and a host of others, either died in poverty after lives of struggle against starvation, or—in the case of a very few—gained a niggardly recognition when they were on the brink of the grave.

Now let us see where the self-help came in. Carnegie's first "start" in life was due to another person. To quote again from the "Daily Telegraph":
“And now came the tide in Carnegie's life which, taken at the flood, led on to fortune . . . It was Col. Scott who first taught the youth how to make money earn more money . . . His mother mortgaged their house, into which had gone all the family savings. With the $600 thus raised Andrew bought Adams Express Stock, on his astute employer's advice."
Of course the stock paid well: Scott was in the "swim."

Carnegie's next step was to introduce to the Pennsylvania Railroad, through the agency of Scott (who was president of the company) T. T. Woodruff's invention of a sleeping berth (the forerunner of the Pullman car). He borrowed the money for his shares, and was "let in on the ground floor," "but the cars afterwards paid handsome dividends!" "Thus," he wrote, "did I get my foot on fortune's ladder. It was easy to climb after that."

Thus did he vindicate the glorious principle of self help! I may add that I find no record of Woodruff's name as one of those who got their feet on fortune's ladder. No doubt he went the usual way of inventors.

During the Civil War Carnegie's pal Scott (now Assistant Secretary for War) found him a lucrative job in the service of the Northern wage slave owners, and at the conclusion of the war he utilised the wealth he had acquired to go in for oil and "struck it rich."

Like Mr. Rockefeller, he was in at the start. In 1862, with several associates, he purchase the Storey Farm, on Oil Creek, Pennsylvania for $40,000. It proved what prospectors call a bonanza, and in one year paid $1,000,000 in cash dividends.

Having gained the early plums of the oil trade, the "self-made man" in the making turned his attention to steel. On a visit to England he saw the steel rails that were the result of the new Bessemer process (a process discovered by one of Bessemer's workmen whose name even is  not known!) introduced them into America, and another chunk was added to his fortune.

The process of the Trust in which Carnegie had the preponderating influence was largely due to the valuable patents which they controlled. The men who were responsible for the subjects of these patents, however, were but pawns in the hands of the financiers.

Working men have proverbially short memories, yet the name "Homestead" should suffice to recall to the mind the bludgeoning and shooting of working men that took place at Carnegie's works during the "Homestead" strike, when Pinkerton and his gunmen were called in. Though daily waxing richer Andrew the philanthropist (!) was not satisfied, and laid plans to increase the working hours. The men organised to resist the project, so he retaliated by refusing to employ any but non-union workers. According to the "Telegraph" "the strike was soon the crux of one of the ugliest scenes in all the bloodstained history of American labour quarrels." The military (to the number of some 8,000 soldiers) were eventually sent to the vampire's assistance "to restore order"! And such was the man who professed to be the ardent anti-militarist and apostle of peace, and who presented to the world the "Palaces of Peace." Like others of his kidney, he did not want war when it interfered with his accumulation of wealth, but when it suited his purse (as when he took part in the Civil War) his objections vanished.

By the irony of circumstance, the same day the papers were applauding the incarnation of self-help and genius in the shape of Carnegie, they devoted a few lines to recording the tragic death of poor Blakelocke, the American landscape painter. His life "was the story of genius doomed to poverty," says the "Evening News" (13.8.19). His greatest works were sold by him for a few paltry pounds to keep his wife and family from starvation. The same works were afterwards sold for hundreds of pounds. The same paper further states: "Worry and the hard struggle for existence eventually produced a break-down, and he was removed to an asylum."

Blakelocke is now looked upon as one of the greatest landscape painters of America, but his genius only brought him poverty and the lunatic asylum.

What a contrast! The unscrupulous and slimy Carnegie dies in the midst of vast riches, while the fine artist dies in the asylum! Self-help, forsooth!

After officially stepping out of business (although still drawing his dividends), Carnegie set out to make a name for himself in a new direction. He made arrangements to distribute libraries in various places to assist in the education of working men. It appears strange that one who was such a determined antagonist of his employees should suddenly blossom forth as their benefactor. The strangeness, however, disappears as soon as we look below the surface. Carnegie and his class require workpeople who have sharp brains and a good technical knowledge, as these make the most efficient wage-slaves—hence the library stunt.

Since 1901 Carnegie has been throwing millions away and doing his damnedest to spend his money, but all to no purpose: he dies worth nearly as much as in 1901! What a power of wealth this one man must have robbed the workers of, and yet they try to kid us that we do not produce enough!

