For Ourselves

Down through the ages, people have dreamed of a world of freedom and equality, an end to exploitation and misery. The capitalist system is incapable of meeting the needs and aspirations of the people. By its very nature, capitalism generates or intensifies poverty, nationalism, sexism, racism, war and environmental destruction. Only socialism can have the interests of the people as a priority. Only socialism can use the benefits of the scientific and technological revolution for the well-being of all. The basic conflict between capital and labour is inherent to the capitalist system. The capitalists, who control the main means of production, employ wage-workers only so long as their labour produces profits for them. They hold down wages to the lowest possible level so as to squeeze greater profits out of the exploitation of the workers. The workers fight to maintain and increase their wages, improve their living and working conditions, and extend their economic, social and political rights. This is the heart of the class struggle. There are times when social and economic problems become so bad that people are forced to choose between the social system that makes their lives difficult and a new one that will make their lives better. Times like that are called revolutionary times. They don’t come often, but when they do the question of HOW to make the change that’s needed becomes as important as WHAT that change should be. We face that kind of choice today. Capitalism creates countless problems that it cannot solve. It uses technology to throw people out of work and to make those who keep their jobs work harder. It creates hardship and poverty for millions, while the few who own and control the economy grow rich off the labor of those allowed to keep their jobs. It destroys the cities that we built up. It is destroying the natural environment that is the source of the food we eat and the air we breathe. Every effort made to prevent these problems, or to keep them from growing even worse, has failed. Is this what we want? Is this what we have worked so hard to build? Should we keep a social system that is destroying the lives, the liberties and the chance for happiness that our work and productivity make possible? Is it really worth the price to keep a small and despotic class of capitalists living in obscene wealth?

If you agree with us that the time for such a change has come, then there are certain things we must understand. The first is that workers can expect no help from those who benefit from capitalism. Individual capitalists may see the handwriting on the wall and join with the workers but as a class, however, the capitalists, just like the slave-owning and feudal classes before them, will try to keep their strife-ridden and poverty-breeding system going. The workers can only rely upon themselves to build a better world and free themselves through their own class-conscious efforts. The second thing to understand is this: Workers make up the vast majority of the population. By workers we mean the working class. We mean all whose intellectual and physical labour contributes to the development, manufacture and distribution of the goods, services and information that our complex society needs. We mean all those who must sell their physical and mental talents and skills on the labour market, and who depend on the wages and salaries they receive in exchange. We mean white-collar and blue-collar, production and office workers, those who research and develop as well as those who build, distribute and serve. We mean the whole working class, including the unemployed and those forced to settle for part-time or temporary work.  The working class makes everything and it makes everything work. Collectively, it has tremendous potential power.

For social change toward a better world, socialists believe the most important and indeed decisive social force is the struggle of the working class. Why the working class? Taken as individuals, there is no reason to argue whether workers are "better" human beings than others because they are workers and are no better or worse than you or I or any other Tom, Dick and Harry.

Rather, workers are taught organisation not by their superior intelligence or by outside agitators, but by the capitalists themselves. Workers are organised on the assembly lines, in the factory gangs, in shifts, in work teams, in the division of labor of capitalism itself. Capitalism cannot live and cannot grow without "organising" its workers and teaching them the virtues of a form of "solidarity", of working together. It hammers home every day the advantages of pooled effort, and the subordination of the interests of an individual to the needs of the group. The collective interests of workers lead them to struggle. There always arises the pressure of demands for higher wages and better working conditions which cannot be wished away. Steadily the labour movement's demand all comes in conflict with the capitalist insistence on the rights of employers and private property, to challenge the power of capital. The roots of worker self-activity and self-organisation in opposition to the employer lie, in the first place, in the reality of exploitation; i.e., the wage relationship—the very heart of capitalist accumulation, expansion, and growth. The conditions and interests of working class pushes it towards organised struggle against capitalism. It is the experience of exploitation and its intensification that lies behind the great labour upheavals. Working class life embodies experiences that contradict many of the old ideas and assumptions.  These contradictions tend to be sharper and more frequent at the point of production (but they can and do break out in other realms of life as well.)  The experience of exploitation and the intensification and reorganization of work and/or falling real incomes that inevitably accompanies it push workers into collective conflict with their employers.  People will put up with a lot when they feel they have to, but sooner or later some people begin to fight back, then more join in. 

 The key question facing the working class is that to change society it must understand it and itself. Class consciousness is a slippery item to investigate. Gains in consciousness can be gradual or rapid, partial or more or less total depending on the magnitude of the experience that shakes up the old ideas and the alternative ideas available. But consciousness can slip back into old habits as well. While we will talk about different levels of consciousness, we do not mean to imply some stage theory of consciousness. The means by which thoughts and perceptions of the world change within an individual are clearly complex and possesses a "psychological" side. Marx made the distinction between the consciousness of being a class "in itself" and "for itself."  The first is the simple recognition that the working class is a distinct class with interests opposed to the capitalist class. It involves an awareness of class conflict and the need for organization, but a more or less unquestioned assumption that "the system" is here to stay and all that is to be done is to make it better for the workers.  The consciousness of being a class "for itself" is the awareness that capitalism can be replaced and that it is the task of the working class to emancipate itself by doing just that.  A class is only really a class, a class ‘for itself’ when it is also a social movement, when it has a consciousness of its mission and the organisation to express that and bring it about. This is socialist consciousness.

Marx didn't look to the working class because of some supposed moral superiority, the clarity of their ideas at any particular moment, or the infinite effectiveness of their trade unions.  Marx looked to this class because in capitalist society they were the only other class, besides the bourgeoisie, who had the potential power to change things.  Their power flowed from their position in the economy and from their numbers.  "Ye are many, they are few," as the poet Shelley put it.  More than that, this class has the power to create society's wealth and, acting as a class, to bring society and its production to a halt.  "Without our brain and muscle not a single wheel would turn," the Wobblies sang.  We might now add: "Not an inch of fiber optic cable laid, no just-in-time delivery made.” The problem has always been organising that power and giving it conscious expression for a common purpose. While socialists can and do play an important role in building and providing direction for such movement, they don't have to invent them. While we don't claim to have the road map, we do claim to have a compass.  It points to the working class being the agent of change. We in the Socialist Party cannot make workers act but we can explain why they should and must take action.

We are all exploited

Socialists say workers are exploited and this creates a mental picture of sweatshops with over-bearing overseers cracking the proverbial whip to extract every last ounce of work from toiling employees. For sure, such conditions exist around the world but this is not exactly the meaning of exploitation we have in mind. In Britain when people complain that they are being ‘exploited’ at work, they usually mean that they are being treated unfairly or being ripped off by zero-hour contracts or whatever.  We need to go further than this simple idea of unfairness because that naturally implies that there can be a fair wage, a job where we aren’t exploited and that is not true. Our definition of exploitation is the forced appropriation of the unpaid labour of workers. Under this definition, all working-class people are exploited. The ultimate source of profit, the driving force behind capitalist production, is the unpaid work of wage-earners. So for Marx, exploitation forms the foundation of the capitalist system. Every dividend paid to the shareholders, every penny demanded as interest by the bankers, every pound collected by capitalist landlords--all of this is the result of the uncompensated labor of working-class people. The "rentier" classes, such as finance capital and landlords, take their cut from the wealth extracted from the labour of workers in the form of interest on loans to the industrial capitalists and to others in society, rent for factories and homes, and so on. And because exploitation is at the root of capitalism, it follows that the only way to do away with exploitation is to achieve an entirely different society—socialism. Simplistic theories of exploitation say capitalism can be made fair by making the worst capitalists behave. The Marxist theory of exploitation means that society can be made fair only by overthrowing the capitalists and getting rid of their system.

