Our Socialist Message

 

We agree with the need for a genuine socialist party, but insist that this should be on a sound basis, namely a clear definition of what socialism is and a clear refusal to advocate reforms of capitalism. We are not saying that workers shouldn’t try to get the best they can out of capitalism, but that’s the job of trade unions and other similar organisations, not of a socialist political party. In our view, the job of a socialist party is to advocate “a complete and utter change of society” to socialism and nothing but this. History shows that a party that advocates reforms inevitably becomes the prisoner of its reform-minded supporters and eventually ends up giving only lip-service to the socialist transformation of society. Why do you think that instead of the Labour Party gradually changing capitalism, as some of its members once used to want, the opposite has happened and capitalism has gradually changed the Labour Party—into what it is today and which many feel is no longer worthy of support? Why make the same mistake again?

 

 We are very emphatic on this point. The clear duty of a genuine socialist party is to work for real socialism. It has no justification for existence apart from that. The only work a socialist can do is to teach socialism. We can never advocate anything that conflicts with socialism for that is to obscure socialism and to impede oneself as a socialist. 

 

Suppose someone actively campaigns for a particular reform, what then?

 

In the first place the socialist aim has receded, however temporarily, into a secondary position. Socialism is not being taught — the working class crying for bread is given— a stone.

 

Secondly, such work that needs no socialist party at all.

 

Thirdly, the particular reform worked for will not appreciably affect the condition of the working class as such.

 

Fourthly,  it will therefore have wasted the working-class strength concentrated upon realising it.

 

Fifthly, it will, because it has effected no material improvement in working class conditions, have bred disappointment, and, from disappointment, apathy.

 

And finally, sixthly, it will have made existing confusion worse confounded in the minds of the working class. 

 

Therefore, we contend that teaching socialism and explaining the phenomena of industrial development in the light of socialism is the proper work of a socialist movement. Many think we are too narrow, too doctrinaire, without regard to the feelings of members of other political parties. We are only interested in the maintenance of truth. Truth can only be maintained inside the logical method. If we over-leap logic we over-leap ourselves and land in a bog of confusion and disappointment. Therefore, the truth, even if it means that we become for the time as voices crying in the wilderness.

 

The cause of working-class misery is private ownership of the means of life. The interests of the workers, who do not own the means of life, are opposed to the interests of the capitalists, who do own them. This clash of interests is the class struggle. These things continue because the working class are unaware.

 

Although their interests continually clash with those of their masters, they do not understand that this is inevitable. Nor do they understand that their masters' ownership of the means of life is at the bottom of the trouble.

 

Now why, with this continual conflict of interest, do the working class remain ignorant? And why are they so desperately apathetic? Is their ignorance not because the truth has not been told? And is their apathy not born largely of disappointment with the results of past efforts of their class to secure some amelioration of their condition?

We need not enquire for the moment into the honesty of working-class teachers and leaders. We need only deal with the teaching and leading.

The school instruction of the working class is not such as would enable the child to get a glimmering of the truth of the position. It would be surprising if the capitalist class, dominant in the legislature (because dominance there is essential to the maintenance of their economic ascendancy) should take steps to instruct the children of the working class concerning working-class poverty. So we will consider the teaching and leading the workers receive alter they have entered the industrial and political arenas.

Now do the majority of working-class teachers explain that the working-class position is inevitable under present conditions? That there is no name given under heaven whereby the working class may be saved except socialism? That until socialism there can be no cessation of the clash of interests between capital and labour? That the class struggle persists unflaggingly? 

Leave out of account those who do not claim to be socialists. If socialism is the only remedy, and they are not socialists, their teaching cannot be correct because they do not teach socialism. 

 

What of those who profess socialism? Our answer is that although they talk of it occasionally, they do not teach it.

The important thing in a teacher of socialism is that it should always be socialism that he or she teaches. If one does not explain every manifestation of class conflict in the light of  socialist philosophy, one will be  little, if any, better than the non-socialist mis-leader. The teaching is neither logical nor consistent. One is either a fraud or a fool. 

