Clarifying the Socialist Concept

 

The Socialist Party desires a new social system. That is to say,  a world-wide social order egalitarian  in character, where the means of living are the common possession of all, and freedom of access to all that society can produce, and where full participation in all that society does is the norm: Of necessity it will be a society where free co-operation and organisation has been taken to its logical conclusion, and where coercion has died a natural death. For obviously in a world where one can help oneself freely to the needs of life there can be no economic domination of one  over another  and all organisation must be of the free kind.

As socialism will be a world-wide affair; it can only be brought about by socialists throughout the world organising on a world-wide scale. In other words, a socialist is not only someone who desires socialism, but also a person who understands capitalism in a general sense, and sees the need for working in an organised fashion to get rid of it, to replace the system with a socialist one. What is even more to the point, is that a socialist is one who not only works in an organised fashion to bring about socialism, but who expects to work in an organised fashion within socialist society.

Too often members of the Socialist Party have heard it said, “ I am all for a world where I can help myself freely to whatever is produced, as I would be able to lie around all day.”

Apart from the fact that no human being is naturally lazy, if a majority of people wanted socialism and were in the above category it could not be established. Socialism is a society where all people's needs will be satisfied; this can only take place if there is a majority of people throughout the world who understand that they must co-operate together to produce enough to satisfy all people’s needs. In other words FREE ACCESS. This state of affairs could not be brought about by a bunch of people who only want to laze around.

To recapitulate, socialism can only be brought about throughout the world by a majority of people who understand the system under which they live. Understand what it is they are going to put in its place; desire it and are prepared to co-operate in an organised fashion to establish such a system, and work within it, once it is established.

The Socialist Party has consistently pointed out that nationalisation is no more than capitalism run by the State or its nominees. It has nothing to do with socialism. The worker is propertyless; therefore he or she is forced to sell their ability to work to the “owners of capital": and if the owners of capital cannot make a profit out of that work, they will not employ them. Instead, it is the dole. And this is the case whether he works in an industry run by private or by State capitalism. And yet the left-wing political parties demand further doses of nationalisation! Will they never learn?

The aim of the Socialist Party is to see socialism established everywhere but our campaigning for socialism is hampered by the belief, held by some people, that socialism existed in Russia. There is no truth in this whatsoever. There was never socialism (or communism) in Russia. What Russia had was a regime of dictatorship, administering what can best be described as a largely State Capitalist social system. The State apparatus was controlled by the Communist Party of Russia, the only political party that is allowed to exist in that country. Farcical so-called elections are held, but, as the workers of Russia were not allowed to form political parties of their own choice, only members of the Communist Party and those approved by them were permitted to stand at election and be elected.

The Disappearing Peasant: Agriculture in EEC (1973)

 From the June 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard 

So you think you’ve got problems! Undoubtedly many workers are worried about Britain’s entry into the Common Market (EEC) and the effect this may have on jobs and prices, but whatever the problems may be they will be chickenfeed compared to those which the EEC capitalists and their political representatives have had to, and will continue to, grapple with.

Although the current monetary crisis and the fallout with the United States have provided the recent headlines there can be absolutely no doubt that the biggest headache for the EEC is that of agriculture. The root cause is the existence of too many farmers producing too dearly. The various governments, especially those in France and West Germany, would love to drastically reduce the number but the snag is that the farmers have votes so governments must handle the whole affair with kid gloves.

This is why the member nations are paying these farmers inflated prices. What happens is that each year prices for most agricultural products are fixed in advance, but should the market price fall below the agreed level then national agencies step in to buy the produce at a slightly lower or “fall back” price. Of course the EEC farmers haven’t been slow to take advantage of this and the effect has been to encourage increased production which they know will be taken off their hands whether it can be sold or not.

Expensive Independence

In France alone the government had to pay its farmers £390 millions for surplus products in 1969 and the other five EEC nations had to provide them with another £115 millions from the fund which The Six have set up for such a purpose. This fund is provided out of taxation and also from the duties collected from food imports from countries outside the EEC, and this second source was one of the points which the British government was haggling over during the negotiations to join. After all, Britain is a large food importer and will have to watch all that lovely duty vanishing into the pockets of continental farmers. To aggravate matters Britain’s small but highly developed agriculture industry is unlikely to qualify for very much back from the fund so what is happening is that the nations which have rationalized their agriculture are subsidizing those which have not.

