New Possibilties For Increasing Profit

The Toronto Star of July 21st ran an article about the latest drone technology. On July 12, in San Francisco, a patent was filed by Amazon for a "Multi-use unmanned aerial vehicle docking system." Its purpose would be to deliver packages to a docking system near a purchaser's house.

The most recent prototype weighs about 25 kilograms and can carry packages up to about two kilograms.

These would fly under 120 meters and use "sense and avoid" technology to dodge potential obstacles. The docking stations will be able to accommodate multiple drones and be located high up and out of the way of cell towers and other vertical structures. With solar panels, they could generate their own power.

All this means, so far, is Amazon has a patent on it. The Federal Aviation Administration doesn't allow package delivery. But let's look to the future and be realistic – if the capitalists can make money on it, the F.A.A. will change its rules; and if docking stations are near someone's house, (or even on a purchaser's property), it will be less people needed for delivery, hence bigger profits for the company.

This doesn't mean socialists are against new technology – we are against the system that uses it to make some rich and screw the rest. 

 John Ayers.

Let’s change the world

Some of the larger problems of our planet is the destruction of eco-systems for the profits of the capitalist class who’ll do anything to keep their profits rising. They are despoiling the land and poisoning the rivers and seas for the benefit of their investment returns. Why aren’t people doing something about it? Surely, most people on our planet want a hopeful future for their children and their children’s children. Of course, challenging the way things are is scary. But we must know that capitalism doesn’t work, because everybody is fending for themselves to try and survive, regardless of the damage it conflicts upon others and upon nature and the society as a whole. Profit margins and stock exchange values prove more important than consequences for people, nature and the planet. It is clear is that the small minority of capitalists are willing to lie, cheat, manipulate all others for power and wealth. Everything is commodified, which means if you don’t increase profit to the system you are a “burden” to society.

Changing leaders will change little. When politicians are replaced, others take their place and nothing really changes. So don’t expect any new president or prime minister to be any solution. We can assume that political leaders are aware of the problems which plague capitalism yet clearly they are powerless to eliminate those problems. If leaders were successful, each one would be part of a progress towards a safer, abundant, stable world. In truth, each new leader is confronted with the same mess as their predecessors. It is not to state the obvious — because to most people it is not obvious — to say that leaders exist only by virtue of their followers. They exist because the overwhelming majority of the working class shrink from recognising their own knowledge and experience of society, preferring to put their faith in others who, it is assumed, have some special knowledge and ability. Capitalism cannot exist without its inevitable problems; it traps its leaders just as surely as it does those who are led. Even if a leader may wish to be different, to stand out for some apparently novel policy, they are similarly ensnared and quickly exposed for their inability also to escape the trap. Because people are cooperative and collaborative on the whole they assume what others promise them is to be trusted. But we quickly learn not all promises are in our interest. We are sold cures that only heal some the effects of the system, but never really remedy the root of the trouble. Environmentalists protest pollution, charities help the unfortunate. Neither address the real cause.  Let's focus on eliminating the system.

All of us who struggle for a better world are disheartened that so many advances of the 20th century have been lost but sadly we weren’t surprised in the slightest. The crises of the environment and the global economy are unmistakably moving humanity toward the cliff’s edge. And yet social movements, for all the victories here and there, fail again and again. Resistance has stopped short of revolution. Although there exists a multitude of grassroots movements, there is no one unified movement toward a better society. Knowledge exists within the people but it is through the fusion of this knowledge which brings a mass socialist organization. People can only solve their problems by freely discussing them, without coercion or manipulation, and then freely acting through coordinated activity based on the results of their discussion. In turn, there must be a larger organization that connect the many particular struggles into a broad movement, one that enables activists to see the links and commonalities between these struggles and the common enemy that they face. Discussion of the socialist alternative to capitalism must become more serious, free from the forms of thinking imposed by capitalist ideology. We must go beyond simple demands for economic and social reforms. We need to start seriously discussing how we are going to build an effective movement for a post-capitalist world.

As the world’s resources are wasted to almost depletion, the environment destroyed almost beyond repair and ever more people are thrown into despair and desperation, the path of humanity will be towards barbarism in the future. If that is not the future we want, we’ll have to change it ourselves.

None of us possess a blueprint on how to build an effective mass movement. But one thing that ought to be clear, yet often isn’t, is that simply replicating the models of the past is a dead end.

Taken from 

http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/goodbye-democracy-and-capitalism/

Capital does not build anything

"The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois." (1879, Marx and Engels)

We are with Marx and Engels for the abolition of the wages system.

Workers run and manage capitalism from the top to the bottom and even police themselves. The PC or laptop you are using, the clothes you are wearing the food you eat and the money you shift about is the product of waged workers selling their commodity, labour power at less than its value to produce a surplus value.

 This is a vast inter-relationship of labour globally which adds value to the capitalist’s commodity via socially necessary labour time. This is everything you can think of from infrastructure building to shithouse manufacture and installations, to children mining in less advanced capitalist nations. Workers have no capital worth mentioning. Capital on its own can do nothing, it can't light an oven or dig a ditch, until it is invested in an exploitative opportunity and it is the labour of the working class globally whether by hand or by brain, which is utilised to this end of producing a surplus over and above the invested capital. Capital itself is dead labour. In times of economic uncertainty such as presently financial capital reserves, may be used to speculate and create bubbles but this is just gambling until markets pick up.

One of the amazing things about capitalism is that whereas machinery creates abundance millions are in want.

As always, Marx hit the nail on the head.

“It is not the case that too much wealth is produced. But it is true that there is periodical over-production of wealth in its capitalist and self-contradictory form. The limitations of the capitalist mode of production become apparent:

1) In the fact that the development of the productive power of labour establishes, in the falling rate of profit, a law which becomes, at a certain point, hostile to this mode of production itself and which can only be overcome by periodical crises.

2) In the fact that the expansion or contraction of production is decided by the appropriation of unpaid labour and by the proportion of this unpaid labour to materialized labour in general, or in the language of the capitalists, by profit and by the proportion of this profit to employed capital, by a definite rate of profit, instead of being determined by the relations of production to social needs, to the needs of socially developed human beings.

Consequently, the capitalist mode of production reaches its limit at a level of production which would be wholly inadequate in terms of the second proposition (production for needs) it comes to a standstill at a point determined by the production and realization of profit, not by the satisfaction of human needs.” -Capital Volume 3

Poverty is also relative to the surplus it creates. Poverty absolute or relative, and war (business by other means) are inevitable concomitants of capitalist competition over raw materials, markets, trade routes and geo-political interests. The export of the absolutes of poverty and war does not change the fundamentals of this system. Workers are all in this together and have a collective social class interest. How many echo their master's voice in responding to people who are worse off than themselves. The separation of 'poor' into categories of 'deserving' and 'undeserving'. Or the notion that there is a 'middle-class', when even the majority of high-earning workers are under no illusions as to themselves being a few salary cheques away from a food-bank.

