We can make socialism work

Change is coming. Hundred of millions of people, young and old, from all over the world are now demanding change. Most people are already vaguely aware of this but they just don’t have a shape or form for it yet. They know something or other is coming but they don’t know what. We do. Their consciousness will catalyse into new sharing socialist economy.

‘You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink’. No-one is going to agree with our ‘crazy’ socialist ideas until they can see it for themselves. For most people, seeing the common-sense logic of a money-free society is counter-intuitive to everything they have been taught. It takes time. Introducing socialist ideas and the very concept of a money- and wage-free society may create a sufficient question mark in their minds for them to seek more information. Socialists often say ‘well, if we didn’t have capitalism, we wouldn’t have that problem.’ Nevertheless, we are fully aware that questioning someone’s political beliefs, can be personal. These beliefs are part of their personality, their way of life, so an attack on their beliefs is an attack on them and is very often resented.

First, we try to persuade people to entertain the very idea of a world without private property, no money, and no wages. We have to explain that people will still do things without money even performing tasks they wouldn’t particularly like to do. We point out that greed is only borne of scarcity and is not human nature as some would have you believe and all people are basically good and will help each other without reward.  Our education means demonstrating to people that technology can actually now be implemented to create abundance. To build a society which can be self-governing and self-regulating. System. These ideas have to be accepted before people can consider socialism as possible.

The United Nations, no matter how ignoble it is used by its member-states’ political motives is one of many global institutions in existence that can viably represent the common interests of all peoples in reshaping the world and becoming part of the administration of the global economic system and the involved in the process of resource-sharing as its basic operating principle. The UN requires the dispensing with the corrupt, divisive function of the Security Council to fulfill its destiny of the World Assembly that we can envision based on genuine cooperation and sharing. The theories and blueprints may well exist, as evidenced in the proposals of many forward-looking policy thinkers and civil society groups, but no-one can predict with exactitude the eventual appearance of a commons-based system of global resource distribution. As humanity comes of age we are tasked to act on behalf of the good of the whole planet on the basis of satisfying everybody’s material needs while promoting the concept of the interdependency of all lands as one village while respecting and preserving the distinct identities of diverse populations with all their manifold cultures.

For those who finds this vision too vague or lacking in technical details, we apologise. When everyone participates in this cause of all causes, this movement of all movements, we will determine clearer what actions we should take in our unwavering concern for the suffering of others. While many shall disagree, no doubt, and many shall remain passive or unmoved by the worsening world crises, we do predict the prospect of millions of people coming together worldwide to prevent the needless poverty-related deaths, and uniting in peaceful protest on behalf of the good of the whole—the One Humanity. Socialism cannot be structured without the embrace and awareness of ordinary people. There can be no socialism throughout the entire world, benefiting every family and individual in equal measure, until we have established a more participatory way of life in our respective societies and the existence of  a preliminary consensus among a significant proportion of the global public who demand free access to planetary resources. Those who realise this are our last hope of averting further social, economic and environmental catastrophe.

Adapted from 

http://freeworlder.com/2014/08/10/dear-invisible-friends/

http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/11/the-true-sharing-economy-inaugurating-an-age-of-the-heart-2/

Invisible Friends

I’m breaking up with my invisible friends. Of course, it’s always right and proper to do these things face-to-face, but unfortunately it’s not possible in this case as they are all, well, invisible. Anyway here goes…

Dear God,

Sorry, but I’m breaking up with you. They told me all about you when I was young and you sounded like a really decent guy – and really smart too. All those amazing things you did? Wow! But when I grew older I couldn’t see you anywhere. I couldn’t find any evidence of you or your intervention anywhere. People I know who did everything you wanted had terrible lives, or even suffered cruel, untimely deaths.

The world you created was teeming with problems, yet all you wanted people to do was to adore and praise you. WTF? You could have sorted all this stuff out in seconds, but you didn’t bother. So I reckon either you don’t exist at all, or maybe you’ve just moved on to your next project and aren’t interested in us any more. Either way, it’s over for us, because I’ve found something much better.

Dear Country,

I was born here in this country and everyone I know makes out like it’s the best place ever. They wave around coloured pieces of cloth, sing songs about it and say that the country beside us is no good, but I was there once and it looks just the same to me. In fact, I travelled around the world quite a bit and saw that everywhere is much the same. It’s all just land with people who all pretty much want the same thing – to live happily and in peace.

Sometimes our country’s leaders decide to go to war with another country and loads of their people and our people get killed and injured. Why? Because they wave a different colour cloth and sing different songs? Sorry, but that’s fucking bullshit. What century are we living in? These leaders are picking fights in our country’s name without even asking us, then sending some of us off to kill or be killed? I don’t like that, so let’s just drop the whole country thing, shall we – then they won’t be able to do this to us any more. My country is just a piece of land, divided from some other piece of land by an imaginary line drawn by some dead guy. Sorry, this makes no sense to me any more, so no, it’s over. I choose to be a free citizen of the world, thank you.

Dear Money,

I loved you all my life, yet you were always trying to get away from me. Was I too possessive? LOL. You were my light. The spark that drove me on to try and succeed. Then one day I noticed that you only seemed to have any value when people believed in you. The less people believed, the less you were worth. That’s crazy. I thought. If money was real, its value would never change, right?

Then I heard about all the big problems in the world ‘cos some people don’t have enough money, or some have too much and it makes them all go a bit mad. They do crazy things like destroy forests and rivers to make more money, or they attack and hurt other people to steal it from them. But it’s all just for a bunch of numbers written on a computer?? You know, like 4,235,987,520,987,859,876,530,948,755,349,875. People tell me that we all have to work and sacrifice our time to make these numbers. Why? People help each other all the time without exchanging numbers, so that’s bullshit.

These numbers only mean something when we all believe in them. If we stop believing, they vanish. That means it’s not real. Sorry, but I don’t want to spend my life running after something that’s not real. That’s a total waste of my life. Anyway I found something much better…

Dear World,

You rock! Hey in fact, you are a rock! And that’s what I love about you: you are REAL. You are big and blue and beautiful. Your animals are fantastic, the oceans are incredible, and your air so fresh and exhilarating.  Your people are wonderful, peaceful beings with immense creativity, warmth, love and laughter. I love this place. I love it because it’s real. It’s solid, strong and full of amazing things.

When I was younger, we had some childish ideas about things that people told us mattered a lot – that our time in the world was just a test for another better world – but I never saw it and, to be honest, I don’t want to. I love it here, now.

They told us we had to live in between certain lines and act differently within those lines, but I never saw any lines, nor could see any real difference between people on either side. All I could see were good people, land, sea and open skies.

They told us we had to use a numbering system and that everything had to have a value, including our time. That’s so limiting I thought. Look at all the amazing things we could do if we didn’t have to put a value on it? We’ve got all these incredible brains, only to be limited by a crude scale of scarce numbers? Haha, no thanks, I think we can do a hell of a lot better than that.

I loved my imaginary friends, for a while. But, well, it’s time to move on now and get real. Goodnight.

