Missile Threat

There is a a widening rift between Moscow and Washington over cruise missiles and increasing patrols by nuclear-capable Russian submarines threaten the end of an era of arms control and bring back the rivalry between the world's two dominant nuclear arsenals. 'Tensions have been taken to a new level by US threats of retaliatory action for Russian development of a new cruise missile. Washington alleges it violates one of the key arms control treaties of the cold war, and has raised the prospect of redeploying its own cruise missiles in Europe after a 23-year absence. ' (Guardian, 4 January) A timely reminder of the major threat of military violence. RD

Capital Is International

Governments and politicians like to portray themselves as patriots but as representatives of international capital they have no country. Here are two recent examples. 'Club Med resorts are set to fall into the hands of one of China's richest men for more than 900m .' (Sunday Times, 4 January) 'The American private equity giant Bain Capital is drawing up plans for a £1.2bn swoop on TI Automotive, one of the most famous names in British manufacturing.' (Ibid) These two transactions will have the blessings of the officials concerned because they represent bigger international profits. Not because of some parochial local interests. RD

Welsh Homelessness

More people will find themselves homeless in Wales due to a lack of options, the  North Wales-based charity Cais has warned. It is blaming a lack of choices available to individuals because of changes in the type of support on offer. Cais chief executive Clive Wolfendale has described the issue as an increasing trend. 'We are seeing people camped out in gardens and woods with nowhere to go," said Mr Wolfendale. "I think individuals are finding themselves not able to be supported by housing organisations and authorities of all types. The options available are becoming more and more limited.' (BBC News, 4 January) RD

Hard Of Hearing

Activists are accusing the NHS of imposing cuts on people who are going deaf by denying them the hearing aids they need. Growing numbers of NHS organisations are rationing access to the devices, even though they combat dementia, depression and social isolation among the hard of hearing. 'Three of England's 211 GP-led local clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), which fund treatments, are already facing heavy criticism after announcing they intend to restrict the numbers of hearing aids in order to save money.' (Observer, 3 January) RD

Capitalism is cancer. Capitalism must die

“A lot has changed in three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of ‘things’. We have eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions…The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn’t exist in the 24th century… The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity.” Captain Picard, Star Trek

We humans have made considerable advances in science and technology over our brief existence on this planet. Yet it still hasn't made us happy for the most part. Billions of us go to bed hungry and/or homeless every night and despite our scientific knowledge and all our technology, we seem powerless to help them. We are in the process of destroying the ecosphere to such an extent that we are now in the middle of a "mass extinction" event. Some blame science itself, but science is neither good nor evil. It is not a problem with science or technology. Neither is it a problem with "human nature." It is a problem with the basic structure of our economic system. If the economy doesn't serve our needs, then why do we serve the economy?

The idea of socialism is not that this is very complicated, or hard to understand, but for many it just simply sounds too good to be true. We have been so ground down living under capitalism that we become convinced that nothing as rational and beneficial as socialism can possibly be possible - life just isn't like that, so there must be a catch somewhere. But socialism is a perfectly reasonable and practical way of organising society and all the various objections are based on the implanted bias of the prevailing capitalist ideology. The terms "socialist" and "communist" have been defined in a bewildering variety of ways. Likewise, the word "capitalism" can mean a great many and sometimes contradictory things to different people. When reading them it is always important to know what the writer means by them. When the Socialist Party talk of socialism, we are referring to the economic and political system most people know as communism.

Genuine socialism is an economic system in which all of the industries and services (stores, restaurants, hospitals, mines, farms, etc.) are socially owned, not privately owned, as in capitalism, or state owned, as in Leninism/Stalinism (i.e., often referred to as "state capitalism" due to its similarity to "pure" capitalism). The industries would serve the needs and wants of everyone, not just the profit interests of the few. In fact, production is carried out exclusively for the needs of everyone, and not for private profit. The object or service itself is what counts, how these impact the consumer, society and the planet. What matters is the purpose and effect of the thing in question, not that someone can use it as a vehicle to obtain more of something else: money. We’ve stripped away everything but its utility and its impact on individual who receives it, the society and the ecosystem.

The premise of socialism is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource and our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter-productive to our survival. Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care. We can develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. No money. No private property. Socialism is very similar to that of the anarchist vision: a stateless society in which central government had "withered away," local, ground-up control of all affairs by strictly democratic processes based at the place of work, abolition of the market system (no money, no buying and selling) and its replacement by a system according to which people would voluntarily work for the common good to the extent they were able under the understanding that they could receive whatever they needed for free ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"). National boundaries and governments having been eliminated, war would cease.