Away with dreams and delusions; let us wake up and produce for ourselves. Perish the parasites and vampires.

Gilmac

To Socialist Courier, this sounds all too familiar.

Steve Jobs said of Bill Gates “Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he’s more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology. He just shamelessly ripped off other people’s ideas.”

See here for more on Carnegie
http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2012/11/crimes-of-carnegie.html
http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2012/06/charity-of-carnegie.html

The State and its abolition

This is from the Spring 1985 issue of the World Socialist. The author was a one time member and secretary of Edinburgh branch.

Notes on the State

Central to socialist thinking on the nature of the capitalist state is the concept of class. Drawing on the writings of Marx, socialists argue that we live in a class-based society, in which a small minority own and control the means of producing wealth to the exclusion of the rest of the population.

Specifically, we live in a society which is divided on class lines: the owners of capital, the capitalist class, and the sellers of labour power, the working class. This relationship between buyer and seller of labour power is necessarily antagonistic and this antagonism expresses itself from time to time in struggle over the distribution of the social product. Because of this socialists argue that the state cannot remain neutral — a passive observer of the class struggle. Rather we say that the state must intervene on the side of the economically dominant or owning class, because the state is controlled directly or indirectly by this class. This puts us at odds with the views of the "pluralists" who argue that power is diffused throughout a plurality of institutions in society and that the state is neutral in relation to the class struggle. But although it is possible to demonstrate the unequal division of power and wealth in society, and hence show up the crucial weaknesses of this theory, we still do not arrive at an answer to the central question of what makes the modern state capitalist.

DISSATISFACTION WITH CLASSICAL TEXTS
Ralph Miliband's study, The State in Capitalist Society, that came out in 1969 signalled a general dissatisfaction in academic circles with the original Marxist writings on the state and this was reinforced in subsequent studies. It was concluded that Marx had not developed a coherent account of the nature of the capitalist state, particularly in regard to its role in the process of capital accumulation and the reproduction of capitalist social relations; indeed, that many of the references Marx makes to the capitalist state were contradictory and theoretically confused: at times he referred to the state as an instrument of class rule; and then, more subtly, as a social regulator moderating and channelling social conflict; again, he talked of the state as parasitic, that is, the private property of individuals; and, finally, as epiphenomenon (simple surface reflection) of a system of property relations and resulting economic class struggle.

The claim that the state is simply an instrument of class power used by the economically dominant class to dominate subordinate classes is highly problematical and (possibly) ahistorical. Although the ruling class owns and controls the material and mental means of production, one cannot automatically assume that it thereby controls, runs, dictates to, or is predominant in the state as well. The ruling class is not a monolithic power bloc; it is fragmented, with differing and, at times, conflicting interests. Moreover, in certain historical circumstances, the economically dominant class has not held state power, for example, in nineteenth century Prussia where the aristocracy (the junkers) controlled the state although it was a declining economic force.

Numerous problems also arise with the view of the state as a factor of cohesion in society, regulating the struggle between the classes, either by repression or concession. The main difficulty with this approach is that it suggests that the conflict over the social product is resolvable, and if taken to its logical conclusion it precludes the possibility of revolution as the state, in its role as class mediator, can act to defuse crises arising out of the contradictions within the capitalist mode of production. It is also very much akin to the liberal view of the state as "nightwatchman". Likewise, the parasitic approach can only lead to demands for a democratisation rather than the abolition of government and, perhaps, this is why Marx dropped references to it in his later writings.

The ephiphenomenon aspect of Marx's views on the state is rooted in the metaphor of base and superstructure, that is, that the state in its legal and political forms is simply a reflection of the economic base of society. This implies that the state is a passive instrument in the class struggle or, at best, is a tool of the ruling class. To adopt such a position leads one either to the reductionism of the equation that class power equals state power, or, to ignore the role the state has played, and is playing, in organising the labour process and in creating the conditions for further capital accumulation. The epiphenomenon view thus places a straightjacket on the activities of the state, divesting it of any autonomy or freedom of action, something which is at odds with the historical development of capitalism.

Dissatisfaction with the classical Marxist texts on the nature of the state led to a reformulation of theoretical perspectives by a new generation of Marx students. The outcome has been by no means theoretically homogenous, in fact, a variety of perspectives have emerged which we will now attempt to synthesise.