Taken from here

http://freeworlder.com/2014/08/10/dear-invisible-friends/

The Socialist Idea

Our task in the Socialist Party is basically two-part. First, to persuade fellow-workers of the benefits of socialism and then to convince them of its feasibility. The benefits are many, and most reasonable people will have no trouble accepting them: better quality of life for all, less inequality, poverty, crime, greed, corruption, pollution and waste; greater health, education, trust, respect, awareness, sustainability, community values, technological advances, etc. Most people want these things, so our problem is not really about convincing them of the benefits – it’s about demonstrating the feasibility. How is a money-free society to be achieved? It requires people to reject pre-conceived beliefs that they thought fundamental to how the world operates and to supplant them with ones closer to the true reality of things.

People have been led to accept the following:

1. You need to have exchange (You can’t get something for nothing)

2. No-one would do anything (money motivates lazy idle people)

3. People would take advantage (greed is human nature)

4. I will lose everything I have (fear of loss of personal possessions)

5. Chaos and violence would ensue (society requires policing and control)

6. Society would stagnate or regress (markets and entrepreneurs provide incentives for progress)

1. You need to have exchange (you can’t get something for nothing)

 Along with popular phrases like ‘There’s no such thing as a free lunch’, various idioms have been used to bolster the belief that nothing happens without some exchange of value, whether by money or barter. You could be forgiven for thinking that certain groups would happily wish to continue to perpetuate this thinking, but the fact is that it is simply false, and not based on anything else we see in nature. In nature the closest thing we have is something called symbiosis where two species benefit each other (the bee taking nectar while helping the plant to pollinate is the most obvious example), but there is no intentional transaction taking place. Both species are ignorant of the desires of the other. It is purely an accident of evolution that has caused both species to survive and flourish. Nowhere else in nature do we see evidence that intentional exchanges are an essential ingredient to life or to the community.  The money / value system that we operate in has its origins in more primitive times, but now the capitalist economy has made us hell-bent accounting for everything in a monetary sense, and at the expense of common sense and sustainability. We ourselves don’t seek exchange in our families or in our circles of friends, so why do we seek exchange in others? Among our family and friends we tend to help each other out without obligations being imposed. .

2. No-one would do anything (money motivates lazy idle people):

People are motivated by money, yes. It is perhaps the biggest motivator of people, but the only reason for that is because we need money to live. It’s linked to survival – our most fundamental instinct. This is what gives it such power. There are, of course, many other human motivators: the desire to love and be loved, to meet people, to have children, to help others, to improve ourselves and our surroundings, to look good, to feel good, to learn, to challenge ourselves, to express ourselves, to innovate, to demonstrate our skills, etc. Every person alive is motivated by these desires to some degree. Because, after survival, these desires are what give our lives value and meaning. So if we didn’t need money to survive, and society could be better without money, then it follows that any or all of these desires would become our primary motivators. Since technology can now make the basic business of survival incredibly easy for us, all we would have to do – rather than working and earning – is to spend just a little time serving our community to ensure that the system works for everybody, then spend the rest of our time doing whatever it is that makes us happy. If technology was not limited by a market system, and peoples’ desires to help, innovate and improve became their prime motivators, then our technology could be completely maximised to take in almost all jobs that no-one wants to do, and create a highly advanced culture.

3. People would take advantage (greed is human nature):

Greed is not human nature – it is simply the desire to stockpile something scarce which you need to live. Like a squirrel collecting nuts, greed makes good sense – because we don’t know what the future will bring. In a monetary world, the greatest scarcity is money itself, so it makes sense to accumulate it, and, since there is no upper limit to the money and property you can have, there’s no reason to stop accumulating it. But if society can work better without money and everyone has access to everything they need, then there would be no point in stockpiling anything in large quantities. Who wants a basement full of coffee or cornflakes when all these things are freely available at any time? For the first time in history, we have the technology to eradicate scarcity and create an abundance of necessities for all humans on Earth with minimal physical effort. The market system is the only thing that prevents this from happening, as it intrinsically requires scarcity to perpetuate itself.

4. I will lose everything I have (fear of loss of personal possessions)

We all need privacy and a certain amount of exclusivity. Who wants to share their toothbrush, or have strangers walking around their home, for example? Our normalised belief tells us that we define who uses what through something called ‘ownership’. Our laws define and protect ownership, with the threat of punishment to those who disobey (ie. stealing). The point is that most things in the community should belong to no-one. Whatever items within the community that are not the personal possessions of someone can be used and shared by all. If we respect privacy then we can begin to move beyond the traditional inefficient limits of ownership and with it, any fear of loss.

5. Chaos and violence would ensue (society requires policing and control)

It is worth first pointing out that our world under its current system is already rife with crime and violence, so any argument for a moneyless society must be measured against that standard for comparison. Also, no-one is suggesting that a free world would be perfect – just very much better.

Most crime and violence is driven by desperation through lack of basic requirements for living, ie. theft, armed robbery, burglary, etc. Almost all other crimes can be seen as the secondary effects of poor upbringing where parents are poor, over-worked, unemployed, frustrated, depressed or disillusioned, etc. – all factors that can contribute to an unstable and unloving environment for children, who may later turn to crime as a result of low self-esteem or maladjustment. If society can work better without money, then most of the reasons and contributing causes of antisocial behaviour will no longer exist. Society will automatically be more cooperative and inclusive, and everyone will have free access to good food, housing, education, and technology. It won’t be perfect or eliminate all crime, but if everyone has a good quality of life and free access, then crime will have little or no incentive.

6. Society would stagnate or regress (markets and entrepreneurs provide incentives for progress)

Many economists cite economic incentive and competition as good for progress. But since the money system is everywhere, people who make this claim really have nothing to compare it with, so are drawing a false conclusion. Are we really to believe that all innovators, inventors, and artists will down tools the moment someone ends wages and money? Obviously not, since we all know so many creative people that never achieve financial success, it shows us that they are not driven by money, but rather by their passions and desire to innovate. We have already seen the rise of the Open Source movement and how large scale innovative projects are becoming the optimum means of production without a monetary incentive. Many computer programs like Linux, Chrome and Android have been developed freely by enthusiasts in their spare time. The computer industry has led the way on this, but of course, there is no reason why ‘open source thinking’ cannot be applied in agriculture, crafts, construction or education, etc.

History has shown that, in general, our greatest innovators and artists have come from privileged backgrounds. Does that mean that they were smarter? Of course not. It means that they had a comfortable upbringing, access to good food and education, and had the luxury of time – not labouring for their keep – but spending it on developing their ideas and skills instead. If society can work better without money, then all potential young Einsteins and Mozarts will have the optimal opportunity to exercise and advance their talents.

All this new information usually takes some time to filter through the subconscious and back into the conscious mind so that we re-evaluate all these lifelong-held beliefs and be receptive to new ones. We are not victims of culture or destiny – we can shape the world as we please. Let’s make it better!