The most common rebuttal of socialist society is that it is impossible to achieve because "you can't change human nature." What Marx set out to prove was that not only had "human nature" changed many times in the past: there is no such thing as a static human nature. We are products of our environment, particularly of the economic system in which we live. People living under feudalism are motivated by feudal motives and think them natural and fixed, just as people living under capitalism are motivated by capitalist motives and mistakenly think those natural and fixed. Capitalists think money solves everything, when it is actually the cause of many social ills. Capitalism isn't working, so what is the alternative? Some people think that socialism sounds great but will never work in practice. They say it would only work in a world with perfect people. The Socialist Party challenges that view. Many people fall back on the argument Human Nature. Trouble with that is, the argument supports our position. Human beings lived for 200,000 years communally, and as recently as the 19th century in North America, Native Americans lived that way. They shared pretty much everything. It’s natural for us to do so. It’s natural for us to work together for the betterment of the family, the neighborhood, the tribe, cooperatively. We evolved in that way, knowing we needed each other to survive and then building from there. The vast majority of us do not want to rule over others. We want to get along and live in harmony and cooperate with our fellows.

“From each according to ability, to each according to needs” will be the guiding precept for people.  Free-access to the articles of consumption is made possible by advances in technology that allow for super-abundance. The means of production are held in common, negating the concept of ownership in capital goods. Production is organized to provide for human needs directly without any use for money. Free-access to the articles of consumption is made possible by advances in technology and is predicated upon a condition of material abundance. There are no political leaders; the people govern themselves directly. People who don’t agree with the majority are free to participate in general assemblies, make their case, persuade their fellow citizens that things should change. They are unconstrained in this regard. They wouldn’t have to worry about being locked up like Occupy protestors. Police wouldn’t have the right to kick them out of meetings. They can protest and petition and rally people to their cause all they wish, freely using all the resources available. This, in fact, would be encouraged. A socialist education system would encourage civic participation and free thinking. It would encourage critical thinking and help develop critical thinking skills.

In socialism, no money or system of currency would exist.  Instead, people would work according to their abilities, and take according to their needs. Society would be one of free access, where no items were held from those who need them due to lack of ability to pay. We would live in a truly free society, with no political state to control our actions, and none would be needed in a system without the material conditions that breed crime and violence, thus making it "necessary" to pass laws to control our behavior. We would be free from want, with no poverty or unemployment. As a result, crime would virtually vanish altogether, and we will have a society that functions with far less friction than any previous system in existence. We would be free from the violent and disturbed individuals that are bred by a capitalist society, which fosters ruthless competition among people, both within and across nations.

Poor people even blame themselves for being poor. They can have problems with self-worth, self-image and self-esteem. Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing. Unemployment has become part of our culture and we all know what it means, because if we can't find a job, we don't get much money, and life gets to be difficult with people looking down on the unemployed. A slave dislikes another slave not doing as much work as they themselves have to do, or worse, not working at all. This hatred is encouraged in the propaganda and it's an easy thing to get people to hate the poor and/or unemployed.  One answer the unemployed could give is "Yes. I can find work. There's work all over that needs doing. But what I can't find is paying work." Or to point out that workers never get paid what their work is worth, because somebody else is taking the profits from that work. The basic principle is that if someone else can sell the fruits of your labour at a profit, then you don't get paid what the labour was worth. The work that rich people pay to have done is not really that big a portion of the work that needs to be done. Without profit, we can cut our work hours down significantly. We’re no longer working to make a few people rich like rajahs, and our work hours become much more aligned with actual production, as opposed to production plus multi-million dollar CEO salaries plus shareholder dividends plus advertising and sales departments, etc. We make what society needs, instead of what the 1% tells us to. Work hours are dramatically shortened, because we no longer work our day to create profit for ownership and shareholders. We work to provide for ourselves and society alone. No profit. No money. No political parties. No corporations. Again, all of us own the means of production, so power over the economy can never be concentrated. It remains dispersed and obviously diverse. Zero private ownership of the means of production. There would be no “ruling class” or “technocratic class” or “management class.” We’re all the managers, technocrats and rulers with no one having any more weight than anyone else.

Socialism works. We all know this first hand. A family operates as a form of socialism. From each of us came goods and services according to our abilities. To each of us, those goods and services were provided according to need. One or both parents went to work and provided the housekeeping budget. The kids did no outside work yet ate well every day. Everybody shares the domestic chores the best they could. Everyone pitches in, does their share. Parents bring home food and share it out equally. They strive to make sure each child has a fair equal shares of clothing, gifts for their birthdays and Christmas. Family members care about taking care of each other, and the system worked. Families help out other families being good neighbours. When they invite friends over, they share their food offering the guest first choice and they don’t charge prices for it. They don’t ration our advice and wisdom according to who can afford it. At work, throughout the day, we work cooperatively with our co-workers. We give of ourselves, our knowledge, sharing our skills, without asking for money in return, expecting nothing more than a “thank you”. So why don't we apply these rules to society at large? In fact, in various forms we have. Free access to health care for all via the NHS. Free primary and secondary education. Free access to libraries, museums and art galleries for all. Free access to parks and beaches and recreation areas (although we are losing much of this free access). This is natural for the vast majority of us. This is our frequently decried “human nature”.

