There is only one banner - the Red Flag

Pro-independence group All Under One Banner have announced plans to hold rallies as coronavirus restrictions begin to lift in Scotland.

The group revealed the timetable for action will begin in Edinburgh on July 20, before the moving to Stirling and Glasgow in August and September.

Nationalisms divide the world.  The trouble with any nationalism is that it simply ignores the realities of power under modern capitalism. The ruling class has at its disposal massive economic wealth, on a global scale which exercises effective control over any sovereign nation no matter how powerful. 

An independent Scotland has no means of breaking that sort of power. 

The Socialist Party does not, of course, defend the present constitutional arrangement. Neither do we support encouraging separatist trends in Scotland. There is no doubt that the Scots consider themselves to be uniquely culturally Scottish but hat does not determine our socialist attitude  towards Scottish self-determination. 

The appeal of  nationalism to many working people is, of course, a result of the failure of capitalism and its political apologists to fulfill the repeated promises and Scottish national channels the discontent. Nationalism poisons the working class with the spurious belief in the common interests of opposed classes. Nationalism is always the tool of the bourgeoisie. Unlike the left-nationalists the Socialist Party does not tag along with or follow behind, nationalist movements. We resolutely struggle against them while propagating the case for socialism. Secession is not the way to workers’ liberation. It is not the remedy for the economic social problems of Scottish working people. 

What should the world tomorrow look like?

 

 Throughout society a deepening sense of malaise has become pervasive. Capitalist society is a reactionary social system. capitalism is on the edge of a profound crises. The real solution to the looming disasters is the socialist revolution. Only the world’s working class can lead humanity out of the historical impasse of capitalism, by making the world socialist revolution. capitalism and the consequent misery for the world can only be terminated by the conscious workers’ revolution. The socialist revolution is a conscious act of the working class. So-called “socialist” parties have been promoting state capitalism, not socialism.

The World Socialist Movement alone has a working-class policy which would give a knock-out blow to all of the exploiters and throw the whole lot of them out of the ring for all time. Then will the fullness of the earth and the valuable cultures of all peoples be freely available for the whole of mankind. The world socialist revolution, is a revolution of a majority aimed at the ending of class- divided society and the ending of all exploitation of man by man. With the ending of all property rights in the means of production, that is the establishment of a new form of society, class conflicts will cease. The way is prepared for the new progress in which man will replace the blind way of economic forces, by the conscious direction of economically free men and women—socialism. Emancipation is not going to be achieved by non-socialists led by professional party cadres because it requires a socialist working class getting control of the machinery of government.

The facts of history have proved the Socialist Party right in its outlook and its criticisms. We urge workers to study the position we put forward for it is the only position, the only solution to the problems of today that offers the workers hope. We have kept steadfastly to this position because we know that socialism is the system of society that will bring comfort and security for all mankind. Why should a vast number of people have to perform useless and frustrating tasks, in order to satisfy the selfish wishes of a ruling clique? Yet it is working people themselves who perpetuate this foolish system: who do the useless tasks as well as the useful; the unproductive as well as the productive.

The trouble is that the alternative, a world of common ownership and common effort, is frightening in its simplicity. It seems too easy to be true. Nevertheless, true it is. It’s as simple as that!

 The problems which face us are those that have plagued us for the past 200 years. To ignore the past is only to insure one’s dependence on the will-o’-the-wisp ideas of the moment. The problems persist because they have not been solved. Revolutionary and reformist movements have met with defeat, time and time again. We are without illusions, knowing that building socialism will be a long, arduous process.

