In Socialism

Socialism aims not to establish "workers power" but the abolition of all classes including the working class. It is thus misleading to speak of socialism as workers ownership and control of production. In a socialist society, there would simply be people, free and equal men and women forming a classless community. So it would be more accurate to define socialism/communism in terms of the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production by and in the interest of the whole people. Wealth in present society is produced only when there is the prospect of a profit; in a socialist society, production would be carried out simply in order to satisfy human needs, whenever and wherever they occurred. Modern technology will act as a liberating force if the basis of society is altered from market competition to human cooperation.

The object of socialism is to unite humanity and to solve social problems by building a society which can satisfy the universal need for co-operation and material security. Socialism involves a creative outlook concerned with the quality of life. In association with others, the individual will develop himself as a social being. With enlightenment and knowledge, man will replace the ignorance, false illusions and prejudice from which he suffers in our own day. Socialism is the form of society most compatible with the needs of man. Its necessity springs from the enduring problems, the economic contradictions and social conflicts of present-day society. Socialist society must be based upon the common ownership and democratic control by the whole community of the means of life. Life will be based on human relationships of equality and cooperation.  Through these relationships, man will produce useful things, construct amenities and establish desirable institutions. Socialism will resolve the conflicts which at present divide man from man. Regardless of ethnic or cultural differences, the whole world community will share a common interest.

The building of socialism requires a social reorganization where the earth's resources and the apparatus of production are held in common by the whole community. Instead of serving sectional interests, they are made freely accessible to society as a whole. Production will be organised at world level with coordination of its differing parts down to local levels. In socialism, there will be no market, trade or barter. In the absence of a system of exchange, money will have no function to perform. Individuals will participate freely in production and take what they need from what is produced. The fact that Socialism will be based on common ownership does not mean that an individual will have no call on personal effects. It means essentially that no minority will have control over or possession of natural resources or means of production. Individuals will stand in relation to each other not as economic categories, not as employers and employees or buyers and sellers, but simply as human beings producing and consuming the necessary things of life. Socialist society will minimise waste and set free an immense amount of human labour. Armies and armament industries with their squandering of men and materials will be swept away. These will disappear together with all the wasteful appendages of trade and commerce.

In socialism, there will be a common interest in the planning and smooth operation of production. Work will be a part of human cooperation in dealing with practical problems. Work will be one aspect of the varied yet integrated life of the community.

With the change in the object of society, that is human welfare instead of profit, man will freely develop agriculture and housing, produce useful things and maintain services. As well as material production, man will freely develop desirable institutions such as libraries, education facilities, centres of art and crafts and centres of research in science and technology. It will be a problem of social planning, statistics, and research to ascertain the requirements of the community. Although these techniques are used for different ends, there is already a wide experience of them. With the experience of socialist production, these planning techniques will gain in accuracy. Once produced, goods will be transported to centres of distribution where all will have the same right of access to what is available according to individual need. It will be a simple matter of collecting what is required. As well as tradition and geography, it will be a matter of organisation and practicality as to which things will require a complex world division of labour for their production and which things will be produced regionally.

Socialism will establish a community of interests. The development of the individual will enhance the lives of other men. Equality will manifest attitudes of cooperation. The individual will enjoy the security of being integrated with society at large. The establishment of socialism does not call for the complete destruction and reconstruction of society. Techniques of production and some of the machinery of administration which can be transformed already exist. The task is to allow their free use and development by and for the community. With the change in the object of society from profit to human welfare will come a change in the function of social institutions. The schools and universities will no longer be concerned with the training of wage and salary workers for the needs of trade and commerce. Education will be a social amenity for life, providing teachers and a storehouse of all accumulated knowledge and skill. Education will not be rigidly separated from other aspects of life. The provision of education facilities will call for some permanent specialists, but knowledge and skill will to a much greater extent be passed on by those actively engaged in their practical application. Education will be tied more closely to the whole process of living. There will be a body concerned with safety, the coordination of services in the event of an emergency, traffic regulation and the like. Here again, whilst some specialists may be required, it will be desirable for members of the community to participate as part of the normal pattern of their lives. Institutions such as the armed forces, customs, banking, insurance, etc, will become redundant. Socialism will continue those institutions necessary to its own organization. For example, the Food and Agricultural Organization could be expanded to submit plans and execute decisions concerning world food production.

Socialism will end national barriers. The human family will have freedom of movement over the entire earth. Socialism would facilitate universal human contact but at the same time would take care to preserve diversity. Variety in language, music, handicrafts, art forms and diet etc will add to all human experience. Socialism will be democratic. World policies will be subject to the control of the world community. The most complete of information relevant to all issues under discussion will be made fully available. Elected delegates will carry local viewpoints to a world congress where the broad decisions on all aspects of social policy will be made. From that point, the social machinery would be implemented to carry out these decisions, subject to democratic control through both local and world bodies. Decisions affecting only local interests would be made democratically by the local community.

Whilst the general direction of social policy will be decided by the whole community, many decisions will be technical ones arising out of the problem of this policy. These decisions can be left, subject to regular democratic checks, to men and women with specialized knowledge and experience; but given the whole context of socialism, they could only be consistent with its general aim--human welfare. The elimination of vested interests will mean that men will have no ulterior motives influencing their decisions.

Socialism aims not to establish "workers power" but the abolition of all classes including the working class. It is thus misleading to speak of socialism as workers ownership and control of production. In a

socialist society, there would simply be people, free and equal men and women forming a classless community. So it would be more accurate to define socialism/communism in terms of the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production by and in the interest of the whole people. Wealth in present society is produced only when there is the prospect of a profit; in a socialist society, production would be carried out simply in order to satisfy human needs, whenever and wherever they occurred. Modern technology will act as a liberating force if the basis of society is altered from market competition to human co-operation.

The object of socialism is to unite humanity and to solve social problems by building a society which can satisfy the universal need for co-operation and material security. Socialism involves a creative outlook concerned with the quality of life. In association with others, the individual will develop himself as a social being. With enlightenment and knowledge, man will replace the ignorance, false illusions and prejudice from which he suffers in our own day. Socialism is the form of society most compatible with the needs of man. Its necessity springs from the enduring problems, the economic contradictions and social conflicts of present-day society. Socialist society must be based upon the common ownership and democratic control by the whole community of the means of life. Life will be based on human relationships of equality and co-operation.  Through these relationships, man will produce useful things, construct amenities and establish desirable institutions. Socialism will resolve the conflicts which at present divide man from man. Regardless of ethnic or cultural differences, the whole world community will share a common interest.

