Socialism is Freedom

We know that most workers today do not consider themselves revolutionaries but isn’t it time to give a revolutionary party an opportunity to be heard? While today only a few workers are revolutionaries, over time through workers seeing their own power in action, more and more workers will see that we could run society ourselves and do away with capitalism. The socialist alternative that we advocate today will become more widespread. More and more workers will join to build a true party of the working class. But we freely confess that presently the weakest point of our organisation is the serious lack of roots in the working class movement.

Throughout the world workers are threatened by the capitalists. When workers protest against lousy pay and lousy working conditions, the bosses remind us that there are millions of workers without jobs who would gladly take our positions. Workers are pitted against each other for a shrinking number of jobs. Only the bosses can benefit from that. By uniting against its real enemy, the ruling class, we can fight against the growing racism and anti-immigrant agenda which is dividing workers in today’s capitalist society. Gradual transition to socialism, to gradually implement socialism through parliamentary reforms are doomed to fail. Socialists offer a critique of the limited nature and palliative character of reforms

Critiques of capitalism on the Left have increasingly tended in recent times to be piecemeal, and specifically related to immediate ‘problems’, shortcomings and failings over a multitude of issues. In other words, criticism on the Left tends to be directed at one aspect or another of the workings of a social order dominated by capitalism, without this criticism being related to the nature of the system as a whole. A socialist critique, on the other hand, is distinguished by the connections which it always seeks to make between specific ills and the nature of capitalism, as a system wholly geared to the pursuit of profit, whose dynamic and ethos suffuse the whole social order, and which necessarily relegates all considerations other than the maximization of profit to a subsidiary place, at best, in the scheme of things. There are many people on the Left who accept all this, and more, but who go on to argue that the failures, shortcomings and derelictions of capitalism require by way of remedy greater state intervention, regulation, direction and prohibition, rather than common ownership, which is declared to be irrelevant. It is an attractive argument, since it appears to dispose so easily of all the great complications and problems which are certain to attend the implementation of common ownership and the argument is all the more attractive since it has been possible to achieve a good deal of regulation of capitalist enterprise. The trouble, however, is that this intervention has not normally impaired very materially the power of capitalists to make decisions of major local, regional, national and international importance without much or any reference to anybody. A more radical measure of interventionism is possible in crisis circumstances, but is difficult to maintain effectively, at least in capitalist-democratic conditions, against the opposition, ill-will, circumvention and sabotage which it is bound to encounter on the part of business. Nor obviously does interventionism change the essential character and dynamic of capitalism. In short, intervention and regulation, are no substitute for democratic common ownership, if the purpose is the radical transformation of the capitalist system.

Socialists share the understanding that all social institutions and historical processes are in the last analysis determined and structured by social relationships which in turn are determined by the relations of production which are dominant in the society. Thus all social institutions and historical processes must be ultimately explained by their contribution to the mode of production or, to contradictions in the mode of production, or among different modes of productions. Also agreed by socialists is that since the decline of primitive communism and until the overthrow of the last class society the historical process and social institutions are permeated with the struggle between different classes (as defined by their relation to the means of production). Classes are the primary historical and institutional actors and thus an analysis of all major social struggles and processes must be a class analysis of which class is acting on what other classes. The labour Theory of Value/The Theory of Surplus Value developed by Marx explains that virtually all wealth in a class society is produced by the productive class which does not own the means of production, but which must produce for the owning class as a condition for its eating. The owning class always requires that the producing class produce more than is returned to it as the condition of its labor. Thus the wealth owned by the owning class is a result of the exploitation of the surplus value from the producing class. The state in all class societies tends to be a dictatorship of the owning class and operates in the interest of the owning class against the interests of the producing class.

It is necessary to patiently educate our fellow workers as to the necessity of taking power into their own hands. The revolutionary transformation of society need not be bloody violent revolution and to maintain this is both historically faulty and dangerous – since it might provoke adventurism, scare workers away and needlessly call down repression. If more workers are to be won to the cause of socialism it is clear that we must greatly advance in our ability to explain the advantages of a socialist world and how we can achieve it. Today, with the economy still suffering from the protracted slowdown, rising unemployment as well as an obvious crisis of ideological and social values, working people are increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo. However, this discontent does not necessarily translate into support for the revolutionary socialist option. While there are many reasons for this, one of the most important is that at the present time the socialist alternative does not appear so attractive to many. First of all, the word “socialism” was in the popular consciousness closely associated with the USSR and Eastern Europe. While these regimes are not socialist we still never stop hearing that these countries typify what socialism means. Not only did the old Soviet Union and its satellites repeat this endlessly to cover up the fierce exploitation of workers in their societies, but the Western media also take up the same refrain, point their fingers at Russian despotism and saying, “Look, that is socialism.”

It is clear we must improve our explanation of socialism. We must repudiate the stereotypes and distortions of what socialism is and show working people the very real achievements of our class. We must make a start because the study, debate and discussion of these issues are essential if the socialist movement is to win more workers. Working people remain open to socialism and are looking for change. But they remain to be convinced that socialism can provide them with a better life – greater democracy and improved material well-being. To respond to their hesitations and answer their objections socialists must debate the definition of the type of society we would like to see established. We must be sure to stress that the blueprint of this new society does not exist in some text, nor can they be mechanically imposed from above. It will be forged by the working people as we advance in our struggle.

A world fit for live in

All rulers in this barbaric capitalist world are prepared to see people die if it is necessary to achieve their goals of accumulating wealth. They’ll happily blast apart cities and contently preside over a system that sees hundreds of thousands die each day from poverty. 

For many months now, debates have been going on within a number the left-wing upon how to win over workers to ‘socialism’. Various organisations have been born such as TUSC and Left Unity and in Scotland RISE. Now, many are returning to the Labour Party fold since the election of Jeremy Corbyn. Despite the economic crisis and the devastating effects on workers it has been mostly the right-wing and the nationalist forces are on the rise. The Left has failed to provide a channel for discontent to express itself through; still less has it sought to mobilise discontent to resist the government. As yet the “socialist” alternative remains very much a fringe phenomenon within the workers. But the discontent is there and it is growing. The debate is about the road the working people must follow to free themselves of capitalist slavery and promote the liberation of other peoples in the rest of the world. That is why we are getting involved in this battle of ideas and risk the allegations of sectarianism, dogmatism and purism. We have always been critical, and rightly critical, of self-proclaimed ‘leaders’, of chest-beating ‘revolutionary’ rhetoric. We are not, and will not be in the immediate future be an effective alternative to the Labour Party and the reformers. We speak of the socialist alternative in propaganda terms only. We must always maintain a sober and realistic appreciation of our true strength and weaknesses. But it is even more important to understand the need for initiatives in appropriate circumstances. Without exaggerating our own strength and influence, we have to understand this and act accordingly. Our question to fellow workers is “What is the next step?”

