The Future Belongs to the People

Capitalism is not an abstraction, it is a concrete force. To understand socialism, one must necessarily understand that under capitalism, society is divided into hostile classes: an owning capitalist class, whose members have ownership of the various parts of the instruments of wealth production. A working class, whose members possess nothing but their labour power, which is useless to the worker unless he can have access to the raw material and the machinery of production, which is owned by the capitalist class. This being so, the worker, in order to live, must sell his or her labour power to the capitalist.

 Our immediate demand is not to tinker and dicker about with the capitalist system. The social revolution is no longer an aspiration of the future; it is a fact our immediate demand. Through revolutionary parliamentary action the working class meets the capitalists in a  political class struggle, and parliamentary action actively promotes the general revolutionary struggle organising into one unified revolutionary movement all the latent powers of the proletariat for the conquest of power. The unity of all is an indispensable condition for the social revolution. Until the workers consciously and directly carry on their industrial and political struggles, confusion and compromise will persist. No dependence upon “leaders” nor concessions to employers; the workers must act independently, free from any taint of opportunism. State capitalism is not socialism and never can become socialism. State capitalism cannot substituted for the industrial self-management of the workers. 

Global capitalism has shown more and more clearly and obviously that it can reap its profits only while increasingly ruining the entire world while imposing on the people mounting hardship, and sweated wage-slavery. The capitalist world stands on the edge of the abyss of environmental destruction. What they really fear is that climate change will drive the masses once and for all to revolution,  the final uprising of the world proletariat. The efforts by world summits to create some kind of order amid growing climate chaos results, not in solutions but growing discontent and anger. World governments are incapable of guaranteeing that workers receive satisfying jobs, nutritious food, decent housing, and healthy surroundings but they display great capacity in organising war against the world.

We are revolutionists, not bomb throwers. We want to destroy the whole edifice of capitalist society, not the offices of some government ministry or corporation. We are not after the life of this banker or that industrialist. The road to revolution lies in the mass movement of the organised workers. We openly proclaim that the workers, who, being the vast majority of the population, have a right to establish their own rule. It plain and self-evident that it would be ridiculous and stupid for us even to attempt to achieve all of these in a secret, concealed manner without the knowledge and behind the backs of the millions of workers. Our aim, the enhancement of class-consciousness, can only be achieved openly. 

The executive of the capitalist class — the Government - grasp what the working class has not yet grasped, namely, that every large economic struggle between capital and labor becomes a political struggle — that is, a struggle for political power. It is, therefore, necessary to wage a political struggle against the whole system of capitalist state power, independent of the capitalist political parties. The workers must have their own class party representing the interests of the whole working class - a socialist party. Our aim, the liberation of the workers, the abolition of wage slavery, working-class control of industry, can only be accomplished if the great masses of the workers understand and agree with us. 

The essence of the Socialist Party’s case is to convince the majority of the workers of the truth of the ideas of socialism and a unified struggle against our common enemy, the capitalists. We appeal to all workers. Are you sufficiently blind to your class interests as to be able to ignore the call to action? With the increased determination of the ruling class to grind the workers down, we must offer more resistance. It is no longer possible to remain outside of the struggle. All are concerned and all must prepare to participate. We cannot sit back and wait for capitalism to collapse of its own accord. While the capitalist class dominates we will suffer more bitterly. Rally to the call for total emancipation! Let our battle cry be:
“Workers of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains; you have a world to gain."

A Clarion Call

The time has come for revolutionists to make a statement of their principles in order to interest their fellow-workers in the class struggle which is the fight for economic and social emancipation and the abolition of class rule. The idea of class-conscious resistance against capitalist exploitation has recently been gaining ground. The quickened industrial strife, the rise in the cost of living and the worsening of working conditions have fanned the discontent always existing within the masses.  Help raise the banner of the social revolution and to free ourselves from capitalism.

There is a need for angry denunciations of capitalism. But there is also a need for inspiration, for a vision of the socialist goal. With capitalism, the class war is never calm for very long. We are always being told by politicians and the media that the capitalist class are the “Captains of Industry” without whom none of us could survive for long. However, they always remain silent on the embarrassing question that if the working class who produce ALL the wealth are not entitled to it, how is the Capitalist Class which produces NOTHING, entitled to any? The persuasive powers of the capitalist media will always try to divide the workers; this is an old game. The strength of the workers lies in their solidarity and, looking to the time when they really wake up and organise politically with us for socialism, a solid, world-wide, socialist working class would hold every trump in the pack. Any improvements or gains the workers can obtain under capitalism they, as the sole producers, are more than entitled to. The Socialist Party maintain that the hardships of capitalism arise, directly out of the fact that the means of living are owned by the few, the many are therefore a propertyless-class who must work for wages in order to live. The antagonism between employers and workers will know no end while the wealth of the one is derived from the exploitation of the other.  THE VERY EXISTENCE OF WAGES-SYSTEM AT ALL shows the economic enslavement of the working class to be a fact.

There are two delusions that cloud the minds and paralyse the hands of those who mistakenly believe that capitalism is evolving into Socialism. One is that the so-called Welfare State has changed the old order at home. The second is that global capitalism has been humanised into giving up the naked struggle for raw materials, strategic bases, and markets. This is supposed to have been brought about by the United Nations an many other international organisations. A glance at the world should blow away this dangerous self-deception. Capitalism without tears is the reformist version of socialism. 

