Capitalism - Insanity, Socialism Common-sense

“One man with an idea in his head is in danger of being considered a madman; two men with the same idea in common may be foolish, but can hardly be mad; ten men sharing an idea begin to act; a hundred draw attention as fanatics, a thousand and society begins to tremble, a hundred thousand and there is war abroad, and the cause has victories tangible and real—and why only a hundred thousand? Why not a hundred million and peace upon earth? You and me who agree together, it is we who have to answer that question.” – William Morris

People have endless problems to worry about - problems of wages and prices, rents and mortgages, and how to provide against sickness, unemployment and old age. The usual attitude is to regard these problems as ones that can be dealt with by the political parties who tell the voters about the new laws they will introduce if they become the government which will fix their problems so they have petitioned Parliament and supported candidates for office. Over the years working people throughout the world have employed a variety of other methods in the hope of improving their living conditions. They have marched and demonstrated in the streets, they have in their protests erected barricades and fought against police. But, more importantly, they have also organised in trade unions which have provided them with their most effective weapon, the strike. The unions exist to protect and improve wages and working conditions. The real worth of a trade union must not be overlooked. However, the Socialist Party say that the social system itself needs to be changed fundamentally, that is, the class relationships and the way production and distribution are carried on. This goes much deeper than a mere change of government but it can never be brought about unless there is widespread understanding of what needs to be done. The Socialist Party recognises that even at their best the unions cannot bring permanent security or end poverty.

The establishment of socialism will bring far-reaching changes in production and distribution, arising from the fact that ownership of the means of producing wealth is transferred to the whole of society. The products of labour will no longer be privately owned; incomes from property ownership and from employment will alike disappear, along with buying, selling, and profit-making. In distribution the principle will be “according to need”, and, of course, without the double standards that now exist throughout the capitalist world, of best quality for the rich, and varying degrees of shoddiness for the poor; which, in turn, presupposes that in production every person will give “according to his or her ability” and will see to it that there are no poor quality goods turned out. Unfettered access to educational and training facilities will enable all to acquire knowledge and skill and bring to an end the existing barriers between unskilled and skilled, manual and mental labour. Great demands will be made on the productive capacity of society but there will be ample means of satisfying them. With the ending of capitalism, enormous additional resources of men and materials will become available through stopping the waste of arms and armaments, and the innumerable activities that are necessary only to capitalism, including the governmental and private bureaucracies, banking and insurance, and the monetary operations that accompany every branch of production and distribution. This release of capacity will vastly increase the number of men and women available for the work of useful production and distribution. In addition, we may expect a continuing annual increase of productivity resulting from the accumulation of skill and knowledge and of productive equipment. With these large additional resources at its disposal society will easily be able—if need be with some loss of productivity in particular fields—to end excessive hours of work, harmful speed and intensity, and unnecessary night and shift work, and to use machinery to replace human labour for types of work that cannot be other than unpleasant. The aim of a society of free men and women should be that work is part of life, no more to be neglected than other intelligently conducted human activities. In a free society, functioning on voluntary co-operation, in which “the government of persons will have given way to the administration of things”, people will not wish to spend the working part of their lives as human automatons serving machines, performing monotonous manual operations. The principle must be that people in a socialist society shall be able to bring to all the various aspects of life, including work, all qualities of body and mind, skill, knowledge, thought and imagination. Our future technological developments will accelerate beyond all measure when mankind is freed from the constraints of capitalism. For the expansion of technology is forever intertwined with the expansion of human consciousness and neither can proceed in its correct path until the entrenched social, political, economic and psychological divisions and strive of capitalism is reversed. The more technology is shared, the more our understanding grows of what technology can achieve as a beneficial tool for humanity’s evolution.

The Socialist Party holds a shared vision of socialism as the lasting solution to much of the world’s problems that inflict misery and suffering upon billions of people. When we are genuinely sharing the planet's wealth and resources and when the people themselves are directing where it most belongs—then socialism will blossom beyond our wildest dreams. For then the whole world is involved, including the several billion people whose basic rights to life and liberty are presently unfulfilled and their talents untapped there will be an awakening, as imaginations are released and a metamorphosis takes place in ordinary global citizens, leading to results and transformations that we have never witnessed on this Earth with the disappearance of stress and tension worldwide and instead a newly-found sense of trust and hope. Yet, the socialist movement can go nowhere without the engagement of heart and mind to build it. Let not the aspiration for socialism remain an intellectual abstract ideal when the world needs socialism to be implemented if humanity is to survive. Capitalism contains within it the seeds of our environmental destruction. The longer we fail to pursue our socialist goal, the more likely we will have no future on this planet. 

Only One Loser.

Provincial Health Ministers are imploring Ottawa not to cut back anymore on health funding. When Medicare began, in 1967, Ottawa footed half of the bill, now it's paying 20 per cent and will decrease further if it cuts the yearly increase in health transfer from 6 per cent to 3. Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins said Ontario alone stands to lose $400 million and his Quebec counterpart Gaeten Barrette said Ottawas plans will amount to $60 billion less over the next decade for the provinces and territories. 

If Ottawa has its way there will only be one loser - the working class.

 John Ayers.

The alienation of workers

There exists an anti-working class prejudice peddled with no evidence other than anecdote and encouraged by the capitalist class since Victorian times that divides workers into 'deserving' and 'undeserving' categories. The real scroungers are the parasitic capitalist class.

The capitalist class does not produce any wealth, they steal it from the surplus value, created by wage-enslaved labour. Their capital when they invest is 'dead labour' already plundered. They are collectively economic parasites as a social class, in a system designed for their continued dominance. The working class is collectively the only useful class as they produce all wealth. Many of those workers presently unemployed or in poor health already worked and in many cases, their health is a consequence of their previous occupations. Things cannot be allowed to improve for the poor, how else will they submit into waged slavery and how else will profit be derived for the parasite capitalist class?

Those who are unemployed, they constitute a 'reserve' which will always exist, it keeps wages lower, also as the capitalist class may need them in any economic upturn, although they will not give the Right to Work'. It is a better deal for the capitalist class to pay unemployment benefit and welfare in general than to provide enough wages for the workers to afford insurance or to face a social revolution.

Of interest here is, the output per worker in the advanced economies rose more than three times as fast as the rise in real wages, which were close to stagnation. The workers in the advanced industrialised countries were not being undercut by workers in the 'Third World'. They were being robbed even more by their employers in the advanced countries.

Time for an end to wage slavery. The last great emancipation is that of the working class. Time for a societal upgrade to an elite free, democratic, post-capitalist, production for use, free access society, owned and run by us all as part of truly equal humans.

Government bail-outs are nothing to do with 'socialism'.  Government bail-outs are state-capitalist measures in the interests of the capitalist class as a whole, even especially when they are pitched as and seem to be, helping workers. For workers, there is always a sting, whether to dampen wage demands (family allowances) or fob off social discontent (welfare state). They are ultimately a good deal for the capitalist parasite class and can be clawed back if profit erosion occurs.

Socialism does not exist and has never existed. Any top-down direction in capitalism is state capitalism. Socialism is a post-capitalist society.

The alienation of workers is not caused by what form representative capitalist democracy takes, government over the peoples of the world is not done in the interests of the majority, they just have to agree to be governed over and elect Tweedle Dee or Dum, but in the interests of the capitalist class. In capitalism, political parties represent the sectional interests within the capitalist class with all of them competing for political control of the state and its machinery of government.

