The New Normal

Poverty in parts of Scotland is so severe that food banks are regarded as “the norm” in some communities, Nicola Sturgeon’s top adviser on poverty Douglas Hamilton, chairman of the Poverty and Inequality Commission, previously the head of Save the Children in Scotland warned.

He said it was “absolutely shocking” that emergency food handouts were becoming accepted as an everyday fact of life. He said politicians in Scotland were in danger of becoming complacent about tackling poverty, warning that warm words and tough targets were not enough. While setting such a tough target was commendable, he pointed out, it would be meaningless unless it was followed up with similarly bold actions.

“There is a real danger of complacency setting in, with politicians and political parties generally, about tackling poverty,” he said. “You get in a situation where almost everyone agrees. People come up from Westminster and say, ‘It’s amazing, the rhetoric’s completely different up here, it’s much more progressive’, but we don’t have actions that match up to that.” He added: “The very existence of a food bank should be a real flashing neon sign saying, ‘We’ve got a problem’. “There’s a real danger you start to accept these things as the norm rather than saying, ‘This isn’t right, it shouldn’t be happening’. We need to warn against complacency.”

Hamilton added: “We’ll no longer be able to say, ‘The reason why there’s so many people in poverty in Scotland is because of Westminster benefit policies’.”

Our Revolution

The Socialist Party is out to teach the working class to understand his or her class position in society as the workers are unconscious of their slavery and prefer to look after their masters’ interests rather than their own.

The Socialist Party promotes a revolution in thinking. The Socialist Party frequently explain workers today produce all wealth in society, but, for their noble efforts, receive back from the capitalist class —the shirking class—just sufficient to enable them to exist, with a view to turning out more profit. No worker can claim that he or she has the right to work—which is the only way to survive—for that right is in the hands of the master class. No work is given to the worker unless the master can make a profit. What good has the capitalist done to the workers? No good at all, in fact, the very system produces misery, degradation, and disease. With the destruction of the capitalist system and the establishment of socialism, every worker will be producing wealth in the interest of the whole community.

Today's capitalist class does not require jackbooted brown-shirts in the streets saluting demagogue dictators at mass rallies. It prefers people apolitical, and apathetic, distracted and divided, atomised and individualized, concerned primarily with identity politics and consumerism. The oligarchy love it when we keep quiet  and when they see millions of mindless consumers storming stores to buy and consume more.  Many of the objectives of capitalists appear on the surface to been accomplished—the defeat of the working class and their trade unions, the marginalisation of resistance and opposition, racial and nationalist divide and rule, without the need for overt fascism or militarisation of society.  There exists a rightward drift fed by a widespread sense of popular abandonment and betrayal.

That “Left” focuses on oppressions and identities of race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, and the like.  In the place of the underlying all-encompassing class conflict between the capitalist class an the rest of us, it points the finger at an individualist explanation of our oppression. Ruling classes have been playing the game of divide-and-rule since the dawn of class rule.  Labour, social, and political history is rife with capitalists and their agents destroying unity struggle by cultivating and exploiting internecine divisions of ethnicity, gender, nationality, and religion, fostering working-class fragmentation and it has been part of the capitalist’s long-standing strategy in the class war on workers' solidarity.  For sure racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia and the like have terrible consequences for the immediate victims and must be challenged on their own terms but more vitally in connection with the essential task of building a broader revolutionary movement and party for people power. 

Some on the left, particularly the greens point the finger at all those who participate in industrialized society, who are accused of destroying eco-systems by consuming the Earth’s resources rather than indict the real enemy of humanity – the capitalist exchange economy and its need to expand to accumulate greater profits. As the eco-Marxist Jason W. Moore’s reflections reminds us, “It was not humanity as whole that created …large-scale industry and the massive textile factories of Manchester in the 19th century or Detroit in the last century or Shenzhen today. It was capital.” If indeed we must blame homo sapiens then let us acknowledge that it was under the command of the capitalist class, a small portion of the species that has ruled for just a tiny portion of human history.

The Socialist Party does not hold false hopes that our masters will ever behave in decent ways. It does not share any faith in the benevolence of the bourgeois elites who plan to make things right for the exploited. The Marxist view is sceptical of “moralising” about the rich. It sees people’s consciousnesses as shaped by the world around them, which makes it futile to exhort people to be “better.” The real task is not to make billionaires feel guilty, but to change the economic system that produces billionaires with all their corresponding unpleasant personal characteristics.  The Socialist Party does not expect a change in the morality or a spiritual uplifting of our oppressors but rather we demand a change in the structure of society. Workers need to get rebellious, more rebellious than we ever have been to overthrow a social and political system that allows dictators and demagogues to arise and exist in the first place. Change the personnel at the top won't suffice. As Postal Workers President Mark Dimondstein said: “The Democratic Party was not delivering anything even when it had control of the White House, the Congress and the Senate.”  The time has passed when we can passively settle for the lesser of two evils.