Capital does not produce anything. It is only invested when a profit can be realised by the workers in extraction, refining, distributing, researching etc. Who flies the helicopters? Who builds the helicopters, makes the overalls, cooks the meals, educates the workers?  Workers do this. Capital cannot drill holes or build rigs or move ships. It is the worker who conceives, plans, builds the push button, auto machines and relative to the surplus produced is collectively exploited by virtue of not owning the product of their collective labour, as its realisable value torrents upwards to the parasite class, who own the stolen surplus value (capital) which is only required in a production for sale class system. Indeed he may not personally be exploited like a kid in a Welsh mine, but the kid extracting the raw earth materials in a less developed country is a part of the exploited chain in his/her tools for the job.

The rules of engagement are very simple. It matters not if machines can replace human drudgery if production is for sale with a view to realising a profit for the private, corporate or state owner of the means of production. Ownership and control by a minority class is subjugation of the majority. It requires social control over the majority. It matters a great deal, indeed is a revolutionary, post -capitalist solution, if ownership is common, in a production is for the use of all, in a free access, democratic, commonly owned world,

Freedom from waged slavery will also free workers from work in this instance and enable the application of the operating tenet, "From each according to their ability to each according to their needs". It is the ownership and control of robotic resources along with everything else in and on the planet which must be made common, to enable a free access post-capitalist society. Costs, as expressed in economic monetary calculation will be irrelevant in a commonly owned society. We will have calculation-in-kind and production-for-use with free-access.

It is workers presently who run capitalism from top to bottom. They will be more than capable of running the new society without any parasitical economic elites or governments 'over' them.

The Socialist Party is against a mythical past. We are for the future, opposing capitalism in all of its incarnations. We say a plague on all attempts to reform it, as impossible delusions and include state capitalism as per post-feudal Russia and state-capitalist nationalisation variants, as per successive Labour and Conservative governments. All doomed to failure, as too, the Thatcherite neo-conservative and Blairite governments 'over' us.

"The workers must organise for their emancipation. They can do this, and only they can do it. I cannot do this for you and I want to be frank enough to say I would not, if I could. For, if I could do it for you somebody else could undo it for you. But, when you do it yourselves, it will be done for ever -and until you do it, you have got to pay the penalty of your ignorance, indifference and neglect." (Eugene Debs)

Wee Matt

Who owns the North Pole (Part 90)

The United Nations is currently assessing Russian, Danish and Canadian claims to own sizeable chunks of the Arctic seabed. One thing is clear. The Arctic is heating up in meteorological, political and environmental terms as nations fall over themselves to exploit the region.

“The Arctic is opening up, and all sorts of flashpoints lie ahead,” said Klaus Dodds, professor of geopolitics at Royal Holloway, University of London. “If the central Arctic Ocean is freed of ice for several months a year, who will control the fishing and the dumping of waste there? The Russians have also made it clear they want to drill for oil and gas.”

This point was also stressed by Professor Chris Rapley, of University College London. “An increasingly ice-free Arctic is a geopolitical game changer,” he said. “…The Arctic nations are jostling for advantage, and the economic and ecological consequences of new trade routes opening up have yet to unfold. The changes that have occurred have been greater and faster than predicted….”

There are moves by China to invest in mines in Greenland, where declining ice cover is exposing vast outcrops of ores, including minerals crucial to mobile phone manufacture. It views the opening Arctic seas as an opportunity to maintain its access to the world’s most important resources. Some of the Earth’s major stocks of fish are migrating north as the planet heats up while the Arctic’s mineral resources are being exposed by retreating ice. “The Chinese have made no secret that they have their eyes on the Arctic’s fish and minerals,” said Dodds.

Similarly, drilling companies are eyeing seabed reserves of natural gas and oil while travel companies are preparing to send huge cruise liners into the region. The first of these trips, by the Crystal Serenity, has just been completed.

Enormous forces, political and commercial, are bearing down on the region although all have a common root – as was also highlighted last week. Summer sea ice, which once covered 7.5 million sq km around the North Pole, this year dropped to 4.13m sq km, its second lowest figure on record, it was announced. The rate of annual change – brought about by soaring fossil fuel emissions and rises in global temperatures – is now equivalent to a loss greater than the size of Scotland.

“Loss of sea ice has local to global effects, from animals and ecosystems to encouraging further warming by exposing ocean water,” said Twila Moon, at Bristol University. “We should all be shocked by the dramatic changes happening in the Arctic.”

Most scientists now expect that, at current emission rates, the Arctic will be reliably free of sea ice in the summer by the middle of the century. By “free” they mean there will be less than 1m sq km of sea ice left in the Arctic, most of it packed into remote bays and channels while the central Arctic Ocean over the North Pole will be completely open. And by “reliably”, scientists mean there will have been five consecutive years with less than 1m sq km of ice by the year 2050. The first single ice-free year will come much earlier than this, however.

Of all the Arctic nations, Russia has been the most determined to exploit the region as it warms, however. “You can see that determination in the way it responded to the Arctic 30 incident,” said Duncan Depledge, Director, All-Party Parliamentary Group for Polar Regions Secretariat. In 2013, Greenpeace activists attempted to scale the Prirazlomnaya drilling platform as part of a protest against Arctic oil production. Russians arrested them at gunpoint and charged the activists initially with piracy and later with hooliganism and only released them after two months of detention. “That is an indication of how seriously they take the Arctic,” added Depledge. This point was backed by Dodds: “The Russians are hell bent on showing the world they mean business here.”

Could that determination lead to an outbreak of hostilities? Byers suggests not. “The Arctic is a very expensive region in which to operate and Russia is not a wealthy country. The cost of militarising the Arctic would be prohibitive. They might want to police it so that they can control outfits like Greenpeace but I don’t see them having a war with another Arctic nation.”

The Antarctic Treaty bans all mining, oil drilling or the presence of the military and strictly monitors all environmental hazards around the South Pole. By contrast, although no nation owns the North Pole, the Arctic nations – Russia, Canada, the United States, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland and Denmark – have very different ideas about how to run the world’s most northerly regions.

“Arctic environmental protection is currently determined by individual nations, by politicians who often meet far from its borders: in Moscow, Copenhagen and Washington,” said Professor Michael Byers of the University of British Columbia. “They have very different levels of commitment to protecting the environment – with Russia at the bottom and the Nordic nations at the top.” Relations with indigenous people are one of the flashpoints that may trigger serious disputes in the region. Byers said. “I have enormous sympathy for the local peoples in the Arctic but they are few in number and have limited resources. They are trying to insert themselves into the decision-making of some of the most powerful companies and countries in the world.” 

