Frontier Free

“Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do” - John Lennon

By common ownership, we are not proposing the Big Brother nightmare of all the planet's resources being owned and controlled by a single World Government.  By common ownership we mean there should be no private property or territorial rights over any part of the globe. The Earth and its natural and industrial resources should not belong to anybody – not to individuals, not to corporations, not to nation-states. They should simply be there to be used by human beings to satisfy their needs. What we are proposing is that private property rights and territorial rights over any part of the planet should be abolished. This is the only basis on which we as the human species can set about arranging our relationship with the rest of Nature in a rational and ecological way so that the planet becomes a habitable place for all of us.

Socialism cannot be established in one country. Socialism can only be a world-wide system and socialists do not defend capitalist national independence. On the contrary, one of our criticisms of capitalism is precisely that it has divided the world into competing and armed sovereign nations whose conflicts mean that war is always going on in some part of the world. What we want is not national independence but a socialist world without frontiers.

A united humanity, sharing a world of common interests, would also share world administration. This is the socialist alternative to the way that capitalism divides the planet into rival states and sets people against each other. Driven by class interests and profit and spurred by the attitudes of nationalism, racism, and religion, war and civil strife continue to cause death and misery. 

The World Socialist Movement has always understood the change-over from capitalist government to socialist administration to involve the capture by a socialist-minded working class of the various national governments of the world to be followed by the dismantling of the coercive features of the old government machines but the retention, in adapted form, of some of the non-coercive technical functions now exercised by governments. Socialism will begin with its delegates being in control of national and local governments and from this point, the role of these bodies as part of a state machine will be replaced by the democratic organisation operating solely for the needs of communities. It follows that all the socially-useful parts of the previous state machine will be continued. At the local level these include planning, education, health and transport departments, etc.

At the national level there are useful ministries such as housing and agriculture and those which administer health and education on the broader scale. Equally, this could be done on the international scene. There is not as yet a world government but there is the United Nations.  Just as on the national scale some of the institutions of the capitalist government machine could be adapted and used as part of the new socialist administration, so on the world scale could some of the institutions of the UN. There are bodies concerned with postal services, communications, air transport, ocean shipping, the weather, labour, education, agriculture and health which could form the basis of institutions for controlling these matters on a world scale in socialist society. The same principle will apply to decision-making bodies and administration such as we find with those professional and scientific associations, who regularly meet for discussion and debate to come to a consensus of opinion and also to set agreed standards.

Just as capitalism has developed powers of production that could provide every person with a comfortable and secure life so it has also developed means of organising a world of co-operation. In a socialist society, for the first time ever, the communications network which capitalism has built up and which socialism will develop even further will be used to ensure that everyone can have an input into the decisions which affect their lives on a global, regional and local basis. A world administration does not mean centralised control and power over local democracy.  A system of global democratic administration in socialism need not be based in either world, regional or local spheres. We can envisage an integrated system that would be adaptable and could be used for decision-making and action on any scale between the local and the world. Practical necessity would require such adaptability. This is not to suggest that such a single agency based in New York or Geneva or wherever would be making policy decisions for everyone on the planet. Its function could be to provide information and propose various development strategies so that alternatives could be decided democratically. From where we stand now a lot of people would say that priority should be given to ecologically benign methods such as wind, wave, solar power, etc. With the freedom to make such a decision without the economic constraints of capitalism, socialism could do it. The sole motive would be the needs of people and this would be in sharp contrast to the way in which governments decide matters now from the point of view of national economic and military interests.

In socialism, local communities will be free to make decisions about the development of their areas. With the release of productive resources solely for needs, for the first time, they will possess real power to act on those decisions. These would be decisions about community services such as health, education, and transport; public facilities such as parks, libraries, leisure centres and sports grounds; local housing, town-planning, care of the local environment, cultural events, and so on. People will be able to co-operate much more in their own interests and there would be more active participation in local bodies adapted from present parish and district councils. The principle determining the practice of local democracy would be that decisions affecting just local populations would be made by them and not for them by any larger or outside body.


The importance of local democracy has to be seen in the context of modern production which is world-wide. There will be some local production for neighbourhood needs but even simple products are global. For example, a ball-point pen needs world mining, the oil industry, chemicals and world transport However, with abolition of capitalist corporations many of which duplicate their operations on a world scale it is likely that socialism would want to rationalise structure of production. This could operate from world scale extractive industries like mining to regional centres of industrial processing and manufacture and final distribution to local populations. This could correspond to a similar network of administrative levels on world, regional and local scales. An obvious example of production that has to begin from a world perspective is energy. The use of the earth's finite resources such as fossil fuels, the prediction of world energy needs, concern for the pollutants and hothouse gases in the environment, the risk of accidents, the development of benign technologies, etc., all combine to make energy policy a world issue. This is a case where in socialism a single world energy authority would have the advantage of a complete overview of the problems and would be able to draw on information from every community. The example of energy policy means that people in socialism won't only just be concerned about whether a piece of local land should be used for housing, growing food, a football pitch or left as it is. People will also be engaged with issues affecting them which extend far beyond their local horizons. So, as well as being people of their parish they would also be citizens of the world with all the opportunities for, and responsibilities of decision making and action in every sphere of life.