Nothing so much arouses the hatred of the capitalist apologists, nothing so much enrages them and exposes their deep-seated chauvinism, is the socialist denunciation of  "patriotism," and the "the national interest". Any lie, any falsification will do to corrupt, and distort the real meaning and significance of the defense of one’s country. As industrial and technological development grows by leaps and bounds, monopoly capitalism, rather than narrowing national differences and ameliorating oppression, exacerbates them both. It is no wonder that the world is literally divided into rival competing nations. It imparts a great urgency for the revolutionary cooperation and solidarity of all workers. Only socialism, which is based on democratic planning and the common ownership of the means of production, can purge the world of capitalist chaos, its unpredictable crises, and the reign of the arbitrary based on markets, profits and share prices.

We have to refute the idea that socialism can be established before the understanding and acceptance of it by the majority of the workers. Despite all the defeats, hardship and bloodshed experienced by workers in trying to oppose the powers of the State machine by force, groups advocating such methods which, if put in effect, could only lead to further defeats. Despite all the experience they have to draw upon, they appear to have learned nothing. The Socialist Party has since its foundation stressed the need for the working class to organise consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government in order that the machinery of government, including the armed forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation.  Gaining control of Parliament to introduce socialism is not parliamentary expediency. When we of the Socialist Party have contested an election we have always put the socialist case. We have always requested the working class not to vote for the socialist candidate unless they understand and accept socialism. Up to the present the mass of the workers have lacked political knowledge and have voted for personalities instead of principles. When things go wrong they blame the party leaders. Unfortunately, the workers have not a clear consciousness of their position as a class. The only possible hope of the working class is common ownership of the means of production.  Socialism is the economic security for the human family.

Xmas Fact of the Day

Almost 13,000 Scottish children were homeless on Christmas Day last year – and the numbers have soared in recent times. The situation has been branded “disgraceful”. 

A History of the Dispossessed

An interesting review in the Guardian of Tom Devine’s history of the Highland Clearances.

“...Clan chiefs in the Highlands were happy enough to have large populations at various points, especially during the Napoleonic wars. Devine demolishes the idea that Highlanders were by nature more martial than people in other parts of the UK. It was simple economics: the clan chiefs behaved as military entrepreneurs, providing recruits at a price. When the war ended and demand for soldiers fell, they looked for alternative sources of income. Sheep farming was one, and that meant clearing the land. Devine is fair-minded, acknowledging landlords and chiefs who tried to devise ways to keep people, but they were in a small minority. ‘Coercion was employed widely and systematically,’ he concludes.”

What The Socialist Party Stands For

Most people believe that things would be better and life would be easier if only prices were reduced. This is a complete illusion, a failure to understand how capitalism works. To start with nobody actually wants all prices to be reduced: what they all want is that the prices of the things they buy should be reduced and the prices of the things they sell kept as they are or increased. This includes the workers, none of whom want to see a reduction of their wages —which also are prices, the prices at which they sell their mental and physical energies (their labour power) to the employers. 

The workers also want “full employment”. Here they come up against the cruel truth about capitalism. The employers have paid off hundreds of thousands of workers because at present selling prices and costs of production (including wages) they cannot make a profit. If they saw the prospect of a profit they would re-engage them to-morrow. From the employers’ point of view, the solution lies in raising their selling prices, or reducing costs, including wages, or cutting their total costs by getting the same amount of work out of fewer workers. All of this is subject to the overriding condition that the goods produced can be sold, and at the present time world markets are shrinking and competitors abroad are also trying to cut their costs.

Would any of the various forms of controls of prices and wages avoid depressions? The answer is that every possible variety has been tried and failed. It may be hard to accept but is nevertheless true that there are no ways to prevent capitalism from behaving in accordance with its own economic laws. 

Capitalism drives and presses us all to buy to the limits of our means, and offers devices by which those limits may be apparently stretched. But the pressure must never be yielded-to by an inch beyond the limits. The point of marketing, after all, is not that goods shall be distributed but that they are paid for. He who, lured and compelled by deferred terms or slashed deposits or simple needs, fails to meet his money commitment is as far as possible prevented for the future from buying on those terms again. Morally condemned as well, for violating the golden capitalist rule that everything has its price. Most people under capitalism exist in desperation, hair-breadths away from financial calamity. 

There is a socialist alternative to capitalism. The Socialist Party is not Utopian. We know that such a system is possible. Everything necessary is present save one thing: a desire on your part to have such a system.

The Socialist Party does not exist to campaign for petty reforms within the capitalist system. We are a tool by which the working class can use to gain control of the machinery of government. Once in control, the workers can use this machine to dispossess the capitalist class by declaring all the means of life the common property of all society. This will allow the workers to take over the industries and to keep production going in the ways they will have worked out beforehand.  As soon as the last capitalist has been dispossessed then classes will have ceased to exist. It will no longer make sense to speak of a working class and a capitalist class. Everybody, including the ex-capitalists, will have the same status as free producers. Not that things will immediately be startlingly different from what they were before. Production will have to be kept going. Although such jobs as checkout cashiers would disappear, engineers would remain engineers and, perhaps, railway workers, railway workers and so on.  The conversion of the means of life from the private property of an exploiting class to the common property of society will establish the framework within which can be solved once and for all the problems which the working class face today precisely because they are the working class. Even today we can see that the world is quite capable of producing enough for everybody if only production were arranged with this object in mind. Socialism will allow this to happen. Mankind will have control over the means of production to use them as society think fit. Under capitalism there can be no genuine planning as the market is the real king. Firms turn out goods and hope the market will absorb them. Socialist society will estimate what will be needed in advance and then produce it. Allowances for changes in taste and natural disasters can be made by producing more than is needed as a kind of guarantee. The abolition of private property and the conversion of the means of life into the common property of mankind will allow society to set about tackling questions of economic organisation in a scientific way. As soon as the capitalist system has been abolished money become redundant as soon as common ownership has been established.