If you agree with a money-free future, please support the Socialist Party

Adapted from http://freeworlder.com

How to resist capitalism

Every day, dire new problems threaten humanity: environmental catastrophes, reckless corporate power, racial and social injustice, disastrous trade deals and violent international relations, to name a few. Impassioned citizens often want to make an impact, but the question is always “How?” Voting? Peaceful demonstrations? Violent protest? Economic boycott? Civil disobedience?

Consider this. Across the globe, there are literally hundreds of thousands of campaigns and protest groups and many more charities, some small, some enormous, all pursuing tens of thousands of issues, and their work involves many millions of sincere workers who care passionately about their individual causes and give their free time to support them unquestioningly. Many will have campaigned on some single issue for years on end with no visible result; others will have celebrated minor victories and then joined another campaign groups, spurred on by that initial success. Do you not think they might just be wasting their time?

Two things stand out.

 Firstly, that many of the problems are rooted in the way our society is organised for production, and are problems we have been capable of solving for quite some time, though never within the confines of a profit-driven market system.

Secondly, that if all of these well-meaning people had have directed all their energy—all those hours expended on their myriad single issues—to the task of overthrowing the system that creates a great deal of the problems around us, then none of us would be here today. Instead, we could have established a world without waste or want or war, in which we would all have free access to the benefits of civilisation.

Every aspect of our lives is subordinated to the requirements of profit - from the moment you brush your teeth in the morning with the toothpaste you saw advertised on TV until you crawl into your bed at night. Pick up a newspaper and try locating any problem reported there outside of our “can’t pay—can’t have” system. Crime, the health service, poverty, drug abuse, hunger, disease, homelessness, unemployment, war, insecurity - the list is endless. All attract their campaign groups, all struggling to address these problems, and all of these problems arising because of the inefficient and archaic way we organise our world for production.

We’re unlike other political parties out to reform capitalism, who beg our masters to throw us a few more crumbs. We are not into the politics of compromise and we certainly are not prepared to be satisfied with crumbs. We demand the whole bakery! We urge you to stop belittling yourself and your class by making the same age-old demands of the master class. Demand what until now has been considered “the impossible.” Campaign for a system of society where there are no leaders, no classes, no states or governments, no borders, no force or coercion. Demand a world where the planet’s natural and technological resources are commonly owned and democratically controlled and where production is freed from the artificial constraints of profit and used for the benefit of all. Strive to achieve a world of free access to the necessaries of life.

Wouldn’t such a movement address the real root of every campaign and protest currently being waged? The choice is yours – the struggle for world socialism and an end to our real problems or a lifetime attached to the ‘Pick-A-Cause’ the certainty you will be retracing your footsteps in years to come.

We’re not being churlish here. It is heartening to see so many uniting in common voice. It reveals the workers can be mobilised around issues they feel are important. But from our experience - and we’ve had more than a 100 years’ experience of observing campaigns and demonstrations and protests around every kind of reform and demand imaginable (we’re the oldest existing socialist organisation in Britain) - we can confidently say that the real need is to address the cause , not the symptoms of the problem.  Palliatives make no significant difference to the established order, or to the way politicians think.

The task set before us is one of education, agitation, and organisation; the marshalling of forces towards the conquest of political power by working people bent on ending the system that exploits them and who understand the real cause of their troubles and the only way to end them – the abolition of capitalism. Enthusiasm and a fighting spirit are excellent and valuable things when rightly applied, but when it is wasted in fruitless directions it only leads to disheartenment and apathy. Why accuse new generations of repeating the past if they had been too young to have lived through it the first time? Because these young people have difficulties knowing the past we have to restate previous lessons. We do not deny the sincerity of many campaigners; the energy and ingenuity they displayed in tackling a job they considered important provides further proof that once working men and women get on the right track capitalism's days are numbered. But the time for reformist politics is over. None of our problems are going to be solved by tinkering with the economic and political systems as they are now. We do not have a few bad apples. We have a diseased orchard.  And from it, we have had one diseased harvest after another. Now is the time to re-plant.

The Socialist Party message, the same message we always deliver - Abolish the private ownership of the means of production and substitute for it the common ownership. The workers produce and distribute the wealth of to-day while the capitalists live like blood-sucking leeches. The workers run industry from top to bottom; we run society itself, and yet our jobs depend on the whims of the capitalist. The workers can just as easily run society for our own benefit as we now do for the benefit of the capitalists. We must oppose capitalism relentlessly and unceasingly

Citizen's Wages

Universal Basic Income (UBI), is certainly a popular panacea right now. Most of the progressive websites have featured sympathetic articles on the topic, usually combined with worker-owned collectives as the "socialist" alternative. The UBI (or Citizen’s Income) should be relatively a cheap reform. For those in work, it turns into a tax rebate, up to the value of the citizen's income.  Anyone paid enough to pay more tax than the income would then subsidise the unemployed. The state then abolishes all other welfare benefits, since the citizens' income gets declared to be enough to live on (and it would be cheaper to administer without having to manage the entitlement gateway).  It then becomes a constant struggle to hold the basic income at just below subsistence, so people are forced into low-wage work (which will now come relatively cheap for employers).

 If the UBI is introduced it will be in the form that is acceptable to the ruling class and for the purpose of mitigating the cost of the up-keep of the increasing and unavoidable numbers of casualties of the class war, automation being one field of battle. The capitalists and their State need us to be impoverished, indebted and enslaved.  Would a basic income remove this or just create a new form of dependency? Any UBI will always be framed within the tight parameters that capitalism will permit a reform which will only be passed if it fits in with the agenda of the employing class, will have sufficient built-in constraints  that it will fail to satisfy the expectations and hopes of our fellow workers and as the reform was made in the name of "socialism" and promoted by those calling themselves "socialists" then the subsequent disillusionment and disappointment will not be with capitalism and the owning class but with the actual idea of socialism and those recognised to be "socialists".

In the recent Swiss referendum on the issue for a proposed Basic Income referendum the pro campaign literature said that, with the introduction of Basic Income, wages would be reduced by its amount:

“Wages are going to adapt themselves to become a complement to Basic Income. For example with a Basic Income of 2500 Swiss Francs, someone who at present gets 8000 Swiss francs from his employer will not get more than 5500 or so wages which will come to be added to his Basic Income.”

So, anyone with a wage above the poverty line is not going to be better off: their income will be exactly the same, with instead of it all being paid by the employer, a part will be paid by the State and a part by the employer. It would lead to a massive downward pressure on wages. In fact, it's part of the scheme. They have openly and explicitly said that their scheme involves a wage reduction for all workers above the poverty line even if their total income is to remain the same, i.e. will make no financial difference to the vast majority of workers.

What UBI proposes is a reform of the welfare system that would benefit only those on benefits, allowing them to receive these as of right without means testing or the obligation to try to find work. For many supporters, it only makes sense that the budget for UBI would come from cannibalising existing welfare. UBI would not exist as an add-on benefit. The logic is to shut down housing benefit and the rest and replace them with a single cheque. The welfare system can finally be eliminated.  Nice if you could get it but hardly likely as long as capitalism lasts. The more extravagant claims about a basic income being a transition towards the abolition of the wages system and breaking the link between income and work are just that -- extravagant claims. This is one reform which will only see the light of day when the capitalists have to take desperate measures to distract the workers from abolishing the wages system.

