An Unequal Society

Worried by the obnoxious propaganda of UKIP the Tory Party are making noises about restricting migration, but of course this will only apply to workers attempting to settle in Britain. 'Wealthy Chinese and Russians looking to escape unrest at home and secure a bolthole in Britain have invested more than £700 million in the country through a visa programme that allows them to buy entry. Nearly 300 Chinese citizens spent at least £295 million through the UK's Tier 1 Investor scheme, which allows foreigners to gain residence permits if they are prepared to invest at least £1 million in domestic shares or British government debt.' (Times, 6 November) That is how capitalism works - one rule for the rich and one for the poor. RD

Surprise, Surprise

Imagine the astonishment in New Zealand when an inquiry found that the native Maoris had been cheated out of ownership  of their native land. 'British colonial authorities cheated the Maoris out of  their birth right in New Zealand by misleading them over an agreement that allowed the Crown to take  control of the country, a tribunal has decided.' (Times, 15 November) It is difficult to understand any sense of astonishment. That is what colonial powers have done over the years and will do today if they can get away with it. Anyway the New Zealand authorities seem to be taking the judgement in their stride as Chris Finlayson, the attorney general is reported as saying in The New Zealand Herald: "There is no question that the Crown has sovereignty in New Zealand. This report doesn't change that fact." RD

Why Work? (1)

Upholding the common well-being, via socialism, is the only way to create a sustainable future that ends deprivation and insecurity. Capitalism has failed to provide the basic needs of society; even the “social welfare” state only manages to mitigate capitalist greed and corruption.

The most cited objection to socialism is incentive. Capitalism argues that without money to motivate, there is no reason to go to work. Under capitalism, it is insecurity that motivates people to go to work. Eliminate insecurity and the result is that incentive for worth-while work increases. The benefits of work itself – human interaction and social recognition for one’s contribution provide incentive to go to work. the incentive for turning up to work is to receive social advantages, such as meeting potential partners for dating/marriage, friends with whom to go out for meals/drinks and the gratification of social admiration for having performed to a high standard and being recognised formally as having done so. Would most people decide not to go to work and sit idly in front of a television if all their basic needs were provided for?

 Socialists argue that the human urge for activity motivates one to contribute to society in one’s best capacity if only one is provided dignity and the means to pursue one’s full potential. Some might counter that people lose their “free time” when going to work, and should therefore not have the full burden of supporting those who choose not work, but the human compulsion to fill the hours with more than idle tasks – the boredom that comes of doing nothing – motivates one to do work if only there is more to it than a means to mere survival. The compensation comes in the knowledge that one’s contribution is valued for the work itself and all the social benefits that come from the recognition of one’s contribution. There is bound to be a small population of people who seem comfortable with doing nothing, but these people should be treated as having a psychological problem and referred to a doctor or psychologist, not threatened with a withholding of free access to the common larder. In socialism everyone has the opportunity to perform to their highest potential and formal acknowledgment of one’s work contribution – as opposed to cash in the bank for status – satisfies the craving for professional accomplishment. The Marxist phrase “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is not merely an ideological argument, as if truly exercised, life satisfaction is a standard, as opposed to merely an ideal.

What does the slogan “Right to Work” really mean ? To the average trade unionist it is probably the "right" to have a job and the pay packet that goes with it. In other words, it should be more accurately called "The Right to Employment" or "The Right to Work for Wages"

The Right to Work is a completely unrealistic demand and  amounts to demanding that employers abandon the profit motive and operate their system on some other principle. But they could not do this even if they wanted to, since what they can do is limited by the working of capitalism's market forces. Nor could they be forced to do it even by the most militant trade union or political action. If pressed too far, they would merely shut up shop. The stark fact is that capitalism creates, and needs to create, rising unemployment from time to time.

The Right to Work for Wages, in our view, is demanding the Right To Be Exploited. It involves accepting capitalism and its wages system. The employer/employee relationship is based on exploitation since, if the employer is to make a profit, the wages he pays his employees must be less than the value of what they produce. The system of employment for wages shows that human brain and muscle power has become a mere commodity, to be bought and sold like some object. It signifies that those who actually produce the wealth of society are excluded from ownership and control of the means of production and so have no choice but to operate them for the employers on the employers' terms — and at the employers' convenience. The wage packet is in fact a badge of slavery.