The importance of the mass communications from the smart mobile telephone to the laptop is not only for their potential for enjoyment and amusement, they are just as important as means of organising administration and production. Already social media brings home to us with force and immediacy the tragic results of disasters such as earthquakes and floods. Even in the cynical, alienated world of capitalism people do what they can to help and with the resources available in socialism world organisation would move swiftly to minimise the damage and the suffering. So, as well as the face-to-face contacts of our daily lives at work, home, at the shops, in the library, at the football pitch or leisure centre with friends, neighbours and relatives, and as well as our part in local affairs, at the same time we would be involved with all other people in world issues and events of every kind.


Federalists aim at world administration but they are talking about world government—a world capitalist state. People would still be class divided and subject to all the tyrannies and insecurities of the profit system. In any case, governments are not going to give up the economic interests of the class they represent in favour of world administration. Only the workers of all countries share a real interest in working to establish a world based on common ownership where all means of production and all resources will be held in common by all people. Production would organised through voluntary co-operation and part of that co-operation will be the work of deciding what should be done in the interest of the whole community and then acting on those decisions. This is the basis on which the world communications and administrative bodies which have been developed for the objectives of capitalism can be used for the whole population.


The solution is indeed one world without frontiers and without states, but not a world government presiding over a world capitalist economy. World socialism is a world community without frontiers where all the resources of the Earth have become the common heritage of all humanity, to be used for the benefit of all people.  That we have no country but still have a world to win is still our best slogan and the best hope for all people.

Scottish Nationalism and European Nationalism

Nationalism, as we have seen, is always the tool of the bourgeoisie, historically.  The Socialist Party will argue in this June the 8^th General Election that liberation for Scottish workers can come about only by overthrowing capitalism itself. If this is not done, no amount of sovereignty can ever succeed in bringing freedom, but the only diversion. At present Scottish nationalism and the SNP have the appearance of being a progressive movement to some honest people and those sincere people in and around the nationalist movement will only discover, in some years’ time, that they have been most cruelly misled and have been wasting their time.  Instead of tragically wasting their time fostering nationalism (in whatever form), they must build a powerful socialist movement.

Many who will vote for the SNP will do so in the hope that eventual Scottish independence will bring re-membership with the EU which is routinely presented as an internationalist project for an ever closer union between peoples of the region as a means of overcoming national differences and state rivalries which therefore appeals to many on the left, who often identify the EU with modernisation, economic and social advance.  Although it was not a nation state, the EU is already mimicking the state ideologically, producing a Europeanism constructed of nationalism. The EU has the appearance of a body in which national differences, if not dissolved, are at least partly reconciled. While Eurocrats and politicians in member states have declared for internationalism and harmony, they have simultaneously organised a regime of exclusion which divides ‘Europeans’ from ‘non-Europeans’ as effectively as any imagined differences which were earlier said to separate Germans, French, or Italians. Fortress Europe has a class character, intended to deny entry to almost all of those seeking a buyer for their semi- and unskilled labour power, as well as those seeking sanctuary from civil conflict and repression. The vast majority of those denied entries are poor and vulnerable; those with wealth and privilege are invariably admitted such as the Russian oligarchs with well-padded bank accounts to buy up football clubs.

‘Fortress Europe’ in fact draws upon ideas which earlier underpinned Europe’s rival nationalisms. It has encouraged racism in general and helped to provide rationales for the extreme right, where the vocabulary of Nazism has reappeared in the form of defending “European” and “Christian” culture. The EU has begun to construct its exclusionary regime with razor wire and border police, with the idea of securing Europe against ‘threats’ from without. EU states were focused intently upon removing migrants and refugees deemed ‘bogus’, ‘clandestine’ or ‘illegal’.  The vast majority of those targeted were poor and vulnerable people, almost invariably of African or Middle Eastern origin. But EU states have also targeted an ‘enemy’ long present within European territorial boundaries. Roma people were identified by fascist movements of the 1920s and 1930s as one of their two greatest enemies: conservatively at least 200,000 Gypsies were sent to the death camps. In a crisis-stricken Europe images of the divided past are returning. Immigration policies are now formed in response to the collective insecurities and imaginings of public opinion; the clampdown on illegal immigrants, the need for tighter border controls, the threat of religious fundamentalism, the perceived loss of national identity, and the fears of demographic invasion are characteristic reactions of the right-wing revival. The media regularly carries stories of an Islamic menace, with Europe depicted as a target zone for migrants who could make common cause with resident Muslim communities which are increasingly depicted as a fifth-column within European society. The EU’s progress towards a fortified Europe and the heavy cost in terms of intensified racism and growth of the right presents a dismal picture.

Yet SNP propaganda depicts a happy transnational Europe in which old conflicts are being erased but it is the commercial trade-offs that drive the SNP to remain with the EU.

Plain Old Capitalism

The capitalist system rewards the rich as it penalizes the working class. The acceptance of “have” and “have-not” populations are concepts that have become so ingrained, they are seldom questioned. 

Socialists are not prophets of doom. We clearly promote an alternative that we hold to be workable. The Socialist Party offers solutions to the many social problems that plague present-day society.