The new year won’t be a happy one so long as we passively accept the starvation and suffering of millions of innocent human beings. The coming new year won’t be a happy one so long as we choose to turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed against millions of people around the globe. 2018 won’t be a good year so long as we don’t hold accountable the social and economic system that exploits and oppresses. In 2018, let’s end capitalism. Let’s end wage slavery. Let’s end waging war. Let’s end artificial borders and nation-states.  Let’s resolve to unite humanity with world socialism

Rather than wishing one another a “happy new year”,  let’s declare it loud and clear: “We are not happy! We have had enough! We want change! And we want it now!”

OUR NEW YEAR MESSAGE

Another new year has arrived and with the commencement of another year we should send out to our fellow workers our customary New Year message. If we wish our readers a “happy new year” and if the sentiments of a new year’s wish could become a reality by wishing hard enough, life would be a lot easier, but whatever we may wish, in the end, capitalism will determine what we get, and for most of us it will be disappointment. The year which has just drawn to a close has not been a particularly happy one either for people. On the surface, it is true, there may seem little reason for optimism.

 From 1904 until to-day we have delivered the same message day after day, week after week, month after month and still, our fellow-workers let themselves be led up the garden path to despair, following leaders with pathetic trust on to a promised land that always remains beyond the horizon. The aim of the capitalists is to force or cajole the workers into the submissive attitude of willing slaves, while all the time heaping up wealth for themselves to enjoy. The workers of the world can control their destinies once they shed their delusions and cast off the useless burden of capitalist privilege that they have carried upon their backs for so long. But the task they have to do must be done by themselves to become freely associated workers. Whatever hope this new year may bring, it will not lie in working people placing trust an faith in the promises of a political saviour.

If we have a New Year’s message for the workers, it is that the progress of humanity does not require the loss of millions of lives. We think humanity is fully capable of constructing a socialist society once it has the understanding necessary. We must establish the new society soon if we are to survive. Helping people grasp this is the purpose of the Socialist Party. 

Our New Year message is one of struggle and hope. Work and live for world socialism!

A Guid New Year to Yin an' A'

New Year is a time for looking back over the year—and forward to the year to come to wonder what will it have in store for the socialist movement.  For our part, we can say we would like to see socialism. On the surface, it is true, there may seem little reason for optimism. The introduction of socialism cannot be the work of a few hundred or a few thousand or even tens of thousands. It must be the work of overwhelming numbers. All ideas that oppose socialism must be persistently and strongly challenged and followed up where possible with a positive socialist point of view.

 The Socialist Party stands for a world in which people have risen to a mastery over property, not one in which people are mastered by it. Your experience, as a worker under various ‘Labour’ governments ought to show you that the Labour Party does not represent the interests of the working class. When in office, it behaves like any other Capitalist party—it runs Capitalism; when you go on strike, you are branded as 'troublemakers,' you are told that you are 'harming the nation.’

The solution of the poverty problem lies in the hands of those who suffer most from it—the working class, and can only be achieved when that class realises its historic mission, when, freed from tho illusions bred by capitalism and fostered by religion, it goes forward to solve for ever the problem of poverty by establishing socialism

The Socialist Party campaigns in elections not to win votes but to use them as a platform to put the truth about the capitalist system before the workers at a time when they had increased interest in politics. There is plenty to speak out about in elections, that is because of capitalism, for all its talk of democracy, is, in reality, the dictatorship of Big Business. The Socialist Party is a genuine workers’ voice, speaking out against the anti-worker policies of every government and the very system they represent. Rather than make pledges to run capitalism better, the Socialist Party takes the opportunity to speak up and expose some home truths about the system and why it is time to start thinking about a revolutionary alternative. Socialist Party speakers pointed out the treacherous role of the Labour Party over its long history, showing how the Labour Party leader have always served the capitalist class and that it has been a long time since Labour Party even pretended to be a workers’ party. The Socialist Party campaign is very different from that of the capitalist parties. We are not vote-catching, but taking a message out that what the present system offers is simply not good enough, and it´s time to stand up and fight for change. We seek to reach people who want to understand the world in order to change it. For sure, the Socialist Party is still very small, and we have no illusions that we will get big votes. We know that there is much work to be done to transform the present situation where the majority of workers feel powerless to change things. Nevertheless, there are growing numbers of people who are not prepared to quietly accept the present order. Since the system we live under, capitalism, is based on our exploitation, workers desperately need a political movement of our own. A movement which puts our interests first because it is a movement by, for and of us. Such a movement needs to be explicitly anti-capitalist. It needs to aim for the overthrow of the capitalist system and its replacement by a new truly socialist society, based on organising production to meet the human needs of all rather than private profit for a super-rich few. That’s the kind of movement the Socialist Party is trying to build and part of this movement-building is running in elections, to challenge the pro-capitalist parties which defend and manage exploitation and to get our ideas out to the widest possible audience.