In the socialist “family” we must still do “planning”, if we’re going to achieve social justice and prevent ecological catastrophe. But it doesn’t have to be centrally planned. We do this locally, primarily. Local control, with integration into larger areas; neighbourhoods, towns, districts, regions and the world as a whole. As we get further away from the local, the “planning” becomes more and more generalised, with specifics left up to local economies. Within the plan, or more accurately, the plethora of linked plans basic questions are asked and answered. . How can we grow the widest range of crops in a sustainable fashion? How can we have the widest range of foods in a sustainable fashion? How can we do all of this and treat animals in a humane, compassionate manner? How to make sure our water supply is always safe, clean, Does the product serve the social good? Is the product environmentally safe? Is it safe for individuals, kids, the elderly? Is it sustainable? Does it work and play well with others, with other locales, regions, the planet? Do we actually need it? Broad guidelines create the umbrella, the boundaries, the general goals and pathways and all localities are represented in all other bounded areas. Localities are then free to implement the specifics according to what works for them, as long as these also fit in holistically with the rest of the communities. One family pulling together. Synergy. And that one family owns the means of production. As in, all of us, together.

Socialism removes the need for competition and the need to have losers in order that there be winners. Cooperative economies are designed to be win-win situations. Everybody can be a winner together. Implementation of a cooperative economy would establish the basis for a more humanistic relationship among the members of society and give us all greater access to, and control over the real economy. Everyone would have the opportunity to contribute to the economic policies and to share in each other's wisdom and guidance in the formulation of those policies. This clears the way for "real" progress. This gives us true economic equality. This means that nice people don't finish last. This is nothing less than the next stage in our economic evolution, as a species. We need to embrace socialism. This is where our society is heading and there’s no point fighting it.  We are in this economic struggle together.  Let’s help out our comrades today. A latent potential power rests with the working class which if liberated will mobilise the creative energies and talents of tens and hundreds of millions and socialism and a better world for all people will move from being a possibility to being a reality. The prime requirement for that evolution is a profoundly free society, which is not controlled by force, authorities, leaders, or government, but which volitionally changes itself.

The Socialist Party seeks create a healthier, happier, better-educated and more cohesive society and this we say we can sustain. Sometimes socialists can be justifiably accused at looking back at the past but what we should remember is simply because others failed at their own, unique projects. To-day, we have totally different context, variables, resources, people, methods, and dreams. We can make educated guesses about our own situation to provide sensible launching pads but if we don’t take into account our radical difference from other times and places, it’s a huge mistake when attempting radical change. EVERYONE will have equal say and equal power. The only people who will be “discriminated” against are those who want to be predators and accumulate riches unto themselves. And the only thing those capitalists will be barred from doing is capitalism. They’ll too will get to enjoy the fruits of a society that protects the environment, offers free education, free health care to all, with open access to the Commons which stretches virtually everywhere. They get to enjoy our parks, schools, libraries, museums and cultural venues, at no charge. Clean water, clean air, verdant land as far as the eye can see, safe, organic food supplies, safe, renewable energy created by society for society — even capitalists can enjoy all these things. The only thing they need to give up is their capitalism.

If capitalism is “natural” then we are indeed lost. With the capitalist system everyone is in it for themselves, their own wallet, there’s no way possible to get it right. Businesses don’t check with their competitors regarding their orders and unsold orders, and they have no control, obviously, over what their competitors do. They don’t get together with them to prevent saturation and waste (unless there’s a monopoly cartel, a cartel of monopolies.) There is NO plan of coordination to prevent duplication of effort and of products. Already have 100 sugary cereals on the shelves and more being added. Already have enough deodorant to last us centuries. We don’t even have managed chaos. Everyone for themselves. If they think they can make a profit, they’ll flood the market with garbage. Doesn’t matter if umpteen other businesses are trying the same thing at the same time. Within their first four years, 44% of all businesses fail. That’s primarily due to the “free for all” nature of our economy.

Working For Free?

