Getting the sack (1980)

 From the April 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the factory where I work we weren’t exactly surprised to hear that one third of us would be sacked in a few weeks’ time. The firm make foundry and quarry equipment and we knew there was a shortage of orders. First, the night shift had been taken off, then all overtime stopped, and for the last two weeks skilled platers and welders had been put to painting the factory and doing minor maintenance work. Obviously, this couldn’t last. Every company, whether order books are empty or full, must always strive to keep down costs in order to maximise the profits each of them is in business to make, and paying men the skilled rate to slap on paint is not usually the best way of doing it.

The shop stewards’ immediate reaction was to involve three unions but management’s case was that if the redundancies don’t go through then the place will close. There’s little the unions can do in the face of this so all that remains is for the stewards to negotiate the best possible financial settlement for those who have to go.

The bad news was received calmly as most of the men have been through it all often enough. Two or three of the long service men nearing retirement hope that they will be on the list so as to collect their redundancy money before they reach 65 and lose it, but most of the men can’t help being worried. Unemployment in the area around Clydebank is well above the national average and every month brings news of more closures. Some of the local newer “starts” have lost two jobs in the last year and they know that the practice of “last in, first out” will probably see them on the move again.

Of course, not one of the men sees a redundancy as a consequence of capitalist production. They see it as something that could probably have been avoided and blame it on inefficient management and all the “non- producers” (office staff) on the payroll. But booms and slumps are part and parcel of the production for profit system. The owners of any company—in this case a multi-national—invest capital to provide a factory, plant and material. Workers are hired to use these in order to produce wealth greater than was there at the start—surplus value. If, owing to a slump in worldwide trading conditions, demand for the product is slack then what is the company to do? Can it squander the investors’ money by paying workers to wear out expensive machinery by working up equally expensive materials into products that cannot be sold? There is only one course the company can take. It must cut back production to the level required to maintain profitability, and this is what is happening all over the world.

Tea and lunch breaks sometimes provide an opportunity to question some accepted ideas. For example, when workmates gripe about the wages they get, I reply that they should reject the wages system itself; when they complain about how “the country” is being run, I ask them why they allow' politicians to do their thinking for them. These contributions are generally received with disapproval or puzzled silence. After all, where else do they ever hear such ideas? When social problems are discussed by the media, both Left and Right talk in terms of patching up or otherwise reorganising the production for sale on the market system. Wages, prices, profits, pensions, and all the other hallmarks of today’s private property set-up are taken as eternal. All that is needed, apparently, is “new policies” or maybe a change of government, so the workers are never given the opportunity to think about a solution outside of the framework of the status quo.

A few days later we are told that management will “pick the team” on the following Monday. On the Monday morning one of the young platers who has seen me speaking at an outdoor meeting asks me why he is being sacked (only a guess at this stage but it turns out to be a good one). I tell him that none of us are given a job for our benefit and that the company just doesn’t need some of us any more. I start to explain the profit motive but he loses interest and tells me he will be sacked because his foreman doesn’t like him.

From the moment we start to take in ideas we are discouraged from thinking in terms of class at all. Class, like sex, is nasty and we are taught that “the nation” is what counts and how the fate of each of us depends on our own efforts as individuals. So the working class never acts as a class because it doesn’t recognise itself as such.

An older man, a rabid Labour Party supporter, does have an answer to the redundancy. He wants to see the place nationalised. I point to the vast redundancies taking place at British Leyland, British Steel, and other state owned industries and which are only a continuation of those begun by the last Labour government. I remind him that the last job he lost was in a nationalised shipyard and during a Labour government, too. I know I’m wasting my time with him but some of the others who are listening may be taking it in.

Monday drags on and everyone is on edge waiting for the axe to fall. Late in the afternoon the foremen are summoned to the manager’s office and when they emerge each has a list in his hand. They head for their own departments and the slaughter is on. Of course, the sacked men put a brave face on it but most of them cannot hope for a job locally. Any job they do get will require considerable travel involving extra expense and those with mortgages will be hardest hit. Among those sacked are two or three in their early sixties and they know they will probably never get another job.

The blow is softened by the fact that all those who are leaving receive redundancy money or (thanks to the efforts of the stewards) six weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. Some say they will have a holiday before they start job-hunting, but sooner rather than later they will have to begin hawking themselves around, filling in forms, waiting for interviews, and all that is connected with the degrading business of seeking an employer.

Being hired and fired is a part of working class culture and always will be so long as we allow capital to use us when and where it wants. Our class must one day make the capitalist system the victim of the biggest redundancy of all.

Vic Vanni

The Curse of Religion

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” Romans 13

The full emancipation of the working class from religion and superstition presupposes its economic emancipation. The Socialist Party’s theory and practice is rooted in a materialist worldview. Such a worldview precludes the existence of magic, gods, spirits and hobgoblins. As such, people with religious views are not eligible for membership. The Socialist Party views religion as simply a product of social conditions and as these conditions improve, there will be no need for religion. Economic conditions of most of the world involved class oppression which gave rise to the need for religion. When people begin to take control of their own lives and begin the task of bringing social life under the conscious control of humanity, the basis of religion will melt away. Also most problems said to be caused by religion are essentially political in nature - from the Crusades to so-called Islamic terrorism. These religious fanatics may fight in the name of God but in reality, they just want to achieve certain political objectives and religion is only a tool for them.

A lot of people in the world are religious. Combined, those religous people have the potential to wield a lot of power. Religion is a "problem" in the sense that it prevents a complete understanding of the world and thereby a barrier to changing that world. At different points in history, certain religions can have a radical or conservative impact on the evolution of society, but it's difficult to see any progressive role for any religion in today's world. It constitutes a barrier to class consciousness. The Socialist Party does not think that human thoughts and behaviour are pre-determined by some supernatural being. Religious superstitions are not just silly outmoded belief systems, like astrology, fortune - telling and other stupid pastimes. They are dangerous delusions which can prevent understanding of the world as it really is. Whether it is the voodoo mumbo-jumbo coming from Rome, Mecca, or any other “holy” place, all religions are useful for keeping workers appropriately deferential and docile. No matter how liberatory a theology may happen to be in a moment of history, the ultimate resolution will be deferred into another realm or in some eschatological age where God intervenes in the life of men and women. The effect then is to project ones hopes into another realm or into the future.

We have a materialist view of the world: we see society as based on concrete, material things and relations. Therefore, the only way to change it is through concrete struggles – political and industrial action and so on. According to most religious ideas, the best way to change the world is through prayer, or meditation, or crystal healing or whatever your personal superstition happens to be. Politics, in this view, takes a back seat.

Religions assert unreasonable and unreasoning certainty based upon no evidence whatever. Consequently, socialists cannot be believers in any form of religious superstition. However, if we want to affect the kind of change in society that the socialist party is proposing then mere atheism is not enough. The Socialist Party is not an atheist organisation. It is materialist and that's a huge difference. An atheist defines themselves in opposition to a set of ideas. A materialist has a view of how ideas originate and how social change can come about. Prominent "new atheists" such as Sam Harris are just apologist for the present order. If you want to leave politics/class out of understanding religion then Dawkins and the late Hitchens seem to be doing a good job of that.  We don't want to police peoples thoughts. Activities such counter-prosletysing more often than not are a waste of effort and energy as rational argument alone will not convince people to abandon religion because religious conviction is not primarily arrived at through a rational process (people don't generally become religious because they've sat down and thought through the issues but due to indoctrination, spiritual experiences, etc.)