No, socialists don't want the Right to Work. It would be more accurate to say that we want its opposite, the Right To Be Lazy. This isn't as way-out as might seem. Just think of developments in technology over the past hundred or so years, developments which  are still going on, and you will see that the bulk of the hard grind of production is now done, and could be done even more, by machines. Automation and new technology could now relieve human beings of the burden of boring toil. Nobody need do a job he or she doesn't like doing. The set working day could be reduced to two or three hours, freeing people to engage in the activities of their choice, including even producing useful things. This will never happen as long as the means of production are the property of a minority. It could only happen in a society where the factories, farms and other places where wealth is produced are commonly owned by all the people. There would then be no employers, nor wage-earners. Instead everybody would be an equal member of a free community organised to produce an abundance of good-quality consumer goods for people to take freely according to their needs.

As already been pointed so long as it is enjoyable, work is a natural human activity, not to say need and so  talk of the Right To Be Lazy can be misleading. But although men will always work, there is no reason for it take the form of boring toil. It could and should be interesting and so become like some of today's leisure-time activities — done for the fun of it. To convert work from boring toil to creative activity is now possible. The ethic of hard work — necessary perhaps in the past to build up the means of production to the point where they can now turn out abundance — is outdated, and worse: it helps to keep capitalism going.

Other critics of socialism ask "Who is going to do the dirty work?" The lowliness or nastiness of a job are subjective estimates . A doctor or nurse, for example, or a public health inspector, have to do some things which would disgust the most unskilled casual labourer who did not see these actions in their social context. Yet the status and prestige of such people is generally high. Above all, it is the prestige of the working group and his or her position in it which will influence the worker's attitude to such jobs. If the prestige of the group is high and he  or she is satisfied in his membership of it, the type of work that has to be done  becomes a minor consideration.

Again as stated, ordinarily men and women like their work, and at most periods of history always have done so. When they do not like it, the fault lies in the psychological and social conditions of the job rather than in the worker. Furthermore, work is a social activity . . . Even when their security and that of their children is assured, they continue to labour. Obviously this is so because the rewards they get from their work are social, such as respect and admiration from their fellow-men.

We can estimate that at least half of all the workers running the capitalist system would be redundant in a sane society where work would be organised economically solely for the needs of the community. This means that, including the present millions who are unemployed, socialism would more than double the numbers of people available to do useful work. Also, these vastly increased numbers would be free to use and further develop the most advanced techniques of production. All this would add up to a huge increase in our powers of production. The priority would be to ensure that every person is comfortably housed and supplied with good quality food of their choice. The construction of a safe world energy system would be another urgent project. The present great differences in the world distribution of machinery, plant and up-to-date production methods would need to be evened out. But with an adequate structure of production in place we can anticipate that in socialism, we would soon be in a position to relax in the necessary work of providing for needs. The idea of producing enough for the community and then relaxing to enjoy many other kinds of activity which may interest people is impossible under a capitalist system.

Crime And Punishment

American TV schedules are full of crime dramas wherein we are left to wonder at the brilliance of the police and the law courts. This is not a good example of that in reality though.  'A 90-year old man and two church wardens face being jailed for breaking a new law that restricts serving food to the homeless. Arnold Abbott was arrested as he handed out food in a park in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. "One of the police officers said, "drop that plate right now, as if I were carrying a weapon, he said." (Times, 6 November) The three men could be jailed for 60 days and fined $500. Could capitalism get any crazier? RD

More Hypocrisy

As spokesmen for the British capitalist class the press and TV love nothing better than having a pot at workers who may be illegally claiming welfare payments and blame them for ruining the country, but remain somewhat more mute when it comes to the owning class trying on a bit of a scam. 'Two-thirds of Britain's biggest businesses  are under investigation by the taxman, it was revealed yesterday. Tax returns submitted by 528 out of the country's 800 largest businesses have been placed "under enquiry" by HM Revenue & Customs after officials identified evidence of tax avoidance, non-payment or other potential errors.' (Times, 6 November) Considering that last year the amount under dispute was £18.8 billion any dodges by workers seem insignificant. RD

