The world needs socialism

The future of the working class in Britain is unavoidably bound up with the workers of the world as a whole. Only if we wage war against capitalism on the basis of being part of the international working class will we achieve victory over our oppressors. Central to the capitalist economic system is the exploitation of workers by capitalists. The means of production – raw materials, machinery, buildings, transport, etc. are owned and controlled by a small minority of capitalists. This means that the people, the working class, have no choice except to work for capitalist employers so as to earn a money wage to buy the goods and services, the commodities, necessary for them to survive. On the face of things this relationship between capitalist and worker seems to be a fair and equal one: the worker agrees to do so many hours work for the capitalist and in return the capitalist agrees to pay a certain amount of money in wages. In reality this relationship is an unequal and exploitative one because the wages paid to the worker are less than the value of what he or she produces. The difference between the value of what workers produce and what they receive in wages constitutes the profits of the capitalist employer. Massive exploitation of the working class is an integral part of the capitalist economic system and will persist for as long as does capitalism.

Not only do capitalist exploit workers but the system operates in such a way that capitalists constantly have to try to exploit workers even more. Different capitalists producing the same kind of commodity are competing with one another in the market to sell their products. Failure to sell the commodities produced by his firm means bankruptcy and ruin for a capitalist and the main way of ensuring steady sales is to offer given commodities on the market at a price below that charged by other capitalists. If a capitalist is to reduce his prices without reducing his profits then one way is to increase the hours of work of his employees without paying them any more wages. Sometimes employers get away with this move (for example, paid tea breaks and cleaning-up time being abolished), but where many workers are organised in trade unions, it is not easy for capitalists to force workers to accept such an increase in the degree to which they are exploited. Another ploy is to speed up the rate of work, increase its intensity, and thus reduce the cost per item by forcing the workforce to produce more commodities in the same time as before. In the car industry this generally takes the form of speeding up the rate at which the production assembly line moves. Again, this does happen but in a given type of production there is usually a very definite limit to which the pace of work can be increased and anyway workers are likely to resist such a move.

It is important to realise that capitalists are not always looking for ways to increase the degree of exploitation of workers because they, the capitalists, are inherently greedy but that they do this because of the way in which the capitalist economy operates leaves them with no choice if they are to stay in business. Similarly, if workers are not to be worked to death and totally impoverished then they have no choice except to take a common stand together against capitalist employers so as to resist employers’ attempts to exploit them even more. This is done by forming trade unions to defend wage levels and working conditions. Even so it is obvious, especially with the onset of the present economic depression, that trade unions only have a very limited capacity to defend the living standards and working conditions of the working class. While trade unions are a necessary means of defence of the working class against the capitalist class it is also the case that they pose no fundamental challenge to the whole capitalist system. Trade unions do not challenge the right of capitalists to exploit workers but only the degree to which this takes place. Even the most militant trade union struggles, involving workplace occupations and clashes with the police, pose no fundamental challenge to the dominant position of the capitalist class. Capitalism has produced a vast number of ulcers on the body economic and politic. Government tries to deal with each of them separately and by itself. The more, however, they go on trying to remove theses evils by palliative measures, the more does it becomes clear that they can only be abolished by the abolition of capitalism itself.

The justification for palliative measures lies in the fact that they make it easier for the workers to organise themselves and enlighten themselves about the real meaning of capitalism and the part that they are forced to play under it, and show the thinking worker how futile it is to dream of reforming capitalism. They furnish besides that a rallying ground for those workers who cannot see beyond their own nose. A real danger, however, arises when people try to persuade the workers as well as themselves that socialism only means the sum of a number of such petty legislations and regulations. By that means socialism gets the credit for measures which are in all but the name measures for defending capitalism against socialism and all the disadvantages which arise from that fact are written down to the discredit of socialism.

The Socialist Party’s task is to point out how inadequate all such reforms must be to remove the evils from which the workers were suffering and impress upon them with the need for the abolition of production for profit. When our organisation talk about the inevitability of socialism we assume that the workers will continue to struggle. Were they to sit down tamely and wait till socialism came to them, they would soon become mere slaves. Socialism can only come when workers, both politically and economically, grow class conscious and so well-organised as to make their exploitation impossible That is what we understand by Social Revolution, and our ideal – that of human liberation.