The Revolutionary Vote

"You do not need the capitalist. He could not exist one second without you. You would begin to live without him. You DO everything. Some of you imagine that if it was not for the capitalist you would have no work. Really he does not employ you at all. You employ him to take from you what you produce, and he sticks faithfully to his job. If you can stand it – he can – and if you don’t change it – he won’t." (Eugene Debs)

Specifically, capturing the state apparatus has to be, in a bourgeois democracy, by the ballot box -"capitalism's Achilles heel". Certainly, it is essential for to win the battle of ideas outside of parliament but this won’t be done by selling them a lie that capitalism can be reformed, by well-meaning or careerist, Left, Centre Left or 'riding two pro-capitalist horses' with one-arse politicians. You are the dreamer, along with the Corbynites, if you think a Labour government which from its earliest incarnations bent to the will of the dominant economic class in society while making worker-friendly noises.  To continue repeating the same historical folly of trying to reform capitalism is by definition an insane reaction to capitalism's madness. The Labour Party is very much a party of capitalism, albeit a reformist one which  has the delusion that capitalism can be reformed and made more equitable. No matter how the Labour reconstitutes itself, it can only run capitalism in the interests of the capitalist system, which means waged slavery for the vast majority and wealth, ease and luxury for an economic parasitic, capitalist class, living off the wealth created by the immense majority.

Anything else, which occurred during the 20th century has little to do with socialism and more to do with minority-led revolutions to overthrow feudalism.

Socialism is the work of and has to win the support of the immense majority. It is not something which will come, "Like a thief in the night", (Keir Hardie) by gradualist 'baby steps' of reforming capitalism, or by nationalising the commanding heights of the economy, state capitalism.

But misrepresenting a capitalism reformed as socialism as the Corbynites seem to be doing won't get socialism either. The task of creating the socialist post-capitalist, production for use, free access, commonly owned, a world is that of the working class itself. The people need to sack the parties of capitalism and elect themselves into running a production-for-use world. There is no short cut to this.

In the real world, of course, capitalism cannot be reformed in any meaningful way, despite the pious sounding hopes of either well meaning, or opportunist politicians of whichever political persuasion

For example:

"Statisticians rate almost 7,000 areas in Scotland by standards including income, employability and health. The statisticians say "deprived" does not just mean "poor" or "low-income". It can also mean people have fewer resources and opportunities, for example in health and education. Glasgow has 56 of the 100 most deprived areas. Edinburgh has six."

...and the problem in capitalism is that some of those deprived  areas, Easterhouse, Barlanark, Carntyne were part of the solution offered by successive Labour and Tory governments in the post-war house  building boom.  Yes, we well remember the hopes of the people who moved from the slums of the east-end into Easterhouse and Drumchapel. The solution of council housing, was welcome enough at the time, inside bathrooms, hot water and so on, a luxury initially, to build new flats  and some houses in the peripheries of the city, in places like  Easterhouse, Drumchapel, Castlemilk, but these we came with fewer social amenities, the building of them provided employment for many, but when  the council housing boom ended, the dole queue beckoned for those  unfortunate enough to have not secured a place in the light engineering  factories sprung up, but soon to vanish, with the Thatcherite wind of  change, itself a product of capitals inevitable crisis-ridden system. They began to deteriorate quite early in the 70's. There really was not much to do, in a social sense, for youths.

We remember Frankie Vaughan coming up to help launch the Easterhouse Project, a youth facility. As the song went, "I'm Frankie Vaughan, jist come up tae gie yese a' a haun". Billy Connolly's characterisation of them as, "deserts wi' windaes" struck a chord. One socialist recalls moving to London to find work, (after being stabbed), which paid a bit better, but after being made redundant was quite happy to get a flat in Easterhouse again, where he was surrounded by really nice people doing their best but the closure of factories set him off wandering again in search of wage slavery, 'twas ever thus.

 It really is the counsel of despair to imagine that capitalism can be reformed. This is not to play politics but to end the pretence to yourself that government over you is in anything but the interests of the capitalist class. To lie to yourself that a different government will have different outcomes. No change at all. Workers still produced all of the wealth in return for a waged ration. Thatcher's government was just doing its capitalist masters new bidding in dismantling the 'homes for heroes', 'cradle to the grave', capitalist caring ideology which won the post-war consensus. Kinnock’s Labour would have done the same as Smiths Labour would have. Hence Blair.

Surplus wealth is not produced by the parasite capitalist class, but by workers. All wealth comes from labour. Capital is stolen surplus value.

Capitalism is not amenable to reform. The free market system requires a majority to be exploited of their surplus value. It is but one of the many paradoxes of capitalism that it has shrunk the world only to divide society into smaller and smaller fragments. That it has progressed at breakneck speed in the fields of travel and communication yet it has divided and alienated us from our true humanity. Anti-social behaviour is a result of the despair engendered by the hopelessness of capitalism a consequence of the system and not a fixable problem.

“The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor.” Voltaire

Capitalism's profit requirements will place severe constraints on what any government can achieve and that, like their predecessors, they will have to compromise and run the economic system in favour of the  capitalist elites which they currently rail against.

"If money, according to Augier, ‘comes into the world with a  congenital blood-stain on one cheek,’ capital comes dripping from head  to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt." Marx

Wee Matt

Leaders Need Followers

“But somebody has to lead," is the astonished declaration members of the Socialist Party invariably hear from those when we tell them there will be no leaders in socialism. The attitude of the Socialist Party toward leaders and the following of leaders seems to create a great deal of mental anguish for many of our fellow-workers. The leadership idea has cursed the working class movement from the beginning. At an earlier period those supporting the ideas had motives of benevolence, its later supporters have also benevolent motives—but the benevolence is directed towards themselves. They make stepping stones of their followers so to reach their own comfort and security.

What distinguishes the Socialist Party from the Labour Party and the host of leftist parties is our realisation that there are no short and easy cuts to socialism. No politician can help us: if we are going to improve things we will not do so by following professional politicians or leaders of any kind. We are going to have to act for ourselves to organise ourselves democratically to bring about a society geared to serving human needs, not profits. Only a party whose members understand and want socialism can work to that end and the growth of such a party cannot proceed faster than the work of spreading socialist knowledge. It is not new leaders that are needed, but a new system.

The media invariably preach the slogan of “Follow your leader" When these “leaders” sell out their followers the excuse is made that they were "bad” leaders. The simple fact is that wherever people accept “leaders” such acceptance always provides the conditions for selling out. Encouraging the following of leaders it is helping to sell out the workers, no matter who those leaders may be. Such is the lesson. "Trust and ye shall be betrayed.” The workers have still a fair road to travel before they will get rid of the superstition of "Leadership" or the dope of "good" and "bad" leaders. Workers haven't yet seen the possibility of a world without masters. The successful shepherd thinks like his sheep. So it happens that the "leader" can only lead where he is likely to be followed. Hence, so far is the leader from being in advance of the crowd, which he is only the reflection of its collective ignorance.