Drug Pushers

Imagine a capitalist concern that generates higher profit margins than any other and is no stranger to multi-billion dollar fines for malpractice. Throw in widespread accusations of collusion and over-charging, and banking no doubt springs to mind. In fact, it  is Pharmaceuticals. Last year, US giant Pfizer, the world's largest drug company by pharmaceutical revenue, made an eye-watering 42% profit margin. 'Last year, five pharmaceutical companies made a profit margin of 20% or more - Pfizer, Hoffmann-La Roche, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Eli Lilly. With some drugs costing upwards of $100,000 for a full course, and with the cost of manufacturing just a tiny fraction of this, it's not hard to see why. Last year, 100 leading oncologists from around the world wrote an open letter in the journal Blood calling for a reduction in the price of cancer drugs.' (BBC News, 7 November) Needless to say their call was ignored. RD

A Backward Society

The advance of technology inside capitalism is truly astonishing. 'There is more computer power in some of this years top Christmas toys than the first moon mission experts said. The 12 toys predicted to top children's wish lists feature the most advanced technology available. including voice recognition, photo  editing and video, while some connect directly to the internet and can be controlled via mobile apps and iPads.' (Daily Telegraph, 6 November) Despite these staggering advances this amazingly advanced society cannot solve a simple problem like feeding the world's hungry or even providing clean water for millions of dying children - but then there is no profit in  that. RD

Demanding more

If survival as a human species is our primary goal, then deep changes are necessary to the way we organise ourselves socially. Many people believe that socialism means government or state ownership and control. Who can blame them when that is what the schools teach and what the media, politicians and others who oppose socialism say? Worse, some people and organisations that call themselves socialist say it, too—but not the Socialist Party. Socialism is something entirely different. Socialism means economic democracy. If socialist societies are to be run by, of and for the people, then the people have to be in charge and that includes within the economy. In socialist society there would be no wage system. No longer would workers live under the fear. We argue that socialism is the only solution. Marx opposed the leveling-down egalitarianism prevalent among the socialist and communist currents in the early 19th century. The goal of socialists is not to reduce people’s wants to some preconceived minimum. Rather, it is to realise and expand those wants. In a socialist society, everyone will have access to the great variety of material and cultural wealth accumulated over the course of civilisation. We socialists aspire to a future society in which all can pursue the creative scientific and cultural work hitherto restricted to a privileged few. The goal of socialist revolution is to resolve the contradiction at the heart of capitalism by collectivising the means of production, thereby making the bounty of society available to all and unleashing the productive forces.

Under capitalism the industries operate for one purpose—to earn a profit for their owners. Under this system, food is not grown primarily to be eaten. It is grown to be sold. Cars are not manufactured primarily to be driven. They are made to be sold. But if people lack money then these factories shut down and the country stagnates, no matter how much people need these commodities. Capitalism emerged from feudalism in Europe. Merchants or others were using accumulated wealth as means to hire workers. The latter, often refugees from feudal manors, survived in a new way: selling their capacity to work. The wealthy got wealthier by selling the outputs in emerging markets and taking the profits. Europe's transition from feudalism to capitalism took centuries and grew into today's capitalism. In all previous ages of human history, poverty for most of the people was inescapable. There was simply not enough to go around. But not so today. Industrial technology and scientific knowledge have so vastly increased our ability to produce what we need and want that there is no longer any excuse whatsoever for the poverty of a single member of society. Today we have the material possibility of abundance for everyone, and the promise of the leisure in which to enjoy it.

Limited resources are not the primary threat to humans; it is artificial scarcity – a social phenomenon – which threatens future survival by siphoning wealth to an infinitesimally small percentage of people thereby depriving the majority of people a sustainable living standard. Artificial scarcity is the engine of wealth concentration under capitalism. Socialists seek the end to artificial scarcity propose the common good. Socialism requires first and foremost a change in thinking from the idea that some people must always lose to the idea that everyone can win.  