An early socialist slogan was ‘Educate, Agitate, Organise’. It is also a valid slogan for today and beyond. How capitalism works today strengthens the case for socialism. We need a different form of society, one in which working people get together to decide collectively and democratically how the world’s resources should best be used. Productive resources shouldn’t be controlled by cliques of overpaid CEOs and their political cronies, but by the people who actually do the work of producing the goods and services on which we all depend. Rather than an economic system that relies on capitalists betting on which way the market will go, we need one based on democratic planning whose aim is to match resources to the real needs of ordinary people. The case for socialism is even stronger today than it was in the past. This conception of socialism has to be reflected in how we organise, a party based on the idea of a socialism which workers make for themselves. 

Socialist Standard No. 1336 December 2015

• Editorial: Neither God nor State
• The False Promise That is Jeremy Corbyn
• Pathfinders: Digging Optimism
• Too Little Too Late
• Halo Halo! Seasonal Goodwill, Dodgy Deals and Unreliable Witnesses
• Cooking the Books: You Can’t Buck the Market But You Can Abolish It
• Material World: Burma - More Rounds To Go
• Greasy Pole: Liz and Her Life and Loves
• What is the 'Islamic State'?
• From Political Economy to Vulgar Economics
• Lee Harvey Oswald, ‘Hunter of Fascists’?
• Paul Mason Waits For Godot
• Cooking the Books: Yes, We Have No Economic Policy
• Mixed Media: Mary Barnes
• Book Reviews: 'The Next Revolution', 'The Killing Fields of Inequality', & 'Humanity at the Crossroads - A Political and Humanist Dialogue'
• Proper Gander: Cheapness At a Price
• 50 Years Ago: Christianity or Socialism
• Action Replay: Sadness in the Beautiful Game
• Voice From the Back
• Cartoon: Free Lunch

The power of the people is stronger than the people in power

THE SOCIALIST PARTY, THE GENUINE REAL THING

Reformism is a proven failure. Reformism by its nature means class collaboration. At the dawn of the 20th century, social democracy re-modelled itself within the workers’ movement and began preaching the utopian lie that capitalism could be reformed and made humane through concessions and compromises with the ruling class. It cannot be denied that reformists derailed workers’ struggles. Reformism is not a moderate or gradual form of socialism, but its foe. Socialists never support candidates of capitalist parties because there is nothing more dangerous for the workers than endorsing a class enemy. We want the working class to become conscious of itself and its power in society. Genuine revolutionaries understand that all political consciousness begins with recognition of the fundamental class division: the working class versus the ruling capitalist class. Success in the class struggle demands working-class independence from all capitalist parties and platforms. Some political activists promote reformists leaders today and think they will outsmart them tomorrow by recruiting their supporters. This will supposedly help the socialist and working-class struggle. But all they are doing is giving a radical cover to capitalist reformism and diverting activists from the necessary tasks. For any organization claiming to be socialist to endorse reformism is a shameful betrayal of the principles they allegedly stand for. The Socialist Party uses electoral campaigns to advance socialist consciousness among workers. The only real solution for the working class is the socialist revolution and the overthrow of the capitalist state.

The present capitalist system is based on a central contradiction. On the one hand it depends on networks that merge the labour of most of the world’s seven billion people into what is in effect a global system of cooperation. Just look at the clothes you wear. They are made from materials from one part of the world, carried by ships made from steel from somewhere else, woven in a third place, stitched in a fourth, transported using oil from a fifth, and so on. A thousand individual acts of labour are combined in even the simplest item. On the other hand, the organisation of these networks is not based on cooperation, but on ruthless competition between rival highly privileged minorities who monopolise the means that are necessary for production – the tools, the machines, the oil fields, the modern communications systems and the land.

What motivates the capitalists is not the satisfaction of human need. It is the pressure to compete and keep ahead of other capitalists. The key to keeping ahead in competition is making profit and then using the profit to invest in new means of keeping ahead. Sometimes these investments do indeed produce things of use to the mass of people. But they are just as likely to be directed towards building a new supermarket next door to an existing one owned by a rival, spending money on rebranding old drugs rather than researching new ones, establishing a monopoly of cumbersome software to keep out better rival systems, invading countries to seize control of their oil or hoarding food that is short supply to force its price up. Such a system necessarily leads to repeated crises, since the drive for profit leads rival capitalists to rush to pour money into any venture that seems profitable, even though the result of them all doing so is to force up prices of raw materials and to produce goods that the world’s workers cannot afford to buy because their wages have been held down to boost profits.

The socialist alternative to such a state of affairs is simple. It is to replace decision making on the basis of competition between rival groups of capitalists by a genuine democracy where people democratically decide what the economic priorities should be and work together to plan how to achieve these. It is said that such planning cannot work because modern productive systems are too complex. Yet every major capitalist enterprise undertakes planning to fulfil its objectives.

Tesco does not rely on the local street market to restock its shelves. It plans months, even years in advance to guarantee the supplies of the thousands of products available in every big store. In the same way Nissan try to plan in detail the production of the thousands of components that go into any one of their car models – even if the planning involves imposing their demands on smaller firms that supply them. Those who do the planning, it should be added, are very rarely the owners of the giant corporations – rather they employ technical staff to do the job for them. In the same way it is employees, not owners or directors, who carry out scientific research, develop new production techniques and make all of the advances to which the capitalist system then lays claim. If planning and innovation are possible under the present system, they are just as possible under a system based upon meeting human need through democratic decision making, rather than competing in order to make profits to direct towards further competition. Indeed, under such a system, planning would be easier. The planning that takes place in any capitalist corporation at the moment is always distorted by the impact of the planning taking place in rival corporations. Nissan can spend billions on a new car only to find the market is already flooded with products from Volkswagen or Toyota. Tesco can lay out grandiose plans for the next half dozen years only to find that the crisis caused by blind competition in financial markets is cutting people’s ability to buy what it has to sell.