The building of socialism requires a social reorganisation where the earth's resources and the apparatus of production are held in common by the whole community. Instead of serving sectional interests, they are made freely accessible to society as a whole. Production will be organised at world level with coordination of its differing parts down to local levels. In socialism, there will be no market, trade or barter. In the absence of a system of exchange, money will have no function to perform. Individuals will participate freely in production and take what they need from what is produced. The fact that socialism will be based on common ownership does not mean that an individual will have no call on personal effects. It means essentially that no minority will have control over or possession of natural resources or means of production. Individuals will stand in relation to each other not as economic categories, not as employers and employees or buyers and sellers, but simply as human beings producing and consuming the necessary things of life. Socialist society will minimise waste and set free an immense amount of human labour. Armies and armament industries with their squandering of men and materials will be swept away. These will disappear together with all the wasteful appendages of trade and commerce.

In socialism, there will be a common interest in the planning and smooth operation of production. Work will be a part of human co-operation in dealing with practical problems. Work will be one aspect of the varied yet integrated life of the community.

With the change in the object of society, that is human welfare instead of profit, man will freely develop agriculture and housing, produce useful things and maintain services. As well as material production, man will freely develop desirable institutions such as libraries, education facilities, centres of art and crafts and centres of research in science and technology. It will be a problem of social planning, statistics, and research to ascertain the requirements of the community. Although these techniques are used for different ends, there is already a wide experience of them. With the experience of socialist production, these planning techniques will gain in accuracy. Once produced, goods will be transported to centres of distribution where all will have the same right of access to what is available according to individual need. It will be a simple matter of collecting what is required. As well as tradition and geography, it will be a matter of organisation and practicality as to which things will require a complex world division of labour for their production and which things will be produced regionally.

Socialism will establish a community of interests. The development of the individual will enhance the lives of other men. Equality will manifest attitudes of co-operation. The individual will enjoy the security of being integrated with society at large. The establishment of Socialism does not call for the complete destruction and reconstruction of society. Techniques of production and some of the machinery of administration which can be transformed already exist. The task is to allow their free use and development by and for the community. With the change in the object of society from profit to human welfare will come a change in the function of social institutions. The schools and universities will no longer be concerned with the training of wage and salary workers for the needs of trade and commerce. Education will be a social amenity for life, providing teachers and a storehouse of all accumulated knowledge and skill. Education will not be rigidly separated from other aspects of life. The provision of education facilities will call for some permanent specialists, but knowledge and skill will to a much greater extent be passed on by those actively engaged in their practical application. Education will be tied more closely to the whole process of living. There will be a body concerned with safety, the co-ordination of services in the event of an emergency, traffic regulation and the like. Here again, whilst some specialists may be required, it will be desirable for members of the community to participate as part of the normal pattern of their lives. Institutions such as the armed forces, customs, banking, insurance, etc, will become redundant. Socialism will continue those institutions necessary to its own organization. For example, the Food and Agricultural Organization could be expanded to submit plans and execute decisions concerning world food production.

Socialism will end national barriers. The human family will have freedom of movement over the entire earth. Socialism would facilitate universal human contact but at the same time would take care to preserve diversity. Variety in language, music, handicrafts, art forms and diet etc will add to all human experience. Socialism will be democratic. World policies will be subject to the control of the world community. The most information relevant to all issues under discussion will be made fully available. Elected delegates will carry local viewpoints to a world congress where the broad decisions on all aspects of social policy will be made. From that point, the social machinery would be implemented to carry out these decisions, subject to democratic control through both local and world bodies. Decisions affecting only local interests would be made democratically by the local community.

Whilst the general direction of social policy will be decided by the whole community, many decisions will be technical ones arising out of the problem of this policy. These decisions can be left, subject to regular democratic checks, to men and women with specialised knowledge and experience; but given the whole context of socialism, they could only be consistent with its general aim--human welfare. The elimination of vested interests will mean that men will have no ulterior motives influencing their decisions.

Child Soldier, Dead Celebrity.

Wasil Ahnad, a ten-year-old boy, was declared a hero in Afghanistan after he was shot dead fighting the Taliban. He has become a 'celebrity' with widely -circulated photographs on social media showing him holding a rifle and wearing a uniform and helmet. Though the use of child soldiers is illegal in Afghanistan, the charity, "Child Soldiers International" said both government and rebel forces have been doing it for years. 

What could be a sicker symptom of the system we live under than the recruitment and killing of children who should be having fun and enjoying life? As long as we have competing sections and each one's interests pursued, we will have these atrocities. 

John Ayers.

Learning Socialism

As far as we are concerned, socialism and communism are exact synonyms, alternative names to describe the future society we wish to see established. We don't object to ourselves being described as communists but in practice, we only use the word socialist.

There are three phases of socialism. They are interrelated and interdependent and part of an unfolding process.

(1) Socialism first arose out of the material conditions of the earlier portion of the 19th Century. This is the birth of socialist science. It is materialistic. It recognises that everything in existence is interrelated and in a constant process of change. (In a very real sense, it might even be said that socialism is the science that integrates all branches of science into a correlated whole.) Specifically, it indicates the general outlines and the process of social evolution and, more particularly, the nature of capitalism. It explains how the seed of the forthcoming society is fertilised within the womb of an old society.

(2) Then, socialism arises as a movement. It is not alone sufficient to understand the world. The task is to change it. Its very reason for being is to exert all its efforts to arouse the working class and all others to become socialists so that the vast majority becomes conscious of its interests, and proceeds to institute socialism. The socialist revolution cannot be rammed down the throats of "followers." The socialist revolution is a majority, conscious and political. It is and can only be democratic by its very inherent nature. It is not a new ruling class come to power with a subject class having to submit.

(3) Finally, in the course of its evolution, capitalism has laid the groundwork for socialism, a classless, money-free, wage-free society. Socialism is "a society from which exploitation has been banished and in which the unfolding of each individual would be the condition for the freedom of all."

What constitutes being a socialist? Broadly speaking, it is one who realises that capitalism can no longer be reformed or administered in the interest of either the working class or society; that capitalism is incapable of eliminating its inherent problems of poverty, wars, crises, etc.; and that socialism offers the solutions for the social problems besetting mankind since the material conditions and developments—with the single exception of an aroused socialist majority—are now ripe for a socialist society. If an organisation or an individual or a "victory" supports the continuation of capital-wage labour relationships by advocating or organising to administer an improved, bettered reformed status quo (capitalism) instead of coming out for the socialist revolution (a frightening word which only means a complete social-economic change) then—it is NOT socialist. The need for educating, agitating and organising to keep the issues clear cannot be overemphasised. All too many liberals, radicals, intellectuals, and, what is far worse, the much greater numbers of rebellious workers resisting their sad lot in life—all these, sincere, earnest and devoted—have been washed in and out of the so-called socialist organisations and their fringes and in the entire process never did get an insight or an inkling as to what it is all about.

The simplicity of the socialist case is buried by friends and foe alike in mountains of "day-to-day" ISSUES so that there never is and never can be time for them to become acquainted with the science of socialism, i.e., the socialist case. The real need today is the understanding and knowledge of socialism rather than changing the word "socialism."

