There Is An Answer To This Mess, But Not By Tinkering With Capitalism

At a meeting of the Toronto city council on February 9, some members got their bowels in an uproar when listening to the findings of a city-commissioned study on rents. 

In 2017 apartment rents had their biggest increase in 15 years. A two bedroom unit costs, on average $1,426 a month. Two bedroom condos also had a big jump, with rents being $2,400, on average. The vacancy rate is less than 1 per cent, the lowest its been in 16 years. 

The study found that if low-income residents spend 30 per cent of their annual income on housing and receive a $250 monthly housing subsidy through the city, they still can only cover 60 per cent of the rent based on average market prices.

 Councillor Gord Perks said,''Toronto has to make an investment in affordable housing and can use its hundreds of millions of dollars in land transfer tax revenue to do so. The land transfer tax is wealth captured in a booming real estate market.''



  It may be the city has other uses for that money that have nothing to do with cash-strapped residents well being. 

There is an answer to this mess, but it won't be found tinkering with the effects of capitalism

For socialism, 

Steve, Mehmet, John &
all contributing members of the SPC.

Socialism is not reforms, it is revolution.

Any conception of socialism must include the empowerment of the working class to be the master of its own destiny. Whilst we can debate and sketch visions of what a future society might look like, all these discussions will prove meaningless unless we can find away to acquire the power required to make them concrete.  Given the seeming powerlessness of the working class at present what means can the working class be elevated to power?  In a sense the working class already has a massive latent power over society just waiting to be realised, the task then is unlocking this power. When workers are organised in accordance with their class interests they are better able to wield their latent power. The working class is the real agent of change. The slogan of “revolution” has been misused so blatantly that it has lost its meaning.  The workers’ movement is lacking political  clarity. The problem is the lack of of consciousness. Why don’t workers put an end to capitalism – given its destructiveness to humans and the environment. If you don’t know where you want to go, then no road will take you there.

To be a socialist means first and foremost to be on the side of the working class. Socialists are not against reforms but oppose reformism as a political practice. Socialists support any reform that will help the cause of the working class and the poor. The working class can win concessions but only for a certain period before the ruling class tries to take these reforms and concessions back. In a class society, the struggle between workers and the capitalist ruling class is of a permanent nature. The intensity of this class conflict and struggle can vary and there can be lulls at times. Both classes have different interests and clash with each other to protect and further their interests. The capitalist ruling class wants to exploit the working class to the maximum. On the other hand, the working class has no other option but to fight back for their survival.

Marx  explains that:

“The advance of capitalist production develops a working class which by education, tradition and habit looks upon the requirements of this mode of production as self-evident natural laws”, that “the organization of the capitalist process of production, once it is fully developed, breaks down all resistance”. 

Marx added that capital’s generation of a reserve army of the unemployed:

“sets the seal on the domination of the capitalist over the worker”.

Accordingly, the capitalist can rely upon the workers’ “dependence on capital, which springs from the conditions of production themselves, and is guaranteed in perpetuity by them”. 

Of course, by necessity workers will often struggle, over wages, working conditions and the defence of past gains. We support workers’ struggles for reforms, but we do so without fostering the illusion that reforms will solve the harm to humans and the earth that is intrinsic to capitalism—let alone will they ever make work anything other than drudgery.  But as long as workers look upon the requirements of capital as “self-evident natural laws”, those struggles occur within the bounds of the capitalist relation. Sooner or later the worker will accept his subordination to capital and the system keeps going. People commonly think that there is no alternative to the status quo. To go beyond capitalism, we need a vision that can appear to workers as an alternative common sense, as their common sense. 

The struggles of workers against capital transform “circumstances and men”, expanding their capabilities and making them fit to create a new world Marx argued. Even though their goals in these struggles may be limited to ending the immediate violations of norms of fairness and justice and may be aimed, for example, at achieving no more than “a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work”, people change in the course of struggle. Despite the limited goals involved in wage struggles, Marx argued that they were essential for preventing workers:

“from becoming apathetic, thoughtless, more or less well-fed instruments of production”;without such struggles, workers “would be degraded to one level mass of broken wretches past salvation”.

People struggle over their conceptions of right and wrong, and what socialists attempt to do is to explain the underlying basis for those struggles. The moral campaigns for "rights" while acknowledging its importance to the working class there is also to go beyond them by articulating and showing what is implicit in these concepts and struggles are only to be contained within a new society.

 Marx pointed out, the root of exploitation under capitalism is not insufficient wages per se, or the depredations of finance. The process of exploitation under capitalism necessarily implies that for accumulation to take place on one end, the worker must be paid less than the value of their labour-time on the other. The more capitalist production expands, the less time the workers has for themselves. The struggle over exploitation is fundamentally the question of whether the worker has the time to fully develop her intellectual, social, and creative powers, or must devote this time instead to the reproduction of a hostile, alien, and benumbing society, with no time to call their own. This is a ‘bread and butter’ question in its own right. Socialism is to create a world where labour-time for all workers can be reduced to a minimum to leave the  maximum time for leisure pursuits, socializing, sports, art, music, writing, debating, and all those things that have been considered the good things in life. There is no known process of capitalism that can achieve this aim. 