The distinction between "labour-power" and "labour" is the key to understanding exploitation under capitalism. When a capitalist pays a worker a wage, they are not paying for the value of a certain amount of completed labour, but for labor-power. The soaring inequality in contemporary society illustrates this--over the past three decades of neoliberalism, 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 superrich, 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."

The capitalist buys labour-power on the market. In general, the wage--the price of labour-power--is, like all other commodities, determined by its cost of production, which is in turn regulated by struggles between workers and capitalists over the level of wages and benefits, and by competition between workers for jobs. As Marx wrote in Wage, Labour and Capital, the cost of production of labour-power is "the cost required for the maintenance as the laborer...and for his education and training as a labourer." In other words, the price of labour-power is determined by the cost of food, clothing, housing and education at a given standard of living. Marx adds that "the cost of production of...[labour-power] must include the cost of propagation, by means of which the race of workers is enabled to multiply itself, and to replace worn-out workers with new ones." So, wages must also include the cost of raising children, the next generation of workers. So in Marx's generalized analysis, the level of wages depends on what it takes to keep workers and their families (who represent the next generation of workers) alive and able to work--with their standard of living affected by the outcome of class struggles between workers and capitalists. The cost of wages or labour-power depends on factors completely independent of the actual value produced by workers during the labor process. This difference is the source of "surplus value," or profit.

To the individual worker, only if pay begin to fall below the level of what is needed to live normally, does work begin to look like “exploitation”. Otherwise it seems like a “fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay”. But all is not as it seems. Labour power is unique. It alone has the ability to create extra value out of all the other inputs. It creates this value in the very process of being used up, put to work. If you think about it, it becomes obvious. What would a fridge full of raw hamburgers, jars of pickle and stacks of sesame buns be worth to McDonalds without workers there to cook and serve them? Answer: the same as the capitalist paid for them. Only labour power can increase their value. But workers are not paid the whole value that they create in production. They are only paid the amount needed to reproduce their labour power. The extra value that workers create is effectively stolen by the buyer of labour power, the owners of the workplace – the capitalist. This “surplus value” is the secret behind the constant growth of capital, behind the capitalists’ profits. Whereas a worker at best “accumulates” some personal and household possessions – some savings, a retirement pension – the capitalists accumulate in their hands the entire vast means of production and distribution – the factories, offices, supermarkets, land, banking. We built it, they own it. The capitalists don’t do this because they are good or bad. They invest capital and make a profit neither out of their goodwill to ‘provide jobs’ or ‘get the economy going’ (as they always claim) nor out of a wicked desire to exploit people. It’s more than just greed. The individual capitalist is compelled to extract the maximum surplus value from his or her workforce because of competition with other capitalists. The weak get swallowed up. The strong get bigger. That means not just taking the profits and spending it all on yachts and mansions. It means re-investing some of them back into the business to build more factories, better machines, create new products. And so competition drives development and further industrialisation and expands its capacity therefore to produce even more … capital. That is why Marx’s criticism of capitalism as a system is not a moral or ethical one. These are just the natural dynamics of it as an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and market competition.

This competitive drive to accumulate, to make profits is absolutely opposed to the interests of the worker. The capitalist can increase surplus value only at his or her expense. This can be done in two ways. One is by getting more work out of us for the same wage – by increasing the length of the working day (overtime) or by making us work harder and faster. The second way to boost profits is to reduce wages – by cutting workers’ wage packets, or sacking some of the workforce or moving production to a country where labour power can be bought more cheaply. In this ceaseless struggle workers have only one resource – the fact that no surplus value will accumulate, no profits be made without their labour. If the individual worker is powerless, the workforce united is powerful. When bosses push workers too far they strike and remove the source of profit – their labour. Out of the need to resist the capitalists’ remorseless hunger for surplus value comes the need for a collective fight-back. Out of capitalist exploitation comes the class struggle.

Socialists aim not merely for a more equitable distribution of the social product, but for a transformation in the mode of production - the abolition of private property in the means of production and the conversion of these into a democratic economy of the associated producers, a planned administration of things rather than the coercion of people, material wealth for all on the basis not of equal rations, but “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”

Work For Two Weeks For No Pay!

A recent Toronto Star article focused on the plight of gold miners at La Rinconada in Peru, which, at 5,200 metres above sea level, is the highest mine in the world.

 Corporation Minera Ananea, the owners, allow groups of young men to work for two weeks for no pay, and, if productive, are allowed to work for a day or two for themselves.

 Like all mining, it's dangerous work with a constant fear of rock falls, inhalation of toxic gases ,and the need to extract the gold by hand using mercury, itself a highly toxic chemical. A group of miners excavated 65 grams that brought each of them $238.50 It might be several weeks before they are so lucky again and several months before the UN environmental program decides on a legally binding global mercury treaty. 

Nobody forces these men to work for so little, for so long, and in such dangerous circumstances. So what does? It's something called economic necessity, bearing in mind they have families to support. 

Let's speed the day when such conditions of work will not be necessary. 

John Ayers.

The Power of Our Vote

The right to vote is enshrined in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections.” It is a right that was hard won. Without question, the struggle for voting rights was a noble struggle and its achievements go beyond simply casting a ballot. Organising themselves and vigourously fighting for a political goal gave workers (and in particular women and blacks) a social and political presence that had been denied them for centuries. The struggle waged to win the vote set examples for those who wish to engage in political struggle, regardless of the cause. But the vote itself, what it literally meant, what it produced, who it benefited, what its value was to society in political and social terms was not submitted to careful study. And so it is conceivable that many of those who risked their lives to gain the right might now question the wisdom of relying upon such a system for selecting those who govern.

The fact that a people participates in electoral assemblies does not mean that they direct the government or that the class that is ruled chooses its own rulers. When we say that the voters ‘choose’ their representative, we are using a language that is very inexact. We end up voting for those who are pre-selected. The voter, for his vote to have meaning, ends up having to choose from among a very small number of contenders, the two or three who have a chance of succeeding, and the only ones who have any chance of succeeding are those whose candidacies are already championed by party committees and by lobby groups. The relative handful who are selected to speak for the citizenry are rarely, if ever, a random selection. They are rarely, if ever, representative of the population at large. And they are rarely, if ever, open to the wishes of their constituencies. Instead, those selected to speak for the citizens speak not for their constituency but for the organised minorities who put them in power, minorities with certain values in common, based on considerations of property and taxation, on common material interests, on ties of class.  If you are bold enough and fool hardy enough to try and run for higher office on an independent ticket you will have very limited press coverage and you will be denied access to televised debates. You will be sidelined in every way conceivable way as insignificant. The official election campaign is a travesty of democracy. Whatever the make-up of the next government, its agenda has already been determined. Finance capital, big business and the major parties agree that working people must be made to pay for the economic crisis that is not of their making.