Most of you who read this will be aware of the comments made by Stephen Poloz, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, on November 4. He suggested that unemployed youth should work for free until the job market picks up. His remarks came a day after a speech he made saying 200,000 young Canadians are out of work, underemployed or back in school. What he didn't say was that many of them need money desperately to survive and pay for courses. It was one of the most stupid and irresponsible things a person high up in the capitalist hierarchy has said in a long time. It is a searing indictment of capitalism that the higher one rises, the further out of touch with economic reality he/she is likely to become. John Ayers.

Hell. A Good Place For Capitalism.

The Toronto Star October 25) brought attention to the fact that many of the world's beaches are disappearing owing to the need for sand for construction. Though the article focused primarily on Cape Verda, the problem is evident in Kenya, New Zealand, Jamaica, and Morocco. Demand for sand has never been greater. It is used in the production of computer chips and mobile phones and especially for cement making. The UN environment program (UNEP) estimates that global consumption of sand is at an average of 40 billion tons annually, three quarters used for concrete. A spokesperson said, " Sands are now being extracted at a rate far greater than renewal. This means that shorelines are being eroded exacerbating the problem already being caused by global warming. So, once again, capitalism creates a problem it cannot cure and there is zero chance that a world common sense solution can be applied. If there are profits to be made in construction, then damage to the world's coastlines can go to hell, which happens to be a good place for capitalism. John Ayers.

One Change Can Do It All

I walked into the food bank where my wife works. Among the leaflets and brochures there was, "Are you homeless, are you almost homeless?…call the Region of Peel outreach team…we can help with Ontario Works, health care, food, clothing, mental health and addiction support, advocacy for housing, emergency shelter, employment, and so on. One thing that came to mind was the amount of time and resources spent that would not be necessary in a socialist system. One change can do it all. John Ayers.

Helpless Migrants

In a "get rich quick" scheme many would-be entrepreneurs are hiring old clapped-out boats renting them out to desperate would-be immigrants and then abandoning them crewless at sea. 'Police in Italy believe traffickers made some $3m (£1.9m ¬ 2.5m) from 359 illegal migrants found abandoned on a cargo ship in the Mediterranean. The Ezadeen was towed into the Italian port of Corigliano Calabro after being found by coast guards on Friday. ....... The police chief of Cosenza province, Luigi Liguori, said each migrant had paid between $4,000 and $8,000 to board the ship.' (BBC News, 4 January) Little thought is given to the scared, exploited and often  terrified victims, but then it never does inside capitalism.  RD

Benefits And Suicide

In July 2013, two weeks after his benefits were cut David Clapson, 59, was found dead in his flat in Stevenage from diabetic ketoacidosis, . And new information provided by the Disability News Service via a freedom of information request has uncovered that the Department for Work and Pensions has carried out 60 peer reviews following the deaths of customers. 'A peer review, according to the DWP guidance for employees, must be undertaken when suicide is associated with DWP activity to ensure that any DWP action or involvement with the person was appropriate and procedurally correct (Observer, 3 January) RD

Capitalism is the Disease, Revolution is the Cure

Do you want to abolish crime, disease and despair from the world? Then abolish poverty which is the cause. Would you like to abolish poverty? Then assist us in abolishing the wages system, the cause of poverty. A society that cannot hush the crying of hungry children or the weeping of women made widows by war isn't worth a damn. For every crime against the mother and the child, capitalism is to blame. It is the ulcer of privation. So long as society maintains the present system of wage slavery, there can be no relief. To rid the world of poverty, capitalism has to be abolished. The only one escape is through the united effort of the whole working class.

The whole working class has been under attack and resistance have been infrequent and limited. Like it or not, so far, the class struggle has been pretty much contained. But even if workers don’t recognize it working-class fight-backs are not only possible -- they are inevitable. Class conflict between the capitalists and the workers is at the very heart of the capitalist system. The capitalist class makes profits at the expense of the working class’s wages and living standards, so the two sides are inevitably driven to class war. When a capitalist pays a worker a wage, they are not paying for the value of a certain amount of completed labour, but for labour-power. The soaring inequality in contemporary society illustrates this--over the past decades, the wealth that workers create has increased, but this has not been reflected in wages, which remain stagnant. Instead, an increasing proportion of the wealth produced by workers swelled the pockets of the super-rich, who did not compensate the workers for their increased production on the job. It appears that the capitalist pays the worker for the value produced by their labour because workers only receive a paycheck after they have worked for a given amount of time. In reality, this amounts to an interest-free loan of labour-power by the worker to the capitalist. As Marx wrote, "In all cases, therefore, the worker advances the use-value of his labour-power to the capitalist. He lets the buyer consume it before he receives payment of the price. Everywhere, the worker allows credit to the capitalist." Socialists conclude that the only way for workers to control the wealth they create and use it to meet their needs was under a different system altogether. As he wrote in Value, Price and Profit, "Instead of the conservative motto 'A fair day's wages for a fair day's work!' they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: 'Abolition of the wages system!”