The contradictions of life under capitalism have engendered deep-rooted feelings of frustration. The wealth pouring from the factories and the farms has not assured many of prosperity nor offered security about the future prospects. Instead, of an expected welcome release from burdensome toil, the prospects of automation and robots have become a source of anxiety, producing the threat of chronic unemployment and the spectre of a new recession to follow, rather than the promise of peace and plenty. No wonder people feel alienated.

The most pressing need facing humanity is to progress from the anarchy of capitalism to a post-capitalist society. The price to pay for delaying this task will be more poverty, increasing hunger, mounting disease, and continuing wars. To these has now been added the climate change and global warming which could make all the higher forms of life extinct.

Government only exists to run the affairs of the capitalist parasite class, however, they are organised, in state capitalist dictatorships in the absence of a domestic capitalist class, or otherwise. No government can do any more than govern over us in the interest of extracting profit from the exploitation of waged workers, for the benefit of a minority capitalist class.

The working class always vote against their class interest when they support any of the political parties of capitalism, whether allegedly Labour, or unashamedly Tory and misguided Leftist Leninism/ -state Trotskyism. (nationalisation = capitalism). Capitalism cannot be reformed in the interests of the working class. There is no benefit in the working class changing their support from one set of politicians to another. Capitalism is not like some benign country estate and it cannot be organised as if it were. It cannot put human welfare in the forefront of its concerns. It cannot be controlled by any leader or expert. It must produce problems like poverty, sickness, and war. Workers who are seduced into thinking that things would be different under a government of less abrasive personalities are deluding themselves. Western democracy is a choice between the same outcomes, government over you and social control of you for the benefit of the rich.

If you have to work for a wage or a salary in order to live, then you are a member of the working class.

1. The capitalist class owns and controls the means of production and distribution.

2. The working class neither owns nor controls the means of production and distribution.

3. As a result, the working class lives by producing wealth for the capitalist class.

The working class currently and slavishly, accepts the necessity of its dependence upon the capitalist class for permission to work for it, to get wages from it, and to buy means of consumption from it in order to live. The working class rationally resigns itself to continuous exploitation under capitalism as a tamed dog rationally continues serving its master to survive off its master’s scraps.

Tax is a burden upon the capitalist class. Your wage is the bottom line. If the nominal tax figure in your salary or wage check was abolished, your wage would be reduced by the same amount.

Taxation is a way of adjusting the bottom line so workers without dependents do not get the same wage (ration) as those with dependents. The other way is in work so called benefits wage subsidies for employers.

Incoming fellow workers are not stealing jobs. The enemy is the employer class.

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

Wee Matt

Capitalism is a mockery of human values

Socialism can be defined simply to mean that the factories, mines, transport and so on will belong to all the people of the world, who will partake freely of the things and services which they produce. This will bring fundamental changes to many aspects of human life. It will alter our social relationships because it will be a new social system with a basis which is different from that of present-day society. We define society as people who are bound together by certain relationships. Today, for example, people are bound by the relationship of employer and employee, landlord, and tenant, buyer and seller, debtor and creditor, etc. A casual inspection of society reveals millions of people all over the earth constantly entering into such relationships, and into others, in an apparently haphazard manner. A man may work one week for this employer, the next week for another. But, in fact, these relations conform to a definite social pattern or system which, in turn, stems from what we call the basis of society. One man may employ another because he owns the place of employment, a factory, mine, ship, and so forth. Buying and selling involve a change of ownership; lending is a temporary surrender of the use which comes with ownership. In other words, these social, relationships have something in common. None of them can operate unless the social condition of property ownership is in existence. What seemed a confused and formless mass of social, relationships, in fact, falls into a pattern; what it is that forms the basis from which our social relation­ships are born, and the institutions through which they operate. Every social system has its basis through which almost every feature of it can be traced and explained. Today, for example, the basis of the social system is the private/government ownership of the means of producing and distributing the world's wealth. A section of the population, as direct proprietors or company shareholders, own the land, factories, ships, banks, trading concerns, etc., or invest their money in government or municipal securities, this being the method by which capital is provided by the central and local authorities for industries and undertakings in their control. This is the basic social condition which forms social relationships like buying and selling, employing and being employed. It is also responsible for the social institutions, like shops and markets, which are needed for the relationships to operate. This social system is called capitalism.

Because many of the features of capitalism are an accepted part of modern life, many workers think that they have always existed. But capitalism is a comparatively young social system but even so, socialists say that capitalism has outlived its usefulness and that it is destructive and wasteful, and now is the time to abolish it. The capitalist system denies the vast majority of people full access to the wealth which could be produced in abundance. It hedges round its productive efforts with a mass of restrictions — considerations of cost and profit and of military strategy, for example. In other words, capitalism has fulfilled its historic function, has outlived its social usefulness. Now it is a hindrance to mankind's advance and it is to mankind's benefit to abolish it. Capitalism inevitably produces a mass of people who are forced to suffer poverty and to live insecure lives. It means that for the great majority of humanity capitalism is a restrictive and harmful social system. Capitalism must produce profits. When the profit is not available capitalism stops producing. The market has no relation to human needs. Capitalism makes a mockery of human priorities. Capitalism dooms the majority of people to poverty. Its economy is anarchic. It is a destructive system; it produces continual wars. It is an insecure system. That is a massive indictment.

No matter how it may be superficially altered, capitalism cannot operate in the interests of the majority of people and it is in the interests of those people to abolish it. This is the social revolution by abolishing the class ownership of the means of producing and distributing wealth. This means the abolition of private property. It means that society would be based upon the opposite of class ownership - that the land, the factories, mills, mines, transportation and so on, would become the property of the whole of mankind. It would also mean that, because the basis of society had changed, the social superstructure would also be transformed. People's relationships would be different. The cultural and social features of living would be completely different from those of capitalism. This, in brief, is the meaning of the revolution to end capitalism and establish socialism. And in changing the basis of capitalism and its other features the revolution will abolish the problems which are an essential part of private property society.

If we are to abolish capitalism we must aim at political power to neutralise the legal source of the coercion which holds capitalism together. To get this power we must dissuade the popular support upon which the coercion ultimately depend upon. A socialist party must convince the working class of the need for socialism. It must spread knowledge of society widely and deeply so that the workers become knowledgeable socialists. Unless people understand socialism and want it, they will never establish it. History teaches us the validity of this argument. At the beginning of the century, many political parties thought that a small elite of wise intellectuals could on their own set-up socialism and impose it upon an ignorant and indifferent working class who, ran the argument, would like the new system so much that they would soon come to support it. The aspirant leaders were tied down by the ignorant desires of their supporters. By the time they came to power they had forgotten all about socialism and could only administer capitalism. Such was the sorry tale of the Labour Party in this country and of many similar organisations in other parts of the world. The prospect for Socialist knowledge is by no means dark. Ideas change; even ideas which seem stubbornly popular. When they have reached that condition the workers will require general strikes or barricades to establish socialism. Nor will they need leaders. They will know where capitalism's power is controlled. Instead of electing pro-capitalist members to the seats of government they will elect socialist delegates who will be mandated to take the formal, legal steps to abolish private property in the means of wealth production and distribution and to make these things the property of the whole of mankind. When that happens socialism will have been established. The task of the world-wide socialist parties will be finished. It may seem an enormous task but there is no choice in the matter.