A Wonderful Life

Hundreds of workers at a West Lothian computer factory were told they would not receive their Christmas wages. Staff at optical manufacturer Kaiam were informed they had not been paid because of cash flow problems. Workers were also told to stay away from the Livingston plant until 3 January.

About 300 people work at Kaiam, which has its headquarters in California, USA. In 2014 the firm was given a £850,000 Scottish Enterprise grant to relocate some of its production from a site in China to Livingston.

Kaiam worker Joanne Baxter said she was "absolutely gutted" at the news.

She added: "It is bad enough any time of the year being in this situation but it is Christmas and people are relying on this wage to just start their Christmas shopping today.There's  people in there with just one breadwinner in the family, they've got kids and they've not even got a selection box for them - I mean how devastating can it be?"

Another employee said: "My rent is due in the next few days and I don't know what I am going to do."

The CEO, Bardia Pezeshki, had seen staff the day before the announcement.

Livingston MP Hannah Bardell said, “He said nothing, then in an unspeakable act of cowardice flew home to the US as staff were being told they wouldn’t paid before Xmas.”

The collapse of the Grameen Bank

Back in 2012 Socialist Courier blogged about the Grameen Bank, here   and here. 

Our message back then challenged the promise of microfinance to bring about a reduction in poverty.

 Grameen Foundation Scotland has now folded. It provided loans to about 1,000 people. Its debts became "insurmountable" when the foundation's cash flow was hit after some of its customers fell into arrears.

Ahhh, well...

Green Energy?

Compensation payments of more than £500 million have been made to wind farms to switch off turbines over the past eight years, the latest figures show. 

A new monthly record was set in September this year, when £28,434,560 was paid out by National Grid to stop electricity generation. 

Most cash was paid to Scottish wind farms, with some earning more than £1m a month for not supplying power. 

Whitelee and its extension on the outskirts of Glasgow, the biggest onshore wind farm in the UK, has received almost a fifth of the entire pot since 2010, with payments totalling more than £96m to date. Meanwhile, the 350MW Clyde scheme, near Abington in South Lanarkshire, has raked in more than £64m and the Griffin, near Aberfeldy in Perthshire, nearly £32m. The amount paid out has been rising annually,

https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/scottish-wind-farm-paid-96m-to-switch-off-1-4846602

Understanding what a socialist society will be

Socialist society, as the Socialist Party repeatedly makes clear, will be a non-market society, with all that that implied: no money, no buying and selling, no prices, no wages. The Communist Manifesto specifically speaks of “the Communistic abolition of buying and selling”  and of the abolition not only of capital (wealth used to produce other wealth with a view to profit) but of wage labour too. In Volume I Marx speaks of “directly associated labour, a form of production that is entirely inconsistent with the production of commodities . . .”  and in Volume II of things being different “if production were collective and no longer possessed the form of commodity production . . .”. Also, in Volume II, Marx in comparing how Socialism and capitalism would deal with a particular problem twice says there would be no money to complicate matters in socialist society: “If we conceive society as being not capitalistic but communistic, there will be no money-capital at all in the first place . . .”  and “in the case of socialized production the money-capital is eliminated”.

In other words, in socialism, it is solely a question of planning and organisation. Marx also advised trade unionists to adopt the revolutionary watchword “Abolition of the Wages System” and, in his Critique of the Gotha Programme, stated “within the co-operative society based on the common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products”  for the simple reason that their work would then be social, not individual and applied as part of a definite plan. What they produce belongs to them collectively, i.e. to society, as soon as it is produced; socialist society then allocates, again in accordance with a plan, the social product to various previously-agreed uses.

Karl Marx used five words to describe future society: communist, associated, socialised, collective and co-operative. All these words convey a similar meaning and bring out the contrast with the capitalist society where not only the ownership and control of production but life generally is private, isolated and atomized. Of these the word Marx used most frequently — almost more frequently than communist — was association. Marx wrote of future society as “an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism”  and as “an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”. In Volume III of Capital Marx writes three or four times of production in future society being controlled by the “associated producers”. Association was a word used in working-class circles in England to mean a voluntary union of workers to overcome the effects of competition. This was Marx’s sense too: in a future society, the producers would voluntarily co-operate to further their own common interest; they would cease to be “the working class” and become a classless community.

In these circumstances, the State as an instrument of political rule over people would have no place. The State as a social organ of coercion is in the Socialist Party view, only needed in class-divided societies as an instrument of class rule and to contain class struggles. As Marx put it, in a socialist society “there will be no more political power properly so-called since political power is precisely the official expression of antagonism in civil society”  and “the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another”. Socialist society would indeed need a central administration but this would not be a “State” or “government” in that it would not have at its disposal any means of coercing people, but would be concerned purely with administering social affairs under democratic control. As Marx explained it would be “the conversion of the functions of the State into a mere superintendence of production”, and he also declared that “freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it”. In other words, once socialism had been established and classes abolished, the coercive and undemocratic features of the State machine would have been removed, leaving only purely administrative functions mainly in the field of the planning and organization of production. It is significant that Marx never defined communist society in terms of the ownership and control of the means of production by the State, but rather in terms of ownership and control by a voluntary association of the producers themselves. He did not equate what is now called “nationalisation” with socialism. The feature of communist society, in Marx’s view, would be consciously planned production. He writes of a society “in which producers regulate their production according to a preconceived plan”  and of “production by freely associated men . . . consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan”. Socialism would allow mankind to consciously regulate their relationship with Nature; only such a consciously planned society was truly human society, a society compatible with human nature.