The establishment of socialism involves workers taking power themselves and exercising collective and democratic control over workplaces, and resource allocation through democratic planning, the complete democratisation of society.  Socialism is "a movement of the immense majority, acting in the interests of the majority".

Ineffective No Doubt, Profitable Certainty

It has recently been revealed that the morning sickness drug Dicletin is ineffective, its only beneficiary being its manufacturer Duchesnay.

 It is obvious that Health Canada took the so-called findings of the clinical study financed by Dushesnay at face value. 

Just think of the profits the company reaped during the 40 years the drug was on the market. They got away with it because though the drug didn't do any good, it didn't do any harm.

 In a socialist society a drug would be tested for its effectiveness and impact on the environment and not made if it failed either test; the profit motive wouldn't exist.

For socialism,
 Steve, Mehmet, John & all contributing members of the SPC.

Humanity still has a future

By definition capitalism can only function in the interest of the capitalists, no palliatives can (nor ever will be able to) subordinate capitalist private property to the general interest. So long as class exists, any gains will be partial and fleeting, subject to the on-going struggle. What we should be opposed to is the whole culture of reformism, the idea that capitalism can be tamed and made palatable with the right reforms. Over decades, millions of workers have invested their hopes in so-called ‘practical’, ‘possibilist’ organisations and policies, hoping against hope that they would be able to neuter the market economy when, in reality, the market economy has successfully neutered them. They turned out to be the real ‘impossibilists’. Demanding the unattainable humanised capitalism is one of the greatest tragedies of the last century and it is made all the greater because it was all so predictable. Many held and still hold such as the authors the idea that capitalism could be reformed into something kindly and user-friendly. It couldn’t and it can’t.

We have no objection to workers and socialists getting involved in fights for partial demands but don't believe a Socialist Party should do that. We regard the strategy of transitional demands as elitist and manipulative. The party's task is NOT to "lead the workers in struggle" or even to instruct its members on what to do in trade unions, tenants' associations or whatever because we believe that socialists and class-conscious workers are quite capable of making decisions for themselves. To those who still say that, while they ultimately want socialism, it is a long way off and we must have reforms in the meantime, we would reply that socialism need not be a long way off and there need not be a meantime. It is only when people leave reformism behind altogether that socialism will begin to appear to them, not as a vague distant prospect, something for others to achieve, but as a clear, immediate alternative which they themselves can - and must - help to bring about. Most on the Left believes class struggle militancy can be used as a lever to push the workers along a political road, towards their "emancipation." How is this possible if the workers do not understand the political road, and are only engaging in economic struggles? The answer is the Leninist "leaders in-the-know" who will direct the workers. But these leaders lead the workers in the wrong direction, toward the wrong goals (nationalisation and state capitalism), as the workers find out to their sorrow.

One of the great strengths of the Socialist Party is our opposition to leadership and our commitment to democratic practices, so, whatever weaknesses or mistaken views we hold or get accused of, they cannot be imposed upon others with possible worse consequences. The history of Leninism/Trotskyism blames all on the lack of leadership or the wrong leadership or a traitorous leadership. The Socialist Party are not going to take the workers to where they neither know where they are going nor, most likely, want to go. This contrasts with those who seek to substitute the party for the class or who see the party as a vanguard which must undertake alone the task of leading the masses forward. The crucial part of the Socialist Party case is that understanding is a necessary condition for socialism.

The Socialist Party’s job is to make a socialist society an immediacy for the working class, not an ultimate far-off ideal. Something of importance and value to people’s lives now, rather than a singular "end".  There is no point in drawing up in advance the sort of detailed blueprint of industrial and social organisation. For a small group of socialists, as we are now, to do so would be undemocratic. We also recognise that there may not be one single way of doing things, and precise details and ways of doing things more than likely vary from one part of the world to another, even between neighbouring communities. Nor can we determine what the conditions will be when socialism is established. As the socialist majority grows, when socialism is within the grasp of the working class, that will then be the proper time for making such important decisions. It is imprudent for today’s socialist minority to be telling people how to administer a socialist society. When a majority of people understand what socialism means, the suggestions for socialist administration will solidify into an appropriate plan. It will be based on the conditions existing at that time, not today. At this point some will no doubt say "cop-out" but no. We can reach some generalised conclusions based on basic premises and can outline broad principles or options that could be applied. We do not have to draw up a detailed plan for socialism, but simply and broadly demonstrate that it is possible and therefore refute the label of “utopian”. Never forget that socialist society is not starting from a blank sheet and we are inheriting an already existing production system. Workers with all their skills and experience of co-operating to run capitalism in the interests of the capitalists could begin to run society in their own interest.