How can we be sure that the socialist delegates will take the legal steps to abolish capitalism? How do we know that they will not simply ignore the mandate, keep capitalism going, and decline into the hard-bitten cynicism which is so typical of the politicians we know today? We do not claim that socialist delegates will be more honest, more knowledgeable, or more skillful than capitalist politicians. We make no claims whatsoever for socialists as individuals. We merely state socialists are not, and do not want to be leaders of the working class. Political leaders exist because of the political ignorance of their followers. Within the limits of that ignorance, the leaders can do almost anything. But because they must always act within the limits of ignorance they can do nothing to set up socialism, which depends entirely upon knowledge. Socialist delegates would - indeed they must - be backed by the knowledge of the working class, consciously opting for socialism, knowing what that society will be and how it must be established. Under these conditions, the Socialist delegates would be powerless to stray outside their mandate. That is the guarantee of socialism; the guarantee of knowledge, as gilt-edged as any can be.

Common ownership of the means of wealth production and distribution means that the things which are needed to make and distribute wealth will be owned by the whole human race. At present these things are the land, factories, mines, railways, steamships, etc. But common ownership does not mean that everybody in the world will own an equal share of every factory, mine, railway train and the rest. This sort of ownership might just be possible if the means of production were primitive; if cloth was produced on a hand-loom and goods carried on the backs of pack horses. It is quite out of the question if the means of production are developed enough to give an abundant life to every human being as they will he under socialism. Common ownership does not mean a grand free-for-all in which everybody grabs everything they can. We shall still have some things under our individual control - such as clothes and other articles of personal use and consumption. Socialism does not mean that everybody will be allocated exactly equal amounts of wealth. Human beings are obviously unequal in their capacities and abilities. There is no sensible reason for two such men being forced to consume exactly the same amounts and kinds of food, clothing, etc. What common ownership does mean, is that there is one way in which all human beings will be equal. Everybody will have an equal right to take however much wealth they need and to consume it as they require. Because the means of production will be commonly owned the things which are produced will go into a common pool from which all human beings will be able to satisfy their needs.

Now if there is unrestricted access to wealth for everybody it must follow that nobody, in the sense of an individual or a class, owns wealth. This means that wealth will not be exchanged under socialism; it will not be bartered nor will it be bought and sold. As a rough parallel, we can consider the air we breathe. Everybody has free access to the air and we can all take in as much of it as we need to live. In other words, nobody owns the air; nobody tries to exchange air for anything else, nobody tries to sell or buy it. Similarly, there will be no buying and selling under socialism; no need for money, therefore, nor for the complicated and widespread organisations which deal in commerce and banking in a capitalist society. Socialism will have no merchant houses, no banks, no stock exchanges, no tax inspectors, or any of the paraphernalia of capitalism.

Nobody will be employed by another person - nobody will sell his labour-power or work for wages. Everybody, in fact, will work for themselves, which means for the whole of society. Work will be a co-operative effort, freely given because men will realise that wealth can only be produced by working - unless wealth is produced society will die. Yet it will not only be a reluctance to commit social suicide that will keep us working under Socialism. Men will be free - free from the fetters of wage slavery, free from the fears of unemployment, free from economic servitude and insecurity. Nobody will be found doing a job which he hates but tolerates because its pays him well. Healthy young men will not grow pigeon-chested over fusty bank ledgers. Nobody will waste his time learning how to kill scientifically. We shall be set free to do useful work, making things which will add to society's welfare, things which will make human life a little better, a little happier. This is an enormous incentive to work. It is the greatest incentive to intense, co-operative effort and that is how it will operate.

Nobody will starve in one part of the world whilst food is being stockpiled or destroyed in another. Nobody will go cold whilst coal is being held at the pit heads. These anomalies arise because capitalism produces wealth to sell. Socialism will produce for people's satisfaction - the only barriers to that satisfaction will be physical. Bad weather, a ruined harvest or some other natural calamity may cause a breakdown in supplies. If this happens society will take steps to deal with the situation, unhampered by the commercial and monetary considerations of capitalism. Human interests will be the only consideration. Because we shall be free of the commercial necessities which hamper production under capitalism, we shall be able to turn our whole attention to satisfying human needs, to making our lives happier, fuller, easier. When that happens society will be able to support itself for the first time in the style to which it is entitled.

Pauper Funerals

"Paupers' funerals" or national assistance funerals, as they are known have risen by 24% in the last four years in Scotland.

Across the UK the cost of a basic burial has risen for 12 years in a row and now stands at an average of £3,693 - a 90% increase since 2004.

Report author David Robertson said, “Most families will struggle to meet that kind of cost, particularly if the bereavement is sudden and they have not been planning for it. Low-income families in particular, who are finding it hard just to pay their food and fuel bills, can suddenly face a bill for several thousands of pounds which they simply can't pay."

Researchers found that in the 2004-2006 period the funerals were split 49% to 51% between people with no traceable next of kin and those whose relatives could not afford or were unwilling to pay for a funeral, for the 12 local authorities that provided data. Between 2013-2015 this had increased to 73% where relatives were unable or unwilling to pay and 27% whose next of kin could not be found.

Fact of the Day

Nearly a quarter of children in Dumfries and Galloway are growing up in deprivation, a new report has found.

The UK-wide survey for the End Child Poverty coalition said the region had one of the highest percentages of child poverty at 24.3 per cent, including nearly one in three in North West Dumfries.

John Dickie, director of the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, said: “Whether it’s the nearly one in three children in North West Dumfries, one in five in Annandale or the one in six in Lochar, too many children are growing up in families that just don’t have the incomes they need to give children a decent start in life.”

Class in the class

The life chances of Scots are set early. By the time a pupil starts school, those in the most deprived fifth of communities are well behind those from the 10% of areas with the highest income.

On average, the more deprived pupils are 13 months behind in their vocabulary. They are 10 months behind in problem-solving.

On numeracy in 2013, the proportion of pupils from the least deprived areas who were performing well or very well was at 84%, but for the most deprived, 72%. At second year of secondary, that gap had opened to 90% and 68%.

On reading in 2014, the primary four gap on "performing well or very well" was at 75% in the least deprived areas, and 61% in the most deprived. Five years up the school, and the gap was a wider 52% to only 25% of pupils from deprived areas performing well or very well.

In 2012-13, less than 30% of fourth year students in Clackmannanshire, Dundee and Glasgow achieved five or more awards at the Level 5 national qualification, while more than 60% did so in East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire, both containing Glasgow's more prosperous suburbs.

Sue Ellis, professor of education at Strathclyde University, says: "Some of those who are the most gifted are children in poverty, who are gifted but not getting support. We're not identifying the children who are most gifted. What we may be doing is giving a lot of advantage to quite mediocre children who have the most pushy parents." She continued, "Middle class kids spend a lot of time whingeing and whining about stuff they don't like and don't want to do. What they're learning is that they can ask for help, that parents are there to help them, and that they can organise their world according to their wishes. Kids in poverty don't whinge and whine. They don't ask for stuff. And they don't have that sense of entitlement that adults are there to help them.

Pupils who do well despite a disadvantaged background are described as "resilient". In 2012, a third of Scots children from deprived backgrounds (one in 12 of all pupils) were classified as resilient. Schools with similar catchment areas, in terms of deprivation, can produce widely varying outcomes for their pupils. The same can be said of entire council areas.

Scotland is one of only five countries where immigrant pupils out-performed the national average. Audit Scotland noted that those from the Indian sub-continent out-perform 'white-Scottish' pupils in fourth year of secondary, while Chinese-Scots are clearly tops for attainment.

