Revolution – Our Only Future

The social outlook or philosophy of the capitalist group is the ownership and control of the resources of the means of life, guaranteeing them huge profits and income at all times. The working class must make its stand against the capitalist system – whose lust for profits and interest, for investments, markets and expanded capital, for raw materials and cheap exploitable labour, can mean only exploitation and abject slavery. Capital is simply money and commodities assigned to create a profit and be reinvested.

 Profit is made by the "magical" addition of surplus value to the value inherent in the product. The "added value," the profit, is produced by workers.

And this capital is born to expand or die. The value of a commodity comes from the labour invested in it, including the labour that manufactured the machinery and extracted the raw materials used to create the item. And the boss' profits do not come from his smarts or his capital investment or his mark-up, but from the value created by labour - specifically, surplus-value.

Surplus value derives from unpaid wages. The worker is never paid for the value of the product, only for the value of her or his labour time, which is considerably less, and which meanders widely depending upon the historical, cultural and social conditions of a country.

Labour-power is miraculous, like the Virgin Birth. You get more out of it than you put in. Workers produce a commodity which has more value than what they get in wages to keep them functioning. This differential is surplus value, which is the source of capital. The secret of value, the labour theory of value, that was unearthed by the classical economists and by Marx is what the money barons fear and hate. It is the secret that will set the world free.

Socialists will produce for use according to a reasonable plan and without a thought for the odious notion of profit. And with no insatiable parasitic class to maintain, socialist society will produce abundance for all. That's a fact. We can’t move forward step by step by winning better wages. There’s only one way and that’s by getting rid of the whole source of these problems, the system of capitalism, that we can build a new society run by and for the working people. The insane profit system of production for profit can no more guarantee the end of exploitation and misery than water can run uphill.

That wealth exists in abundance in this world is well known. But the distribution of this wealth proceeds according to the social relations of society. These are capitalist relations, resting upon the capitalist ownership and control of the means of production. In the plans of Corbyn or Sanders these relations would remain, only the wealth would be redistributed by cutting down on the big fortunes and adding to the small ones or giving to those that have none. But this is impossible under capitalism since the ownership and control of the means of production determines the form of distribution of all wealth. So far this has meant and can only mean ever greater riches for the parasites and ever greater impoverishment for those who toil, who have nothing but their labour power to sell – and to sell only when the bosses see fit to buy. What is the cause of this condition; what is the cause of this unequal distribution of wealth? The cause is to be found in the ownership and control of the means of production. This system secures the right to exploit labour by leaving in the hands of the capitalist class also the ownership of the surplus value produced by the labourer over and above what he receives as wages. This is how profits are acquired. Moreover, under the conditions of mass production, and in order to continue the process of production. In other words, sufficient only for their bare upkeep when they have jobs. Of course, the abundance of wealth available could easily guarantee to each family, as progressives proposes. But this is equally impossible under the profit system and it can be obtained only when the profit system is abolished. Corbyn and Sanders proclaim the redistribution of wealth; but they are equally vociferous in defending the maintenance of the present social relationship. Both assume the continuation of the right to exploitation, however, with an increase of the purchasing power of the masses so that returns to shareholders in the form of unearned incomes may continue; so that dividends on stocks may be paid and the now of profits taken out of the exploitation of labour may proceed uninterrupted. There are no other sources for profits to come from. What is this but the stabilisation of the system of exploitation? To stabilise the system of exploitation means to stabilise the economic power of the class that owns and controls the means of production.

 Furthermore, it is well to remember that political relations are governed by this economic power which is another way of saying that those who own are also those who rule. They use their economic power to build up their political state, to build up their government and to reinforce it by courts, by police and by military forces, always ready to be used against the workers when on strike or in other forms of struggle and on a whole serving for the purpose of keeping the masses in subjection. This government, Corbyn and Sanders proposes to entrust with the redistribution of wealth. They will not even permit the workers to organise into unions so as to obtain a living wage without the most stubborn resistance. They will not yield their economic power, as represented by their accumulated wealth, or give up their privilege to exploit labour without a life and death struggle. Nay, more, they use this economic power to determine who can be elected to the public offices and to dictate the policies of the government elected and the implementation of policies. A real redistribution of wealth can be carried out in no other way than by the overthrow of the system of capitalism. Only the working class revolution can accomplish that.