 

These be hard words but they are not bitter. Working class ignorance and apathy which must be dispelled before socialism can be realised, so far from being effectively combated by working-class leaders and teachers are contributed to by most of them. For example, if we were to tell the unemployed that unemployment must last as long as capitalism and were then to recommend them to send a deputation to the representatives of the capitalists to ask that the capitalists should abolish unemployment, we should either be a knave or a fool. We should have cut ourselves off from logic and landed the audience in a bog of confusion and disappointment. We argue that capitalist representatives are in control of the political machinery to conserve their own interests as against those of the working class and that we must regard capitalist representatives always as a hostile force against whom war must be waged unceasingly until they are utterly vanquished.  And if we suspend hostilities and enter into alliance with them, we land in the bog of confusion and disappointment.

If we assume that poverty and misery must last till socialism, that until socialism nothing can materially or permanently affect the position; if we say that palliatives are therefore of little use, so little use indeed that we must have a party that shall concentrate upon the thing that matters (socialism) rather than the things that do not matter (palliatives); and assure that our organisation, founded because palliatives were not good enough, shall not concentrate working-class effort upon the realisation of snake-oil cure and engulf fellow-workers in the pit of impotence and despair.

The Socialist Party's Alternative to Sovereignty

 Although Scots speak of Scotland as “our” country, and millions of Scots over the years have been casualties in defence of what they called “their” country, as a matter of fact, Scotland does not belong to the whole of the Sottish people, but to a comparative few. How many Scots can point to a particular part of the map of Scotland and say “this is mine”? Only a few thousands, and of these the greater number own insignificant small plots, the greatest portion of Scotland being divided among a few great lairds and aristocrats.

Scotland is spoken of as a wealthy country, full of rich resources. Does that mean that the Scottish people as a whole are well off? By no means. Some are immensely rich, most get a bare living, and a large number are distressingly poor. This inequality has been widened, not narrowed.

The land, factories, mines, transport and communications g, all the means of producing the nation’s wealth are owned by the capitalist class. The great mass of the people own nothing except their brawn and brains, that is, their power to work.

Under capitalist Scotland, production is carried on not for the purpose of supplying the needs of the people but for the purpose of sale in order to realise a profit. Only those who have something to sell can get a living. Only those can obtain things who can afford to buy. This is the exchange economy system. If things were produced for use, nobody would spend time in the manufacture of shoddy goods, jerry-built houses, or adulterated food. Profit is the only purpose of  industry.

Working people have nothing to sell but their labour power. They sell their labour power to an employer for so many hours a day for a certain price, that is, wages. Since one cannot separate labour-power from one’s body it comes to this, that a worker actually sells oneself like a slave. We socialists, call the workers of capitalist countries, “Wage slaves”.

Wages are determined by what it costs to keep a family. How many working people do you know who can save very much from their wages? They may be able to put something by for a holiday, but should misfortune occur and the savings are gone. It is a fact that in Scotland. on average. a person is not more than two weeks removed from penury.

The capitalist will only buy labour if he can make profit out of it. Just compare the value of the goods you turned out in a day when you were in the factory, and what you received for your work. The difference between the two is the employer’s profit. Profit is the result of the unpaid labour of the worker. In capitalist Scotland, the workers are continually robbed of the results of their labour. Despite legislation the capitalist will compel the worker to work as hard and as long as possible, for as little money as possible. Sweat-shop conditions still flourish in Scotland. Whole sectors of industry exist in which absolutely inhuman conditions of work and pay prevail.

 Even with the efforts of the best-organised trade unions wages rarely rise higher than the cost of living. And even this is not secured. In the endeavour to produce as cheaply as possible, employers continually introduce labour-saving technology, which enables them to produce more in less time and reduces the standard of skill required. As a result, unemployment never disappears.

What does capitalism offer the Scottish worker? A life of toil, a bare subsistence. Always the dread fear of redundancy. A drab, colourless existence in the slum districts of the towns and, when unable to work any longer, to be cast aside. If capitalism remains in existence, the worker will still remain subjugated by the capitalist. There will still be wealth and leisure for the few, toil, and poverty for the many. Shooting estates for the landed elite, slum housing estates for the workers. A capitalist Scotland can offer its workers nothing but wage slavery.