Freed from the restrictions of profit-making, modern productive techniques could provide the abundance that would allow a socialist world community to introduce free access, according to need so that no man, woman or child anywhere on the planet need go without adequate food, clothing, shelter, healthcare or education. Socialism means plenty for all. We do not preach a gospel of want and scarcity, but of abundance. We wish to abolish poverty and to provide abundance for all. We do not call for limitation of births, for penurious thrift, and self-denial. We call for a great production that will supply all, and more than all the people can consume. Such a great production is already possible, with the knowledge already possessed by mankind.

We conceive of socialism, not as an arbitrary scheme of society to be constructed from a preconceived plan, but as the next stage of social evolution. The architects and builders of the socialist society of the future will be the socialist generations themselves. We are quite sure of this and refrain from offering these future generations any instructions or blueprints. Tomorrow does not belong to us. We can only point out the general direction of development, and we should not try to do more. We can tracing some of the broad outlines of probable future development, if not the details.

The limitations on abundance are to be found in the social and political structures of nations and in the economic relations among them. Abundance already exists potentially today and it is clear that every new technological development makes the case for socialism even stronger. Socialism can only be built upon abundance -- which could only be achieved by pooling the combined industrial power and resources of all the world, not of just one country or region alone.

Who owns the North Pole part 78

There is a great deal at stake in the Arctic.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic holds 13 percent of the world’s oil reserves and 30 percent of its natural gas. There are also significant coal and iron ore deposits. As the ice retreats, new fishing zones are opening up, and—most importantly—so are shipping routes that trim thousands of miles off voyages, saving enormous amounts of time and money. Expanding trade will stimulate shipbuilding, the opening of new ports, and economic growth, especially in East Asia.

NATO’s top military commander, Adm. James G. Stavridis of the United States Navy, warned in 2010 of an “icy slope toward a zone of competition, or worse, a zone of conflict” if the world’s leaders failed to ensure Arctic peace. Tensions in the region arise from two sources: squabbles among the border states (Norway, Russia, Canada, the United States, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden) over who owns what, and efforts by non-polar countries (China, India, the European Union, and Japan) that want access.

The Russians lay claim to a vast section of the North Pole based on their interpretation of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, which allows countries to claim ownership if an area is part of a country’s continental shelf. Moscow argues that the huge Lomonosov Ridge, which divides the Arctic Ocean into two basins and runs under the Pole, originates in Russia. Canada and Denmark also claim the ridge as well.

One hundred and sixty-eight years ago this past July, two British warships—HMS Erebus and HMS Terror—sailed north into Baffin Bay, bound on a mission to navigate the fabled Northwest Passage between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. It would be the last that was seen of Sir John Franklin and his 128 crew members. Canada organized an expedition this past summer to find out what really happened to Franklin and his two ships. The search was a success—one of the ships was found in Victoria Straits—but the goal was political, not archaeological: Canada is using the find to lay claim to the Northwest Passage.

Denmark and Canada are meanwhile at loggerheads over Hans Island, located between Ellesmere Island and Danish-controlled Greenland. The occupation of the tiny rock by the Canadian military has generated a “Free Hans Island” campaign in Denmark.

Although it’s constrained by the fact that Washington has not signed the Law of the Seas Convention, the United States has locked horns with Canada over the Beaufort Sea.

The Pentagon released its first “Arctic Strategy” study last year. The U.S. maintains 27,000 military personnel in the region, not including regular patrols by nuclear submarines. The Russians and Canadians have ramped up their military presence in the region as well, and Norway has carried out yearly military exercises—“Arctic Cold Response”—involving up to 16,000 troops, many of them NATO units.

China may be a thousand miles from the nearest ice floe, but as the second largest economy in the world, it has no intention of being left out in the cold. This past summer the Chinese icebreaker Snow Dragon made the Northern Sea Passage run, and Beijing has elbowed its way into being a Permanent Observer on the Arctic Council. Formed in 1996, the council consists of the border states, plus the indigenous people that populate the vast frozen area. Japan and South Korea are also observers.

