Capitalism is a Cancer, Socialism is the Cure

 Capitalism has advanced the scientific and technological capabilities of humanity to a stage where we can now feasibly establish a world of abundance, a world without waste or want or war. But the facts speak for themselves. There are now more hungry and homeless people on the planet than at any time in human history.

The Socialist Party is a companion party of the World Socialist Movement. It aims to bring about a non-violent revolution in the ownership of the means of production from private or state to common. In such a society, money will no longer be necessary, as the things and services we require to live fully (food, clothes, medical services, homes, transportation, and other modern human needs) will be freely available to all. This is because the means of production will be owned in common by the entire community, and will be democratically controlled by that community as well, a society in which leaders are replaced by truly democratic decision-making of all citizens.

In a society of common ownership, all war in such a nationless world will be immediately abolished, while the end of starvation and dire poverty will quickly follow suit. Without the barriers of economic cost holding back human progress, more ecologically sustainable ways to provide energy and production for ourselves will be immediately planned and created on a global basis. We will become for the first time in history a truly human family looking after itself.

The only real remedy is to seek at elections a mandate to abolish capitalism. If capitalism were abolished and socialism introduced there would immediately be two big developments through which the poverty, problem of the working class could be solved by increasing the number of men and women actually engaged in production.

One is that the members of the capitalist class, no longer able to live in leisure and luxury at the expense of the workers, would become useful members of the community helping to produce the articles needed by the community.

The second is that all kinds of activities necessary to capitalism but unnecessary under socialism would cease, and this would free millions of workers for production who are now engaged in banks, insurance companies, and advertising, or in the taxation and rating departments of the central and local government; as well as those now required by the capitalists to serve in the armed forces for the competitive struggle with foreign capitalist groups. As we explain the output of wealth could be at least doubled by these means.

This is the only way in which the poverty problem can be solved and governments, trying to run the capitalist system, cannot solve it. What they are doing is acting as caretakers for the capitalist class, calling on the workers to increase output but using seductive arguments about “service to the community" which would only be justified if in fact the means of production had been transformed or were going to be transformed into the property of the whole community. While maintaining (with merely superficial changes), the system under which the capitalists exploit the working class. Governments are pretending that exploitation has ended.

It is clever propaganda, but the realities of the class struggle between those who own, but do not produce and those who produce but do not own, will not for long be smoothed over by even the most plausible reformist orator. The working class faced with the same old ruthlessness of capitalist employers will find that they have no defence except the limited defence provided by their own trade unions. In strikes and lockouts, the web of half-truths spun by the labour leaders will be rent asunder, and the workers will have made an advance towards the necessary understanding of the fact that socialism has nothing in common with Labourites.

Globalization and Nationalism (video)

 

Speaker is Stephen Shenfield of the World Socialist Party of the United States

Capitalism is Hell

 

The class antagonism between exploiter and exploited, arising, as it does, out of the fundamental contradiction in the capitalist system of production, namely, the appropriation of the social product by the individual capitalist, naturally permeates the entire social organisation under capitalism.

Holding, as we of the Socialist Party do, that the social evils produced by capitalism have reached a stage where peddling reforms enacted by a capitalist parliament can only have the effect of retarding working-class emancipation, it is our bounden duty to be up in arms against all those who, posing as champions of working-class interests, help to bolster up the capitalist system by assisting the capitalists in throwing a bone to the under-dog—the proletariat—to prevent him from attacking the tormentor—the capitalist-class.\

One of the chief causes of the disagreement between the Socialist Party and others claiming to be socialists is we would just as soon expect that burglars and pickpockets would organise themselves to devise and carry out means for the protection of the public against burglary and pocket-picking as we would expect the capitalist-class to carry measures for dealing with the social problems. We tell the workers that there can be no solution except by the establishment of world socialism; that the capitalist politicians, whether labelled Labour or Conservative, desire to maintain the capitalist State, in which a reserve army of unemployed is a necessity, and under no circumstances will we beg and pray them, or appeal to them—our class enemies—to do something which we know they will not do. The workers must accomplish their own emancipation, organised as a socialist party, independent of and hostile to all other parties. That emancipation will never be obtained otherwise.