The Calton Martyrs of 1787

 Trades disputes had not been uncommon in the 18th century, but the Calton Weavers Strike of 1787 was remarkable for its duration, the violence with which it was met and in the reprisals which followed it. The strike was about the spread of new machinery and the increased importation of cheaper Indian cloth but most of all it was about people with families and a livelihood to protect.

Glasgow's possibly first strike lasted from June until October 1787 and it was to claim the lives of six men. In 1787, Calton was just a village on the boundaries of the city of Glasgow, home to mostly weavers who were well regarded for their high standard of education - many being self-taught - and their social awareness. They tended towards more radical politics, which made them unpopular with the authorities, the Glasgow Magistrates who were determined that they would control the weavers, the pioneers of the future trade unionists.  In June of that year, the weavers and their fellow brethren who were members of the Clyde Valley General Weavers Association learned the manufacturers planned to reduce payments for the weaving of muslin. The proposed cut came on the heels of an earlier one which had already reduced wages between six and seven shillings a week. A further cut, the weavers protested, would bring wages down by 25%, a remuneration they felt that they could not live on.  At a mass meeting held on Glasgow Green on 30th June 1787, the weavers resolved not to carry out any work at the proposed new rate.  At first, the striking weavers tried to act reasonably. As in previous disputes, they seized the materials which had been accepted by some workers at the reduced rates, but these were then returned to their owners. As time passed, the hardships experienced by the weavers increased and the measures adopted to attempt to overcome the stale-mate became more militant. Strikers went to premises where the work was being carried out at the new rate, cut the webs, and in some cases publicly burned them.

On September 3, protesting strikers were fired upon by troops of the 39th (Dorsetshire) Regiment of Foot at the order of the city's magistrates. Three weavers died instantly, while three others were to die from their wounds over the next few days. They paid the ultimate price for their principles and convictions. Scores of others were wounded. Many arrests were made and varying terms of imprisonment imposed. Some were forced to leave the country. One, James Granger, was flogged through the streets of Edinburgh then exiled from Scotland for 7 years. He later returned and took part in the 1811-1812 strike. The dead were regarded as martyrs.

The weavers' sabotage techniques anticipated the development of direct action associated with syndicalism over a hundred years later. Today, unions and workers are still fighting to keep jobs and maintain their incomes as technological advances and foreign competition gets introduced. Not much changes with capitalism, even over the centuries.  

A Free World

The free-access world awaits us. No longer a utopian dream, a money-free world of true abundance, peace and fulfillment is attainable today. Socialism will be a sustainable world beyond borders. All goods and services are available to all people without the need for means of exchange such as money, credits, barter or any other means. For this to be achieved all resources must be declared as the common heritage of all Earth’s inhabitants. Equipped with the latest scientific and technological marvels mankind can create an abundance of resources where scarcity is entirely eliminated. World socialism operates on the fundamentals of freedom, sharing, and respect. Such a society is enlightened to a point where traditional constraints such as law, money, trade and borders no longer apply.

 Rather than every individual seeking only to benefit themselves, a common understanding exists that enables everyone to benefit everyone, including themselves. Socialism is primarily concerned with the cooperation of people by creating a common understanding of the benefits to the individual in acting for the best interests of all. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that we’re doing a lot of things wrong in our society. Everywhere you look – greed, corruption, crime, poverty, financial stress, our health system, climate change – all of it links back to the way we do business on this planet. This simply must change. It only requires a shift in priorities to create the more compassionate and abundant planet where no-one gets left behind. There’s no new technology required. Technology can – and already does – most of the hard work for us now. Creating all the things we need has never been easier. It’s just a decision we all have to make.

The biggest obstacle facing advocates of socialism is how to convince people of the necessity of change.  We would all be in a better, moneyless society tomorrow if everyone understood how and why it works, but the truth is that it’s a very difficult idea to convince people of. Too often we’re faced with people giving reasons such as “it’s the best we have” or “your idea will never work”. Our case for socialism often seems to fall on deaf ears. Environmentalists have long suspected that doom and gloom have not worked very well, and we’re aware of how confronting depictions of extreme poverty is unpleasant and makes us want to turn away. Almost everyone senses that big changes are coming. The old ways like religion and racism are being abandoned as people are becoming more educated and connected. In a free society, people will still seek mentors and teachers to inspire and help them. However, this does not mean that we need rulers. Rulers do not necessarily help, they merely rule – and usually only when there is something to protect. Organisers and administrators are nominated and delegated for specific tasks based on their ability through the common wishes of the group. Selection can happen in many ways.

Because everyone has free access what they need we don’t need to compete or go to war for profit. Imagine no hunger, no stress, no debt, not forced to work long hours to pay for what you need? Who wouldn’t want that for themselves and others? Also, once we eliminate the need for profit, and ‘cost’ is no longer an issue, we can produce things much more sustainably and responsibly, thereby using fewer resources, no need to trash the planet. We are a social species that naturally prefer cooperation once our basic needs are met. We compete and hoard only because of scarcity. That’s just our survival instinct. But once our basic needs are met, we naturally gravitate into various communities who like work and socialise together for the same ends. This is the glue that keeps society together.

Most people who have given any consideration to a money-free world are already aware that we have the technology today to create a world of abundance without the constraints and inequality of the traditional market system, owing to how much human labour can now be efficiently automated. Without scarcity, and a massive reduction in the need for labour, money effectively becomes obsolete. A truly free society will be unlimiting, self-determining and self-organising for the optimum benefit of all. The best way to describe socialism is that we will happily co-exist with each other in a steady-state environment. History books are full of references to aggressive culture, heinous acts of violence and torture – man pitted against fellow man. This gives an abiding impression of a bloodthirsty homo sapiens, indiscriminately bludgeoning all in his path to get what he wants. But this is a false impression, and yet another dangerous misunderstanding of the world and of ourselves. For every lunatic who takes up a gun and starts killing people, there are millions and millions of other people who don’t, but we never hear about them. The reality is, our human experience, from a statistical point of view, is almost entirely peaceful. Non-conflict probably accounts for 99 % of all human behaviour. A self-determining society doesn’t use or require laws. Laws were invented primarily to protect private property interests. In a world of abundance, free access and greater understanding of ourselves, these laws would become redundant.

Adapted from freeworlder.com

Profit rules

It is profit which rules. Money is just the means of exchange which facilitates accumulation for the parasitic capitalists, rationing out for the wage slave wealth producer, of wealth. Food clothing and housing should be freely available, as all wealth comes from labour and should be produced for use and not for sale but owned in common by all. Time for a post-capitalist society of super-abundance of all the necessities of life rather than capitalist production for sale with access rationed via wages and prices with the profits going to the minority owning 1% capitalist class. Where there is a demand for houses they should be built for use and freely available. The working class built these homes. Why should they not be freely available?  In capitalism, food, clothing, and shelter are not produced for use, but for sale. What a daft use of resources. What an insane social system capitalism is? Much better to abolish capitalism and establish a commonly owned, free access, production for use, society, owned, controlled and democratically run by us all, without elites. As social equals, with equal access, we are all in charge.