The Arctic may be cold, but the politics surrounding it are pretty hot. Aqqaluk Lynge, chair of the indigenous Inuit Circumpolar Council says, “We do not want a return to the Cold War.”

From here 

Marx Re-examined

Paul Mason, the Economics Editor of Channel 4 News has come up with an interesting comparison between Karl Marx and William Shakespeare dealing with the change from Feudalism to Capitalism. Feudalism was an economic system based on obligation: peasants were obliged to hand part of their produce to the landowner and do military service for him; he in turn was obliged to provide the king with taxes, and supply an army on demand. 'But in the England of Shakespeare's history plays, the mainspring of the system has broken down. By the time Richard III was slaughtering his extended family in real life, the whole power network based on obligation had been polluted by money: rents paid in money, military service paid for with money, wars fought with the aid of a  cross-border banking network stretching to Florence and Amsterdam. (Guardian, 2 November) The  exposure of the crazy belief that Russia and China had anything to do with the ideas of Marx has led to a belated re-examination of some of his ideas. Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, although flawed was a best-seller. The whole concept of a re-examination of Marx's ideas is certainly a good sign and a necessary step in the overthrow of capitalism. RD     

Another Useless Protest

On the face of it the latest left-wing demo might appear to be worthwhile, but it reality it is just another useless illustration of the backwardness of many workers. On Guy Fawkes night  protesters alarmed the police and the press by staging a protest march in Central London purporting to be a demonstration of their opposition to capitalism and their support for revolution. 'Protesters wearing Guy Fawkes masks marched from Trafalgar Square to Parliament Square as part of the Million Masks March, organised by activist group Anonymous. Three people were held on suspicion of assaulting police officers. Anonymous said the protest was against austerity and infringement of rights.' (BBC News, 6 November)  The fact that it was attended by publicity-seeking "personalities" like Vivienne Westwood and Russell Brand shows how serious it all was. Wearing masks, letting off fireworks, carrying empty slogans and banners won't bring about a transformation. That calls for thoughtful action based on an understanding of how capitalism operates and how to bring about socialism. RD

Double Standards

Capitalist business's are extremely strict with their staff and come down hard on any of their employers who might try the dodge of claiming unworked overtime or phoney expenses, but their own behaviour is hardly shining white. Recent Luxembourg documents have uncovered the multi-billion dollar tax secrets of some of the world's largest multinational corporations. Major companies including drugs group - Shire, City trading firm Icap and vacuum cleaner firm Dyson, have used complex webs of internal loans and interest payments which have slashed the companies' tax bills. These arrangements, signed off by the Grand Duchy, are perfectly legal. 'The documents also show how some 340 companies from around the world arranged specially-designed corporate structures with the Luxembourg authorities. The businesses include corporations such as Pepsi, Ikea, Accenture, Burberry, Procter & Gamble, Heinz, JP Morgan and FedEx.' (Guardian, 6 November) That is how capitalism operates - it is reprehensible for workers to try and fiddle a few bob, but for the companies concerned millions of pounds is "perfectly legal". RD

Change Everything

Being a socialist is possessing the ability to look at the world as if it could be otherwise. It is the capacity to envision alternative possibilities for our communities and our world which  makes social change possible because an understanding of what might be gives us a perspective from which to challenge things as they are, as well as the hope and determination we need to build something different.

Socialism rejects one-size-fits-all economic blueprints and instead seeks to identify diverse instances of liberatory livelihood practice, linking them together in mutually supportive networks. Socialism implies the use of direct democracy, it does not necessitate the use of any one form of decision making. The goal is to be flexible and responsive, so that all voices are heard and empowering relationships are created. Participatory democracy is a system that facilitates the active involvement of individuals in all important decisions and institutions affecting their lives. Rather than being a static system, participatory democracy is a constant process of contention and transformation.