This mad world of ever more rapid changes has had its effect, among other things on the fortunes of political parties. Many that flourished are gone and almost forgotten. Others, while retaining their original names, have completely transformed their character, while a few surviving parties are but shadows of their former selves. For political parties dependent on leaders, promises to remove some present evils at a not too distant date keep its members and voters united and enthused. The led are willing to accept with a great deal of trust the belief that the reforms they are working for will produce the desired beneficial results. It is with the achievement of office that the testing time comes and the party’s cohesion or even its existence is imperilled. When the hopes and the fire have departed they try to find how to regain what has been lost. They seek new leaders and new policies that will carry them back into power. We can be sure that capitalism itself will go on producing evils at home and abroad around which the capitalist-reformist parties can build up fresh manifesto pledges to form the basis of election battles.

The Socialist Party with its consistent adherence to the principles of socialism stands out as an exception. Our clear understanding and unity of purpose highlights the difference between the Socialist Party and all other political parties and gives it its scientific basis based on Marxism. The fact that membership of the party has been conditional upon understanding and agreeing with its Declaration of Principles, explains to an extent its survival through conditions which have and destroyed so many others.  Our D. of P. still stands as a clear, concise and consistent case for socialism.  While capitalism lasts, that exploitation will continue, and until it is ended the Object and Declaration of Principles of the Socialist Party will remain valid. No matter the form of government the prevailing condition is the exploitation of the wealth producers under wage slavery. The problem is the same today as when the Socialist Party was founded and will remain the same until socialism comes into existence. The struggle between the two classes, struggle over wages and conditions, is the natural consequence of capitalism and socialism will be established with the growth of understanding and by the struggle to end exploitation. Exploitation prompts and generates the effort to secure emancipation, and emancipation to the working class can be nothing but socialism. Socialism is, therefore, the outcome of the class struggle.

Capitalism, the private ownership of the means of life, enables one class to live by the exploitation of the other. The character of the means of production makes common ownership the only practical method of ending class ownership. As control is an essential part of ownership, and the only way society as a whole can control is by democratic means.  Not only will socialism free society from the toils of class and national conflict, but will give the humanity a larger measure of choice in the conduct of social affairs than it has ever experienced before.

We must not, however, allow the wonderful prospect of a class-free society to blind us to the hard realities of the struggle we must face and conquer before the promised land is ours. None of the disappointments that our fellow-workers have endured were unforeseen. The Socialist Party has foretold that no matter how much capitalism is reformed and bureaucratised the world will still find no solution for social problems except through socialism. 

Mondragon Coop

 Started in the 1950s as a Catholic Action project, a for-profit business that embodies Catholic social thought. Today, the Mondragon group includes 257 financial, industrial, retail, and research and development concerns, employing approximately 74,000 people. The coops manufacture everything from commercial kitchen equipment (under the flagship Fagor brand) to industrial robots; the retail giant Eroski boasts 2,000 outlets throughout Europe, and the bank Caja Laboral and social security coop provide financial services to members and affiliated businesses. 

 The coops are not unionized, and they have no outside stockholders. Instead, each worker or manager invests as a member in the firm and has one vote in its general assembly. Each coop is represented at the Cooperative Congress, where system-wide plans and business decisions are made. The coops have retained members’ jobs in Spain’s Basque country even during economic crises. Manifesting an ethos of solidarity, members accept salary cuts, invest additional funds, and transfer between coops when necessary. Mondragon limits its highest managerial salary to about nine times the pay of its lowest-paid members, a remarkably flat scale compared to Spain’s overall ratio of about 127:1. Mondragon’s core principle, the sovereignty of labor over capital, is visible in the distribution of surplus to members’ capital accounts in the Caja Laboral, where they are held as private savings but made available for investment in the coop group

Despite these virtues, Mondragon is not utopia.

 As with many successful firms, regardless of structure or industry, much of the growth in recent years has come from international markets, which now account for 70 percent of Mondragon sales. Mondragon went global in 1990, and now controls some 100 foreign subsidiaries and joint ventures – mainly in developing and Eastern European countries, with low wages or expanding markets. This has necessitated hiring new workers in those new markets. Few, if any, of these new workers, have been offered membership in the cooperatives. As a consequence, they do not participate in the benefits of worker-ownership.  They do not participate in the governance of Mondragon and are not eligible for many of the other unique benefits of the cooperatives. Only one-third of its employees are members. Instead, they are wage laborers. Even in the Basque country and Spain, industrial and retail coops employ significant numbers of temporary workers on short-term contracts.