What does the Socialist Party do? This can be ascertained from the practice of socialists around the world. While conditions differ from country to country, one common element is that socialists contend with the bourgeoisie in every place and in every way possible to win the hearts and minds of the working class, and challenge for political power. An important field of struggle is elections. Many dismiss running because socialist candidates cannot win. This is true, today. But we lay the groundwork for tomorrow, today. There is a distinction between running and winning. We know we can't win. But we know that by running we gain access to the notice of tens of thousands. At the hustings we can even confront the capitalist candidates directly. Elections are one of the best ways for socialists to get a public hearing. Elections should be seen as a great arena to publicise and populise socialist ideas. It is marvelously morale–raising to discover while canvassing that there are already a great many socialists out there, and many more potential socialists. It would be difficult to campaign for election without making new contacts, new recruits and increasing the working class' understanding of political realities and socialist ideas. Party members and volunteers grow immensely as speakers, and organizers. And voters are refreshed by real solutions. If we socialists don’t speak up for socialism in the electoral arena, who will? And if not now, when? The Socialist Party appeals to real socialists, those who, to quote the Communist Manifesto, “disdain to conceal their aims.” We take on those phony socialists who pin their hopes on backing capitalist reformers as a way to build for socialism. Why go south to reach the north. A socialist is not a member of, or supporter of, any capitalist party whatever. This is the first test of socialist seriousness and sincerity. The problem is this gives socialist cover to a capitalist party. For example, though the Greens may desire a kinder, gentler capitalism, the practical outcome of their dreams can be seen in Europe where they have been in coalition. Greens prosecute wars, impose austerity, and more. Why would socialists feed the Green Party’s false hopes that capitalism can be fixed?

The Socialist Party and its 10 candidates are alone in speaking for the working class and fighting for its interests in the 2015 election campaign. The working class cannot defend its independent class interests except through a complete political break with all the parties and organisations that defend the profit system—above all from the Labour Party. Workers must reject all forms of racism, nationalism and xenophobia, including the demonising of migrant workers and political refugees. The aim of our campaign is to develop a working class, imbued with socialist consciousness, and armed with the understanding that nothing less than the abolition of the capitalist profit system and the establishment of world socialism can provide a future for humanity as a whole; free of war, poverty and oppression.

Some on the Left are less than enthusiastic about throwing themselves into the battle for votes, not seeing the viability of change through elections. Their approach doesn't see the need for for elections relying more on the idea that radical change and the revolutionary transition to socialism will not occur via the electoral path but via a general strike during a crisis of capitalism. The capitalist state will be smashed in one blow and a “socialist state” established in its place through force and violence.  The Socialist Party has long argued against this mischaracterization and misrepresentation of socialist political action. Just like the socialist society we envision - peaceful, humane and democratic - so too must be the path as it will shape every aspect of the new society. Marx and Engels foresaw the possibility of peaceful transition particularly under conditions of the democratic or bourgeois republic. Engels wrote in Critique of the Erfurt Program:

"One can conceive that the old society may develop peacefully into the new one in countries where representatives of the people concentrate all power in their hands, where, if one has the support of the majority of the people, one can do as one sees fit in a constitutional way; in democratic republics such as France and the USA..."

The contest for power involves winning the ideological and political battle in civil society and the institutions of state as well, chief among them the democratic legislative arena. With the decisive conquest of political power, the working class will use this power to "wrest by degrees all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state..." wrote Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto. The state it seems is not smashed but "reshaped" (in the words of Engels) in accordance with the balance of class and social forces from an instrument of class oppression and repression, into one of liberation. In the process the state is transformed, and the foundations are laid for its withering away. In this view, power is attained through democratic means, through the working class electing its representatives to legislative bodies and through political action, including strikes and demonstrations. Democratic institutions are transformed in the process - existing ones become more democratic and new ones arise to extend and deepen participation. Political power is wielded to transform the state apparatus at every level, curbing the capitalist power to restrict their ability to resist, obstruct and use violence against a revolutionary working class movement. Marx foresaw the possibility of achieving socialism through universal suffrage:

 "A historical development can remain 'peaceful only for so long as its progress is not forcibly obstructed by those wielding social power at the time. If in England, for instance or the United States, the working class were to gain a majority in Parliament or Congress, they could, by lawful means, rid themselves of such laws and institutions as impeded their development, through they could only do so insofar as society had reached a sufficiently mature development."

In Scotland our two branches have not got the necessary resources to stand any candidates in this coming election. Some voters will support the candidate who is the “least worst” until such a time “WORLD SOCIALISM!” upon your voting paper.

that there is a real candidate who truly represents us. In this election, the arguments don't pit capitalism against socialism. It's about trying to decide what kind of capitalism there will be – we have a choice of capitalisms. Sometimes not voting is the way to be heard yet non-voting is often indistinguishable from apathy. It sends no message at all. The only thing that can transform "apathy" into an actual political force is to organise the non-voters. This is why Socialist Party always advocate workers to vote even when there is no one to vote for. We suggest a spoiled ballot or as we describe it, a write-in vote for socialism. It may not help much – it might even seem to some just a pointless gesture — but at least it can’t hurt. Don’t degrade yourself by sinking to the “lesser of two evil” mentality. On this occasion, go to the polling-booth and inscribe

We Want Socialism

At the present time the vast majority of the working class of the world remain apathetic and distracted by the modern equivalent of "bread and circuses" (sport spectaculars and mindless television shows), involved with futile reform measures to make capitalism easier to live with or attacking one specific problem of capitalism rather than the system itself, overcome with cynicism against the human race, ignorant of a viable alternative to class rule, misinformed about the true nature of socialism and, ultimately, still loyal to capitalism. Many pretenders to the mantle of socialism have erroneously been connected with socialism by capitalist pundits in an attempt to discredit genuine socialism. The relatively very few socialists that now exist can only continue with their education and agitation, and hope that the vast majority of the working class becomes class-conscious and initiates an organised resistance to capitalism.

The Socialist Party support the establishment of an economic system that is not divided into two contending social classes; there would be no minority class that owns all the property involved with the production or distribution of the goods in society and which thereby forces the majority class to work for them in exchange for only a tiny fraction of the wealth, while the ruling class appropriates the lion's share for themselves simply because they own. The Leninist system of the former Soviet Union (as well as Cuba and China) do not fit the criteria of a classless society, as they too were/are divided into a tiny and very privileged ruling class that owns the industries and services, and a very large working class that does all of the labor in exchange for a very miniscule portion of the social wealth. No genuine socialist political party would support this system of "state capitalism", or refer to them as being socialist.

The Socialist Party advocates a system that functions without money; in other words, there would be no type of circulating currency as a means of exchange which can be used to purchase the means of production and distribution and be used by individuals for their own personal enrichment, and thereby acquire a disproportionate amount of the wealth in society, as under capitalism.

The Socialist Party does not stand for political office. This point cannot be emphasized enough. No true socialist party favors the continuation of the political state, or believes that the political state is anything other than an oppressive tool of a ruling class used to enforce class rule. All of the other parties of "socialism" favor the continuation of the political state, and foster the belief that the “workers” state can be goaded into administering society for the benefit of everyone. True socialists realize that the political state is not needed in a genuine socialist society, and agree that it only serves the interests of the ruling classes, and would not and cannot serve the interests of a classless society, and that the latter would be quite incapable of existing harmoniously alongside a coercive entity like a state.

Under capitalism, industry produces goods for the sole purpose of making a profit. Everything else takes a back seat to this profit motive. As a result, the most financially inexpensive methods of waste disposal will be used, as well as the most financially expedient means of controlling pests of crops. Thus, safer and less environmentally hazardous methods of energy production, such as solar and wind, are set aside in favor of financially "cheaper" fossil fuels. Nuclear power is  used in place of other sources that may be far safer, because the development of these safer sources would be more expensive from a "financial" standpoint (actually, under socialism, it's quite possible that nuclear power would be used in a safer and more responsible way than under capitalism).