To re-iterate capitalism can be best defined as generalised commodity production where labour power itself has become a commodity. The workers—those who operate the means of production—are separated from them, or using legal language, don’t own them. Instead, a separate class of people—the capitalists—own the means of production. The capitalists purchase labour power from people who belong to the proletariat—people who own neither land nor capital. The proletarians sell their ability to work, or labour power, to the capitalists and get in return a definite sum of money—called a wage. Wages are therefore nothing but the price of labour power. In a socialist society there would be no wage system. In a socialist society we would have full and free access to the collective wealth of society.

Marx described the often mis-defined  first phase of communism thus.

“Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production,” Marx wrote, “the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labour employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labour no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labour.”

Remember, this is Marx describing the lower not the higher stage of communism. While under capitalism only the labour that is used to produce the money commodity is directly social, under communism, including its first stage, the labor that goes into the production of all products is directly social. Marx explained that the lower phase of communism is a co-operative society. It is a gigantic producers’ cooperative that embraces the entire economy. Its central feature is the common ownership of the means of production. Notice, not some means of production but all means of production of any significance. There is not only no private ownership of the means of production. There is also no group ownership of the means of production such as existed with the Russian state-capitalism. Therefore, there are no classes at all. We are already dealing with a classless society. As far as their relationship to the means of production—ownership in legal language—all people are equal.

Second, “the producers do not exchange their products.” This is not only true of the producers of the means of production but also is true of the producers of the means of consumption. Many so-called Marxists over the decades such as the well-known economist Ernest Mandel, imagined that this was true only of the higher stage of communism. But this was not Marx’s view. Even in its initial stage, according to Marx, commodity production has already completely disappeared. “Just as little,” Marx wrote, “does the labour employed on the products appear here as the value of these products—since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labour no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labuor.”

Is there money during the lower phase of communist society? There is only one possible answer to this question. The answer is no. Without commodity production, there cannot be money relations. Therefore, money will not exist, if we follow Marx, in the lower phase of communism. If commodity production and money still exist, it is not or not yet the lower stage of communism but at best the transitional phase that lies between capitalism and the lower stage of communism. Marx wrote: “For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.”

Notice here Marx does not say the workers receive a certain sum of money for the labor they perform for society but rather certificates that they have furnished a certain amount of labor to society. Marx specifically avoids using the term money here. So there is no wage labor in the sense of a price of labor power in the first phase of communist society as foreseen by Marx. According to Marx’s definition of the first stage of communism as expressed in his “Critique of the Gotha Program,” all people able to work are required to do so. All the means of production are held in common by society. Therefore, there are no classes, and since there are no classes there is no class struggle. To talk about the class struggle under the lower phase of communism is therefore nonsense.

People could have everything they need to live well. But it’s impossible to achieve under the capitalist system, which is driven to pursue profits rather than human needs. Therefore, only a socialist revolution can bring about a society of abundance for all. Socialism envisions a society of abundance for all. In a socialist society every member of society is a co-owner of the means of production and collectively administer the means of production and control the distribution of their collective product. When the workers no longer have the vast majority of the value of their product stolen from them by a class of idle parasitical owners but enjoy the full fruit of their labour then the material incentive to be industrious will be far greater than it is today. So too will be the incentive to improve productivity through better machines and methods. In socialist society, when productivity is improved, no one loses the opportunity to work. Rather, each improvement in productivity lessens the amount of socially necessary labour time needed to acquire goods and services; the result is hours kicked out of the work-week, not workers being kicked out of jobs. In socialist society, with the workers in democratic control of the production process itself, ample labour and resources could be devoted to make workplaces safe and pleasant. With the emphasis placed on improving the machinery and methods of production, the pace of production itself could be regulated at a constructive, but not oppressive or unsafe, level. Jobs could be rotated or redefined to make them less repetitive or tedious. Of course, with exploitation eliminated, and, consequently, workers able to live well on something on the order of a 15-hour work-week, tedium would be less of a problem. Moreover, with education and job training freely accessible to all, people would be able to experience different occupations far more readily than is the case today. Furthermore, the opportunities for applying oneself creatively, both on the job and in one's expanded leisure time, would be greatly increased.

When all these things are considered, it is evident that the natural desire to contribute to society would be enhanced, for in contributing to society, the worker under socialism benefits himself or herself at the same time. Under capitalism, the worker is constantly tempted to think, "Why work hard? I get paid the same lousy wage anyway." In socialism, the worker realises, "If I work conscientiously, society benefits and I benefit."

