Freedom Now - The Need for World Socialism

In all corners of the world today great battles are breaking out between labour and capital. The capitalists are not only beset by class struggles. They are at each other’s throats as well. There is no reason to believe that the situation is going to improve in the near future. On the contrary, everything indicates that it will get even worse. There is no way out of today’s economic crisis because it is caused by the anarchy inherent to the capitalist system itself. It is caused by the contradiction between the private ownership of the means of production and the social character of that production. This social character, along with the gradual integration of the world economy, means that production, if it is to function properly, requires social control over the means of production, that is, economic planning and consideration of social realities in the organization of production. But the owners of the means of production, the capitalists and more particularly the big monopolies, are beyond all control; they in fact have ultimate control and the result is periodic crises. People who say we can reform our way out of the current crises are either liars or ignoramuses. The capitalist class and its state are bound to try to drive down workers’ living standards, and no amount of soft-soap can hide that fact. 

 

The capitalists have no solution except the suppression of the working-class movement. Working people aspire to completely change this society of exploitation and oppression. The ceaseless struggles which they have waged and are waging on a variety of fronts are irrefutable proof of this. The capitalist class is no longer fit to run society. Capitalism is the main obstacle preventing progress towards a new society in which there will be a good living standard and a rich political and cultural life for all working people and their families; the basic problem of present-day society can only be solved by a social revolution.  The capitalist system must be overturned and replaced by the socialist system and the abolition of class divisions.  A tradition of fighting class against class has run through the Peasants’ Revolt, the Levellers, the Diggers, and the Chartists.

 

Historically, capitalism broke down the old individual forms of production and replaced them with cooperative labour; it developed the productive forces to a tremendous extent, but those processes only took place along with the concentration of ownership of means of producing wealth into the hands of a small number of individuals and the conversion of peasants, artisans and others into a propertyless proletariat, only able to exist by selling its labour-power to the capitalist class. Capitalists buy workers’ labour-power at its value (that is, the bare minimum necessary for workers to live and bring up a new generation of workers to take their places), for wages. Proletarians are then obliged to work not only to produce enough to cover the price of their labour power (which includes the value of their labour-power) but also produces surplus value, which is the source of the capitalists’ profit. Capitalists realise their profit by selling the commodities produced by the workers, although at times the products cannot be sold in fact, and periodic crises of over-production are the result.

Thus, the capitalist system is a parasite on society and is maintained entirely by the labour of working people. This can only happen because capitalists possess a monopoly of the means of production, and their control is backed up by the powers of the state. In general, the state has the character of the class which is dominant in the prevailing mode of production, and thus all the actions it takes will serve that class. This means, in our time, that any attempt to put an end to the capitalist system must include the capture of the political power of the capitalist state if it is to succeed.

Reformists have claimed that it is possible to do away with the “bad side” of capitalism and preserve its “good side”, but this has always been impossible. The motive force of the capitalist system, independent of the wishes of individual capitalists, is the drive for profit, which can only be obtained by the exploitation of the working class. The very best that the working class can win under the capitalist order – and then only by unceasing struggles – is to be expected on slightly better terms, and even this becomes less and less possible during periods of crisis.

The working-class lives by the sale of its labour-power, has little property and stands at the crucial core of the production process. The working class sells its labour-power to the capitalist class in order to survive and its surplus-labour provides the capitalists with their profits and with the other costs of production, including those of administration.  

A revolutionary situation will arise when the bourgeoisie is unable to continue ruling in the old way, and the proletariat is not prepared to go on in the old way. The socialist revolution is the achievement of the majority of workers, and cannot possibly be carried out “on their behalf” by a few individual leaders or by terror. Through the socialist revolution, the working class will take power and will have the responsibility to make decisions on all matters. The economy will be rationally planned, in an ecologically balanced, holistic way.  Profits will no longer be the goal so that goods will be produced for use and not as commodities that must be sold to provide profits for a few.  Consequently, the cyclical crises of capitalism will disappear. The initiative and creative energy of working people will be released. All means of production, distribution and exchange will come under common ownership. The working people will take over the actual work of management and, even more important, economic planning will be carried out through democratic consultation.

Community life will be developed so that children and old people will play a greater part in society; more and more household chores will be taken on as a community responsibility, and a spirit of co-operation and comradeship will be fostered. The well-being of the whole of society will be the condition for the healthy development of its individual members. Capitalism, contrary to its claims, represses the potentialities of the great majority of people; these can only be developed under socialism. Socialism will fulfil people’s rising expectations and needs. Unemployment, poverty, inflation and hunger will become things of the past forever. People will give according to their abilities and take according to their needs. The abolition of classes is the fundamental goal. 

Will an environmental earthquake shake the system?