Socialism is about taking control of the means of production in order to make things and share them, “from each according to ability, to each according to need,” without the mediation of money. Reformism has failed because any meaningful pro-worker regulations eventually become fetters to capital’s health, so it becomes necessary to dismantle them - to “save the economy” (i.e. capitalism). That’s what we’re experiencing now, and a return to more regulation, more taxing of the rich to fund social services, etc., is something capital cannot afford without first restoring the rate of profit, which (if possible) would require more of the same: rising unemployment, falling wages, cuts to public goods and services, and the acceleration of energy wars and environmental devastation, bringing us ever closer to catastrophe. So reformism is “utopian”; the only “realistic” way out of this mess is the path we have yet to forge – the establishment of a socialist society.

Capitalism is a system of production whose roots could be found in commercial activities throughout the ancient and medieval world, but which came into its own in early modern Western Europe. Its features are:

1) Two basic social classes: proletariat and bourgeoisie

a. We workers have no legal way to survive except by renting ourselves out as workers

b. The capitalists have  money, and the facility to make it grow by exploiting us

(2) A system of commodity* exchange invading all spheres of life, with money as the universal commodity (everything has a price, so you can get anything with enough money, and nothing without it)

*Commodity: something produced for exchange rather than for direct use.

(3) The process of capitalist production

a. Industrial capitalists  invest money (known as capital*) to rent land and buildings, buy machinery and raw materials, and hire proles to produce Commodities for sale – not because capitalists want Money to buy other Commodities (the traditional logic of commodity exchange, C-M-C), but in order to make a profit, that is, more money than was originally invested (M-C-M’).

*Capital: money invested in order to get more money; “dead labor, that vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks” (Marx, Capital, vol. 1, chapter 10)

b. This trick is possible because the capitalist pays us for only part of the value we produce. For example, a prole named Lori works 8 hours for $10/hour, assembling hamburgers at McDonald's. The 400 hamburgers she makes during those 8 hours sell for $2000. The beef, buns and other materials cost $1000, and the utilities, wear and tear on equipment, and other expenses cost another $900, totaling $1900. So Lori’s labor added $100 worth of value to those materials, but she was paid only $80, so Mr. McDonald made $20 net profit from the unpaid portion of Lori's labor that day. If there are 10 employees per shift working at the same average rate of exploitation, and two shifts per day, then Mr. McDonald nets $400 each day from that store, $12,000 per month.

c. So right at the point of production, there is an irreconcilable contradiction between capital and the labor necessary for capital’s growth. Our interests are fundamentally opposed: the longer and harder we work, the more profit the boss makes, and vice versa: if we try to lighten our work load, whether in time or intensity, or if we demand higher wages or safer conditions, we cut into the boss's profit. This contradiction cannot be resolved through compromise, since capital will die if it doesn't grow, and capital can grow only by “sucking” more “living labor” from workers. This is the basic logic of capitalist investment, M-C-M': capitalists don't invest in order to exchange their assets for something they want to use, but in order for their money to give birth to more money, and if it doesn't do that, they may as well sell their assets and buy a tropical island. At the same time, competition with other companies forces them to constantly increase the rate of exploitation – either by making us work harder or longer, or by switching to new equipment that can produce more products per labor-hour, or that can be operated by cheaper workers. Every now and then the workers manage to push down the rate of exploitation, but when that is limited to one firm, it threatens the firm with bankruptcy (since other firms in the same industry are continuing to operate at a higher rate); when workers push down the rate of exploitation for a whole industry, capital floods out of that industry in search of more profitable opportunities, leading to mass layoffs (as we've seen with the auto industry); when it affects the system as a whole, we have a crisis, which is capital's way of trying to restore the rate of profit.

(4) Dog-eat-dog competition among capitalists on a (free or regulated) market.

This is why subjective attitudes like greed are irrelevant: even if an entrepreneur happens to be Mother Teresa, and her whole reason for going into business is to create humane jobs, do “green” production, and give to charity, either her products are limited to a tiny niche market for rich people trying to assuage their guilty consciences (like the “fair trade” market), or more likely, her products are undersold by other companies that pay their workers slightly less, or pollute a little more. She is forced to follow their example or go bankrupt. No amount of government regulation can fundamentally change this: such regulation cuts directly into profit, so there is always a tug of war between capitalists and anyone who tries to regulate the market by raising the minimum wage, improving environmental protection standards, etc. This tug of war is really a displacement of the class war between capital and labor: the state and most official “labor” organizations are just responding to, or trying to preempt, widespread proletarian resistance, and as mentioned above, this war cannot end in a truce: capital must keep pushing back to restore the rate of profit, which means undoing previously made regulations.

(5) Endlessly expanding reproduction & crisis

Not only is capital like a vampire; it’s also like a cancer, since it must constantly expand and multiply. Once a capitalist makes profit, he's got to make another investment – either in expanding the same firm, or starting a new one. Even if he just puts his profit into the bank, the bank's got to lend it to another capitalist, or the bank would go out of business. This is why we can't blame the crisis on banks, or Wall Street for that matter: without banks or the stock exchange, industrial capitalists wouldn't be able to come up with enough money to buy the expensive facilities necessary to survive in competition with other firms. At the same time, financial institutions can't survive without constantly making loans and investments, and when there are no profitable opportunities, either there is a crisis, or financiers start inventing ways to make profits on paper (hedge funds, etc.) – until someone figures out there's not enough production and consumption going on to back it up. And this is obviously NOT because everyone has all the products they need or want; a sixth of the world's population is chronically malnourished, and yet fields lie fallow, farm equipment stands unused, and ridiculous amounts of food are thrown away every day. The reason is that people don't have enough money to buy the products, and this is because companies won't hire them (or if they do, the wages are too low), and this in turn because it wouldn't be profitable for the companies to expand, since they couldn't sell any more products at a profitable price...