 Today, only about one-half of Mondragon’s businesses areIt would be against the economic interest of existing coop members to include more worker-owners in the confederation. In Wroclaw, Poland, a 2008 strike over low pay and anti-union repression raised questions about Fagor’s three-tier labor force, with coop members in the Basque country, temporary workers throughout Spain, and wage laborers in subsidiaries. Do job security, decent pay, and workplace participation in the Basque country rest upon exploitation elsewhere?

  A study of Mondragon subsidiaries in China comparing coop-owned factories with foreign-owned capitalist firms found that pay was low, hours long, and conditions harsh. Just like their capitalist competitors, Mondragon coops invested in China to manufacture labor-intensive goods cheaply and to be near emerging markets – a strategy coop members accepted when they voted to pursue an international strategy. Mondragon’s subsidiaries still operate like standard firms, even though their aim is not to maximize profit for stockholders but to preserve coops and jobs in the Basque country.

 In 2013, Fagor Electrodomésticos (the home appliance division) declared bankruptcy. The affiliated Mondragon coops were no longer willing to save Fagor and bankruptcy threatened 5,600 jobs (down from 11,000 before the bubble.) With a population of 25,000, this hit the city of Mondragón hard. Fagor members in Mondragón and nearby towns took early retirement or transferred to other coops, but local contract workers and 3,500 employees of Fagor subsidiaries were not similarly protected. 

 Shop-floor conditions, rank-and-file participation in decision making, and workers’ identification in a Fagor coop are little better than at a neighbouring capitalist factory with a unionised workforce. Furthermore, coop members showed little solidarity with the broader Basque labour movement. As an institution, Mondragon steers clear of politics.

 So where does control, and thereby ownership, lie in the Mondragón co-operatives? The key question is whether the workers can actually directly gain access to their capital and decide what to do with it. They cannot; in fact, the whole system seems to operate like a pension scheme, as the members have to wait until retirement to realise their earnings and even then they do not get it paid out in one lump sum. Most effective control and decision making are carried out by management, who in this case would be the de facto owners of the co-operatives.

 It must also be remembered that cooperatives are integrated into the market system and subjected to the same economic laws as other firms. The argument is often put that it is possible to establish "little islands of socialism—workers co-operatives — within the framework of capitalism, thus making a revolutionary, world-wide change from capitalism to socialism unnecessary.

 But socialism means common ownership and free access to everything that is produced. 

 Such a social system does not exist in the Mondragón co-operatives or anywhere else in the world. The rigorous economic law of profitability at all costs imposed by the market must be supported by defenders of co-operatives; if. under capitalism, you don’t observe this law you very quickly go out of business.

Nothing has changed.

A Marxist is someone who follows the basic theory of Karl Marx, that capitalism cannot be reformed to satisfy the needs of the working class and therefore must be abolished. A revolution has to take place whereby the working class gains control of the state mechanism (all governments) and puts in its place a global democratic system of society so that the needs of all the worlds inhabitants can be satisfied, the socialist revolution needn't be violent.

  One doesn’t ‘become’ a Marxist. One reads and understands Marx and Marxist literature. If you understand Marx and it informs your world meaningfully, you can call yourself a Marxist. If you understand Marx, and it doesn’t inform your world, don’t call yourself that. There is a tremendous amount of wilful ignorance on political theory because there are a tremendous number of people who would rather fight about politics than think about it. Don’t contribute to that problem.

 It’s time to build something new. Authentic hope comes when we reject capitalism, leaving behind the illusion that we can fix a broken system and it frees us to work for genuine change. We can begin building a more equitable economy rooted in a new relationship of reciprocity with each another, respecting the planet as we do one another.  In our local communities, we challenge the capitalist culture and institutions of exclusion and make sure everyone has a seat at the table. Together we can reimagine and reinvent our society. None of us alone has a blueprint. Top-down change becomes corrupt and authoritarian. But together, from the grass-roots, using people-power we can create a democratic socialist world that can sustain our communities as capitalism fails to. We need to be organised. Isolated we’re easy to defeat. In solidarity, we rediscover the strength that can energise us as we create a new social system and way of life.