Usufruct is the right to use and enjoy the “fruits” of a given resource, as long as the resource itself is preserved. The term comes from Roman property law, but is also used to describe ancient and Indigenous land-use paradigms in which land is held in common while individuals retain the right to hunt, fish, garden, or otherwise use the land sustainably. Usufruct is a key tenet of commons economies, offering a more just and sustainable alternative to private ownership. It is a recognition that we do not own the land and its resources — we are stewards, maintaining and improving our world for future generations.

Any control we have over the assets of this planet may be a gift from nature and our ancestors, but one thing is for sure: our dominion is only temporary. Others bequeathed us these assets, and others will depend upon them after we are gone. Stewardship, as opposed to ownership, embraces this reality. Whereas ownership suggests a right to do as we please, stewardship emphasizes our responsibility to protect, cultivate, and serve that which nourishes us.

In pre-capitalist times, shared commons were the source of sustenance for most people. Capitalism have now privatized and depleted much of the commons and under capitalism, common wealth is appropriated for profit . To counter this, we need to reclaim and strengthen both the commons and the institutions that sustain them. A commonwealth means that ownership of the economic foundations of society is shared in common and democratized.

There is enough. Enough sunlight, wind, and water to nourish us and power our tools, enough roofs for everyone to sleep under one, enough work for everyone to have a livelihood, enough knowledge to keep teaching and learning forever. We start to believe there is not enough when we feel we need to own what could be shared, when we assign market value disconnected from use value, when those in power amass vast fortunes through stealing, hiding, and holding out of reach. A society that cultivates abundance does not treat human needs as something to be bought and sold, resists a culture that uses the perception of scarcity to obscure problems of distribution and discourage generosity, restores sovereignty, and operates on principles of solidarity and mutual aid.

Upper Class Arrogance

UPPER CLASS ARROGANCE                                           

Michael O'Leary, the CEO of the airline Ryanair was in the news lately announcing that the  company had made record profits and the share price had risen to an all-time high. O'Leary has become even more immensely rich, which gave the newspapers an excuse to run a short  article on him. It is a sort of received  wisdom of the press that rich people are also very clever, but  a couple of quotes from him should dispel that notion. 'The most influential person in Europe in the last 20 to 30 years has been Margaret Thatcher. Without her we'd all be living in some French bloody unemployment republic'. (Times, 4 November) Another proof of his genius in the same article? 'Do we carry rich people on our flights? Yes, I flew on one this morning and I'm very rich'. Perhaps not too clever but certainly very arrogant. RD      

Distorted Values

DISTORTED VALUES                                            

We live in a crazy world  with strange, indeed bizarre concept of "worth". Here for instance was the income last year of what the media calls "personalities" - whatever that means. 'Simon Cowell £59m, Howard Stein £59m, Glenn Beck £56m and Oprah Winfrey £51m.' (Independent, 5 November) You'd have to work an awful lot of hours on the governments "living wage" to clear that little lot. RD

More Chicanery

The government claims that the recession is over and we are all better off, but this is just another piece of political cheating. The number of people living in dire poverty in Britain is 300,000 more than previously thought due to poorer households facing a higher cost of living than the well off, according to a study released on Wednesday. A report produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that soaring prices for food and fuel over the past decade have had a bigger impact on struggling families who spend more of their budgets on staple goods. 'The study by the IFS for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said the government method for calculating absolute poverty "the number of people living below a breadline that rises each year in line with the cost of living" assumed that all households faced the same inflation rate.But in the six years from early 2008 to early 2014, the cost of energy had risen by 67% and the cost of food by 32%. Over the same period the retail prices index "a measure of the cost of a basket of goods and services" had gone up by 22%.' (Guardian, 5 November) RD

Change the system, not the climate!

Catastrophic climate change is coming to a town near you, and it’s coming sooner than you think. The threat is staggering: One half of all the species alive on earth today will probably be extinct by the end of the century; already we are losing them at the rate of hundreds a day. Millions of human beings will soon be refugees, as their homes are lost to the oceans or to the deserts. Already hundreds of thousands perish every year as a direct result of climate change. There is a climate crisis all around and no amount of free trade, investment or technology will eliminate the roots of this crisis. We forget that the crises has emanated from the way our society is structured – an edifice based on an unending desire for profit and a way of life that sees nature as an object of exploitation and extraction. It is now fundamental to ask ourselves who and what is causing the climate to change like this. We urgently need to unmask all the abstract answers, which attempt to blame all of humanity. These abstract answers disconnect the current situation from the historical dynamics which have emerged from fossil fuel (coal, oil gas)-based industrialization, which causes global warming, and the logic of capitalism, which is sustained by the private appropriation of wealth, and the conquest of profit. Profit at the cost of social exploitation and ecological devastation: these are two faces of the same system, which is the culprit of climate catastrophe.

