The latest figures on Accident &Emergency waiting times in England have fallen to their worst level for a decade. The data being released by NHS England covers the October to December quarter. 'From the weekly statistics already available up to mid-December it is clear the four-hour target has almost certainly been missed. Performance is also on track to fall below the 94.1% mark recorded in the first three months of 2013.' (BBC News, 6 January) RD
The Glasgow & Edinburgh Branches Blog. Towards a better understanding of the world, in order to change it.
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
No GP Available
It says a lot about the NHS cuts when the biggest complaint is that patients cannot get access to their GP according to Healthwatch England. 'The watchdog surveyed its 152 local organisations and found that other big concerns included planning for patient discharges, home and residential care quality access to mental health services and the handling of complaints.' (Times, 31 December), These basic flaws are all caused by lack of funds. RD
Tuesday, January 06, 2015
“We, the People”
.jpg)
Socialism is not a salve to rub on the wounds of injured
slaves to make their burden easier to carry. It is not a movement for high
wages only. It is a movement with an ideal that reaches over the bounds of
capitalism. It asserts the system cannot be patched up so the workers will get
what is coming to them. The wage system is a slave system that supports more
idle parasites, and keeps them in greater luxury, than any system of society in
the past. Socialists say it must go, to make way for a system based on freedom,
on equality, on mutual aid, on cooperation. The Socialist Party teaches workers
the power of united effort and awakens a desire for a change to a better system
of economics. Those who benefit by the system are very well satisfied to let it
stand as it is. A system that keeps them in power and idleness and luxury,
undreamt of by even the kings of the past, is quite good enough for the lords
of the land, and the lords of industry and commerce, and the lords of the law.
Where did the master class get its power and wealth? By robbing working people.
Some of you say, no, he got it by honest means. We socialists say no. He got it
by the sweat and toil of the men and women working in his factories. It’s
up to us to arouse the working class to fight for its own emancipation. They
have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to gain.
Socialism is based upon the concept of “We, the People”. Socialism
is not a utopia but a reasoned human answer to the problems humanity faces. Socialists call for radical thinking and
political action that must go to the root causes. We are fighting the current
system: capitalism that imposes commodification of everything for new sources
of profit. It depletes natural resources and it disrupts the climate. We point
at the real culprits of that system: the global corporations, governments chained
to the interests of business and their lobbyists, the green-wash reformers.
Socialism is the alternative where human interests and sharing wealth is the
foundation of the new economy based on real needs, preserving the ecosystem and
its biodiversity. Humanity is an integral part of the ecosystem in which they
live even the two cannot be separated. We reject the deception of a vision of
ecology which would make it compatible with capitalism. Green capitalism still searches
for maximum profits and feeds short-term accumulation. Socialism wants to put
the economic and productive systems at the service of human needs. Socialism
challenges the dictatorship of vested interests and of the private ownership of
the means of production. As it is a revolution to change the forms of
ownership, the institutional system and the hierarchy of legal, social and
environmental standards which organize both society and the economy, it is therefore
a citizens’ revolution, because it intends to empower every person, not in the
interest of a particular social category but for the good of all humans. We
refuse to accept that despair and anger turn into hatred. We want neither an
enlightened vanguard nor benevolent dictators but support the democratic path
of the citizens’ revolution. People are not the problem, they are the solution.
The worst damage that could be wrought by the current crisis would be that
humanity proved unable to open itself up to a new future. Socialism can be a
new future.
Right now the political prospects for socialism future looks
bleak and foreboding but as they say, it is always darkest before the dawn. There
are flickers of hope every now and then. In 2011 there was Occupy Wall Street
and the many offshoots it spawned, itself inspired by the Arab Spring. In
Europe, like-minded expressions of outrage arose, such as the Indignados, directed
against austerity politics and the finance-driven capitalism of our time. The
hope was real, but what sustained it was wishful thinking. Many not swept away
by the enthusiasm of a leaderless movement aimed at taking their own affairs in
their own hands, realised that with prevailing political systems rigged in favour
of entrenched power and wealth, and with the vast majority, the ninety-nine
percent, having no idea what to do next and no way to get it done even if they
did, the revolutionary potential was bound to pass. It is the same with the
wave of protests now. We can expect a few mainly cosmetic reforms to result.
But, on matters of substance, these latest eruptions of people power are likely
to have about as much effect as Occupy Wall Street did. To realise the
aspirations of people in motion, real democracy is indispensable. Mass protests
and popular mobilisation can be part of the process but much more is required. Attacks
on workers’ rights, increasing inequality, and austerity politics and the
continued resistance are still the causes of our hope. Ultimately, though, real
democracy is what it is all about - the people in power. If we have learned
anything over the years it is that there is a sleeping giant out there,
yearning for a constructive purpose, that, if properly organised and with
purpose and direction, has the power to remake the world. We won’t get the change
we need if we rely on elected officials to enact it for us. That will take an
independent movement that isn’t beholden to any party or special interest.
Building it will be a major challenge, and nobody else will do it for us. It
won’t be easy.
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
Monday, January 05, 2015
Capitalism is cancer. Capitalism must die
.jpg)
“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
.jpg)
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."
Sunday, January 04, 2015
"Challenge to CND"
.jpg)
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Paternalism is a common attitude among well-meaning social reformers. Stemming from the root pater, or father, paternalism implies a patria...