For years we have witnessed the “success” of a procession of practical efforts to rally workers to “socialism” by clever politics. We have seen the transformation of these advocates of “socialist goals” into supporters of the status quo — rebels who have been converted into supporters of the system. Their trademark has become the reforming, improving and administering capitalism. Rebels become transformed into administrators of capitalist states, recruiters for capitalist wars. From Social Democrats to Bolsheviks, from Castro's Cuba and Bolivarian Venezuela. When in office they have actually administered capitalism in the only way it can be administered, in the interest of the capitalist class, even to the extent of supporting capitalist wars and crushing workers on strike, compromising every “socialist” principle.

We have been confronted and challenged by those who fight for something “in the meantime” and who are actively participating in the “workers’ struggles.” The lure and fascinations of protest demonstrations and making demands is very attractive. (In a sense, it indicates how deep-rooted discontent with capitalism really is, and it demonstrates the latent strength of socialism once the masses wake up to the need for changing the system instead of adjusting to it.) But — and this is the vital point — these activities are not in harmony with the immediate needs of our time: the making of socialists. Where are the convinced socialists they were going to make? Where are the socialist masses? Their practical, pragmatic policies have proven worse than illusory. They have failed to make socialists! Yet they continue to heap scorn and sneer at the Socialist Party for our small numbers. With smug omniscience, we are dismissed as “ivory tower utopians,” “dogmatic sectarians,” “impossiblists,” etc. The real question is: — Who have ignored the lessons of experience?

Where are the socialists you have obtained by your efforts? Their vaunted “fresh approaches” prove to be very stale indeed. For years their antecedents — the Fabian socialists with their gradualism, the Labour Party with their enthusiasm for policy promises, the Bolsheviks with their “revolutionary” programmes and plans — actually gained victories on such policies and programmes. But on their hands is the recruiting of workers for capitalist wars and the crushing of workers on strike. All those “socialist governments” merely wound up administering capitalism for the capitalist class. We in the Socialist Party say to them: “If it is a movement you want, take a laxative!”

The socialist activists claim impressive “successes” and “victories” in every field except one. The lessons of experience and history have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they have not remotely convinced the workers of the need for socialism. From the activities carried on in the name of socialism, the one thing conspicuous by its absence has been any mention of the socialist case. In common, the efforts of social activists have been geared to an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable contradictions of capitalism. Such groups have been guilty of disillusioning the workers about real socialism. The great indictment of these activists is that they divert the workers from the genuine socialist movement, and have hampered the growth of socialism by many years. Were all that tremendous energy and enthusiasm harnessed in the genuine socialist work of making socialists, how much more the movement would have been advanced!

If anything has been amply demonstrated over the years, it is that “reforms” by “socialist” parties have not been able to change the real conditions of the working class. These “practical realists” with their “in-the-meantime” activities have sidetracked the movement from what is truly meaningful. All those dedicated energies have diverted overwhelming numbers of workers from genuine socialism. Had all these efforts and all that enthusiasm been devoted to socialist education, just imagine how much further advanced and inspiring the movement would be today.  

Why we are socialists

Workers Must Survive On Reduced Pensions.

When Sears Canada went under it wasn't a sudden shock, people had been predicting it 4 years ago. During that time many employees had tried to protect their pensions. They wrote to Sears CEO Calvin McDonald, they met with Sears chairman Brandon Stranzl, they communicated with repeatedly with the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. They wrote to Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and to every member of the provincial parliament and met with representatives from Ontario's finance industry.

All this was to no avail.

When Sears Canada applied for protection from creditors in June 2017, the deficit in the pension plan was $226.8 million. Now 16,000 ex-Sears workers face a future of living on reduced pensions, but then whoever claimed that capitalism and security went hand-in-hand?

For socialism, 
Steve, Mehmet, John & all contributing members of the SPC.

In Defence Of Socialism

After over a century of reform activity, and the sincere efforts of a multitude of reformers, the world is in a greater mess than ever it was. The Socialist Party is often accused of being opposed to reforms, social legislation designed to ameliorate some intolerable situation. Not so. We are not opposed to reforms per se, any more than we advocate them.  The position of a revolutionary is to reject reformism - the advocacy of reforms - which is not the same thing as opposing reforms themselves. Reformism is the promotion of reforms and it is this that revolutionaries should not be engaged in. Trying to mend capitalism is incompatible with trying to end capitalism. For ourselves, radicalisation entails the conscious propagandisation of the socialist alternative under each and every circumstance thrown up by capitalism. It an interactive process between thought and practice are driven by a clear and unambiguous conception of what we are to replace capitalism with. Nothing less will do. Unless we know what to replace capitalism with, capitalism will not be replaced. We will be stuck with it. It is literally a case of one or the other.

We make a very clear distinction between reformist struggle and other forms of struggle. We are 100 % behind militant industrial struggle. fully support militant struggle by workers as a class and as individuals in the economic domain to resist the downward pressures of capital. In fact, in our view, the trade union movement has largely compromised and weakened itself by blurring this distinction as for example in the UK where many unions are affiliated to the capitalist Labour Party. Trade unions should stick to the economic domain where they work much better as militant organisations of the working class.