The Socialist Party holds that the future communist society would be a class-free community, without any coercive State machine, based on the common ownership of the means of production, with planning to serve human welfare completely replacing production for profit, the market economy, money, and the wages system — even in the early stages when it might not prove possible to implement the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

We must learn for ourselves

" If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class, the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself." - Joseph Dietzgen 


The goal of the Socialist Party is a revolution – the abolition of capitalist private property, the abolition of all exploitation of man by man, the common ownership of the means of production and their planned use for the benefit of the whole of society, leading to abundance and the Brotherhood of Man. Socialism means a society without class antagonisms, in which the people themselves control their means of life and use them for their own happiness. The Socialist Party does not put forward this goal as a utopia, as a mere vision of what would ideally satisfy people’s needs and make them all happy, but as a  practical aim to be achieved by the actual conditions of modern society. Socialism will only be gained by waging the class struggle. And to achieve the conquest of power, the working class must have its own independent political party. Socialism is not inevitable. What has been termed its ‘inevitability’ consists in this, that only through socialism can human progress continue? But there is not and cannot be any absolute deterministic inevitability in human affairs since man makes his own history and chooses what to do. What is determined is not his choice, but the conditions under which it is made, and the consequences when it is made. The meaning of socialism is not that it tells us that socialism will come regardless, but that it explains to us where we stand, what course lies open to us, what is the road to class emancipation.

The master class, being but a mere tenth of the population, can only keep possession of the means of production by their control through the political machinery of the State) of the armed forces. While the master class has that control it is hopeless for the workers to attempt to seize capitalist property. It is sheer madness, therefore, to expect that the capitalist class would, because the workers demand it, either abolish the armed forces or hand their control over to the working class. That would be to abolish themselves as a ruling class. Further, the interests of the capitalists of one country clash with those of the capitalists of other lands, especially in the matter of obtaining markets, and so long as capitalism lasts there will be this clash of interests, necessitating ever-increasing armaments and the inevitable appeal to arms. It is then absurd to waste time and energy in an endeavour to convince the capitalists that wars are superfluous and a curse under capitalism.

Let the workers learn their position in society and unite to obtain control of the machinery of government, including the armed forces. Such action will make it possible for them to take possession of the means of production and use them for the benefit of all. In that way alone will they be able to usher in a system of society wherein universal unity of interests will abolish all war, be it between classes or nations. Only the establishment of socialism can give us a world of peace and plenty. 

“A rat race is for rats. We’re not rats. We’re human beings.” Jimmy Reid

Understanding Reformism

It is a popular fallacy that, since capitalists are obviously rich, all socialists opposed to the capitalist system must be poor. Many people have a hazy notion that all poor people are socialists and all rich ones anti-socialists.  Nothing can be farther from the truth. The poorer people are, frequently, the more devoted to capitalism. Who has not met the destitute wretch, subsisting by cadging hand-outs, who runs round shrieking nationalistic nonsense? Conversely, nothing is more fallacious than the notion that all rich people are anti-socialists. Many rich men and women have been most creditable socialist thinkers and writers — some outstandingly so. Frederick Engels immediately springs to mind: a successful manager of his father’s cotton mill.

What makes a person a capitalist is not what he thinks, but what he has: his bank balance, not his mental balance. This is the crux of the question. A capitalist is a possessor of capital. And what is capital? It is wealth invested to produce profit.

Classes are defined by their respective connections to the productive forces within a certain type of production relation and arise as soon as it is no longer necessary for everyone to work in order to sustain society. A social division of labour has been transformed into a relation of oppression and exploitation.

Most members of the working class find it difficult to imagine a society without wages. Born into a world where the majority of people depend on wages to survive, they imagine that there is something inevitable about this arrangement and perhaps forget that it was not always so. In primitive societies, there were no wage-workers; in slave-owning and feudal societies, very few. The preponderance of wage-workers in modern societies is the result of the development of capitalism as a mode of wealth production.

Wages are the price paid by the capitalist employer for the physical and mental energies of the worker for an agreed period of time – typically in this country for a forty-hour week – although the period of time may be much greater, especially among what are known as “salaried employees” or the “executive class” who are nonetheless wage workers like the rest. However, during whatever period of time is customary for the type of work, the employee must accept that any wealth produced, whether in the form of commodities or services, belongs to the employer to dispose of at whatever price the market will bear.

Profit is not something added on by the employer when the product is marketed. A moment’s thought will show that this cannot be so. If it were, then we would need to ask ourselves why profit margins vary so much, why occasionally some employers make a loss, and why they are so concerned about wage levels when all they would need to do is add to the costs of production, including wages, a percentage profit

At a time when there is a shrinking and therefore highly competitive market, employers are under greater pressure to reduce wages in order to survive. This downward pressure on wages takes many forms, some of which may not be immediately evident.

 
In a period of high unemployment, employers may present workers with the alternative of a direct cut in wages or redundancy.

  
Employers may search the labour market for workers who will accept the lowest pay, compatible with efficient work, for example by employing women instead of men, younger workers with smaller financial commitments or immigrant workers accustomed to a lower standard of living. They may even transfer their activities abroad to take advantage of a cheaper labour market. 

 
The introduction of machinery, or the updating of existing machinery, may reduce a company’s wage bill by making it possible to employ unskilled instead of skilled workers or simply by reducing the numbers of workers required for a given volume of production.

By changing the organisation of the productive process, for example by division of labour, the actual numbers employed may be reduced or production may be increased without adding to the labour force. The stress put on “increased productivity” should sound a clear note of warning for the working class in spite of the fact that many so-called representatives of the workers go along with the idea. Just as the capitalist class considers their interests as a class, so should the working class view their collective interests.

In the road transport industry, the increase in the size of lorries is designed to reduce the number of drivers and therefore the total wage bill. Thus we see on the roads today lorries of a capacity many times those used a decade ago – yet still under the control of one driver. A similar development is seen in the size of aircraft, which results in a more intensive use of airfields.