Our Class Enemy

What is socialism? Socialism is not the rule of bureaucrats over the people. It is not the shaping of the desires and aspirations of the individual to conform to some preconceived notion of what is in the interests of the whole, etc. Far from being proponents of some all-engulfing state-control, Marx and Engels saw the state, as class antagonisms dissipated, beginning to wither away — being transformed as an instrument to preserve democracy into an administrative tool. While in present day  the underlying purpose, of production is the amassing of profits for capital; in the new, free society its sole purpose will be to meet the needs of humankind. In the place of the present anarchy, waste and inefficiency, production will be planned. This planning, contrary to the type now commonly envisaged by advisors of capital, requires the common ownership of the economy. 

Marx and Engels never thought that a socialist society could be built on the foundations of a backward underdeveloped economy. They saw socialism as the next stage of social evolution, a higher stage than capitalism with the developed means of production capable of supplying every human need. The democratic processes necessary to mobilise the vast majority of the population to such a titanic task will separate out the opportunists and frauds. Just one example may suffice. In 1919 the people of Winnipeg, in order to carry forward their general strike, forged a body which sensitively represented every layer of the population — except the employers. While the General Strike Committee co-existed with the City Council, it completely supplanted it. Its representatives, elected largely along occupational lines, subject to immediate recall, serving without pay and in almost constant session, ran the city for 41 days. This committee had the main general characteristics of the workers councils.

Not only will the revolution itself be profoundly democratic, but with its victory will come almost instantaneous benefits for all. Thanks to the tremendous productive capacity we have created across this land, we will be quickly able to satisfy all the basic needs of everyone. There will be no real shortages that would require some kind of policeman to supervise who gets what, and no bureaucrats with the possibility of providing special favours that would allow them to gather up connections that would frustrate the democratic process. One of the first acts of the popular councils would be to place the factories and communities into the hands of the working-people. Local, regional and world-wide planning boards would be set up. The aid of highly skilled technicians would immediately be enlisted. For the first time they would know that their specialized knowledge would be applied entirely for the benefit of mankind. We would see our wealth as part of mankind’s common heritage with its unparalleled natural resources and productivity, would be producing with no other thought than for the well-being of mankind.

The future of the working class in Britain is unavoidably bound up with the development of the world as a whole. Only if we conduct our struggle against capitalism on the basis of being just one contingent of the international working class will we achieve ultimate victory over our oppressors. The working class has no interest in making peace with its own rulers. we have every interest in stepping up and intensifying the class war to overthrow this oppressive and exploitative capitalist system. Taking the road of tightening our belts to help our masters through the crisis of their rotten system simply perpetuates a class-divided and oppressive society.  The difference between the value of what workers produce and what they receive in wages constitutes the profits of the capitalist employer. Massive exploitation of the working class is an integral part of the capitalist economic system and will persist for as long as does capitalism. Not only do capitalist exploit workers but the system operates in such a way that capitalists constantly have to try to exploit workers even more. Different capitalists producing the same kind of commodity are competing with one another in the market to sell their products. Failure to sell the commodities produced by his firm means bankruptcy and ruin for a capitalist and the main way of ensuring steady sales is to offer given commodities on the market at a price below that charged by other capitalists. If a capitalist is to reduce his prices without reducing his profits then one way is to increase the hours of work of his employees without paying them any more wages. Where many workers are organised in trade unions, it is not easy for capitalists to force workers to accept such an increase in the degree to which they are exploited. Another ploy is to speed up the rate of work, increase its intensity, and thus reduce the cost per item by forcing the workforce to produce more commodities in the same time as before. When this does happen but in a given type of production there is usually a very definite limit to which the pace of work can be increased and anyway workers are likely to resist such a move. It is important to realise that capitalists are not always looking for ways to increase the degree of exploitation of workers because they, the capitalists, are inherently greedy but that they do this because of the way in which the capitalist economy operates leaves them with no choice if they are to stay in business. Similarly, if workers are not to be worked to death and totally impoverished then they have no choice except to take a common stand together against capitalist employers so as to resist employers’ attempts to exploit them even more. This is done by forming trade unions to defend wage levels and working conditions. In Britain a greater proportion of workers are in trade unions than in any of the other advanced capitalist countries. Even trade unions have a very limited capacity to defend the living standards and working conditions of the working class. While trade unions are a necessary means of defence of the working class against the capitalist class it is also the case that they pose no fundamental challenge to the whole capitalist system. Trade unions do not challenge the right of capitalists to exploit workers but only the degree to which this takes place.