The Socialist Party objects to leadership because we see it as one of the biggest obstacles to the spread of socialist ideas. A leader can only offer to lead where he is likely to be followed. He is not really in advance of his followers because if he stops leading them in the direction they think is the best open to them they will soon desert him for another who will. People who are easily persuaded to think one way by a powerful personality can usually be persuaded by a more powerful one to change their minds.

Rosa Luxemburg explains, “the understanding by the mass of its tasks and instruments is an indispensable condition for Socialist revolutionary action—just as formerly the ignorance of the mass was an indispensable condition for the revolutionary action of the ruling classes. As a result, the difference between “leaders” and the "majority trotting along behind” is abolished (in the Socialist movement). The relation between the mass and the leaders is destroyed. ”

It is often asserted by the geniuses of the Left and other misleaders of the working class, that the worker to-day, and in the future, require the assistance and guidance of educated, intellectuals, both to direct their agitation and energies now, and to manipulate affairs. The workers, therefore, should not endeavour to obtain control of the political machinery themselves, but should place the professional politicians in that position of command and control and obey orders

According to your typical Trotskyist every political upheaval, every wave of strikes, would have resulted in the revolution but for the fact that workers lacked “revolutionary leadership.” The revolution is always round the corner. It is obvious that there is something lacking in a working class that is continually side-tracked. It is precisely because the workers lack socialist knowledge that reformist leaders rise to power. If the workers’ leaders do not represent the interests of workers, they do certainly reflect the outlook of the workers. When they do acquire Socialist understanding, the workers will not require leaders—revolutionary or otherwise. Unsound on basic theory, religious in their approach to historic development and arrogant in their contempt for the workers’ thinking capacity, Trotskyists believe that the intellectual few can lead the great mass of ignorant workers to socialism. But their concept of revolution is based on getting control of the political machinery without a mandate for socialism. They possess little recognition that only by patient discussion and argument can workers be persuaded to get rid of their ideas of dependence on a wages system and the institution of buying and selling and that society is run by a force outside of themselves. Leaders become identified with the ruling class—their interests are identical and in opposition to the working class, which can never be free, even in thought, while it submits to leaders.

Trotskyism simply reproduces and institutionalises existing capitalist power relations inside a supposedly 'revolutionary' organisation: between leaders and led, order givers and order takers; between specialists and acquiescent and largely powerless party workers. Even if such leaders on the Left wanted to introduce a socialist system they couldn't; they haven't the mandate and never seek it.

Despite the frustrated cravings of those wanting the "quick way" to socialism by the "right leaders", there is still no safeguard except the working class knowledge and understanding which makes them superfluous. They pray for "good" leaders, but there is no such animal. The leaders we are asked to support, and sometimes choose between, are a myth, created and maintained by--leaders. They are poor examples of honesty, integrity, even of humanity. They are not interested in truth, justice, or any of the grand notions they spout about. They exist, have always existed, will always exist, for one purpose only: to line their own pockets and empty yours. They are parasites on the social body, unwanted, unnecessary and destructive. To follow leaders is to hand over your heart on a platter, with knife and fork attached. It is an admission of defeat, acceptance that you are inadequate, in and of yourself. It is an act of submission and indeed an act of cowardice unworthy of the human animal.

To refuse to follow leaders is a liberating step, one which the working class has yet to take. When we realise that the post-scarcity world can be run very efficiently and healthily by democratic co-operation, that our own lives would be vastly better without states, governments, police, and all the trappings of leadership, we will collectively be in a position to make that step. And then we will see a revolution unprecedented in history.

One thing dreaded by the ruling class is an informed organised working class without leaders. The Socialist Party’s task is to make socialism clear to the workers, and we shall persevere with that task until the game is up for leaders—until there is no one to lead, until the “rank and file” are ready to go forward of themselves. The need for knowledge, lest we are duped, is constantly forced upon us.

You will find no “Great Men” in the S.P.G.B. The parts that its members play are varied, but no attempt is made to measure one against the other—the keynote is a co-operative effort, as it will be in socialist society. One of our objections to the existence of “Very Important Persons” is that it presupposes that some persons are accounted of little importance. We are a band of ordinary folk, but each is as unimportant (and therefore each is as important) as the other, whether chosen for speaker, secretary, organiser or election candidate. In working out his or her emancipation, the worker must study the conditions that surround and oppress them. He or she must look to "great principles." and not to "Great Men" in their struggles.

 Leaders come and go, but capitalism will go on until the very people who support and admire the leaders come to understand the social system they live under. The leaders always say that they stand for a world of peace and human dignity. But only when the system which needs the leaders is gone will their empty and cynical words become reality. Socialist ideas are not acquired merely by the experience of hardships and tragedy under capitalism. They must be propagated and learned. So long as the workers do not comprehend the necessity and meaning of a revolutionary social change they will have no choice but to leave their fate in the hands of "leaders." With the development of class-conciousness will come the realisation that they, the workers themselves, must take control of society. The Socialist Party has no leaders and argues that the only possible basis for a truly democratic society in which things are produced for need rather than profit, is the voluntary cooperation of free and independent individuals. Each of us can be our own leader. The greatest command is that over oneself.

The Socialist Party is the only political party in this country which insists that its membership understands and supports the principles of socialism. The Socialist Party is without leaders; it is a democratic party whose members cooperate and participate in the work of socialist propaganda in equal standing. Workers who despair of the apparently endless procession of cynical, futile leaders and candidates for leadership should consider the proposition that the alternative is not to switch their support from one leader to another but to join the socialist movement.

Robotic Conversations.

An article in the Toronto Metro News of July 27 focused on Ludwig the Robot, a creation by researchers at the University of Toronto and the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, headed by Frank Rudzicz, assistant professor of computer science.

Ludwig's function will be to converse with patients at a Toronto care centre who are suffering with Alzheimer's. As Rudzicz explained, "Ludwig assesses cognitive function continuously as he engages elderly residents in conversations and games. Each time he interacts with a patient, he learns how to do it better, by learning to recognize voices and ask follow up questions. Ludwig can converse about nearly anything, from news to sports, or a person's childhood. If the conversation gets derailed the robot is a of recovering or starting anew."

Since Ludwig is just off the assembly line it's too soon to know to what extent he will be effective. This may seem like a wonderful invention, but since we live under capitalism, monetary considerations cannot be overlooked.

It would seem like a new way to slow down Alzheimer's, but wouldn't it be better to find out if can be cured or, better still, prevented? One can be sure of one thing – that won't happen under capitalism. 

John Ayers.

The Newcomers

Around the world, millions of people are moving between countries. Most move to find jobs and seek a better life. Many flee repression. The ruling class want fellow-workers to believe that all their problems are caused by the immigrants – people who face exactly the same problems as the local working class, like unemployment, exploitation, domination and crime. In short, the ruling classes everywhere tries to teach hate and blame people, to scapegoat people who are exactly the same as them.  They are their brothers and sisters, people with whom they should unite to fight the ruling classes, the ruling classes of every country. The rich are left alone. Their money brings them passports and visas. The ruling class of one country recognises their fellows from other countries. They have things in common: privilege, property, profits and power. They share the same interest - keeping the working class in their “place”, doing what they are instructed...working for the bosses for low wages.