We of the Socialist Party have, as respecting all other social evils endured by the toiling class, no illusions whatever. Fully recognising the rottenness of the entire capitalist system, we regard it as a betrayal of the true interests of the working class to encourage, let alone assist, any “patching up,” which, after all, only means prolonging the agony. The capitalist class will, as we know, only concede what it is impossible to withhold from the workers. Hence the assistance by so-called socialists in the granting of these concessions tends to throw the working class completely off the path of class antagonism. We necessarily recognise that all measures promoted to improve present conditions only tend to further delay the advent of the economic freedom of the toiler and to prolong the suffering of his offspring. Surely it is not the business of the socialist to assist in applying the brake to the wheel of human emancipation. But those would-be socialists who join hands with the capitalist politicians in procuring a paltry meal for the little standings of the working class now conveniently ignore the fact that they flatly contradict the deductions they drew in the past from the economic causes and effects presented by the capitalist system.

If the capitalists make a concession with one hand they recoup themselves with the other. They may provide a little benefit, but as they will on no account suffer a reduction in the amount of their surplus value—seeing that they completely own and control the economic and political power of the State—the wages of the workers will go down. Besides, the class-unconscious workers are sure to take this concession on the part of the capitalist class as a pure act of grace and not—as in reality it is—an economic necessity, especially when they see that an organisation posing as a socialist body has been amiably working with the capitalist to attain that end.

It may be argued that even if the capitalists recoup themselves and the workers and their children consequently do not gain materially, and even become less class-antagonistic, the thin edge of the wedge has been inserted and the small concession will lead to a full-fledged social revolution. One may as well argue, as the “reformers” contend, that the workhouse system if fully taken advantage of by the workers, would eventually abolish poverty, misery, and degradation. In fact, some today argue that providing you put a sufficient number of patches on a pair of old boots you will produce a new pair.

We get reminded that the Communist Manifesto held that it was the duty of the proletariat while working for the revolution, to endeavour to obtain every amelioration possible for their class. Our reply is that this pronouncement was made over one hundred and fifty years ago and that since then capitalism has developed to such an extent that, if Marx and Engels were alive today, they would fully agree that at the present time there is only one way of obtaining amelioration for the proletariat and that is to usher in the socialist society as quickly as possible.

Further, if amelioration were possible, surely it could not be obtained by joining the capitalists in promoting measures prompted by economic necessity and the desire to stave off the collapse of Capitalism. How amelioration could at all be achieved unless enforced by the antagonism of the class struggle is for a Socialist impossible to comprehend.

 

It was such people as Marx, Engels, Kautsky and Luxemburg who brought the enlightenment and knowledge that led to the elevation of socialism to the powerful science and the political creed of the International proletariat. But apart from the great services these men rendered to mankind, we must not forget the devotion and faithfulness they at all times bore to the suffering proletariat, never flinching, never yielding, although at times bowed down by their own personal suffering, by their own individual misery.

Seeing in their teachings our guide, our refuge, and our hope for human emancipation, endeavouring to emulate their moral strength, and their uncompromising revolutionary attitude, we invite all men and women of a similar mind to ours to rally and thus help us to keep aloft our banner: “No Reform, no Compromise—but unconditional surrender of the existing capitalists in favour of the free World Socialism”

As is usual in politics, the liberal media are endeavouring to show how much superior would be the government by the Labour Party faction to that of the Conservatives. Yes, an opportunity to make this world a little less like Hell than it is for millions of our people as the leftists assert. Only that and nothing more. Capitalism is Hell for the workers.

There is only one way by which they can get out of it, and that is by organising for the revolution, by joining the party of the revolution, the Socialist Party.

Understanding Party Politics

 One of the strengths of the Socialist Party is our commitment to democratic practices. Whatever weaknesses or mistaken views it holds, they cannot be imposed upon others. 

When one thinks of a political party, one automatically thinks of its leader. The Electoral Commission mandates that he or she be named. The Socialist Party selects its ‘leader’ by lottery.

 It is assumed that a political party’s MPs can vote as their conscience dictates. Instead, the Socialist Party has a rule: “Candidates elected to a Political office shall be pledged to act on the instructions of their Branches locally, and by the Executive Committee nationally.”

The Socialist Party is a genuinely leader-free political party, whose executive committee is solely for administrative duties and cannot determine policy, with its minutes available on the internet as proof of our commitment to openness. All conference decisions have to be ratified by a referendum of the whole membership.

The Socialist Party will not take people to where they neither know where they are going nor wish to go.

Understanding War

 

While the politicians preach peace we find war between classes and war between nations everywhere. If we take but a short period of ten years we shall find that every country has been engaged either in war or in oppressing rebellion. Thus the tale of war is told.

We who are socialists are all in favour of peace, yet at the same time, we recognise that so long as people live in societies based upon class opposition, in societies in which the modes of producing the material sustenance of man are monopolised by a class, so long will war be rife as a means of satisfying national disputes.