The socialist system of self-management does away with a whole host of middlemen who, in capitalist countries, make huge profits at the expense of the consumers. The whole world will become a huge cooperative society, and the working people, instead of slaving to enrich the idle capitalist, creates wealth for the whole community. The workers enjoys the results of their labour, without having to pay tribute to speculators and profiteers. No-one will be any longer a slave of another. Workers will have the power to decide the conditions under which they will work and live. Such a goal is disquieting to the rich of Scotland. So some spread the delusion that national self-government equates with the self-emancipation of labour. Self-determination under capitalism is an impossibility. 

Written right across every page of human history is the declaration that no people can be free so long as the private ownership of the means of production and distribution endures. If we all get together we can form a worldwide cooperative commonwealth instead of an insular ‘independent’ Scotland.

Our case as socialists is that capitalism is rotten and ugly wherever it may be, in that it rests on the exploitation of the many by the few and all the pacts and alliances are nothing but manoeuvres for position amongst the thieves. As socialists we do not merely find fault with this or that capitalist country. We say that where there is capitalism, i.e. class ownership of the means of living, buying and selling, wage-labour and profits, there is poverty, misery and drudgery, and in no country do the working class own anything to sacrifice for. The fight of the world’s workers is the fight to get the capitalist class off their backs by introducing socialism—i.e.. a world system with no wages, profits, buying or selling, where all the means of living are held in common and nationalism and patriotic  propaganda are things of the past.

Addressing our Fellow Workers

 

It is often suggested that a change of leader or political party might make a real difference to our everyday life. Those of us who look into the kind of social system in which we live know that it would not. 

We live under capitalism which operates according to its own economic laws, irrespective of changes of government or ruler. There is a basic contradiction in capitalism between social production and class ownership. For while the actual work of producing wealth is done by the cooperative labour of millions — the working class — the means of production (land, mines, factories etc.) and the products belong to a relatively small section of society only — the capitalists. It is this contradiction that causes modern social problems since it means that production cannot be carried on to meet human needs. The economic law of capitalism is that all enterprises, whether private or nationalized, are operated for profit. If their products cannot be sold at a profit, production is curtailed or brought to a stop. All governments administering capitalism, no matter what principles the individuals profess, have as a clause of their economic policy one which enables profits to flow.

Let us look at one or two problems that this situation creates. Unemployment is an inevitable part of capitalism. Periodically, hundreds of thousands, even millions, are thrown out of work for the simple reason that it has become unprofitable to employ them. The pool of unemployed can be called on in times of boom and is as such needed by capitalism. It can also at times serve the purpose of keeping down wage claims. 

People often talk of there being a housing problem, but there is no such problem. There is no reason why enough good houses for all should not be built. The materials exist, so do the building workers and architects. What then stands in the way? The simple fact is that there is not a market for good houses since most people cannot afford to pay for them, and never will be because of the restrictions of the wages system.

Is there a way out? Of course there is, but it demands self-reliance and bold thinking on the part of everyone. The economic system under which we live is man-made and can be altered by man’s action.  You can go on frittering away the years in the sterile dispute over which political party can make a better job of running capitalism, or you can consider the alternative of ending capitalism and putting socialism in its place. Rely on your own experience and recognise that capitalism has never been and cannot be made to work in the interest of the working class.

The alternative is a social system in which production of goods and the operation of services are carried on solely and directly for use, without buying and selling, profit-making or the wages system. This is what socialism really means and its basis would be the ownership of the means of production and distribution by the whole community.

Its achievement demands understanding, organisation and democratic action by a socialist working class. It calls for international co-operation, not of the world’s bankers, but of the world’s workers.

A revolutionary idea and hard to grasp? You have to choose. Either you take action to get socialism or you have to put up with the consequences of capitalism. There is no third choice.