To compound the problem is the fact that the vast majority of the people in a capitalist world, the working class, do not make production decisions. These are made by the capitalist class, and these decisions are made solely towards the goal of increasing corporate profits. These firms are each in vicious competition with each other, and they must outperform other businesses on the market or fold. Thus, safer but costly methods of waste disposal and safer energy sources, all of which are currently technologically possible, are too financially expensive to utilize. Hence, the needs of the corporate hierarchy come before the needs of the working class and the biosphere itself. Attempts by regulatory bodies of the capitalist government to control these abuses amount to almost nothing, since the capitalists are the ones who ultimately fund the nests of the politicians. As a result of the above, safe environmental measures aren't enforced.

Even worse, the working class is blackmailed into choosing between jobs or the environment, i.e., they are told that in order to bear the costs of implementing expensive safety measures for the safe disposal of waste, downsizing on jobs must occur. Faced with this Catch-22 situation, and being dependent upon the capitalist class for their wages, the working class usually decides to keep their jobs and pray that the resulting environmental damage won't destroy human life on the planet during their lifetime, or cause horrific outbreaks of cancer and other diseases on the next generation. We can only hope that things do not get too bad in the next few decades, and that the planet Earth will continue to be able to sustain us and to continue to protect us from the harmful radiation that the ozone layer normally keeps from hitting the Earth. Never is capitalism blamed for the problem. Instead, we are told that the causes are an unavoidable fact of living in an industrialized world.

In a socialist world, these problems would be entirely avoided under the new world economic order. Without profit as the determining factor of production, and since society and all of its industries would be based on cooperation and not competition, different industrial facilities would not be engaged in a mad competition to outdo each other. The concept of financial cost wouldn't exist; hence, any feasible method of containing waste would be enacted quickly and efficiently, with no need to worry about money. Also, since we would be collectively in control of the economy, rather than having the facilities privately owned and controlled, it would be easy for the working class to vote for technology and research to find safer methods of energy production. No longer would the human race be at odds with nature. We also wouldn't have to give up the benefits of advanced technology. Further, because we would not have an advertising market, we would not be constantly told that we need huge amounts of useless gimmicks and wasteful junk, nor would be compelled to purchase huge amounts of goods for the purpose of looking "wealthy" or to provide us with status symbols, since personal enrichment would no longer be a factor in the cultural mindset. All of the waste produced by capitalism, such as the plastic used to wrap items that is mostly only good for advertising, and the resulting garbage that it creates, would be eliminated. Thus, the high ecology advocates insistence on only "appropriate" technology being used would probably be fulfilled, for the most part. Most importantly, production under socialism would be geared towards meeting the needs of everyone, including the collective need for a healthy environment and a peaceful co-existence with the other life-forms on this planet, and not simply a privileged few need to make a profit.

Hence, the existence of the human race and its industrial society is not inherently at odds with the environment; only the continued acceptance of a socio-economic system based on production for profit is. Socialism can and must be established before capitalism brings our world into a second Dark Age.

The Socialist Party envision a future socialist society based on free access. In short, this simply means that workers will be allowed to take freely of the goods and services available to them, and in which they had a hand in collectively producing. Common sense will prevent over consumption, and due to the fact that we will be allowed to work at jobs which we have a natural interest and aptitude in, the enforcement of work entailed by labour vouchers will be seen as unnecessary. Therefore, free access consumption will not be based on how many hours we work, but on the self-defined needs of the individual. Of course, if we don't collectively agree not to over-consume, or if we collectively choose not to work, socialism in general, and free access in particular, will not work. However, since everybody in a socialist society will be working at jobs in which they have an aptitude for and personal interest in, and since work will encompass only a fraction of the time for each worker that it does under capitalism (with far more leisure time available to workers than under capitalism), the need for some medium to enforce work will be unnecessary. It is very possible that as technology continues to advance, and as production becomes more and more efficient over the course of time under socialism, it will become increasingly easier to produce what we need and want in greater abundance, making artificial limits on production for the purpose of limiting consumption and enforcing work to appear more and more absurd in the eye of the worker. 

The Socialist Party further describes what it perceives as the benefits of free access in the aforementioned section on its own site. Free access can basically be defined as no paper, plastic, metal or other physical medium of exchange necessary for taking goods and utilizing services. If we need a certain item from the store, we will simply walk in and sign it out of the inventory. Any type of barter in an advanced industrialised society is believed to be ludicrous by people who are aware of the material possibilities in an era of abundance which we live under today. In fact, it will be probable under a free access system that people will keep consumption in check by agreeing to share items in which we now purchase for every family, such as methods of transportation and home maintenance. As the some socialist writers point out, such household appliances such as lawn mowers, for example, will probably be shared by several families and future means of superior public transportation will lessen the demand for personal means of transportation, such as automobiles. Also, without the need for market hungry advertising, needs will not be created, and the demand for outlandish and unnecessary devices sold in abundance under capitalism will be seen as a waste of production under socialism.

The motto of socialism will be "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Obviously, some who work more hours will take less goods, but they will not be concerned with how much his neighbor will be taking as long as he himself will be satisfied. Contrary to what capitalism attempts to teach us, to work is natural for people, it is only under capitalism that work becomes something which we are forced to do too often, or because we are forced to take a job that we hate, that makes people lazy and unwilling to work. Once doctors are allowed to practice medicine, gardeners are allowed to create beautiful floral gardens, chefs are allowed to cook, artists are allowed to draw, writers are allowed to write and engineers are allowed to design and advance technology, and work will be made interesting to everyone and controlled by the workers themselves, then people will gladly be willing to do the work society requires of them, with a lot less stress and a lot more cooperation between everyone, and we will probably not even see a well-defined difference between work and leisure that we see under capitalism today. It should be restated that work under socialism will be completely voluntary, and should have no need to be enforced as under capitalism. Goods must be free to all in addition to the required services, and since people will be able to work jobs in which they have a personal aptitude, work will be a pleasure under socialism, and not the unmitigated burden that people try to avoid under capitalism. Hence, virtually all individuals will be happy to do their share of the useful work required in society, and much leisure in which to enjoy it will be available (there is a saying that goes "those who love their occupation never work a day in their life", a saying very applicable to what our life will be like under socialism concerning our jobs).

No More Reforms...We Want Revolution

As Eugene V. Debs said, “Socialism will completely revolutionize the community life. For the first time in history the people will be truly free and rule themselves, and when this comes to pass poverty will vanish like mist before the sunrise.” As W.E.B. Du Bois said, “the emancipation of man is the emancipation of labor”.

The dream of liberty has persisted from the days of the slave revolts of Spartacus against their imperial masters through to the peasant uprisings against their medieval lords, to the strikes and bloody protests against the industrial barons. Socialist freedom is not something abstract, but something concrete and real that is ensured by providing for human need as the core motivator of society, not corporate greed as under capitalism. So no more homeless, no more hungry, no more desperation for work, no more people trapped in dead-end jobs, no more elderly people choosing between affording food or medication. The right to a life of human dignity, for all. Socialists want all people to enjoy in the fruits of humanity’s labour over countless generations and to be given the opportunities to freely add to those achievements as best they can. People will have the freedom to explore their interests and abilities; to paint, to write, to experiment, to study, to be creative and to develop as human beings.