In the retail trade self-service has been introduced wherever practical. For some products, for example, groceries, people may welcome the saving in time. Some may deplore the lack of personal service. These considerations do not, however, enter into the calculations of the capitalist, who will weigh in the balance the cost of installing the self-service system against the saving in wages which may result. This is often a two-fold saving: in numbers of staff relative to the volume of sales and the level of wages required to operate the system.

To maximise profits wages should ideally be just adequate to maintain the worker’s efficiency and to rear children as replacements. When during World War II reformers were advocating a system of family allowances – in this case, payment to those with large families – Sir William Beveridge put the matter quite clearly from the employers’ point of view. In a letter to The Times (12 January 1940) he wrote:

“We cannot in this war afford luxuries of any kind, and it is a luxury to provide people with incomes for non-existent children.”

A system of family allowances is not the only way in which wages can be made to fit more closely the minimum needs of the working class. Any form of government subsidy must be viewed with suspicion from this point of view. We may take for example on the need to subsidise public transport. Its advocates present such measures as a benefit for those workers who travel to work each day by train or bus. In fact, it is only a benefit to employers who would otherwise have to include in the wages of all their employees enough to pay the “economic fare” – whether or not they all make use of public transport. To paraphrase Sir William Beveridge’s comment: “We cannot afford the luxury of providing people with incomes for non-existent journeys”.

We leave to last the most general assault on wages, an assault which has occurred in all those countries which have departed from a currency linked to gold – in other words, those countries using inconvertible paper money. Where paper money is issued, unrelated to the wealth production of a country, then the purchasing power of that money falls. The massive increase in prices which we have seen in this country over the last ten years has been almost entirely due to the excessive printing of paper money; that is, currency inflation which successive governments have employed to meet part of their public spending requirement.

Any government, whether it be Conservative or Labour, is forced to assist in the downward pressure on wages in face of the fierce competition for the sale of commodities and services at a profit.

Replying to our critics

The Socialist Party isn’t just another political party. It opposes the capitalist system that is based on inequality and exploitation and which is threatening the future of the planet. A world based on cooperation and social democracy as advocated by the Socialist Party would not risk environmental destruction and unsustainable consumption. The present global economic system is based entirely on a system for the benefit of the rich. It’s interested only in profits for the rich. The costs of those profits in terms of human misery  and environmental catastrophe, are entirely irrelevant. Under capitalism there are two classes: the capitalists who rob and the workers who are robbed. The socialist vision  involves a fundamental restructuring of the global economy to end the primary goal of maximising profit. Both the left and the right wings of capitalism are sure that capitalism as described by  the Socialist Party is no longer valid. We do not seek to trim our message to suit the prejudices of people. We direct what we have to say at the working class – all workers.

 Defenders of capitalism love to attack  the idea of abolishing markets, prices, money and all other aspects of buying and selling. This they say would be impossible, as demonstrated by  Ludwig von Mises in “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”.  Von Mises, they claim, showed that a socialist society was impossible because it would be unable to calculate rationally which productive methods to adopt. This they call “the economic calculation argument”. According to von Mises, rational economic calculation is only possible on the basis of prices fixed by the free play of market forces. In other words, the only form of rational calculation that can be applied to the production of wealth is monetary calculation.

Although money, and so monetary calculation, will disappear in socialism this does not mean that there will no longer be any need to make choices, evaluations and calculations in the allocation of resources. Our argument is that these , including those concerning the non-monetary “cost” of objects in terms of the effort and materials used to produce them, will be done directly in kind, without any general unit of account or measurement, neither money nor labour-time. This follows from the very nature of socialism as a society geared to producing wealth directly to satisfy human needs. Wealth will be produced and distributed in its natural form of useful things, of objects that can serve to satisfy some human need or other. Not being produced for sale on a market, items of wealth will not acquire an exchange-value in addition to their use-value. In socialism their value, in the normal non-economic sense of the word, will not be their selling price nor the time needed to produce them but their usefulness. It is for this that they will be appreciated, evaluated, wanted . . . and produced. So estimates of what is likely to be needed over a given period will be expressed as physical quantities of definite types and sorts of objects.

 Nobody, not even von Mises, has denied that this could be done without problems:
  "...calculation in natura, in an economy without exchange, can embrace consumption-goods only..."
Von Mises’ argument was that the next step—working out which productive methods to employ—would not be possible, or at least would not be able to be done “rationally” avoiding waste and inefficiency, without “economic calculation”—monetary calculation based on market prices. Our answer is that the choice of which productive methods to employ will, like working out what consumer goods are needed, be based on estimations and calculations in kind.

A monetary economy gives rise to the illusion that the “cost” of producing something is merely financial; indeed so associated is the word cost with financial and monetary calculation that we are obliged to put it in inverted commas when we want to talk about it in a non-monetary sense. But the real cost of the pen I’m using to write this article is not 10p, but the amount of wood, slate, labour, electricity, wear and tear of machines, used up in producing it. This will continue to be the case in socialism. Goods will not grow on trees, but will still require expenditure of effort and materials to produce them. The point is that in socialism this expenditure of effort and materials will be estimated and calculated exclusively in kind, directly in terms of wood, slate, machinery wear and tear, electricity, and so on (including working time, but as this will be a special case we’ll come back to it later). Since socialism will be concerned with conserving resources it will want to adopt those productive methods which, other things being equal, use less rather than more materials and energy and this will be one, but only one, of the factors to be taken into account in deciding which technical method of production to adopt.