Mankind made gods in its image, not the other way around. Socialists live in the real world, not the world of 'spirit'.

Swiss bankroll (1980)

Book Review from the February 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

Switzerland Exposed by Jean Ziegler (Allison and Busby, £3.50)

Here's an easy one. Which European country does nearly everyone think of as the home of neutrality, winter sports and the cuckoo clock? Obviously, it is Switzerland but what is significant is its importance in the world’s banking system. Swiss banking operates as the leading fence for capitalism’s more dubious transactions and this is why hundreds of banks, finance companies and the like are located there.

Swiss banking’s code of secrecy and protection for customers is the big attraction. Vast sums of money are constantly being sent to Switzerland to avoid paying tax in the countries of origin. The money is changed into Swiss francs, placed in numbered accounts, and then reinvested by the banks. The owners of the funds, besides paying no tax, benefit by having their money in inflation-free currency while the banks, who pay little or no interest because of the service they provide, reap the profits from the investments they make.

Strictly speaking, all this is against Swiss law but the law is never enforced and even if it were numerous ways exist to get around it. Even the wealth stolen by “Third World” heads of state and politicians is safe. Ex-Presidents Thieu of South Vietnam and Lon Nol of Cambodia and ex-Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia all sent immense fortunes in gold and money to Switzerland and none of the new governments can recover a penny of it. More recently the Swiss government refused a request from the Iranian authorities to freeze the ex-Shah’s assets in Swiss banks (The Guardian 11.12.79). The Mafia, too, sends some of its loot to Switzerland to be “laundered” and then returned for reinvestment in legitimate enterprises.

All this information, and more, is given in the book Switzerland Exposed by Jean Ziegler (Allison and Busby, £3.50). Ziegler is a Social Democrat member of the Swiss Parliament and although he uses the terminology of Marxism he understands that subject less well than he does Swiss banking. His thinking is thoroughly idealist. For example, he imagines that if Swiss banking stopped handling this “dirty money” from the “Third World” then this would somehow benefit the poor people who live there. Of course, all that would happen is that the money would simply be sent elsewhere, with Monaco and the Bahamas as possible alternatives.

This blinkered view is due to the fact that Ziegler is another of those who are obsessed by the exploitation of the Third World by the “imperialists”. By these he means the industrialised West only and thinks that China, Vietnam, Cambodia and Cuba have freed themselves from foreign domination. He apparently hasn’t noticed that China is itself now an imperialist power ever seeking to extend its frontiers and influence, while Vietnam and Cuba, although rid of American domination, are now colonised by Russia instead. At present China and Russia are involved in a bloody struggle over Cambodia.

So Ziegler thinks that the West’s domination of the Third World is the big problem and wants to reverse this by giving the Third World a bigger share of the world markets in agricultural produce and raw materials through “international agreements”. This is merely tinkering with capitalism and can only help perpetuate it by diverting working class attention away from the real task, which is to abolish the capitalist system altogether.

An important part of Marxist theory is an understanding of the role of the state. Historically, the state is the public power created by a ruling class to defend its interests. Engels described it as

the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class, which through the medium of the state, becomes also the politically dominant class, and thus acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class. Thus, the state of antiquity was above all the state of the slave owner for the purpose of holding down the slaves, as the feudal state was the organ of the nobility for holding down the peasant serfs and bondsmen, and the modern representative state is an instrument of exploitation of wage labour by capital. (Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.)

Ziegler claims that the Swiss state has only “become” like this, which implies that it had once been impartial. He actually says that the state should operate in the interest of all Swiss citizens! And although he describes the existence of the Swiss army as “social violence institutionalised” he is not opposed to it and merely wants to see workers “reaching the higher ranks”. Could idealism go further?

The author’s suggestions on how to fight capitalism are absolutely disastrous. He wants workers to have “temporary alliances with the class enemy . . .  to further the anti-imperialist struggle”. For example, Ziegler advocates unconditional support to OPEC in its oil price-war with the developed world customers, and Swiss trade unionists are advised to ally themselves with the “national bourgeoisie in their struggle against the growing control exercised by the multinational companies over the nation’s production system. . .”. Such taking of sides in the quarrels of our masters does not weaken capitalism: it gives it strength by causing further division and confusion within the working class and holding back the advance of socialist knowledge.

Vic Vanni

Tracks That Lead Nowhere

Canadian manufacturing lost 13,000 jobs in June with a complete loss of 30,000 over the last year, according to statistics Canada's latest report, July 8th. As always the apologists for capitalism try to put a brave spin on things. The report said, "the loonie took a hit again on the back of the weak jobs report. Increased demand for Canadian goods caused by the cheap dollar, economists believe, will eventually boost the long-suffering manufacturing sector and recoup factory jobs." So far there is little evidence to suggest that will happen.

And how about this beaut from Ontario's Finance Minister Charles Sousa: "Despite the slight decline in the last months job numbers for the province is on the right track." He didn't say what he meant by right track, because any track the political upholders of capitalism are on leads nowhere.

It's time for these people to face the truth, which is capitalism is a market economy which cannot be controlled and the only way to eradicate the problems it causes is to abolish it. John Ayers.

Crapitalism because capitalism is shit

Once we have got the solidarity act together worldwide, we can get rid of the capitalist system which of which war and poverty, absolute or relative are concomitant and establish a democratic, commonly owned world, with free access to the wealth produced. The majority support capitalism as they know of no alternative and can be persuaded by the illusory promises of reforms and tricked by statist panaceas from the left into confusing state ownership with common ownership. It is nothing of the kind. The best way to get reforms is to advocate revolution. All you need is the majority to be persuaded to this end. “Cuddly” capitalism will be rolling on its back to have its belly tickled, but nothing will stop an idea when its time has come.

Workers not only produce all of the wealth but effectively run capitalism from top to bottom. Far from being termites or ants to be ordered by overlords, private or state, human beings are social beings who do not just live within structured systems but consciously act to change them. A politically aware majority who dispense with private, corporate, or state, ownership of the means and instruments for creating wealth and opt to establish a commonly owned production for use society, will be more than capable of running it democratically, (delegating recallable delegates when specialisation is called for) with free access to the collective produce, without elites or government oversight.

Profit can ONLY come from the exploitation of the vast majority. Poverty absolute and relative is essential for capitalism to function. The capitalist class themselves are subject to market conditions. The illusion of democratic control over ungovernable economic forces scarcely addresses this point. While some plutocrats and oligarchs may indeed be monsters, most of them are merely reacting to the malign anarchy of the impersonal market. You just can't have a nicer capitalism. Capitalism cannot be reformed, as the market reasserts itself once profitability is eroded. We can use the Achilles heel of capitalist democracy to usher in a commonly owned, free access, post-capitalist world. Capitalism is past its useful retirement date since the beginning of last century, hence two world wars and innumerable proxy ones. Capitalism is not forever. No social system is.

All capitalist economies are determined by the realisation of profit … Profit is the raison d’être. As a result, if profits are declining, or by scrapping unprofitable plant or machinery profits will increase, it is quite usual for productive capacity to be scrapped. Profit can ONLY come from the exploitation of the vast majority. The illusion of democratic control over ungovernable economic forces scarcely addresses this point. Only a commonly owned, production for use free access society does so. Governments don't bring economic failure or success. It is the trade cycle of capitalism which brings in opportunities for employers to exploit workers of their surplus value. If there is no such opportunity the richest will gamble on the stock exchange or move their capital into lucrative ventures elsewhere. Their golden rule is to accumulate! accumulate!