2017 – The year of revolution?

Just as capitalism is a world system, so must the alternative to it be a world system. In capitalism, the means of living are owned and controlled directly or through the medium of companies, corporations or the state, by a minority class, and function solely for the purpose of enriching that class and protecting its ownership. In socialism, the entire means of producing and distributing wealth will be owned and controlled in common by the whole of society and will function solely for the purpose of satisfying the needs of humanity. Since all will be owners of the productive processes and the resources of the world, and all will freely participate in the production of all the things the human family requires, so all will have free and equal access to their needs. There will be no requirement for a market or the use of money as a measurement of wealth or means of exchange.

The appalling waste and destruction of capitalism will disappear. There will not be a need for armed forces or millions of people to spend their working lives producing the instruments of death and destruction. There will be no need for the vast armies of people who service capitalism's market economy in banks, finance, and insurance palaces, in shops and stores; no need for armies of salesmen chasing one another around the blocks or for ad-men or the mass of people in the 'social' services doling out rations of money and crumbs of comfort. Certainly, there will be no shortage of people to do the work in Socialism, and, unlike now when computer and robot technology threatens the mean security of a worker's wage packet, the application, and development of technology will simply ease the general burden of producing and distributing society's goods.

HUMAN NATURE

The priest and the parson will tell you that such a scheme of things is against what they call 'human nature'. According to this theory, 'God' created us as a weak species without the co-operative instincts of many lower forms of life and, as a result of our weakness, greed and envy - our 'human nature', - we could not have a society based on human co- operation. The theory is not very flattering to 'God', but it has always won the approval of ruling classes and they have not been slow in encouraging the priests and parsons in their work of convincing the great mass of 'have-nots' in society - the people who produce all wealth and own virtually none - that their condition is the result of their greed and weakness, and that these defects put the idea of a sane society based on harmony and co-operation beyond their reach. We do not have to look far to discern the reason for the invention and promotion of this quite untenable theory.

The success of mankind is found in its ability to co-operate in overcoming the obstacles presented by nature, and there is an abundance of evidence to show human beings living co-operatively and harmoniously in a condition of social equality before the advent of a society based on class ownership of its means of wealth production. What we call 'fresh air' is the most essential prerequisite of human existence, but no one complains about another's respiratory consumption of it and no one attempts to hoard it. In most urban communities there is easy access to the second most important requirement of human life, clean water. As long as it flows freely, people avail themselves of it rationally and do not fight over it or hoard it. People who have consciously opted for socialism would not be compelled by their nature to hoard, steal and kill. In a world of socialist co-operation, men and women will give according to their abilities and take according to their needs.

The vision of a world without poverty, without slums and unemployment, without crime, racism, and war, without the starvation, degradation and alienation of most of the people on our planet almost defy the imagination. The insanities of capitalism have become a way of life to us; we can immediately see the absurdity of starvation in a world of potential plenty, the absurdity of collecting charity for research into diseases while devoting multi-billions to research into more sophisticated methods of dispensing death. These and the other myriad contradictions of capitalism make it a system that is incapable of being rationally defended and yet, because we have been conditioned into believing that this is all life has to offer, our initial reaction to the idea of Socialism is incredulity. And, when that incredulity is analysed, it usually boils down to the objection that, while Socialism is a highly desirable condition of life, it is not feasible because others, not ourselves, would be unable to co-operate to bring it about or make it work.

Given the death and destruction that capitalism now causes and the vastly greater destruction that it holds in readiness, can any rational human being argue that socialism, the only alternative to capitalism, is not worthy of examination and effort?

THE MEANS

It is true that there are many groups, organisations and political par1ies that use the word 'socialism' to describe their policies or ultimate aspirations. But only rarely do they define what they mean by socialism and, when they do, they use the term to enlist the support of workers for some scheme which they hope will improve capitalism by removing one or more of its grosser features. We do not need to go into any political or economic theory to demonstrate the fallacy of thinking that the problems caused by capitalism can be eradicated while the system itself is left intact - that an effect can be removed without its cause. The fallacy of such reasoning is amply demonstrated in the number of Labour, Social Democratic and 'Communist' parties that have presided in government, and continue to preside, futilely grappling with the same old problems and legislating for the continuation of those problems and not their abolition. The first thing we should notice when we consider how society will be changed is that capitalism does not exist simply because the capitalist class wishes it to. On the contrary, it is the great mass of capitalism's victims, the working class, who allow it to exist. Not only do they run the system from top to bottom, producing its wealth and policing their own robbery but, because they have no knowledge of any practical alternative to capitalism, they vote for political parties and leaders committed to its continuation. Capitalism simply could not continue to function without the support, active and passive, of the working class.

We cannot over-emphasise this point for it demonstrates not only the path forward to socialism but the lunacy of those who preach violence or opportunism as a means of overthrowing the system. Those advocating political violence or subterfuge are in practice saying that they will force or deceive the workers into socialism. But this is impossible, as socialism is a system of free and voluntary co-operation dependent for its success on the precondition of the majority consciously opting for it in the full knowledge of the implications of such a form of society.

There are two classes under capitalism: a majority non-owning class who produce all the wealth; and a minority capitalist class who monopolise the resources of the earth and have the legal right to appropriate rent, interest, and profit as a result of the exploitation of the wealth-producers. It is worth emphasising the legality of capitalism because it illustrates the point that it is the state machine, with its legislative processes, its judiciary, its police forces and, ultimately, its armed forces, which endows the capitalist class with the right, the authority and, if required, the coercive capacity to carry out its exploitative function. The role of the state as the force behind the private or corporate ownership of wealth production and distribution or, in starker terms, the state's role in excluding the great majority of human beings from ownership and control of their means of living - to the point where they often perish from starvation in the rich, or potentially rich, lands of their birth - is one that has to be concealed, mystified and generally obscured from the working class. The law, with its judges, policemen and soldiers, must be made to appear as the guarantor of the just to sleep peacefully in their beds and enjoy their freedom; in fact the law that enshrines the right of capitalist ownership denies millions a bed to sleep in and keeps the great majority of people in the position of wage slaves.

It is the task of the World Socialist Movement to combat the political ignorance on which the foundations of capitalism rest. It is the task of Socialists to show that capitalism, with its market economy, its wages and money system, its anarchy of production and appalling destruction of the earth's resources, can only hold the promise of poverty, unemployment, war and all the other evils which are an undeniable and permanent result of that system. It is the task of the World Socialist Movement to expose the fallacy spread by Labour and 'Communist' parties, and the myriad disaffected offshoots of such organisations, that they can run capitalism in such a way as will alleviate or eliminate its problems. Those problems originate in capitalism; they are an inevitable consequence of capitalism and the idea of political reformers trying to run a system based on the exploitation of the working class in the interests of the working class is laughable in theory and tragic in fact. And it is the task of the World Socialist Movement to show that a wage-free, class-free, money-free world, in which the resources of the earth are owned and controlled in common by all and used to satisfy the needs of all, is a practical and pressing alternative to the miseries of capitalism.