RELATIONSHIP OF THE RULING CLASS TO THE STATE
In Marxism and Politics, Miliband offers three possible, but not necessarily interrelated, explanations concerning the relationship of the ruling class to the state. The first of these concentrates on the personnel of the state. Miliband argues that those who control the state share a similar or common social background and are linked together by economic and cultural ties. These links result in a cluster of common ideological and political attitudes, as well as common perspectives and values. Thus those who run the state apparatus are by virtue of their circumstances favourably disposed to those who own and control the economic means of life. Empirical evidence would tend to bear out some of Miliband's assumptions. In The State in Capitalist Society, he provides an impressive array of detailed information which chronicles the interconnections between the elite groupings in society. The state is largely run by people from similar social backgrounds and educational establishments, in spite of numerous Labour governments and so-called working class occupational mobility. But this approach inevitably leads to the reductionism mentioned earlier as it does not explain how the state is capitalist. Crucially it does not amount to a Marxist theory of the state as it discusses the state in isolation from socio-economic forces. Miliband's work serves only as a rebuttal to pluralist assumptions about political democracy.

To buttress the obvious shortcomings of this approach Miliband introduces an economic dimension to his analysis. This centres on the role of capital as a pressure group. Here capital, particularly "monopoly capital", uses its position as the major controller of wealth and, hence, of investment to demand the ear of government. The fear in governing circles of multinationals redirecting investment and causing large numbers of job losses ensures that they listen sympathetically to them. In some accounts of this process, particularly that of Baran and Sweezey and the "Communist" Party, the state and monopoly capital become fused; the former acting as a pliant tool of the latter. These views ignore the fact that the state often acts against the interests of certain sections of the capitalist class. The state passes reforms in the social and economic fields which capital dislikes, for example, high levels of unemployment benefit and spending on welfare services in general. Moreover this approach reduces the state to an epiphenomenal position, that is, the nature of the state is drawn from the immanent tendencies of capital accumulation. It also disregards the role of class struggle in shaping the way the state responds to certain issues and problems.

HOW CONSTRAINING ARE THE CONSTRAINTS?
The problematic nature of the above approach and its corollary that small and medium size capitals should unite with the working class in a struggle to overthrow monopoly capitalism has been severely criticised by "structural Marxists" such as Althusser and Poulantzas, and this leads us to the third explanation offered by Miliband. Structuralists argue that "the state is an instrument of the ruling class because given its insertion in the capitalist mode of production (CMP) it cannot be anything else". Thus it matters little who constitutes the personnel of the state, or what pressure is exerted by capitalists, as the actions of the state are determined by the "nature and requirements of the CMP". In other words, a capitalist economy has its own logic or rationality to which any government or state must sooner or later submit, regardless of its ideological or political preferences; the existence of the capitalist mode of production constrains the state to act in ways favourable to the expansion and preservation of the economic system and against the interests of the working class.

The structuralist view has been further refined by the work of the "capital logic" school of Berlin. This approach derives the character of the capitalist state from the categories of the capitalist economy, the process of production and accumulation. The state is seen as a political force which is required to secure the reproduction of wage labour—to the extent that this cannot be done through market forces—and to ensure the subordination of labour to capital. This requires the state to intervene in areas such as factory legislation, supervision of trade union activities and social welfare. In this role the state is prepared to act not only against the working class, but also against individual capitals or fractions of capital which threaten the interests of capital in general.

Although it has a persuasive logic to it the structuralist view has a number of crucial weaknesses. Firstly, how constraining are the constraints? If total, then the outcome of that totality is economic determinism, as it would lead to a situation where human beings are deprived of any freedom of action or choice. Man however is not simply the product of economic forces, but a complex organism, whose actions are determined by many competing factors such as tradition, religion (where appropriate), altruism, nationalism, and so on. Secondly, and this follows from the first point, if we accept the structuralist position on the state, then we preclude consideration of how workers in struggle have affected the nature of the state and how it reacts to working class demands. In short, we could dismiss the last 150 years or so of the class struggle.

Similarly, the capital logic approach not only fails to account for the origins of the capitalist state, but fails to show convincingly how it can operate as the ideal collective capitalist. In short, how does it determine, and by what means, what are the "best" interests of capital? Moreover, in this scheme everything that occurs in a capitalist society apparently corresponds to the needs of capital accumulation, and even where modified by class struggle the interests of capital are always realised. The whole theory is deterministic, and can only provide a partial analysis to the central issue of what makes the state capitalist.