"The end justifies the means" is in no way part of the socialist political doctrine. Marx never suggested the personal liquidation of capitalists. Neither did he advocated in any way, the hatred of capitalists, as a political tactic. As Marxists, we do not hate those who are opposed to us. We do not even make bad intent or insincerity the basis of our evaluation of their ideas. It is the logic and claims of their views which we rigorously and consistently oppose. The Socialist Party does not advocate violence or hatred because they are inconsistent with the end in view—a classless society of free labour and production for use. The end itself determines the means. If the end is a classless society consciously brought into being by the vast majority, then the means can only be helping to bring this consciousness to the required majority. Hate and violence are in this context inconsistent with these ends. To substitute then as means would mean to change the ends. That there can be no basic separation of ends and means is integral to Marx's doctrines. 

Socialist society cannot begin until the vast majority of the dispossessed realise that capitalist property relations and the division of labour which arises from it are the real barriers which hamper and frustrate the development of the individual in the widest sense, out of the energising of their knowledge and experience they will act accordingly. Those who hold that the basic thing is the overthrow of capitalist relations and the devil take the hindmost are mistaken. The abolition of capitalist property relations is merely the necessary condition which makes possible the releasing of men's energies, capacities and will to re-integrate themselves into the new society. In the building of socialist society much to learn, and some things to unlearn. One thing history will have taught, however, is that love, goodwill, the rights of the individual, can only have real meaning in an equalitarian and humanist society.

Capitalism: Endless wars and endless famines

Regarding the ancient theory that is repeatedly resurrected that a reform demand becomes revolutionary when the capitalist class cannot grant it, not a year passes without numerous instances showing this to be false. By definition, a reformist demand is one which reforms without abolishing capitalism, and which, therefore, can be granted by the capitalists. Every time the capitalists are faced with a more or less widespread demand for some reform they can try various methods of splitting, side-tracking or breaking the movement. Failing anything else they can always go half-way and thus, rob the movement of a large part of its support. They rarely have to concede the whole of the reform demand, but, of course, could, if need be, even appropriating the name "socialism" in certain instances for their act. Socialism can only be brought about by socialists. This involves the hard plodding work which the impatient and the ambitious cannot bear to undertake. To avoid it they seize upon any flashy apparent substitute which presents itself. The reformism and political bargaining with the capitalists advocated by the “left” are all of them quack remedies of that kind. They lead to corruption, disgust, and general apathy. Socialists must expose and condemn them without cessation. Beware of the smooth talking leaders who seek to sell you their sterile ideas. Workers are capable of building a future which might now seem like a dream. That future has nothing to do with swapping the inhabitants of 10 Downing Street. It is about establishing a society of common ownership, democratic control and production for use—a genuine socialist society.

We look forward to a society where buying and selling have no place, to a truly social world where each contributes such work as they are able and all may take freely from the store of wealth created. But capitalism still has many apologists who assert that a socialist system would not work; often they are pie-eyed over the virtues of the marketplace, where freedom, equality of opportunity and property are supposed to reign supreme. In reality, there is nothing equal about the major transaction that most of us have to endure throughout our lives. On the labour market the capitalist confronts the worker and after an average working lifetime of this “equal” transaction, the boss still owns the factory, the office, the shop and the profit made on the goods; while it is a lucky worker who manages to retain a house, a few sticks of furniture and a car through retirement and up to death. The drive for profits and the capture of markets, which sets people against people, factory against factory and nation against nation, is the force that excludes a majority of the world’s population from the potential abundance of wealth that the modern industrial system is capable of producing. Endless wars and endless famines, with millions of guns and no bread, have been normal someplace in the world throughout this century. Socialists look with horror on this direct effect of the capitalist market and do what they can to make the revolution in consciousness that is needed before a system of free access can be introduced. The myopia of capitalist decision-making impoverishes the full natural and human complexities involved over alternative production processes. By contrast, a socialist society would make its production choices on the basIs of usefulness, desirability and the needs of the population. Productive efficiency in units of direct output can be weighed and ranged alongside usefulness, desirability, needs, beauty and scientific interest. The factors that will govern production in a socialist society are commensurable factors; and it is the similarities between material, aesthetic and scientific needs which will allow socialist society to compare them directly and make sensible choices about alternative production processes, based on overall needs. Socialist society is not a dream, but something for which the development of capitalism has prepared production. Remove the vast unproductive apparatus referred to above and you can see what a flood of labour power and resources would be available for useful production in a socialist society. Socialist freedom means the ability to accommodate all the many and varied styles of living, production systems, special and overall concerns that grab people in their interactions with the social and physical environment. Without the drag of private property and the market an abundant future is secure anyway.

Solutions At Election Time?

US presidential candidates have weighed in against capitalism. Donald Trump criticized Ford Motor Company, Apple Inc, and Kraft Heinz Co. for shipping jobs overseas. Bernie Sanders called financial markets 'a moral cesspool'. Ted Cruz accused Big Business of 'poking its snout in the trough of corporate welfare'. Hilary Clinton argues that the impending Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal should be blocked due to substandard labour and environmental practices. 

Obviously, they think they are the ones to put capitalism right and turn it into something good. Well, good luck with that. 

 John Ayers.

Capitalism: Sharks eat small-fry

WORLD SOCIALISM
ONE PLANET, ONE PEOPLE 

We live in a world if private property relationships—where the minority have and the millions have not. A world ruled by buying and selling with profit as the driving force. Competition and conflict dominate our lives. Men compete for jobs and capitalists compete for commerce. The sharks eat the small fry.

You are poor because you are deprived of the things you produce—because you let the 1% to exploit you. You will remain poor until you put an end to exploitation. The movement for socialism is born out of the miseries and enslavement of the multitude; it demands of its proponents sincerity and steadfastness. It is not a movement to provide a person, with a silver tongue, a ladder to climb out of oppressive conditions at the expense of others. Our emancipation depends upon ourselves and can only be accomplished by ourselves. Each new generation of radicals believe they have been sold -out by the previous generation, yet often the "dissenter" of today is the aspiring statesman of tomorrow.

Have you ever thought that socialism might be the answer? Not nationalisation, or some vague talk of public ownership but a world based upon common ownership of the means of wealth production. Socialism is the name given to a future state of society in which all the people will take a part in doing whatever is necessary, according to their capacities, and in return will receive whatever they require that is within the power of society to provide, with due regard to the needs of each. The more important of such things are food, clothing and shelter. A world where men will co-operate to serve the interests of all. Not production for buying and selling and killing, but to serve people's needs—for use, not for profit. We only require the best food and in sufficient quantity to keep us satisfied and healthy; it is not essential that we gorge ourselves in endless banquets. We only require the best of clothing and in sufficient quantity for comfort and adornment; it is not essential that we should make ourselves into fashion models striding the catwalk. We only require sufficient housing accommodation to enable us to live comfortably and free from foul smells and unsightliness; we do not require a mansion with rooms enough to get lost in. There are those who know not the meaning of a full belly of wholesome nutritious food, who wear rags and patched up hand-me-downs clothing and patchless, who live in slums and shanty towns without comfort or sanitation; we would see all them lifted out of their misery and placed in the midst of contentment and security. Socialism will be worldwide and means the abolition of classes. The Socialist Party works to this end. It is the only solution to major social problems.