Of course, socialist consciousness comes through struggle not just propagandising. This is not an either/or situation. It is actually mutually reinforcing. The struggle gives rise to the ideas and the ideas in turn help to clarify and strengthen the struggle. Part of my argument against reformism is that it actually weakens the position of workers. It doesn't radicalise them at all. It ties them politically to capitalism via capitalist political parties that aim to garner support through the advocacy of reforms. This is what workers need to reject. They will actually become much more militant in my view if they completely rejected the reformist illusion that capitalism can be moulded to accommodate their interests and if they came to recognise that the interests of workers are diametrically opposed to the capitalists. This is what revolutionaries should be doing - saying how it actually is not trying to dishonestly socially engineer workers into coming over to them by dangling reforms in front of them which they know full well are not going to modify the position of the exploited class. In the end, if you do not break with the logic of capital completely and in ideological terms, if you do not explicitly advocate a genuine alternative to capitalism, there is no way on earth that you will ever create an alternative to capitalism. You will remain forever stuck in the reformist treadmill going nowhere. 

Although the ultimate aim of the radical fighting for a reform may be the self-emancipation of the working class, it will never ever come to self-emancipation of the working class precisely because fighting for reforms is a trap from which you will never ever escape unless you stop fighting for reforms and raise your sights higher. Capitalism cannot be reformed in the interests of workers so fighting for reforms in the interests of the workers is foredoomed. There is no real evidence that it does lead to a socialist outlook. Many radicals ultimately end up in in the ghetto of worthy liberal causes which only serve to fragment working class solidarity in a plethora of separate struggles each demanding attention at the expense of others. Or they become disillusioned old cynics in later life and join the establishment. 

We dont say socialists need to stand on the sidelines and tell workers to drop their illusions and follow us. Firstly we reject the whole principle of vanguardism and leadership. Secondly, we don't say we should stand on the sidelines. No revolutionary ever is on the sidelines anyway. This is a meaningless way of looking at this anyway. We are all involved in the class struggle whether we like or not or whether we are aware of it or not. As workers, we will join with our fellow workers in a union to fight the bosses in the industrial field. We are simply members of the working class who has come to communist conclusions. We don't exist in some sense outside of the working class telling the working class what to do. This is an elitist Leninist perspective. As Socialist Party members we will put across socialist ideas - about socialism, about rejecting nationalism, racism, and sexism and so on and so forth. Spreading ideas is essential. Everybody without exception believes their ideas are the right ones - otherwise, they would not hold or express them. Its got nothing to do with "leadership". Its what human beings do - talk, discuss, argue. If it is elitist to express an idea then what you are trying to say is that we really should not express ideas at all. We should keep silent about our political views. That is quite absurd. If everyone followed that advice there would be discussion about anything. People do develop their ideas as a result of hearing other ideas. This is not "idealist". Materialism does not deny the role of ideas, what it denies is the "independent" role of ideas, that social developments are completely explicable in terms of the impact of ideas alone. This is false but nevertheless, it is quite true that all social developments involve an exchange of ideas between historical actors and could not happen without that.

The Left has a fetish about "action" and that there is something latent or inherent in the acts one carries out that somehow drives one forward into becoming a socialist. This is wrong. Strikes, protests demonstrations and all these sorts of activities don't carry any necessary socialist implications whatsoever. It is the interaction of ideas and actions which is what is needed. If you ignore the importance of ideas and the necessity for a clear and explicit alternative to capitalism you will never ever pose a serious threat to capitalism. Never. Workers can be actively engaged in reformist struggles to get governments to introduce measures that they perceive to be in their economic interests. But in the end, they actually help to weaken not strengthen the working class by tying it ideologically to capitalism, fostering the illusion that capitalism can be run in the interests of workers and entrench their dependence on capitalist governments to do it for them. 

Lest we forget

Obituary from the January 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is with regret that we have to record that our comrade Angus McPhail died on December 3rd after a short illness.

T. Mulheron, a close friend and comrade for many years writes:

“He was a supporter and member of the Socialist Party for more than forty years. From the era of Moses Baritz and Adolph Kohn, many Socialists from Scotland, England, Ireland, Canada, U.S.A., New Zealand, Australia and Europe were grateful for the hospitality and generosity of Beech McPhail and his wife, Jessie.

Apart from his life-long adherence to our movement, his two largest contributions were: (1) From the outbreak of the war in September 1939, until its end, and indeed afterwards, he was a courageous and eloquent advocate of a large number of young members at C.O. Tribunals. (2) In the early years, he organised a speakers class in Glasgow, which produced a relatively large number of Party speakers.

“Beech” McPhail was always uncompromising, sometimes harsh, yet despite financial circumstances which would have permitted weaker types to forget the interests of the working class, maintained the interests of the latter. To use an old cliché, McPhail, like Cromwell (an unfair criticism to McPhail), can be painted with his warts. To those of us who have known him—he will never be forgotten.

He was cremated privately from the David Elder Cottage Hospital in Glasgow, according to his family's wishes, and his ashes deposited on Loch Awe where he and many other comrades spent many happy hours fishing, talking and drinking, and serene moments of a feeling of entire removal from the sordid realities of world capitalism.