WHAT MAKES THE STATE A CLASS STATE
These explanations, although more systematic and coherent than some earlier Marxists' writings on the state, fail to explain the central issue of what makes the modern state a class state: the state of the capitalist class. The main reason behind this is the reductionism of the approaches. This means that a more adequate theoretical approach is necessary; one which takes account of the actual historical development of the state and how this development has been influenced by the balance of class forces at specific historical moments, and appreciates that the state can and does enjoy a fairly high degree of autonomy and independence in the manner of its operation as a class state. After all if the state is to act in the interests of the capitalist class it must be free to come to a decision as to what actually constitutes those interests. In doing so it may have to favour one fraction of capital against another in order to preserve or promote the long or short term interests of the sum total of the system's parts. This explains why particular social and economic policies are possible even though powerful economic groups are opposed to them.

This approach also allows for an account to be taken of the way the working class, through trade unions and other defence mechanisms, have affected the development of the state. For, given the nature of competitive capitalism, workers are forced to resist the encroachments of capital. The state must react in some positive way to workers' (reformist) demands. Failure to do so would lead to civil strife and political instability. Thus state forms and institutions, without this in any way threatening underlying capitalist social relations, are partly the outcome of working class struggle and cannot simply be attributed to the interests of the ruling class or a mere reflection of the changing needs of the capitalist mode of production.

Socialists, then, do not accept the pluralist view that the state is the property of no single class and that because of this it responds to the demands of all sections of society. We recognise that the modern state is comprised of a flexible set of institutions which operate subtly and is, ultimately, the executive committee for the capitalist class.
Bill Knox

A GRIM FUTURE

Capitalism is a social system based on economic slumps and booms. It is notoriously difficult to forecast when these will occur but that doesn't stop so-called experts having a go. 'John Philpott, director of The Jobs Economist, said: "This time last year we  correctly forecast that 2013 would be a year of 'hard slog' for UK workers, with longer hours for no extra real reward. For the majority of workers 2014 is unlikely to feel much better.' (Times, 27 December) Despite politicians rosy forecasts for the future we reckon that Philpott's forecast won't be far off the mark. RD

Revolution without Revolutionaries or Revolutionaries without the Revolution?

Our object is simply to get our political ideas across to as many people as possible, and to do so in a clear way. In a society where popular is overwhelmingly controlled by corporate power dedicated in their essential outlook to maintaining the capitalist status quo, those who advocate social change face an uphill battle to get a fair hearing for their ideas. Serious debate in the mainstream media with  opponents of capitalism is rare. Politics isusually reduced to a few minutes of sound-bites. Genuine socialist views are marked taboo and the media are free to label  whoever they wish as a “socialist”, a world invariably used as a put-down.

The 1% will always rule, declares the prevailing assumption of mainstream political wisdom, while the rest of the us are manipulated to keep our mouths quiet, stay politically inactive, and work without complaint for our employers.  Capitalism has only structural inequality, permanent war, and economic instability to offer the majority of the people. It is a system that offers no future to humanity; well, at least,  not a peaceful, prosperous and just future.

 The message of the Occupy Movement protests of 2011 rejected the competitiveness, greed, and inequality of modern capitalism, asserting a vision of a society based on human solidarity, equality, and an end to violence and war. And, the Occupy voices dared to declare, we believe this vision is realistic and possible. Life should be so much more than just a grubby, competitive rat race, they declared, one in which privileged elites feed at the trough of their own unending sense of entitlement, while so many more struggle just to get by.

The Workers’ Occupy Movement

A variant of the syndicalist general strike is the factory occupation. Daniel DeLeon was constantly agitating for the workers not to walk out of the plant on strike but rather to take the plant over for themselves as the actual producers and lock out the employers. Not the general strike, but the general lock-out was his slogan as showing the road to power. The occupiers  must create committees for food, for sleeping accommodations, for sanitation, for negotiations, etc., all must be alive with activity. The men now eat, sleep and dream union and the strike. The strike becomes the essence of their lives. It prepares them for much higher struggles in the future; it trains them for the revolution There is no longer the problem of renting halls, of getting all the strikers down to the meetings, of establishing food stations, of going to the homes of scabs, of organizing strong picket lines, etc. A far closer communication among all the workers is brought about than ever before. It is an  ominous warning by the workers to the capitalists, that a revolutionary situation is brewing  that workers are not to be trifled with and that they were preparing themselves for the occupation of the factories permanently. The workers were declaring in their own way that they understood full well that they had created these factories and that the factories should belong to them. By staying inside the plant the workers prevent the capitalists from closing the plant down and shifting all their production to some other plant. This often necessitates the removal of certain parts from the plant and it is just this removal that is prevented.