A pipe dream you may say. But only so long as you and millions like you are prepared to waste your time dealing with the effects of capitalism instead of removing the causes. The Socialist Party offers you no easy way out. Socialism will not come about by marches, sit-downs, or days of prayer. Socialism requires the understanding of men and women. It is not a blind faith, but a conviction based on knowledge. The choice is in your hands. Either the present type of world continues with its wars and poverty, or you build the only desirable alternative that will be in harmony with social development. The only alternative to the capitalist system is a planet where everything is owned in common and controlled democratically — where there is free access to all wealth — where the sole aim of production is to satisfy human needs. There can be no socialism without conscious socialists; it is time to give up hope in the sterile fantasies of the reformists — it is time to take socialism seriously. The real choice before mankind is socialism or capitalism. Where do you stand?

Airey Neave and the tactics of illusion (1979)

Airey Neave and the tactics of illusion (1979)

From the May 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

The killing of Airey Neave by an assassin’s bomb brought much huffing and puffing from politicians on the virtue of democracy. Margaret Thatcher said that Neave’s death “diminishes us, but it will enhance our resolve that the God-given freedoms in which he believed . . . will in the end triumph over the acts of evil men.” Some politicians have of course reacted hysterically, demanding blood letting. George Gardiner, Tory MP for Reigate, for instance, said that he “would gladly see every man and woman found guilty of causing death by an act of terrorism stood up against a wall and shot.” (Sunday Express1.4.79).

Had Neave been an ordinary citizen it is doubtful whether the incident would have made News at Ten, but then politicians are special cases. Indeed, Neave was reputed to be a man of outstanding qualities, a real Bulldog Drummond, who escaped from Colditz and worked with the French Resistance during the Second World War under the code name ‘Saturday’. Notwithstanding his fighting qualities, he was also said to be a “soft spoken” and "gentle” man. (Sunday Express 1.4.79). Thatcher said he was “a very dear friend” who was “strong to root out injustice.”

However, for all his reputed qualities of gentility, bravery and integrity, there was another side to his character. Neave was the Tory spokesman on Ireland, and as such advocated and supported vicious and repressive government. Neither he, nor Gardiner for that matter, expressed sympathy for the 13 victims of the "Bloody Sunday” massacre conducted by the British Army. Neither was he outspoken against the torture (sorry, inhuman treatment) of IRA suspects. In fact, Neave defended the now illegal methods of interrogation. He also approved of the activities of Murder Incorporated—Special Air Services—and wanted the death penalty reintroduced for “terrorist” offences (Sunday Mail1.4.79). In short, Neave was anything but gentle.

His death will therefore not be mourned by socialists, although we do strongly condemn the tactics of the so- called Irish National Liberation Army and other organisations who seek change by the bomb.

TERROR TACTICS

In recent years a number of “liberation organisations” have sought to achieve their political ends through violence. The Angry Brigade was one; the Red Brigades and Baader Meinhof Group were others. These claimed to represent the interests of the working class, although they had no mandate to do so. They sought justification for their acts in the passivity of the working class, who they regarded as blind and stupid for failing to recognise their own interests. They therefore had to be galvanised into an offensive against capitalism by an insurrectionary vanguard, who through acts of violence against the capitalist State would show the workers that the system was vulnerable and could easily be damaged. On seeing this the workers would awake from their political slumber and overthrow capitalism by armed struggle. At least, that is how the story goes; reality is somewhat different.

The tactic of terror is an old anarchist one. It came to prominence in Russia in the late nineteenth century, when a political group known as the People’s Will assassinated the Czar Alexander III. Since then various organisations have employed the tactic from time to time, assassinating leading political figures in a vain attempt at social or political transformation. By changing the leaders it was, and is, assumed that some change or collapse of the system will follow. All that happens however is the new leaders are appointed to carry out similar policies to their predecessors. It is just a simple case of new wine in old bottles.

Neither have these anarchistic groups made a favourable impression on the working class. Indeed, such actions have had the opposite effect. In Italy the recent assassination of ex Premier Aldo Moro brought millions of workers out on strike in a spontaneous protest against the murderous activities of the Red Brigades. Similar protests occurred in Birmingham a few years ago after the IRA had bombed a pub, killing a number of young people. The event led to the notorious Prevention of Terrorism Act. So they are not even successful. Neither are they remembered. Names such as Prescott, Baader are quickly forgotten.

It might then be reasonable to ask why they engage in the activities in the first place, when the results seem so disappointing. Some no doubt take to it for the excitement. But the main reason is undoubtedly one of isolation. Because they have failed to gain the support of the working class by legitimate means, they abandon the hard, and more difficult task of propaganda in favour of what seems a quicker course—violence.

NO SHORT CUTS

We reject the notion that a gun rather than an idea can bring about socialism. It can only come about through the united class conscious action of the majority of workers. There are no short cuts or easy ways, just sheer hard and repetitive work. Not a glamorous as gun battles, not sensational enough to get front page treatment from the press, but in the end more worthwhile and lasting. For if you cannot convince a person to vote for an idea, you’ll never convince him to fire a gun for it. In the struggle to win over the working class for socialism violence has no role to play. We leave that to the followers of the forgotten romantics. As for the political lackeys of capitalism, like Neave, we offer no sympathy, just implacable hostility.

Bill Knox

Abandon faith in the leaders

Probably the most common retort in the Socialist Party we hear is “We’re fucked.” No matter what we do, our best efforts are insufficient. We’re losing badly, on every front. Those in power are hell-bent on destroying the planet, and most people don’t care too much about that. We have the power to control our own destinies, yet how have we used this power? We permit capitalism to continue misery and destruction. We have conquered the gods and devils of our forefathers yet we created other idols and belief systems to kneel before and worship…patriotism, nationalism…racism. We fight for freedom and against totalitarianism yet we allow a terrible economic despotism to prevail.  We no longer fight for industrial democracy. Capitalism, with its private ownership of the machinery of wealth production is the basic cause of our problems. There is no solution to be found in a system where these means of production are not owned by society as a whole.