Tory versus Labour governments is silly and misses the point entirely, which is that all governments over you are to manage the affairs of the capitalist class to ensure the maximisation of the extraction of profit from the exploitation of the majority. Capitalism cannot be run in any other way. The route of trying to change capitalism or 'reform,' is the one that has been taken by most people who have wanted to improve society. There are examples of some 'success' in such fields as education, housing, child employment, work conditions and social security. However, in this regard we also recognise that such 'successes' have in reality done little more than to keep workers and their families in efficient working order and, while it has taken the edge off the problem, it has rarely managed to remove the problem completely. If you are convinced, however, that groups or parties promising reforms deserve your support, we would urge you to consider the following points. The campaign, whether directed at right-wing or left-wing governments, will often only succeed if it can be reconciled with the profit-making needs of the system. In other words, the reform will often be turned to the benefit of the capitalist class at the expense of any working class gain. Any reform can be reversed and eroded later if a government finds it necessary. Reforms rarely, if ever, actually solve the problem they were intended to solve. This was summed up by William Morris over a century ago:

 "The palliatives over which many worthy people are busying themselves now are useless because they are but unorganised partial revolts against a vast, wide-spreading, grasping organisation which will, with the unconscious instinct of a plant, meet every attempt at bettering the conditions of the people with an attack on a fresh side."

The profit motive of capitalism is a major cause of the problems we face in today's society: ever increasing inequality, poverty, alienation, crime, homelessness, environmental degradation—the list could go on and on. There are countless ways in which the working class (and indeed the capitalist class) suffer as a result of the profit system. Unless we organise for an alternative, the profit system will continue on its blind, unswerving path

Socialism has never existed anywhere in the world, as it is a post-capitalist society utilising the technology and productive apparatus of the modern age and transforming it into a commonly owned production for use society for all with free access, rather than a production for sale society for the enrichment of the few with rationed access via wages and prices. It is a world without a means or a need for an exchange economy.  All previous revolutions were minority led revolutions on behalf of new emerging ruling 5-10% classes. The post-capitalist society is the work of the immense majority 90-95% on behalf of themselves, with its aim the great emancipation of the wage slaves and true social equality arising from democratic control by us all over resources, the means of production and distribution being owned by us all in common and run by us all. A democratic, locally, regionally globally, administration of resources rather than governments over people as presently.

Profit can only come from exploitation of workers for their surplus value and even if this went back to workers, it would scarcely resolve the basic problem of capitalist production even of basic commodities requiring to be at a profit and not for the satisfaction of human needs. With intense competition from other capitalist enterprise chasing the same market production would cease, even as needs still remain unmet, on a 'can't pay can't have' principle and workers laid off. Capital has already plundered wealth from the exploitation of the working class. Welfare is a good deal for the capitalist parasite class. It provides the myth of 'homes built for heroes' after a war, staves off social discontent with promises of 'cradle to grave' provision, reduces the wage burden of the parasite class when boom times arrive they would have to make provision for insurance to workers organised in unions and in slumps maintains a reserve army of labour to be exploited as wage slaves when the good times roll and production picks up..

Capitalism cannot be reformed by Sanders or anyone else. Capitalism cannot be reformed to work in the interests of the wage worker. Capitalism will continue with its poverty, homelessness, and hunger for many Americans and Europeans. It’s not a different president, or government, that is needed but a new economic system.

Instead of blaming immigrants, get up off your knees and get rid of capitalism and its governments. The problem with pro-capitalist commentators is that, they believe their own bogeymen and misconceptions of what socialism is and continue to spread confusion in order to bolster an ideological narrative in which various manifestations of the capitalist systems of government, such as reformism, state capitalism, and regulation are equated with 'socialism' and not seen as failures of capitalism in that it is capitalism which is inimical to reform in any substantial way. Socialism is a world which does not need money, or any other means of exchange as it is, a commonly owned, production for use, free access, post-capitalist social system.

"Rise like Lions after slumber

In unvanquishable number,

Shake your chains to earth like dew

Which in sleep had fallen on you-

Ye are many - they are few."

Shelley.

Wee Matt

Expand your consciousness in Edinburgh

Lothian Socialist Discussion

Wednesday, November 23,

7:30 PM

ACE

17 West Montgomery Place,

Edinburgh, EH7 5HA

Many critics of socialism will defend themselves from accusations of strawman arguments by saying that there always will be those socialists who will defend socialist theory or practice, by declaring criticism of state-ownership or nationalisation that's not true socialism. We do indeed say that since, in our view, socialism does have a definite historical meaning. The word "socialism" rather becomes meaningless if everyone who calls themselves a socialist is accepted as being a socialist. Maybe the definition of socialism we adhere to is now a minority one, but up until the First World War it was probably the majority view that socialism is a system of society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, where the state and government over people will give way to democratic self-administration and where the money-market-profit economy, will give way to production solely and directly to satisfy human needs without buying and selling.

To build the foundations for hope in a future for humanity requires ending capitalism. The voice of socialist movement cannot be reduced to a whisper. It has to be clear and firm to be heard and to be echoed. Socialism’s rallying cry is the first sentence of the Rules of the First Workers’ International, drafted by Marx in 1864: ‘The emancipation of the working class must be conquered by the workers themselves.’ Socialism can only be achieved if working people themselves inspire it and create it. Socialism involves workers democratically taking over and running society in their own interests, under their own control. It is a sign of the times that more and more people are discussing the meaning of socialism.

Freaky Capitalism And Freak Shows

The city of North Bay may move the house where the Dionne quints were born as the land it's on may be used for other purposes. Since this puts the quints in the news again it's timely to look at their story, which is a depression era one. Born in 1934 to poor parents, they were soon taken away from them and made into a freak show. They were exposed to the public 3 times a day in an exhibit enclosed by one-way viewing mirrors as well as a playground that doubled as a public observation area. ''Quintland'' brought in $500 million during the next decade, precious little of which went to the girls. If anyone was intensely exploited during this time it was them.

 What a sad, sad reflection on a society that needs a freak show to help the economy. Perhaps one shouldn't be surprised - the very fundamentals of capitalism are pretty freaky.

 John Ayers.

Socialism is common sense

The Socialist Party considers that in our small way, we have made history. Yet we exist in the present as a political party is to make the future. The Socialist Party hopes to act as a catalyst ine the social transition towards a more egalitarian, participatory and environmentally sustainable world.

We are a sharing economy. We have always shared. Humanity would never have survived unless we practiced sharing at a personal and communal basis. We shared common lands with our neighbours and communities just as today share the roads. Mutual aid is an evolutionary trait that anthropologists have long recognised as intrinsic to our essential nature. It remains a fact that the sharing economy has always been with us in one form or another and sharing has forever played its part in our everyday lives. People are naturally social and creative and it drives us to innovate. And the flexibility of human behavior, such as our capacity for cooperation and adaptation, allows us to envisage and create a world beyond the current economic and political models many regard as unchangeable.