To reshape society it is necessary to take control of those planning decisions, subordinating them to the fulfillment of democratically decided priorities. A socialist society would involve the mass of people in democratic debate to plan production to meet human need. What stands in the way of such an approach is not its lack of viability but the vested interests who own and control the production of wealth today that will do anything in their power to keep things that way. The capitalist class will try to cling on to their own economic power to the end.

The international character of the capitalist process means that the only way to make a final escape from its grip is by developing struggles that spread from country to country. Only then can the new democratically controlled productive networks have at their disposal all the resources needed to provide a better life for the bulk of humanity.

Live Long and Prosper

Capitalism must be abolished. Working people need to throw the capitalist parties out of office and fundamentally transform society. The entire apparatus of government, set up to defend the interests of the capitalist class, must be replaced. The needs of working people can only be met by creating an economy, where ownership and control of means of production and distribution are taken from the tiny minority of capitalists and placed in the hands of the working people, to be run democratically. Reorganised on a socialist basis, our world can be free of racism, sexism, poverty, economic insecurity and exploitation. When the vast resources available to us are used to serve the needs of all instead of the profits of the few, a world socialist commonwealth, then the way will be opened for unparalleled growth in culture, freedom and the development of every individual. Such a society is worth organizing for. Socialists often hear the comment that "Socialism is a good idea but it’s not practical." But today it’s becoming more apparent than ever that it is the present system — capitalism — that is impractical and unworkable. The quality of life is deteriorating. While people suffer from poisoned air, polluting companies continue to rake in millions in profits. Small reforms and half-measures will not change the condition of working people.

The Socialist Party wants to change society but we think that problems will not disappear by wishing or hoping them away. The only way we can get a rational society, based on the needs of the majority, is by organising for it. The Socialist Party are part of the international World Socialist Movement, fighting to replace this society with a socialist one, where production and resources are controlled by the majority to serve our human needs and where every individual will have the opportunity to develop his or her potential to the fullest extent. Workers in all countries need to stand together against the worldwide system of oppression and exploitation that is capitalism. Socialism in Britain can only develop in a socialist world as part of a global re-structuring of the planet and its resources.

We know that a better world is not only possible, but absolutely necessary. We take every opportunity to present our case for change to convince people of the need to do away with the repressive, unjust capitalist system, and replace it with socialism. The capitalist system is run for the profits of the few, not the needs of the majority. Workers are thus continually forced to fight to defend their interests. Through these struggles, they will come to increasingly see the need for socialism, to replace capitalism. The Socialist Party actively advocate and promote our aims 365 days a year. We are, in principle, in favour of fusing electoral activity with extra-parliamentary action and what takes prominence will be a tactical question. Those on the Left have no answer except “Vote Labour ... without illusions”. And that is no answer at all.

Who owns the North Pole Part 88

The global race for the Arctic’s riches is already in progress and attracting military interests, according to US State Secretary John Kerry, who says Washington is keeping a close eye on China and Russia and adapting its “national security” strategy.

Our future national security strategy is going to be affected also by what’s going on in the Arctic. The melting of the polar cap is opening sea lanes that never before existed,” Kerry said in a speech at OldDominion University. “The potential there is already there for a global race to exploit the resources of the region.” Kerry went on to say “Economic riches tend to attract military interest as nations seek to ensure their own rights are protected. And we know, because we track it, that these countries – like Russia, China, and others – are active in the Arctic.”

The restoration of Russian military infrastructure in the Arctic began in 2012 with the aim of being completed by 2020. Russia is developing mobile nuclear power plants designated for military installations in the region. It is also adopting military technology to better suit the harsh weather conditions in the polar region. Moscow has almost finished building a new Arctic military base on Kotelny Island, off the eastern Siberian coast. Russian troops will be deployed there, and at a series of smaller Arctic bases and airfields by 2018, equipped with all the necessary high-tech weaponry.

China has been an observer of the Arctic Council since May 2013, and has no claims to the Arctic, but being a manufacturing powerhouse, Beijing is eager to exploit the Northeastern Passage have access to shorter shipping routes.

Celtic's Woes

Celtic was founded to help the poor Irish peasantry who fled their homeland in the 19th century following the ravages of an Gorta Mór, the Great Famine, which ravaged the land. The descendants of these people still form the core of the Celtic support and many are also to be found working for the club on low wages or in a part-time capacity. Their love of Celtic and what they think the club represents play a major role in their job satisfaction and loyalty to their employers. For many of the supporters, poverty, multi-deprivation and health inequality remain significant factors in their day-to-day existence.

10,000 recently signed a petition seeking the removal of Ian Livingston from Celtic’s board of directors. He is a lord of the realm who sits in the Upper House as a representative of the Conservative party, Lord Livingston of Parkhead. Earlier this month, he voted in that chamber to support the government’s plans to end family tax credits, a measure that would have increased the economic hardship being experienced by tens of thousands of families who support Celtic. Parkhead is one of the five poorest neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom, where male life expectancy is barely 60 years and where the rates of heart disease, unemployment, poor academic achievement and fuel poverty are scandalously high. Celtic, as a club, has grown successful and its players very rich on generations of support from Parkhead and many other districts like it. The petition to remove him was really a cri de coeur from their core support at what they regard as the continuing betrayal of the club’s founding principles.

Celtic chairman, Ian Bankier, is the man who defended Celtic’s refusal to pay the living wage to its lowest-paid employees at the 2013 AGM. As well as that, he asserted inexplicably that Celtic did not recognise any trade unions and that to pay the living wage to all of its employees would cost the club around £500k a year. £500k wouldn’t cover the bonuses of several of the current first team. Since then, Celtic has modified its position by stating that it will pay the living wage to its full-time staff but already one of its employees is distressed that in exchange for paying him the living wage the club is asking him and others to forfeit their annual bonus.

Celtic is concerned that by signing up to the living wage set by the Living Wage Foundation it is ceding some control of its remuneration policy to an outside agency. What it fails to recognise is that there would be no requirement for the Living Wage Foundation to exist if rich organisations such as Celtic FC paid all of its employees a wage that gave them an opportunity to raise a family, feed and heat them and maintain a roof over all of their heads. By adhering to the socially irresponsible philosophy of the Conservative party in its wage policy it risks inflicting irreparable damage to this jealously guarded reputation.

Taken from here

The Socialist Movement

“Study because we will need all your intelligence.

Agitate because we will need all your enthusiasm.

Organise because we will need all your strength.”