With the capitalist no longer controlling the distribution of workers' product, and with the flourishing of a cooperative spirit emanating from cooperative production, workers would take unhindered pride and pleasure in their ability to fulfill the needs of others. As Marx put it: "In your joy or in your use of my product, I would have the direct joy from my good conscience of having, by my work, satisfied a human need ...”

The Failure of Reformism Admitted

The NHS cannot tackle the health gap between rich and poor by itself and can only provide a "sticking plaster" for such inequalities, according to the convener of Holyrood's Health Committee. MSPs on the Scottish Parliament's Health and Sport Committee found that while there had been "many well-intended initiatives" aimed at reducing the differences in health between affluent communities and those in deprived areas "none has made any significant difference". The committee concluded most causes of health inequalities are "rooted in wider social and income inequalities"

Committee convener Duncan McNeil said: "That your income, your education and where you live contribute to how healthy you are is an issue that as a society should bring us significant shame. Since devolution, successive governments have made this a political priority and invested significant amounts of public money in tackling this complex issue. But sadly none have made any significant difference." He added: "Our NHS can offer a sticking plaster, but without a new approach we will not tackle the root causes of inequality and improve the health outcomes of thousands of people across Scotland."

In their report MSPs said "Despite many well-intended initiatives, none has made any significant difference. Indeed, although health is improving, it is doing so less rapidly than in other European countries and although the latest figures are a little more encouraging, health inequalities remain persistently wide."

"Challenge to CND"

Letters to the Editors from the July 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Comrades,

Please find enclosed cutting from Motherwell Times, which contains a challenge to debate with the CND. A further challenge to debate has been issued to all the political parties engaged in the forthcoming general election, only in more general terms, and has been published in this week's issue of Hamilton and Motherwell People, a free drop paper issued every week under the auspices of the Hamilton Advertiser. So far we await reaction.

Comrade Murphy was a founder member of the old Hamilton Branch which functioned from 1935 to 1945, during which period I was secretary and then transferred to Glasgow Branch and continued membership. Motherwell and Hamilton—three miles apart and separated on the north and south banks of the River Clyde—lie right in the heart of the industrial belt of Scotland. Motherwell has more or less boxed the political compass and, with the exception of the SDP who are too recent, have chopped and changed for every reformist party over the years, and having the dubious honour of electing the first Communist Party member (Walton Newbold) and the first Scottish Nationalist (Dr. Robert McIntyre) to sit in Parliament. Labour have held the seat in 1946. Hamilton has been consistently Labour since 1918 with one exception, when the Scottish Nationalists won a by-election, but reverted to Labour at the following general election and has remained so ever since.

The industrial belt, traditionally dependent on shipbuilding and heavy engineering, has felt some of the worst effects of the present slump, as it did in the 1930s. Hamilton is no longer a coal town, and the only colliery left in Lanarkshire (Cardowan Stepps) is due for closure. Motherwell, so dependent on the Ravenscraig Steel Compound, is almost devastated by the cuts operating under the McGregor Plan for British Steel brought on by the world crisis dominating government policy no matter what reformist party governs.

It is not my intention to bore you with a particular description of capitalism as it is the world over, but only to give cheer in the knowledge that once our party principles and policy are understood and accepted, they stick. Although we are now reduced to three in number and would seem to have been quiescent over the years, our interest in the activities of Glasgow has always been keen and only the onslaught of age (we are all well in our seventies) prevents us from attending meetings regularly.

Yours for Socialism. Tommy Jones.

ex-secretary of the old Hamilton Branch.

"Challenge to CND"

Sir, — Today in the 1980s the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is expanding its membership at a rapid rate. It makes an emotional appeal to people's understandable fears of the effects of a nuclear war.

Since it was founded in 1958, CND has seen the number of nuclear weapons in the world multiply hundreds of times over, but it has consistently refused to discuss what actually causes wars.

When people really start to escape from the fears and prejudices that plague well-intentioned bodies such as CND, it will not just be just a matter of 'ban the bomb'; it will be the end of all wars and of the economic rivalries between national ruling classes that cause them.

I challenge the CND to debate with a representative of the Socialist Party of Great Britain on the question, The Case Against CND. — Yours, etc., R. Murphy, 73 Calder Grove, Motherwell.

Frail And Elderly? Tough!

FRAIL AND ELDERLY? TOUGH!                              