Workers are beginning to get an inkling of the idea that the forces of production belong to the producers and not to the parasitic capitalists on Wall St who legally own them. In this sense, such industrial action are on a higher political plane than previous walk-out strikes rather than sit-in strikes, since they challenge the existing set-up of property rights which the old-style strike never did. There is no question  that factory occupations are a disruption of the old pattern of property relations. Previously,  the property of the boss was always considered sacrosanct. No one conceived of taking over the factory-plant, of locking the gates against the owners. The picket lines were carefully and legally kept outside of the property lines of the capitalists. But now the factories are becoming more and more considered as social  property.

 In the ordinary type of strike the passive worker need not appear on the picket line thus, often picket line and strike activity was left to merely the militant workers of the organization. Now, no one can desert. It becomes a shame and disgrace to leave the source of one’s wages and job and to quit the factory before the eyes of all one’s brothers in order to get home. Everything being open and before eyes of all, the situation can lead only to mutual encouragement and the heightening of the morale of the strikers, and all the sinister forces of capitalism that lead to capitulation and break-down of spirit of this or that section of the strikers, may vanish. Occupations not only keep all the workers together day and night and make it very difficult for the employer to break their ranks.  The besieged awaken sympathy and support for their heroic actions from the whole neighborhood. The factory becomes the center of attention. Families and the community cluster around the factory. No longer can workers be urged  to scab and go back to work, since the workers have never left their work and mean to stick to their jobs to the finish.

Scabs are kept out and there is now no opportunity for strike-breakers to march into the plant. The doors are locked and barricaded; the plant is occupied by the strikers. Should the strike-breakers charge the plant, it would mean that the property of the employer would be destroyed or damaged, any attempt to drive out those in the plant could only lead to smashing of the machinery. To drive out the workers in a big plant would be a very costly process to the owners. The plant would be wrecked. The attack would have to be made, often, in a most hostile environment. The plant, is therefore so to speak,  kept as hostage by its work-force.

Workers hold on to the factory because they fear the unemployed will seize the jobs from them. If the workers can keep open by force, plants that would otherwise close, it is not a far step for them to consider the necessity of opening the factories to those locked out of those factories closed by the recession. They may partially realise the slogan: "Open the Factories to the Unemployed", which in turn is a step towards achieving workers control over production.

They are also partly inspired by the fact that the workers have nowhere else to go. There are no jobs elsewhere. The skilled workers have no longer the opportunity to wander away to the plant of some competitor and get a job there. All must stick to the plant and stay there if they wish to continue working. The “sit-down” strike is a sign that the doors are shut to those who would like to escape from their work, from their locality, from their trade. They realize this themselves, when they shut the doors of the plant—and stay inside.

Taking control of the work-place  puts an end to the traditional trade union divisions  and enforces industrial unionism in practice. Rival union officials would force one set of men to scab on others and to continue working while picket lines were walking outside. Now all must stop work.  Moreover, the factory occupation greatly diminishes the role of the professional union official with their demand that all union/management talks take place under the eyes of all the workers in the plant.

Here are the  reasons why the lock-out by the workers can never be so effective until after the workers have taken political power. Workers may feel that to occupy is a infallible weapon in their hands but they will soon be disillusioned about its potency. The Achilles Heel of this particular form of strike struggle is that it would be far easier to starve them out than use force.  Also to be acknowledged is the fact is that while the those within that particular plant are united as never before, they are isolated from other work-places. And even if other factories in the same city or elsewhere were to strike in sympathy with them, each one of them would be isolated.  Workers can also be pressured to come out of the plants if a reign of terror is launched against their homes, their wives and children. If bloody violence breaks out in the  workers neighborhoods then it would be foolish for the workers to stay in the factory while their family and friends were being hunted down and thrown out of their homes.

AJJ

Amassing A Fortune

At a time when millions of people are trying to survive on the equivalent of $2 a day it is worthwhile looking at the immense wealth of the super-rich. 'Warren Buffett spent most of 2013 amassing fortunes of over £23 million a day through investments into food manufacturing giants like Heinz, which he bought earlier this year. The investor topped the Wealth-X 'gainers' list for 2013, having made a staggering £7.7 billion since January to bring his estimated net worth to a cool £36 billion.' (Independent, 25 December) At least the Independent did not insult its readers by claiming he "earned" £23 million a day but used the term "amassing". RD