There is an international scientific consensus: only by containing global warming at less than two degrees Celsius can we prevent the full onslaught of catastrophic climate change. Once this point is passed, earth system feedback loops (for example, the release of methane trapped in melting permafrost and the ocean floor) will overwhelm any human effort at mitigation. To prevent this, according to the same international scientific consensus, carbon emissions must peak by 2015, followed by a rapid and permanent decline. Such words, however, contradict the logic of our economic system, which is based on the imperative of infinite growth. This system has a name: it is capitalism, and it is the enemy of nature.

Capitalism is the reigning economic system built upon profitability. It is equipped with an elaborate class structure and a vast apparatus of institutions to establish its global reach and penetration into lives. In this sense capitalism is the “mode of production” characteristic of our epoch and we consider it to be the cause of most of our social problems and many of our personal woes. Its survival is based on the predatory exploitation of people and of the planet. Marx called attention to its tendency to grow without end, that central feature of capital, its ceaseless growth, as in: “Accumulate! Accumulate! That is Moses and the Prophets!” Marx’s conception of accumulation puts into a deep shade all efforts at reform of the capitalist system, for when reform becomes the goal it works to improve, even perfect, the functioning of the system along with remedying its damages—a contradiction in the case of capital. Under the regime of capital, the commodity rules, as fetish, or idol. We need to trans-form, not re-form, capitalism. Our obligation—to our children and grandchildren, to life, and the future itself—is to find a way of society whose productive logic does not impose accumulation on the world.

Decades of international conferences and decades of missed opportunities demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that neither governments nor corporations nor NGOs are willing or capable of bringing about what every doctor has ordered. The tireless work of activists, well-intentioned officials and enthusiastic school children have made one thing clear: rallies outside office buildings and conference centers will not turn the tide. The time for symbolic protest and for demands is over. It is too late to speak truth to those in power. Now we must speak to the power within ourselves. The clock is ticking. We have a duty to resist the exploitative, extractive, unequal and unjust economic system. We need to replace it. We must restore the rhythm of humanity living in harmony with ourselves and with the earth. There is an alternative. It is being imagined and created all over the world, and now is the time to realize it. But we cannot move beyond fossil fuel, war without a positive vision of the world we wish to create and care for.

Such is the core principle of socialism which does not settle for anything less than the extirpation of capitalism as a mode of production, refusing to turn away from the goal of social revolution. It follows that a prime task for socialism must be to produce eco-socialists capable of bringing nature into continuity with humankind’s rootedness. Capitalism is not just “an economic system” – it is a social system, which has created this thing we call “the economy”, and subordinated everything, from the soil to the sky, to its laws. The economy becomes the central organizing force of society, and also its limit, which cannot be transgressed. The goal of socialism is thus to emancipate ourselves from capitalism.

We set forth our ideas, not to impose them on anyone, but to encourage and inspire the opening of a vision of an alternative future we can all choose and work towards. We have a world to re-build. With this common vision we believe that a movement of billions, united, is only a hair’s breadth away. Even in the unlikely case that you may not care of our times, spare a thought for you coming generations, their inheritance. Do you wish to present to them a world of chaos and destruction? We need to unite, all the people of the world, to resolve the environmental crises, to restore our relationship with nature. We call for the solidarity and harmony of all world’s peoples, united in struggle against the structure of capitalism – of greed, thievery and profiteering. We must build unity through understanding. Socialist ideas is the way in which we understand this world. We understand the current world order as unacceptable. We know a new world is necessary. While others are afraid to understand that capitalism is the enemy of nature, we want to change the system and not the symptoms. Organizing around this is the key to building the socialist movement. We declare that a socialist revolution is necessary and possible.