The Socialist Party holds that capitalism is not worth reforming and that, in any case, it cannot be reformed so as really to improve the workers’ condition, or protect them from capitalism’s recurring depressions and wars, or from displacement by automation. Moreover, as long as workers are deluded by the hope of “improved conditions” under capitalism they will turn to whatever party they think can deliver the goods. And many of these parties are in the reform business precisely to divert the workers from a revolutionary socialist solution to their problems, and to preserve capitalism. Some reform parties denies they are reformist. Trotskyists attempt to disguise their reform demands as “partial steps” or “transitional measures.” They’re still reforms, though. They maintain that some kind of “socialism” is their objective but its realisation is not considered possible for an indefinite period in the future. For the present, they say, the thing to do is to work for measures that will allegedly alleviate the suffering of the workers.

The Socialist Party grasps the fact that revolutions are not made, but that they come, that capitalism itself is bound to create the revolutionary crisis that will ultimately set the working class into motion. It holds, therefore, that it is the duty of a bona fide party of socialism always to hold the issue of the abolition of wage slavery up before the workers clip and clear, and to expose reforms as delusions where they are not concealed measures of reaction. Those reformist parties claiming to be “socialist” have as their concept of socialism as one in which industry is nationalized and administered by the state. The Socialist Party agrees with Marx that “the existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery.” When the state takes over all that really happens is that the workers, who remain wage slaves, exchange one master, the private capitalists, for another, the bureaucrat. This definitely is not socialism. In contrast to the “radical” reformist parties, the Socialist Party calls for abolition of the Only when the means of production are owned socially and administered democratically by the workers will we have genuine socialism.

Either the working class takes control of affairs out of the hands of the capitalist class, ends the system of capitalist private ownership, and rebuilds our society on the basis  of social ownership of the means of production, democratic management and  production for use; Or, as surely as night follows day, the capitalist system will lead us down the road to barbarism. The Socialist Party, therefore, calls upon workers to repudiate the parties of capitalism, and to support it for a socialist reconstruction of society. The goal of the Socialist Party is the common ownership by the people of the land and all the instruments of wealth production, and one in which the workers will manage democratically. To bring to birth this society of peace, abundance and boundless human happiness, the Socialist Party appeals to the working class to support the principles of the Socialist Party, and prepare now to help build the socialist ballot. Unite with us to end the social system that dooms us to a lifelong tenure of wage slavery, with unemployment, poverty and wars as inseparable and ever recurrent features. Unite with us to establish free access socialism.

Glasgow Day School

Glasgow Day School

Saturday, 2^nd May

1-5 pm

Hillhead Library,

Byers Road.

The world has a million or so multimillionaires with disposable wealth of over $7 million each. About 100,000 people have assets of over $50 million. A fifth of the UK population say they can barely get by financially. There is no difficulty in producing enough food for everyone on the planet and bad harvests are not the reason people go hungry.

The General Election: More Worthless Promises

Well, it’s Jackanory Time again, and politicians will be trying to outdo one another in the telling of tall tales. Most will publish more or less fanciful wish lists which are designed to encourage you to believe that they have the interests of “the people” at heart. But what people?You might ask? Most Politicians will say that they wish to serve the British people, but other will say that they wish to serve the Scottish people.

The truth is that whichever of these storytelling charlatans you vote for, it is the capitalist class whose interests will be served. You will not be served. Quite the opposite: you will continue to be wheedled, cajoled, herded and bullied into the labour market where you will continue to be enslaved so that your masters may continue to enjoy the fruits of your labour. That’s all capitalism can offer you!

Speaker: John Cumming, Glasgow Branch

Two Cheers for Democracy

Is one vote every five years really enough? What are the barriers to a real, participative democracy? How could decision-making be made genuinely democratic? And can we really cope without the market making decisions for us? We discuss some of the options from history, from around the world, and from deepest cyberspace. Those who benefit from the present system would have you believe there is no alternative. It helps them if you believe it - although it does nothing for you.

Speaker: Brian Gardner, Glasgow Branch

Why just fight austerity?

Consider the following: It was recently reported that the richest 85 people on the planet together control as much wealth as the poorest half of the world's population (which would be over three and a half billion people). This astonishing statistic reveals the extent of global inequality, which turns out to be even more extensive than most people realise. In this talk we shall look at how such inequality comes about and, making use of Wilkinson and Pickett's book The Spirit Level, on the social consequences of inequality. We shall also ask whether a more egalitarian form of capitalism is worth struggling for, and what the idea of equality in a classless Socialist world would involve.

Speaker: Paul Bennett, Manchester Branch

Admission Free. Questions and Discussion Welcome. Refreshments will be available during all intervals

Socialism Is For The Happy Life

Both detractors and some of its supposed proponents have made the name of socialism discredited. The word “socialism” conjures up images of gulags, purges and secret police. It’s not a hard thing to claim that the Soviet bloc were some of the least free places on Earth, requiring nothing short of a wall to keep people in them. The individual was, and continues to be in such countries as North Korea, nothing, with no liberties and no free life of their own. Stalin, purportedly said “Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?” It should be self-evident from reading this blog that we don’t want any part of such a system. What’s more, we do not consider it to be an example of socialism. The meaning of socialism has been twisted through the actions of a number of governments who claimed the title of “socialist”. The task now is to reclaim the real meaning of the socialism and what it is to be a socialist. Only through the free discussion of ideas can people fully educate themselves and develop their own consciousness. It is only with total political freedom can people then turn their political consciousness into radical action and self-organisation.

What is this thing they are fighting for, what is socialism? Many on the left and the right are convinced that it merely means state intervention into the economy. So everything from Sweden’s welfare system to ‘Obamacare” to Stalin’s five-year plans are suddenly given the title of “socialist”. But Marx and Engels would have mocked such ideas. Engels jokingly remarked in this regard that “of late, since Bismarck went in for state-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkeyism, that without more ado declares all state ownership, even of the Bismarckian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon … must be numbered among the founders of socialism.”

The state as a body ruling over society doesn’t equal socialism in any case, no matter how it describes itself. Socialism is about the democratic control of the community and the workplaces, the economy and the whole of society by the people who work it and live in it. Socialism is about the common ownership of all the material wealth of humanity so no person – whether capitalist or state bureaucrat – can use the privilege of ownership to control the lives of others. It means the end to both the rule of the tiny elite and the rule of impersonal market chaos. Socialism is about freedom for all from want. Or as Eugene Debs succinctly put it, “socialism means social ownership, cooperation, freedom and abundance for all”. Socialism is the final victory of democracy for it is the fulfillment of people’s sovereignty over their lives. An important part of the goal of socialism is the idea of planning. Human knowledge and reason are capable of consciously deciding what society needs and what to produce without having to rely on the blind forces of supply and demand of the market. Socialism means we have control over our destiny, to be able to consciously plan, to decide and to act, instead of being the victim of random chance.