Gramsci

Despite the absolute need for a party of socialism we are a long way off from such a party. By this, we mean a party that has thousands of members and ultimately, we need to be thinking in terms of a party of millions of members. But to be a real socialist these days is to be a political anachronism, a fossilised relic. The central tenet of socialism is the assertion that the working class is the sole historical agency for the achievement of socialism. For Marxists the possibility of revolution rests upon the conscious and free acceptance of socialism by the working class. Gramsci’s conception of the need for the working class to develop a hegemony consciousness presupposes the existence of a mass-based socialist movement. In the absence of such a movement socialist theory is placed in a vacuum.

All those within the working class movement must awaken to the need to fight our class enemy.  We aim to replace the present capitalist system, with its inherent injustice and inhumanity, by a social order from which the domination and exploitation of one class by another will be ended. Our goal is world socialism, a new social system based on common ownership of our resources and industry, cooperation, production for use and genuine democracy. Only socialism can turn the boundless potential of people and resources to the creation of a world free from tyranny, greed, poverty and exploitation. Capitalism has failed, and so have efforts to reform it. That failure puts a campaign for the socialist alternative on the immediate agenda. The needs of people, not profit, are the driving force of a socialist society. We believe in the ability of people to manage their own productive institutions democratically. Producing for ourselves, the needs of the people, living standards would leap forward rather than being cut for the interests of a tiny minority and their “special interests”. Under capitalism, labour is a commodity. Workers are used as replaceable parts, extensions of machines—as long as they provide dividends. Employers use their power of ownership to devastate the lives of workers through redundancies, out-sourcing and neglect of health and safety. Trade unions, despite their courageous efforts, have encountered difficulties eliminating even the worst abuses of management power.

No matter how long and how hard the struggle, we shall win. The Socialist Party is the party of the dispossessed and the exploited striving to build a new world and we support all struggles against the injustices of capitalism. We do not offer a blueprint to a better future. Instead we invite fellow workers to join us to eradicate a social system based on exploitation, discrimination, poverty and war. The capitalist system must be replaced by social democracy. That is the burning issue of our era, the only hope of humanity. As we have already explained Marxists have a basic starting point to all of their struggles and ideas – that the working class is a revolutionary class and as such is capable of overthrowing the capitalist system and establishing the socialist order. It is a fundamental truth from which we draw the strength to face the daily struggle. It is an outlook which gives socialists something unique – an unshakeable confidence in the working class as a revolutionary force. It is something we have to defend every day against those who tell us that the working class are so imbued with the ideas of capitalism that they can always be diverted from the real revolutionary objective. Our confidence springs not from romanticism but from Marxist theory. That we see the working class as an exploited class, driven by the realities of class society into conflict with their exploiters at the point of production. It means that when all the conditions are present, the overwhelming power of the working class, as the producers of all wealth, can be harnessed to make a real revolution. But that as everyone knows is easy to say but very difficult to accomplish in practice. The Socialist Party wants to build a mass party with its roots in the working class and its sights set on social revolution. To do this it has to be a fully democratically structured party, not an authoritarian organisation controlled and directed by leaders. There is a difference between us and those vanguard ‘workers’ parties that call themselves ‘socialist’ and we make no bones about it. We are Marxists. We are revolutionaries. Our strategic goal is people power. We will not go just a part of the way – or even half of the way – we are going all of the way and we are going to build a movement and party to do it.

Something can be done

“We can’t advance and we can’t go home…For us, it’s Europe or die.” - Bamba, from the Ivory Coast

The Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) Annual St Andrews Day March and Rally takes place Saturday 28th November. The event this year has the theme ‘No Racism: Refugees Welcome Here’

The UN Refugee Convention recognises that refugees have a right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a right to enter to seek asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any laws simply by arriving without authorisation. International law make these allowances because it is not always safe or practicable for asylum seekers to obtain travel documents or travel through authorised channels because refugees are, by definition, persons fleeing persecution and in most cases are being persecuted by their own government. It is often too dangerous for refugees to apply for a passport or exit visa or approach an embassy for a visa, as such actions could put their lives, and the lives of their families, at risk.

If immigration has led to the rise of the far right groups - it is only through the racist tactic of blaming economic woes on them. The majority of informed opinion and study suggest otherwise. If you are unhappy about this why not condemn the far right groups as opposed to immigration itself? Building walls around Europe is the most xenophobic, impractical idea that shows a complete ignorance towards current social and economic factors (as well as historic). If you want to live in a inward looking walled off country, please do not include the rest of us in your suggested dystopia. The UK is 53rd in terms of population density, 2% overall land area taken by development and 160th in terms of birth rate. So we aren't full, and we aren't likely to be anytime soon. Across Europe the evidence is that migration makes a positive contribution, not a negative one. Migrants contribute far more than they take out and they are necessary to keep a balance between retirees and workers.

"Something must be done about Libya ”…”Something must be done about Syria,”….."Something must be done about Iraq." ...”Something must be done...something must be done”… and so it goes on and on

We must not blame another worker for our poverty, whether migrant or not, whether illegal or legal. Those travelling long distances through fear or desperation are people no different to ourselves. Instead of falling for the divide and rule tactics which weaken us all, workers should recognise who their real enemy is and work together to defeat the system that enslaves us all.

Common Ownership

Why has the working class failed? Why is there little trace of any revolutionary movement among the workers? Why is it that people all over the globe seem incapable of initiating anything aimed at their own self-liberation? To fight you must have a positive aim. The essence of the future free world community is that workers direct their work themselves, collectively. The working class has to search for new roads. The real fight for liberation has yet to begin. A deep inner revolution must take place in the working classes of clear insight, of solidarity, of perseverance, courage, and fighting spirit.  The goal of the working class is liberation from exploitation. This goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a ruling class substituting the capitalists. It can only be realised by the workers themselves being master over production. The aim of socialism is to take the means of production and distribution out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the workers. This aim is sometimes spoken of as common ownership.  

State ownership (nationalisation) is the ownership, i.e. the right of disposal, by a public body representing society, by government, state power or some other political body. The persons forming this body, the ministers, the officials, the managers, are the direct masters of the production apparatus; they direct and regulate the process of production; they command and control the workers. Common ownership is the right of disposal by the workers themselves; the people themselves are direct masters of the production administrating , managing, directing, and regulating the process of production which is, indeed, their common work.