 

We all want to get the best the world can offer. If all people worked to produce what all require, and each had a guarantee that they would by that means be sure of getting the necessaries of life, there is no telling how soon the work could be done and what pleasures life could hold out. Don’t think that it sounds all right, but your next-door neighbour could not be trusted to do things so well as yourself, because no doubt that neighbour is thinking the same of you. At bottom, we are all bent on getting as much pleasure out of life as we can, and if we can work better collectively, the struggle need not be so hard. Most of us prefer to enjoy ourselves collectively, do we not? You cannot improve matters on your own. Do not isolate yourselves so much, but get together and talk about things with a view to improving your lot.

Whether your family live by brains and your neighbours by brawn, or vice versa, both work hard, and should be alike as regards having the necessaries of life. If your family consists of various types of workers, surely you do not give one less to eat than another. You give them the best you have.

Why not apply the results of work in the same manner, collectively—each have the best obtainable, each do the best they can?

This is the end which the World Socialist Movement have in view and are organised to obtain. Not a pittance, but at least a sufficiency for all.

The vast mass of the community feed and breed only by permission of the tiny section which owns the resources (land, factories, machinery, etc.), without which feeding and breeding are impossible to-day; and the conditions upon which this permission is granted are that the propertyless ones shall toil for the profit of those who own and control the means of existence.

The members of the class to which you and I belong surrender the product of their toil to their kind employers, who graciously return to them a sum of money capable of buying back goods to the value of only a fraction of their product. The master class (mostly composed of inactive shareholders) are enabled to live in luxury and also amass fresh capital to make still more profit.

This has not always been so. In the Middle Ages the class which attempted to live by trade and money-lending was despised and persecuted by the feudal lords and their vassal land-holders, and condemned by the Church. One day, when you have nothing better to do, you might ask your psychological tutor to explain the curious volte-face on the part of the reformed Church towards the taking of interest. As he believes that the human mind is an independent entity, which develops regardless of material conditions and social environment, I can readily imagine some entertaining mental contortions on his part. To maintain any degree of consistency he will have to maintain that—the Church received a sudden revelation from those "forces” which are hidden so mysteriously somewhere "behind the universe”! But the above is only one of the many changes in social life and in men's corresponding ideas and customs.

Go far back in history and you will come to a time when neither money nor territory nor chattels but kinship formed the root condition of social organisation, and it is from this misty past that the creatures of religious fancy take their rise.

In those days a few crude tools and weapons were men's only equipment against nature (animal, vegetable and mineral), yet even these represented ages of experiment. Ideas of practical utility were hard to come by and slow in growth, and so, men's wishes outstripped their acts and built up an imaginary world transcending ordinary human limitations wherein men's shades became transfigured into gods. It is from this primitive ignorance of men that the concept of a "soul” (or psyche) was derived. The individual was credited with possessing an immortal shadow or second self, which controlled his body as a man operates any other inert object. “Mind” was held to dominate “matter,” and the “modern” psychologist, who clings tenaciously to this superstition does but proclaim how little, in this respect, he or she has progressed beyond the primitive.

The materialistic socialist, however, reviewing human history perceives how overwhelming has been the effect of economic development upon the habits of mankind and how, in practice, Christians and other metaphysicians have flown in the face of their avowed doctrines in the pursuit of their material interests.

The ruling classes throughout history have imposed systems of discipline and so-called education upon their subjects which would be meaningless if man’s “soul” controlled man’s behaviour.

The class to which you and I belong consists of individuals whose characters are as varied as their physical make-ups. In this respect it does not differ from the master-class nor, indeed, from any class that has ever existed. From this fact it is clear that social position does not rest upon individual character. A man is either a worker or a capitalist, not because he has a peculiar temperament or disposition, but because his environment and history have so determined. To explain the difference between him and others we can only refer to this same environmental history. Try how we will we cannot discover any mysterious entity which decides that certain individuals shall dig coal for a living while others clip coupons. In short, the illusion that “character is destiny” sums up the stupid conceit of the master-class, who childishly fancy that ”God” or “Fate” has blessed them with “superior natures.” They mistake the effect for the cause, and imagine that their privileged position is due to their “culture,” instead of realising that their "culture ” is the fruit of their privileged position in society.