Free association is the crux of the entire project. Socialism can only be the creation of the workers themselves, no one can do it for them or on their behalf. But once fought for, built and achieved, the returns for the individual is what’s important. Socialism is about maximising freedom for the individual, in the social context in which their needs are being met as a right. The working day would be shortened, as we would no longer have to support a class of capitalistic parasites on our backs, and people would have the freedom and leisure to explore their interests and abilities; to paint, to write, to experiment, to study, to be creative and to develop as human beings. Socialists want all people to enjoy in the fruits of humanity’s labour over countless generations and to be given the opportunities to freely add to those achievements as best they can. Variety and diversity of life is as much of an aim of socialism which aims to maximise the choices of lifestyle, work, ways of artistic expression for all, but all this only can be accomplished once we move beyond the confines and restraints put on us by the profit system.

We cannot say for certain what socialism will be like, or determine its every detail ahead of time. That is something for those who live in it to freely build for themselves. But we can say that people will be able to live their lives to their fullest only when they are not constricted by the worry and fear of paying the bills; students will be able to expand their intellectual horizons to their full potential when they are freed from a future of wage slavery; artists will be able to explore all their creativity when they are no longer dictated by the demands of the market. You cannot achieve true freedom for yourself and only yourself, all on you own. True freedom in the here and now under capitalism is largely an illusion, but we can gain glimpses of a free life when we struggle together and collectively resist oppression, exploitation and tyranny. Oppression, tyranny and exploitation can only breed resistance. We are all going to be free or none of us will. We live together, we work together, we fight together, we win together.

Socialism Is Better Than Capitalism

Members of our party have found themselves arguing about socialism and or Marxism, mostly trying to debunk the common misconceptions about our ideas. Growing numbers of people are concerned about the state of the world and the fate of the planet. Do things have to be this way? No, there is a real world alternative: socialism. But people are constantly bombarded with the message that socialism has failed and that capitalism is the best of all possible worlds. People has basically heard nothing else about socialism other than it is a nightmare. This rewriting of history has influenced many to think that as bad as capitalism is, any attempts to get rid of it will make things far worse. In a thousand different ways it is the message put out. There’s just one problem. This conventional wisdom about socialism is not true. It is built on the wholesale distortion where lies and slanders are repeated endlessly and become accepted as self-evident truth. It's quite amazing how well-educated folk who pride themselves on intellectual rigour and honesty have been fooled.

Almost always the first point to be made when discussing anything to do with socialism is someone will mention “Look at the Soviet Union that was a totalitarian state, millions died and their economy was all awful” First thing that has to be said here is that socialism is a stateless classless society. So did the Soviet Union possess a State? Yes, it did. Therefore was it a socialist society. No. What we saw in the Soviet Union was state capitalism. In one sentence instead of the capitalist class exploiting the Workers, the state and its bureaucracy exploited the workers.

Something which is almost bound to come up is then the argument that greedy selfish aggressive human nature makes it impossible for people to live peacefully in a well-ordered society of sharing. Human nature (human behaviour to be more exact) adapts to the social structures we create. In essence humans create human nature and can, with the right social structures, manipulate it to create a better world for everybody.

The key socialist idea is that the workers will rise up and overthrow the capitalists. We still have not seen this world revolution. However, it worth keeping in mind that one possible explanation is the massive rise in the power and size of the state that was seen in the 20th century. The state is the mitigating force of class warfare and reduced the chances for revolution.  It is worth noting here that firstly; revolutionary change does not always involve hanging the politicians from the lamp-posts but can occur in more civil ways depending on the situation. That said when one is unable to feed their family we are told we are only a dozen meals away from rebellion. The capitalist system thrives of exploitation and we are beginning to see once again capitalism’s more brutal face.

But we can change the system from within many still persist in pleading and is often put forward by those who support mainstream political parties such as the Labour PartyThe difficulty here is that you are effectively trying to hold back the tide by being reformists. To make the necessary changes to society to restructure capitalism from the capitalism state would take many governments and would undoubtedly lose favour with businesses likely resulting with the loss of the next election and any work being undone.  If a party had enough support to get through using capitalist democracy then they would have enough support to have a peaceful revolution which would be much quicker and much more effective. The main goal of socialists is to show that capitalism is inherently flawed. Capitalism creates crisis and inequality and that to tackle this is to tackle capitalism at its heart. The need to make profit creates exploitation and classstruggle, the need to out compete competitors creates market crises, the division of Labour produces alienation. All of this is what socialists aim to show.  Capitalism is a bad idea in theory and in practice. It relies of exploitation, it creates political division, it alienates workers from their labour, it is unstable and creates a society where it is not the people who are Sovereign but Capital who is. Socialism is a solution to these problems. We cannot retain the Capitalist system and survive as a civilization.  We must fight against it, however, to do so, first require knowledge of what is wrong with capitalism, what are its faults, and what we want in its place. To obtain this we need to think, analyse and debate, to create a society better for all. There are people hankering for an alternative to this system. Who want to do something meaningful for humanity with their lives. Humanity can move beyond exploitation and social division. It can move towards a classless society and a world of freely associating human beings—socialism. This is what revolution is about. Socialism is more relevant than ever.

Socialism is not a big welfare state that looks after people. It is not the old capitalist economy simply taken over by a state. Imagine, instead, people consciously learning about how to transform the world, no longer shackled by the chains of tradition and ignorance, seeking a culture where people not only cooperatively work to produce the necessities of life, but have fun doing it, where the scientific outlook mingles imagination, strengthening and inspiring each other, where people interact with each other based on mutual respect, concern, and love for humanity. It is about unleashing the creativity and initiative of those who had been on the bottom of society. World socialism cares about and takes care of the environment. That is socialism, a worldwide society—and it is yet to be achieved—in which all classes and class distinctions have been overcome; all systems and relations of exploitation abolished; all oppressive social institutions and relations of social inequality, like racial discrimination and the domination of women by men, put an end to; and oppressive and backward ideas and values cast off. Socialism is a world of abundance, where people together hold all of society's resources in common. A socialist world is not some sort of wishful and airy dream or utopia. The development of human society has brought humanity to this historic threshold. The productive forces of society—not just machinery, equipment, and technology but also people and their knowledge—have developed to a level that can allow humanity to overcome scarcity, to provide for people's basic material needs, and beyond that to have a large surplus left over to devote to the all-around and future development of society. The socialist revolution establishes a new economy based on social ownership of the means of production and social planning; on people cooperating to solve problems and to meet social need; and with a whole new set of economic and social priorities. Socialism is a moneyless society based on the free access to the wealth of the world.

Socialism Is The Future, The Future Is Ours

The first condition of success for socialism is that its adherents should explain its aim and its essential characteristics clearly, so that they can be understood by everyone. We must do away with many misunderstandings created by our adversaries (and even some created by ourselves.) Socialism was born in 19^th century Europe as a movement of protest against the problems inherent in capitalist society.

The main idea of socialism is simple. Socialists believe that society is divided into two classes by the present form of property-owning, and that one of these classes, the wage-earners is obliged to work for the other, the capitalist, in order to be able to live at all. Workers effectively possess nothing. They can only live by their labour-power and since, in order to work, they need an expensive equipment, which they have not got, and raw materials and capital, which they have not got, they are forced to put themselves in the hands of another class that owns the means of production, the land, the factories, the machines, the raw material, and accumulated capital in the form of money. And naturally, the capitalist, the possessing class, taking advantage of its power, makes the working and non-owning class pay a large forfeit. It does not rest content after it has been reimbursed for the advances it has made, and has repaired the wear and tear on the machinery but continues to extract a surplus from the workers – which is their profit and supposed reward for being employer. A worker can neither work, nor eat, clothe or shelter him or herself, without paying a sort of ransom in the form of sweat and toil to the owning capitalist class. All this misery and injustice results from the fact that one class monopolises the means of production and of life, and imposes its laws on another class and on society as a whole. The capitalist wage slavery relationship inflicts a physiological effects, conditioning the working class to a submissive mentality in the workplace.  This submissive mentality then manifests into passive behaviour in the political lives of the working class.