To his wife Jessie, and his family, we extend our deepest regrets and sympathy at his passing.”

Socialist Standard Past and Present blog has posted a couple of articles by Cde. McPhail offering news about the Party

http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/10/glasgow-street-scene-1943.html

http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2018/01/our-difficulty-is-your-opportunity-1941.html

http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2018/01/our-parliamentary-fund-1937.html

There Is Something Rotten In The States Of Capitalism.

On one newscast at the end of Jan. CBC announced the following Goodies. Yellow Pages cut another 500 jobs across Canada as it moves from print to digital directories. Campbell Soups are closing their plant in Etobicoke, Ontario next year, not that it isn't making a profit, but bigger ones could be made by sending the work to their 3 plants in the U.S. 

In Whitby, Ontario, the decline in sales in the housing market means a $75 to $95 thousand decrease in price over the last year at a new housing estate. The folks who bought last year feel like chumps. Toronto's Union Station will soon lay off their red cap porters and hire "station attendants''. 

This will probably be a young guy's they who will work for less with no benefits or pensions. Now all this on one broadcast! 

It's not a case of there being something rotten in the state of Canada, but plenty rotten throughout all of capitalism.

For socialism, 

Steve, Mehmet, John & all contributing members of the SPC.

THE REAL MOVEMENT

“The word Revolution, which we Socialists are so often forced to use, has a terrible sound in most people's ears, even when we have explained to them that it does not necessarily mean a change accompanied by riot and all kinds of violence, and cannot mean a change made mechanically and in the teeth of opinion by a group of men who have somehow managed to seize on the executive power for the moment. Even when we explain that we use the word revolution in its etymological sense, and mean by it a change in the basis of society, people are scared at the idea of such a vast change, and beg that you will speak of reform and not revolution. As, however, we Socialists do not at all mean by our word revolution what these worthy people mean by their word reform, I can't help thinking that it would be a mistake to use it, whatever projects we might conceal beneath its harmless envelope. So we will stick to our word, which means a change in the basis of society." —William Morris in How We Live and How We Might Live.

The world is crying out for change. Millions of children die each year of starvation while those with millions spare themselves no indulgence. People say that we in the Socialist Party are utopian because we hold to the view that a new society is the only lasting solution to the mess we're in and because we dare to suggest that we could run our lives in a much more rational and harmonious way. Some people on the "Left" decline to define socialism because they think that any account of a future society is a waste of time and that we should concern ourselves with present-day struggles. But unless you do talk about where you're going, how will you know when you've arrived? 

It cannot be stressed enough, that without a widespread and clear idea among workers of what a socialist society entails, it will he unattainable. The reason is simple. The very nature of socialism—a money-free, wage-free world of unrestricted access to the goods and services provided by voluntary cooperative effort—necessitates understanding. There is absolutely no way in which such a sweeping fundamental transformation of social relationships could be thrust upon an unwilling, unknowing majority by some minority, no matter how enlightened or benevolent. Unless you do have a clear idea of socialism then anyone can claim it, defame it and say it doesn't work. And unless we keep the idea of working directly for a worldwide co-operative community on the agenda people will always be sidetracked. It is essential that the ideal of the new society should always be kept at the fore.

The Socialist Party understands only too well the urge to do something now, to make a change. That makes us all the more determined, however, to get the message across, to clear away the barrier of the wages system, so that we can begin to build a truly human society. Why waste time fighting for half measures? We would better spend our time, energies, and resources educating people to establish socialism rather than waste time in the false belief that our present system can be made to work in everyone's interest.We do not claim “capitalist reforms” stand in the way of achieving socialism. If we did we'd logically have to oppose them; which we don't. We encourage workers to fight back against employers and, although we don't propose or advocate reforms, we don't oppose them if they genuinely do improve workers' lives under capitalism. What we say is not that they are obstacles to socialism but merely that they are irrelevant to socialism and that a socialist party should not advocate reforms.

If you are convinced, however, that groups or parties promising reforms deserve your support, we would urge you to consider the following points. The campaign, whether directed at right-wing or left-wing governments, will often only succeed if it can be reconciled with the profit-making needs of the system. In other words, the reform will often be turned to the benefit of the capitalist class at the expense of any working class gain. Any reform can be reversed and eroded later if a government finds it necessary. Reforms rarely, if ever, actually solve the problem they were intended to solve. Socialists make a choice. We choose to use our time and limited funds to work to eliminate the cause of the problems. One can pick any single problem and find that improvements have taken place, usually only after a very long period of agitation. But rarely, if ever, has the problem actually disappeared, and usually, other related problems have arisen to fill the vacuum left by the "solution".

The Socialist Party neither promotes nor opposes, reforms to capitalism. We believe that a socialist organisation shouldn't work for reforms to capitalism because only a movement for socialism itself can establish socialism. Those which work for reforms hold either that reforms to capitalism will eventually result in socialism, or that supporting reforms is an appropriate way to convince workers to support socialism. Some put forward a reasonable analysis of capitalism, but then work to give capitalism a human face. Some claim that they want to end capitalism. Their bottom line is, however, just capitalism with reforms.