THE VOTE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SOCIAL REVOLUTION

In many parts of the world, workers are afforded the opportunity from time to time to vote for the type of society they want. Up to the present, they have used that vote to determine the political complexion of the party or personnel they wish to administer capitalism. With socialist understanding and organisation, they can use the vote as an instrument of social revolution - to elect socialist delegates mandated to abolish capitalism: to end government over people and establish the democratic administration of things. It is a monumental task, one that strains the imagination and credulity of many who see the need to replace the poverty and cruelty of capitalism with socialism. It seems an impossibly daunting task for a small Socialist movement to acquire the strength to offer a serious challenge to the mammoth organisations that defend and promote capitalism. But the socialist movement is only part of our strength. The rest of that strength is in capitalism itself; capitalism proving by its own anarchy and caprice that it is a system not fit for human beings. The evidence grows more abundant every day.

When we look at the impotence of all the political parties and reformers today and at the bankruptcy of the slogans we can only be impressed with the urgent necessity of socialism. The working class throughout the world can waste their time supporting parties that openly stand for capitalism; they can delude themselves into believing that there is a half-way house between capitalism and socialism; or they can bury their heads in the sand and say they are not interested in politics, even though 'politics' is interested in them and condones their exploitation and impoverishment. Alternatively, they can study the case for socialism and help to build a strong socialist movement. How that movement will progress and when socialism will be achieved will be important questions which they will then be helping to resolve. More immediately relevant than these questions, however, is the fact that, if they were pursuing any other political course, they are wasting their time.

Accumulation equals destruction and annihilation

Unlike both the Hayekians (who say slumps can be avoided by governments adopting a laissez-faire monetary policy) and the Keynesian (who say that appropriate state intervention can end the boom/slump cycle), Marx held that there was no formula for steady growth without booms and slumps. For him these were endemic to capitalism, being, in fact, its “law of motion”. They will keep on recurring as long as capitalism does and there is nothing governments could do to stop this. All credit to Marx for his intellectual honesty as he did insist we critically evaluate it and doubt everything. Hardly any time has passed in historical or economic terms.

For world socialist revolution to occur two interrelated conditions must mature – the subjective condition i.e. the revolutionary will and organization of the working class on a world scale and the objective condition i.e. a comprehensive material maturity of the productive forces for abundance. Until the end of the 19th century, the revolutionary replacement of capitalism was impossible since these necessary conditions were not yet ripe.

However, by the beginning of the 20th century, the situation reversed. Capitalism entered into its era of decadence. Decadence – because, from then onwards, the revolutionary situation (objective condition) remains ready but the revolution has not happened owing to immaturity of working class consciousness and organization (subjective condition).

Humankind has reached the ‘era of social revolution’ but the revolution is yet to begin. Capitalism has gone into its phase of global crisis cycles and anarchy leading to world wars involving capital against capital, fomenting national prejudices and pitting workers against workers to slaughter one another, destroying productive forces on all contending sides and producing misery, poverty, waste, pollution and environment destruction. This is, however, not to say that capital has come to a dead halt. Capital’s nature of exploitation, appropriation, and accumulation of surplus value continues as long as it exists.

Capital develops unevenly through concentration and centralization. And for that matter capital is still going on accumulating globally whereby one capital kills many giving rise to gigantic conglomerates. Accumulation is going through destruction and annihilation. This is reactionary. This is decadence

Productive forces have developed to the stage of both actual and potential abundance for all. But the working class consciousness and organisation have remained subdued under the domination of capitalist ideas and interests – constantly and crushingly campaigned by all pervading 'right', 'left', 'centre' chronicles and ideologies.

They comprise all various belligerent factions of capital. Although they use different names and slogans on their banners, they don’t have any scientific alternative to capital’s devastatingly continued reproduction. They are mere reformists of all various hues. We have experienced enough of such things. And enough is enough! They have given capitalism a century-long anachronistic existence. Measures which were once very necessary and useful for maturation of the system have already more or less accomplished their tasks and grown old and outdated.

The state, 'necessary and logical product of the [given] social conditions', is always in the last analysis 'the executor of the economic necessities of the national situation'. Thus it is always the organizer of society in the interests of the class (exploitative) structure taken as a whole. (Engels)

This remains so, even when governments take the form of dictatorships. This phenomenon—where the capitalist class has been prepared, sometimes even compelled (sections of it, at least) to surrender political control of the government through representative institutions in exchange for the law and order imposed by a strong dictatorship — has been fairly widespread since, from fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Franco Spain to the dictatorships in Chile and Argentina. The Soviet Union was another example of a post-feudal development of capitalism in the absence of a large enough capitalist class.

Of course, such dictatorships are still governments of capitalism and have to run capitalism in the only way it can be; as a profit-making system and so ultimately in the interests of the capitalist class.

The material productive forces of society have come into conflict with the existing relations of production. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations have turned into their fetters or, in other words, the productive forces have outgrown the production relation. But nothing will stop an idea which time has come. There can be no 'freedom' when the immense majority are 'compelled' to waged slavery upon pain of penury.

Wee Matt

Councils in debt

According to the Scottish Greens Scotland's 32 councils owe £11.5bn between them. The money is owed to banks and a scheme set up by the UK Treasury. In the last financial year, Scottish councils spent almost £1bn on repayments to the Public Works Loan Board of the UK Treasury and still owe the board a total of almost £9bn. 

A typical council spends the equivalent of 42% of its council tax money servicing the debts. Clackmannanshire, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Highland, Inverclyde, South Lanarkshire and West Dunbartonshire councils all spent at least half of their council tax revenue servicing debt.

 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Western Isles Council) spends more servicing its debts than it raises in council tax locally. 

How poor are the Scots?

Of the £714bn of wealth held by Scots at the start of this decade, the wealthiest 1% of people owned 11%. In other words, just over 50,000 people lived in households where wealth amounted to nearly £80bn. Half of households in the least wealthy group were headed by somebody in work.

The wealthiest 10% of households owned 44% - more than £300bn - while the least wealthy 10% owned little or no wealth. The least wealthy 30% owned merely 2% of the total. It is only above that level - households which are above the bottom 30% - that wealth begins to accumulate, a little. Home ownership begins to have an impact, so the least wealthy half of Scots owned 9% of the total. The least wealthy 30% have almost no wealth held in homes, and the share rises from the fourth decile, getting much steeper for the wealthiest 10% of households. You can be wealthy, by owning your own big house, while having a low income (typically, a single retiree who didn't move out after the kids left). Or you can earn a lot while renting your home.

The property market in the south-east of England is the main explanation of the average Scots household having £186,600 average wealth while the average household across the whole of Britain had £225,000. It was south-east England that pulled up the English figure, at £342,400.

Inequality is much greater in financial wealth. The most wealthy 10% of households owned almost three-quarters of financial wealth, while the least wealthy 50% owned less than 1%. Within the least wealthy third of people, less than a quarter had a savings account, and hardly any had shares.

Physical wealth, or belongings, was more fairly spread about, though the wealthiest 10% of households owned 33% of it, and the least wealthy 50% had amassed only 20%.

27% of people have no source of pension other than the state pension.

The wealthiest tenth had amassed 55% of the nation's total pension pot, while the bottom half had less than 3%. (This does not include entitlement to state pension.) At the risk of bamboozling with numbers, the top 10% had 964 times more saved in pensions than the bottom 30% of households.

From the 2010 to 2012 figures, the wealthiest 20% of homes in Scotland owned 87 times more than the least wealthy 20% of Scots. Across Great Britain, the top fifth owned 105 times more than the bottom.