Popular movements are sweeping the world. A truly global grassroots network has emerged. It is undeniable, feeling its way forward but unsure of itself. People everywhere are searching for a way to change things, for a way to get involved in the world. They are finding movements, and are going through cycles of euphoria and despair. There is a renewed awareness of the commons, and people are reclaiming them. Sometimes in our local struggles we feel like we’re just patching up the system; fighting for band-aids on gaping wounds. But theorizing about revolution without a social base of concrete activity and organization is no better. How can all this local struggle converge into something bigger and better? We understand that an anti-capitalist critique must be the lens and context for our daily lives. We are also searching for a vision to take us beyond protest, beyond mere resistance. Nor is socialism a utopia that we await with folded arms. The transformation of society will not be achieved by fragmented social activism or political action limited to the electoral arena alone. Only the convergence of social and political struggles in a comprehensive overall movement will enable us to build the necessary relationship of forces to be able to challenge the policies of the ruling class.

Socialism means a new mode of production. Socialism means a new understanding of human fulfillment, of human development. Socialism begins with freely associated labor in harmony with nature, without exploitation of humanity or nature. It is activated by life and not profit. It returns us to our most ancient roots as a species even as it carries us forward to the future. Shall civilization emerge into a new world, with the end of the rule of capital over our planet, or shall we plunge into a deep abyss of climate catastrophe, a hell only a few may survive? The world may become unlivable in 50 years. The cause of this is capitalism. The planetary effects of climate change, from droughts to super-storms, are proving this to the world.

Change the system, not the climate!

The Unpredictable Future

In his excellent TV programme HUMAN UNIVERSE Professor Brian Cox illustrated the immense development of humankind when he showed a hand-print outlined by sprayed paint on a Southern Spanish cave reckoned to have been done by a young girl some 35,000 years ago and contrasted this with an astronaut circulating the earth in a spaceship while he admired a similar illustration by his own kids in 2014. Unlike Professor Stephen Hawing who recently despaired of modern society with its global environmental destruction and proposed a massive effort to increase space research and settle somewhere else other that earth - Cox, like us, sounded a more optimistic note about the future. He wound up his programme by remarking along these lines that "Human intelligence is capable of dealing with social and environmental problems and can create more than just bigger and bigger bombs.'  (BBC 4, 4 November) Although the future is unpredictable we are organised with our fellow workers for a new society to get rid of the present awful one. It's up to you! RD

"Democracy" In Action

The USA always claims that they have the world's finest democracy but the recent mid-term elections, which was an all-time  expensive one, show what a sham this claim really is. 'There was $3.7 billion spent mostly on publicity and 55% of this was spent by "special groups", who do not  need to reveal who they are and certainly don't want to publicise it." (BBC News, 5 November) So while the US capitalist class lecture the rest of the world about the glories of US democracy they secretly fund their own special interests behind the backs of the electorate. A strange sort of democracy wherein the rich with their immense wealth manipulate the elections.

So Called Experts.

Capitalism is full of economic "experts" who claim they can forecast rises and falls in the world's markets but this is a complete falsehood as recent developments have shown. Take the case of the  European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union.  The commission slashed growth expectations in the 18-nation eurozone to 0.8 percent from a forecast in the spring of 1.2 percent. 'Italy appeared to stand out as a poor performer: Its economy was predicted to shrink 0.4 percent this year compared with a forecast in the spring for growth of 0.6 percent. The gloomier outlook, especially in the euro area, is a measure of how quickly optimism about a recovery has dissipated as France has failed to grow as hoped and as Italy struggles to make overhauls, and amid signs that the German economy has stalled. Germany is expected to post growth of 1.3 percent this year, down from an earlier forecast of 1.8 percent. The French economy is expected to grow 0.3 percent compared with a forecast in the spring of 1 percent.'  (New York Times, 4 November) As these apparently small percentage falls represent billions of pounds it illustrates how capitalism is a completely unpredictable society despite the expert's forecasts. RD