 In protests across the world over recent years, people have said, “Enough!” People have had enough of the political elite looting and lying, intimidating them and imprisoning them. People are demanding an end to the outdated premise that the ruling class are above the law and are all-knowing. We no longer wish to submit to the authority of governments. We can demand equality for all members of our human family. No matter which region of the world you live in, the most urgent issues affect everyone. Pandemics, economic crises, the environmental emergency; war; poverty; food insecurity and refugees. Such problems go beyond frontiers and cannot be controlled or contained by national governments. No State nor global corporation can cope. They are all interconnected international issues and they require a coordinated worldwide response. Peace, hunger, migration environment, health, every issue is related, one impacting on the other. All arise from and are intensified by the all-pervasive unjust socio-economic capitalist system. Everything and all areas of life have become commodified and commercialized, including nature, food, healthcare and education. No money - no food, no cash - no healthcare, no income - no housing, even though the means of providing a decent life for humanity, promoting human well-being and offering a healthy environment exists. The key to a better life is the introduction of sharing. Our planet is overflowing with an abundance of riches and everyone is entitled to access its collective storehouse of wealth.

What Population Explosion?

The number of children born in Scotland last year was the lowest since records began in 1855.

The number of babies born was down for the 11th year in a row and there were more deaths than births for the fifth year running.

Everything is Possible

The Socialist Party does not believe "that socialism can only come about via parliament", as explained quite clearly in its pamphlet, “What’s Wrong with using Parliament?” Rather, it believes that socialism can only come about as the conscious decision of a majority of the working class. And, given that, elections are one way, and, given present conditions, the safest and most sensible way, of propagandising for socialism (in the short term) and demonstrating majority support (in the long term). If conditions change, then the pamphlet mentions other ways of demonstrating majority support – demonstrations and strikes, for example.

We say in the pamphlet: "...the majority's organisation for socialism will not just be political and economic, but will also embrace schools and universities, television, film-making, plays and the like as well as interpersonal relationships. We're talking about a radical social revolution involving all aspects of life."

 And what do we use as historical examples to back up our view of majority support leading to relatively peaceful change? Things like the collapse of the state capitalist dictatorships in Eastern Europe in 1989-90. If what you are saying is correct, we would surely have dismissed such things as irrelevant to "the real business" of winning power through the ballot box. The plain fact is that both Marx and Engels, towards the ends of their lives, approved of the idea that the working class should use the ballot box to come to power. It's a simple and plain fact. You don't have to agree with Marx and Engels, of course, but you can't change the facts.

We are accustomed to hearing that the Socialist Party believes that socialism can only come through parliament, that any activity outside of parliamentary activity is a waste of time, that socialism can only come when the workers have been educated into the right ideas by the SPGB, that for us class struggle is an irrelevance compared with propagandising for socialism, and so on. All very amusing, but all absolute nonsense. We believe that socialism can only come about through the activity of the working class itself; that any activity outside of parliamentary activity is to be welcomed, if it is on sound, class lines, but that the Socialist Party as a party should not try to dominate or interfere except as individuals in solidarity with the rest of the membership; that education is a vital aspect of the struggle, to which we hope to make our own unique if small contribution; but that this propaganda work, however important, pales in comparison to the development of the class struggle, including the intellectual development of workers through their own self-education; that to establish socialism the working class must take political power, and that the most obvious and sensible way for them to do this, in democracies, is to use the vote (a view that can't be all that silly given that Marx and Engels agreed with it).

The Socialist Party position is that, once this consent to capitalist rule has been withdrawn, the question arises of what is the best way to end capitalism with a minimum of bloodshed and of disruption to production and social life?