Capitalism is beginning to become a dirty word again. People have begun to protest against the profit system and the effect it is having on the environment and the quality of life generally. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want nothing to do with these protests. They are as committed to serving the interests of Wall Street. Jill Stein and the Green Party are not anti-capitalist either. Certainly, they criticise Big Corporations and are critical of some of the ways the market-driven system works. And Green Party Ministers in Germany, France Ireland and Italy haven't made any difference to the way capitalism works. It's the old illusion that you can use taxes and government intervention to make the capitalist system work for everybody's benefit. You can't, as has been proved time and again.

A supposedly spontaneous, unorganised anti-capitalist revolution would only end in disaster out of which either the present rulers would succeed in reasserting their control or a new set of rulers would profit from the chaos to seize power. If we are going to get rid of capitalism the majority is going to have to organise itself to do so—in a permanent organisation with a democratic structure. We need to organise to create a state-free, money-free society where goods are produced not to make profits but simply because people needed them.

The election is carried out as if the two main protagonists are marketing agencies selling two superficially different (but nevertheless fundamentally identical) products. The tools of their trade are the typical marketing techniques employed by corporate business everywhere - "spin", "positioning" in relation to key target sectors, junk mail and cold calling of those in a targeted market niche.

So what can you do? Not voting is not as bad as voting for one or other of the parties that stand for keeping capitalism going. But it's a bit of a cop-out. Our ancestors were right to struggle for the vote. The fact that up to now it hasn't been used properly is no reason for rejecting it as useless. Because we think that, in future, the election system could be used in a constructive way we shall be exercising our right to vote. We suggest a write-in vote for socialism. Real socialism, that is. In real socialism, since profit making and money will be abolished, it is all the people and the environment which will come first. Capitalism, with its anti-environmental and anti-social policies, is what needs to be replaced. Socialism is a theory of society that pulls away the mystifying veil of capitalism to reveal the economic exploitation at its core. In light of all the suffering and misery that is erupting throughout the world, is it not time to share resources with one another. Capitalism really did create the capacity for comfortable living. Consider socialism as the common sense application of that potential for abundance. 

Sound theory must precede sound action

The purpose of the Socialist Party to hasten the introduction of socialism, which will abolish private and state property and secure common ownership of the means of production and distribution. Wage labour will be abolished, together with all the other harmful social relations of capitalism. This is a task which means that workers in the majority must be conscious in their revolutionary role, and fully aware of the implications of their actions. When they gain political power based on a socialist mandate they can establish Socialism.

Despite their many and often heroic struggles of defiance and resistance working class have yet to face up to the basic problems caused by capitalism. They suffer under its exploitation but still endure and accept the continuance of the system. Capitalism cannot continue without the overall compliance and complicity of the working class. They accept the idea of private property. The wages system is the natural way they can gain a livelihood. However, the problems and pressures of capitalism are making more workers anxious and apprehensive about the kind of existence they can expect under capitalism and what the foreboding future holds for their children. Social systems are changeable. The history of the ancient world and middle ages shows that past social systems, seemingly unassailable, were all subject to revolutionary change.  People know that in the past the world was very different from what it is now – different ideas and behaviour, different political systems, different production methods, different means of transport, and different social classes – slave owners and slaves, feudal lords, and serfs, and today employers and wage workers. In the past society has been made up of a number of conflicting classes - monarchs, landowners, traders, peasants, workers - but under capitalism these classes have been reduced to two, workers and capitalists. The modern struggle is between these two classes, and capitalism has now become a fetter on further social development. To free our society of war, crises, unemployment, poverty, the workers must capture control of the state and introduce a new system, one in which the means of production and distribution will be owned in common by the whole of society. Each new form of production has brought into being new social classes, a change in social relations, a change in political alignment, and a change in current ideas. The freeman and slave of antiquity looked upon the social world through different eyes from those of the feudal lord and bondsman of the middle ages, and likewise the capitalist and the worker of today have different ideas from those of their medieval counterparts. To understand the ideas of a period it is necessary to examine the economic framework of the period from which the ideas are derived because the economic framework is the dominating influence. Ideas carried over from old outworn systems are carried over into the new, but these traditions are forced into the mould of the new system, though they may have some influence on the shape of the mould. One has only to consider what Christianity looks like now and what it was like a thousand years ago to appreciate this.

Trying to make capitalism work is quite useless to the workers. Some may agree that capitalism has not in the past served the interest of the workers but still hope that perhaps it will in the future if some 'better' leaders are found. Leaders cannot provide socialism for those who do not understand or want it, and those who do understand it don't want leadership. The situation is not one for despair but for hope and action. Sound action must be preceded by sound theory. This requires thought and thought is not easy - most people are afraid of it. The Socialist Party has always held that socialism becomes possible only at a certain stage in the forward march of mankind. It depends firstly on the growth of the powers of production, transport and communication to the level at which the provision of the necessities and amenities of a full life could, with proper organisation and social planning, be assured for the whole population. Capitalism solved this technical problem long enough ago through the development of great industrial plants and machinery and the breaking down of the physical barriers which formerly kept people in different parts of the world isolated from each other. It depends secondly on the growth of working class organisation on a world-wide basis united by understanding of socialist ideas, and by agreement on the democratic political action necessary to replace capitalism by Socialism. The two conditions interact with each other. The second could not proceed the first and, as experience has shown, the growth of socialist understanding and organisation actually lags far behind the advance of productive capacity. Since one country can learn from another and the industrially more advanced could help the less advanced, it is not necessary for the latter to go through all the historical phases of capitalism. On the other hand, it is not possible for one country alone to leap forward into socialism in a predominantly capitalist and hostile world.

Continuous Poverty

A forum research poll conducted during the second week in October showed 63 per cent of responders were in favour of increasing the minimum wage in Ontario to $15 an hour. 31 per cent were not and 6 per cent didn't know. Those against it said such a large increase would reduce employment prospects for young people. Economics professor, Morley Gunderson said recent Canadian studies have shown a 10 per cent increase in minimum wage has resulted in a 3 to 6 per cent decrease in employment for young people. 

Some said it looked good for politicians to up the minimum wage, but the link between it and the reduction of poverty is unproven.

 If credence can be put on the above remarks, it shows no matter how great the effort, there will always be poverty under capitalism. 

John Ayers.