 The Socialist Party argues that the working class should organise for socialism, but that doesn't mean that nothing can be done this side of the revolution. Such things as basic health care came into being because the working class fought for them (even though politicians have since claimed the credit). Without the threat of action, we would never have won such things. Strikes, or the threat of them, help to improve wages and working conditions. We have the ability to change things if we act together. The power to transform society lies in the hands of those who create everything - the working class. This is the source of our power, should we eventually use it. The power not to make a few reforms, but to change the whole system, to make a social revolution. The basis of the socialist argument is that the material conditions for socialism exist now but it can only come into being when the working class had matured politically to the point where it could commit itself to the new society. Leading the workers along the path of reform is not equipping them for their revolutionary role but was, in fact, establishing the contrary idea that capitalism could be made to function in the interests of the class it exploited. The Socialist Party does not oppose reformism because it is against improvements in workers' lives lest they dampen their revolutionary ardour; nor, because it thinks that decadent capitalism simply cannot deliver on any reforms; but because our continued existence as propertyless wage-slaves undermines whatever attempts we make to control and better our lives through reforms.

Reformism has some attractions over revolution – especially if you don't like confrontation, or prefer to think only in the short term, or don't want to be accused of not living in the real world. Reformism is a most excellent strategy if you want only small changes in society, and are satisfied with what you get (which is usually substantially less than what you were promised). The idea that capitalism can be humanised and changed by a series of reforms is almost as old as the capitalist system itself. But reforms are implemented by political parties that seek and get a mandate to run capitalism. The motives for reforms may include anxiety to relieve suffering and keenness to promote well-being, but the measures have the effect of serving the system rather than meeting the needs of individuals or groups. However, reformism is futile for two groups of people: those who expect that capitalism can be reformed to operate in the interests of the majority, and those who believe that a programme of reforms will “win the workers for the revolution” and hence make a contribution to the achievement of socialism. Therefore there are two kinds of reformism. One has no intention of bringing about revolutionary change (indeed it may use reforms to stem such change.) The other kind cherishes the mistaken belief that successful reforms will somehow prepare the ground for revolution. Reforms are seen as necessary first steps on the long road to eventual revolution. A revolution is the work of a class which has gained political power in order to transform society to suit its interests; a reform is carried out only within the framework of the social system. Hence reforms cannot end capitalism; they can modify it to some extent, but they leave its basis untouched. To establish socialism, a revolution—a complete transformation of private property into social property—is necessary. Since the struggle for reforms cannot alter the slave position of the working class, it ends by bringing indifference and disillusionment to the workers who look to reforms for emancipation. In order to accomplish the revolution nothing is wanted but the revolutionary lever. 

Our objection to reformism is, then, that by ignoring the essence of class, it throws blood, sweat, and tears into battles that will be undermined by the workings of the wages system. All that effort, skill, energy, all those tools could be turned against class society, to create a society of common interest where we can make changes for our common mutual benefit.  Going directly for revolution, refusing to settle for anything less than the Full Monty of socialism, is a policy that will take time to bring results. Many people will have to be weaned off the superficial attractions of “achievable” reforms. But going for revolution isn't just a long-term policy – it is also a good short-term one. Faced with an electorate who refuse to vote for capitalism-supporting candidates, confronted by a majority who no longer believe “there is no alternative”, challenged by a growing socialist movement that says revolution is possible and shows how life and society could be so much better, what else can those who wish to support capitalism do than concede as much as possible, in effect to narrow the gap between the old and new systems?

 Reformers do not create a new world of hope, but simply re-arrange and re-distribute the misery. Eugene Debs once said, “It's better to ask for what you want and not get it than ask for what you don’t want and get it.” 

If you really want socialism, join the World Socialist Movement. Ask for what you do want. 

Dismantle the Old to Re-build the New

The Socialist Party welcomes any upsurge in the militancy and resistance and organisation of our class. But from bitter experience, we also know that work of an altogether different more political kind is also needed. The class war must be fought if we are not to be reduced to penury but as we are also capable of rational thought and long-term planning, we must also seek to end the battles of the class struggle by winning the war. This can only be done by dispossessing the capitalist class of its wealth and power. That means that the working class as a whole must understand the issues, and organise and fight for these ends themselves by organising a political party for the conquest of state power.

The Socialist Party clearly explains that to achieve socialism requires a clear understanding of socialist principles with a determined desire to put them into practice. For socialism to be established the mass of the people must realise the nature and purpose of the new society. Our theory of socialist revolution is grounded in the proposition that the working class within capitalist society is forced to struggle against capitalist conditions of existence and as the workers gain more experience of the class struggle and the workings of capitalism, the labour movement will become more consciously socialist and democratically organised by the workers themselves so require no intervention by people outside the working class to bring it.  Socialist education and agitation is necessary but will be carried out by workers themselves whose socialist ideas have been derived from an interpretation of their class experience of capitalism. The end result is an independent movement of the socialist-minded and democratically-organised working class aimed at winning control of political power in order to abolish capitalism. We regard socialism not as a purely political theory, nor as an economic doctrine, but as one which embraces every phase of social life. The Socialist Party has never held that a merely formal majority at the polls under no matter what circumstances, will give the workers power to achieve socialism. It stresses the necessity of capturing the machinery of government including the armed forces. That is the fundamental thing. The method, though important, is secondary to this.