This world and its laws are set up to protect property owners and commerce, not the people nor the planet. As more and more people become aware of the need for sustainability and defence of the ecosystem, they are finding that the current capitalist system works against them. Austerity and the right-ward drift of politics have brought many issues that have existed for years out into the open where they are more difficult to deny.  The power of the plutocrats may bring a boomerang effect, stirring and igniting the population to take action and demand the changes we desire and need but the boomerang will only occur if we educate and organise for it.  The boomerang will be built on the conflict between the necessities of the people and the planet versus. the greed of the wealthy.

We need to tackle the economic system itself, which is at the root of all our problems, not just the thousands upon thousands of injustices that are symptomatic of it. The workers' movement must step up and connect the dots to a real solution. Capitalism is one economic system, period. There is no time to waste. Everyone has to be all-in for rebuilding society. We have so much to do -- but change is possible. More people are becoming active and making connections between the various struggles to create a movement of movements. They are seeds of transformative change that socialists can nurture and grow. The Socialist Party has no illusions that this work will be easy. Those in power will do all that they can to misdirect our efforts. Our task is to resist their tactics and maintain our focus on our end goal. Our task is not to be side-tracked by false or partial solutions but to connect all the single-issue movements into one unified powerful force.  

Unless we participate and engage our class enemy, 2018 will give us more of the same that we experienced the year before and the year before that: Endless wars. Hunger. Economic crises. Poverty. Disease. Senseless tragedies. Intolerance. Hatred. Apathy. The new bosses will prove to be the same as the old bosses. The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer. Workers will hate other workers, driven by fear and prejudice.

The power to change things for the better rests with us, not the politicians.  And we must make our New Year resolution to work together to make this change happen

On his Knee

The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, becomes a “sir” following his appointment to the Order of the Thistle, the greatest order of chivalry in Scotland.

The Duke is one of Britain’s largest landowners and the largest private landowner in Scotland. The family seats are Bowhill House, three miles outside Selkirk, representing the Scott line; Drumlanrig Castle in Dumfries and Galloway, representing the Douglas line; and Boughton House in Northamptonshire, England, representing the Montagu line. These three houses are still lived in by the family and are also open to the public. The family also owns Dalkeith Palace in Midlothian

Some More Marxist Theory

Marx and Engels explain the source of profit as being due to the workers producing more value than is required to pay their wages. This is called surplus value, and the part of surplus value that is realized, that is actually sold, and which is that greater than investment, depreciation, taxes, and any losses, is profit. This account seems correct, and much better than a factor account suggested by other contributors, which Marx expressly criticises. But it is not the contradictory idea that somehow the worker’s wages don’t get paid to the worker. This confusion may come from the idea, (shared by many Marxists, by the way,) that what the capitalist appropriates, which would include profit if any, is something that the worker is entitled to in virtue of having produced. This is called the Labour Theory of Property, and is held by John Locke among other people, and not by Marx. Marx has a labour theory of value, which, unlike the labour theory of property, Is a purely explanatory notion and not a normative notion about who is entitled to what. But if you think the worker is somehow entitled to the things they make in terms of having produced then, you might confusedly think that the worker is not being paid all of their wages, as opposed to not being paid the entire amount of value that they produce. Marx maintains the latter claim without further claiming that the worker is entitled to the entire amount of value.

Historically, the productive capacity of capitalism has proven beyond any shadow of doubt that its mode of production - capital versus labour - provided a historic benchmark on how to produce an abundance of goods in the form of commodity production. Nonetheless, due to the inherent contradictions of commodity production, of which the primary driver is the maximisation of profits, under a market economy of buying and selling this abundance is interdependent on the profitability of the actual distribution of said commodities.

If the distribution of the end product is deemed to be non-profitable, due to a lack of sufficient buyers at the point of sale, production of that commodity will not take place, or if production has taken place the commodity is destroyed or allowed to rot in situ. Thus, despite being the historical benchmark of productive capacity capitalism is physically and economically incapable of being the historic benchmark for distribution.

Which in practice means peoples needs go unsatisfied and human suffering prevails to such an extent that it’s been estimated that every week 16,000 people die due to lack of access to clean water simply because it's unaffordable. Some 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That's about one in nine people on earth.

Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five - 3.1 million children each year. One out of six children -- roughly 100 million -- in developing countries is underweight. One in four of the world's children is stunted. In developing countries, the proportion can rise to one in three. When the loss of human potential is considered in conjunction with these horrendous figures on global casualties it becomes obvious the problem of distribution within capitalism has a much wider impact than originally thought.

On top of this, we also have to consider the casualties of war which is in the 100’s of millions but excludes the numbers killed fleeing from war zones. For all modern wars are caused by the rivalry induced by capitalism. Wars are caused by the essentially competitive nature of capitalism. Where nations compete over:

(i) mineral resources;
(ii) trade routes;
(iii) areas of domination.