Migrant workers become the scapegoat for every problem the capitalist class has created. The conditions of the immigrants make them into cheap labour, which benefits the local employers and the immigrants get the blame for the local people’s unemployment, stealing jobs and low pay, undercutting wage rates.  The working class are divided between native and foreign worker, and lacking unity are unable to fight back against the bosses who have orchestrated the whole situation by using nationalism and patriotism as their weapons. These hide the class divisions in society and presents the local capitalists as friends and allies of their “fellow-citizens”.  Their exploitation and repression against the working class is camouflaged by the nation’s flag and national anthem. The employing class and its government appear to be defenders of the local population when the opposite is true. The owning class promotes nationalism to divide and rule.

Our fellow-workers must learn that we live in a class system and know what side they are on. Either it is to support the owners of wealth or defend the working class by which we mean those who work for wages and lack control of their lives, including the unemployed. Between the capitalist class and the working class, there is nothing in common. We, the majority, are ruled by the few for enrichment. We are told where to live, what to do, even how to think, who to hate and persecute. Everything the ruling class possesses has come from the toiling class and our higher wages and better conditions mean less profit in their pockets.

Only a socialist mass movement can change things. Only world socialist movement can make the fundamental changes in society: not by improving bits of our lives here and now, but challenging the whole class system, itself.  Only through a mass socialist movement can we create a new society, based on equality and freedom, a society based on production for use and distribution by need, democratic control of the communities and workplaces. It would be a global community, not a world divided into different nations, with endless recurring wars and oppression. The socialist movement does not mean in one country only, or of one nationality, or of one race, or of one gender. We mean a socialist movement that refuses to recognise the divisions imposed from above by the ruling class, a socialist movement that opposes all governments, a socialist movement that really stands for “Workers of the World – Unite!”

The Socialist Party is for class struggle. We oppose the capitalist class because it is a ruling class because it exploits and oppresses. We stand in solidarity with our fellow-workers in all countries and against the ruling elites of all countries. Instead of an endless parade of tyrants we seek a better world. We must wage a common fight against the ruling class. We must engage in a struggle for a new world - a world freed of capitalism.

Repudiating Religion

No socialist can be religious, for the former’s ideas are based on material knowledge and the latter upon idealist belief. The rational ideas which materialists have about the world can be verified by philosophical methods which can themselves be verified. That is not to suggest that materialists can establish scientific, unchanged and absolute truths but that we can make statements capable of scientific testing which can lead us to believe that a statement is probably factual. Thus, materialists argue that ideas are responses to matter and we can demonstrate our claim by analysing history. Religious faith cannot be disproved because its criterion of truth is not material, but supernatural. Belief in the supernatural force can only itself be verified by accepting the supernatural force as the means of verification. Faith is the central feature of Christian thought. A is true because A says it is true and we must not doubt the word of A because A informs us that it is sinful to do so.

Religion is an institution. It is organised. The blood of martyrs may have been the seed of churches, but the seed sprouted from the riches garnered by churches. As the Catholic Church was the bulwark of feudalism and the aristocrats, so today the evangelical churches of America justifies capitalism and shares in its fortunes. In the class struggle the dominant institutions, including the churches, support the ruling classes. Religion sanctifies capital and makes divine profit. Business and godliness go together. The capitalist does the Lord’s work.

Many churches are fully alive to the urgency of social questions, and even to the possibility of social revolution. They possess 2000 years of historical experience to know how to sway with public opinion. They have learned how to survive and even prosper. If you can’t beat them – join them as the current pope demonstrates. A world free from wars and poverty? The dignitaries of religion can no more provide the solution than could the politicians of capitalism with whom they are allied.

 To seek to abolish religion in a society founded on exploitation is futile. However, once a socialist society has been established the twin foundations of religion, ignorance and fear, will fade away. Socialism, by doing away with class exploitation and by developing to the fullest possible extent the unfathomed productive potentialities of new technology and robotics, hitherto hardly touched under capitalism, would make poverty and insecurity absolutely meaningless terms in an age of universal plenty. Whilst along with the competitive capitalism, war, the third partner in the unholy capitalist trinity, would necessarily pass into oblivion. The root causes of religion would thus disappear. The arrival of socialism means inevitably the definitive end of religion; which, deprived of all reason for existence, would become a mere anachronism in such a society. Religion is a social phenomenon in present-day society. Hence no amount of merely negative and critical propaganda can destroy it. Only the positive achievement of a classless society can do that by abolishing its causes. The war against the gods in the sky is equivalent to the class war against capitalists on the Earth.

Socialists are not atheists, insofar as we are not concerned to deny the existence of a phenomenon of which there is no proof, but materialists; our purpose is to explain the nature of the world and the position of human beings in it by means of reason and not faith. Socialists are not in favour of the banning of religions simply because they conflict with our ideas.

Radical Christianity

Whether a man called Jesus Christ lived or not is interesting, but not so vital as to destroy, or even damage the socialist case against religion and for the materialist conception of history. Workers who are suppressed and exploited under capitalism should keep their attention upon the real, material world in which they live; this is the only life we know we have and we must struggle to make it the best of all possible experiences. All religion is a diversion from the workers’ urgent task of abolishing capitalism and establishing socialism. Apart from this, there is no evidence which can stand up to a scientific assessment to indicate that there is a supernatural life or any of the other mumbo jumbo associated with religious beliefs.

History doesn’t move in smooth straight lines but by fits and starts, sudden breakthroughs and new pathways. 

The preacher from the 13thC Peasant’s Revolt, John Ball declared: “When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty”

While widely associated with Thomas Müntzer, who was a radical theologian and rebel leader during the German Peasants’ War of 1524–1525, expressed the idea that the world belongs to everyone. It was their religious belief and they wanted to establish this principle. “Omnia sunt communia, ‘All property should be held in common’ and should be distributed to each according to his needs, as the occasion required. Any prince, count, or lord who did not want to do this, after first being warned about it, should be beheaded or hanged.”

Other quotes from early proponents of Christian “communism”

“The use of all things that are found in this world ought to be common to all men. Only the most manifest iniquity makes one say to the other, ‘This belongs to me, that to you’. Hence the origin of contention among men.” – St. Clement.

“What thing do you call ‘yours’? What thing are you able to say is yours? From whom have you received it? You speak and act like one who upon an occasion going early to the theatre, and possessing himself without obstacle of the seats destined for the remainder of the public, pretends to oppose their entrance in due time, and to prohibit them seating themselves, arrogating to his own sole use property that is really destined to common use. And it is precisely in this manner act the rich”. – St. Basil the Great.