The whole of capitalist society is organised around the capitalist economy. The modern family is structured to produce and discipline the workforce, labour power. The state passes laws and maintains the police and armed forces So as to keep the working class in line. Education and the mass media are powerful means of spreading the ideas and outlook of the capitalist class, bourgeois ideology, among the working class so as to get them to accept the capitalist system. Religions promise the good life in this world for those who knuckle under to oppression and exploitation in this one, and so on. Capitalist society in its totality is structured so as to preserve the exploitative relationship between the capitalist class and the working class which lies at its heart.

Capitalists try to gain an advantage over each other is by introducing new and more efficient means of production, technological innovation. The capitalist employer in a given field of production may be able to reduce his costs of production by introducing new production processes which enable output per worker to rise and thus cost per unit to fall. This allows the employer to sell his commodities at a price lower than that of his competitors while at the same time increasing his rate of profit on the capital he has invested. This advantage does not last long because the other employers will also quickly adopt the new production processes so as to be able to compete and stay in business. As the new production processes become introduced throughout an industry the proportion of total capital which is spent on raw materials, machinery, etc. rises while the proportion spent on employing labour power, on paying wages, falls.

The enemy of the working class is the capitalist class. The capitalists dominate the economic, political and cultural life. The capitalists have the interest in perpetuating the rule of capital. Experience has shown that while they find it necessary at times to make certain minor concessions to the working class and are willing to enter into alliances and accommodations with various groups outside their ranks, that even so the capitalists will never tolerate any fundamental challenge to their interests and rule. While there are differences within this class on what is the best way of controlling the working class so as to perpetuate the rule of capital they stand united in their determination to uphold its reign. Any challenge to their rule is met with whatever measures are necessary to defeat it. These people are the real rulers and the working class will never be free until they overthrow the capitalist class.

Organise for socialism with the Socialist Party

We are by now familiar with the type of extreme weather events caused by climate change. Few can deny that the world today is in a state of upheaval and chaos, reflected in the widespread turmoil and conflict. The fact that such conditions prevail throughout the world, and have prevailed for a long time, logically suggests the presence of a common cause. The Socialist Party has repeatedly demonstrated it is the capitalist system that does not and cannot work in the interests of the majority.

Businesses cannot afford to be overly concerned with stopping global warming. The existence of every corporation is based on its ability to make more profits than the next corporation. Business is not about to cut its profits for anybody. Business has not cut its profits to provide full employment or to avoid wars. There’s no reason to expect them to do such a thing in order to slow down climate change. As long as capitalist interests and their politicians can lay the blame on individual’s lifestyles and buying habits and persuade people that industry is operating as concerned citizens, the basic problem of climate change will never be solved. We have to recognize that there are forces in the society which are content to maintain its even though it drives society towards oblivion. We live in a world where global warming is the direct result of the crazy, profit-motivated system we live in. And so long as that system is allowed to continue, temperatures will continue to increase. The drive for profit leads to the neglect of everything that stands in the way of this has created ecological havoc from one end of the planet to the other.

Capitalism is a social system in which most people have to go to work for wages in order to live. This means that they are forced to sell their mental and physical energies to an employer. The interests of the seller of any article are in getting the highest possible price for what he is selling. Thus, the workers are forced to struggle for the best conditions for the sale of their labour power. This means that they must struggle for shorter hours, less intense working pace, higher wages and so on.

 It is obvious that the workers will be able to assert their interests more strongly if they do so together: this is the basic reason for the existence of trade unions. They are the only weapon which workers can use under capitalism to defend and to improve their working conditions. Because of this, all workers should join their trade union. Any trade union action which is in line with working class interests is worthy of wholehearted support from all workers —and receives the support of the Socialist Party.

It is true, however, that trade unions do many things which are quite opposed to working class interests; some of them, as our correspondent points out, tend to help capitalism run more smoothly. Such actions are contrary to trade unionism and the Socialist Party opposes them. Thus, we opposed trade union participation in the war effort and support of government productivity drives.

While we hold that, on balance, compulsory trade union membership is not in the best interests of the Trade Union movement and the working class, we also recognise that trade union action, and strikes in particular, cannot operate without trying to compel would be blacklegs to conform to the decision of the majority. It is hardly surprising that trade unions have their faults. They are, after all, a feature of capitalist society and they must recruit workers of all sorts of political and religious opinions, who are united only in the struggle against their masters. When socialism is established, trade unions will exist no more—the need for them will have disappeared. Until that day, life under capitalism is a battle, and the workers must fight it with the best weapon available.