 The Socialist Party answers: in those countries where stable, elective political institutions exist, by organising to take them over (as well as to take over and run production). Other ways are conceivable: ignoring the state, a general strike, civil disobedience, armed insurrection (as have all been proposed by anarchists in particular). The Socialist Party rejects these on the grounds of the risk of them leading to the "bloody civil war" that your correspondent seems to relish. The Socialist Party’s position is that, in the developed capitalist countries, using elective political institutions is the best (if not the only conceivable) way and that, in the event (and where, as in some less developed capitalist countries) of this not being possible, some other method would have to be used. As anyone who had been in the Socialist Party would know, it has always endorsed the old Chartist slogan of "peaceably if we may, forcibly if we must". The Socialist Party says that socialist agitation and education is essential to the emergence of a mass socialist consciousness, that it says that this is not the only factor involved. Socialist consciousness emerges out of the interaction of the working class discontent and struggle that is built-in to capitalism and the propagation of socialist ideas by that section of the working class which has, as a result of the same discontent and struggle, come to see things more clearly. Nobody claiming some affiliation with the ideas of Marx could claim otherwise. And the Socialist Party doesn't. But talking of Marx, while in the 1840's when he (mistakenly, as he and Engels later admitted) thought that the bourgeois revolution in countries like Germany would be rapidly followed by a proletarian one he did think in terms of socialism emerging out of a civil war... later he did argue that workers could and should use the vote and parliament. Anti-parliamentarianism is an anarchist not a Marxist position.

Our principles are very clear, we do not want to prolong the wage slavery, and we do not promote a better pay, which is only a capitalist reform, we want the total elimination of the wage system, because our immediate and future program is socialism, but we support any gain that might temporally benefit the working class. The Socialist Party is supportive of workers taking action to defend or extend their interests (pay and conditions), but as a Party does not take part in organising such actions. It may well be that individual members, as trade unionists, are involved in these actions, and there are examples of that in the Party's history and that of its companion parties. The Socialist Party’s role is chiefly one of education/propaganda, with some electoral activity as well – all of which is part and parcel of the class struggle. It recognises that it's inevitable that workers should resort to strikes etc. in order to protect ourselves from capitalism's assaults, but that these actions by themselves are not going to put an end to the wages system.

Many workers think the police and the state are a neutral force. The Socialist Party says they are not, but disregard the statement, and remains not convinced, until a strike or a protest and the police begins exercising brutality. Now, workers change their mind about the police and starts questioning the state and what exists and generally starts to 'think' about some things.' It's the experience of capitalism that makes workers question capitalism and in that confrontation alternative ideas develop of how to organise society on a different basis, the Socialist Party argues that we must be in the fray expounding socialist ideas, but not only that: how these ideas can be practically implemented by the working class; democratically; without leaders; the means of production will be own the community - the world community- and produced for needs of that community. The Socialist Party maintain a unique position amongst self-described Marxist groups; in contrast with myriad Stalinist, Maoist, and Trotskyist tendencies, they display a clear understanding of socialism as the disappearance of class society, abolition of wage labour, and production on the basis of need, and do not peddle state-capitalist illusions or the empty promises of nationalisation under capitalism. The Socialist Party has made a number of contributions to Marxist theory one of which is recognition of leadership as a capitalist political principle, a feature of the revolutions that brought them to power, and utterly alien to the socialist revolution. The socialist revolution necessarily involves the active and conscious participation of the great majority of workers, thus excluding the role of leadership.

Who owns the North Pole

The United States and the United Kingdom engaged in joint training exercises in the Barents Sea. The exercise included three US destroyers, a fast combat support ship, reconnaissance aircraft, and a UK warship. What makes these exercises significant is the location, as the Barents Sea is located off the northern coast of Russia. This marks the first time since the 1990’s that the US has entered the region to conduct combat drills. This month’s drills were meant to “assert freedom of navigation and demonstrate integration among allies,” according to a US Navy news release. 

The Arctic continues to exceed warm weather records. Ice caps in the region continue to deplete at an alarming rate making the sea lanes more accessible. Many experts believe that the Arctic holds massive reserves of natural gas and oil, mineral deposits, and tourism opportunities. The economic and geopolitical incentives for staking a claim to the region are immense, which has resulted in increased presence and activity from Arctic countries like Russia, the US, Canada and even self-claimed ‘near-Arctic countries’ like China. Recent studies have shown that sea ice will shrink faster and faster causing mass degradation and change to the environment and ecosystem. Russia has been the first to respond, the former Soviet Union had outposts along its northern border but were largely abandoned. With a resurgent Russia, these outposts are now being utilized in a mass military buildup. Russia leads all Arctic countries in ice breakers and Arctic capable nuclear powered ships and submarines. In response to Russia’s military buildup, the US and NATO have responded by conducted training exercises in the region from Alaska to the Barents Sea most recently as well as committing resources to the region. Last year, the US conducted B-2 stealth bomber flights into the far north.