This crisis will not end until the rate of profit is restored, which would require:

(1) the rate of exploitation to increase considerably, and since it's hard to imagine how we could survive the stress of working any harder or longer than we're already working, the main way to increase the rate of exploitation would be by continuing to lay off workers and cut wages – including the social wage, made up of welfare benefits, public transit, homeless shelters, etc. (paid indirectly by capitalists to proles via taxes and donation to non-profits);

(2) the liquidation of old capital, including products that can't be sold profitably, obsolescent fixed capital (machines, etc.), and fictitious capital (that is, paper claims to wealth above the actual value of the commodities to which they originally referred - value that is always falling due to technological development, while paper claims to that value, once sold on in a different form, are not written down until a financial crunch; historically, war has been an important way old capital is liquidated);

(3) continuing to cut the cost of production by plundering land, water, and other “resources” from the world's few remaining peasant communities with anything left to steal, and by mining the bodies of humans and other animals for “resources” such as organs, plasma, DNA…; and

(4) the opening of new markets, and the continued creation of new lines of products (for those who can afford them), commoditizing any spheres of life yet to be commoditized

That is, if capital doesn’t destroy us first through military or ecological apocalypse... Or if we don't end the reign of capital by turning this movement of "'Occupy' protests" into a movement to occupy the means of production .

Taken from "Corporate greed," or just plain old capitalism”

Edinburgh's Colonies

Fact of the Day: As part of the "EH4" postcode, Blackhall and its immediate surroundings have the second highest number of millionaires in the UK and the highest number in Scotland.

Edinburgh was a stronghold of various radical groups such as the Friends of the People, the United Scotsmen and those involved in the Pike Plot in 1794. Edinburgh was also a centre of opposition to Britain’s involvement in the war against revolutionary France. Out of a population of between 70,000 and 80,000, 11,000 citizens signed a petition calling for a halt to the war. Riots in 1800 and 1801 signified that the opposition was also concerned about the economic impact on ordinary people. Campaigning for the right to vote saw the ordinary citizens of Edinburgh active in the reform movements of the 1830s, 1860s and 1880s.

There was an Edinburgh trade union committee in the 1830s. This is known because the press refer to a march and rally organised to celebrate the passage of the Reform Bill in 1832. However, it seems probable that the formation of a permanent trades council in Edinburgh took place in 1853. It has met continuously since then.

Reports on the Old Town of Edinburgh in the 1840s documented that the area had the most unsanitary living conditions of any other city in Britain at the time. It was reckoned that ‘overcrowding in the Blackfriars area was four times greater than in prison cells’ in this period’. The Edinburgh News went so far as to describe Old Town houses as ‘chambers of death’. In 1850, it was noted at the Reform Association that ‘the unclean heart of Edinburgh would not be gutted out until it was planted all around with new houses.’ The collapse of tenements on Edinburgh’s High Street on the 24th November 1861, when 35 people were killed and a further 100 injured also brought the issue of the condition of buildings in the Old Town into sharp public relief.

 Trade unionism among skilled workers like printers, stonemasons, and upholsterers dates from the turn of the 19th century. Because of this, much of the radicalism of the Chartist movement for the vote in the 1830s and 1840s was located among the skilled artisans. Edinburgh stonemasons were the first in Scotland to win the nine-hour day in 1861 when much of the New Town was being built. Out of the strike, which turned into a three-month lockout, the workers set up a house building cooperative. A decade later this cooperative had built 1,000 affordable homes for workers in the city. The most famous of these are the seven sets of “colonies”.The intention was to use their collective practical skills as builders and joiners to build ‘comfortable and respectable houses’ for rent or sale at reasonable prices for working people. Houses for those who ‘prefer the privacy of self-contained dwellings with private gardens to homes in common stair tenements. The first houses at Stockbridge cost between £100 and £130 to buy and a mortgage scheme was established to allow ‘every facility for acquiring the Company’s property’. A house could be secured by a £5 deposit, and property investment companies loaned the balance to be paid back in instalments of £13 per annum for 14 years on security of the title deeds. This compared very favourably to the annual rent at the time of £11 per annum for an Old Town flat and enabled workers on modest, but regular incomes to be rehoused in better homes.’ 

It was also made a condition of purchase that it was ‘unlawful to convert, or permit to be converted, any of the dwelling houses into sheebens or brothels or to have any cow house, pig house, or manufactory.’ The Colonies were a radical experiment in home–owneship based on the principles of mutuality and participation. They are a monument to the cooperative housing movement and are recognised as important in histories of working-class housing in Britain. As well as having an interesting social history, the Colonies are of architectural interest. The cottage style of the two storey terraces with upper flats often reached by outside stairs is unusual in the Scottish cities. The overall scale of the layout, the high-quality workmanship and the detailed control of their design cannot be matched in this type of housing anywhere else in Scotland.