Monetary calculation, whether to discover which productive method is the most profitable (as imposed by capitalism and praised by the followers of von Mises) or for any other purpose (as proposed by various partisans of state capitalism and other unrealistic would-be reformers of capitalism), is a very peculiar sort of calculation since it involves reducing all use-values to an abstract common denominator. Use-values can indeed be compared but only in concrete situations since the same object can have a different use-value at different times and under different circumstances. Monetary calculation, however, seeks to compare all objects in terms of an objective standard applicable in all circumstances; to do this it needs to identify a feature common to all objects. Such a common feature can indeed be found: that a certain “cost” in terms of materials, energy and labour expended has had to be incurred to produce them (ultimately the labour-time required to produce them from start to finish, and—this is the basis of the labour theory of value—the materials and energy expended, being produced by labour, can also be reduced to given amounts of necessary labour-time). It is this cost that is supposed to be measured by money. Money, then, is the universal unit of measurement, the “general equivalent”, that allows everything to be compared with everything else under an circumstances—but, and this is what the partisans of monetary calculation forget, only in terms of their labour-time cost or the total time needed on average to produce them from start to finish.

To make this the only consideration that counts (as is imposed by the economic laws of capitalism) is an absurd aberration. It is like making volume the most important thing about bottles containing different liquids and then concluding that a litre bottle of water has the same significance as a litre bottle of wine or of oil or of sulphuric acid or whatever. But we are doing exactly the same if we say, or if we believe, that different goods selling at the same price have the same “value”, or are “worth” the same, in terms of their real usefulness to people.

Market Values or Human Values?
So the argument between monetary calculation and calculation in kind is much broader than it first seems. It is not merely a technical argument about how to calculate and what units to use for this, but is an argument about the real meaning of words like “value” and “worth”. The Socialist Party, as opponents of monetary calculation, say that it is not monetary or market values, in the end total average production time, that is the most important thing about a good but its usefulness in satisfying some human need; that the real values are use-values, human values. We are saying that these are the factors that should be taken into account when making choices and calculations about production. not simply production time.

This presupposes that calculations concerning production can be carried out without money or without some money-substitutes, some other general unit such as labour-time. Such non-monetary calculation of course already happens. on the technical level, under capitalism. Once the choice of productive method has been made (according to expected profitability as revealed by monetary calculation) then the real calculations in kind of what is needed to produce a specific good commence: so much raw materials, so much energy, so much labour, etc. In socialism it is not the case that the choice of productive method will become a technical choice that can be left to engineers, as is sometimes misunderstood by our critics, but that this choice too will be made in real terms, in terms of the real advantages and disadvantages of alternative methods and in terms of, on the one hand, the utility of some good or some project in a particular circumstance at a particular time and, on the other hand, of the real “costs” in the same circumstances and at the same time of the required materials, energy and productive effort.

To advocate monetary calculation, then, is to advocate that only one consideration—the total average production time needed to produce goods—should be taken into account when making decisions about which productive methods to employ. This is patently absurd but it is what is imposed by capitalism. Naturally, it leads to all sorts of aberrations from the point of view of human interests. In particular it rules out a rational, long-term attitude towards conserving resources and it imposes intolerable conditions on the actual producers (speed-up, pain, stress, boredom, long hours, nightwork, shiftwork, accidents).

Socialism, because it will calculate directly in kind, will be able to take these other, more important, factors than production time into account. This will naturally lead to different, in many cases quite different, productive methods being adopted than now under capitalism. If the health, comfort and enjoyment of those who actually manipulate the materials, or who supervise the machines which do this, to transform them into useful objects is to be paramount, certain methods are going to be ruled out altogether. The fast-moving production lines associated with the manufacture of cars would be stopped for ever (except perhaps in a museum of the horrors of capitalism); nightwork would be reduced to the strict minimum; particularly dangerous or unhealthy jobs would be automated (or completely abandoned).

Work can, in fact must, become enjoyable. But to the extent that work becomes enjoyable, measurement by minimum average working time would be completely meaningless, since people would not be seeking to minimise or rush such work.

However there will still be some kinds of work that socialist society will want to minimise. For instance, dangerous or repetitive work. Once again, this would be one of the real factors that will have to be taken into account when decisions are made as to what productive methods to adopt. Other factors would be conserving resources (so out would go “planned obsolescence” and in would come solid goods made to last), saving energy, avoiding pollution and generally maintaining a sustainable ecological balance with the rest of nature.

As a matter of fact, even under capitalism, enterprise managers do not just base their decisions on market prices, long-term or short-term. They are obliged by law (and also by trade union pressure) to take into account a whole series of other factors such as safety, anti-pollution and planning permission. The overriding consideration remains of course expected profits (the difference between anticipated sales receipts and monetary cost of production). This means that these factors are of minor importance and only reflect the minimum standards that are not incompatible with profit-making and, being imposed from outside against the logic of short-term profit-making are always being broken. But they do, however marginally, enter into productive decisions, thus showing that it is possible to take into account other considerations than minimum production time.

The Priorities in Socialism
In socialism, the situation will be quite different: these factors will be automatically taken into account in the decision-making process and will not have to be imposed from outside as a sort of after-thought, since among the highest priorities of production will be the health and welfare of the producers. We can imagine the decisions as to choice of productive methods being made by a council elected by the workforce, or by a technical subcommittee of such a democratically-elected council. In making their choice they will first take into account, not minimising average total production time as the economic laws of capitalism enforce today, but the health, comfort and enjoyment of the workforce, the protection of the environment and the conservation of materials and energy. Since materials and energy, and work to the extent that it is not interesting and creative but only routine, are real “costs” the aim will be to minimise them. As there will be these clearly defined objectives and constraints, mathematical aids to decision-making such as operational research and linear programming, at present prostituted to the end of maximising profits, can be used to find the optimum productive methods.