Socialists aim at the foundation of a system based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living. In such a society individuals will continue to vary, but it is in the common necessities of all that social life is rooted. Capitalist society has long since ceased to be consistent with the satisfactory distribution of these necessities. Hence the turmoil of modern social life. The "superior persons” of the master-class will, no doubt, resist the change as long as possible; but every ruling class in history has bitten the dust in due course when economic development has dug its grave. Psychological trickery may delay, it cannot prevent, the slow but sure awakening of the working-class, the class whose mission is to give to capitalism a conclusive exit to the land of shades.

What is democracy?

 

Real democracy is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of leadership. It is about all of us having a direct say in the decisions that affect us. Leadership means handing over the right to make those decisions to someone else. We don’t vote for leaders to implement this or that decision; we vote according to our ideological inclinations to give them a “free hand” to make decisions. The very mechanism of decision-making we have today is a product of the social system we live under. The market economy, with its built-in contradictions and conflicting interests, has massively complicated the process of decision-making itself. It has moved it further and further from the ambit of “ordinary people” as the system itself has become more and more globalised. It is this that has made the paper pledges of our elected leaders seem increasingly irrelevant and ineffectual.

We have at our disposal today the very means, in the form of modern telecommunications, that could enable us to resuscitate the ancient model of Athenian democracy on a truly global level. What we conspicuously lack is the will and the imagination to look beyond the crippling assumption that capitalism is here to stay. In the meanwhile we delude ourselves into thinking that the economic dictatorship imposed by this class ownership of the means of living can somehow be made compatible with democratic control within a system of political “representation” which is essentially adapted to that end. But we can have a real democracy—as soon as a majority of us are prepared to replace minority class ownership with common ownership.

Until the working class understand that their interest lies in achieving socialism and not in reforming capitalism, capitalist politics in spite of such surface restlessness and re-grouping will go on in the same way as before.

In socialism there can be no question of the “most equitable” distribution, there will be only one distribution, and that will be in accordance with the needs of the individuals comprising society: and than that nothing can be more or less equitable. With socialism there will be no “best obtainable” system of administration; the system of administration will of necessity be fully democratic and consequently the best possible. Also, there can be no question of securing for the workers under socialism the full fruits of their labour; everybody capable of working will work as a social duty and will receive in return as a social right a proportion of the fruits of the labour of society, in accordance with his or her needs.

Lastly, let us point out that the use of the word “exchange” in relation to the political economy can have only one meaning: that is the exchange of commodities. If exchange is retained, commodities are retained, buying and selling are retained, and capitalism is retained.

The world is rich in untapped resources. Its wealth is incalculable. Many more acres of land could be placed under cultivation. there are millions of men and women expending their energies on unproductive work who could easily do something useful. Socialism would make this possible. Why then do the workers turn a deaf ear to the message of the Socialist Party?

Socialism offers the only cure for the problems of working people by removing poverty, economic insecurity, and the fear of war.  We cannot say that everything will be perfect, that there will be no difficulties to settle. What we do say, and say it continuously, is, that in present society no problems may be solved, and no adjustments made, without first giving due consideration for the interests of a class of property owners. That only in a class-free society will these hindrances be removed, and the way thrown open for development and improvement, and that there will be no poverty problem. We offer socialism to the working class as a simple and practical solution to certain problems that face them. These problems are serious, and they become more and more urgent with time. The workers are faced with increasing insecurity set in a background of poverty and unhappiness. They are compelled to endure the kind of poverty that harms their health and puts them into premature graves. 

The Socialist Party advocates and has done since 1904. socialism: nothing more, nothing less. The common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing the things we need to live. Where we all have equal access to the means of life. Only we, as a united working class, can bring this about and if you would like to know more about these ideas, why not get in touch.

What politics is all about

 

Although both Labour and Tories have a large core of loyal supporters who would never vote for any other party, there is a vast number of voters who are not committed beforehand. It is these, commonly lumped together as the “floating vote”, who determine which party victory goes to in present day political conditions. The way in which they can ebb and flow is well demonstrated by the fluctuating percentages of support published in the public opinion polls. But even these are often not accurate predictions of the actual results, and elections have been won or lost on developments and events just before the votes are cast.