Meals on wheels for frail and elderly people have sharply declined by more than 200,000. The number of meals-on-wheels provided by councils in England for vulnerable and elderly people has plummeted by 63% compared to five years ago, according to recent figures. 'A shortage in funds from central government run by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats meant that around 220,000 frail and vulnerable people who relied on sustenance being delivered to their doors were not receiving the care they deserved amid an adult social care "crisis", the Local Government Association said.' (Independent, 3 January) RD

Another Failure

One of the illusions that Mrs Thatcher nurtured was that Britain was becoming a "property-owning democracy" like much of her political promises it turned out to be nonsense. 'So, an Englishman's home is no more his castle. At least, not his personally owned castle. This year, the level of home ownership among Britons is set to   plunge below that of those famous renters, the French. According to EU figures, back in 2005, 70 per cent of us owned our own homes; the most recent figures stood at 64.6 per cent and falling.' (Daily Telegraph, 3 January) Capitalism promises much but so often it fails to deliver. RD

A Wasteful Society

According to recent studies, as of 2014 the army of the United States of America is one of the strongest armies in the world,- and that comes down to money. 'The yearly budget that the United States of America government has allocated to their army is more than six hundred and twelve BILLION dollars. Yup, you read that right: more than six hundred and twelve billion dollars. It is hard to match the global firepower of a country that spends that much on an army!' (Shockpedia, 2 January)This is  because, despite not having a  battle on their own soil for tens if not hundreds of years, American troops are currently deployed in nearly one hundred and fifty countries. RD

Unpredictable Capitalism

Capitalism is forever outfoxing the so-called economic experts. A few years ago it seemed that the North Sea was a potential bonzana of potential wealth, but the promised riches have proven to be an illusion.  'Oil and gas giants are planning to slash the wages of thousands of Scottish workers by about 15 per cent. With Brent Crude is at a five-year low, American giant Chevron has announced it is to cut rates paid to agency contractors by about 15 per cent. It follows similar moves by other firms. BP has agreed with recruitment agencies in Aberdeen to lower rates by up to 15 per cent for about 450 workers from this year.' (Herald, 1st January) RD

The Socialist Compass

Humanity is at one of the most important crossroads in its history, having spread across the globe and advanced through various stages of hunting and gathering to industrial capitalism. This evolution has seen an explosion of technological progress and economic output. But now our actual existence as a species is threaten by impending environmental catastrophe. Humanity is indeed at a crossroads — and capitalism is in the way.

If you don’t know where you want to go, no road will take you there. You need to know your destination and politically that means possessing an understanding of the goal. You need a vision for the future. Socialists hold a very clear vision in their hearts and minds, a vision of a society which would permit the full development of human beings – a society which allowed everyone to develop their potential - and that would not occur because decreed and bestowed from above but, rather, as a result of the conscious self-activity of people themselves. Common ownership of the means of production and distribution is the way to ensure that our communal, social productivity is directed to the free development of all rather than used to satisfy the private goals of capitalists, groups of producers, or state bureaucrats. Production for use organised by workers themselves permits workers to develop their own capacities by combining thinking and doing in the workplace and, thus, to produce not only things but also themselves as self-conscious associated producers. This is the vision of the society we want to build. This is where we want to go. And if we don’t know that, no road will take us there. But knowing where we want to go is not enough. There a relationship between our objective, and the road we choose to take us to it. We have to now agree how to get there.

Marx and Engels used the terms interchangeably. Years later, and especially under the influence of Lenin, socialism became an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism but there is no basis for that in Marx’s writings. Lenin conceived of socialism as the first stage of communism, but this is not in Marx who sought a society of free and associated producers — “an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common, and expending their many different forms of labour-power in full self-awareness as one single social labour force.” People who say “well, that’s communism (a utopian society), but socialism has a different principle—to each according to their contribution/work/deeds is a distortion of Marx. Marx didn’t have two stages: socialism and communism. Marx had one society which comes on to the scene defective initially because it inherits all these defects from the old society. But developing that new society cannot be carried on by building on those defects. That argument goes back to Lenin, who argued that until people are highly developed, we have to have the state control where they work, how much they get, and the “socialist principle” is to each according to his contribution. But the tendency to want an equivalent for everything you do is the defect inherited from the old world. That’s what you have to struggle against, not build upon. “Only in a revolution”, wrote Marx and Engels, can the working class “succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew”.

In a Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, Engels stated:

“The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers – proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.”