But even France’s own pay-out of £390 millions came out of taxation and since this derives mostly from industry which could be doing with the money itself for modernization to make it more competitive with, say, America and Japan, then there is a big impetus to cut this burden by getting rid of surplus farmers and their produce.

In Britain the rural population was decimated by the land enclosure of the 14th, 16th, and 18th centuries while the period of free-trade in the 19th century completed the rout by enabling cheap foreign food imports to all but ruin British agriculture. In Europe enclosures didn’t happen to anywhere near the same extent and there was no similar era of free-trade so the rural population remained extremely large. In Britain the percentage of the working population engaged in 1970 was only 3 per cent.

The situation is worsened by the tradition of inheritance. In Britain the system of primogeniture (eldest takes all) was long the rule but in France and West Germany the tendency was for the land to be divided up among all the sons. This has created smaller, more numerous farms which simply aren’t economic. In Britain the average farm in 1970 comprised 91.3 acres while in France it was 51.9, 28.9 in West Germany and only 19 in Italy, so the drive is on to consolidate the smaller farms into fewer, enlarged farms to make use of modem methods and machinery. As France’s premier, Chaban Delmas, said in 1969, “agriculture should be run competitively like an industry”.

Naturally the smaller farmers don’t like this since it will mean many of them losing their independence as owners of their own means of life. The alternative for them is to become wage-slaves and they aren’t exactly keen to sample factory life so they cling stubbornly to the land.

Even so, there is a significant decline in the numbers who live by agriculture. In 1958 about 22 per cent, of the working population of The Six lived this way but by 1970 this figure had dwindled to around 13 per cent. So the land is being cleared. This is being accomplished partly by bribing some farmers into early retirement and through a natural drift to the towns caused by the fact that despite guaranteed prices, hard work and long hours, farm incomes lag far behind those of industry.

Liquidate the Rest

But even this is not enough if farming is to cease being a drain on the pockets of the industrial capitalists of the EEC. Dr. Mansholt, recently resigned president of the EEC Commision, who recently rocked the boat by claiming in a speech at Hampton Court that the EEC had failed to improve conditions generally for the great mass of its population, produced a plan to have one in every three farmers off the land by 1980. Just how this was going to improve the conditions of the redundant one-third Dr. Mansholt didn’t say, but Professor Vedel of France proposes something even more drastic. He insists that five out of every six French farmers must retire or find other jobs. Mansholt’s plan also calls for the withdrawal of 12½ million acres from production while Vedel suggests 26 million acres be withdrawn. And yet there are still some people around who tell us that the world cannot produce enough food to feed us all!

These modern clearances are only a continuation of the process described by Marx in The Communist Manifesto when he demolished the argument that socialists wished to abolish the private property of the small peasants:

There is no need to abolish that, the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it and is still destroying it daily.

And although Engels in 1894 was trying to win the support of the small peasants for the reforming French and German Social Democrats he nevertheless warned them that they were “hopelessly doomed” and that capitalist production would sweep them away “as a railway train would sweep over a push cart”.

Now that capitalism in the EEC has made up its mind to bring agriculture into line with its needs (the right food in the right quantity and at the right cost) then the remnants of small peasantry whose productivity falls far short of what industrialized farming can provide will be progressively driven from the land into the ranks of wage-slavery. This is the only possible ending to the story.

Vic Vanni

Glasgow Branch

Change The World

 

There can be no peace in the global capitalist system that feeds on wars of acquisition. Earth has a limited amount of territory, forcing capitalists to war over who will dominate what patch of it. The stakes are high. Domination means profit, and profit becomes the power to dominate and acquire even more profit. The wealthy rarely die in wars. Working people in all nations pay the price. They suffer and die as combatants, as bystanders, as refugees, and as victims of the economic disruption and environmental destruction caused by war. They suffer and die as wealth that could be used to end poverty, prevent disease, restore the environment, and address climate change is lavished on the military instead. It is dishonest and hypocritical to call for an end to war while taking sides in that war, especially the side of your own rulers. War insanity has taken hold, turning normally peace-loving people into war-mongers. War is a horrible thing that always harms citizens. No matter who wins wars, workers always lose.