Governments take credit when things are better and blame opponents when things are bad. They do not manage the economy, they manage expectations and exercise social control over you.

A post-capitalist world, utilising the under-used productive potential of previously existing capitalism, but where food clothing shelter and any other necessities cease to be commodities to be traded, in the interests of a minority parasite class but are for the freely available use of everyone to satisfy human needs in abundance.

The Labour Party which was never a socialist party but existed as a combination of Liberals and trade union reformers, with the purpose of gaining reforms for working people, rather than the overthrow of existing social relations of production. Some, known as “Gradualists”, had the view that capitalism could gradually be reformed into something it was not, providing a convenient stick for unabashed supporters of capitalism to show that Labours misnamed 'socialism' doesn't work when the inevitable crisis of capitalism emerges from the trade cycle of capitalism. As long as you keep settling for a reformed capitalism, you will get waged slavery, if you are lucky, a food bank if not.

Socialism isn't 57 varieties despite politically manipulated appearances. It has a definition i.e. the common ownership and democratic control of all the means and instruments for creating and distributing wealth. Socialism requires the support and active participation of the immense majority, who are politically aware of its implementation being, indeed, a revolutionary break with the capitalist mode of production for sale and introduction of the socialist/communist/post-capitalist mode of production for use. Socialism/Communism/Marxism is a post-capitalist society, where the means of production and distribution are owned in common, by us all and not the state. There are NO means of exchange, as it is a free access society and the absence of a leading economic elite, renders the state also, obsolete

Don't settle for crumbs. We have the world to win. Time for a societal upgrade for the 21st century and beyond.

"Rise, like lions after slumber

In unvanquishable number!

Shake your chains to earth like dew

Which in sleep had fallen on you:

Ye are many—they are few!"

Shelley.

Wee Matt

A World To Re-Build

The Socialist Party do not contest elections with a campaign that vote for us and we promise to do something for you. We are seeking support only on the basis of agreement with the need for the common ownership and democratic control of the wealth of the world in place of the capitalist system of minority ownership and production for profit. You can’t abolish something that is endemic to the capitalist system. The most you can do is run fast to try to stand still, or even to stop falling back. A problem which is endemic to capitalism can only be solved once and for all in a new socialist society where every man, woman and child would be able to freely satisfy their needs as a matter of right. The Socialist Party seeks to get rid of capitalism and its economic law of “can’t pay, can’t have”. Capitalism is an anti-human system which doesn’t and can’t satisfy human needs, for some not even their basic needs. For instance, in regards to homelessness and the lack of decent housing, capitalism, as a production-for-profit society, produces homes as commodities for sale with a view to profit. Which is why the housing problem will exist as long as capitalism lasts. If we had a society based on common ownership and democratic control there would be no problem in providing decent homes, rent-free, for everyone as the resources and the skills exist to do this. Why should anyone have to pay for a basic need like shelter?

We stand in elections at this moment in time to raise the issue of the need for socialism and only that. We hold that global socialism, where the Earth's resources both natural and industrial have become the common heritage of all humanity, is the only framework within which the problem, for instance, of climate changes (but many other social problems too) can be effectively and lastingly tackled. We are only seeking votes and support on that basis and that it why we do not have a list of specific policies to be applied within capitalism. Also, because we hold that under capitalism profit-making will always take priority over anything else so that most such policies are never likely to be adopted anyway.

We, in the Socialist Party, hold that the market system cannot be regulated or reformed in the interests of the majority of the population - it will always work in the interests of the wealthy: if regulation worked, why is it that major corporations don't pay tax but you and I have to? Greens have no monopoly of environmental concern. The Socialist Party believes that the only way of controlling the degradation of our environment is to completely change our political system: it is about power and the Green Party lacks an adequate opposition towards real power. Capitalism will always act with contempt towards the environment, and big money will always find ways around regulation. Moreover the current trajectory is to make it harder to control big capital: look at GATT, WTO, TTIP, etc and the policies of the IMF or World Bank. Some timid and wholly inadequate measures may be agreed at international level but that’s the most that will happen under capitalism but too little, too late.

The Socialist Party accepts that global warming is taking place and that the past and present release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible. So, yes, there is a need to cut-back on this by employing alternative methods of generating energy. We don't think that anything effective can or will be done to achieve this as long as the capitalist economic system dominates the world.  As this is a global problem, to deal with it requires co-ordinated action on a world scale but this is proving impossible under capitalism because of vested commercial interests and the security of energy supply considerations of the various competing states into which the world is divided. It is the capitalist system of production for profit by competing enterprises that is responsible both for the existence of the problem and for impeding effective action to deal with it. The only framework within which the problem can be rationally and lastingly dealt with is where the Earth’s natural and industrial resources have become the common heritage of all humanity. We know that the scientific knowledge and the technological ability to deal effectively with the problem exist and are confident that they would be rapidly applied once world capitalism has been replaced by a world of common ownership, democratic control and production directly for use not profit. At the moment it is not possible to draw up, for implementation in a socialist world, a plan with detailed figures and objectives; all that can be done now is to outline possible scenarios, ways, and options of tackling the problem. In fact, climate scientists and others have already come up with these, but they are unlikely to be implemented as long as capitalism exists. We are sure that in a profit-free, one-world socialist society scientists will be able to come up with effective ways to do this.

We do not believe that peoples’ living standards need to be reduced to meet environmental demands. We consider that the resources exist for everyone to live well, if they were properly distributed. As things stand, the effective demand of a wealthy minority distorts economics priorities, which also leads to the creation of "status goods" which are valuable because they are valuable (sports cars, gold watches, luxury yachts, and the means of warfare). Resources and effort can be drawn away from status goods, with no loss to real living standards to the vast majority. Common ownership and democratic co-operation could means the needs of the whole of humanity, without buying and selling.

Let us bring the revolutionary ideas of the socialist movement to the fore, so as to uproot capitalism and establish a new social order. Let us sweep away the system of profit making. The workers of the world must organise to make the means of life the common property of all mankind. To provide for the needs of all and the profit of none.

Ideas Transform Movements

“War to the palaces, peace to the cottages” - A rallying call of the Chartists

The need for the whole working class to once again unite for the struggle has again come to the fore so it is pertinent to look back in history.

The Chartists Movement was an organisation of no compromise, their slogan was “The Charter and nothing but the Charter.” It was the first class party of the workers which thrust the issue of class power to the front and it shook the rising capitalist system to its foundations. The temper of the workers was clearly in favour of revolution. Chartism declared a class war.

George Julian Harney wrote:

“As regards the working men swamping all other classes the answer is simple – other classes have no right to exist. To prepare the way for the absolute supremacy of the working class preparatory to the abolition of the system of classes, is the mission of The Red Republican.”

A further example from the writings of Ernest Jones:

"An amalgamation of classes is impossible ... these two portions of the community must be separated distinctly, dividedly and openly, from each other, CLASS AGAINST CLASS. All other mode of procedure is mere moonshine."