On the other hand, theoretically, socialism has many strengths for improving the human condition. For instance, its form of democracy - Direct Participatory Democracy - suggests a solution to the problem of distribution would be through calculating global supply and demand by adapting the current system used by the major supermarkets to calculation in kind, rather than to profit maximisation. With a complete transformation in the calculation of global resources, and their production and distribution, the true meaning of economy will come into its own.

Exchange value is a calculation based on the inputs and outputs of commodities through the buying and selling of different products in a global market. This trade in commodities generates waste; pollution and externalizations; overproduction and underproduction; built-in obsolescence; quantity over quality; crisis and booms; poverty amidst plenty; employment for some and a waste in human potential for most; and obscene wealth for the few.

With no commodity production, there will be no value to calculate just the inputs and outputs of human needs. This is not to infer a form of rationing. Suffice to say the decision-making process will ensure there’s sufficient stock control to meet projected needs through calculation in kind

This decision making process will also configure: environmental impact assessments; a high standard of quality control and durability; positive recycling - where products will be deliberately designed so to ensure that they last longer - and when they are passed their usefulness all their component parts are easily recycled into other useful products; and transportation miles for distribution of human needs so the shortest journey possible is covered. This efficiency of calculation will ensure the energy required for producing needs will be kept to a minimum and promote the production of renewable energy sources.

It goes without saying there won’t be booms and slumps in socialism due to the overproduction of certain products. In fact, if overproduction did occur its unlikely to represent a large enough challenge where the standard of living and the quality of life is going to be affected to a great extent, other than lead to an increase in leisure activity.

Because socialism has never been put into practice we don’t know where it fails. Basically, socialism is a system of society where the means of production and distribution (the means of living) are commonly owned by the global community as a whole on the basis of production for use and free access for all. In short the complete opposite of the present social relationship between capital and labour.

There are many reasons why some people think this sucks, or impossible. Mainly because they have been fed a lie and a myth brought on by their own ignorance of the definition and description given above. Socialism is not about state control, the demise of the individual, the lack of incentives, no competition, commodities, rationing, dictators and all of the other fears which have been dragged up in the defence of capitalism.

This capitalist defence consists of associating socialism with: the USSR and other state capitalist systems; totalitarianism; rule by a party elite; attempting to make a distinction between communism and socialism; a violent revolution led by a vanguard; proposing it won't work because of human nature.

We could go on but suffice to say that capitalist apologists are on the defence and not the offence because with socialism never been tried the best they can do is compare and contrast a false imagery of socialism.

Is socialism impossible? Well, ideas are not born out of thin air. And the concept of socialism is no exception for it like all previous and future ideas originate from the environmental circumstances we find ourselves in.

The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.

Marx, Preface to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)

So if its our social being which determines our consciousness how do these very ideas grow and disseminate through the human mindset? In fact what motivates them to come into existence?

At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

Marx, Preface to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)

Finally, once the forces of social evolution are apparent what then?

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

William Morris

Socialism Described

Economic and political developments in the world over the past few decades have resulted in stunning changes. The fundamental, underlying change, which is driving all others, is the tremendous advances in new technology and the growing application of that technology (computers and robotics) to the process of production. This technology is steadily replacing labour in the workplace, creating permanently unemployed/underemployed and driving down the wages of those workers who remain employed. New technology is throwing not only unskilled workers but increasingly they are skilled workers and professionals into insecurity. Most individuals are still very trusting of the capitalist system. They believe it is basically fair, express optimism about the economy even at the lower income levels, and believe that with hard work anyone can make it in the system. At the same time, they think that the system should be made 'fairer'.  But with the growing polarization of wealth and poverty developing there now arises a profound lack of faith in the government and the institutions of society.  People are feeling discontented and resentful about their deteriorating economic condition.  Every reform offered, from different angles and from different perspectives, serves the same end -- support of the capitalist system and the solutions of the ruling class. Many of these reforms serve no other purpose than to channel the fears into either hatred against minorities or against themselves and into unity with their class enemy.

The major issue in the world today is peace. Peace between different ethnic groups, peace between nations. What is the basis for strife if it’s not the division and redivision of scarcity? The control of scarcity is the foundation of social strife. Today that can be eliminated. We’re talking about abundance. We’re talking about entering a stage of development that’s no longer controlled by scarcity. We can talk in terms of abundance and that abundance obviously is here. There is plenty of plenty. Our troubles arise from material scarcity.

The history of all hitherto existing societies has been the history of class struggle. Now, when class struggle is over and when real human history begins. We create our history now, but under defined circumstances that limit our choices. In other words, we are not liberating ourselves. We’ve created our own history but it’s been a limited history. What we’ve created has been limited by the circumstances wherein we carry out our struggles. For example, the struggle against slavery couldn’t really end slavery, it could only transform slavery. We’re talking about an end to the struggle over allocation of scarcity. We’re talking about no longer having to struggle with getting a house.We will no longer worry about getting food, no longer worry about getting an education. We are going to do all the things that make us happy.