With numerous studies suggesting that Arctic ice caps will continue to melt and deplete faster and faster the Arctic will become more accessible. The competition between countries will intensify. The military buildup and confrontation will grow tenser. The jockeying for resources and economic advantages will grow more aggressive and assertive.

https://theowp.org/us-and-uk-conduct-military-exercise-in-barents-sea/

Imagining A New World

“Humans cannot be changed overnight into saints and angels,” say critics of socialism. True, but economic conditions can be radically modified in a very few years through the transformation of the means of production and distribution in the hands of a socialist administration, society can very quickly build the foundations, even if roughly-hewed, of a future world. We can consciously steer towards such a goal rather than hold the reformist policy of the perpetuation of the old order and its class antagonisms. In a society in which culture is for all, and work is for all, that class division will disappear. There is no alternative for the working class other than socialism, not reforms but socialism should be the objective of a socialist party’s struggles. 

The political aim of the Socialist Party is not to reform capitalism, not to take over the capitalist state – whether by parliamentary means or by force – but to build a new type of society. All reformist parties – no matter how much they claim allegiance to “socialism” – conceive of their political aims as lying within the framework of capitalism: as winning reforms from capitalism, winning a majority in the capitalist government, or even as “transforming” the capitalist government into a “socialist workers’ state” (i.e., requesting the capitalist state to commit suicide). And, conversely, all political parties which conceive of their political aims as lying within the framework of the capitalist state are reformist. The Labour party is, then, a reformist party. The Trotskyist parties are also reformist. They are like any other reformist party, not merely non-revolutionary, but anti-revolutionary.

The Socialist Party stands for socialism, the abolition of capitalists by the workers. We believe that society has reached a stage where it is possible so to organise production as to end poverty, unemployment, inequality and war.

 The socialist revolution consists of a revolutionary process, on a world scale, through which the socialist mode of production is established and supplants the capitalist economic system. The socialist revolution is the revolution of the working masses in their own interests, to end all exploitation and to end class-divided society.  Socialism means the ending of exploitation of man by man, a society without class antagonisms, in which the people themselves control their means of life and use them for their own happiness. Ideas cannot be produced to order; they must achieve their own growth in the minds and hearts of men and women. Fostered and allowed to grow and express the experiences and aspirations of the people. Socialism is not inevitable. What has been termed its ‘inevitability’ consists of this, that only through socialism can human progress and social evolution can continue. But there is not and cannot be any absolute deterministic inevitability in human affairs, since mankind makes its own history and chooses what to do. What is determined is not 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 what course lies open to us, what  road we can take. What are the chances of our success?  Against capitalism we must struggle or perish. But propaganda is not enough. The Socialist Party can clarify; it cannot create. The workers may listen, but they can only be convinced by experiencing the capacity to translate theory into practice in their daily struggles. That time has proved or will prove us right is of little value. We are revolutionaries, not prophets, and it is through our actions that the workers will learn to respect our theory, constantly checked and renewed, a living weapon in the class-struggle, and not the vain repetition of abstract formula. A work of patient struggle and unremitting organisation is before us. We know it.  We summon our fellow-workers to unite with us in the struggle for the revolution — to lift the worker out of poverty, to cure unemployment, to abolish war, to assist the working peoples in their task of liberating themselves, in short, to end the chaos and misery that is capitalism.