“Therefore if one wishes to make himself the master of every wealth, to possess it and to exclude his brothers even to the third or fourth part (generation), such a wretch is no more a brother but an inhuman tyrant, a cruel barbarian, or rather a ferocious beast of which the mouth is always open to devour for his personal use the food of the other companions.” – St. Gregory. Nic.

“Nature furnishes its wealth to all men in common. God beneficently has created all things that their enjoyment be common to all living beings, and that the earth become the common possession of all. It is Nature itself that has given birth to the right of the community, whilst it is only unjust usurpation that has created the right of private poverty.” – St. Ambrose. (340-397 AD)

“The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich.”  were also the words of St. Ambrose

“The earth of which they are born is common to all, and therefore the fruit that the earth brings forth belongs without distinction to all”. – St. Gregory the Great.

“The rich man is a thief”. – St. Chrysostom.

They Should Be Cheering Us

In late July media coverage was given what was called, quiet seriously, "a royal snub"; the decision made by, or on behalf of, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to avoid Ontario on their tour of Canada this fall.

Some folks were upset they didn't get a chance to cheer for them, but does it really matter where a couple of parasites go? Since they live on the wealth they've extracted from the working class, shouldn't they be cheering for us?

These folk and their tribe exist primarily as public relations ambassadors for the British capitalist class, and also because too many people feel a need to believe in someone "above" themselves. When one does that one gives power over themselves. It's better to work for a world where everyone can believe in themselves, where there will be no need for royalty at all. John Ayers.

The vision of socialism

We, socialists, believe that revolution will come from a politically educated working class, and from them alone. Not by a vanguard revolutionary party nor an enlightened leader. There can be no genuine revolution from above. Only we ourselves can liberate ourselves. We, thus, reject any kind of deformed socialism implying a transitional or “workers’ states. Socialism will only happen with the voluntary cooperation of each and every individual in society, and revolution will only be real if it is the mass of worker who supports it. Revolution can be achieved through an electoral process from within the bourgeois democracy itself, through a spontaneous and massive uprising of the people who overthrow government. Reformism, understood as the appliance of small changes to the capitalist system in order to better it and relieve injustice, does not approach the real solution of the problem (which is the ultimate removal of capitalism) and can even be counter-reactionary (in the classical stance of ’bread and circus' that keeps the masses calm while injustice unfolds).

Many folk have a fundamental misunderstanding of how socialism works. Their idea is that there will be a massive bureaucratic state (a mix between Scandinavian welfare capitalism and a 1984 totalitarian dictatorship) to impose constant wealth redistribution, essentially acting as a liberal philanthropist who will toss larger scraps down to the masses. This just goes to show how difficult it is for the overwhelming majority of us to think outside a capitalist bubble; this economic system has become as natural to us as the air we breathe and the water we drink. People rarely if ever imagine socialism as a system that involves the active democratization of social institutions and resources. Genuine socialism puts the creation of society’s wealth into democratic hands (as opposed to an oligarch’s or plutocrat’s hands), with the working class managing decisions and the capitalist class becoming obsolete. Co-operative production methods necessitate co-operative control. This cuts off inequality at its source and creates a freer population of people with greater power over their own destinies. It isn’t just some kind of idealistic pipe-dream. Capitalists are demonstrably obsolete already, and this fact is crystal clear even today within a wider capitalist economy. The Big Brother bureaucracy is actually a product of capitalism – more specifically, a result of its attempts to curb the contradictions and tensions innate to the system as a whole. Welfare reforms and “forced” safety standards in the workplace, for example, are attempts by the state to keep the wheels of capital ever-turning (though this doesn’t mean we should oppose them, as they usually help make life more bearable within the system). A more “human-faced” capitalism, dubbed “socialism” by conservatives and liberals alike, helps to dissolve revolutionary zeal and reposition focus towards reforms and contented feelings – “this is what they/we were fighting for all along!”

It’s also especially damning to capitalism-apologists who claim to be “anti-authoritarian” or “anti-state” – both because economic decisions are imposed on the majority in an authoritarian manner by capitalists and because the entire system requires a state to keep the gears turning, respectively. The “freedom” from government is found in capitalism narrative runs deep, and it’s one of the largest hurdles we socialists will need to traverse to get people on our side. Reforms granted from above work well within a system that already functions from above. But socialism is fundamentally a system that roots itself “from below”, all so that “above” and “below” can cease to exist. Democracy is the surest road to classlessness; we seem to understand this to a degree in the political realm, and it keeps us convinced of our supposed freedoms.

Anarchists/Socialists/Communists all seek the same goal: a class-free, state-free society, with an economy based in the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", where the workers organise themselves and run their workplaces, where property and wages are abolished, armies and repressive forces are dissolved, and representative democracies give way to direct, participative, democracies where the words "ègalite, libertè, fraternitè" and “government of the people by the people and for the people” fulfill their meaning. This goal is called socialism and communism and 'anarchy', all terms refer to the same. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well.

We don't agree with the capitalist assumption that deprivation or greed are the only reasons people work. People enjoy their work if it is meaningful and enhances their lives. They work out of a sense of responsibility to their community and society. Although a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labour, we recognize that unappealing jobs will long remain. These tasks would be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender, as they are under capitalism. And this undesirable work should be among the best, not the least, rewarded work within the economy. For now, the burden should be placed on the employer to make work desirable by raising wages, offering benefits and improving the work environment. In short, we believe that a combination of social, economic, and moral incentives will motivate people to work. As long as workplace organisation is understood to be one where workers report to bosses, bosses who appropriate surplus value generated by those workers, then the state will always be necessary to curb inequality. Inequality is made by a system that puts management into autocratic hands, all held in place by a state that imposes private property law that turns us into lords and serfs, owners and non-owners, propertarians and the propertyess.

Shouldn’t our society be responsive to the needs of the people? Shouldn’t we settle for nothing less than a system that sets human freedom and equality ahead of destructive greed and hierarchy?

Police Killings Of Various People

With all the uproar going on recently about Black men being shot by police, it's easy to forget it just 'ain't' Blacks alone. 

According to the Washington Post of July 22, 533 people have been shot and killed by police in the U.S. this year. More than half were armed with a gun, and only a quarter killed by police were Black. What makes the police seem so racist is that some of the shootings were videotaped and uploaded to the internet.

Anyone can clearly see that, though capitalism will not collapse economically, the horrendous pressures this misery-inducing system puts on people will inevitably cause tremendous unrest resulting in riots all over the place.

The Blacks who are protesting and the cops they hate have one thing in common: they are both members of the working class, and like other workers are subject to the same pressures of poverty, insecurity, and crime capitalism creates.

It's time to stop rioting and to work harmoniously, Black, White, Red, and Yellow, together to have done with a system that causes such division, pressure, and hate. 

John Ayers.

What is Socialism?