Socialism aims to liberate the peoples from dependence on a minority which owns or controls the means of production. It aims to put economic power in the hands of the people as a whole, and to create a community in which free men and women work together as equals. Socialism seeks to replace capitalism by a system in which the public interest takes precedence over the interest of private profit. We, in the Socialist Party appeal to all who believe that the exploitation of one person by another must be abolished. Socialists aim to achieve freedom and justice by removing the exploitation which divides men under capitalism and strive to build a new society in freedom and by democratic means. Without freedom there can be no socialism. Socialism can be achieved only through democracy. Democracy can be fully realised only through socialism. One man is a master and the other a wage slave, one enjoys riches and the other obeys order, no amount of purely electoral machinery on a basis of 'one man one vote' will make the two equal socially or politically. Elections have become beauty contests between "charismatic" leaders struggling to attract the attention of the electorate in order to implement policies constituting variations of the same theme: maximisation of the freedom of market forces. There is little better description of democracy as the one that declares it to be the government of the people, by the people, for the people. While the guiding principle of capitalism is private profit the guiding principle of socialism is the satisfaction of human needs. Planning in socialism does not mean that all economic decisions are placed in the hands of the state or central authorities. Economic power should be decentralised wherever this is compatible with the aims of planning. The workers as the producers must be associated democratically with the direction of their industry.

The ecological crisis is the direct result of the continuing degradation of the environment that the market economy and the consequent growth economy promote. Humanity is faced with a crucial choice between two different proposed solutions, what we can call the "conventional environmentalist" and the "eco-socialist ". The green movement has lost much of its radical potential by being integrated into the existing social system and is engaged with those in the corridors of power to enact legislative palliatives. Another section with an almost irrational mystical approach to the ecological problem prefer a strategy of lifestyle changes, building "communes", food co-ops etc., instead of a direct challenge on the political field. However, this approach, although helpful in creating an alternative culture among small sections of the population and, at the same time, morale-boosting for those who wish to see an immediate change in their lives, does not have any chance of success ―in the context of today's huge  dominance of capitalism. The fact that the main form of is economic power, and that the concentration of economic power involves the ruling elites in a constant struggle to dominate people and the natural world, goes a long way toward explaining the present ecological crisis. To understand the ecological crisis we should consider the capitalist production relations. The eco-socialist solution seeks the causes of the ecological crisis in a social system that is based on the economic exploitation of human by human and not just mankind’s endeavours to dominate nature. If capitalism can’t be reformed to subordinate profit to human survival, what alternative is there but to move to some sort of globally planned economy? Our present political  leaders can’t help but to choose to  make wrong, irrational and ultimately  suicidal decisions about the economyand the environment. Socialism is an attempt to provide an alternative to what Marx called capitalism’s ‘destructive progress’. Capitalism can never be made to serve the common good and so for the sake of social harmony and ecological sustainability we must look to an alternative system altogether.

The Death Industry

Even we in the Socialist Party can admire Nicola Sturgeon’s spirited condemnation of the Trident Missile Programme and agree with her that it should be scrapped. However, in her emotional speech for the bairns and not the bombs she failed to chastise the rest of the arms trade that her government actually fosters and nurtures as the profitable part of the Scottish economy. This blog has already reported on the Glasgow Council pension scheme investing tens of millions in the weapons industry. What's the link between Edinburgh and drones, or Ayrshire and the teargas turned on democracy protesters in the Middle East? What does Dundee have to do with the repression in Bahrain? You guessed. Scottish companies are making cash from supplying weapons. The arms trade is a deadly, corrupt business. It is responsible for supporting, and profiting from conflict. Its customer base largely consists of human rights abusing regimes all over the globe.

In 2013 weapon manufacturers worth £1.8billion and employs almost 13,000 people and 30 Scottish arms trading companies attended that year’s showpiece arms fair the Defence & Security Equipment International (DSEI), which is heavily subsidized by the UK government.

Many of the biggest firms are marine companies which are involved primarily in naval defence. BAE Systems in Glasgow builds warships including the Type 45 destroyers. Rosyth-based Babcock Marine is helping to build the UK’s new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers. Some of the companies in Scotland are domestic while others are outposts of international firms such as QinetiQ, Raytheon, Thales and Finmeccanica. 

Finmeccanica is the world’s eighth largest defence contractor and is part-owned by the Italian government. Its subsidiary, Selex Galileo in Edinburgh, is heavily involved in high-tech aviation research for the Eurofighter, SAAB Vixen and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Campaign Against Arms Trade (Scotland) say that Finmeccanica has supplied drones to Pakistan, howitzers to Nigeria and helicopters to Algeria, Libya and Turkey.

Working Shortage?

Toronto Hydro is laying off almost two hundred workers as it struggles to trim $20 million in costs. John Camilleri, head of C.U.P.E. Local One, told demonstrators that cuts are raising questions about whether there will be enough staff left to do the work, " There's no shortage of work. In fact, there is a back-up of maintenance work to be done." So workers are being laid off when there is plenty of work to keep them busy. One thing about capitalism – it's so so logical. John Ayers.

Dear Humanity…

It's time to talk about what's next. It's time to talk about the alternative. It is time to promote real solutions and a radical transformation. It’s time for system change. The time has come for socialism. Capitalism is ignoring the needs and well-being of people, communities and the planet as a whole. It is time to explore a genuine new economic model and move our world to a very different place, one where outcomes that are truly sustainable, equitable, and democratic are commonplace. Now is the time to shift the political discourse about the future away from narrow debates over reform policies that do not fundamentally alter any significant part of the nature of the political-economic system itself. The Socialist Party must bring people together who are serious about really tackling the system question, about building a new system of society and re-defining the public debate. We believe there are grounds for optimism that revolutionary change is possible.

For many political activists it is getting harder and harder to be an optimist and a deep cynicism has grown about the prospects of ending the capitalist system and establishing socialism. In an age of unprecedented technological promise, politics has failed to keep up with this progress. For sure there is no shortage of people today to tell us that something is wrong, but there does exist a dearth of real ideas about removing the many problems we all face each and every day around the globe. There are many diagnoses of our social ills but few remedies offered. Any proposals  for actually changing the system are treated as impractical or a distraction from “immediate” demands. We are told that it can only be capitalism as usual as our only option right now and that a viable, plausible alternative system is not yet possible. But people are beginning to stir and imagine a different world to this one. They are starting to realise that without another type of society they may not have a future.

We live in a time of crisis, a time when millions of people across the world are victims of capitalist policies of war, exploitation and oppression, and destruction of the natural environment. There is renewed interest in the idea of socialism; a system based on common ownership of the means of production, rather than private ownership. But what do genuine people find when they try to investigate this revolutionary alternative? They find that all sorts of people, including political organisations and the governments of various countries, proclaim themselves to be ‘socialist’ without ever really defining what is meant by the term. There might be some vague and incomplete references to the wealth and resources of society being used for the benefit of all the people rather than a privileged minority, but not much else, and rarely, any strategy of how to achieve this. There is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about what “socialism” means. For those who are not familiar with it, let’s get one misconception out of the way right at the start. Socialism, as we use the term, never existed in Soviet Russia, even before Stalin, or in China, even under Mao. Socialism also is not the same as the “social-democratic” capitalism that exists in Scandinavia and the” welfare states” in some other parts of Europe today. None of them conforms to the definition of socialism that we use. Their concepts of ‘socialism’ can mean anything from mildly reformist liberalism to state ownership and the nationalisation of water, gas and electricity, through to total state-capitalism. None of these have much at all to do with the genuine socialism that we are talking about, but are used to confuse and mislead the people, and hence to deflect interest away. 