The Socialist Party finds cause enough to complain that the working-class, who, in general, are either satisfied with things as they are or despair of any improvement in their lot. We find them too often caring little for the acquirement of knowledge about anything, and hedonistic in their enjoyments and squalid in their ideals. People fail to realise that the present system is based upon enslavement. The hooligan, the drunkard, the degenerate libertine and the rogue are all hideous products of an obsolete social system is what we contend; and when it is argued that the poor are poor because they “drink,” or because of their “ignorance,” we are easily able to show that they are created what they are by their environment. We are easily able to show that the evils of poverty tend to increase with the development of capitalism. The ignorance and apathy of the working-class exists but this does not prevent working people from understanding what every day it becomes easier for him to comprehend, - that the present system is based upon exploitation and enslavement, that our interests and those of the master-class are diametrically opposed, that therefore the master-class will always consciously or unconsciously try to keep us where we are – on our knees, and consequently that we must act wisely  and get rid of a master-class at once and for ever. The function of the Socialist Party is to speedily and effectively increase the opportunities for this awakening. Socialists are not fabricated. They are people who have reached a state of understanding about the society they live in and all its attendant problems and iniquities. Out of understanding arises the desire to forge an alternative, a new society free society from poverty, oppression, war, apathy. What really makes a socialist can be attributed only to the utilisation of one of the most fundamental faculties of the human brain: the ability to reason—to ask "why?" Why do things have to be this way? And by simply asking the question, you have already partly answered it: things are the way they are not because it is unavoidable but because we, the dispossessed working class, allow them to be.

It is not part of the socialist ease against capitalism that it is objectionable because it is corrupt. Capitalism without corruption would be just as oppressive. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the present social system, with its emphasis on competition, profit and material wealth, provides a framework within which corruption and other misconduct can flourish. In fact, we can go further and say that bribery and corruption are completely in keeping with capitalist “values”. In a dog-eat-dog business world, there can be no complaint if some members of the pack try to bend the rules in their favour. In any case, it would be difficult to see any true difference between what capitalism regards as corrupt and what it regards as normal business practice. Greedy and avaricious men cause more damage to the community than 100 or more thieves with whom judges pack the prisons. Of course, greed and avarice are acceptable when the motives behind "honest" profit-making means taking from the workers the fruits of their unpaid labour. The thieves who rob by means of exploitation — the “respectable" capitalist class — are lauded and ennobled, not imprisoned.

No matter how much it has been lied about, ridiculed and twisted from its original form, socialism is now, more than ever, needed to solve the crisis humanity finds itself in. Socialism is common ownership. Socialism is production for need. Socialism is real democracy. Socialism is for the global working class, who can use the vast productive powers for the free development of all. We now have that potential. The productive powers have been increased to a vast degree, yet people are still idle, starving, poverty-stricken, and homeless, while the machinery of production is misused or neglected. This must change. This will change. It is possible to house everyone. It is possible to feed everyone. It is possible for everyone to live a decent and fulfilling life as real people, and not just as objects on the labour market. The only thing stopping this is the outdated profit system that constrains production to the will of private property and privilege. We must abandon the faith misplaced in the leaders and apologists of capitalism and move on, ourselves, to our new global society, where the free development of each will be the condition for the free development of all. The need for knowledge, lest we be duped, is constantly forced upon us. It has become a habit for workers, in their struggles for better conditions, to depend upon the expertise of individuals supposedly possessing an unusual degree of intelligence necessary for instructing and conducting the struggle in the best way.

This dependence generally consists of a blind trust in a "leader," and a faithful following of directions wheresoever they may lead. The disasters that constantly accompany this leadership worship eventually bring about the fall of one popular idol, only to leave room for another to step up. The position is further complicated by a rivalry among the idols for the favours attached to leadership. As long as the minds of the workers is occupied by this blind and unreasoning trust in another so-called savior to accomplish that which one can accomplish readily and satisfactorily oneself, the condition of the majority of the people will continue one of slavery and misery. Ideas that have been fixed in the mind by habit are difficult to remove. When such ideas serve the interests of a ruling class, their removal becomes still more difficult. The idea of "Leadership" is of the latter kind. Born of the delegation of function in early societies it has grown into the slavish habit of placing the hands of others the power to settle the affairs of large groups almost as he wishes. Times innumerable, these popular leaders have used this influence to put their followers at the mercy of the enemy.

The leadership idea has cursed the working class movement from the beginning. The great man view breeds arguments as to whether this man is a good leader, or that man a bad. The energy that should be given to a study of principles is wasted in endless arguments over idols and apathy and discouragement often follow the finding of the idol's feet of clay. They make stepping stones of their followers to reach comfort and security. In working out our emancipation, workers must study the conditions that surround and oppress us. We must look to "great principles." and not to "great men" in our struggles.

He who would enter the land of promise, must first pave a path to the door. Armed with knowledge workers can steer our movements ourselves and abandon the slavish worship of leaders.

Self Destruction

The Washington Post revealed in February that alcohol is killing Americans at a rate not seen in thirty-five years. In 2014, 30,700 Americans died from alcohol-induced causes. 17.4% of US women binge drink, up from 15.7% in 2002. Seventy-four alcohol-based drinks a week are consumed on average by the top ten percent of American drinkers. Furthermore, in 2014, there were 28,647 deaths from heroin and prescription pain-killers. 

It must surely occur to some that something is seriously wrong with our society that causes people to destroy themselves. 

John Ayers.

Nothing can stop an idea that has come of age.

The main drive of capitalism demands a commodity market where everything is for sale with a view to profit. This drive is the profit motive. It is generally accepted and idealised as the best possible motive for producing what society needs. It operates in all countries of the world and every country has a ruling and subject class. There are no exceptions. The profit motive works — after a fashion and at a terrible cost to society. While we produce commodities that we may or may not need, we produce in the process huge piles of garbage and toxic waste, a polluted world, an endangered earth and a threat to all forms of life. The profit motive is a corruptive force. It cripples the spirit of co-operation while promoting competition which leads to either a cold or hot war.

It breeds false prophets who preach that monetary riches lead to security, success, and happiness. It divides people and cultivates hate, favours the few and condemns the many. It is outdated, unnecessary, unhealthy and must be replaced. The question is, “By what, how and by whom”? Modern technology harnessed by common sense can work for the common good of all people. This means replacing the profit motive and market economy, with a human motive and democratic economy, where the role of the individual will simply be, "From each according to ability, to each according to need".

We don't have to be saints or utopians but we must be politically informed, and to know our real interests. The popular concept of a democracy today is a farce, the propaganda of the ruling class and its supporters. We must desire, demand and build a real democracy. A real democracy can only be achieved on a worldwide basis. It cannot exist on a national level. The people, as a whole, must own and control the means of life and democratically make the decisions. We do not need leaders. We need only ourselves, the working class, and together with the tools of technology and the desire of a sane society we can complete the job. If we meet this challenge we can easily solve the pollution problems of the mind and the environment. Our reward will be a World without classes, just people living life to its fullest and getting along together. The only thing that can stop us is ourselves, and nothing can stop an idea that has come of age.