 

There are many varieties of political parties that describe themselves as progressive and left-wing. Generally speaking, they all present policies for the abolition of unjust social conditions but diverge very much as to what would be 'just' conditions and, still more, how to bring them about. These days even mere attempts to improve capitalism are often called 'socialism,' while in reality, they are only reforms. But such reforms cannot be considered socialist because socialism does not mean to 'improve' capitalism but to abolish it altogether. The Socialist Party teaches that the conditions for working people cannot be permanently bettered under capitalism. 

The environmentalist movement has produced a new kind of politics full of audacity,  militancy and rebellion. The workers’ movements must follow suit to create many, many thousands of revolutionaries. Forms of coordination and organisation will evolve to bring a sense of unity. It is from our struggle and experience that new theories must be developed. It isn’t enough to go to rallies, to take to the streets, to trash bank buildings. We must begin now, step by step, through new and existing organisations, to build. Romanticism must be replaced by realism. The challenge for the environmental movement is to go beyond mass campaigning, demonstrating and fighting the propaganda battle, which always will be necessary but it also must recognise the need to try to stop capitalism. The enormity of the problem means any attempt to deal with world poverty within the framework of capitalist society is bound to fail since it accepts the priorities of capitalist society, privileged properly rights and the pursuit of profits.

The Socialist Party says that the workers can never become free and secure well being unless they abolish capitalism. The sources of production and the means of distribution must be taken out of private hands. Private or state possession of the things without which humanity cannot exist must therefore cease. The means of production and distribution should become common property. Opportunity for free access would do away with monopoly, with interest and profit, with exploitation and wage slavery. Social inequality and injustice would be eliminated, the classes would be abolished, and all people would become free and socially equal. Socialism is radical because it goes to the very root of the social trouble (radix meaning root in Latin); it does not believe in reforms and makeshift half-measures, it wants to change things from the very bottom.

Socialists propose that society collectively shall produce, not for profit, but in abundance to satisfy human wants. Every man and every woman can be economically free. They can, without let or hindrance, apply their labour, with the best technology that can be devised, and free access to the natural resources, do the work of society and produce for all.

The Myth of Carrying Capacity

 

Those who take a keen interest in environmental issues will have come across many references that any more growth is no longer possible nor desirable.

Many believe that we are undermining the very life support systems that sustain us. Like bacteria in a petri dish, our exploding numbers are reaching the limits of a finite planet, with dire consequences. Disaster looms as humans exceed the earth’s natural carrying capacity. Clearly, this could not be sustainable. Many have learned the classic mathematics of population growth — that populations must have their limits and must ultimately reach a balance with their environments, it’s physics, after all, there is only one earth! "Carrying capacity" refers to the number of individuals who can be supported in a given area, within natural resource limits, and without degrading the natural, social, cultural, and economic environment for present and future generations. The carrying capacity for any given area is not fixed. Carrying capacity is not a fixed number. Estimates put Earth's carrying capacity at anywhere between 2 billion and even 40 billion people. It varies with a wide range of factors, most of them fitting under the umbrella of "lifestyle." If humans were still in the hunter-gatherer mode, Earth would have reached its capacity at about 100 million people. With humans producing food and living in high-rise buildings, that number increases significantly.

 A good way to understand the flexibility of Earth's carrying capacity is to look at the difference between the projected capacities of 2 billion and 40 billion. Essentially, we're working with the same level of resources with both of those numbers. So how can the estimates swing so widely? Because people in different parts of the world are consuming different amounts of those resources. Basically, if everyone on Earth lived like a middle-class American, consuming roughly 3.3 times the subsistence level of food and about 250 times the subsistence level of clean water, the Earth could only support about 2 billion people. On the other hand, if everyone on the planet consumed only what he or she needed, 40 billion would be a feasible number. As it is, the people living in developed countries are consuming so much that the other approximate 75 percent of the population is left with barely what they need to get by. Ultimately, the idea is this: If everyone on Earth can manage to do more with less, we'll be back on track to Earth's indefinite carrying capacity. 

The conditions that sustain humanity are not natural and never have been. Since prehistory, human populations have used technologies and engineered ecosystems to sustain populations well beyond the capabilities of unaltered “natural” ecosystems. We transform ecosystems to sustain ourselves. This is what we do and have always done. Our planet’s human-carrying capacity emerges from the capabilities of our social systems and our technologies more than from any environmental limits. The idea that humans must live within the natural environmental limits of our planet denies the realities of our entire history.

Charles Maurice and Charles W. Smithson at Texas A&M University studied the history of natural resources over 10,000 years. They found that temporary scarcities in natural resources are the norm. They also found that the same temporary scarcity always led to an improved substitute. The Greeks' transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age 3,000 years ago was forced by a shortage of tin. The rise of coal followed timber shortages in 16th-century Britain. The shortage of whale oil in 1850 led directly to the first oil well in 1859.