Under state ownership the workers are not masters of their work; they may be better treated and their wages may be higher than under private ownership; but they are still exploited. Exploitation does not mean simply that the workers do not receive the full produce of their labor; a considerable part must always be spent on the production apparatus and for unproductive though necessary departments of society. Exploitation consists in that others, forming another class, dispose of the produce and its distribution; that they decide what part shall be assigned to the workers as wages, what part they retain for themselves and for other purposes. Under government ownership this belongs to the regulation of the process of production, which is the function of the bureaucracy. In other words: the structure of productive work remains as it is under capitalism; workers subservient to commanding directors.

Common ownership is the objective of the working class itself, fighting for self-liberation. Common ownership of the workers implies, first, that the entirety of producers is master of the means of production and works them in a well planned system of social production. It implies secondly that in all shops, factories, enterprises the personnel regulate their own collective work as part of the whole. So they have to create the organs by means of which they direct their own work, as personnel, as well as social production at large. The institute of State and government cannot serve for this purpose because it is essentially an organ of domination, and concentrates the general affairs in the hands of a group of rulers. But under socialism the general affairs consist in social production; so they are the concern of all, of each personnel, of every worker, to be discussed and decided at every moment by themselves. Their organs must consist of delegates sent out as the bearers of their opinion, and will be continually returning and reporting on the results arrived at in the assemblies of delegates. By means of such delegates that at any moment can be changed and called back the connection of the working masses into smaller and larger groups can be established and organization of production secured.

Such bodies of delegates, for which the name of workers’ councils has come into use, form what may be called the political organisation appropriate to a working class liberating itself from exploitation. They cannot be devised beforehand, they must be shaped by the practical activity of the workers themselves when they are needed. Such delegates are no parliamentarians, no rulers, no leaders, but mediators, expert messengers, forming the connection between the separate personnel of the enterprises, combining their separate opinions into one common resolution. Common ownership demands common management of the work as well as common productive activity; it can only be realised if all the workers take part in this self-management of what is the basis and content of social life. 

Europe's Shame

“We can’t advance and we can’t go home…For us, it’s Europe or die.” - Bamba, from the Ivory Coast 

Austria: Austria is requiring refugees to take an “Austrian values” course; one of those values is apparently barbed-wire fences, which it erected to try to keep them from entering the country in the first place.



Belgium: The interior minister has suggested that refugees wear special identity badges, raising the specter of Europe's fascist past.

Bulgaria: As one of the border countries, Bulgaria has militarized its territory to try to stop refugees coming from Turkey. Recently, an Afghan man was shot and killed by border police.

Croatia: Rival political factions have turned the refugees into a political football, wiht some criticizing the government for letting them in and others criticizing the refugees' treatment. The country's border with Serbia has been one of the main entry points for refugees.

Cyprus: The government has made clear it prefers “Christian” refugees, drawing a religious line in the sand; it also wants to limit refugee intake to 300.

Czech Republic: Czech police drew gasps worldwide when they started to write identification numbers on the arms of refugees.


Denmark: Known worldwide as a left-leaning social democratic state, Denmark refused to show solidarity by declining Sweden's plea to share some of the refugees it is importing.

Estonia: Estonia's only refugee center can hold about 100 refugees; far-right parties are calling for a referendum to cap the country's number of refugees, even though the government has only agreed to take in an additional 550 people.

Finland: “Finnish extremist organizations have been activated to oppose immigration, and this is the most visible and concrete security threat,” said Interior Minister Petteri Orpo of the growing backlash against the refugees.

France: French police have reportedly abused refugees, many of them living in tents in squalid conditions. French far-right leader Marine Le Pen declared, with no evidence, that 99 percent of refugees are men.

Germany: Germany has been among the most welcoming countries, choosing to accept as many as half a million refugees a year. Yet there have been beatings and even bombings committed against refugees in the past few weeks as the German far-right reacts to the influx. One German mayor who welcomed the refugees was stabbed in the neck. At least 580 attacks on asylum facilities have occurred this year.



Greece: In Greece, hooded men are hunting refugees arriving by boat. They smash the engines, leaving the refugees stranded.

Hungary: The ruling prime minister has seen his political fortunes rebound due to his anti-refugee stance; both tear gas and water cannons were used to repel refugees.

Ireland: The Irish people have rallied to support refugees, but the country has been fairly modest in the number of refugees it is taking, slating just 4,000.

Italy: Activists say Italian officials are using refugees' countries of origin to define them as economic migrants, which would give them fewer rights and make it easier for Italy to deport  them.

Latvia: Latvia agreed to take just 776 refugees, which set off protests from the far-right. “The refugees are not victims, most of them are here for money,” said one protester holding a picture of Hungary's anti-refugee prime minister.



Lithuania: Lithuania's parliament is trying to wrestle control over where refugees are settled; the country has agreed to bring in just 1,105 people.

Luxembourg: The small but rich EU country has been critical of the harsh response of other countries to refugees, but is only letting in a few dozen itself. One woman who has set up a Facebook page to welcome refugees has to constantly delete hateful comments.

Netherlands: In the Netherlands, cars belonging to left-leaning, pro-refugee lawmakers were set on fire, and other politicians received death threats. A refugee center was burned to the ground, and a renowned rabbi has called for refugee camps to be set up away from the country's Jewish neighborhoods because of anti-gay violence within the refugee centers.

Malta: Malta let in 100 refugees this year; the country is harshly punishing those who bring refugees into the country outside the quota.

Poland: Only 8 percent of Polish citizens surveyed said their country should take more than the 20,000 refugees the country is slated to accept.

Portugal:Portugal has seen protests in response to the small number of refugees it is taking in, with some citizens holding signs saying “Protesters NOT Welcome.”

Romania: Romania's president and prime minister have been quarreling as one made a pact with neighboring countries to close borders to refugees.



Slovakia: One small town in Slovakia held a vote on accepting refugees; 97 percent of the residents said no.



Slovenia: Slovenia's president doesn't want his country to become a “pocket” for refugees, and wants to step up border control to stop them from coming.



Spain: The mayor of Melilla said he “has to defend Melilla and its borders and impose order” in response to protests from the left-wing Podemos party, which is criticizing the country's stance toward refugees.

Sweden: A man donned a sword and attacked a nearby school, killing a student and teacher assistant and injuring others. Witnesses say he attacked only dark-skinned people. The attack came as many in Sweden are trying to stem the flow of refugees.



United Kingdom: UK leader David Cameron infamously referred to refugees as a “swarm.” The issue becomes contentious as the new leader of Labour takes a much more pro-refugee stance than his predecessors.