The General Strike - Folded Arms

It was in the eighteen-thirties that this idea of the General Strike emerged. It did so partly through the activities of William Benbow’s conception of a general stoppage of work put forward in his pamphlet The Grand National Holiday. He argued that the workers had “only to say we must be free” and “they would be so two days afterwards.” Benbow held that violence was not necessary. He wanted the workers simply to take a month’s holiday. He set about urging the workers to set up local committees to organise the holiday, “the sacred month”. The idea became popular among the workers and unions of the workers increased the support for the “National Holiday.” It was carried a step further forward by those radicals in the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union who declared that the delegate conference of trades was a better form of government than parliament and that it represented the government of the workers as against the government of the employers. The Chartist Association issued a manifesto:

“Englishmen! The blood of your brethren reddens the streets of Preston and Blackburn and the murderers thirst for more. Be firm, be courageous, be men. Peace, law and order have prevailed on our side; let them be revered until your brethren in Scotland, Wales and Ireland are informed of your resolution and when a universal holiday prevails, which will be the case in eight days, then of what use will bayonets be against public opinion?"

The Government, however, far from surrendering its power, turned all its attention to repressive measures; while the factory owners formed themselves into volunteer forces of “specials.” Bayonets and sabres did indeed carry the day in the end and subdued public opinion.

The Chartist “folded arms” theory periodically reappears as a theory for the labour/socialist movement. Syndicalists and Leftists are still under the illusion that the General Strike can achieve the emancipation of the workers. They still promote the General Strike as a weapon in the struggle of the working class. We need not resort to the history of the 19th century for evidence of its failure. The 1926 General Strike provides ample proof that in a fight against the whole capitalist class, the workers industrial muscle is inadequate, and it is political power that will prevail.

However, as one observer after the collapse of Chartism commented, “One might imagine that all is peaceful, that all is motionless; but it is when all is calm that the seed comes up, that republicans and socialists advance their ideas in people’s minds.”

The Cold War Has Begun Again.

At the NATO leaders summit conference in Poland on July 8th Prime Minister Trudeau said that he would send 1000 Canadian troops to Latvia. Germany, the U.S. and U.K. are also sending troops to Poland, Lithuania and Estonia. They all say they will stay as long as necessary. This is in response to a military threat from Russia, which the Russians have denied (no kidding). 

To sum up – the Cold War has begun again. That's what I like about capitalism – nothing changes.

John Ayers

Capitalism - a malignant cancer

“To be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing.” - Raymond Williams

To avoid social, environmental and economic collapse, the world needs to move beyond capitalism. More and more people know that it's time to get serious and get involved when it comes to politics.  We're sick of the same old crap, repackaged. Imagine a world where we really did live as equals, free from war, free from hierarchy, free from oppression and exploitation. Imagine in world where we were free to focus on our creativity, free to travel and free to contribute our uniqueness to society. If this kind of world can even be imagined then why not aim for it? Socialists are people who believe that the root of many of our problems is found in the way in which our societies are organized. Capitalism cannot be reformed, it must be replaced.

Many folk defend conspiracy theories such as the New World Order but miss the fact that capitalism is not a conspiracy run by a secretive Illuminati, nor the "international bankers.” Capitalism is a social relationship that is reproduced every day through every act of labour for a production system that exploits, alienates, and destroys those that are a part of it and the environment on which it depends. While we want to fight the rich and their state servants for enforcing the structures of capitalism we understand that there is no secret conspiracy to keep us all enslaved, but instead it is a very ingrained social system that has evolved over a few hundred years that we must overthrow. It didn't start with the advent of banking or the creation of the Fed, as many have been misled to believe. To say that it's the fault of the banking elite or some small group of shadowy people that have only been around since the 1920's is ludicrous. Nor was capitalism invented by a handful of people. Capitalism as a total world system is a relatively new part of human experience. It has its roots in the 16th and 17th centuries, which means that it has been around for four or five hundred years at most, while we humans (Homo Sapiens) have been around for tens of thousands of years.

Capitalism is a hierarchical economic system that necessitates continuous expansion, exploitation, and the concentrated ownership of wealth. The driving force of capitalism is the competitive market. The market economy's essential purpose is to sell commodities for profit. Profit has to be realized, regardless of the broader effects the commodity has on the environment or society at large, or the capitalist will go bankrupt. In order to gain a competitive advantage over other businesses, the capitalist is compelled to eliminate all social constraints on the exploitation of labor, and to reinvest a large portion of accumulated profits into technologies that will increase productive capacity, thereby lowering the cost of production through its economy of scale. A slow process of cannibalization occurs in which businesses must fail thereby causing wealth to be concentrated into the fewer hands of those who succeed. Due to the market imperative to sell, every aspect of life is eventually assigned a price tag. Individual and community relationships are reduced to business relationships.

Due to the “grow or die” imperative imposed by the market, economic growth cannot be contained by moral persuasion, it must continue to expand without any regard for human needs or environmental impact. Thus, capitalism should be seen for what it is, a malignant cancer. It will continue to grow until life itself will not be possible.  

The global village is a metaphor to illustrate the fact that we now possess the means to communicate information instantly from any part of the world to another part of the world.   The fact that many people still struggle to find food does not preclude the possibility that they might become aware of the fact that whilst they struggle, food is systematically being destroyed in some parts of the world and farmers are being paid to withdraw land from production to keep up prices. It’s a little arrogant to assume that people in the Developing World are incapable of drawing socialist conclusions from this. We already have the global technological potential to establish socialism. What we lack is the global working class consciousness to make that a reality.  It’s is absolute wrong to suggest that in today's interconnected global village this consciousness cannot transcend national boundaries.

There is nothing fictitious or irrational about the definition of socialism as a non-market non-statist global society.  It is what Marxists have traditionally meant by socialism.  We are sure that, come socialism, spatial inequalities will tend to be rapidly overcome through the global diffusion of advanced technologies when we no longer have the barriers of the market. A consequence of this will be increased diversification at the local level which will be good. Marx took a global approach to the matter and maintained that it was the world as a whole that had to have the productive potential for socialism before we could have socialism. Providing this precondition was met for the world as a whole then it does not matter from the point of view of establishing socialism that some parts are less developed than others. Socialism itself would enable the rapid diffusion of technologies and material assistance around the world to where it was most needed. The point is that the emergence of this global productive potential has been bound up with the development of a global division of labour that connects every part of the world with every other in what is now an incredibly complex pattern of criss-crossing material and immaterial flows – another reason why you can’t have “socialism in one country”.  Meaning the technological potential for socialism resides at the global level.

Minorities in Scotland

The proportion of the population from non-white ethnic groups is just 4% in Scotland, compared with around 13% across the UK.

People from ethnic minorities in Scotland are four times more likely than the general population to live in overcrowded accommodation, 11.8% compared with 2.9%, according to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

They are also twice as likely to be poor and out of work.

After housing costs, 36% of people from ethnic minorities were in poverty, compared with 17% of white people.

Unemployment rates for people from ethnic minorities in 2013 were significantly higher than for the population as a whole - 13.2% compared with 6.9%.

Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children do much worse at school than their white classmates.

Just over half of Gypsies and Travellers in Scotland are economically inactive, and many live in what the Scottish Parliament's Equal Opportunities Committee described as "horrendous conditions". In Scotland, a greater proportion of Gypsy/Travellers rated their health as "bad" or "very bad" (15%) compared with the average for Scotland (6%).

A Scottish government analysis of the 2011 Census found that older Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi women report considerably worse health than older men in these ethnic minorities.

Research by the Marie Curie terminal care charity found that Black, Asian and "Other" ethnic minority communities are underrepresented among those using palliative care services at the end of life.