If the capitalist class, in view of the possibility of an adverse vote, disfranchise the workers our answer is in such an event, we would be faced with a new problem where the situation has changed by the constitutional methods being closed to us; and the only course left open to ourselves is to adopt methods of secret organisation and force – so be it. But there is little likelihood of the master class being so blind (not that the master class will hesitate at bloodshed if they deem it necessary to the maintenance of capitalist privilege).

The problem of the methods to be adopted must be determined by the circumstances of the time. Our first need is the development of the desire for socialism among the working class and the preparation of the political party to give expression to that desire. The actions of our class foe against the success of a socialist party will determine our future strategy. If the fight is kept to the political field within constitutional limits, with the ruling class taking the defeat when it comes in a spirit of contrition and resignation – well and good. If they choose not to accept the verdict of the majority when expressed through their own civic institutions and challenge the result by armed force, the working class will be confident of a repeat victory on that battle-field as they were on the electoral field. If the capitalist class follows the example of its predecessors of blood and carnage, it will be on its own head. The important thing is for the workers to gain control of the political machinery because the political machine is the real centre of social control. Given, then, the socialist idea firmly set in the mind of the working class, any action taken by the master class to prevent the realisation of that idea would be countered by the workers solidly organised. Even if a pro-capitalist minority were to try to prevent a change of political control via the ballot box, the socialist majority will still be able to impose its will by other means, such as street demonstrations and strikes. Faced with the hostility of a majority of workers (including, of course, workers in the civil and armed forces, as well as workers in productive and distributive occupations), the capitalist minority would be unable, in the long run, to enforce its commands and the workers would be able to dislocate production and transport.

“An historical development can remain ‘peaceful’ only so long as no forcible hindrances are put in its way by the existing rulers of a society. If, for example, in England or the United States, the working class were to win a majority in Parliament or Congress, it could legally put an end to laws and institutions standing in the way of its development, although even here only so far as societal development permitted. For the ‘peaceful’ movement could still be turned into a ‘violent’ one by the revolt of those whose interests were bound up with the old order. If such people were then put down by force (as in the American Civil War and the French Revolution), it would be rebels against the ‘lawful’ power.” Marx 1878

The 2002 coup against Hugo Chavez failed because people were prepared to take to the streets to back up their vote and because the bulk of the armed forces remained loyal to the constitution and the constitutionally-elected president. The theory that power obtained by the ballot box to effect radical changes can’t be retained was disproved by actual experience. It confirmed our view that a socialist majority can both win and retain power via the ballot box if that majority is sufficiently organised and determined and if there is no question as to their democratic legitimacy. Our view of the police and army is basically that they are workers in uniform, as receptive to revolutionary ideas as any civilian.

The Socialist Party does not think that when faced with a massive majority vote for socialism, and a working class outside parliament organised to back it up, the ruling class would put their life and liberty on the line by resorting to violence to try to resist the inevitable. Perhaps there may be some isolated acts of violence by fool-hardy individuals, but these would be effectively contained and the socialist revolution should be able to pass off essentially peacefully. A recalcitrant minority or as Marx and Engels described them "pro-slavery rebels" will not hold back socialism.

The Socialist Party has never been in the business to win popularity contests and jump on any old band-wagon for the sake of recruitment and membership numbers. Many of the political organisations that did have disappeared, leaving behind no lasting legacy. Events have only confirmed the Socialist Party's case that understanding is a necessary condition for socialism, not desperation and despair. There is no other path to socialism than by the education of the workers in socialism. Shortcuts have proved to be dead-ends. History has actually proved that until the knowledge and experience of the working class are equal to the task of revolution there can be no liberation of labour.

The Socialist Party cannot control whether or not workers become socialists. What we can provide, and what we have continuously provided, is a theory of revolution which, if it had been taken up by workers, would have prevented incalculable misery to millions. Over its many years of existence, the Socialist Party has developed a body of knowledge which has been consistently accurate in its political and economic predictions. For example, in 1917, the Bolsheviks were convinced that they were setting society in Russia on a course of change towards socialism. The Party argued that socialism was not being established in Russia. What followed was the horrendous misery of the Civil War and later Stalin's gulags. We warned against sections of workers try to stage the revolution or implement socialism when the rest of the working class wasn't prepared. What comes to mind is the situation in Germany in 1919 when groups of workers supported the Spartacus group while the majority of the working class still supported the Social Democratic Party. The uprising was put down brutally and the working class was divided. Our fellow-workers will only be prepared when they accept the need to capture political power and only THEN can the implementation of socialism based on majority support begin. Otherwise, you may have a situation where a minority may push the majority into a situation it is not prepared for and the results could be disastrous. In regard to gradualism and reformism when the 1945 Labour Party government was elected with the objective of establishing a "socialist" Britain, the Socialist Party insisted that there would be no new social order. In fact, that Labour Government steered capitalism in Britain through the post-war crisis, enabling it to be massively expanded in the boom years of the 1950s.