PRESS RELEASE ON TRADE UNION BILL (EC STATEMENT)

PRESS RELEASE ON TRADE UNION BILL (EC STATEMENT)

The Media Committee is currently sending out the following media release to national media, trade unions & etc.

Restrictions on Trade Unions are ‘act of class war against working people’

As UK government plans to clamp down on trade union rights wait for a second reading in the House of Lords, the Socialist Party yesterday warned they are “an act of class war by the forces of organised capital, aimed against the ability of working people to defend or extend the standards of living of themselves and their families.”

Media spokesperson Robert Cox said: “Workers cannot rely on the House of Lords to stop this legislation. They need to stand together and fight to defeat it themselves. The strike vote by 98% of junior doctors on a 76% turnout shows the way forward.”

In a statement agreed by their Executive Committee, Socialists pointed out that “by seeking to impose minimum turn-out requirements beyond anything required of elected politicians,” this  “exposes the truth” that the governments job is “to work for and on behalf of the British capitalist class” using the law to aim “to prevent workers from organising, democratically and peacefully”.

While the Socialist Party made clear that it “stands in absolute solidarity with the workers”, it warned that industrial action can only win limited benefits which are “under constant threat of being taken back.” 

“The only hope of establishing for all time a good standard of living for all mankind depends on bringing an end to the political and economic control of society by the “one-percent” and in its place the establishment of a world in which all wealth is owned and shared in common by all its people. We call upon all workers to unite to bring this about as soon as possible”, the statement concluded.

For more information about the policies and activities of the Socialist Party visit the website: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/ or specifically about the Trade Union Bill there is a recent article from our journal at: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2015/no-1333-september-2015/more-union-bashing

The Statement in full:

The Trade Union Bill 2015 - Statement of the Executive Committee of the SPGB:

“The Trade Union Bill currently before Parliament represents an act of class war by the forces of organised capital, aimed against the ability of working people to defend or extend the standards of living of themselves and their families.

By seeking to impose minimum turn-out requirements beyond anything required of elected politicians, and forcing agency workers to become strike breakers, this bill exposes the truth of the nature of the state. Far from being an institution representative of the people, the clear purpose of Government is to work for and on behalf of the British capitalist class. In this case by taking further legal measures to prevent workers from organising, democratically and peacefully, to restrain the efforts of their employers to reduce employment costs to an absolute minimum, thereby increasing the profits of their shareholders directly or, by cuts to government spending, indirectly through the reduction of tax on their profits.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain stands in absolute solidarity with the workers of all countries in their efforts to achieve better conditions of employment. However workers should realise that, under the market system for their bosses increasing profits must come before all other considerations. Any material gains made through workers day-to-day struggle will therefore be limited and under constant threat of being taken back. The only hope of establishing for all time a good standard of living for all mankind depends on bringing an end to the political and economic control of society by the “one-percent” and in its place the establishment of a world in which all wealth is owned and shared in common by all its people. We call upon all workers to unite to bring this about as soon as possible.”

Socialism and the Socialist Party

A society which is founded on the system of the rich making the greatest possible profit out of the labour of others must be wrong. The Socialist Party seek a change in the basis of the current system of society - a change which would destroy the distinctions of classes and nationalities. This profit-driven system is maintained by competition not only between the conflicting classes, the capitalists and the working class, but also within the classes themselves: there is always war among the workers for bare subsistence, and among their masters, the employers and middle-men, for the share of the profit wrung out of the workers; lastly, there is competition always, and sometimes open war, among the nations of the civilised world for their share of the world-market. Although we produce all the wealth of society, we have no control over its production or distribution. The people are treated as a mere appendage to capital - as a part of its machinery. This must be altered from the basics: the land, the capital, the machinery, factories, workshops, stores, means of transit, mines, all the means of production and distribution of wealth, must be treated as the common property of all. This change in the method of production and distribution would enable everyone to live decently, and free from the sordid anxieties for daily livelihood which at present weigh so heavily on the minds of the mankind.

Nationalisation which many earnest and sincere persons have preached, would be useless as labour is still subject to the fleecing of surplus value inevitable under the capitalist system. No better solution would be that of state capitalism, whose aim it would be to make concessions to the working class while leaving the present system of capital and wages still in operation: no number of merely administrative changes, until the workers are in possession of all political power, would make any real approach to socialism.

The Socialist Party aims at the realisation of complete socialism , and well knows that this can never happen in any one country without the help of the workers of all the world. For us neither geographical boundaries, political history, nor race makes rivals or enemies; for us there are no nations, but only varied masses of workers and friends, whose mutual sympathies are checked or perverted by groups of bosses whose interest it is to stir up rivalries and hatreds between the dwellers in different lands. Marx pointed out that society would never be remodeled unless the proletariat of all countries did it, and until they did, society would be increasingly torn by growing contradictions and antagonisms, We in the Socialist Party strive for a real revolution and want a real change in society. 

Why socialism?

Socialism focuses the attention of the world on the grave evils of the capitalist system that something needs to be done about. Those social evils are not bred in the heart of man but are bred by capitalism, and by nothing else. Socialism is not a mere reform movement. Capitalism is based on private property, the ownership by a minority of the population of the means of production and exchange. The capitalist class is defined in no other way – and maintained in no other way – except by the ownership of the means of production and exchange. This ownership is what gives the capitalist class power of life or death over the working class and over society as a whole. To live, you, the working person, must not only work for the owners of the means of production and exchange – you must guarantee them a profit. Working for them is not enough; a profit is absolutey required for you to get your job; and that profit can be obtained in no other wise except by exploiting that which is your only real possession – namely your physical or mental capacity to work. That is all the worker has. To live economically, the capitalist must accumulate; not that he wants to or doesn’t – he must accumulate in order to live. To accumulate, he must be assured profit. To profit, he must exploit labour. There is no other way. Capital always seeks to intensify exploitation; labour always and necessarily seeks to resist exploitation. Capitalism seeks what is rightfully its own, from its point of view: the maximum that it can get out of the worker. Labour seeks what is rightfully its own: that’s why it forms class organisations, labour unions. Wealth is produced in no other way than by the labour of working people, then the wealth belongs rightfully to the workers. A revolution of working people who have nothing, against capitalists who have everything in superabundance, is the objective of the Socialist Party. The principle of social ownership of the means of production, ownership and control of the means of production by the whole people, by the producers, is our goal and for us the fullest achievement of democracy: the assurance of material abundance for all by wiping out classes.