Reform is not Enough

 Don’t just take down the statues - Take down the system

The world is in crisis. Capitalism cannot reform itself; it cannot be reformed. Humanity can be saved only by the socialist revolution. The Socialist Party proposes to “capture” the parliamentary state, to conquer and abolish it. Accordingly, it repudiates the policy of introducing socialism by means of legislative measures. The state is the organ of coercion for the capitalist. How, then, can it introduce socialism since all the political power, the army and the police and the media, are in the hands of the capitalists, whose political control gives them complete domination. Working people must expropriate all these by the conquest of the power of the state, by taking the political power away from the ruling class, before it can begin the task of introducing socialism.

The Socialist Party accordingly, proposes to conquer the power of the state. It proposes to conquer by means of political action — political action in the revolutionary sense, which does not simply mean parliamentarianism, but the class action of the working class in any form having as its objective the conquest of the power of the state. Parliamentary action is necessary. In the parliament, the revolutionary representatives of the proletariat meet capitalism on all general issues in the class struggle. The workers must fight the capitalist class on all fronts, in the process of developing the final action that will conquer the power of the state and overthrow capitalism. Parliamentary action which emphasises class struggle is an indispensable means of agitation. Its task is to expose through political campaigns and the forum of parliament, the class character of the state and the reactionary purposes of capitalism, to meet capitalism on all issues, to rally fellow-workers for the struggle against capitalism.

 Industrial action alone cannot conquer the power of the state. Syndicalism may construct the rudimentary forms of the new society; but only potentially. Industrial unionism may only simply be the starting point of the socialist reconstruction of society. Under the conditions of capitalism, it is impossible to organise the whole working class into workers councils; the concept of organising the working class industrially before the conquest of power is utopian. The revolution may well starts with strikes of protest, developing into mass political strikes and then into revolutionary general strikes for the conquest of the power of the state. But the objective is the capture of political power for the abolition of the state. Breaking the political power of the capitalists is the most important task of the revolution. The political expropriation proceeds simultaneously with the expropriation of the capitalist class economically.

Capitalism, by its method of production, has brought isolated workers together and constituted them as a class in society. Capitalism has made the workers a class in themselves. That is, the workers are a distinct class in society, whether they recognise this fact or not. Historical development calls upon this class to reorganise society completely and establish socialism. To do this, the workers must become a class for themselves. They must acquire a clear understanding of their real position under capitalism, of the nature of capitalist society as a whole, and of their mission in history. They must act consciously for their class interests. They must become conscious of the fact that these class interests lead to a socialist society. When this takes place, the workers are a class for themselves, a class with socialist consciousness. What the workers still lack is a fundamental and thorough understanding of their real position in society and of their historic mission to establish socialism. This lack of a socialist consciousness reduces the effectiveness of their organization, of their struggle, and prevents them from accomplishing their mission in society. To imbue and instill the workers with this rounded-out class consciousness, or socialist consciousness – that is the function of the Socialist Party. It is composed of those workers who already understand the nature of capitalism and the historical task of the working class. Their aim is to develop the same understanding among all fellow-workers, so that they no longer fight blindly without a clear knowledge of who their class enemy is, or what the working class itself really is and of what it can and must do in society. 

The Socialist Party therefore have no interests separate from the interests of the working class as a whole. It makes known to fellow-workers the full meaning of their fight. It points out the political meaning of the economic struggle and how the workers must organise as a class to take political power, and use it to inaugurate socialism. The Socialist Party combats the insidious ideas of capitalism which divides workers so that the working class as a whole may be better positioned against its enemy. It aims to clarify ideas and supply them as essential weapons in the class struggle.

A socialist party is needed to win over the working class to the principles of socialism, to struggle against capitalist exploitations and oppression, and finally for the socialist victory itself. Socialism will never come by itself. Without an organised, conscious, disciplined, active socialist party, the triumph of socialism is impossible.