The Socialist Party single-mindedly pursues the establishment of a society freed from the constraints, contradictions and degradations of the market, commodity production, and the wages system. Because we are the only political party in this country advocating socialism, we reject any thought of compromise or alliance with other organisations. Socialists do not water down their principles in order to trawl in workers who support reform programmes or the anti-democratic doctrines of the Left. Neither do we seek advertising agencies or public relations consultants telling us what ought to be in our election manifestos or Party statements. When our candidates stand in local or parliamentary elections they are not first sent to image advisers to polish their style. Instead, we insist on workers attaining class-consciousness through argument, persuasion and their own experience, to the point where they understand capitalism and the need to abolish it altogether.

If, as a result, we are considered unfashionable and detached from the politics of "revolution" as understood by the Left, then so be it. We stand or fall on our insistence that democratic means must be in line with democratic ends. The politics of reform and compromise have left a trail of bitter failure throughout the twentieth century, with numerous and now largely forgotten casualties buried unceremoniously along the way. We only ever want votes from class-conscious socialists, for the purpose of organising to capture political power and introduce socialism. This means that the question of fashion or principles is an important one, for it is ultimately about the retention of capitalism or its abolition. Until the workers grasp the elementary facts of their wage-slavery and the utter hopelessness of any solution but socialism, all the social ills will continue to increase in aggravation.

Highland grouse (1978) - book review

Highland grouse (1978)

Book Review from the October 1978 issue of theSocialist Standard

Who Owns Scotland by John McEwen EUSBP £1.50 (paperback)

This book sets out to list those people who are the real landowners in Scotland. The author, who is over 90 years old, has worked in forestry in Scotland practically all his life and writes from the inside; the book is heart written in sorrow.

The work is in two sections. The first lists actual ownership of Scottish land, in terms of thousands of acres. McEwen starts by giving a league table of the top 100 landowners. At the head is the Duke of Buccleuch with what McEwen calls an “obscene” 277,000 acres. The Countess of Sutherland, whose ancestors were as ruthless as any in the last century’s highland clearances, owns only 185,000 acres, while poor old Lord Home has a mere 54,000 acres. Poverty indeed; he doesn’t know where the next grouse is coming from. This section then divides Scotland into areas, and looks at the ownership of each part of it. The results are pretty well what one would expect. The total area of Scotland is 19.068,807 acres ("Our land” as the author so childishly calls it). Of this, 16,500,000 are owned privately (as opposed to owned by the State) and of this figure 12,000,000 are in estates of 1000 acres or more. The chances are that many countries in the Western world would show a similar pattern.

The second part of the book consists of a series of essays under the general title of “Management and Husbandry of Our (sic) land”. Here McEwen ranges over his pet topics, complains about bad husbandry, the "sadistic anti-social-blood-sportsman”, the failures of the forestry commission etc.

It would be nice to welcome this analysis; but it is impossible to do so. To begin with the book contains many petty mistakes, revealing that the editing has been undertaken carelessly. This may not be important; but it makes one wonder just how carefully the tables have been checked.

More important is the fact that the author is a confused Labour Party supporter. This results in a book that is “all right” if all one wants to do is quote a few impressive sounding statistics (e.g.: in 1874 the Sinclairs held 187,000 of the 471,000 acres of Caithness, now they hold only 52,000 acres, etc), but useless if one wants to understand the basis of land ownership in a capitalist society, and its twin brother, rent. The author’s analysis of the cause of problems relating to land is, quite frankly, hopeless. For example, he claims that the formation of the Forestry Commission in 1919 “with the objective of establishing state-owned forests was one of the finest things which ever happened in land ownership and land use in Britain.” The Forestry Commission was formed as a result of the war time shortage of timber, and the need for what McEwen disarmingly calls ‘‘everyday domestic use”. But what he does not realise is that capitalism does not want timber for “everyday domestic use”; it wants timber for sale at a profit. How this elementary observation has escaped McEwen is quite baffling. As a result, his "solutions” become naive to the point of absurdity. So for example in calling for lower agriculture prices (the farmers will love him for that) he says this can be achieved by eliminating the “middle-man”.

The book concludes with a call for the Labour Party to do something. And what should they do? Why, establish a Royal Commission of course! This should “enquire deeply into the failure of private landlords in their so-called stewardship of land in Britain.” That will frighten them on the grouse moors and in the deer forests. And after the Royal Commission? — nationalisation of the land. Nationalisation of coal, or railways, or electricity etc has solved no workers’ problems. Why nationalisation of the land should do so McEwen can’t explain. He doesn’t even try. The book shows how pointless are “the facts” unless they are interpreted, through socialist understanding, in the interests of the majority.

Ronnie Warrington

PEOPLE OR PROFIT

Every few years you have your occasional ration of democracy with the opportunity to vote for a political representative. It's all very well having a vote - but are you normally given any real choice? Let's face it, if it wasn't for the picture on the front of the election leaflet, could you tell which party was which? It's tempting, in the absence of any real alternative, to get drawn into the phony war that is political debate today. It always amounts to the same thing – they offer no alternative to the present way of running society. Do you really think politicians make any difference to how you live? Do politicians (whether left-wing, nationalist or right-wing) actually have much real power anyway? OK, they get to open supermarkets, but it's capitalism and the market system which closes them down.

REALITY CHECK

Do any of the political parties address any of the real issues:

Why is there world hunger in a world of food surpluses?

Why are there unemployed nurses, alongside closed-down hospitals and waiting lists?

Why are there homeless people in the streets and empty houses with "for sale" signs?

Why do some people get stressed working long hours while others get stressed from the boredom of

unemployment?

SO WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE?

You have a real choice.  THE SOCIALIST PARTY puts forward an alternative to capitalism and the madness of the market:

A society of common ownership and democratic control. We call it socialism. But real socialism, not the elite-run dictatorships that collapsed a few years ago in Russia and East Europe. And not the various failed schemes for state control once put forward by the Labour Party. For us socialism means something better than that.

 We're talking about a world community without any frontiers. About wealth being produced to meet people's needs and not for sale on a market or for profit. About everyone having access to what they require to satisfy their needs, without the rationing system that is money. A society where people freely contribute their skills and experience to produce what is needed, without the compulsion of a wage or salary.

SO WHAT NOW?

If you don't like present-day society . . . if you are fed up with the way you are forced to live . . . if you think the root cause of most social problems is the market system, then your ideas echo closely with ours. If you want to vote for our party we're delighted. But we don't really want votes based on a misreading of what we are about. We are not promising to deliver socialism to you. We'll be making the case for socialism. Nor is it the number of votes we get that counts, it's the number of people our message reaches. We are not putting ourselves forward as leaders. This new society can only be achieved if we join together to strive for it. If you want it, then it is something you have to bring about yourselves.

Food For Thought

Arlene Dickinson, that shining example of the 'anyone can make it in capitalism' bullshit recently wept crocodile-tears on the TV program, "Dragons' Den", saying, "it's unacceptable that any child in our country should be homeless." This is from a person who has worked extremely hard to perpetuate an economic system that makes children homeless. 