You Can’t Beat the Enemy While Hoisting His Flag

“The workingmen have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself THE nation it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.” - Marx

There is certainly good reason to recall this elementary truth that Marx and Engels put forth in the “Communist Manifesto”, for it is a truth that capitalist ruling classes are always seeking to camouflage. We live today in an era of populism – simplistic solutions to complex questions. All kinds of nationalism pervade the world today, especially in countries that have nothing to offer their people but ideologies, hopes and promises.

Although the SNP have successfully jettisoned their "Tartan Tory" image for a more radical garb it would be mistaken to make an alliance with a political party that threatens the unity of the working class. Scottish nationalism divides the working class before its common enemy, the British capitalist class. It chains Scottish workers to the interests of “their” bourgeoisie. Only socialism can guarantee an end oppression.  An independent Scotland would be intrinsically neither better nor worse than any other capitalist state. Scottish independence is something that the capitalist class can live with and it is not intrinsically contrary to the interests of the bourgeoisie. The truth is that nationalism (no matter how it is dolled up with pseudo "socialist" phrases) represents no way forward for the working people.  Without class unity, there is no way forward for the Scottish workers. That should be our starting point. The Socialist Party sets out to defend the common interests of the workers of Britain, Europe, and the entire world against the common enemy — the Scottish, English and Welsh and global capitalist class. The unity of the Scottish, English, and Welsh workers has been forged in common struggle and organisation for generations.

There is wholly false assumption that Scottish people are automatically more left-wing than the English. There is no separate "Scottish Road to Socialism". It is the false demagogy of the "left" wing of the nationalists. The Tories were the only party ever to achieve an absolute majority in a general election in Scotland, as recently as 1955, even if they came close to meltdown in the Thatcher years. And when it comes to working class militancy, the Scottish record is by no means one of automatically being better than England. The militant heart of the great mining strikes of 1972, 1974 and 1984–85 was Yorkshire, not Scotland, while the language of separate Scottish interests was used to keep the Ravenscraig Steel Works operating on scab coal through the 1984–85 strike. The Tory Industrial Relations Act of the early 1970s was defeated by the defiance of London dockers. The Poll Tax was finally destroyed by a riot in Trafalgar Square, even if the non-payment campaign that started in Scotland played a role. Neither national group of workers has an intrinsically higher class consciousness than the other.

Nevertheless, some argue, Scottish independence on a left wing basis, with a government majority of Solidarity, Scottish Socialist Party, Green, and Labour left MSPs would surely pose a challenge to capital. In fact, even if a majority of MSPs were socialists, an independent Scottish Parliament would no more be able to introduce socialism than the Westminster parliament.  The State would not be destroyed simply by transferring its functions from London to Edinburgh, any more than it was destroyed after these functions transferred from London to Dublin in 1922 and a very conservative Irish government.  If the scenario of a left-wing breakaway is to occur, it could only happen in conditions of massively heightened class struggle, but in what possible circumstances would this take place in Scotland and not the rest of Britain? And if the main reason why Scots are attracted to independence is precisely because it promises a road to socialism, why would they embrace independence at the very point when this appeared to be happening across England and Wales also. The only conditions under which the scenario is possible are the same ones that would render separation irrelevant.

Nationalism and socialism are antagonistic ideologies. The SNP is not at all interested in destroying the capitalist system – far from it. They want to make much more profit for the “national” capitalists and profit is extracted from the unpaid surplus labour of the working class. The SNP pushes independence to protect the interests of our national capitalists, to build up the illusion that by fighting against “foreign” capitalists in order to put “our” economy in the hands of “our own” bosses

.

The struggle against nationalism within the working-class movements must be intensified and this struggle is an integral to rebuild a genuine socialist party, without which the social revolution is impossible. Many in the media rejoice that nationalism has triumphed over socialism – it is time to prove them wrong. We live in the epoch of potential social revolution – the rise of world socialism and the overthrow of global capitalism. In this epoch the capitalists are counter-revolutionary, and its ideology, including nationalism, is completely reactionary. There is now only one class capable of overthrowing capitalism: the working class. There is no middle road between the capitalist system and socialism. There is no ideology that serves the interests of both the bourgeoisie and the working class. The results of socialists burying their class independence beneath the mantle of national independence has been disastrous. The exploitation of wage labour, competition, the squeezing out, suppressing and swallowing of rivals among the capitalists themselves, the resorting to war and even world war, the utilisation of all means to secure a monopoly position in its own country and throughout the world - such is the inherent character of the profit-seeking bourgeoisie. This is the class basis of nationalism. At home, the capitalist subordinates the interests of the nation as a whole to its own class interests. It places its class interests or the interests of a certain top stratum of society above the interests of the whole people. Moreover, it tries to monopolize the concept of the nation, posing as the spokesman of the nation and the defender of national interests in order to deceive the people. Abroad, at the same time, it counterposes the interests of its own nation (in essence, of its bourgeois top stratum) to the interests of other nations. The bourgeoisie strives to place its own nation above other nations and, whenever possible, to oppress and exploit other nations, completely disregarding their interests. Such is the nationalist concept of the nation and the class foundation upon which it is based.