It’s been a long time in coming but socialism is finally back on the political scene. It’s no longer an anachronism. For the first time in decades, socialism is out of the closet. Socialism is no longer a dirty word (the “S-word”). However, it is incumbent upon the Socialist Party that we should put some meat on the bone. We have to have our model post-scarcity society heard above the clamour and confusion of every claim to be socialist. Being green and progressive is not enough.

Who Owns What?

Socialism is the common ownership by all the people of the factories, mills, mines, transportation, land and all other instruments of production.

Who Benefits?

Socialism means production to satisfy human needs, not as under capitalism, for sale and profit.

Who Runs Things?

Socialism means  the control and management of the industries and social services by the workers through a system of delegated and recallable democratic administration processes based on their worldwide economic organisation. In socialism, all authority will originate from society, integrally united in various self-managed associations. In each workplace, the producers will elect whatever committees or representatives are needed to facilitate production. Within each shop or office division of a plant, the workers will participate directly in formulating and implementing all plans necessary for efficient operations. Such a system would make possible the fullest democracy and freedom. It would be a society based on the most primary freedom—economic freedom. For individuals, socialism means an end to economic insecurity and exploitation. It means workers cease to be commodities bought and sold on the labor market and forced to work as appendages to tools owned by someone else. It means a chance to develop all individual capacities and potentials within a free community of free individuals. It means a class-free society that guarantees full democratic rights for all the people.

Socialism will be a society in which the things we need to live, work and control our own lives—the industries, services and natural resources—are owned in common by all the people, and in which the democratic organisation of the people within the industries and services is the government. Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time.

What Socialism is Not…

Socialism does not mean government or state ownership. It does not mean a one party-run system without democratic rights. Those things are the very opposite of socialism. "Socialism," as the American Socialist Daniel De Leon defined it, "is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end. That is socialism, nothing short of that."

Remember: If it does not fit this description, it is not socialism—no matter who says differently. Those who claim that socialism existed and failed in places like Russia and China simply do not know the facts. Socialism has never been tried Socialism has never existed. It did not exist in the old U.S.S.R., and it does not exist in China.

How We Can Get Socialism

To win the struggle for socialist freedom requires enormous efforts in organisational and educational work. It requires building a political party of socialism to contest the power of the capitalist class on the political field, and to educate the majority of workers about the need for socialism. It requires building economic organisations to unite all workers into a class-conscious industrial force, a One Big Union, and to prepare them to operate the tools of production.

Socialists are fighting for a better world—to end poverty, racism, sexism, war and environmental disaster. The Socialist Party’s position, in brief, is that the workers can only advance towards socialism in the light of socialist knowledge. A class-conscious socialist working class presupposes the acceptance and understanding of the essentials of socialist principles by a majority of the exploited class. And if the workers would turn their attention to socialism, the whole form of the class struggle with the employing class would change. So far, despite heroic fights by trade unionists against wage reductions, the employing class have never had reason to fear that the working class was turning away from their belief in the capitalist system. But when a considerable body of workers learn the lesson that no reformist policy or party is of any use and begin to understand and support the demand for socialism, we can confidently anticipate a less aggressive and less cheese-paring attitude on the part of employers. They will, when that time comes, be anxious to surrender part of their wealth in the hope that by so doing they may stave off the day when they must yield it all. We shall then be well on the way to the acquisition by a society of the means of wealth production now privately owned by a privileged class. So who have the workers to turn to in their fight against the class that lives off them? Only themselves. They are in the vast majority and able at any time to vote out the system that plagues us all. It may seem disheartening that they still won’t listen to the small voice of the Socialist Party who urge them to do so. But our voice will continue to be heard because it speaks historic fact and logic. Marx argued the case for a future society without buying and selling, wage-labour or capital. That alone is the object of the Socialist Party. 

The Price of Death

The cost of burying a loved one has risen by 8% in the past year, while the cost of a cremation went up by 11%.

Citizens Advice Scotland said the average cost of a basic burial in Scotland, excluding undertakers fees, was now £1,373.

A local authority cremation costs on average £670, the organisation said. The cost of cremations rose significantly, with Highland Council increasing its fees by 59% in just 12 months, becoming the most expensive in Scotland at £849.

The most expensive council area for a basic burial was Edinburgh at £2,253, while the least expensive was the Western Isles at £701. East Dunbartonshire had the second highest burial fees at £2,088, while in neighbouring West Dunbartonshire it was £1,364.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-37360681

Socialism - a movement for abundance

Capitalism has now outrun its usefulness to human development. Having fulfilled its purpose, it now hampers the power of the productive forces which could be at our command. Humanity can have the  world in which wealth is turned out in a cornucopia of abundance, freely available to everyone the world in which human interests come first in everything. What prevents this is the continuation of the social relationships of capitalism. To change them needs a social revolution. This revolution will be the first conscious one, by and in the interests of the majority, in human history. To bring about the change to socialism by a democratic political act needs a working class who are informed and aware about capitalism and about how socialism will abolish the problems we suffer under today.

Capitalism rests on exchange, the means of production are private property and the owning class draw a profit from them by selling what is produced at the highest price competition permits. People who possess nothing sell their labour as dear as competition permits and get wages which allow them to buy what they need to live. It is clear that such a system cannot exist with abundance since this suppresses profit. In fact, only products and services which have some value can be sold. But only scarce products keep their value and sell at a profit. Abundant products have no value: they are given and taken; they are not sold.

It is thus a truism to say that abundance does not exist: it will never exist in a capitalist society since production is not motivated by the desire to satisfy consumption but by that of realising a profit. When this profit becomes impossible, production stops. It is then said that there is a crisis, even if many consumers lack the bare necessities. The magnificent scientific achievements of new technology and automation have made abundance appear in all the industrialised countries, upsetting their economies from top to bottom since these can only function with a “scarcity" of products and services. This obviously requires explanation: At the present time, money is almost as indispensable to existence as air to the lungs. But money doesn’t fall from heaven; it is production as a whole which distributes it in the form of wages and profits. The pursuit of money being thus at the centre of our concerns, we do not grow corn to have corn, but to have money; for if we don’t gain any money then we don’t sow any more corn. Similarly, all other agricultural, commercial and industrial enterprises are only viable to the extent that they succeed in bringing into their tills more money than they pay out. When abundance appears, workers are sacked since there is no more work to give them. But they then don’t buy the products and these, remaining at the charge of the producers, make their profits disappear: he who can't buy ruins him who wants to sell! People then complain about “overproduction", for this is what everything that cannot be sold is called. But chronic overproduction, is that not abundance? So goods are not produced in abundance quite simply because they would not be able to be sold. The exchange economy must be replaced by an economy in which wealth is no longer produced to be exchanged but is produced instead simply in order to be distributed to human beings to satisfy their needs. This new economic system can be called the distribution economy. Under this system the means for producing wealth are to cease to be the private property of individuals and to become the common heritage of all the members of society; the wages system was to be redundant. From the moment when production has become the property of society as a whole, the economic process can no longer be carried out by a series of exchanges (which imply individual or group property of the products exchanged) but only by allocation (or distribution.)