Handicap-italism

You are either a capitalist – an owner of means of producing and distributing wealth (land, factories, offices, transport, media, etc.) – and can live without working by receiving unearned income; or you are dependent on a wage, a salary or state benefit, in which case you are in the working class. Present-day society across the globe is the capitalist system where all goods and services are produced to be sold for a profit. The capitalists monopolise the means of life, whether through private or control of the state, and they are not concerned about satisfying human needs, but about selling commodities on the market at a profit. There would be no profit without the labour of the working class, for if we did not apply our mental and physical energies to nature there would be no wealth produced to sell. The production of all wealth results from workers’ effort, but we are paid a price for our working abilities which is less than the value of what we produce; it is this difference between the value of our labour power and the value of what we create which is surplus value, the source of profit. So, profit derives from the unpaid labour of the workers. The capitalist accumulates profit by a process of legalised robbery. It follows obviously enough that there is an inevitable antagonism of interests between the capitalists and the workers: they need to get as much as possible out of us and we need to minimise the extent to which we are exploited. Capitalism creates an unceasing class struggle between workers and capitalists; strikes are one expression of that struggle. Workers have still to realise this power – to abolish exploitation and not merely to plead for the chance to be less exploited or to have the right to be employed as wage slaves."

It is our job in the Socialist Party is to stand with our fellow-workers in their necessary battles to defend themselves, but to point out at all times that the real victory to be achieved is the abolition of the wages system. We as socialists also need to say plainly that you cannot run the system of exploitation in the interests of the exploited. Suppose you are the employee of a business whose profits are dropping and you are to be made redundant in order that the boss can recover his profit with fewer workers to pay. It might seem unjust, but, unfortunately, it is not a question of what is just or unjust. The hard fact is that your employer is acting in accordance with the perverse, anti-working-class rationality of the capitalist system. And most accept this logic. We see this type of economics and politics of capitalism as ‘common sense’ and not as the inevitable effect of the contradiction between profit and need which is built into the buying and selling system. The mass media play their part of this. They are owned and controlled by the capitalist class and can confuse and mystify workers’ minds by turning them against their fellow workers. The only way to destroy political illusions is to expose them.

Our fellow-workers must see through the illusion that all that is needed in the class war are good generals. Leaders are good at making speeches, but their words are usually empty platitudes. Instead of assuming that great leaders are needed, it must be recognised that only on the basis of class consciousness will workers show their power. Class-conscious workers will no more need leaders than the sighted need guide dogs. Workers who are politically educated will not see themselves as miners or electricians or teachers or nurses or dockers or doctors; nor will they see themselves as British or French or Russian or white or black. Workers learn from history. Learning the lesson requires workers to understand that they can never win decent lives out of capitalism. It is a hard truth to accept but no matter how many times you strike you will always be a wage slave; no matter how radical a government you elect, its job will always be to over-see your exploitation; no matter how many reforms are passed, the same old problems will soon be afflicting you and your fellow workers again and no matter how often you protest and demonstrate , the state will continue to possess the power of coercion on behalf of the privileged minority; no matter whether capital is owned and controlled privately or by the state, it will always rob you; no matter how much ‘better off’ the workers become, we will never be as well off as we could be in a class-free society. In short, as long as we are wage slaves competing in capitalism, trying to make our situation a little more tolerable, our defeats will be many and our victories few and they won’t even really be victories at all.

The Socialist Party aims aim for a society in which the Earth is the common property of all. We call upon our fellow workers to end this insane system. There is nothing to stop us from making revolutionary use of the ballot box to strip the capitalist class of their property titles. Once socialism has been brought about we can set about the exciting and practical work of running society for the benefit of all. Democratic decisions will need to be made, not by leaders or by governments, but by all interested people. In a socialist society there will be no market, no buying and selling, and no money. Exchange can have no function where everything belongs to everyone. All people will have free access to the goods and services available. No human being need ever starve in a world of potential food for all. Production will carry on with all people contributing according to their abilities and taking according to their needs. Wage labour will not exist, as nobody will be selling their mental and physical energies to anyone else, and enforced idleness (unemployment) will be a thing of the past. The sole concern in producing and distributing wealth will be, do people require it? Never again will human needs and communal interests be ignored for the sake of profit. Production for use will mean the liberation of humanity from the social problems which dominate the news every day, but which can never be solved within capitalism. Only this will be victory for the working class.

Putting A Brave Spin On Things.

On October 19th the Toronto Star happily reported that manufacturing sales had increased by 0.9 per cent in August, according to Stats-Canada. The increase in the volume of sales, overall, was even bigger at 1.2 per cent, with sales up in 15 of 21 industries. T.D. bank economist Dina Ignjatovic said,''This is welcome news for the Bank Of Canada, which is patiently waiting for the manufacturing sectors to pick up the growth baton. That said, we continue to expect interest rates to remain on hold for the foreseeable future.'' Well whoop-dee do isn't life wonderful? The Star neglected to mention unemployment was down in August from 7 percent to 6.9. So there is still plenty of people without a job. Putting a brave spin on things fools nobody. John Ayers.

What is Socialism?

The word socialism means many different things to many different people and it is used in many different contexts in the media. No wonder there is confusion. We are often asked what our platform is (establishment of a socialist society), are we Trotskyists (no), Leninists (no), and so on.

The interpretation of socialism runs the gamut from the sublime to the ridiculous so it may be appropriate for us to investigate its meaning as far as we are concerned. Some see the Left Wing agenda as socialist, i.e. fighting for reforms such as raising the minimum wage, lower student fees, taxing the rich to pay for social programs etc. Obviously, the deduction from this is that there will always be student fees, minimum wages, and the rich. While we are happy to see the working class get any advantage in living conditions, we see that reforms will never bring us closer to a socialist society and reformers accept that capitalism is the only game in town.

To us, the Left Wing and the Right Wing are but two wings of the same bird – capitalism. In other words, both are part of the current destructive system. Some see unions and their activities – collective bargaining, work-to-rule campaigns, strikes, the struggle for better pay and conditions – as part of socialism.

While we agree that unions are a necessary institution for fighting against the worst excesses of capitalism and that they benefit the working class under capitalism, they do nothing to create a revolutionary activity, promote socialism, or any alternative to capitalism and, over time, they have been drawn closer and closer to accepting capitalism. In “Value, Price, and Profit, Marx wrote on unions: “They ought to understand that, with all the miseries it (i.e.capitalism) imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material conditions and the social forms necessary for an economic restructure of society. Instead of the conservative motto, ‘A fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work’ they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: ‘Abolition of the wages system!..Trades Unions work well as centres of resistance against the encroachments of capital. They fail partially from an injudicious use of their power. They fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerrilla war against the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change it, instead of using their organized forces as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class, that is to say, the ultimate abolition of the wages system.”

 Unions, then, are not revolutionary, they react to capitalism’s actions, and they are specific to their members, favouring one group of workers over another group, such as their members over workers in other countries, rather than taking a world-view of the class struggle.

Some people and the media see socialism as the central planning of the economy by the state government. This would include the nationalization of some major industries on the premise that if it belongs to the state, it belongs to the people. This would also essentially describe what occurred in the former Soviet Union and what is happening today in so-called socialist countries like Cuba. China, as is obvious, has abandoned even this pretence of this particular brand of socialism and opened its doors to capital investment from abroad although the ‘communist party’ remains firmly in control of the country.