State ownership was only advocated to further develop productive forces to make way for socialism. But in the Communist Manifesto, it called for nationalisation of productive forces. However, this is now redundant because production is already built up. Social (common) ownership of the means of production is, of course, not the same thing as state ownership. Socialism, the creation of social wealth has only one objective – to further the interests of the people, by raising living standards, improving and extending social services and unleashing the cultural forces now stifled by the domination of capital. Socialism will not only alter the basic institutions of society in a radical way. Building upon the human capacity for practical intelligence and caring solidarity, which people have always shown themselves able to display in some measure, even under the most adverse conditions, socialism will in time change the whole tone of people’s day-to-day relations with one another. People will start to take increasingly direct charge over their affairs collectively. Labour itself will become, in Marx’s words, “not only a means of life, but life’s prime want.” People will tend to become less socially passive and competitive, and more critical-minded and co-operative. Creative labour for the good of society and the individual will be characteristic of the citizens of a socialist commonwealth, a classless society founded on an abundance of material and spiritual wealth in which the state will wither away and people will each contribute according to their abilities and receive according to their needs. By eliminating the tremendous waste caused by military production and wars, economic crises, overproduction, planned obsolescence of consumer goods, unemployment, cut-throat rivalry, and competitive advertising, the socialist state will place at the disposal of society huge amounts of previously wasted resources, production for use can be planned to meet the needs of our people without the profit-driven promotion of over-consumption and the socialist economy will create the conditions necessary to fully implement an ongoing prudent use of natural resources and ecologically minded management of the environment.

The working class is the social force in the struggle to replace capitalism with socialism. Because the system of private property is the source of its oppression, the working class can liberate itself only by abolishing this system and replacing it with a system based on social ownership of the means of production. This new system is the only one capable of doing away permanently with all of the abuses and injustices of capitalism. Unlike all previous social transformations, the socialist revolution demands conscious action by the working class. Socialism can only be achieved through the united action of millions of working men and women conscious of their social interests and the steps necessary to realise them. Because the socialist revolution seeks to substitute socially planned economic development for the existing system of exploitation of the producers, the new system cannot develop spontaneously once capitalism is abolished. It requires the conscious restructuring of social relations to eradicate the division of society into classes. Socialism can be self-sustaining because it can work. Capitalism, based on permanent expansion and accumulation of capital, can’t. Socialism is a flexible and adaptable system.

Socialism is a trinity – common ownership of the means of production, social production self-organised by workers, and production for use for all communities needs. While necessary, worker management on its own as often advocated by those who support co-operatives or syndicalism is not sufficient for the construction of socialism. The danger of sectional interests working for their own benefit rather than that of the common good remains a major problem. In a nutshell, what we mean by ‘socialism’ is a world economy controlled by workers and consumers and devoted to the needs of humanity rather than the narrow interests of business owners and their investors.  If you want to see socialism in action, simply visit your local public library. Anyone can use the public library for free. Anyone can go to the library, browse, use their computers, check out books, movies, CD’s, whatever, all for free. It is a community resource of many dimensions. The library is also somewhere to go when there’s nowhere else to go. Marx had nothing against public libraries having sat in reading room of the British Library doing his research. Even an avowed capitalist such as Andrew Carnegie couldn’t deny the social benefit of libraries and used his philanthropy to build them. Use of the public library is not means-tested. No one is making a profit.  It provides a social good that cannot be measured in dollars and cents. The same model can be applied to every aspect of society. The library shows people on a daily basis that there is another way to do things besides relying on the private-owned for-profit capitalist market. Libraries are a model that must scare those powerful men and women who cannot abide the idea of a common public good not built on a profit model. Libraries are highly subversive.

However the real issue is control of the means of production by the working class, not social services, no matter how beneficial. Otherwise, the founder of modern socialism would be Otto von Bismarck who set up the beginnings of a welfare system explicitly so as to ensure the loyalty of the working class

Ambulance Thieves

Capitalism is an awful society and by its very nature has ordinary people behaving in an outrageous fashion. 'In 2012/13, equipment was stolen from a special operations response division vehicle, while ambulances at the Scottish Ambulance Service academy in Glasgow were also targeted. Conservative chief whip John Lamont said: "The idea of thieves targeting ambulances while paramedics attempt to save lives is sickening. "People will be disgusted that this has occurred so many times across Scotland over the last three years.' (BBC News, 3 January) The thought of selfless paramedics being pilfered by petty thieves is enough to turn one's stomach. RD

Helpless Victims

In a "get rich quick" scheme many would-be entrepreneurs are hiring old clapped-out boats renting them out to desperate would-be immigrants and then abandoning them crewless at sea. 'Italian authorities have taken control of a ship carrying 450 migrants, thought to be Syrian, that was abandoned by its crew off Italy coast. The Italian coast guard said it was now heading to the port of Crotone after a rescue team managed to board the ship. The Ezadeen, sailing under the flag of Sierra Leone, lost power in rough seas overnight off the south-east of Italy. Almost 1,000 migrants were rescued from another ship found abandoned without any crew earlier in the week.' (BBC News, 2nd January) Little thought is given to the scared, exploited and often  terrified victims, but then it never does inside capitalism. RD