 

Capitalism cannot guarantee security to the people, cannot guarantee peace to the people, cannot guarantee brotherhood to the people, cannot guarantee abundance to the people. Any social system which cannot guarantee those to the people stands condemned. The only way to replace capitalism is by socialism.

The Republican Ideal

"Mississippi Yearning" is an article in The Toronto Star, October 19, that describes that the state is America's poorest and sickest state but where, unbelievably, opposition to Obama's health care reforms are fierce. A comment in a barber shop gives some indication of the level of understanding of health care, "Nobody should be handed high quality (health care) coverage simply because they happen to live in America. If you want insurance, get a damned job and pay for it. That's the way I look at it, it's not my job or anyone else's job to pay for their insurance." Unfortunately that's a pretty typical attitude showing a complete lack of understanding of the situation. Presumably he is quite happy to drive on roads that somebody else has paid for and will accept government social programs. Eighty- nine per cent of those who have fallen into the 'health coverage gap' are from the South. The Republican ideal scores heavily in such areas of extreme ignorance! John Ayers

Worker V Capitalist

The lesson of past decades is that the problems facing the great majority of people will never be solved within the confines of the capitalist system. The system of exploitation must be abolished and replaced by a new, higher system, socialism. Our argument with the Left and the policies it is advocating is not that they would not be some degree of benefit to working class, but that measured against the criterion of achieving socialism which is, after all, what the Left claims as its goal, they fall far short. The aim of the Socialist Party is to establish socialism and abolish the right of one man to rob another of the fruits of his labour. This is what makes our Party different from all others. Our aim to make the working class the masters of their own destiny, to win political power, and establish socialism.

The attempt to cover the road to socialism in small steps, to start it off through changes or reforms which are possible under capitalism, leads inevitably to forgetting the final aim and making the means an end in themselves. Changes of capitalism become changes under capitalism. Many reformist ‘socialists’ consider state capitalism the progressive unfoldment of a new social order. The theory envisages capitalism which leads to state capitalism to socialism. State capitalism is not socialism and never can become socialism. State capitalism regulates and directs capital and labour; it seeks to realise the Utopia of peace between the classes, of the abolition, or at least suspension, of the class struggle. State capitalism’s control of the industry will not make it any less ugly than it is under capitalism. Indeed, the direct intervention of the government in its affairs will increase workers’ difficulties.

State capitalism is the old conception of “growing into” socialism, – transforming capitalism into socialism by “democratising” the government, placing it in the hands of “the people.” As a strategy it it strengthens the state and weakens the workers. Capitalism is fundamentally and necessarily undemocratic; it cannot be democratised, it must be abolished by the socialist revolution.

The social revolution becomes a fact when the working class has acquired sufficient consciousness of its control over production and distribution to establish that control in practice. Socialism rejects “co-operation” with the capitalist, in industry. One means of trickery is an arrangement by which the workers “co-operate” with the employers in the consideration of matters affecting a particular industry or factory. All proposals for a sham industrial democracy are useless and dangerous; they are schemes directed at the independence and action of workers, aiming to subordinate the worker to the capitalist.

Gaining Consciouness

There are two ways open to people today. We can continue along the path under capitalism or we can take the socialist road. There are deep differences between rich and poor. It is our aim to build a society in which all are able to live a full life, free of class distinctions and divisions. But we do not believe that this can be done for the people. It can only be done by the people. To this end we work for the widest possible socialist movement in the course of which a new understanding, new relations, can be forged. The achievement of socialism, once a distant dream, is now a reality for all to see. We will move into the realm of a truly human society, where the watchword is from each according to his ability to each according to his needs,‘ and where, in the words of the Communist Manifesto "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all",  where productive forces supply an abundance of products, when the last remnants of classes vanish and work becomes a pleasure.

Capitalism, by its method of production, has brought isolated workers together and constituted them as a class in society. Capitalism has made the workers a class in themselves. That is, the workers are a distinct class in society, whether they recognize this fact or not. Historical development calls upon this class to reorganize society completely and establish socialism. To do this, the workers must become a class for themselves. They must acquire a clear understanding of their real position under capitalism, of the nature of capitalist society as a whole, and of their mission in history. They must act consciously for their class interests. They must become conscious of the fact that these class interests lead to a socialist society. When this takes place, the workers are a class for themselves, a class with socialist consciousness.

In our work-places, workers try to get better wages and working conditions from the employer. If we cannot get them by a simple request, we soon learn the need of union organization with which to enforce our requests and to defend ourselves from attacks by the employer. We learn, too, that workers must resort to political action in order to advance our interests. We and all other workers are forced by capitalism to engage in the class struggle. The Socialist Party is needed to win the working class to the principles of socialism, to so-called socialist methods of struggle against capitalist exploitation and oppression, and finally to the socialist victory itself. Socialism will never come by itself. Of course, there are many other parties which proclaim the same goal which is confusing to a worker. He or she will say: “How am I to tell which party is the right one for me to join or support?” Or, “Why don’t all those who are in favour of socialism unite into a single party?” Or, “If you cannot agree among yourselves, how do you expect me to agree with any of you?” To judge the different parties, it is necessary to check on their words and their deeds. That is, to examine the policies of the different parties, what they are for and what they are against, and to see if what they do in practice corresponds to what they say in words. On that basis, it is easy to conclude which one best serves the interests of socialism.

The Socialist Party calls itself a Marxist party. The name merely signify that the Socialist Party stands firmly on the basic principles of one the greatest teachers in the history of the working class. The Socialist Party was formed in 1904. But its roots reach much further back. As a Marxist organisation the Socialist Party champions revolutionary ideas. What is a social revolution? The socialist revolution is simply the overthrow of capitalist despotism and the establishment of workers’ rule. People Power. Socialism cannot be achieved, and the workers cannot effectively promote their interests, without class consciousness. Class consciousness means an understanding working class, a self-confident and self-reliant working class.

The road to freedom is marked out by the principles of socialism, and no other road exists.

What is slavery?

The centralisation of the control of property in a few hands is increasing threatening the existence of civilisation.