Marxism is not about the pursuit of ethics, morality or justice but an explanation on why we have solved the problem of production and now need to solve the problem of distribution so that human needs are satisfied. it’s based on the materialist analyses of capitalism and its effects on the working class and society as a whole. People who believe that socialism springs from some sort of jealousy are most likely just trying to express their discontentment with those ideologies by resorting to historically (and psychologically) inaccurate psychoanalyses of the intellectual leaders of those movements, which isn’t a very compelling argument against socialism. The Socialist Party is built on a political vision to free humanity from the oppressive economic system

Socialism will be a global society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the world’s natural and industrial resources. But how might this work? How will production, decision-making, and culture be affected?

Production

There will be a complete transformation in the calculation of resources, and their production and distribution. In capitalism articles of wealth (commodities) are produced to be bought and sold on markets, at a profit. This trade in commodities generates: waste; pollution and externalities; overproduction and underproduction; built-in obsolescence; quantity over quality; crisis and booms; poverty amidst plenty; employment for some and a waste in human potential for most; and obscene wealth for the few.

With no commodity production and trade, there will be no exchange value and prices, just the inputs and outputs of resources and human needs. The decision-making process will aim to ensure there’s sufficient stock control to meet projected needs through calculation in kind.

This decision-making process will also configure: environmental impact assessments; a high standard of quality control and durability; positive recycling - where products will be deliberately designed so to ensure that they last longer and when they are passed their usefulness all their component parts are easily recycled into other useful products; and transportation miles for distribution of human needs so the shortest journey possible is covered. This efficiency of calculation will ensure the energy required for producing needs will be kept to a minimum and promote the production of renewable energy sources.

Decision-making

Here the system will be participatory delegate democracy. In capitalism, political parties represent the sectional interests within the capitalist class with all of them competing for political control of the state and its machinery of government. With no sectional interests to be represented when there is common ownership, there won’t be political parties or a state machinery. Nonetheless, major issues will be thrashed out with decisions being made on what’s the best course of action for gaining a successful outcome.

A bottom-up decision-making process involving voluntary participation cannot be imposed by a hierarchy or a vanguard or the concept becomes meaningless. The basic building block is the community or neighbourhood assembly, face-to-face meetings where citizens meet to discuss and vote on the issues of the day, not that there will need to be a vote on every issue as most of day-to-day work carried out will be routine. These assemblies elect mandated and recallable delegates who then link with other assemblies forming a confederated council, a 'community of communities'. The difference between this form of delegate democracy and our current form of representative democracy is that in a representative democracy power is given wholesale to the representative who then is free to act on their own initiative. In a delegate democracy the initiative is set by the electing body and the delegate can be recalled at any time should the electing body feel that their mandate is not being met, thus power remains at the base.

Culture

Due to the impact of common ownership on the global community, there’ll be even more of an increase in cultural choices and options than there is under capitalism. Unrestricted to the social conformity of private property relationships, individuals and communities will be able to focus on an ongoing celebration of freedom of expression - leading to an increase in cultural diversity.

Leisure activities are likely to increase in scope and decrease in size. Presently, with package holidays the most affordable way of taking a break from the drudgery and monotony of the production line or the office, they are the most popular form of holiday.

In socialism, where the principle of free access underpins the common ownership of the means of living, our options and choices on travel and holidays would be extended and influenced by what positive contribution we can make to the country we are visiting. And with package holidays and mass tourism a thing of the past, it is likely holidays in socialism would not be restricted within a timescale of 10 to 14 days of hectic hedonism, but transformed into a unique opportunity to stay in a particular location for as long as it takes to understand the history and culture of that region. In effect, the transformation in the social relationships from private property ownership to common ownership will radically alter our perception of culture, leisure, and travel.

Human nature

But wouldn’t all this be against human nature? No. Socialists make a distinction between human nature and human behaviour. That people are able to think and act is a fact of biological and social development (human nature), but how they think and act is the result of historically specific social conditions (human behaviour). Human nature changes, if at all, over vast periods of time; human behaviour changes according to changed social conditions. Capitalism being essentially competitive and predatory produces vicious, competitive ways of thinking and acting. But we humans are able to change our society and adapt our behaviour, and there is no reason why our rational desire for human well-being and happiness should not allow us to establish and run a society based on co-operation.