Our advocacy is not abstract: we relate to the real experiences of workers today, constantly making clear that socialism is the immediately practical solution to workers' so-called "short-term interests". The Socialist Party is well aware that revolution will not "simply" be the result of our educational efforts. Our appeal to workers is upon the basis of class interest and our appeal will be successful because the class struggle generates class consciousness in workers. The growth of socialist consciousness and organisation will allow workers to prosecute the class struggle more effectively. We, socialists, are members of the working class spreading socialist ideas amongst our fellow workers. We are part of the process of the emergence of socialist consciousness.

The idea of choosing between "abstract campaigning" and "doing something now" is as false a choice as choosing between theory and practice. We must have some theory linking the capitalist present and the socialist future. Some theory yes, but not just any theory. This theory must be based both on the class struggle as the motor of social change and on an understanding of the economics of capitalism and the limits it places on what can be done within the framework of the capitalist system. As socialists we are engaged in a necessarily contradictory struggle: on the one hand, we propose the abolition of the wages system as an immediately practical alternative, but on the other, we recognise the need of workers to fight the wages struggle within capitalism. But, as socialists, our main energies must be directed towards the former objective. We could endeavour to remove this distinction between the trade union struggle within capitalism and the socialist struggle against capitalism by adopting the ideas propounded by De Leon, who at one time advocated that socialists should form their own "revolutionary unions" but their failure is a very important case-study of the danger of imagining those capitalist institutions such as trade unions can be easily converted (or substituted) into socialist bodies. They demonstrate that capitalism cannot be transcended from within.

It is very probable that as more socialists come into the movement groups of them will have involvements in all kinds of areas of the class struggle, ranging from picket-lines to anti-racist groups to community action projects. However involved individual members may or may not be in what is going on outside the Socialist Party, we certainly need to be aware that workers are doing things which, often unknowingly, are contributing to the evolution of class consciousness. Not everything has to have the stamp of approval of or organisation for it to be contributory to the evolution of ideas which precedes revolution. The Socialist Party tries to guard against appearing to be the sole agent of the socialist transformation. Our main task is to find better ways of expressing our message to as many workers as possible, to evolve a strategy so that we use our resources well and to retain our confidence in the face of the immense frustration and pessimism which socialists often encounter. We , Socialist Party members, can envisage a socialist movement growing in the future alongside many other working class organisational forms including trade unions, neighbourhood assemblies workplace committees.

However, it is important to acknowledge, a socialist party has the advantage because its interest and actions do not revolve around this or that section of the working class, but of the working class as a whole. And it functions as the instrument to "take hold of the state machine", to seize the levers of government. Workers councils do not nor cannot do that. They can set themselves up as a dual power to the government or State, but the State still has the control of bureaucracy, army, police force, all forces of oppression. What has to be captured is the State itself to dismantle all this "bureaucratic-military machine". The State already exists as a class institution, the representative of the capitalist class. It exists as a creation that "administers" capitalism and thus a Socialist party must come to the fore which challenges the capitalist class in the political arena in order to seize this administration, "lop off its worst parts" and be provided with the institutions already in place to implement socialism. This is where workers councils, if they are established, could now come into play.

The advantage of a socialist party is that it is the interest of the whole class and does not, in the process, disenfranchise anyone. The working class needs a political organisation, not one segmented on the basis of how industry is set up under capitalism. An organisation of Socialists is needed. As it grows then the dynamic of the class struggle changes and goes off into new directions. We cannot see a council system now, or an industrial union system like the IWW advocates providing the same. The latter organisational forms are determined themselves by capitalist industry and are not necessarily the ideal forms for socialist construction. Both they and Workers councils disenfranchise those sectors of the population not organised into industrial unions or councils.

One cannot talk with workers unless one is WITH them. It is not enough to be one OF them.   In the Communist Manifesto in regard minorities and majorities. "The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement."

"Pushes forward" i think is the key phrase. Marx and Engels didn't say lead forward.

No Freezing Help Here!

The Toronto winter ferocity continues relentlessly, that it makes one think the only thing worse than having a home in the city is not having one. The city, acting on the suggestion of councillor Joe Cressy bought a former rug store intending to turn it into a homeless shelter, which brought a torrent of opposition from the local yokels in the area in which it will be set up, commonly known as the Annex.

 These worthies who call themselves The Davenport Triangle Residents Association Inc. are fearful of crime, disease, panhandling and, as one so eloquently put it,''graffiti on my Tesla''. One may sneer and say they are,''all heart'', but nevertheless, they have a point of view. 

It's just another case of capitalism throwing up a problem and creating more as folks try to deal with the original one. That's what I like about capitalism; its so sane.