The Socialist Party favours a system of free access, of goods being freely available for people to take according to need from the abundance which is technologically possible now but which will only become socially possible once capitalism has been replaced by socialism. With common ownership and economic democracy, a socialist society would produce things to satisfy human needs and not to make a profit. Anyone who believes that capitalism can ever be made to work more humanely is being both naive and idealistic. In socialism there will be no waste or want as production will be solely to satisfy human needs and desires. n socialism, the maxim “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” will transform the character and quality of human existence. People will be able to choose the sort of work they most enjoy and be creative to the best of their ability. People will be glad to give their best and take the best of everyone else. in socialism work will become the ultimate form of art. In socialism we will be building houses, for instance, with a mind to safety, comfort and elegance rather than as now when houses are knocked together with maximum scrimping to lower costs and thereby increase profit. Price and profit dictate in capitalism what pleasure and purpose will dictate in socialism. In socialism, there will be an abundance of everything pleasant.  In return for his or her work, everyone in socialism will have free access to all that is produced, to all services and all entertainments. People will take according to their needs, or more accurately their self-determined needs. As socialism will be a propertyless, money-free society people will no longer have cause to be greedy or acquisitive. Greed, like envy and theft, is an axiom of capitalism.

Apart from the unshackled use of industrial technology on the earth’s resources, people in socialism will also be able to benefit from the work of millions of men and women who had previously been employed in socially useless work under capitalism. The multitudes for instance, who were being trained by their governments in the savagery of war, or who were building death-machines, or who were stockbrokers, insurance men or bank employees—the list is extensive. Plus those who, under capitalism, were involved in absolutely no work whatsoever, like the unemployed, tramps and, of course, the aristocracy. For the same reasons that people will be producing such an abundance, production will enjoy paramount efficiency, and, for the greater part of their time, people will be able to do exactly as they please. In socialism, education will be voluntarily undertaken by children and adults because it will be a fascinating and useful pursuit. People will attend schools and colleges to cultivate their interests and refine their thoughts. They will, not, as now, attend to be inculcated from childhood with an orthodox framework of thought, nor will they attend to apprentice themselves as a better caste of wage-slave. Again, on a similar issue, in socialism, science will be used to assist humanity in its pleasure, safety and welfare. It will not be used to invent something like the nuclear bomb.

In socialism, the natural beauty of the earth will be uncontaminated by industrial toxic waste. The earth is polluted in this way now as it is a cheaper and therefore more profitable - means of disposal than others. The interests of the whole community will be catered for under socialism and not the interests of a profit-hungry minority. Socialist society will be void of instability and insecurity. People involved in administration will have the same standing as everyone else, and no reason to try and usurp power. Even if one or two maniacs wanted to, there would be no unemployment or poverty on the back of which anyone could ride to power. People in socialism will have no use for leaders. The terrifying threat of war will be unknown in socialism because there will be no artificial national boundaries, and no governments to squabble over international markets.

Socialism is yet unborn. We will not see the birth of it until workers choose to consummate their experience and knowledge to obtain socialist consciousness and the necessary gestation period of education, agitation and organisation have been gone through.

For a worldwide socialist society

Working people spend a major part of our lives working for the benefit of another class. We sell our abilities to the highest bidder and lose something irreplaceable—our time. We’ve little control in the organisation of our working life, in what we produce, the quality of what we make and so on. We pass hour after hour, every day, engaged in monotonous, repetitive drudgery which mean little to us but which help give our masters, the capitalists, a life of freedom.  And what can we have instead of this wage-slavery? A worldwide socialist society where we won’t be supporting any parasite owning class and we won’t be wasting our time making weapons, working in finance and the like. We'll democratically manage our own work as society requires and we'll only turn out the best available and possible.  We can achieve security, abundance and fulfilment in a socialist society. This is why we say nothing short of socialism will do.

The ownership of immense wealth by a small minority is very often the result of inheritance. So if social privilege is a reward for merit, the only merit which is being referred to is the wisdom of a baby such as Prince George is to be born from the womb of a royal parasite rather than a worker. According to this theory, Prince William’s son, who will never need to go out and sell his royal labour power, is being rewarded for his initiative, enterprise and intelligence. The fact that he is as yet illiterate is quite beside the point. Social parasitism is not confined to the aristocracy. A parasite is an organism which lives by feeding off other live organisms. Such is the position of the entire capitalist class. They can only accumulate capital so long as the majority of people will produce wealth and receive a price for their labour power which is less than the value of their product. The exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class is the social equivalent of biological parasitism. The capitalists get their money and power by hard work -Yes, by our hard work.

Oh, for sure the apologists for the capitalist economic system will bring forth the example of the self-made man. But they also have become wealthy by employing and exploiting the labour of others. Richard Branson did not pilot the jets of Virgin Air. Occasional members of the working class do manage to make their way in to the exploiting class, but they can only ever do so by riding on the backs of their fellow workers. Most people are born and die in a class which subjects them to the dictates of the labour market. Capitalism causes poverty because it limits workers’ access to wealth. Wages and salaries determine how much members of the working class can eat, where we can live, and every other aspect of our social existence. Under the wages system, all workers are impoverished in the sense that we are denied ownership and control of the means of wealth production and distribution. The only way to end poverty is to abolish classes and this can only happen when what is now the property of private capitalists or the state is transferred to the common ownership and democratic control of the whole community. 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.

The Socialist Party repudiates any programme of immediate demands, on the grounds that such programmes do not serve as a means of organising for socialism but thrust the socialist objective into the background, and attract non-socialist elements. While it is true that workers have to struggle over wages and conditions this must be confined to the industrial, trade union field, separate from the political. Some reforms may be of sectional or temporary benefit but this in no way equals the effort required to achieve them. The capitalist class often offer concessions both to improve the productive capacity of workers and to quiet social unrest. But a growing socialist movement will bring more concessions to the working class than any amount of pleading or agitation for reform. We have seen the alleged Labour parties gain mass support and political power and once they are in government we have learned that capitalism cannot be run in the interest of the working class. Outside parliament the working class movement brought forth movements that claimed it was possible to get socialism by industrial action, by-passing Parliament. Bitter reality has shown the fallacy of this views. Whoever controls Parliament controls the armed forces and police, and in prolonged strikes, the suffering of the workers far outweighs any discomfort to the capitalists. But syndicalist ideas still linger on. The Bolsheviks of 1917 saw the birth of the Leninist theory of revolution. In a predominantly capitalist world and lacking both productive capacity and the acceptance of socialist ideas by the population, the only way Russia could develop was along capitalist lines. A repressive state capitalist regime masquerading as socialism developed, adding to the confusion and misunderstanding of workers and thus making the spread of socialist ideas that much harder. The lesson is that the most important part of revolution being the working class it must first be ready. It is impossible to get socialism without first making socialists.