Needs have a physiological and a historical dimension. Basic physiological needs derive from our human nature (e.g. food, clothing, and shelter), but historically conditioned needs derive from developments in the forces of production. In capitalism, needs are manipulated by the imperative to sell commodities and accumulate capital; basic physiological needs then take the historically conditioned form of ‘needs’ for whatever the capitalists can sell us.

Social evolution suggests that no mode of production is cast in stone and the dynamics of change also affects capitalism as a social system. Studies of social systems with distinct social relationships related and corresponding to their specific mode of production have identified, for instance, primitive communism, chattel slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. All of these societies changed from one into another due to the contradictions inherent in that society and also due to technological advancement which each society found itself incapable of adapting to. Capitalism reached this point over a century ago. It’s time to move on to socialism. 

Disproportion of Production. No Remedy — Except One

Can working people understand Socialist economics? A well-known contention against the case for Socialism is that learning about surplus-value is too tough for majority understanding to happen. Compared with the capitalist economics presented to the working class, it is child’s play. 

Yet, without doubt, there is a serious recession. Its causes are rooted in the social system under which we live. The capitalist ownership of the means of living means that all production takes place for sale and profit, and from this basic fact arise the staggering problems of the world. To feed the hungry may sound logical, but it is not the logic of commodity production. Instead, we have a chaos in which manufacturers and distributors must estimate their markets and hope that demand will not just continue steadily but expand. When it expands generally there is a boom, and every manufacturer naturally pushes on to the utmost. Ultimately the boom ends, because demand falls off or alters. This breaking-point is the crisis.

Whether a depression follows will depend on the number of industries affected. A slump in one industry affects others, of course; but at times it is possible for profitable companies to “carry” others. However, the entire process is an anarchic one, and a crisis is anything but the universal fall-down commonly depicted. To some extent the phrase “the market” is misleading. There is not one market for all commodities, but many different ones, even within the same industry. “The car market” comprises markets for cheap and expensive cars, small and large ones; rather than all companies competing in the same market, one market may prosper when the demand in others diminishes. These vagaries of production and markets are not consequences of a crisis, but part of the cause of it. Earlier this year a Labour Minister said the British car industry had been producing an unnecessary variety of models. This can be re-stated as that during the boom period the industry had flooded markets which were now refusing to absorb it all — but, as the Labour government is well aware, no political suggestion will alter the economics of the situation.

A crisis is “serious” when a large enough section of industry is affected to produce stagnation and heavy unemployment. There are always other sections which are relatively unaffected or even benefit by it (in the nineteen-thirties’ depression chain stores such as Woolworth’s and Marks and Spencer, selling very cheap goods, were highly profitable for obvious reasons). The record unemployed figure of nearly 3 millions at the beginning of 1933 represented 23 per cent. of all insured workers. Turned round, this means that three-quarters were still in work. However, the existence of an industrial reserve army of that size provided a powerful whip over the employed and a means of enforcing low wages.

A similar comparison can be made today showing the naiveté of Rippon’s suggestion that capitalists should complain about the state of things. Why should they? Many of them have full order-books and rosy balance sheets, and at the same time are handsomely obliged by the Government’s having secured the trade unions’ compliance in holding wages down. Insofar as firms go to the wall following a crisis, in general they are smaller ones — a process which also took place in the nineteen-thirties. If larger companies’ profits fall they pay out a larger proportion of profits in dividends, so that the shareholders’ incomes do not fall by an equivalent amount. The British Association’s Britain in Recovery, 1938, using Colin Clark’s estimates, said: “On the whole we may, perhaps, conclude that consumption by the rich was comparatively well maintained during the depression and expanded during the recovery”.

The spectacle of the anarchy of capitalism gives rise continually to the idea that it can be subjected to economic planning. Fundamentally crises are due to the imbalances of capitalist production: the seductive thought is that these imbalances can be diagnosed and rectified. Attempts at it have patently failed, and it is worth pointing out why none can succeed. First, all capitalists and politicians would have to agree on what the faults were. Such agreement is not only unlikely in ordinary terms; it is impossible for the reason stated, that one capitalist’s catastrophe is another’s good news. But even if it were possible, what then? The owning class would still have no choice but to pursue their interests — that is, to go on producing for the available markets even though knowing this is what leads to crises.

Economic phrases cover the condition of humanity. The anarchy of production means, characteristically, a bakery closing for want of business while people are in need of bread. The balance of trade, the state of sterling etc. are pseudo-concerns; the working class is asked to understand them so that it will be complaisant in being trodden on a bit more. What all workers can and must understand is that their interests are diametrically opposed to those of capitalism. In due course there will be a recovery from the present depression, gathering momentum towards the next crisis. Is this how you want to go on? Would not a society producing for use instead of markets be immeasurably better?