Class inequality increases over time because employers pay workers less than the value of what they produce. However, this exploitative relationship is hidden by the lies that a) employers create jobs and b) workers are lucky to have them. In fact, labour creates all wealth, and capitalists are lucky that workers keep producing it for them. Only employers benefit when workers are divided. The differences in wages and benefits between various sections of the working class go to the employers. When workers unite, they raise the living standards of all workers.

The purpose of pitting workers against one another is to prevent that unity. Lies are also used to divide workers. We are taught that workers who are better off have benefited at the expense of workers who are worse off — that men benefit from the oppression of women, that Whites benefit from the oppression of Blacks, that straights benefit from the oppression of gays, that workers in richer nations benefit from the exploitation of workers in poorer nations, and so on.  If this were true, then class solidarity would be impossible. Fortunately, it is not true at all. Workers join unions to put more bread on the table. 

The power of every union lies in the collective strength of its members. Workers need unions. Unionised workers are more likely to have medical coverage, pension benefits, and protection from sexual harassment and wrongful dismissal. Unions also raise living standards. Areas with more unions offer higher wages, higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality, better education, and less poverty.

The Socialist Party approach every problem from the perspective that there are two social classes, and what benefits the one harms the other. For capitalists to accumulate capital, they must deny ordinary people any meaningful control over their work, their lives, or the direction of society. It’s a huge challenge to trap a highly social species in such a dehumanising social arrangement. Capitalists must block workers from taking collective control, insist that their suffering is their own fault, promote ineffective solutions, and treat all protest as criminal or pathological. Force alone is insufficient. Workers vastly outnumber capitalists, are intelligent problem-solvers, and run the machinery of society. They must be systematically bamboozled into resigning themselves to capitalist rule.

Psychology serves to solicit and police this resignation with the message, “Accept what is, and we will help you build a bubble in which you can function.” Socialism examines society from a class-struggle perspective. Psychology examines society from an individual perspective. Socialism aims to transform human experience through social revolution. Psychology strives to adapt individuals to capitalism as an alternative to social revolution.

Capitalists understand reality. They know there are two classes, and what benefits the one hurts the other. If they allowed the majority to share that understanding, then workers would have no reason to tolerate capitalist rule and every reason to replace it with international cooperation.

“An injury to one is an injury to all.”

 

Mutual aid is basic to human nature.  Most of us think that no one goes without food, healthcare, or housing. Human beings are born compassionate. Altruism and charity are strong traits that build communities,

There is only one world. The capitalist economy is truly global. Economic booms and slumps spill over national borders and ripple around the globe in synchronous waves. So do revolutions. Working people  must unite across borders to defend their common interests. Despite language barriers and cultural differences, our similarities are overwhelming.  Our lives are remarkably alike. National borders exist to maximize profits. Jobs are allowed to migrate to cheaper locations, while the people who work those jobs are blocked from re-locating to higher-paid regions.

The accepted solutions to these problems is generally posed as either free trade or protectionism. However, both policies benefit the capitalist class. Protectionist policies shield weaker industries from global competition, while free-trade policies enable stronger industries to penetrate foreign markets. A more effective strategy is  for workers to defend all jobs as if these borders did not exist. he solution is to include all workers in an industry into unions that do not stop at national borders and to demand wage parity across the globe. This is a pro-worker antidote to the divide-and-rule profit policies of employers. One union long ago recognised this - the Industrial Workers of the World, the Wobblies.

While many capitalists promote the mobility of capital to cross frontiers for free trade, few support opening borders to the free movement of workers. Demarcated national borders control and to divide the working class. In all nations, forcing native-born and foreign-born workers to compete makes it easier to exploit both groups. The result is rising inequality within nations and between them. National divisions are maintained by racism, the myth that the people on one side of a border are fundamentally different from those on the other side.

The way humanity is divided by nationalism and sovereign nation-states prevents people from working together to solve their common problems such as climate change and pandemics. Competing nations can never solve international problems like war, environmental pollution, and global warming. In a world without borders, people could solve these problems. Because capitalists can never have enough profit, they continually push to expand their control into other nations. This inevitably leads to war, and the victors redraw the borders to consolidate their conquests.