Capitalism will doom the planet - Socialism will save it

We live in a time of tremendous instability. Concerns about growing authoritarianism in politics – as reflected in the rise of populist power in politics are legitimate. We live in a time of ecological unsustainability that threatens human survival. Record inequality means a growing number of people around the world are economically insecure and struggling to pay for basic goods such as health care and education.  "One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." The quote comes from Stalin. The policy comes from capitalism.

  With every day that passes, the wealth and power of the capitalist class is further consolidated. The gap between rich and poor grows a process that is linked to the immense profits that continue to be amassed by a greedy handful at the expense of the rest of us. Under capitalism, the only true givers and strivers are the working-class.  Ruling class philanthropy is yet another tool to advance their class interests, another tool of oligarchical control. Not only do philanthropists indeed have more power than ever before but that influence is likely to grow far greater in the coming decades. In the name of redistributing wealth and power, a tiny group of the most privileged members of society will help decide which social justice groups – and causes – will thrive and which will wither. There exists no real debate about capitalism versus something else,  closing their eyes to any alternative more egalitarian future. Capitalism and inequality are the only conceivable game in town. But there’s nothing rational about the world we currently inhabit. 

Over a century ago, John D. Rockefeller’s proposed foundation denounced by the then U.S. attorney general as ‘an indefinite scheme for perpetuating vast wealth’.  In the past, robber barons benevolently” bestowed upon the peasants, cathedrals and churches to buy their way into Heaven, now the modern-day robber barons offer charity to buy off their guilty consciences. Philanthropists often operate subtly, working behind the scenes to set agendas and shape decisions – backing ideas, research, and pilot projects, emerging as the new social engineers of our time.

Working men and women, You work all through the year and, in the sweat of your brow, produce everything in the world. You have built all the railways, the planes, the ships, the cars. You build houses and yet, do you not live in small shabby homes than only a few of you can call your own. You have made everything in the world and provided for all. The rich who eat and drink freely and enjoy themselves luxuriously all through life and still their wealth ever increases while yours diminishes. Good-for-nothing parasites look down on you as low-lives.  Those millionaires, doing no work, but playing and enjoying themselves in their easy and sumptuous life continue to get ever more money and wealth while you go on diligently toiling and laboring and making every good thing in the world.   ou ought to think the matter over well and seriously for yourself, somewhat in the following manner: Why am I, the master of this world, the head of the industry and the very pillar of society, compelled to lead such a life? Do you never in your miserable life think of it? Have you never thought of your present fate as a sad one that is even lower than that of some animals? Have you never thought of getting rid of such an awful life as soon as possible? If you think of the matter as we do, then you ought to organize with other workers; the sooner the better for you and for all, and thus you should get rid of those who live by exploiting you. If you realize yourself the very power and influence you could command, you must organize yourselves into a union with your fellow workers. And then, and only then, you shall get rid of your present miserable life. The fact that you organize or not shall decide the very destiny of the world in either way -- prosperity and happiness, or decadence and misery!

A socialist vision is emerging little by little around the world, soon to once again embrace the labour movement. It is the future. But reaching the future depends on dealing 
with the present, and the present is presently bleak. But the news isn’t all grim.  It's time to get to work. This is not just a one-time 'Dump the Tories” campaign we're undertaking, but the mobilisation of a long-term grassroots socialist movement to reject the capitalist system. The task, then, is as simple as it is difficult: To have People's Power, we must build it. Social democracy requires us all to join together, with each of us doing as much as we can, when we can and for as long as we can. That means creating contacts of like-minded activists, holding meetings to try to agree on issues and approaches, create online networks and email lists. We’ll connect with peoples fighting class struggles and expand international solidarity. We are inviting you to join us on this path of sowing the seeds of socialism. Our task is to galvanise fellow-workers into political action to change society. We need vision and we require organization aiming for transformation of society

Unite the Workers of the Whole World 

The Old Suffer

Over 200,000 over-65s in Scotland are struggling financially, according to new research for Age Scotland.

The charity said despite one in five pensioners struggling, an estimated £292 million in Pension Credit and Housing Benefit is going unclaimed each year. If those who are eligible for Pension Credit make a claim, it could increase their income by an average of £42 a week – or £2,184 a year. 

With 158,000 pensioners now living below the poverty line the organisation is urging older people to get in touch to find out if they’re entitled to extra financial support.

The UK government’s latest figures show that one in 10 people aged 65+ would not be able to pay an unexpected expense of £200, to replace a broken washing machine for example.

Is it Better to be Exploited by One’s Fellow-countrymen?

As the General Election approaches, many of Scotland's self-avowed “left-wing” intellectuals and trade unionists, who say they want to defend the interests of the Scottish working class have started promoting tactical support for the SNP. The electoral successes of the SNP have pushed to the fore once more of the question of Scottish independence. Some on the left regardless of reservations about the SNP argue for support for independence for Scotland, albeit for a ‘socialist’ Scotland.  The Socialist Party does not, of course, defend the present centralised UK state but it does not support separatism in Scotland.