No Money, No Wages, No Prices, No Private Property

We are living in a class society in which there is no common social interest. The government’s job is to look after the interests of the propertied few who own Britain. This job involves all governments in conflict with the other class in society, those who have to work for a living. Capitalism is a class system that can only work for those who own the means of production. Until these means are commonly owned the problems facing wage workers can never be solved. Those who are going to vote Tory or Labour in the hope of getting a better life will be as disappointed.

In managing the affairs of the capitalists governments have to ensure that profit-making can go on as smoothly as possible and are, from time to time, forced to take measures aimed at restoring profit levels by reducing workers’ living standards. The Labour Party have done this as well as the Tories. The capitalist system just cannot be made to work in the interests of wage earners. his is why a change of government from Johnson to Corbyn would make no difference.

When the Socialist Party proposes that we can do without money, our critics from both Right and Left tell us it would mean we'd have to go hack to barter.

Why?

Who said that barter and money were the only two ways of getting wealth to people? Obviously if that were the choice, money would win hands down. It is a very convenient invention that saves much time and trouble whenever goods are bought and sold. It would not be very sensible to go back to barter anyway, since money developed out of the barter system when it was seen how convenient it was if all goods could be exchanged for one particular one.

It is not quite true that socialists want to "abolish money”. Socialism will not be like today except that there won’t be any money. What socialists want is a society in which, among other things, money will have become unnecessary. That brings us to the third choice: free distribution of wealth, or if you prefer free access to wealth, where people can take from the common store what they need as and when they need it.

Those who disagree with the Socialist Party say there would be utter chaos. People would just grab as much as they could.

Why should they?

People don’t grab those things which even now they can have as much as they like of. Take water. Once you have paid the rates, there is no restriction on the amount you can take. Do we find people leaving their taps running all day or filling buckets to hoard away? Of course not. People know what their daily needs of water are. and that there will always be enough to meet them, so they only take what they need when they need it. There is no charge to use some parks or libraries but people still behave normally: they use these free facilities as and when they want to. In some places they don’t charge for travelling on public transport. Yet still people behave sensibly: they use the trains or the phones only when they want to. This is normal behaviour. In a socialist society, where food, clothing, shelter, travel, entertainment and the other things people need to live and enjoy life will be freely available, why should people suddenly go mad and start grabbing more than they need? Is it not more likely that, as with water today, they will take only what they need?

Many in the environmentalist movement concerned with over-consumption warn the Socialist Party there wouldn’t be enough to go round anyway.

Oh yes there would. You needn’t worry about that. Scientists and engineers have long known that mankind has the means — the modern industries and farms, the technical know-how and the skilled manpower — to abolish forever famine, poverty and slums. There is no technical reason why modern industry should not turn out an abundance of the things people need. We can easily grow more and better food; manufacture more and better clothes: build more and better houses, schools, hospitals and other public buildings. It is a question of incentive. Today where production is geared to profit-making, this is not done because the rule is “no profit, no production”. In Socialism where production will be geared instead to meeting human needs, people can go on producing till all their needs are met.

People who doubt peoples capacity to work cooperatively ask who is going to work for nothing. Once again the underlying assumption, that people are basically lazy, is wrong. Most people don’t want to be idle all day long, doing nothing. It is normal to want to do something — in other words to want to work. For work is simply exercising your mental and physical faculties. Work may be pleasant (as in your leisure-time activities) or unpleasant (as, generally speaking, in your employer’s working time). Most people, quite reasonably, expect the work they do voluntarily to be pleasant. In socialism, with satisfying human needs (including the need for enjoyable work) as its aim and where all work will be voluntary, people will ensure that they work in safe and pleasant surroundings and that they enjoy what they are doing to help run the society of abundance which benefits them all.