Nationalisation was used as a tool to keep the economy running smoothly with the necessary services to capital that the capitalists couldn’t do for themselves. Massive undertakings in roads, railways, health care, shipbuilding, steel production, coal mining, and other aspects of infrastructure were often too big an undertaking for the capitalist class in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was difficult to raise the capital involved for the project and the risks  were enormous. In effect, the state was minding the service until agglomerations of capital became big enough for privatization.

Since that time, most nationalized industries have been privatized or are under heavy pressure to do so. A nationalized industry is run like any other business – capital is advanced, raw materials and labour hired, and a commodity produced and sold at a profit, thanks to the theft of the surplus-value of the workers. Like private industry, the workers have no say whatsoever in the production process, do not own any of the commodities produced, and work at the pleasure of the owners, in this case the state. Workers must bargain collectively with state officials and often have to go on strike to preserve the gains that they have made previously. Throughout the twentieth century, beginning with the Russian Revolution of 1917, several countries declared themselves ‘socialist’ and were/are run by so-called communist parties.

 The parties of the World Socialist Movement, and many other analytical Marxists around the world, soon saw that these revolutions were simply bourgeois in nature, transferring power from the landed aristocracy to the new elite that functioned as a capitalist class. All revolutions were carried out by small groups snatching power, i.e. were undemocratic, and forced on the majority who did not understand socialism. Police forces, secret terror organisations, and the army were needed to maintain power for the minority. Their economies were set up like those in the capitalist countries but run by the officials of the state, the ‘communist’ parties.

Some politicians and political parties brand themselves or are branded by the media, as socialist. They are all simply vying with all other parties to run the capitalist system, to become its executive council. Some may genuinely want to improve conditions for the workers, but only in the context of the exploitive system that produces profits and enriches the minority from the unpaid labour of the workers. The New Democratic Party in Canada and the Labour Party in the UK, among many, started out with the idea of replacing capitalism with socialism. Both have dropped that idea, have concentrated on small palliative reforms, and rightly take their place among the pantheon of capitalist parties at election time.

Then there is the truly ridiculous. US president, Barack Obama is frequently described as a socialist by his opponents, particularly over his minuscule amendments to health care. He has never hinted, by word or deed, that he is anything of the sort. Newt Gingrich, positioned about as far away from socialism as you can get, was called a socialist by his opponent, Mitt Romney, for saying, “If we identify capitalism with rich guys looting companies, we are going to have a very hard time protecting it.” Gingrich had accused Romney of plundering floundering companies, tossing workers onto the street, and personally pocketing $250 million as head of a successful private equity firm. No further comment necessary!

So what is socialism?

To us, socialism means the common ownership of the means of producing and distributing wealth, democratically managed in the interests of all mankind. That means the land, the resources, the factories, the transportation systems, would all be held in common and managed by democratically elected councils. It means everyone stands in the same relationship to production – no owners and non-owners, no employers and employed, no class system. Everyone would have access to decent shelter, food, education, health care and all other necessities of life. It would mean production for use, not profit, free access for everyone to the goods and services they need. All this would be accomplished with voluntary labour. Imagine, we could produce durable, quality goods with clean energy, practice real green initiatives and devise ways to clean up the environment, use scientists to further the progress of mankind instead of producing military hardware, and so on, because we, the people, would decide democratically what should be done. No more bosses, no more leaders telling us what needs to be done when we already know, no more media lies to obfuscate the truth.

Can it be done realistically?

Yes, because we, the workers, do everything now and don’t need anyone to tell us how to do it. It must be done only when the vast majority understands what socialism is and vote for it. Getting to that point will be the hardest thing yet achieved in human progress but we are convinced that if the truth is presented to the world, it will be accepted. A socialist system has never existed but it is obvious that it is the next step forward in human progress and is not only worth working for, it’s a necessity.

Capitalism

1. A class-based society

2. Minority private ownership of the means of wealth production and distribution.

3. Production and distribution for profit.

4. Access to necessities of life by economic demand i.e. by your wallet.

5. Two classes – those who own the means of production but do not produce, and those who produce but do not own.

6. Employment – employers employ workers as they need them, workers sell their labour-power

7. Markets (buying and selling) for most goods and services, including labour

8.  Activities necessary to support the profit system, e.g. banking, insurance

9. Emphasis on competition

10. Leaders and followers

11. Mostly hierarchical organizations giving and taking orders

12. Periodic elections to choose professional politicians. Government over people.

13. Nation states, armed forces, wars

14. Education and health care for those who can pay

15. Crime (mostly property), a legal system to uphold private property rights

16. Environmental problems (pollution, global warming) caused by the manic drive for profit

Socialism

1. A society without classes

2. Common ownership of the means of wealth production and distribution

3. Production to meet human need

4. Free access for all, each determining their own needs

5. No classes – all people stand equal relation to the means of wealth production

6. Necessary work – all those fit enough volunteer their services as preferred and needed

7. No buying, selling, or exchange - only giving and taking.

8. Work for necessary and useful production

9. Emphasis on democratic co-operation

10. Participants meeting on an equal basis to make decisions

11. Mostly lateral organizations (co-operation between equals).

12. Elections as required to choose representatives or delegates. Administration of Things.

13. No nation states, no armed forces, no wars.

14. Education and health care for all, as needed.

15. No property crime, any residual crime (against the person) dealt with humanely.

16. Cleanest technology for production for use, not profit.

Scotland in statistics

Rodger Nisbet is executive chairman at Walter Scott Asset Management in Edinburgh's Charlotte Square earned £8.2m.

The top 2% of Scots have an average weekly income of £2,000.

The top earning 1% has been pulling away, at nearly four times the rate of growth of the next highest percentile. The share of total income taken by the top 1% of earners rose in Scotland from 6.3% in 1997 to 9.4% twelve years later. In turn, that second percentile has seen wage growth twice as fast as the third percentile.

Below the top earning 10%, Stirling University analysis shows there has been very little change in the share of income between 1997 and 2009.

Emancipation and freedom

Let us imagine something different. Let us imagine that our children have been born into a society where life is not organised around the need to produce goods for profit but where people co-operate freely, irrespective of sex or ethnicity, to produce the things they need in such a way that everyone contributes what she or he is able. In such a society children are given adequate opportunities to develop their skills and abilities, whatever these might be, without consideration of what is or is not 'natural' to their gender. Thus some who show an aptitude for, say, metalwork will be encouraged in this direction while others who shows an interest in the care of young children will have the opportunity to participate in that. Education is organised not on the basis of tests, competition and the acquisition of a narrow range of skills of use to the labour-market but rather as a continuing and life-long experience of giving and receiving skills and knowledge which enable people to pursue whatever kind of life they think most likely to result in their own happiness. Work in this kind of society - socialism - will not be wage-slavery. People will not have to sell their energies to the minority who own the means of production and distribution - the factories, offices, transport systems, shops, etc. - in return for a wage or salary. In socialism - a society based on common ownership - people will co-operate to produce those things which they need as a community- useful things, which will be freely available to all members of society. With the profit motive removed, men and women will be able to choose their work in accordance with their talents, skills, and preferences, contributing as much or as little as they feel able. The criterion for choosing one kind of activity rather than another will no longer be which one pays the most, has the best perks, the best prospects for promotion or the most job security. All these considerations will be obsolete in a money-free socialist world. Work will no longer be the activity we do to obtain the wage which enables us to survive.