The fact that one class monopolises all that is best in life because of its own means of production, while another class possesses nothing but its power of labour, and has to sell that power in order to gain a mere livelihood, is the primary cause of the war of classes. Each class seeks to better its condition. And this is only possible at the expense of the other class. A rise in wages for the worker is a fall in the profits of the employer. A reduction of hours for the worker beyond certain limits is at the expense of the employer’s surplus-value. This opposition between employer and employed manifests itself not only in the striving for better wages and reduced hours but throughout the whole of the ramifications of modern industrial, society.

The production of commodities is today production for the market. During periods of prosperity, production is carried on by all manufacturers with great intensity. This production is furthered by means of the “credit” system, which allows of capital being borrowed and material being bought on credit. When, as a result of all the rival manufacturers turning out their goods as quickly as possible, the market becomes glutted, it becomes necessary to somehow convert these goods into money in order to discharge their liabilities. With the usual markets being glutted, it is ever more necessary to extend the limits of the market, to secure fresh outlets, and the ordinary method of arriving at this end is to annex new territory and develop its resources.

Thus arising from the very course of commerce itself comes the necessity of carrying on wars of aggression. War today is fundamentally economic, and in the interests, not of the whole people, but of the ruling class.

War, the outcome of the existing capitalist system, carries in its train results both dire and disastrous for the working people. Whether national or industrial warfare is the more distressing and far-reaching in its results may be difficult to determine, but after a minute examination of both, we have no hesitation in saying that industrial warfare has far the greater number of victims.

Enormous as have been the victims of battles, great as is men killed in battles, greater still has been the sacrifice to capitalism. Let us calculate the number of children dying in their first year from remediable causes, the number of industrial accidents, the early deaths of those living in unsanitary slum dwellings with insufficient nourishment for their daily fare, and working in polluted factories and workshops and we shall see that the industrial warfare is as severe as the armed conflict. We see that it is as necessary to consider means for the removal of the warfare of peace as of that of war-time.

By all means, let us have peace, but let us work for it by trying to remove the cause of war—our present capitalist system. When society is no longer crystallised selfishness, when the condition of man’s living is no longer at the expense of his neighbour, when anarchy is no longer the phase of production of commodities, when, instead of all these, men live, owning the material means of subsistence in common, and men and women can obtain the satisfaction of their needs without having to sell their labour force for bare subsistence, then it will no longer be necessary to speak of peace, for peace will then be a living reality.

Those who really desire that peace should reign over all the earth, who see peace between men as a condition of healthy industrial and social development should join with us of The Socialist Party in organising that party which shall preach those principles of industrial harmony based upon the abrogation of class privilege and the holding of all means of production and of distribution in common, which shall be the basis upon which shall be built up a peace which shall endure and which shall extend throughout the world-wide cooperative commonwealth.

The Internationale, the Swing Version (music video)

 

Know what socialism is

 It is impossible to exaggerate the harm done to the socialist movement, by those who, calling themselves socialists, have taught the workers to believe that state capitalism and social reform are socialism. 

The Socialist Party has always been careful to define what socialism means. Nobody who grasped that definition ever made the error of supposing that state enterprise or public utility corporations had anything to do with socialism. Nor did they imagine, even for a moment that socialism could result from the Bolshevik dictatorship in Russia or from a Labour Government. But our critics who ridiculed what they called the “doctrinaire” Socialist Party, all fell into these errors—with disastrous results. We shall proclaim louder than ever what socialism means

Socialism is the common ownership of the means of wealth production. The means of wealth production under capitalism are the private property of the capitalists. The only way to transform Capital (private property) into social wealth is to take it away by expropriating its present capitalist private owners. Socialism cannot be inaugurated by compensating capitalists—which leaves wealth in its money form (capital) in the same hands. Banks are institutions of the money system—Capitalism. They only function for, and in that system: They can only operate when the great mass of production is carried on to exchange products—for profit. They are the clearing houses of that commodity - money; which serves as the universal medium of exchange—which stems from private ownership.

Banks borrow—and lend other people money, i.e., they take deposits, and make advances on security (property). Banks make profits (without which they close their doors) from the difference between the cost of attracting deposits; and what they make by lending or investing a large part of these deposits for short periods. Banks are profit-making concerns of capitalism. They are nothing whatever to do with socialism; which will abolish money and banks, along with parsons, prostitutes, pawnbrokers and politicians.