The Glasgow Climate Pact

 

The thousands of climate protesters who came to Glasgow got what they most probably expected, another summit that has failed to deliver any real solutions that will limit global warming to 1.5C.

Having emptied their Treasuries to tackle the Covid19 pandemic, many governments made clear their coffers possesses too little to provide sufficient finance for the much more serious climate emergency. Nation-states have procrastinated instead of acting and postponed effective policies yet again.

"The haggling over the drafts of the conference agreement only underscores how far political leaders are from introducing meaningful plans to address this planetary crisis," Mitch Jones, policy director at Food & Water Watch, said in a statement. "Governments that cannot directly and forcefully confront the fossil fuel industry are doing nothing but advertising their failure. Even a call to stop government fossil fuel subsidies—a modest but necessary first step—had to be weakened in order to coddle corporate polluters."

 

Despite his soothing honeyed reassuring words, Biden, the U.S.A. is expected to expand oil and gas production more than any other country between now and 2030. That includes a planned fracking boom in the Permian Basin that would unleash nearly 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide by mid-century. There are 23 other fossil fuel projects—among them the Line 3, Dakota Access, and Mountain Valley pipelines and several liquified gas export terminals. The United States was described by Collin Rees, U.S. program manager at Oil Change International, as "the poster child for climate hypocrisy."

Rees continued, "The world's largest historical emitter is claiming the mantle of climate leadership while pouring fuel on the fire of the climate crisis. Joe Biden's words will ring hollow until he cancels deadly fossil fuel expansion projects like the Dakota Access Pipeline or the dozens of proposed oil and gas export terminals awaiting approval from his administration." He added that "the U.S. remains a massive driver of oil and gas expansion, and that won't change until our leaders commit to a managed phase-out of fossil fuel extraction that truly protects communities, workers, and the climate."

 Having had two weeks of promises and pledges in Glasgow, five nations will persist with plans to expand fossil fuel production, exposing the hypocrisy of their commitments decarbonisation commitments.  The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Norway contrary to their emission reduction have future energy plans to approve and subsidise new fossil fuel projects that will be in operation for decades to come climate scientists' repeated warnings about the need to keep coal, oil, and gas underground and the financial wizards predicting stranded assets. A report, titled The Fossil Fuelled 5, reveals several of the world's wealthiest nations "are doubling down on fossil fuel production."

· The United States has pledged to halve emissions by 2030 yet has simultaneously provided $20 billion in annual support to the fossil fuel industry;

· Despite hosting COP26, the United Kingdom is expected to greenlight the Cambo oil field, which contains approximately 255 million barrels of oil;

· Despite its recent commitment to net-zero by 2050, Australia has over 100 fossil fuel projects currently in the approval pipeline;

· Canada is looking to increase their price on carbon but also provided approximately $17 billion in public finance to three fossil fuel pipelines between 2018 and 2020; and

· Norway has raised its ambition to decrease emissions but has already granted 60+ new licenses for fossil fuel production and access to 84 new exploration zones in 2021 alone.

Freddie Daley, a research associate at the University of Sussex, who helped assemble the report, said in a statement, "There's an alarming gap between what wealthy nations are saying and what they are doing. They seem to be quite content to make pledges and promises with one hand while expanding and subsidizing fossil fuel production to the tune of billions on the other."

Capitalocene Climate Change

 Are we are approaching a ‘tipping point’ beyond which rising global temperatures cannot be stopped? As Glasgow's COP26 ends many believe that it may well be the case because of humanity greedy and ceaseless exploitation of nature.

 Rather than accusing human beings as culpable for the climate emergency, the Socialist Party claims the culprit is the capitalist economic system.

The logic of capitalist competition forces each capitalist to obtain the maximum profit possible; otherwise, they will fall behind their competitors and go out of business. Production is therefore organised around the short term and the effect on the environment is of little concern for the capitalist. Any environmental harm is borne by nature itself and society. The necessity for capitalism to accumulate wealth and more wealth by re-investing is its overriding factor. Creating a profit is an end in itself under capitalism.

The common environmentalist approach focuses on individual consumption rather than questioning the logic of capitalist production itself. Companies are compelled to produce more in order to maximise profits with the effect that it creates the enormous waste of consumerism, urged on by an advertising industry, itself, socially useless. Obsolescence is built into products that are designed to be irreparable so that customers are trapped in a cycle of purchasing upgrades and replacements. Re-using and recycling while it shouldn’t be discouraged, is not a solution to the problem of waste and pollution as it does not challenge the insane logic of capitalist production and ignores the fact that consumers only account for a small minority of waste, most of which is created by industry and agriculture. 