There are more foetal and infant deaths where the mother identifies as "South Asian" or "Other" ethnicity than would be expected.

The report also highlights what it calls "significant occupational segregation". People from an ethnic minority background are underrepresented in senior management jobs in Scotland; in the police and criminal justice system; on local councils; and in take-up of Modern Apprenticeships. Indians living in Scotland, 38% work in wholesale or retail (compared with 15% for the general population). And almost a third of Chinese people here are employed in the accommodation and food industries (against a 6% national figure).

Polish people had the highest rates of work - 81% are either employed or self-employed.

Women Soldiers A Reflection!

 The Associated Press announced on July 9th the British government is lifting a ban on women serving in front-line combat in the army. David Cameron said, "It's vital that our armed forces are first class and reflect the society we live in." They already do Dave – a horribly violent one!

So what a wonderful thing for equality between the sexes – women are now free to participate with men in killing fellow members of the working class to defend and further their bosses' interests. 

There is only one kind of equality worth fighting for – a society where everyone will stand equal in relation to the means of life. 

John Ayers.

The enemy is capitalism.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."- Goethe - 1749-1832

The word “politics” is for many like a red flag to a bull. What does the word “politics” mean to the average worker? It brings to his mind a picture of graft, bribery and corruption. To be sure, politics as conducted by the capitalist politicians is usually dirty and sordid. Politics seems to mean simply politicians trying to catch votes to elect them to some comfortable office, where they can comfortably forget all about those who voted them into power.  All this is based upon the realities of capitalist politics, which is always accompanied by rottenness, corruption, office-hunting and spoils. But it represents at the same time a fatal misconception of what political action really is. Reformists believe that they can gradually gain concessions by using the political machinery of the capitalist state to win ameliorations and palliatives to the countless social ills. Preaching such parliamentarian tactics causes them to make deals and compromises with the capitalist class. The reformist argument is designed to blind people to the realities of political power. They reject the class structure of society and class struggle, and some claim that class divisions are withering away. They say that the state is neutral, above classes; that there is no need to change it. They tell the workers that they should make capitalism work, that employers and workers should collaborate to this end. They say that legislation and regulation to manage capitalism is a step towards socialism; that socialism can be built piecemeal within capitalism; or even that the aim should now be a “mixed economy” with a welfare state and nothing more. These ideas confuse and disarm people.

The Socialist Party holds that the necessary step to the realisation of socialism is  that the means of production should be owned by no individual, but by the whole community, in order that the use of them may be free to all and the recognition of the maxim ‘from each according to ability, to each according to needs’. Reforms wouldn’t solve the problem, even if they could be achieved. So long as the capitalist system exists a very small minority will be making money out of the toil of others. All reforms of the present system simply trick workers into believing that they aren’t being plundered as much as they were before. To save the old system of exploitation the capitalists unite and chain the workers to the machines of industry and cry: “More production! More production!'’ In other words, the workers must do more work for less wages, so that their blood and sweat may be turned into profits.  The Socialist Party proposes to overthrow the capitalist system and its servile state and to establish in its place immediately industrial democracy and the cooperative commonwealth, to substitute for the government of men the administration of things. The Socialist Party understands that the capitalist ownership of the means of production and distribution means the exploitation of the great majority by a small minority; that capitalism brings recurring threat of war and increasingly undermines democracy. Therefore the aim of the Socialist Party is the ending of capitalism and the building of a new socialist society. The features of the Socialist Party are distinctive and unique, not possessed by any other section of the labour movement, which makes it aimed towards clarity of ideas and help in the growth of socialist understanding. We envisage socialism as a society where material wealth will be in the hands of those who produce it, where the exploitation of man by man will be ended, where production will be used not for private profit, where a new relationship of fraternity will develop between peoples based on equality and independence, where individual men and women will find totally new possibilities to develop their capacities. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” can be achieved in today’s world only by a socialist revolution. The Socialist Party recognises that we are engaged in the class war, and therefore cannot be neutral. We defend the working class, at home, and our fellow-workers, in whatever country, against capitalist attacks. 

Bothies not profits

The sustainability of Scotland's mountain bothies is being threatened by commercial groups, the Mountain Bothies Association (MBA), the organisation that maintains the network, formed in 1965 and looks after about 100 bothies.

Bothies are found throughout the Highlands, with most of them maintained by the MBA. They are free, but users are asked to follow a "bothy code". The code prohibits the use of the buildings by commercial groups. The charity said there were a "number of reasons" why commercial use of bothies - for example by guided tours or adventure holidays - could damage the interests of other bothy users. The MBA said it was happy with commercial groups using bothies as a lunch shelter or "in the event of a genuine emergency"

In a statement, the MBA said:

"There have been incidents when legitimate bothy users have been made to feel unwelcome, inconvenienced or even refused entry when commercial groups have been in residence. Our volunteers who maintain the bothies, not unreasonably, feel aggrieved to know that their hard work is contributing to the profits of a business that probably does not support our organisation in any way."

Most Single Representative American

Recently many mourned the passing of Muhammad Ali. With his incredible speed, footwork, and coordination Ali cut through his opponents like butter and won the world's heavyweight title. He defended it many times brilliantly and was, in the early days of his reign, the personification of the great American (hence capitalist) dream. One thing about dreams is eventually one has to awake from them. Ali got hooked up with the Black Muslims who leeched off of him and made him fight for at least six years past his best. After the "Thrilla in Manilla" against Joe Frazier in 1975, it would have been time to retire, however, he was good propaganda material for the emerging black capitalists and had about 100 people living off him.

At the end Ali was a pathetic shadow of what he had been; too many blows to the head had taken their toll. Near the end, he couldn't speak and his fortune was gone. Muhammad Ali was a man who lived first the dream and then the nightmare – in that sense perhaps he was the most single representative American in recent history. 

John Ayers.

Strategies That Have Failed

Every once in a while the Socialist Courier blog comes across an article or book that reflects much of the same thinking as the World Socialist Movement. We, of course, do expect some differences of interpretation and emphasis since we have all made our separate political journeys along different paths and acquired our own baggage on the way. Nevertheless, we should appreciate what views we share in common and acknowledge that our goal to create a post-capitalist world other also strive to achieve. The following is an extract from “Getting Free: Creating an Association of Democratic Autonomous Neighborhoods” by James Herod.

Social Democracy

We can’t destroy capitalism by running for office, by gaining control of the state apparatus through elections. It hasn’t been done and it won’t be done, even though numerous governments have been in socialist hands in Europe, sometimes for decades. It won’t be done because governments don’t have the last say, they don’t control society. Capitalists do. The government doesn’t control capitalists; capitalists control the government. Modern government (i.e., the nation-state system) is an invention of capitalists. It is their tool, and they know how to use it and keep it from being turned against them. Although building worker-controlled political parties, then using those parties to win elections and get control of governments, and then using those governments to establish socialism seemed like a plausible enough strategy when it was initiated in the mid-nineteenth century, it's way past time for us to recognize and admit that it simply hasn't worked. Capitalism goes rolling on no matter who controls the government.