The battle for emancipation

It is part of the task of the Socialist Party to show that, with the exception of that single factor, working-class knowledge, the material conditions for the social revolution are ripe. It is now time for our fellow-workers step in and dethrone the capitalist class by gaining control of the State. They must capture the political machinery by the workers organising themselves into a political party, having for its object the overthrow of the present social system and the establishment of a system of society based upon common ownership of the means of living. Thus organised they must wrest control of the political machinery from the ruling class by means of the ballot, and having achieved this control, must use it to strip the capitalist class of their possessions, and consequently of their privileges. The vote is to be the weapon. A vote is something more than a cross on a scrap of paper. The value of the vote is measured by the man or woman behind the vote. It is not the elected representative who is the all-important factor, but the quality of the vote which puts him into place. Thus the votes cast for the revolutionary representative must be revolutionary votes. They must be the votes of those who understand the need for revolution, desire it, and are determined to achieve it. An MP elected by an informed constituency is its servant. Understanding the position, they are able to direct his course of action, hence they are his masters. If he plays them false, if he departs from the revolutionary path, they know it at once and seize the first opportunity of "dealing with him. On the other hand, such a representative knows that in all sound revolutionary action he has the full support of those whose delegate he is, and hence becomes the strong and efficient servant of a strong master. The representative of those who do not clearly understand what it is they want who gets his votes on all manner of vague pretexts and promises he dares not attempt to take a revolutionary course, whatever his views may be, for he has all sorts and conditions of persons in his following except revolutionaries and  the revolutionary does not follow. Such a representative is in a position to sell his electors. Depending upon confusion for his place, his best chance of maintaining it is to preserve that confusion. This suits the capitalists very well, for their chief concern is that the workers shall not know who their enemies are. Therefore, the political parties of the capitalist class welcome such representatives of labour—they know there is no revolutionary force behind them.

The first quality, then, of revolutionary vote is to have a working class that thoroughly understands its position in society, that thoroughly realises the hopelessness of any endeavour to improve materially that position under the present social scheme, and that therefore is thoroughly resolved to abolish the system and establish Socialism; the crying need, then, is knowledge. The first thing that the workers must learn is that there is only one working class and that their interests are one and the same the wide world over. Then they must learn that, just as the workers are made one by a common interest, so a common interest; binds the capitalists of the world into a solid class. The realisation of this teaches the lesson that the interests of the workers and the capitalists are diametrically opposed, for this follows from the fact that it is interests that divide the people into classes. The logical implication of this is that the workers must proceed to work out their emancipation as a class. This means organisation-—the closest, the highest, most perfect organisation possible—organisation on class lines.

The political organisation of the working class, having for its object the establishment of the socialist system by a politically educated working class, must first of all be an instrument capable of fulfilling its purpose. It must, then, be firmly anchored to its object so that it is impossible for it to drift. The first thing needed, therefore, is to be clear in what the object is because the party seeking working-class emancipation can only gain its object through men and women who thoroughly understand what that object is. Those who hold that it is the 'leader’ who is the source of power are, of course, quite logical in adopting an "object" that will appeal to the greatest numbers. In such a case all that is wanted is shoulders to climb upon. The ' leaders being the strength of the organisation, it is quite sufficient that they understand the object of the organisation—the others do not matter. The case is very different with a democratic organisation. The first principle of such is that it is the workers as a class who must fight the battle for emancipation; it is they who must be strong since their servants and delegates can be strong only with their strength. The logic of this is that the fitness of the organisation for its purpose depends upon the quality and strength, not of ' leaders’ but of the membership.

Those who want office, who are  determined to get our feet on the floor of the House of Commons and are not particular how we do it" (because that is all they want), claim that the emancipation of the working class does not need a revolution. The reason for this is easily seen. The only way in which they could get their feet on the floor of the House of Commons to-day is by denying the need for revolution. Revolution and the class struggle, of course, are necessarily connected. The "gradualist," therefore, in order that he may get his feet on the floor of the House of Commons with the help of non-socialist votes, is forced to deny the revolution because that implies recognising the existence of the class struggle. Those, however, who realise the facts of the political situation, know that the workers would not be driven to seek emancipation but for the class antagonism; hence they are driven to accept the class struggle as the very basis of their action. Members of the Socialist Party can never become the plaything of leaders and dictators. The first sign of compromise, the first indication of alliance with the enemy, the first particle of evidence that a member has become the tool of any section of the master class, and he is dealt with by a membership imbued with the principle of the class struggle.

Consider the following facts:

The first is that terrible poverty exists among the workers to-day.

The second is that the productivity of human labour, have increased enormously during the last 500 years, the bulk of the workers, in view of the vastly increased production of wealth, are poorer to-day than they were in the Middle Ages.

The third is that this poverty is worst when the warehouses are full to bursting.

The fourth is sufficient wealth is produced to-day to afford comparative comfort to every member of the community.

The fifth is that the work of producing and distributing that wealth is performed by the working class.

Are these statements true? If they are, then all that is required; is that working-class intelligence, courage, and determination shall rise to the height of seizing control of society and remoulding it to the end that the general happiness and well-being shall be the sole purpose of all productive effort. If they are true they impose upon every working man and woman the serious duty of giving thought to these matters; for it is from them alone that the remedy can come. The salvation of the working class involves the overthrow of the master class, therefore it is futile to look for help from the latter.

We need socialism

Industry cannot be wrested from capitalist ownership by degrees; this change must be fundamental, immediate and complete. Socialism means an immediate and fundamental revolution in the basis of society; the complete abolition of capitalist ownership of the means of production at one stroke, and its replacement by common ownership. Socialism cannot be achieved gradually. When the workers understand and want socialism the difficulties of organising production and distribution on the new basis will not present a great problem. Production and distribution of the world is almost wholly under the direct domination of the capitalist class of the world, and where this does not apply the domination is indirectly applied. This domination is based upon the subjection of the wage-labourer including those, who, consider themselves professionals and/or self-employed. The only way out of this subjugation and servitude is the unity of the working class for the conquest of political power with the sole object of dispossessing the capitalist class of its means of subjection and the transforming society from one based upon the private ownership of the means of production into one based upon the common ownership of the means of production. This new social organisation can only be achieved by the majority of the workers understanding its implications and relying upon themselves alone to accomplish the change. Not leadership but mass understanding is the condition of achieving socialism.

Socialism is an international question that concerns workers of all countries. One of the hindrances to its acceptance is race-prejudice which sets groups against each other on grounds of colour, religion, and so forth. Before the workers can really understand their fundamental unity they must get rid of this false and harmful race-prejudice. The Socialist Party understands only one fundamental social division in the modern world—the division that exists between the capitalist class on the one hand, and the working-class on the other. All other divisions, whether they are based on religion, nationality, language or “race”, are incidental to this main division. Regarding our attitude to the problem of race-prejudice, let us state categorically so that nobody will misunderstand:

“The interests of all members of the working-class, whatever the race to which they belong, are fundamentally opposed to the interests of the members of the capitalist class irrespective of the race to which the members of this latter class belong.”

The class division cuts directly across all others. Racism is but one of the many social problems that spring directly from the contradictions of capitalist society itself. As such, it must be kept in its proper perspective. To attempt to solve the problem of race prejudice in isolation will meet with the same abject failure that has resulted from the efforts to end, piecemeal, the various other evils of the capitalist system. Only as the workers of the world understand their position under capitalism; only to the extent that they absorb socialist knowledge, will they cease to be a prey to the hatreds and prejudices arising from fantastic notions of racial superiority and national chauvinism.