Left-nationalists preach that socialists and Scot Nats shared common agendas. They endeavour to wed socialists and nationalists into a marriage of convenience. You can make all the fine-sounding speeches you want to about mixing socialism with a supposedly progressive nationalism but that doesn’t alter the reality. Socialism cannot be accomplished without the capture of political power by the working class. Nationalism, on the other hand, is completely compatible with the continued existence of capitalism and the possessing class is past masters at exploiting nationalism when they need it. As a result, self-described left-nationalists end up despite themselves, promoting the interests of their own national bourgeoisie. Scottish nationalist agitation, whoever carries it out, does not strengthen the force for socialism, a united, class-conscious working class, but fragments and weakens it.

Left-nationalists insist that their nationalism has nothing in common with the nationalism of right-wingers and that theirs is a nationalism of liberation.  How many peoples are now paying a heavy price for having put their faith in nationalist leaders? In spite of their “formal independence” many countries are still governed according to the rules of capitalist exploitation and foreign domination. Surely, Scots have enough experience to know that they cannot place any confidence in the capitalists, even if they are nationalists.

History has already taught us that the “nation of the nationalists” is a very deceptive notion. The “nation” – in the programmes of the nationalist parties and at election time, especially, when victory seems possible – designates everyone without exception: firefighters, workers, politicians, police, judges, industrialists, housewives and unemployed. But once the nationalists are victorious, at the first important conflict we see the “national” police clubbing the “national” workers by order of the “national” state whose legality is maintained at all costs by the “national” judges: the “national” housewives and their children go without basic necessities, the “national” industrialists maintain their profit level and the “national” finance companies do a great business. The SNP leadership, in its blind ambition to end the hegemony of the City of London financiers are is ready to make every concession to the bankers of the EU.  Perhaps the separation of Scotland is hard to accept for a section of Scottish and British capitalists, but capitalism itself wouldn’t be hurt by it. Strengthening one enemy at the expense of another by exploiting the contradictions within enemy ranks, is something the working class may do when it serves its interests and advances its struggle. But under no circumstances can it do this when it means sacrificing its fundamental interests when it hinders rather than serves its revolutionary strategy. This would definitely be the case if Scotland were to separate. Separation would undoubtedly weaken a certain section of the British bourgeoisie, but it would also do considerable damage to the Scottish working class as a whole. If we don’t oppose independence, it can only lead to the growth of nationalist ideas among Scottish workers, rather than internationalist ideas that go beyond even Fortress EU.

Independence is nothing but a dead-end road. It doesn’t bring us closer to socialism, only farther away from it. It maintains and reinforces the divisions within the British working class – a real boon for the different sectors of the bourgeoisie which do their best to keep us divided. Furthermore, it pushes narrow nationalism and in so doing, strengthens the SNP.

  One thing is sure, we’re not going to get any closer to socialism by building up the SNP, a party that represents capital and the interests of Scottish capitalists in particular. Whether they like it or not, the people who are pushing this option descend into class collaboration.  Fine talk about capitalist exploitation amounts to nothing but hollow words. Their attacks against the SNP are only for show. But their performance can’t hide what’s at the bottom of their position – it’s compromise, concessions, collaboration, critical support for the Scot Nats. How absurd is the left-nationalist position once it is reduced to its bare bones: for lack of a socialist party we should be content with a capitalist party!

There is only one alternative – a world socialist cooperative commonwealth

Mainly About Us

The transition of human society from capitalism to socialism will be the most profound change in human society in over 10,000 years. No other economic transformation, not even the rise of capitalism, can compare. For the first time since the earliest of human societies people have finally started to practically work toward a social order not based on exploitation. That is, they’ve actually started to strive towards a society in which a tiny elite will no longer have the power to use for its own benefit the labour power of the vast, impoverished producing classes. 

For the greater part of the 200,000 years since the appearance of homo sapiens, scholars have drawn a picture of societies often described as “primitive communism.” These were social orders where people lived in small groups (most often labelled tribes or clans) in a way where the work and the means of production were shared in common. There was what we would consider being an extremely low level of technology, necessitating constant movement to find food and water. At some point, approximately 10,000 years ago, social conditions changed. As a result of population growth, technological advance, and the end of the last Ice Age, there was the development of settled agriculture, the domestication of animals, and the rise of towns. Among these momentous changes came the rise of classes – a split between a majority who worked and a small privileged few who lived off the labor of that majority.

Over time, the system of shared economic relations was, for the most part, obliterated. The new systems of class society took many forms. Over the millennia, we have seen the division of society into two main classes: master/slave, lord/serf, and capitalist/worker. One master class replaced another. Any idea of economic and social equality became a distant dream – the reality of poverty, war, racism, male supremacy, and human aggression – were part of the “natural” order of things. People of course never gave up the struggle for a better life, though. 

The people of our planet are now standing together united with this goal: the 10,000-year era of class exploitation must be ended and a new society based on equality, justice, and peace should be our vision. When the working class gains political and economic power, the ill-gotten wealth, power, and influence of the exploiters will disappear. The domination of one class by another, a feature of human society for 10,000 years, will become a thing of the past.