Leninism

We can’t destroy capitalism by taking over the government in a so-called revolution (i.e., capturing the state apparatus by force of arms). Beginning with the Russian Revolution, this has been the most widely used strategy (by national liberation movements) during the past century in countries on the periphery of capitalism. Dozens of "revolutionary parties" have come to power all over the world, but nowhere have they succeeded in destroying capitalism. In all cases so far, they have simply gone on doing what capitalists always do: accumulate more capital. They inevitably become in spite of their intentions just another government in a system of nation-states, inextricably embedded in capitalism, with no possibility of escape. Generations of revolutionaries devoted their lives to this strategy. It seemed like the best thing to do at the time, and maybe it was. But now, after nearly a century of trials, it's painfully clear that the strategy has failed, and more and more revolutionaries are coming to this conclusion. The few remaining die-hard leninists, who are still struggling to build a vanguard party to seize state power, are definitely and thankfully a dying breed.

Guerrilla Warfare

We cannot destroy capitalism with guerrilla warfare. This strategy has been mostly deployed as part of national liberation movements in colonial countries in order to capture the governments there. It is a form of leninism. As noted above, leninism in general didn’t work. And now, guerrilla warfare as a particular tactic within leninism doesn’t work. Capitalists have learned how to defeat it. The strategy was based on the assumed unwillingness of the capitalists to murder the civilian population in order to kill the guerrillas too. Capitalists have shown no such reluctance. They are willing to murder on a massive scale, and uproot and displace whole populations, in order to defeat guerrilla movements. And they win. (The current wars in Colombia and Iraq will perhaps serve as the final test of this strategy.)

Some wild-eyed romantic revolutionaries have thought to adopt the strategy for use in the core countries, with disastrous results. Capitalists have been delighted to have a new enemy - namely, "terrorists" and "anarchists"- now that "communists" are gone. But of course they will malign any opposition movement, so this is not the reason guerrilla warfare will not work here. It won’t work because it is part of leninism (seizing state power), and leninism didn’t work. It will not work because of the overwhelming firepower amassed by every advanced capitalist government. It will not work because it doesn’t contain within itself the seeds of the new civilization. I would think twice before joining the underground.

Syndicalism

We cannot destroy capitalism by seizing and occupying the factories and the farms, at least not in the way this has been tried so far. Nevertheless, of all the strategies that have failed, syndicalism (federations of peasant, worker, and soldier councils) is the only one that had a ghost of a chance, and the only one that even came close to creating a new world. It came close in the great Spanish Revolution in the 1930s. Unfortunately, that magnificent revolution was defeated. In fact, all syndicalist revolutions have failed so far.

I believe there are serious flaws inherent in the strategy itself. For one thing, the syndicalist strategy ignores households, as if households weren’t part of the means of production. Thus, it excludes millions of homemakers from active participation in the revolution. Homemakers can only serve in a supporting role. It also excludes old people, young people, sick people, prisoners, students, welfare recipients, and millions of unemployed workers. To think that a revolution can be made only by those people who hold jobs is the sheerest folly. Perhaps immediately after syndicalists seize the factories and make a revolution, this exclusion could be overcome by having everyone join a council at home or in school, but this is no help beforehand, during the revolution itself. The whole image is badly skewed.

Moreover, syndicalists have never specified clearly enough how all the various councils are going to function together to make decisions and set policy, defend themselves, and launch a new civilization. In the near revolution in Germany in 1918, the worker and soldier councils were for a few months the only organized power. They could have won. But they were confused about what to do. They couldn’t see how to get from their separate councils to the establishment of overall power and the defeat of capitalism.

In the massive general strike in Poland in 1980, factory, office, mining, and farm councils were set up all over the country. But these councils didn’t know how to coalesce into an alternative social arrangement capable of replacing the existing power structure. They even mistakenly refrained from attacking ruling-class power with the intent of destroying it. Instead, the councils merely wanted to coexist in some kind of uneasy dual structure (perhaps because they were afraid of a Soviet invasion; but a strategy that has not taken external armies into account is badly flawed).

Workplace associations would have to be permanent assemblies, with years of experience under their belts, before they could have a chance of success. They cannot be new forms suddenly thrown up in the depths of a crisis or the middle of a general strike, with a strong government still waiting in the wings, supported by its fully operational military forces. It is no wonder that syndicalist-style revolts have gone down to defeat.

Finally, syndicalists have not worked out the relations between the councils and the community at large, and to assume that workers in a factory have the final say over the allocation of those resources (or whether the factory should even exist) rather than the community at large, simply won’t do. Nor have syndicalists worked out intercommunity relations. Syndicalism, in short, is a half-baked strategy that has not been capable of destroying capitalism, although it has been headed in the right direction.

General Strikes

General strikes cannot destroy capitalism. There is an upper limit of about six weeks as to how long they can even last. Beyond that society starts to disintegrate. But since the general strikers have not even thought about reconstituting society through alternative social arrangements, let alone created them, they are compelled to go back to their jobs just to survive, to keep from starving. All a government has to do is wait them out, perhaps making a few concessions to placate the masses. This is what Charles de Gaulle did in France in 1968.

A general strike couldn't even last six weeks if it were really general - that is, if everyone stopped working. Under those conditions there would be no water, electricity, heat, or food. The garbage would pile up. We couldn't go anywhere because the gas stations would be closed. We couldn't get medical treatment. Thus we would only be hurting ourselves. And what could our objectives possibly be? By stopping work, we obviously wouldn't be aiming at occupying and seizing our workplaces. If that were our aim we would continue working, but kick the bosses out. So our main aim would have to be to topple a government and replace it with another. This might be a legitimate goal if we needed to get rid of a particularly oppressive regime, but as for getting rid of capitalism, it gets us nowhere.

Strikes

Strikes against a particular corporation cannot destroy capitalism. They are not even thought to do so. The purpose of strikes is to change the rate of exploitation in favor of workers. Strikes have only rarely been linked to demands for workers’ control (let alone the abolition of wage slavery); nor could capitalist property relations be overcome in a single corporation. The strike does not contain within itself any vision for reconstituting social relations across society, nor any plans to do so.

In recent years, strikes have even lost most of the effectiveness they once had for gaining short-term benefits for the working class. More often than not strikers are defeated: their union leaders sell them out; the owners bring in scabs, or simply fire everyone and hire a whole new crew; the owners move their plants elsewhere; and/or the government declares the strike illegal and calls out the state militia. Strike breaking is a flourishing industry on consultant row. Decades of antiunion propaganda by corporate-controlled media has destroyed a prolabor working-class culture, which in turn helps management break strikes. Nowadays, for strikers to get anywhere at all, entire communities have to be mobilized, with linkages to national campaigns. Even so, strikers are still aiming only at higher wages, health benefits, and the like; they are not anticapitalist. With rare exception, they are not even fighting for a shorter workweek.

I do not believe that this situation is temporary or can be reversed. So however important strikes are, or once were, in the unending fight over the extraction of wealth from the direct producers, they cannot destroy capitalism as a system.

Unions

Unions cannot destroy capitalism. Although unions were created by workers, mainly to help protect themselves from the ravages of wage slavery, they have long since lost any emancipatory potential. They were easily co-opted by the ruling class and used against workers as a disciplinary tool to prevent strikes, to prevent job actions, to drain power from the shop floor, to stabilize the workforce and reduce absenteeism, to pacify workers, to water down demands, and so forth. Almost from their beginnings in the middle of the nineteenth century (and with rare exception) unions have been "business unions," working in cahoots with capitalists to manage "labor relations." There is an inherent flaw in this strategy. It is based on constructing a bureaucratic institution outside the workplace instead of a free association of workers inside the workplace. In any case, the heyday of unions is long since past and any hope of bringing them back is delusive.