Another point that must be understood is that socialism will not have to start from scratch. It will inherit from capitalism a going technical system of production which it will be able to adapt to production for use. Some methods will have to be stopped straight away or as soon as possible but others will only need modifying to a greater or lesser extent. Again, when socialism will have cleared up the mess inherited from capitalism, it will become a society in which methods of production too will only change slowly. This will make decision-making about production much simpler.

We add straight away to avoid any misunderstanding that, even in the period at the beginning of socialism when production will be clearing up the mess in terms of deprivation and poverty left by capitalism, monetary calculation won’t be necessary. The necessary expansion of production can be planned and executed in real terms.

So, the so-called “economic calculation argument” against socialism collapses in the face of detailed analysis. The alternative to monetary calculation in terms of exchange-value is calculation in kind in terms of use-values, of the real advantages and real costs of particular real alternatives in particular real circumstances.

Let's Overthrow Capitalism

There is and can be no common ground between the Socialist Party aim is the abolition of wage slavery and the ownership by the workers of the machinery of production and distribution, and the left-wing parties who simply wants to effect a few ameliorations of the lot of the wage-slave. The Socialist Party recognises that at this stage the essential thing to be done is to educate the workers to want and insist upon socialism as the only permanent and effective remedy and uses elections simply as a means of propaganda. We want first and foremost to make socialists. The Labour Party merely wants to get votes. The Socialist Party knows that votes are no good unless there are clear-cut convictions behind them. The Socialist Party knows that all that can be done at present is to lay foundations, and wants to lay them solid and strong on the bed-rock of socialist principles. The Labour Party wants to win the election any old way and get something right here and now.
whose end and

The Socialist Party knows that a disease can't be cured suddenly by any quack remedy, and will only yield to a long course of treatment. The Labour Party ignores the cause of the disease and wants to doctor the symptoms. The remedy to the misery and insecurity of the present social order lies in the working class developing the idea of dispossessing the parasitic minority we toil for. The movement for socialism is of necessity only a trickle for a long time, and this partly deludes people into the belief that little progress is made when in reality great progress has and is being made. The mass of people moves as a mass. That is to say their political knowledge grows slowly but steadily at an even pace and it is in a mass and not by ones and twos that the great body of the workers will come to the conviction that in socialism lies their social salvation. In fact, progress is more real than apparent. In this blackest hour, the hope of the future is neither faded nor fading and still urges us to carry on with a stronger conviction of fulfilment than ever. The future is by no means as dark as it may appear. The Socialist Party has an unanswerable case against capitalism that it is in the interest of the workers is to get rid of the private ownership and control of the means of production and distribution for the introduction of socialism.

Socialism and nothing less is our aim. Our opponents, “left-wing” though they may be, stand in the way of its achievement. They help to keep the workers confused by presenting as revolutionary and Socialist, their way-out schemes that are no more than reforms to patch up capitalism. We do not doubt their sincerity but are convinced that they, the Left, do not understand the problems they are trying to solve. Under capitalism, the propertyless wealth-producers and their families suffer poverty whilst the non-producing owners of the means of production enjoy the affluence derived from surplus value created by the workers. Capitalism involves private property, production for sale with a view to profit, wages, rent, interest, and profit. Experience has amply endorsed the proposition that this form of society cannot be made to work in the interest of the wage-earners.

The answer to working-class poverty is socialism. This will involve the means of production being held in common, with democratic control thereof in the interest of society as a whole and production solely for use. There will be no more employers nor employees, no more buying and selling, and no more working for wages. For their emancipation, the working class must capture political power. Pity the poor worker seeking leadership. For over the years the "crisis" of the revolutionary leadership has multiplied. For it is not leadership that the working class needs but socialist understanding. With it, they will establish socialism. Nor will this knowledge come by means of transitional demands, for they are nothing but reforms. They do not form a bridge but a diversion. For in order to get support for these demands, their merits must be propagated and shown to be superior not only to other reforms but also to the demand that capitalism is abolished. Socialism is still opposed by those who find it is easier to gain adherents to believe in a small palliative reform. However the facts throughout the world show there is nothing for the profit system to celebrate. Do they want to celebrate the unseen masses of corpses, ruins and millions of people wounded in body and mind for which the profit system has been responsible for this century? Not a day goes by which does not prove that it is not possible for capitalism to produce anything else.

The sole aim of the Socialist Party is the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by socialism. Membership is open to anyone who agrees with the party's object and principles. This involves understanding the basic features of capitalist society and includes a rejection of leadership (by man or god). Socialists are historical materialists and claim that religions are social products, subject to change as social conditions change. It is not a case of the world (or universe) being made by a creator with Mankind made in his image, but of Mankind making his gods in the image of natural phenomenon including Mankind itself.

Revolution Not Gradualism

The Socialist Party is basically different from the parties of capitalism, who seek power on promises and cadge for votes on issues like Scottish independence and who in practice fail to solve those very problems. We stand for a social system which can only be established by the political action of workers who understand socialism and the need for a revolution to end capitalism. There is no room in a socialist party for policies of trying to reform capitalism. At present workers concern themselves with matters such as Scottish independence under the delusion that it is possible to run capitalism, with some alterations, in their interests. In fact, it is not possible and all experience bears this out; by taking sides in these disputes workers are supporting one section of the ruling class against another.