Most voters think the art of government is some mystical thing which is the prerogative of professional politicians; once they have voted, they are prepared to leave the job to “those who know best” so its no small wonder then that the working class get the government they deserve and leads to disillusionment. What we are after is the establishment of an administration we want—not a government we deserve

From time to time, there arise movements for the reform of the electoral system or, even more misguided, for the total rejection of the electoral system itself. But the adoption of various systems of proportional representation has demonstrated that such reform does not solve the basic problem, as the sway of government still passes between the major parties or major coalitions according to the temper of the day. Although it is possible for more shades of opinion to be represented in the debating chamber, the general effect is usually only leads to greater instability in the government.

Some people think there are fundamental differences between the Labour and Tory parties—others, and this view has gained more credence in recent years —think there is very little difference between them. The latter view is nearer the truth the more we consider fundamental issues; the former view reflects more correctly the views of those who are concerned mainly with surface appearances. It is the fundamental issues which are more important but we should not blind ourselves to the fact that there are considerable differences between Tory and Labour Parties on the ways and means of organising the economics and politics of the country. It is these differences which will decide the result of the next general election.

So how would work, as opposed to employment, seem in a sane socialist society? Well, for a start at least 50 percent, maybe up to 70 percent, of the existing jobs will disappear. In a world of common ownership, money will cease to exist or have any function. All the jobs concerning money—cashiers, bankers, insurance workers, tax collectors, etc, would be totally useless. That’s the majority of the most boring jobs out of the way, then. The abolition of production for profit, and the introduction of production for use, will mean the end of unnecessary long and stressful hours. The line between “work” and leisure will become very hazy, perhaps disappear altogether for some. The fact that work will be socially and individually useful will be a great motivating factor. Ideas, expressions, thoughts and intelligence will be of great value when it comes to designing, building, organising and problem-solving. No longer would we be victims of the needs of the wages system. Human beings will cease to be mere one-dimensional, profit-grinding zombies. Everyone of us has ideas, logic, experience, knowledge, reason and creativity that is of use to others and society in general. And yes, that includes small children, the elderly and the “disabled”. In a fully democratic society we would all be able to contribute on an equal basis (if we so choose) and take according to our self-defined needs.

The working environment will dramatically change too, of course. Being bossed around, getting up far too early, dread, anxiety, working too many hours amidst an unpleasant environment all have a negative psychological and physical effect on us. When people work in a stress-free environment and act on their own free-will they are much more cooperative. Instead of competing for jobs and promotion, which gives rise to a hostile and back-stabbing environment, emphasis will be on cooperation. Even when there are not so exciting jobs to do—cleaning perhaps, the work itself may still be mundane, but working in a co-operative and friendly environment will make whatever work we are engaged in so much more enjoyable. Cleaning can become bearable. Being around people who are enjoying themselves, enthusiastic, cooperative and engaged in socially useful work is a wonderful experience. It may be hard to imagine such experiences being part of everyday life, but don’t think of socialism as a utopia. The only thing which stands in our way is a working-class majority who understands and desires such a society. And who is willing to take the necessary political action to achieve it.

We would argue that workers have nothing to gain from being employed or unemployed. Every time we set foot in the workplace we are being exploited. And to those who want to get rid of such a reactionary society.

SPGB on Anti-Union Legislation

The Socialist Party's Executive Committee EC agreed at its last meeting that the following statement should be released. 

"We are approaching a new phase in a long history of anti-union legislation, from both Tory and Labour governments.

 The SPGB opposes any attempt to restrict workers' ability to take collective action to protect or improve conditions of employment.

 We urge all of our fellow-workers to join an appropriate union, but remind them that this can only ever be a defensive response, that equity is not possible for wage slaves and that the only way to ensure sustained well-being for us all is by replacing the crazed pursuit of profit for the few with a classless society of cooperation, where everything is produced solely to meet human needs."