Sceptics and cynics then want to know who do the dirty and unpleasant and dangerous work.

Well, that depends on what you mean by that. What work is dirty and what is not is a matter of opinion. The same work can be pleasant or unpleasant depending on why it is done and on how other people think of those who do it. People who wouldn't dream of being a navvy will gladly dig holes in their gardens. And some of the tasks performed by doctors and nurses are not much different from those done by lavatory cleaners.

Machinery could be designed to do nearly all the dull, repetitive jobs which human beings are now forced to do because it is cheaper to employ them than  to install machines. When society is geared to serving human needs, there will be every incentive to design and install machines to eliminate drudgery. If there prove to be some jobs that cannot easily be done by machines, then either they can be left undone or done (perhaps only for short periods) by people who recognise that someone has to do them. That such people will be found is a reasonable assumption since even today the dangerous, but obviously necessary, job of manning lifeboats is done mainly by volunteers.

Why the Socialist Party?

Capitalism has no policy to solve the crisis of climate change. Within the conditions of capitalist chaos there is no harmonious solution possible. Capitalism can only seek to prolong its life by throwing the burdens of the crisis on to the working people.

Many workers placed their hopes in the Labour Party to bring the solution to their plight and misery. The Labour Party spoke of social change and promised to realise it. Swift disillusionment has followed. Discontent is widespread. The condition of the workers has grown worse; there is no sign of any advance to an egalitarian society. The Labour Government has acted as a representative of capitalism against the workers. Why is this? The failure of the Labour Party is not an accident, not a personal question of this or that particular leader, of this or that particular policy. It is a whole system of politics — the whole system of politics of the supposed “alternative” to revolution that stands exposed in the record of the Labour Governments. They profess the aim of socialism as an ideal for the future yet at the same time they attack the necessity of the social revolution, which alone can realise socialism. They hope to reach their aim without the necessity of overthrowing capitalism, on a basis of co-operation with capitalism, on a basis of winning for the workers gradual gains within capitalism. Therefore their practice is based on capitalism, on acceptance of the capitalist State, on administering capitalism and helping to build up capitalism. This they term  practical and pragmatic policy for the workers to follow. Reformism was able to win small gains for the workers, But capitalism to-day is no longer willing to grant concessions to the workers, on the contrary, through austerity programmes it has cut concessions, made new attacks on  living standards and working conditions.

Millions of workers are turning from the Labour Party and seeking a new direction. What path should they seek? The only way forward is the struggle against capitalism, the path that leads to the social revolution, to socialism. The so-called “left” proclaim their “opposition” to the Labour Party policy and advocate supposed “socialist” alternatives. But on examination their policy will be found to be only the old policy of the Labour Party dressed up in new clothes. Although they speak roundly of “socialism” against “capitalism,” they do not propose the overthrow of capitalism, the working-class conquest of power, the expropriation of the capitalists; their basis is still the same basis of capitalism, of capitalist democracy, of the capitalist State, as with the Labour Party; and therefore the outcome can only be the same. Their only proposals are for the reorganisation of capitalism. But in fact, capitalist reorganisation in the  can only, if the capitalist burdens are maintained, be at the expense of the workers. The question of socialism or the common ownership of industry is explicitly stated to be placed on one side.

It is clear that we shall have to direct production to meet the needs of all. We shall have abolished the rule of class distinctions and privilege, and establish real democracy and freedom for all, the free and equal workers’ society, in order to bring the fruits of the revolution to all, in order to end the present reign of inequality — inequality in respect of every elementary human need of food, clothing, shelter, conditions of labour health, education, etc., and bring the material conditions of real freedom and development to all.