Rab - Part 6

 Based on the writings of Rab, WSPUS founder member

The Union Fight 

Socialists would disagree with the proposition that labour and management have a common interest that can be jointly and intelligently settle over the bargaining table. Fundamentally, the interests of management must be to operate profitably. They are not in business for love or for the benefit of the employees (albeit some employers may be benevolent because it means harmonious industrial relations and therefore good business). Labour, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with wages, hours, and working conditions. Without their unions, labour would be in a sorry plight, for capital is in the stronger position, economically. Unions are the only weapons workers have. There exists ample experience and plenty of evidence to realise where labour would be if they had not resisted and fought.

It is badly mistaken to imagine that anyone can serve both the bosses and the work-force and their conflicting interests. There is a basic conflict of economic interests. Employers must be concerned with lowering labour costs; employees must be concerned, at the minimum, with a sufficient wage to support their families. It is as simple as that. This fact of life is what gave rise to unionism in the first place. Some have argued that the labour movement was created for the comfort, not the distress of the working man. This reveals an ignorance of the history of unionism. The labour movement was not created by philanthropists. It arose because of the solidarity of unionists in their common interests.(This very solidarity gave rise to its democratic procedures. Within trade unionism no action should be taken without the approval of the membership. The members must be watchdogs, constantly on the alert for abuses of sound unionism. The union is controlled by its members and not by any officialdom. We advocate unionism — the economic phase of the class struggle, but we certainly do not support all aspects of trade union activity such as its growing bureaucracy and endorsement of capitalist political parties.)

Without resistance by workers in their unions, the tendency of capital is to reduce labour costs to the very bone in the interests of their profits. Invariably, capital will always cry “poverty,” despite what the real facts might be. There is a conflict of interests between capital and labour because, in the final analysis, a reduction in wages results in an increase in profits. Conversely, an increase in wages results in a decrease in profits. Inexorably, wages are determined by the cost of existence of the workers. It is the rise in living costs that compels the fight for higher wages. The superstition that a rise in wages causes a rise in prices is nothing but brainwashing propaganda on the part of capital.

When scholars really come to grips with scientific problems and search for objective answers, they reach Marxian conclusions. No longer is it possible to get meaningful answers without recognizing the physical-material nature of existence, which is the heart and core of Marxism. Nothing has taken place in recent developments that has even remotely repudiated the wage-labor and capital basis of present-day capitalism. This also applies to the following: the prime object of production is the production of commodities to be sold on the market with a view to profit; that the accumulation of capital is accompanied by and concomitant with the production of surplus values; that there does take place a class struggle both economically and politically; that the transformation of ownership from entrepreneurs to gigantic combines and state ownership still finds a class whose members are the “eaters of surplus value,” even though they may be government bond holders, bureaucracy or a party. The general analyses of Marxian economics even on problems of inflation, money, gold, etc., have not been found invalid. But, we have seen, time and time again, new fads in modern economics come and go, popular today and forgotten tomorrow. Keynes is a good example. The consistent refrain of the bourgeois economists from Marx’s time to date: "You were correct yesterday but you are wrong today." Both in the “simple” capitalism of Marx and the complex “monopoly” capitalism of today, prices cannot be arbitrarily fixed for any length of time, not even by national capitals. In spite of iron controls and legislative actions and executive edicts, the competition of new processes, new sources of power, new synthetic materials are at work intensifying international competition on a gigantic scale, even leading to war. It is easy — but false — to ignore that the only thing that matters is the accumulation of capital itself. Fluid capital is ever seeking new avenues of investment. Capitalism remains capitalism, with its economic laws of motion, despite Keynes and the rest.

Workers are divorced from the means of production. Unions function to offer workers some protection within the limits of this divorcement. Therefore unions do not and cannot give workers an opportunity to have a real say in the vital processes of our society; unions, like the workers who compose them, are cut off from the roots of social processes.

The point of production is not a social relationship of production but a basic facet of this social relationship. The pitfall lies in “economic determinism” answers, i.e., equating behaviors with the means of production. Social relations among humans are not limited to the point of production, even though the only source of surplus value production is to be found at the point of production. That said, however, many evidences of solidarity and militancy can be observed in times of stress, in wildcat strikes, etc., at the point of production. The real key to “human relations at the point of production” lies in the examination of the class struggle.