In recent years there has been a movement to rebuild unions, even in the United States, which is notoriously lacking in labor consciousness, and where union membership is down to 8 percent in nongovernment workplaces. In other countries, though, especially poor ones, there are some strong union movements, arising in response to the industries that have moved there or to the appearance of sweatshops. With rare exception, these unions are not anticapitalist. Naturally, it's important to fight for better working conditions, higher wages, shorter hours, and health benefits. Such struggles do often highlight the evils of the wage slave system as well as improve the lives of workers. Who could not be excited by the rapid emergence in the late 1990s of the student anti-sweatshop movement on college campuses across the country? But something more is needed if we want to get rid of capitalism. Even if current labor activists succeed and rebuild unions to what they once were, can we expect these newly refashioned unions to accomplish more than previous ones did, at the height of the unionization drives of a strong labor movement - a movement that was embedded in communist, socialist, and anarchist working-class cultures that have now been obliterated? Hardly.

Insurrections

Insurrections cannot destroy capitalism. I don’t even think the ruling class is frightened of them anymore. You can rampage through the streets all you want, burn down your neighborhoods, and loot all the local stores to your heart’s content. They know this will not go anywhere. They know that blind rage will burn itself out. When it’s all over, these insurrectionists will be showing up for work like always or standing again in the dole line. Nothing has changed. Nothing has been organized. No new associations have been created. What do capitalists care if they lose a whole city? They can afford it. All they have to do is cordon off the area of conflagration, wait for the fires to burn down, go in and arrest thousands of people at random, and then leave, letting the "rioters" cope with their ruined neighborhoods as best they can. Maybe we should think of something a little more damaging to capitalists than burning down our own neighborhoods.

Civil Disobedience

Acts of civil disobedience cannot destroy capitalism. They can sometimes make strong moral statements. But moral statements are pointless against immoral persons. They fall on deaf ears. Therefore, the act of deliberately breaking a law and getting arrested is of limited value in actually breaking the power of the rulers. Acts of civil disobedience can be used as weapons in the battle for the hearts and minds of ordinary people, I guess (assuming that ordinary people ever hear about them). But they are basically the actions of powerless persons. Powerless individuals must use whatever tactics they can, of course. But that is the point. Why remain powerless, when by adopting a different strategy (building strategic associations) we could become powerful, and not be reduced to impotent acts like civil disobedience against laws we had no say in making and that we regard as unjust?

Moreover, civil disobedience is a tactic used primarily by the more well-off and securely situated activists who can count on friends and family to raise bail, and who can be pretty sure of not getting a long prison term. This is not true for those strongly motivated religious persons who sometimes embrace long prison sentences as part of bearing witness to a higher morality. But you almost never see poor people or minorities deliberately getting themselves arrested because they know that once in prison, they are not likely to get out.

Civil disobedience has the additional disadvantage that the movement has to spend a lot of precious time and money getting people out of jail. Enough people get arrested anyway, against their will. We don't need the added burden having to struggle to free persons who voluntarily put themselves in the hands of our jailers.

Single-Issue Campaigns

We cannot destroy capitalism with single-issue campaigns, yet the great bulk of radicals’ energy is spent on these campaigns. There are dozens of them: campaigns to defend abortion rights, maintain rent control, halt whaling, prohibit toxic dumping, stop the war on drugs, stop police brutality, stop union busting, abolish the death penalty, stop the logging of redwoods, outlaw the baby seal kill, ban genetically modified foods, stop the World Bank and the World Trade Organization, stop global warming, and on and on. What we are doing is spending our lives trying to fix a system that generates evils faster than we can ever eradicate them.

Although some of these campaigns use direct action (e.g., spikes in the trees to stop the chain saws or Greenpeace boats in front of the whaling ships to block the harpoons), for the most part the campaigns are aimed at passing legislation in Congress to correct the problem. Unfortunately, reforms that are won in one decade, after endless agitation, can be easily wiped off the books the following decade, after the protesters have gone home or a new administration comes to power.

These struggles all have value and are needed. Could anyone think that the campaigns against global warming, to free Leonard Peltier, or to aid the East Timorese ought to be abandoned? Single-issue campaigns keep us aware of what's wrong and sometimes even win gains. But in and of themselves, they cannot destroy capitalism, and thus cannot really fix things. It is utopian to believe that we can reform capitalism. Most of these evils can only be eradicated for good if we destroy capitalism itself and create a new civilization. We cannot afford to aim for anything less. Our very survival is at stake. There is one single-issue campaign I can wholeheartedly endorse: the total and permanent eradication of capitalism.

Many millions of us, though, are rootless and quite alienated from a particular place or local community. We are part of the vast mass of atomized individuals brought into being by the market for commodified labor. Our political activities tend to reflect this. We tend to act as free-floating protesters. But we could start to change this. We could begin to root ourselves in our local communities. This will be more possible for some than for others, of course. There can be no hard-and-fast rule. Yet many of us could start establishing free associations at work, at home, and in the neighborhood. In this way, our fights to stop what we don't like through single-issue campaigns could be combined with what we do want. Plus, we would have a lot more power to stop what we don't like. Our single-issue campaigns might prove to be more successful.

What is missing is free association, free assemblies, on the local level. If we added these into the mix, we would start getting somewhere. We could attack the ruling class on all fronts. There are millions of us, plenty of us to do everything, but everything must include fights on the local level, especially at the three strategic sites mentioned earlier.

Demonstrations

We cannot destroy capitalism by staging demonstrations. This most popular of all radical strategies is also one of the most questionable. As a rule, demonstrations barely even embarrass capitalists, let alone frighten or damage them. Demonstrations are just a form of petition usually. They petition the ruling class regarding some grievance, essentially begging it to change its policies. They are not designed to take any power or wealth away from capitalists. Demonstrations only last a few hours or days and then, with rare exception, everything goes back to the way it was. If demonstrations do win an occasional concession, it is usually minor and short-lived. They do not build an alternative social world. Rather, they mostly just alert the ruling class that it needs to retool or invent new measures to counter an emerging source of opposition.

But even if demonstrations rise above the petition level, and become instead a way of presenting our demands and making our opposition known, we still have not acquired the power to see that our demands are met. Our opposition has no teeth. In order to give some bite to our protests we would have to reorganize ourselves, reorient ourselves, by rooting ourselves, assembling ourselves, on the local level. Then when we went off on demonstrations to protest ruling-class initiatives and projects there would be some strength behind the protests, rather than just shouted slogans, unfurled banners, hoisted placards, street scuffles, and clever puppets. We would be in a position to take action if our demands were not met. Then when we chanted, "Whose Streets? Our Streets!" our words might represent more than just a pipe dream.

Demonstrations are not even good propaganda tools because the ruling class, given its control of the media, can put any spin it wants to on the event, and this interpretation is invariably damaging to the opposition movement, assuming the event is even reported since the latest approach to these events is simply to ignore them. This is quite effective.

And what are the gains? An issue can sometimes be brought to the attention of the public, even if only a small minority of the public. Also, more people can be drawn into an opposition movement. For those participating, a demonstration can be an inspiring experience. (In many cases, though, this high is offset by a sense of dispiritedness on returning home.) Demonstrations can thus contribute to building an opposition movement. But are these small gains worth it? Large national demonstrations drain energy and resources away from local struggles. And even local demonstrations are costly, requiring time, energy, and money, which are always in short supply among radicals. Are demonstrations worth all the work and the expense they take to organize? No matter what, they remain just a form of protest. They show what we're against. By their very nature, demonstrations are of limited value for articulating what we are for. We are against the World Trade Organization, but what are we for?