Perhaps she should be examining that system more closely. 

John Ayers.

They Don't Co-exist

China's economy is slowing down, as all economies must when in a given position in the 'business cycle'. Changchun, China is labelled 'the Detroit of China' because its auto plants are going down like pins in a bowling alley. The government has set aside $20 billion to assist unemployed workers in the industrial region but doubts are held that the 150,000 state run companies employing 30 million workers can continue subsidies or let market forces take over. As socialists know from the former USSR, market forces will have to be let loose. China is subject to world-wide economic forces and will be forced to take the capitalist route. 

Another reason why socialism and capitalism cannot co-exist. 

John Ayers.

We’re not going to do anything for anyone

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” — Albert Einstein

The Socialist Party argues the case that capitalism is well past its sell-by date. The world can now easily produce wealth sufficient to adequately house, feed, care for and educate the global population. Instead we see hunger, disease and homelessness around the world despite the concerns of governments, charities and pop-stars. Closer to home, in a "developed" nation like the UK, we see child poverty and an increasing gulf between rich and poor. Rates of depression and anxiety are becoming epidemic. Capitalism is failing: it now acts as a barrier, preventing production being geared to human need. Rather than keep trying to tinker with this system we should start looking beyond it to an alternative: a wages-free, money-free, class-free world community based on production for human need, not profit. This social change can only come about once the majority understand it and want it. It won't come about by following leaders or voting for someone else to do it.

Other political parties (whether openly pro-capitalist or avowedly socialist) are asking you to believe that they can run this society a little bit better. We’d argue that history shows that the money system actually ends up running them. Their election promises usually amount to nothing. So don’t vote for them - it only encourages the idea that capitalism can be made better. A vote for the Socialist Party in contrast, is a statement that you don’t want to live this way and that you think another world is possible. If you have confidence that humans can live and work co-operatively without the pressure of the wages system, or the rationing system of money.

What is apparent is the extent to which all the parties try and manage the agenda in an election. They all want to encourage the debate to be round the handful of high-profile “flagship” issues where they feel on strong ground. But it’s always phrased along the lines of “knocking on doors, we keep hearing that XXX is the real issue of the day”. Funnily enough, we never hear for example, “recent canvassing returns indicate that voters actually don’t give a damn about our policies one way or the other”. The assumption is that voters are stupid and can only remember 3 or 4 things at a time, so why give them more than that to consider. What it all means is that the campaign may centre around a handful of issues only. That may appear to appeal to the Socialist Party. After all we are the ultimate single issue party - Abolish capitalism. But while this is a single issue no-one is pretending that it is a simple case. Sure it’s not complicated, the case for putting human need ahead of profit, but sound-bites don’t do our case justice. We are also handicapped in the eyes of the modern voter by the fact that we are not in a position to make promises, and what’s more, we aren’t going to “do anything” for anyone. The other parties are falling over each other to be seen to be offering some immediate palliative.

What is important to recognise is that these so-called “local” issues that are high on the agenda (such as the NHS, education, and housing) are pressing issues everywhere else. But these are not really local issues after all. It’s just that many people (and all of our opponents) think the solution is usually a local one, so there is no point looking elsewhere for the answer. Unhappy with the plans for the local hospital? Well, don’t worry whoever gets elected will have a word with the local Health Board and try and clarify the situation. Concerned about lack of fire cover because of closed fire stations? Don’t worry, one of the politicians will make sure you are consulted about it. Losing sleep over global warming? No problem, I’ll just turn the thermostat down… (OK we made the last one up)

In fact the problem underpinning most of the supposed “local” issues is usually much broader. It’s not just specific local problems (like poor consultation or ill thought through proposals). The whole issue of provision of essential services such as health care and schools is dictated by the level of resources allocated. And whether it is in Livingston or Llannelli, the same picture emerges: social services are obviously extremely stretched. Public sector workers are under pressure to work harder, for less money and now for longer with the retirement ages raised increased.

The economic storm clouds are gathering which are likely to severely inhibit Prime Minister Brown’s room for manoeuvre. In reality, the government is in control of the economy the same way a duck bobbing around on the ocean is in control of the tides. Our opponents are making all sorts of promises to the voters. What will they do for the NHS? Will they remove prescription charges? What is a “fair living wage”? In so doing we’d say they are fighting over the crumbs from the rich man’s plate, rather than upsetting the whole table. The Socialist Party’s view is that this is the merciless logic of the market system. The capitalist class don’t want to pay any more than they have to. Or anything more than the bare minimum. The reason? – ultimately, these costs come off the profits of UK Capitalism.

Socialist sentiments lurk inside us all, often without us realising it. In the Socialist Party, we don’t just pay lip service to this basic principle though: for us it’s not just a nice idea - it’s the essence of our position. Only the Socialist Party has the practical case that is consistent with this idea. Let’s be in no doubt, despite the politicians platitudes, the reality is that profit does come before public welfare and safety. Somewhere in the local authority or Holyrood or Westminster, there is an accountant doing a cost-benefit analysis. They are working the cost savings.  

You don’t need to be told not to place too much faith in whichever politician gets elected - history would suggest that promises made before the election quickly get discarded when in office, and the pressure of trying to run the profit system in the interests of humanity become too difficult.

The Socialist Party advocates the abolition of buying and selling and money and wages. We want the replacement of the system where production is geared to profit, by a system where production is based on self-defined human needs. In the (admittedly) unlikely event that the Socialist Party is elected, we would very probably give our support to many reform demands, where we felt it would advance the interests or conditions of the working class. But it is reasonable for us to not want to allow this to divert us from the mandate we would have been elected on, to push for a world where the satisfaction of human need is the first and last and only consideration of society

Brian Gardner

Business gloom in Scotland

Official figures released last week that showed growth in the Scottish economy all but stalled in the last quarter of 2015. That was supported by two separate business surveys which have suggested the recent downturn in the Scottish economy may be intensifying.

The Bank of Scotland's latest PMI which measures changes in manufacturing and services output, posted 48.5 in March, falling from February's 49.2. Any figure below 50 indicates economic contraction. Output in the private sector declined last month, while the amount of new business continued to fall. Purchasing managers reported "harsher business conditions" in March.

Meanwhile, a survey by business advisers BDO suggested the slowing services sector was "knocking the confidence" of Scottish firms. It showed that business optimism had hit its lowest level in more than two years. BDO's latest Business Trends Report also painted a gloomy picture, suggesting that the slowing services industry was "taking its toll" on the Scottish economy. Martin Gill, head of BDO in Scotland, said: "These figures show that political and economic uncertainty is affecting optimism among Scotland's businesses.”

Who Owns Scotland, again?