Understanding Humans

 

Our argument does not change essentially from year to year, but it is important that we relate it to the world situation as others see it. Our central message is that political and social changes that seem to benefit the majority only happen if they advance capitalist interests, and are dismantled willy-nilly when those interests change. The present “stewardship” over the Earth is in the hands of a small minority of the world population. Their interests often prove to be irreconcilable with the need to protect the environment from degradation. Awareness of the damage being done has increased markedly over the decades.

 It goes without saying that most of us would favour the goal of protecting the Earth’s resources for future generations and preserving the quality of our environment.

The question is whether they have any chance of being achieved within a social system where profits come first.

The fact is of course that capitalism has and continues to fail people in their millions, they see no hope, they have no hope, and worse still they don’t even have a dream.

Like Martin Luther King we do have a dream, too and it’s a big one. Our dream embraces the whole of humanity and they don’t come much bigger than that. In our dream we see every person on the face of the planet having the same value, being priceless. In our dream, gone will be the days where one person’s life will be considered more valuable or less valuable than any other. Gone also will be the days when some have a life of untold luxury, wealth and privilege. We don’t know how long it might be before our dream becomes a reality, it might take quite a while.

 

We realise that there are plenty of people who have a vested interest in retaining the demeaning values upon which society is based.

Most people have heard of socialism but we doubt very much that their definition coincides with our own — a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community — a world-wide community of 8 billion of us humans.

 The Socialist Party is quite satisfied that the only way to achieve this goal is by political action. Use your vote to bring about an end to the present system, capitalism, which deprives the worker of the wealth they alone produce.

The solution to most of the ills of the world is a simple one, establish socialism. However, it cannot be done without a majority of socialists. Our socialist candidates will flat-out tell you that they don’t want your vote unless you want socialism. Reforming capitalism is not on the agenda. Our political opponents have been doing that for over 200 years.

The Socialist Party can point the way but they will not adopt the role of “vanguard”.

Have you heard this before?

“Where there are leaders there are led, where there are led there are bled.” 

We must first cast off the role of being a follower. You may think you cannot be hoodwinked. That you are extremely intelligent. That you are too wise in the ways of the world. The facts prove otherwise. You have voted for the Democrats and Republicans, the Labour and Conservatives in the past. These are facts. Let us face it: you have been misled year after year. Your “leaders”, with their smooth talk and promises, have proven that followers are made to be bled. Become a socialist and learn how this capitalist system operates and why it cannot function in the workers’ interests.

Poverty is an inescapable part of capitalist society. It can be abolished, but only when there is a fundamental change in how we organise society. That is way beyond any policies of any government.

There are two ways of answering the objection that “you can’t change human nature”. One is to say “oh yes you can” and to point to how humans have been different in different times and in different places. The other is to say “we don’t need to change human nature; it is only human behaviour that needs to change” and to point to how humans’ behaviour has been determined by the sort of society they live in and has varied with this while their biological make-up has remained unchanged.

Marx, who came to socialism via philosophy, adopted the first approach. We in the Socialist Party, with the benefit of the findings of biological and anthropological research since Marx’s day, have adopted the second. Not that the two are incompatible. Both refer to the same facts and draw the same conclusion — that an unchanging human nature is not a barrier to socialism working—but what is meant by “human nature” is different.

In one case it is the traditional philosophical idea of “what underlies and determines human behaviour” (and in German the term is “human essence” rather than “human nature”). In the other, a distinction is drawn between “human nature” as the biological, or natural, make-up of humans and “human behaviour” as the way humans behave, with the former underlying but not determining the latter, with in fact a key part of humans’ biological make-up being precisely the capacity to adapt to a wide variety of behaviour patterns.

Even though Marx gave its content a historical and so changing character, the philosophical definition he inherited still has some problems even with this amendment. How do you describe the features of human nature in this sense? How can you tell what it is at any particular time in human history? In what sense can it be said to determine human behaviour? Is it in fact any different from human behaviour? Why use (in English) the term “nature” when what is being referred to is not natural in the sense of being determined by nature but is admittedly socially-determined?