Rather than taking to the streets and marching off all the time, protesting this or that (while the police take our pictures), we would be better off staying home and building up our workplace, neighborhood, and household associations until they are powerful enough to strike at the heart of capitalism. We cannot build a new social world in the streets.

New Social Movements

The so-called new social movements, based on gender, racial, sexual, or ethnic identities, cannot destroy capitalism. In general, they haven’t even tried. Except for a tiny fringe of radicals in each of them, they have been attempting to get into the system, not overthrow it. This is true for women, blacks, homosexuals, and ethnic (including "native") groups, as well as many other identities - old people, people with disabilities, mothers on welfare, and so forth. Nothing has derailed the anticapitalist struggle during the past quarter century so thoroughly as have these movements. Sometimes it seems that identity politics is all that remains of the left. Identity politics has simply swamped class politics.

The mainstream versions of these movements (the ones fighting to get into the system rather than overthrow it) have given capitalists a chance to do a little fine-tuning by eliminating tensions here and there, and by including token representatives of the excluded groups. Many of the demands of these movements can be easily accommodated. Capitalists can live with boards of directors exhibiting ethnic, gender, and racial diversity as long as all the board members are procapitalist. Capitalists can easily accept a rainbow cabinet as long as the cabinet is pushing the corporate agenda. So mainstream identity politics has not threatened capitalism at all.

The radical wings of the new social movements, however, are rather more subversive. These militants realized that it was necessary to attack the whole social order in order to uproot racism and sexism - problems that could not be overcome under capitalism since they are an integral part of it. There is no denying the evils of racism, sexism, and nationalism, which are major structural supports to ruling-class control. These militants have done whatever they could to highlight, analyze, and ameliorate these evils. Unfortunately, for the most part, their voices have been lost in all the clamor for admittance to the system by the majorities in their own movements.

There have been gains, of course. The women's movement has forever changed the world's consciousness about gender. Unpaid housework has been recognized as a key ingredient in the wage slave system. Reproduction as well as production has been included in our analysis of the system. Identity politics in general has underscored just how many people are excluded while also exposing gaps in previous revolutionary strategies. Moreover, the demand for real racial and gender equality is itself inherently revolutionary in that it cannot be met by capitalists, given that racial and gender discrimination are two of the key structural mechanisms for keeping wages low and thus making profits possible.

Boycotts

Boycotts cannot destroy capitalism. They have always been an extremely ineffective way to attack the system, and are almost impossible to organize. They almost invariably fail in their objectives. In the rare cases where they have succeeded, the gains are minor. A corporation is forced to amend its labor policies here and there, drop a product, or divest somewhere. That’s about it.

In recent years, boycotting has become a way of life for thousands in the environmental movement. They publish thick books on which products are okay to buy and which must be boycotted, covering literally everything from toilet paper to deodorant, food to toys. All these activists have succeeded in doing is to create a whole new capitalist industry of politically correct products. They have bought into the myth that the "economy" will give us anything we want if we just demand it, and that it is our demands that have been wrong rather than the system itself.

It’s true that it is better to eat food that hasn’t been polluted with insecticides, to wear clothes not made with child labor, or to use makeup not tested on rabbits. But capitalism cannot be destroyed by making such choices. If we are going to boycott something, we might try boycotting wage slavery.

Dropping Out

We cannot destroy capitalism by dropping out, either as an individual, a small group, or a community. It’s been tried over and over, and it fails every time. There is no escaping capitalism; there is nowhere left to go. The only escape from capitalism is to destroy it. Then we could be free (if we try). In fact, capitalists love it when we drop out. They don’t need us. They have plenty of suckers already. What do they care if we live under bridges, beg for meals, and die young? I haven’t seen the ruling class rushing to help the homeless.

Even more illusory than the idea that an individual can drop out is the notion that a whole community can withdraw from the system and build its own little new world somewhere else. This was tried repeatedly by utopian communities throughout the nineteenth century. The strategy was revived in the 1960s as thousands of new left radicals retired to remote rural communes to groove on togetherness (and dope). The strategy is once again surfacing in the new age movement as dozens of communities are being established all over the country. These movements all suffer from the mistaken idea that they don’t have to attack capitalism and destroy it but can simply withdraw from it, to live their own lives separately and independently. It is a vast illusion. Capitalists rule the world. Until they are defeated, there will be no freedom for anyone.

Luddism

As wonderful as luddism was, as one of the fiercest attacks ever made against capitalism, wrecking machinery cannot in and of itself destroy capitalism, and for the same reason that insurrections and strikes cannot: the action is not designed to replace capitalism with new decision-making arrangements. It does not even strike at the heart of capitalism -wage slavery - but only at the physical plant, the material means of production. Although large-scale sabotage, if it were part of a movement to destroy capitalism and replace it with something else, could weaken the corporate world and put a strain on the accumulation of capital, it is far better to get ourselves in a position where we can seize the machinery rather than smash it. (Not that we even want much of the existing machinery; it will have to be redesigned. But seizing it is a way of getting control over the means of production.)

Moreover, luddites were already enslaved to capitalists in their cottage industries before they struck. They were angry because new machinery was eliminating their customary job (which was an old way of making a living, relatively speaking, and thus had some strong traditions attached to it). In current terms, it would be like linotype operators destroying computers because their jobs were being eliminated by the new equipment. Destroying the new machinery misses the point. It is not the machinery that is the problem but the wage slave system itself. If it weren’t for wage slavery we could welcome labor-saving devices, provided they weren’t destructive in other ways, for freeing us from unnecessary toil.

We can draw inspiration from luddism, as a fine example of workers aggressively resisting the further degradation of their lives, but we should not imitate it, at least not as a general strategy.

Publishing

We cannot destroy capitalism by publishing, although I doubt if anyone believes that we can. I mention it here only because publishing constitutes for so many of us our practice.This is what we are doing. We justify this by saying that radical books, magazines, and newspapers are weapons in the fight against bourgeois cultural hegemony - which is true. But we are permitted to publish only because the ruling class isn’t worried one jot by our "underground press." Their weapons - television, radio, movies, and schools - are infinitely more powerful. It’s conceivable that capitalism could be destroyed without any publishing at all. The strategy of reassembling ourselves into workplace, neighborhood, and household associations could catch on and spread by word of mouth from community to community. Destroying capitalism is more a matter of rearranging ourselves socially (reconstituting our social relations) than of propagating a particular set of ideas. So instead of starting our own zines, why don't we call a meeting with co-workers or neighbors to form an association?

Education

We cannot destroy capitalism through education. Not many radicals recommend this strategy anymore, although you still hear it occasionally. New left radicals established free schools and even a free university or two, and there was a fairly strong and long lasting modern school movement among anarchists. But these are long gone. The notion, however, that education is the path to change and the way out of the mess we're in is quite common in the culture at large. This is like the tail waging the dog. We don't even control the schools or what is taught there. Schools and education are artifacts, and minor ones at that, of the ruling class, and are a reflection of its power over society. It is that power that must be broken. This cannot be done through schools. Even the very notion of education as an activity separated from life needs to be overcome. Learning among free peoples will be strikingly different. When we have achieved our autonomy, by directly engaging and defeating our oppressors, that will be the time to worry about how to conduct our learning.