Some scornfully sneer at the Socialist Party because they say we are “idealists.” Some others claim that we are as a whole “pretty good fellows,” but utterly “impractical.” Now, what is socialism? One day in the near future the hungry millions will turn against the overfed few. In his historic work, The Condition of the Working Class in England, Engels wrote in 1844:

“Both legally and actually, the worker is the slave of the possessing class, the bourgeoisie; so much so that he is sold in the market like a commodity whose price is subject to rise and fall like that of any other commodity. If there is an increased demand for workers, their price goes up; if there is a decreased demand, the price goes down; if the demand has so decreased that a certain number of workers find no buyer of their labour-power, as ‘surplus stock’, then they have to lie in reserve, and thus earning no livelihood, they perish from starvation. For, to speak in terms of political economy, the money spent on their maintenance will not ‘reproduce itself’, will be money wasted, and no capitalist will thus invest his money. The whole difference from the old, avowed slavery, consists in that the modern worker is seemingly free; because he is not sold once and for all time, but by instalments, by the day, by the week, or by the year, and also because he is not sold by one owner to another, but is forced to sell himself; for, he is not the slave of one man, but of the whole possessing class. This means no substantial difference to him, and while this illusory liberty should afford him some amount of real liberty, there is, on the other hand, the further handicap in his present position that no one guarantees him the means of subsistence, and the bourgeoisie may any day deprive him of his employment and doom him to starvation, should it have no use for his labour nor for his existence. On the other hand, to the bourgeoisie the present state of affairs is infinitely more advantageous than the old slavery. It may discharge its workpeople whenever it pleases, without losing thereby any capital investment for, generally, labour is now bought cheaper by the bourgeoisie than the cost of labour would be under the old slavery system, as it had been reassuringly calculated by Adam Smith”

Engels a few years later in his pamphlet, Principles of Communism, which constituted the first draft of the Communist Manifesto. He puts there the question, wherein do proletarians differ from slaves? And his answer is as follows:

“The slave is sold once and forever. The proletarian as to sell himself each day, and each hour. The slave is the property of his master, and already on account of the personal interest of the latter, enjoys an assured existence, however miserable. Each individual proletarian is, so to speak, the property of the whole bourgeois class. His labour is purchased only when required, and therefore, his existence is not assured. There is an assured existence only to the working class as a whole. The slave had no competition to contend with; the proletarian is subject to competition and price fluctuations. The slave is considered a thing, and not a member of bourgeois society. The proletarian is considered a person and a member of bourgeois society. The slave may live under better conditions than the proletarian, but the proletarian belongs to a society standing on a higher level of development, and is himself on a higher level than the slave. The slave may liberate himself by abolishing, among all the forms of private property, only that of slavery; whereas the proletarian can liberate himself only by abolishing private property in general”.

Many years later Marx, wrote the following on this subject: “Only the form in which surplus labour is squeezed out of the immediate producers – the workers – distinguishes the economic social formations; for instance, the society based on slavery from the society of hired labour”. (Capital, Vol.1)

Of course, the people who exploit the working class do not recognise the correctness of this state of wage slavery. The reformists cited two points supposed to prove that the proletariat was no longer in a state of slavery. 1) the growth of democracy and the extension of the political rights of the proletariat, and 2) that owing to the existence of the trade unions, owing to the political struggle of the proletariat, there was an improvement in the condition of the proletariat, wage increases, increased social insurance, and labour protection. After the war, the reformists added the growing participation of the proletariat in the management of industry, the introduction of the so-called “industrial democracy”. The reformists triumphantly point to the statement made by Engels that when labour power, as a commodity, becomes unsalable and is laid up in stock, the worker has to die of starvation. Well, they say, is it so to-day? And they tell us about the existence of unemployment benefits. Yes, in a number of countries the bourgeoisie was forced to introduce the welfare system for the unemployment. Such is the case in countries where the proletariat forms a majority of the population, where the bourgeoisie is afraid lest the unemployed, suffering the pangs of hunger, throw off the yoke of capitalism. Only in Western countries the bourgeoisie has paid a sort of ransom to the workers in the shape of paltry sums for the relief of the unemployed. In countries where the proletarian masses do not as yet reveal any revolutionary tendencies on a large scale, there is either no relief at all for unemployed workers or it amounts to a miserable pittance.

However, even in countries where the proletariat has won the benefits of social services against unemployment the bourgeoisie have inaugurated a furious attack upon this “luxury”. It asserts that it can no longer “maintain” the unemployed, that the insurance contributions are a heavy burden on accumulated capital and on the cost of production, thus diminishing the competitive ability of the manufacturers. The bourgeois press, all the bourgeois spokesman, including the most progressive amongst them, are screaming about the extravagant living of the proletariat, claiming that the paltry payment received, at best, by unemployed worker in the wealthiest capitalist countries constitutes an unheard of luxury which capitalism cannot afford. The proletarians of ancient society – says Marx – lived at the expense of that society, which relied on slave labour. Modern society lives at the expense of the hired labour of the proletarians. And this very society, which would not be able to live through a single day without exploiting the workers, turns around and says to the proletariat: “you will have to shift yourself, I can no longer afford to feed you”.

While Marx and Engels characterised the condition of the proletariat under capitalism as a form of exploitation that does not differ from slavery in substance, the condition of the proletariat in the period of moribund capitalism is daily becoming more and more identical with the condition of slaves. In the midst of untold wealth, millions upon millions of people are starving in the civilised capitalist countries, not to speak of the millions who literally die from hunger in the countries ruined by capitalism. The worker is tied to the machine which allows him not a single moment for thoughtful reflection, for human sentiments. He comes back from the factory, completely worn out and incapable of anything else than to stagger into the “movie” or the public-house. He is not individually owned as a slave, but as a class, he is collectively enmeshed in the huge capitalist machine, which ruthlessly crushes him and breaks his bones at the least attempt of resistance. The capitalist State becomes not merely the organ of domination over the working class, but it becomes the organ of civil war; because the worker does not want to remain the slave of the capitalists. Capitalism has placed upon the backs of the working class the whole burden of labour and has deprived it of all the joys of life; now the capitalist cannot imagine labour in any other way than under brutal compulsion. In the 19^th century an African native who had returned from England explained : “The English are the same slaves as ourselves. They are compelled to work by hunger; and we, by our masters”. The slave-owners took the same view of slave labour that the capitalists are taking today of “free” capitalist labour, which is, that no one will work unless driven by hunger. The greatest philosopher of the slave-driving world, Aristotle, wrote that “the trades are akin to slavery; a man of honour, a man of social standing, a good citizen, should learn no trade; for he will cease then to be a gentleman, and the slaves will cease to be slaves”. Even the management of slaves was considered by Aristotle to be an unworthy pursuit for a freeman: “It contains in itself nothing beautiful, and nothing to excite respect. Gentlemen who can dispense with such worries, shift them on to their managers. For themselves they choose the pursuit of politics and philosophy”.