 In 1904, some members of the Social Democratic Federation, having done their damnedest to steer that compromising, reformist organisation on to the socialist path, were expelled from it. With others, they set about creating a political party with which they could work for socialism. The founders of the Socialist Party were under no illusions. We do not want, within our membership, those who do not subscribe to its principles. Neither would it be honest for workers to be drawn into our organisation without fully realising the implications of the principles and the nature of the Socialist Party they were joining.  It has maintained its opposition to Capitalist wars during two major world conflicts, and although the first of these conflicts was a bad setback for the Socialist Party, it did not destroy it. We are not satisfied with our numerical strength, but we are certainly not ashamed of it. Of one thing we are extremely proud. That is the quality of our membership. It is the quality—the understanding and determination—of the members, that gives an organisation its strength. We have seen a number of so-called working-class political parties grow into mass organisations — then wither away to nothing.  The development towards Social Revolution is not to be measured strictly by the growth of the revolutionary organisation.

 The workers have been, and are, throwing off the capitalist ideas that have been instilled into them. Many of the arguments against socialism that the founders of our Party had to answer are seldom heard today. The socialist case, although it is not widely accepted, receives tolerant attention nowadays. The days when members of our Party had to defend their speakers from the fury of a jingoistic audience are passed. The process of discarding old ideas and accumulating new ones goes on all the time, and the numerical strength of the Party that gives expression to the new ideas can only be taken as an indication and not as a measure of the progress made. Mankind's ideas are not to be emptied from or crammed into their heads as one empties a sack of potatoes and refills it. Old and unsound ideas can only be removed when new ones drive them out. New ideas are continuously being accumulated until the equivalent of that breaking point is reached. Not until a man’s mind has been cleared of its capitalist notions by the introduction of socialist ideas does he embrace the Socialist Party. The minds of all workers in the capitalist world are undergoing this process and are progressing, in varying degrees, towards a socialist understanding. Our task is to assist the process.

Nationalist Nihilism

Socialist sympathies are with the oppressed, they relate not to emerging nationalism but to the particular plight of twice-oppressed people who face both a native and foreign ruling class.  Yet it is an illusory hope that the impoverished can improve their conditions through national independence. National self-determination has not emancipated the laboring classes in the developed nations and the developing countries in Asia and Africa. Nationalism promises little for the poor save indulging on more equal terms in national prejudices. No doubt, this means something to those who have suffered from a particularly arrogant colonial system.

The SNP is a capitalist party. It works on behalf of the capitalists. The difference between the SNP and the other capitalist parties is not that it is calling for a different social system. What’s different is that they are looking for a new sharing of constitutional powers. The sharing will just be between groups of capitalists. They are intent on keeping it in the family. What the Socialist Party wants is real independence. What we want is genuine freedom from capitalist exploitation and domination.

Whatever twists and turns lie down the road in the fight for socialism, one thing is certain: the success of that struggle depends on achieving the greatest possible unity of the working class, it is utterly ridiculous to argue that the working class ought to divide itself into two different countries in order to accomplish this unity. It is completely absurd to justify this with the false argument, disproven many times, that the battle for socialism would be easier if it were led by a more nationally “pure” and homogeneous working class. Working class unity is a must right now if effective resistance is to be mounted to the crisis measures imposed by the capitalists. Unity is necessary to stand up against all the attacks on our democratic rights. The working class faces a powerful and belligerent enemy which is solidly united despite disputes within its ranks. The people are not going to win by dividing themselves. Those leftists who dress up as socialists in order to push nationalism in the working class are the objective allies of the capitalists who have seized the leadership of the nationalist movement and who are busily readying themselves to join the ranks of global capitalism. Capitalist enterprises, inevitably move towards becoming monopolistic corporations, regardless of the nationality of their owners.  The left-nationalists claim the task is to transform bourgeois independence into a socialist independence. In reality, they find themselves in the camp of those promoting division of the working class and promoting austerity policies. This “independence leads to socialism” thesis must be thoroughly demolished in all industrialised countries. Supporting Scottish independence in the name of socialism is a monumental hoax.  It flows from the same kind of logic that leads others to preach the nationalisation as the cure for all our ills.  In this upcoming General Election, it is up to the working class to show these pretenders that it will not be duped by their political nonsense and deceitful rhetoric.

For sure the British nationalists are intent upon using the various immigrant populations living in the UK as scapegoats to mask who is the main enemy – the employing class.  The enemy of the people is not the migrants and refugees nor the “English”. The enemy of the people is the owning class. The Scots have nothing to gain from nationalism.  The Socialist Party refutes the idea that it could be in the interests of the working-class movement to support a capitalist party such as the SNP.  The left- nationalists believe that it is necessary to achieve independence first and then socialism. This is the kind of argumentation that was used to channel people into support for a capitalist party. Socialism is put off until “later”. It is never a struggle to begin right away. The SNP is no more interested in a socialist revolution than the capitalists of Scotland as a whole. Surely, fewer and fewer people still believe that independence is a step forward in the struggle for socialism.

 The way to put an end to national oppression is to attack the root of the problem. The proletariat will not win victories in either the struggle against capitalism or the struggle against national oppression if it fights in dispersed formation against the same enemy. All it will do is make a “breach” in its own ranks. Scottish workers must unite with the only class whose interests lie unreservedly in eliminating both national oppression and capitalism – the global working class.