“Public Ownership” simply means wealth in the form of “public corporation” stocks, quoted on the money market to the highest bidder, in place of private stockholders. Many supporters of the Labour Party are still deluded by the idea that nationalisation is a major step in a policy of gradualism which will “reform capitalism out of existence”. The sledge-hammer blows of events nailed this tragic error.

The establishment of the socialist commonwealth can only be done by “dispossessing” expropriating—not compensating Capitalists. Marx's slogan was“Expropriation of the Expropriators.”

Surely the most realistic attitude for the trade unions together with the rest of the working-class is to take into consideration the most important facts of their existence. First their poverty. Secondly their enslavement, due to capitalist ownership of the means of life, and thirdly their incessant struggle to raise wages above the poverty line to which they are condemned by the merchandise character of their labour-power.

These facts are the outcome of the class ownership of the means of wealth production. Consequently, a realistic policy for the working-class is to organise politically with the sole object of establishing a system in which the means of wealth production shall be the common property of all. Under such a system a real democracy and a settled plan for production and distribution would put an end to poverty. The abolition of classes would end the incessant struggle over wages by removing the cause of class antagonism-, i.e., the class ownership of the means of life and the resulting enslavement of the working-class.

 

Who can now suggest that the policy of the Socialist Party though correct in theory, is one for application only in some remote future? Who would question the practicability of our case?

 

There is no time for complacency. Let us face the fact that time is on our side only if we seize it by the forelock and use it to our advantage. Socialism, the only solution to the problems which confront us, is the need not of the century, but of the hour.

 

Sympathisers, men and women of the working class, we urge you to join us in the struggle for emancipation.

You have but two alternatives. Either the poverty, servitude and degradation of capitalism, culminating in a destructive war, environmental destruction or socialism in which the inventive genius of humanity will be used for the welfare of all society.

Your choice is as simple as it is vital. On it rests the future of humanity.

Reaching A Definition

 

James Burnham in  ’The Managerial Revolution’ claims that the totalitarian state is not capitalism at all, but a new kind of social arrangement in which the power of the capitalist class has been broken and the control of society passed into the hands of “the managerial class,” managers, supervisors, highly paid technicians, etc. This view owes its origin to an American doctrine known as “Technocracy.” His fundamental error was to assume that capitalism in every country must have identical features, political and economic, forgetting that in each case exists a different historical background which is bound to give varying twists and turns to each country’s evolution. 

Socialism, which can only exist the whole world over when the majority of Earth’s population first understands class and capitalism, comprehend and desire socialism and vote it peacefully, legally and democratically into existence, means the solution to ending all wars, poverty and starvation takes 10 years instead of 1000 but this does not happen unless you, the vast majority of you, understand, desire and vote for socialism, a system of society based upon common ownership of the means and instruments for production and distribution by and in the interests of society as a whole.

The Socialist Party says that the world has enough for everyone but to get to that world of enough, we need better ways to organise society such that the economics of profit isn’t driving social, economic, and political decision-making. We say we could have enough for everyone without radically reducing the size of the human population.

 Do we need population reduction as a solution to the environmental crises we face? Is the feasibility of technological solutions to support a large population possible? Can we get to a sustainable world without giving up modern lifestyles? There is nothing wrong with supporting lower birth rates. Population goes down as women have more power and people’s lives have some stability. If those arguing for a reduction in birth rates” focused on policies that encouraged migration from the global south to the global north to balance labour needs, their ideas might be met with less scepticism. There is a near consensus among the scientists who study the subject that there are pathways to a world where 10 billion people can live well and stay within the sustainable limits of the planet’s environmental systems. What is slowing our progress toward the crucial goal of a sustainable society is the economic and political systems of capitalism. Those of us active in the climate movement who are silent on the question of the population are not silent because we are afraid to mention the elephant in the room. We are silent because population control is not the place to look for solutions.

To the members of the reformist parties of this country who urge the putting in order of our own "house” before attempting that of others we reply: Put this "house” in order by all means, and by that we mean not a new layer of paint, but the demolition of the structure so that the new can be built. In other words: we have constantly stressed the fact that reforming the capitalist system will not remove the causes of society's inequality that are the foundation of that system. Only the replacement of the capitalist system by socialism will do that, and it is for that reason we seek to throw light upon the activities of the capitalist class in other countries.

Socialism, of its very conception, must be international. That is the reason why workers formed the World Socialist Movement striving for socialism and advancing the working class in their struggle for emancipation. We ask those people who are attempting to alleviate the lot of the workers to examine the Socialist Party’s case, and agree that the next step must be the formation of a political party whose object is not to reform the capitalist system, but to establish 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 society as a whole.