We are not speaking of some utopia, but only of what is immediately and practically realisable so soon as the workers are united to overthrow capitalism and enforce their will. It is  evident that, on the most immediate practical basis, and leaving out of account the enormous increase in production which will result from universal socially organised production, the workers’ rule will be able immediately, so soon as the change is achieved, to realise the most enormous advances in standards, hours, conditions of labour and social conditions. We shall immediately banish poverty.

The choice before the workers is civilisation collapse or the socialist revolution, leading to new life for all. That the workers can by the method of social revolution, and by the method of social revolution alone can rapidly reconstruct and extend production and win prosperity for all. The workers, if they depend on capitalism, can only go down with it.

Not Nationalism

The love for the land of our birth is foolish, absurd, and the enemy of progress. The Socialist Party seeking to win support among working people face the obstacle of class collaboration in the form of nationalism. Socialist principles and working class interests take precedence over all national interests whatsoever. The Socialist Party internationalism involve being also being anti-patriotic. Patriotism is an objectionable sentiment since it means the placing of one’s own country, its interests and well-being, above those of the rest of humanity. We are constantly having impressed upon us by the Left that internationalism does not mean anti-nationalism. Those who wishes his or her country strong invariably requires it to be at the expense of the welfare and interests of other countries. 

Nationalism is really only thinly-veiled imperialism. All nationalisms are reactionary. Nationalist struggle denies class struggle. The left wing error is assuming that national liberation struggles lead to an escalation in class struggle. Nationalism is a weapon in the hands of the ruling class in order to mislead working people.

Too many nationalists say “My country right or wrong.” Even if it is is committing crimes against international law , they wish to see that crime succeed to a certain extent. The Socialist Party regards patriotism as the enemy of socialism and human justice. W e aspire to a greater sentiment than that of loyalty to a particular piece of soil, or even to a particular section or group of the human race into which one happens to have accidently been born into. This is the adequate ground, speaking for myself for my enthusiastic espousal of the cause of the wantonly invaded against the wanton invader. The principle of nationality – of “fatherland” or “motherland”- is not held dearly by ourselves. The principle of being part of the human family is. It is incumbent upon every socialist to assume an anti-patriotic, anti-nationalist, attitude. It is a question of fighting, not for the political independence of one nation, but for a new society – for the worldwide Socialist Cooperative Commonwealth. The cause of the working classes is lost if we allow ourselves to be caught again in a web of patriotism.

The achievement of socialism awaits the building of a mass base of socialists, in factories and offices, on farms and campuses. The development of socialist consciousness, on which can be built a socialist base, must be a socialist’s first priority. Socialism is a process of raising socialist consciousness, and a strategy to make visible the limits of capitalism. Capitalism must be replaced by socialism. Any section of the capitalist class is an enemy of the working class. Only the working class can change society. No small group can perform this task for them. The conspiratorial methods of terrorism runs counter to the mass mobilisations of workers and are alien to the labour movement. It is a tactic of despair which is doomed from start to finish.

There can be no socialist movement which does not face the elementary question of the unity in struggle of the working class beyond borders and nation-states. Nationalists have successfully dress themselves in ‘radical’ clothes. They succeeded because there was no genuine class alternative. Workers can be won from the blind alley of nationalism only if the socialist movement spells out the alternative, drawing workers together around its red banner. Let us cast off all sectionalism, all parochialism, and sit down as brothers and sisters.

Lest we forget

 

Obituary from the June 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

Yet another old comrade, Jimmy Dowling, died suddenly in the latter part of March. He joined the Glasgow Branch in the early 1930’s and despite many vicissitudes never relaxed his adherence to the socialist case. Only those who knew him intimately could appreciate his solid grounding in the Marxist classics. An omnivorous reader, he specialised in the philosophical aspects of historical materialism. Unfortunately, he never became a speaker or writer. Nonetheless, everyone will remember him for his quiet caustic wit and his undying hatred, based upon understanding, of capitalism.

Tony Mulheron