It is suffice to say that the workers do not have “economic power” as long as they are wage slaves. Economic power has no meaning when it is confined to just withholding your labor power from production, which still leaves economic power in the hands of the masters. Economic power flows from having political control of the state machinery. Remember: in spite of all their growing economic influence, prestige, and advantages, the rising bourgeoisie were choked by the control of the state by the feudal aristocracy. The success of the bourgeois revolution (capture of the state) transferred economic power into the hands of the new rising bourgeois class. The class struggle is one of scientific socialism’s three great contributions to knowledge. Unions deal with the economic phase of the class struggle, not its political phase. The realisation of the class struggle leads to the understanding that the politically awakened working class will vote for socialism.

Anton Pannekoek and Paul Mattick were very close to WSM views on most matters, except on Workers Councils and on the ballot. Their views on the ballot arose from the Workers Councils concepts. To them the road to socialism was via the economic organization of the workers. They stressed that the State was an organ of the ruling class. It could only function as the central organ of power. The ballot was a deception, merely a democratic form and not democratic essence. However, both overlooked that it is not the economic phase that is the highest expression of the class struggle, but the political phase. In the factories, co-ops, unions, we are fragmented, sectionalised and tied to our interests, but on the political field, we can make our numbers tell in a way win which they cannot use the state to strangle. The economic phase by its very nature is limited to working within the frame work of capitalism. It is the fact that State power is in the hands of the ruling class that stymies workers from revolutionary changes. Titles and deeds, the military forces, etc., are in the hands of the ruling class through its control of the State. The essence of Marx’s writing (from the Communist Manifesto on) was consistent in stressing the need for political action; and this view has stood the acid test of unfolding events. Just because the state is the central organ of power, it requires the political action of a resolute, determined class conscious majority to accomplish the transfer of the means of living from the hands of the parasites to the possession of society, as a whole. That is revolutionary socialist political action. What confuses the question is the activities of social democrats and the Bolsheviks, who call themselves “communists.” Their political activities are confined to administering the capitalist state, and instituting reforms for the smoother operation of capitalism.

The class struggle is one of scientific socialism’s three great contributions to knowledge. Unions deal with the economic phase of the class struggle, not its political phase. The realisation of the class struggle leads to the understanding that the “politically awakened working class will vote for” socialism. We advocate unionism — the economic phase of the class struggle, but we certainly do not support all aspects of union activity such as its endorsement of capitalist political parties

A number of organisations are fond of describing socialism as a society in which the worker gets the “full product of his toil.” This is an erroneous concept. “Full product” is only another expression of the bourgeois “equality and justice.” There is no class of workers in a socialist society. There are only citizens, members of society, who receive according to their need. If everyone got the full product what would be left for the common administration of the affairs of the whole community? For a superb annihilation of the Lasallean “full product” concept, Marx’s refutation of the Eisenachers in the Gotha Program is a gem of analysis

The complaints of the many splinter groups of the Left, both new and old varieties, arise from disappointments and discouragements at their lack of results, despite their sincere and dedicated “activism.” One important factor is their feeling of being “leaders” and “professional revolutionaries,” even if this is not stated overtly. In the great stirring in the depression days of the Thirties, especially in Detroit, the workers in the auto industries — without leaders or agitators — spontaneously wanted to organise into unions. The ambitious careerists and the Communist cadres were taking credit for organising the workers into unions, through their efforts. (Naturally there were ample squabbles among these “heroes” for that self-claimed credit.) It was as though they were taking credit for the rising of the sun. To paraphrase Marx’s comment in the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy (paraphrased): It is not ideas that make material conditions but material conditions that give rise to ideas. Supplement this with Victor Hugo’s famous quip:

 “Nothing is more powerful than an idea come of age; it is stronger than the strongest armies.”

And to add yet another cliché:

 “He who only waits does not serve the cause of socialism"