Any attempt at defining socialism is dismissed on the grounds that we can’t predict the future and that a blueprint cannot be imposed. Since nobody is going to argue with that, it just closes off any discussion of the subject, leaving ‘socialism’ as a pie-in the-sky vision somewhere in the distant future. It also leaves the opportunists and pragmatists free to vacillate and somersault through various policies and tactics with no goals other than a ‘pragmatic’ and resigned critique of capitalism. We believe the fundamental principles of socialism and their universal application can be clearly defined without prescribing a blueprint for the form of their application in any country.

The Socialist Party is committed to the emancipation of working people everywhere. We believe that capitalism is an anarchic and crisis-ridden economic system based on production for profit. We are for the expropriation of the capitalist class and the abolition of capitalism. We are for its replacement by socialist production planned to satisfy human needs. It is becoming increasingly apparent that only a socialist rationally planned society can make the changes in our production and use of energy and resources that are essential to prevent, or at least mitigate, catastrophic climate change and other environmental degradation.

Socialism, as we envision it, is an economic system under which all natural resources, as well as all means of producing goods and of organizing the delivery of services, will be owned in common and democratically managed for the benefit of the society as a whole. Communities within a socialist system will take full responsibility for meeting everyone’s fundamental needs – food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, transportation, a healthy eco-system, access to cultural and recreational resources.  Rational planning, not competition for profit, will drive the allocation of resources, with the goal of meeting the needs of society as a whole. Under capitalism, advances in technology are used to replace workers, so that the wealthy owners of large enterprises can increase their profits, while the displaced workers are thrown out on the street and left to fend for themselves. In socialism, by contrast, advances in technology – intelligently designed and environmentally sustainable – will be planned and implemented so as to reduce the level of human drudgery. Advances in productivity will result in reducing the length of the work week and raising the standard of living for everyone, rather than enriching a privileged elite. Everyone will reap equal benefits from, and thus have an equal stake in, improving the way goods and services are produced and distributed. Everyone will enjoy a decent standard of living, and an opportunity to enjoy the richness of life. As machines and technology replace more and more manual labour and routine chores, people will be freed to devote more time to leisure pursuits such as recreation, creative endeavors, and social relationships. Meanwhile, better education, improved technology, humanely and democratically operated workplaces, a shorter work week, and an emphasis on cooperation will all combine to make work a more rewarding, less stressful experience. Under these circumstances, people will understand that everyone who is able to do so must work, and few (if any) will be reluctant to make their appropriate contribution to society in this way. All workers – not just those in a few lucky professions – will be motivated by a positive desire to help others, rather than by the need to avoid hunger and homelessness.

Bairns Not Bombs - An Infantile Protest

NATO = NAZI

Thousands of protesters marched through Glasgow city centre for anti-Trident speeches by the SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon and Patrick Harvie, of the Scottish Greens, in George Square. Also addressing the gathering was Labour's North Ayrshire candidate Katy Clark, Cat Boyd, from the Radical Independence Campaign, and Ann Henderson, of the STUC. It is the annual rally organised by the Scrap Trident group will be followed on April 13 by a blockade of Faslane naval base, home of the UK's nuclear deterrent. We, of course, accept that most of the protestors are well motivated, that they care. But actions if they are to be effective require more than fine sentiments and sensibilities. It is not enough that behaviour is well meant: if it is to be effective it must be appropriate. If the anti-Trident campaigners really cared about people they would seek to campaign for their enlightenment; for an absence of nuclear weapons and war—in a word, for socialism.

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 ‘'Scrap Trident’; it will be the end of all wars and of the economic rivalries between national ruling classes that cause them. If you are opposed to war and all that it represents—as any right thinking person should be—you will advocate policies and take actions which will make war impossible, by removing its causes. That is, you will seek to transform society in the interests of human beings as a whole. But to do what the SNP and the Greens do — to object to some weapons which might be used in wars, whilst implicitly tolerating others — is to accept the inevitability of war, and the social system which underpins it. Their efforts, because they oppose only certain kinds of war, and not war itself, serve, whether intentionally or otherwise, to make war more likely.

Campaigning against nuclear weapons is an irrelevance. Nuclear weapons are unlikely to be used in Syria, or central Africa, or any of the other myriad "trouble spots" across the globe. Tens of millions of people have been killed and not from a nuclear weapon. Are those anti-Trident campaigners unconcerned about such matters? By what contorted logic does "manner of death" come to mean more to them than "fact of death"? Can we challenge the SNP to close down the armament manufacturers and arms traders in Scotland.

Under capitalism we have a world which is divided into rival and competing nations, which struggle with each other over the control of markets, trade routes and natural resources. It is this struggle which brings nations into armed conflict with each other because militarism is the violent extension of the economic policies of propertied interests. War and the nuclear threat cannot be isolated from the economic relationships of production or the general object of capitalist production, which is to advance the interests of those privileged class minorities who monopolise the whole process of production. It follows that no working class of any country has any stake or interest in war, and we have always said that workers should never support war. Our stand since we were established has been to oppose every war. Armed with this understanding of the cause of war we are committed to working politically with workers of all countries to establish world socialism, because that is where the interest of the working class lies. The Socialist Party has never participated in the hideous cause of capitalism at war.

We have from those opposed to Trident this indignation about the effects of war, and some sort of policy, argued around some slogans, which aims to bring pressure to bear on governments to prevent them from producing nuclear weapons and to make them dismantle existing stocks. This superficial approach cannot possibly succeed, nor does it stand any chance whatsoever of guaranteeing a world free from war or the possible use of nuclear weapons. The superficial approach assumes some general democratic political structure by which populations are able to bring effective pressure to bear on governments conducting a policy of, or preparations for, war. But wars are not planned or conducted along democratic lines. Think back to the last war and the development of nuclear weapons. These things were done in complete secrecy. All governments, in the planning and conduct of war, must retain for themselves a free hand, which is secret, and by its nature without democratic reference to the population at large. Democracy and the conduct of war are anathema to each other. The first casualty of war is democracy.

Socialists have fewer illusions than anybody about capitalism and we are well aware of the dangers. The spectre of nuclear Rrmageddon has once again reared its ugly head as the EU and the US bluff and counter-bluff with Russia in the stand-off over the Ukrainian civil war. If movements continue to support capitalism they must be responsible for all the ways in which capitalism develops. Because capitalism cannot be controlled in the human interest, we do not know all the ways in which it will develop. 

Sincere individuals are swept up by movements such as the no-nuke campaigns but these movements have no substance and are not acting with a clear understanding of the nature of the problems. It would be churlish of us to ignore the contribution of public protest and demonstrations in raising public awareness of the nuclear issue. Sometimes it is forgotten how deeply limited public knowledge of the facts there is. The real disappointment is that comparatively few on the march will move beyond the optimistic (but narrow) objectives embraced by the organisers.