Swathes of Scotland are owned by secretive companies registered in tax haven Panama. Thousands of acres of wilderness are controlled offshore, where the owners can avoid tax and scrutiny.

A Sunday Mail investigation uncovered 64,000 acres – equivalent to the size of Edinburgh. But experts believe 10 times as much land, which could be worth about £100million, is registered to businesses in tax havens including the British Virgin Islands and Grand Cayman.

Andy Wightman, a campaigner for land ownership reform and a Green Party candidate in Lothian, condemned the offshore ownership of Scotland and predicted more Scottish links will be revealed as more documents are released. He said: “The Panama Papers are a big data set, so I would hope it will help us find out some more about who is behind the ownership of Scottish land. We have never had this big a lid lifted on what goes on in tax havens. There will almost certainly be items of Scottish importance to come out from these leaked documents. It’s difficult to put an exact figure on the value of the land in question but we could be talking about £100million. There will be other properties that are registered in Panama that I have not identified – this is just the tip of the iceberg. Some of this will be involved in tax avoidance or evasion. There is no way that people go to those efforts to stash assets offshore purely because they don’t want their spouse knowing in case they get divorced, or they don’t want their neighbours knowing.

Wightman explains, “Ultimately, if anything happens on any parcel of land, that decision has to be consented to by the owner of the land. It’s in the public interest – for how we use all land for housing, industry and food growing – that those people should be known. There has to be a degree of accountability. That matters at a local level because people who want to consider land for housing come up against problems. There are bits of Scotland that have been offshore for the best part of 40 years and those bits of land have just stagnated. Nobody knows who owns them so they can’t take the initiative to do anything with them. There are big questions about transparency. We are entitled to know who has control over our country.”

Compania Financiera Waterville SA, are listed as the owners of three large estates in Perth. Dalnaspidal,Camusericht, and Corrievarkie total almost 30,000 acres. The company, based in El Dorado, Panama, are also the registered owners of Ben Alder lodge on the 27,000-acre Ben Alder estate in Inverness-shire. The director of the company is shrouded in secrecy. Another Panama company, listed as Chooky Corporation, own 4375-acre East Benula estate in Inverness-shire. And the Clova estate in Aberdeenshire is linked to Giant Properties Corporation, with a Panama post office box for law firm Quijano and Associates provided as their address.

Community Land Scotland chairman Lorne Macleod said: “We need as much transparency in land ownership in Scotland as possible.”

A 2014 report for the Scottish Government found 432 individuals own 50 per cent of rural Scotland.

Richard Scott, the Duke of Buccleuch, owns the largest chunk with his 241,887 acres, including Drumlanrig Castle in Dumfriesshire.

Businessman Mohamed Al-Fayed owns Balnagown Castle in Easter Ross along with 60,000 acres of surrounding land. He bought the property for £60,000 in 1972.

Sigrid Rausing, daughter of Swedish billionaire and Tetra Pak heir Hans, owns a 40,000-acre estate in the Monadhliath mountains in the Highlands. Her sister Lisbet owns 52,000 acres near Fort William, where she built a controversial six-storey granite lodge on the shores of Loch Ossian.

"yir arse is oot the windae"

The Socialist Party is not a part of the "left."  We are opposed to measures which tinker with and attempt to reform capitalism. The left on the other hand have kept their agenda well hidden, if it has a discernable revolutionary current, it isn't obvious , indeed , even their active supporters appear afraid to engage with any discussion about what socialism *is*. However , it has been a " left " tactic in the past where they are hypocritically asking workers to vote for a parliamentary party to get reforms which you know you can't get, on a road which they don’t support , to socialism ,which is not defined except , that it is recognisable as another state capitalism . The Socialist Party is opposed to such trickery of workers. Simply, the "left" are not socialists and to argue it is then "yir arse is oot the windae", as we say.  Even limited equality cannot be achieved, while retaining the profit motive - It is economically impossible.

 The Socialist on the other hand are quite explicit that socialism is, "the common ownership and democratic control of all the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and on behalf of the whole population ". In other word a free access society. We stand for the original idea of socialism. Untrammelled by statist failures, indeed we predicted all of these failures. The "left" appear to want to administer capitalism. Far from splitting the " left ", we despise the "left " for its political cowardice, (being unable or unwilling to describe socialism to workers and nail their true colours to the socialist mast), of opportunism, (interference in workers struggles and grass roots movements to subvert them to their cause), and for its pretensions, (of assuming to know what socialism is, and presenting itself as a leadership towards it.)

The Socialist Party urges workers to "Abolish the wages system ". We insist that socialism as defined above is an immediate and practical possibility, requiring only a majority of workers who know what it is, who desire it and are willing to organise as equals, without a vanguard of political leaders forming an elite and a cadre of misinformed workers, as their expendable cannon fodder and irrelevant pawns , (our job is to inform , relay , and assist in this ) unlike the Leninist - Trotskyist , and former CP-er Stalinist Left , we don’t , as Lenin said , regard workers, "left to their own devices as being only capable of achieving trade union consciousness."

What exactly is the purpose of the SPGB standing in elections? To put the case for socialism, as no others do this, made by workers seizing control of their own destiny and working for socialism, without the leadership of vanguardist organisations or any other leadership. The Socialist Party does not look for support or supporters, rather we insist that on the contrary workers learn what socialism is, and join us as equals to bring it about. We don’t wish to lead them. They will not need leadership if they make themselves socialist. We don’t lie to workers by pretending, that by voting for reforms, or any other measure they are supporting socialism. We do not intervene in workers struggles, except as workers in struggle. We are stand against *all* the capitalist parties , this inevitably includes the “left” parties as they support a reformed capitalism with them as the new bosses, retaining wage labour capital, government control, and their platforms reflect this. The left ARE the forces of capitalism. Simply put, we are the only revolutionary alternative to capitalism. It is by insisting that left-wing reforms can ameliorate the conditions of workers , and that this equates to a "socialist " response , and who so mistrust the workers, that they can't describe the socialist alternative to them, are indeed the real reactionary element, leaving workers confusedly equating socialism with these tired and out-moded tried and failed remedies of the last century. (The Labour Party, The Communist Party, Social Democrat Parties of all stripes).

The Socialist Party has an honourable record since 1904 of never selling socialism short, and insisting it is an immediate and practical goal, requiring no other minimum demand, now that the vote has been won, that it can only be brought into existence by the workers themselves, comprising a majority, who know and understand what socialism is, a free access global society, without nation states. We don’t pander to nationalist sentiments, following slavishly Lenin's silly "Imperialism as the Highest Form of Capitalism" dogma. Our demand is the world for the workers and not for some new state-capitalist entity, or permissible level of wage slavery. In fact, many left-wing platforms to-day are even less radical than the Old Labour ones, where mistakenly they thought they were ushering in a new era, and piously mouthed phrases such as "we are the masters now " and "socialism will come like a thief in the night".

Wee Matt