One of the most frequent criticisms of the Socialist Party is that while the policy of advocating socialism is useful and necessary for the ultimate solution of working-class problems, it is nevertheless a short-sighted and unrealistic policy to neglect to support measures of social reform designed to improve the conditions of the workers whilst capitalism is still in existence. It is urged that a socialist party should wage a guerrilla warfare with the capitalists in order to gain benefits, even if only temporary and minor, and that in doing so it would rally to the cause of socialism many workers who otherwise would not be prepared to support an organisation which appeared to have an excellent programme for the future but not for the present.

Our reply to that criticism has been that the task of a socialist party is to establish socialism and that as this can only be brought about by a working population possessing an understanding of the issues involved, our propaganda at all times must be directed at spreading the essential socialist knowledge. Further we have argued that a socialist party which advocated reforms would attract non-socialist support from those interested in all or some of the reform measures, and that the non-socialist support would sooner or later (and in all probability sooner) swamp the socialist elements and the party would become just another reformist organisation with no better claim to working class support than that of the Labour Party.

We have pointed to the records of many “socialist” organisations which have adopted the policy of “getting something now” to show the futility of attempting either to build up a socialist movement with a reformist programme, or even to reform out of existence some of the minor disabilities suffered by the workers under capitalism. In this latter connection it can be said that the reform measures that have been passed have generally been instituted by self-confessed capitalist organisations which have recognised the need to adjust capitalism in the light of changing conditions. The usual process has been for the so-called workers’ parties to agitate (often for a considerable period) for particular measures of social reform and then in the end, when the capitalists can no longer resist the agitation, for these (or watered-down versions of them) to be brought about by the governments which have thus been able to steal the limelight which the workers’ organisations have sought to obtain, and use it to their own advantage. This in its turn has increased the confusion in the minds of the workers, who feel that there can be very little wrong with capitalism when capitalist parties themselves are prepared to adopt what have been proclaimed to be “socialist” proposals. Socialism alone can end that poverty. We shall not be diverted from our task in order to chase the shadows, but we shall continue to strive for the substance, socialism, which will abolish forever the conditions which bring into being the evils of the modern world. Our aim has been to give our fellow-workers as clear and concise a picture of their present position in society as is possible. How far we have succeeded is for they to judge.

Sick Scotland

The average person from the most deprived tenth of Scots dies aged 73, after 23 years of living in "not good health".

The person from the least deprived tenth of Scots can expect to die, on average, aged 83, after 10 years of being in poor health.

Other gaps between least and most deprived:

1. Low birth weight was more than twice as high

2. Breastfeeding was almost three times lower

3. Signs of tooth decay in children ran 54% to 81%

4. Childhood obesity was less of a divider, at 18% to 25%

5. The teenage pregnancy rate was nearly five times higher in the most deprived areas.

Glasgow has the lowest life expectancy of anywhere in the UK. Even by comparison with similar cities.  Compared with Liverpool and Manchester, premature deaths in Glasgow are 30% higher.

How long can a child expect to live, born in 2014?

Men

Healthy life expectancy:

Most deprived 47.6

Least deprived 72.7

Life Expectancy:

Most deprived 70

Least deprived 82.5

Years spent in 'not good health':

Most deprived 22.6

Least deprived 9.8

Women

Healthy life expectancy:

Most deprived 51

Least deprived 73.2

Life expectancy:

Most deprived 76.7

Least deprived 84.5

Years spent in 'not good health':

Most deprived 25.7

Least deprived 11.3

Satisfying human needs

The basic and vital function of all societies is production. What distinguishes one form of society from another is the relationship between men and the means of production. In primitive communities, they belong, such as they are, to everyone; in more complex societies there is class ownership which directs the whole course of man's productive activities and the other activities resulting from them. In capitalism, the social form of the modern world, the means of production - the land, the factories and sources of energy, the machinery, and everything auxiliary to them - are owned by perhaps 10 per cent. of the population. The nine-tenths who remain without ownership live, therefore, by being wage-workers, all more or less poorly paid: they are the working class. There can be no identity of interest between the two groups; under this ownership system the one class is always exploited by the other. All production is carried on for, and all social activity is contributory to, the motive of sale for profit.

On this basis, modern civilisation has developed. With it have also developed the problems which are direct consequences of the universal production of goods for sale. The wars which result from the competition of capitalist nations in the world's markets, and the special problem which a particular weapon of war may impose; the economic crises which recur uncontrollably; the poverty and insecurity from which the wage-earning class is never free; the consequences of poverty in bad housing, ill-health, crime and many other evils. All social and economic problems must, therefore, be related to the organisation of society. Reformers in all fields, including education, fail to understand this and attempt to deal with the effects without touching the social causes. Often, too, the problems are dealt with from the point of view of what is good for “industry” or “the nation.” - that is, the owning class in the nation. What should really be judged is the capitalist system from the viewpoint of the great majority. Human society exists for the satisfaction of human needs, yet capitalism fails to provide a satisfactory life for most people living in it.

All people going to work for wages are selling their labour-power; the price of this depends, as does the price of every other commodity, on the labour that went into its making. Thus, a professional person or a skilled technician's labour-power (subject, of course, to market conditions) commands a relatively high price because it embodies other people's skilled labour in education and training; an unskilled workman's labour-power, on the other hand, has only a: low price because it is essentially a cheap product. From this economic point of view, the school under capitalism resembles a factory in which materials are tested, classified and put through processes which will mould them into finished products for the market ranging from the cheap, mass-produced to the costlier high-grade article. In practice, it cannot, fortunately, be as mechanistic as that because the material is human, but the view is not far removed from the capitalist one. The owning class at times is prepared to pay heavily and foster education to have its own requirements met; at other times and when there are other priorities, the education system may be subject to abridgements and economies. The granting of education and facilities for learning to the working class, even though it is for someone else's reasons, is of immense value. Within the framework of elementary education, there have been many improvements and additional benefits over the years. These, however, have resulted from the increased complexity of capitalism that has demanded more knowledge and more economic participation from even the least skilled worker, and so necessitated a widening of his or her education.

The aim of the Socialist Party is to bring into being a society in which not only will the problems and privations of the present-day world be absent, but every person will lead a free and satisfying life. What is wrong with our society is its basic condition of ownership by a class; the answer, therefore, is to establish a new social system based on the ownership by everybody of all the means of production. Such a society has not yet existed, though there has been much confusion about it because of the play with the word “socialism” made by reformers, the Labour Party and 'social-democratic' parties, and admirers of the former Soviet Union’s state capitalism. Socialism means that all people will have the same relationship to the means of production. Everyone will take part as he is able, in the necessary work of society; there will be no money, and everyone will have free access – will, in fact, own - all that is produced. Thus, there will be neither exploitation nor competition, and social activity will take new forms when no person is compelled to serve another's interests. The conditions needed for its establishment are with us now: the development of the means and methods of production that could create abundance if the profit motive did not stand in the way. All that is lacking is people to bring it to being. Thus, the concern of socialists under capitalism is education - showing the facts about capitalism, and the only answer to the problems which it causes.  Here, then, is the great need of today: people to make a different world. People, that is, who have looked at capitalism critically and seen that it has long ceased to be useful to mankind, and that socialism is wanted now