The mere replacement of private ownership by state ownership is not socialism and cannot bring about emancipation. Socialism is a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests of the whole community.  Socialism will be a very different society from capitalism. Whereas in capitalism goods are produced for profit and sale on the market, which means that many people go without the things they need because they cannot afford to buy them, in socialism goods will be produced for people to use, without the need for buying and selling. And because there will be no buying and selling, there will be no need for money; instead, people will take freely what they need from the common store

Work will no longer be the exploitation that it is in capitalism where the majority of us - the working class - sell our labour-power to an employer, who owns the machines, factories, tools, land, etc., in return for a wage or salary. In socialism, because goods will no longer be produced solely for profit, there will no longer be the division of society into classes whose interests can never be reconciled. Work will take the form of co-operative effort, freely entered into by people who will be aware that ail of society is benefiting, and, as a result, they benefit.

In capitalism because of the need for the ruling class to protect its own interests against the opposing interests of the workers, the majority have very little say in the decision-making process - in central government, at a local level, or at work. In socialism, however, each individual will be able to participate fully in the making of the decisions which affect their lives. Democracy in socialism will not be the sham that it is in capitalism but a meaningful process which recognises the worth of everyone and through which people will be able to contribute fully to society in accordance with their particular skills, knowledge or experience.

In capitalism the world is divided into nation-states, reflecting the territorial interests of the capitalist class. This is the cause of patriotism, nationalism, and futile wars in which the working class are sent to be killed themselves, or kill other workers in order to protect the interests of their masters. Socialism will be a world-wide system without arbitrary and divisive distinctions between one area of the world and another.

Socialism is a liberation project for human emancipation. This will not come about in an automatic or inevitable way. A political organisation whose object is socialism cannot permit sexism or racism within its membership on the grounds that nothing can be done now and that the problem will be resolved 'after the revolution'. For a political organisation to be credible, it must embody the attitudes, values, and practices that it seeks to institute in society at large. Socialists believe that all people, men and women, are equally worthy of respect - and the Socialist Party the following clause:

“.. as in the order of social evolution the working class is the last class to achieve its freedom the emancipation of the working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind without distinction of race or sex.”

People need to want socialism

The abolition of capitalism will be followed by the establishment of a different social system. Socialism will be based on common ownership. While capitalism's wealth takes the form of commodities - things produced for sale and profit - socialism's wealth will be use values, things made solely to meet human needs. While capitalism is a society of class privilege, socialism will be one of the equal rights of free access. While capitalism is a coercive repressive society, socialism will be democratic, with full participation by its people. Just as capitalism promotes and aggravates conflict such as racism so will socialism be organised on the basis of human co-operation for the common benefit. Capitalism is an inefficient society. All sorts of things which ought to be done - like feeding hungry people, housing the homeless, or merely ensuring that old people do not die of cold in the winter - are not done because it is not “economically viable”. Capitalism wastes resources. Not just in building up armed forces and huge arsenals of weapons, whose only function is to destroy but also wastes the abilities of tens of millions of people who are in jobs which may be necessary in a society of commodity wealth but which are unproductive and socially useless - for example, jobs as sales-persons and bank workers. Socialists point to the absurdity of a world where computers and automation are commonplace and where we can send probes to Mars yet also allows tens of millions to die every year of starvation and untold millions from avoidable diseases. Resources under capitalism are actually used in such a way as to be detrimental to people - polluting the land, water and air.

Socialism will be a basically simple society for it will operate solely and completely on the basis of human needs. Everything which socialist society makes and does will be related to those needs and will, therefore, be to everyone's benefit. Socialism will be free of capitalism's profit motive, which causes the market to take precedence over human need. It will be a society in which people can behave just as humans would was it not for the restrictions and insecurities of capitalism. Human talents will be set free, to design and make the best that is possible, on the single incentive of satisfying human needs and so of benefiting the community. Socialism will mean the greatest flowering of imagination, creativeness and achievement in history. The nature of socialism will mean that climate change and natural disasters will be dealt with in the most urgent and efficient way. Socialism's production will harmonise with human interests because free of the chaos and restraints of commodity production for the market, the new society will be able to plan its work, what it makes and how it must be distributed to meet human needs.

Socialism will not happen, and cannot work unless the world's people want it. They must understand how and why it operates and must opt for it in that understanding. It cannot be imposed on society by a minority or by a group of political leaders. By the same token when a majority of people have established socialism no minority will be able to take it away from them. Having set up socialism the majority will not lose interest; they will continue to operate society on the same basis of informed democratic decisions. This is again something which has already been facilitated by capitalism, through the development of the internet and mobile phones which enable opinions to be assessed worldwide literally in hours. Decisions could be taken only when everyone is fully informed; socialism's democracy will entail the free availability of all information and knowledge. It will be a society vibrant with discussion and debate. From one generation to another the strengths of a society of communal ownership, free access, co-operation and harmony will be handed on. People will relate to each other as equals, as caring sisters and brothers. Co-operation will be the norm, an everyday, established reality and not an impossible dream.

This is all possible, virtually at once, if the working class were to recognise their own immense power to transform society. At present they deny themselves this power, effectively handing it over to the capitalist class by their support for capitalism and cruel delusions such as racism and nationalism. Socialism will be the end these to make it a world free of social conflict in which human beings live and work in unity without distinction of sex or race.

Marx in Space

Asteroids have a high density of precious metals such as platinum or rare-earths, which are also needed in a number of key technologies. Entrepreneurs are speculating about the prospect of high returns on investments in obtaining resources beyond Earth for which shortages are soon to be expected and causing concern. It may eventually be possible to mine valuable minerals from asteroids cheaply enough for it to be worth bringing them back to Earth. Apart from the technological hurdles that is still to be overcome if commercial asteroid mining is to become practically possible and economically viable, another snag to resolve is a legal one. “The way a private company would enforce their right to mine is through a national court,” says space law expert Dr. Chris Newman of the University of Sunderland. “In making a ruling, that court would exercise sovereign rights, contravening the OST. We will only know how this would play out if it is tested in court.” Perhaps, the court in question may well turn out to be the Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals which are being incorporated into many global trade agreements.

Space mining can be described as similar to fishing in international waters. No one owns the fish until they are in your possession, and then you own the catch. The Outer Space Treaty (OST)  of 1967, prohibits nations from exercising territorial sovereignty over celestial bodies. No country can own the moon or any other part of space, no matter how many astronauts have placed flags there. The treaty’s Article 1 states:

 “The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind. Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.” (our emphasis)

But the treaty is being interpreted to as permitting asteroid mining but as is well-known legal opinion can differ widely.  The Moon Treaty of 1979 declares in Article 11, section 1, that the “The Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind” and effectively bans private property by any organization or person unless that organisation is international and governmental. The Moon Treaty has an additional weakness -  the signatures of China, Japan, Russia, and the United States are notably absent.

The US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 decrees any materials American individuals or companies find on an asteroid or the moon is theirs to keep and do with as they please. It establishes the rights of investors to profit from their efforts under US law. Luxemburg has enacted a similar law to come into effect in 2017 intended to protect future outer space investments worth billions of dollars. Two US enterprises, Deep Space Industries (DSI) and Planetary Resources (PR), already have their European headquarters in Luxembourg, with Luxemburg, itself, becoming a shareholder in PR.

Commercial activity in space could easily cause international conflict as it does on Earth. There are precedents for working together such as the multi-state International Telecommunication Union which approves the orbits of satellites. The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) was set up by the UN in 1959 to govern the exploration and use of space for the benefit of all humanity: for peace, security, and development. These bodies could well be adapted for administrating space inside a socialist society