Garrett Hardin’s  “The Tragedy of the Commons” provided an elite-friendly fable on behalf of capitalist private propertarians. The warming and poisoning of the planet are thanks to capitalism’s relentless drive to appropriate, commodify, and exploit every resource in the world.

Jason W. Moore, an environmental historian and historical geographer at Binghamton University, explains that “It was not humanity as whole that created large-scale industry and the massive textile factories of Manchester in the 19th century or Detroit in the last century or Shenzen today. It was capital.”

The most significant waste industry is the military and such non-productive activities as advertising, finance, insurance, real estate, rental and business services. On top of this was to be added the consumption of those who perform various policing and law-keeping operations for the capitalist system. Capitalism is wasteful in the wider ‘productive’ sector of the economy where a massive waste of energy occurs – when goods go by road that could go by rail or when workers are compelled to drive their individual cars to work through the inadequacy of public transport.

A future socialist society would prioritise human needs instead of profit and begin to restructure the economy and energy and transport usage in such a way that is sustainable and benefits humanity. Re-forestation would ensure that millions of trees would function as a carbon sink. Resources would be transferred from fossil fuel sourced energy to renewable energy and public transport. Studies have shown how solar farms in the Sahara could provide much of the energy needs of both Africa and Europe. The objection by mainstream economists is based on cost. Humanity as it consciously realises its power and its huge potential to change the world for the better should be seen as part of the solution, not the problem as some environmentalists mistakenly believe. 

We can create a sustainable socialist society for the betterment of humanity and nature.

What Overpopulation? (2)

 

There is no existential global overpopulation problem.

Who says so? Those experts who have been studying the demographic data for years. It is their conclusion.

Those who are attending COP26 support the scientific agreement on the planet’s climate crisis. Albeit perhaps with less consensus but still the majority of opinions also agree with the experts’ advice on the pandemic.

We have to then ask why so many environmentalists are apparently reluctant to accept the informed findings of those with proficient knowledge and still insist that the number of people on the planet is too many.

The world currently produces enough food to feed 10 billion people, and there is not yet 8 billion of us. But hunger and food insecurity still stalk the land in many places

The world has an abundance of resources and could provide for everyone’s needs.

That is another fact which researchers confirm.

Professionals working in the field for such as Oxfam or War on Want explain that there is hunger in the world not because resources are scarce, but because poor people don’t have sufficient money nor own land. 

Poverty and inequality cause hunger, not overpopulation.

But those who know are wrong, remains the claim of some green activists.

They point to the continuing growing world’s population. They point to the over-crowded mega-cities.

Indeed, it is because of what in demographics is called the population momentum. A transitional delay occurs because it is not only the number of children per woman that determine population growth but also the number of women of reproductive age. Eventually, when the fertility rate reaches the replacement rate and the population size of women in the reproductive age bracket stabilises, the population achieves equilibrium and population momentum comes to an end.

Population projections is not an exact science and assumptions are made when determining approximate figures and the further into the future the forecast, the greater the margin for error.

Nevertheless, a 2004 UN report titled “World Population to 2300” presents one scenario that if European fertility rates fail to rise above current levels:

There are some who oppose immigration who declare that some countries are already overcrowded and the population density is too high to accept newcomers.

Again the statistics do not bear out the interpretation that there is no more room for an increased number of people born or the arrival of newcomers.

There is plenty of space available in the world. Is the well-being of the Dutch suffering because of the proximity of other people to one another in their cities and town?

Many countries have a very low population density but it has done little to increase their prosperity. In fact, those who reside in the rural idyllic countryside lack many of the amenities and services of urban dwellers.

Instead of looking for illusory quick fixes such as GM agriculture, how about criticising the actual values behind our system and ways in which it promotes inequality for the benefit of the few? How about challenging the belief that opportunities and abundance can only exist when money flows.  

The reality is that we live on a spacious planet, one that could provide for everyone if we were to use its resources rationally and constructively.  

In farming, agro-ecology and permaculture are less environmentally destructive ones and hold the benefit of being even more productive than the present industrialised system of intensive agriculture.

 Instead of simply pointing fingers and blaming people society could instruct city planners to develop sensible and sustainable housing projects. The options are as endless as our imaginations.  For example, every home can come with one or two greenhouses that grow crops year-round, no matter the climate. Apartments can have shared communal allotments.

This means that people can feed themselves with only the plants growing locally.

Neighbourhood fish ponds and chicken coops can also be built for each house if vegetarianism isn’t adopted by everybody.

Hunger is NOT just an “inevitable” part of life.

 

The Socialist Party in Glasgow