While goods and services cross borders with minimal restrictions, the workers who create these goods and services are denied the same right. Borders allow corporations to move production to lower-waged countries. The same borders prevents workers from migrating to higher-waged countries. The answer is uniting to improve life on both sides of the border. The division of the world into nations conflicts with an international economy where parts are produced in one nation and assembled in another, where the finished product may be sold in a third nation, serviced by workers in a fourth nation, and dumped as garbage in a fifth nation.

Most people do not want to leave their homes and families; they migrate to survive. Abolishing national borders would enable us to raise global living standards, because goods and services developed anywhere could be made available to everyone, everywhere, and because the vast resources that are currently devoted to policing borders and waging wars could be used instead to meet human needs. The benefits of world socialism will be so great that our grandchildren will wonder why we allowed ourselves to be divided for so long.  Enough is enough. It’s time to end the division of humanity into have-lots and have-nots. However, capitalism is not about sharing.

The work that we do each day should provide for human needs: feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, treating the sick, and raising living standards. Instead, the surplus-value  produced by working people is confiscated by the bosses to accumulate capital to support the profit system that deprives the majority of what they need.

By standing together, we can claim the abundance that rightfully belongs to all. That is the Socialist Party message to all to hear.  Our planet can produce more than enough to meet everyone’s needs. The myth of scarcity has one purpose: to justify not sharing the social wealth. There is no evidence that society cannot meet human needs. On the contrary, the resources spent on war alone could provide everyone in the world with a good life. The myth of scarcity is used to dismiss the possibility of a world of plenty for all and instead legitimize fabulous wealth for a few and falling living standards for the rest of us. The myth of scarcity is necessary to reconcile the obscenity of growing wealth alongside growing poverty regardless of the incredible potential of technology and robotics. 

A Letter To A Worker

 

Nationalism has nothing to offer you—except a change of masters. Your problems will still continue, will still confront you—worrying you and causing you many a headache—while the present system of society lasts. To solve those problems—which never leave you, be you in Ireland, Scotland, England, Wales or any other part of the world—you’ll most certainly have to struggle. But let your struggle be one against the real origin of your problems, against the system of capitalism, and against those who support it. Struggle against the system which condemns all workers, regardless of the place of their birth to a life-time of toil and poverty, from cradle to grave ; struggle against the wealthy few who, because they own the factories, mines, railways and all of the means and instruments for producing wealth, compel you—because you own nothing—to labour for their benefit.

As socialists, we recognise that the task before all workers is not to win this or that skirmish or gain a few concessions which the capitalist class can well afford; our objective in the class war is to win it. In other words, no answer short of social revolution will do if the problems of the working class are to be abolished from the face of the earth.

Your struggle, in common with the struggle of workers everywhere, to be successful must be a revolutionary one. Your aim? To take from the capitalist class its ownership of the means of production and make them the common property of all mankind, without distinction of race or sex. When you’ve achieved that—when you’ve won that revolution — living will really be worthwhile then, it will be a joy and an adventure. As all workers learn through struggle, unity is strength. But unity is not just achieved on a national basis – capitalism is a worldwide social order and workers of all lands have a common interest in joining together against the common foe. There can be no room for nationalist notions if we are to fight and win against the international ruling class.

As Marxists, we fight for emancipation from a system which turns useful work into wage slavery. Your real enemy is the present system, which produces commodities to sell on the market with a view to profit. Capitalism, with its hideous contradiction of mass poverty amid the potential for plenty, is your real enemy. It persecutes you at every level, advertising itself as a world of plenty and then rewarding the wealth producers with deprivation. For too long workers have suffered under this rotten set-up, when the means are at hand to create a society of production for need in which we can all give according to in abilities and take according to our self-determined needs.

The Socialist Party takes the side of the robbed against the robbers. For it is only through the conscious solidarity of workers, that the system of legalised robbery will be compelled to make way for the reign of a united humanity.

Socialism is more than simply a great idea; it is an obtainable alternative to the chaos of the system which puts profit before use. Then things will be produced because people need them and not in order to sell for the purpose of making a profit; then poverty will disappear, insecurity vanish, and wars will be nothing but memories. 

That will be Socialism—so, speed the day!