The technology exists to produce all that we need for a peaceful, prosperous planet. The Socialist Party’s goal is to reorganise society into a new, cooperative society of equality. We invite all who see that we face social problems and are ready to do something about it to join with us. The Socialist Party is all about revolution. The Socialist Party offers a sustained organised revolutionary opposition to the capitalist system. We are the party of social revolution. Our desire to make a revolution is thwarted by a lack of a socialist understanding. We need to understand that complete emancipation of men and women will come only with the abolition of private property. We maintain that the present capitalist system does not represent the interests of the majority but acts on behalf of the few who possess the economic and political power. Society today is split into two opposing social classes:  buyers and sellers of labour-power We have no reason to conceal our aims or camouflage our position. We have nothing to hide from our fellow-workers, for our party has no interests separate and apart from their interests. Our socialist case can be realised only through the majority action of our fellow-workers. They must first be convinced of its correctness and educated in socialist principles. This requires that we persistently and publicly confront all other parties and compete in the political arena. 

The Labour Party is indistinguishable from the Democrats in the United States. In other words, that it’s a left-of-centre party of capitalist reform, not a party committed, if only on paper, to further the interests of the working class. All its leaders want is to have a go at running capitalism which they say they can do better than the Tories.  Tony Benn openly admitted that the Labour Party is not a socialist party and never has been. We agree with the need for a genuinely socialist party but insist that this should be on a sound basis, namely a clear definition of what socialism is and a clear refusal to advocate reforms of capitalism. We are not saying that workers shouldn’t try to get the best they can out of capitalism, but that’s the job of trade unions and other similar organisations, not of a socialist political party. In our view, the job of a socialist party is to advocate “a complete and utter change of society” to socialism and nothing but this. History shows that a party that advocates reforms inevitably becomes the prisoner of its reform-minded supporters and eventually ends up giving only lip-service to the socialist transformation of society. Why do you think that instead of the Labour Party gradually changing capitalism, as some of its members once used to want, the opposite has happened and capitalism has gradually changed the Labour Party—into what it is today and which you feel is no longer worthy of support? Why make the same mistake again?

The capitalist class keep offering up political leaders as our saviours, so many we can’t keep count! Why? Because they want us to keep believing in their system despite everything.  Our rulers have divided the world up and keep battling to re-divide it.  Because this capitalist system and each capitalist operates out of only one law–how to make the most profit. If you can’t beat someone else at this robbery–then you don’t do it at all. If one capitalist can’t out-compete the others by working his workers to death then he’ll go out of business. We know that it is not going to get any better no matter what they say. It’s the law of their system they have to do whatever brings the greatest profit.

The Socialist Party contends that the working class is certainly capable of a more dignified destiny than that of a hired assassin or mere commodity with a price tag on his or her carcass denoting the ingredient labour-power in the exploiting process of capitalist society. And although at the moment, the keynote of opportunism is the ruling ethic of “every man for himself”: this alien philosophy is being slowly unmasked by socialists the world over and all men and women who put their shoulders to the wheel of the socialist revolution have risen above the otherwise empty, frustrating, money-grubbing existence of mediocrity, matching in inanity that of the capitalist as a machine for accumulation.

Socialism will be a money-free society. The social scars of capitalism, such as poverty, which is sometimes very occasionally slightly soothed through charity, will no longer exist. There will, therefore, be no need for charities.  When socialism is established there will be no employers and employed; people will work freely and in co-operation to produce whatever society needs and all will have free access to that wealth. Work, then, will be pleasurable, creative activity inseparable from leisure. Sadly, capitalism will last for as long as that lack of understanding persists.

School discipline

The “ungoverned” and potentially illegal use of restraint and seclusion is taking place across Scotland’s schools, according to the country’s children and young people’s commissioner.

The commissioner’s report reveals thousands of largely unmonitored incidents, glaring inconsistencies in policy between local authorities and significant concerns that the techniques are being used disproportionately on children with disabilities and additional support needs.

Challenging the Scottish government to turn its rhetoric on human rights into action, the commissioner, Bruce Adamson, called for all schools without adequate policies to stop using restraint and seclusion “as a matter of urgency” until national guidelines and standards were put in place.

Adamson told the Guardian: “We are deeply concerned that significant physical interventions may be taking place without any kind of policy or procedure at local authority level to ensure the lawful and rights-compliant treatment of children. We don’t have confidence in how many incidents of restraint and seclusion are taking place, which children are most affected or how they are being dealt with. We are also concerned that the Scottish government hasn’t done enough to provide clear direction to local authorities to make sure we have a consistent reporting across the country.”

The report – the first to use the office’s formal powers of investigation, and taking in all state primary and secondary schools in Scotland – was prompted by dozens of inquiries from parents and carers of children with disabilities and other additional support needs, raising concerns about the use of these techniques as a method of behaviour management. The investigation uncovered a chaotic picture across the country. Four out of 32 local authorities do not have policies on restraint and seclusion. Aberdeen city council presented no policy documents but reported that 60 techniques had been used to physically intervene with children. The investigation found a lack of consistent standards to define restraint and seclusion among those authorities that did provide policies, with only 18 stating that restraint should be used as a last resort when a child was in danger of harming themselves or others. Only 12 local authorities said children and young people’s rights and views had been taken into account when reviewing their guidelines.

For the purposes of the report, restraint was defined as “holding a child or young person to restrict their movement”, and seclusion as “the confinement of a child, without their consent, by shutting them alone in a room or other area which they are prevented from leaving”. This was distinct from a “time out”, defined as a behavioural intervention used as part of a structured support plan that did not necessarily involve being physically removed to a separate place.

The investigation found that the recording of incidents was similarly erratic: only 18 authorities were able to provide data, despite others claiming they recorded all incidents. These 18 authorities reported 2,674 incidents between them over the 2017-18 school year. Only 13 authorities recorded the number of children who were the subject of interventions, which came to 386 in total.

Adamson said restraint should be used only as an “absolute last resort”. He said: “We need to make sure that adults have the training to make sure they can support children, particularly those that need additional support, and not resort to restraint techniques. That rights-based approach is really missing and we need to send a message very clearly in terms of restraint.”