A planned socialist society which has control of the means of production, distribution will ensure adequate precautions to ensure sustainability. For instance, carbon emissions into the atmosphere will be drastically reduced and less harmful alternatives sought. We will not be catapulted into situations in which whole populations are confronted by polluted air. Against this insane capitalist system, the Socialist Party raises its voice in emphatic protest and unqualified condemnation. It declares that if our society is to be rid of the host of economic, political and social ills that for so long have plagued it, the outmoded capitalist system of private ownership of the socially operated means of life and production for the profit of a few must be replaced by a new social order. That new social order must be organised on the sane basis of social ownership and democratic management of all the instruments of social production, all means of distribution and all of the social services. It must be one in which production is carried on to satisfy human needs and wants. In short, it must be genuine socialism. Despite the threat to workers' lives, despite the growing menace of environmental harm, a world of peace, liberty, security, health and abundance for all stands within our grasp. The potential to create such a society exists, but that potential can be realised only if workers act to gain control of their own lives by organising, politically and industrially, for socialism. Help us build a world in which everyone will share in and enjoy full benefits of the natural wealth of the planet. The Socialist Party calls upon all who realise the critical crises we face and who understand that a basic change in our society is needed to join us.

The difference between anarchists and the Socialist Party

“Intelligence enough to conceive, courage enough to will, power enough to compel. If our ideas of a new Society are anything more than a dream, these three qualities must animate the due effective majority of the working-people....” – William Morris

To most people nowadays, anarchism conjures up the image of Molotov cocktail throwing protesters but it is as well to be reminded that anarchism has a tradition in the working-class movement as old as Marxism itself.  Although  the Socialist Party is not anarchist there are many points in where its ideas coincide with the anarchist attitude.

An educated and conscious working class will insist on democracy. And not the narrow, largely fictitious democracy of voting every four years but democracy in all social and cultural activities, in all spheres of communal life from A to Z. Members of the Social Party are agreed as to the general object for which we are striving – the ownership of all the means of production by the community; that community to be organised on the most democratic basis possible. But, beyond this, socialist  are not concerned with the details and intricacies of the organisation of the new society; and it is possible that in the conception of what that organisation will be there may be the widest divergence of views. The point of difference here between the Socialist Party and anarchists is not on form of organisation of the future society, or of the details of such organisation.

It is not that the Socialist Party wishes to impose on the future society a huge bureaucratic system, dominating all the arrangements of social life, crushing all individuality, and reducing every detail of existence to rule and plan. But we do stand for social ownership and social control, as do the anarchists. We are, however, not called upon to lay down  rules for that future society. We shall let that society take care of itself in that respect. It is very interesting, no doubt, to speculate on the future arrangements of society, whether it will be based on workers councils , federations of communes, decisions made by general assemblies or delegated committees but it is not in our power to insist that these arrangements be this or that. Any discussion on this matter must necessarily be of an academic character.The basic difference between the Socialist Party and the anarchists is not in its relation to future society.

The immediate goal of reformists is palliatives. The immediate goal of state capitalist is the re-ordering of private ownership. The  immediate goal of the Socialist Party and anarchists is the social revolution. We both see only one solution: The Revolution.

Exploring Trade Unions (Part 2)

More than Militancy

It is important to build the solidarity in common struggle against the source of our troubles, the capitalist system of wage slavery. In ‘Wages, Price and Profit’ Marx insisted that if workers were to abandon their battles around wages and working conditions, then “they would be degraded to one level mass of broken wretches past salvation ... By cowardly giving way in their everyday conflict with capital, they would certainly disqualify themselves for the initiating of any larger movement.”
But these battles are not ends in themselves. In the very next paragraph Marx also warned against exaggerating the importance of such battles and becoming “exclusively absorbed in these unavoidable guerilla fights incessantly springing up from the never-ending encroachments of capital...”
Thus while this struggle is necessary if the proletariat is to resist everyday attacks and still more to develop its fitness for revolutionary combat, such struggle is not itself revolutionary struggle. Moreover, unless the economic struggle is linked to building a consciously revolutionary movement–unless, as Marx puts it, it is waged not from the view of “fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work” but under the banner of “abolition of the wages system”– then such struggle turns into its opposite, from a blow against the employers to a treadmill for the worker.

The trade union, as one socialist put it, is the arm the worker instinctively raises to ward off the blows of capital. It is an instinctive defensive response and, no matter how passive or militant, as long as the workers’ struggle is confined to such a narrow framework the trade union struggle can only perfect the chains that bind labour to capital. No matter how extensive the rank and file participation, no matter how democratic, the fact remains that the militant rank and file unionism are still striving for better terms and conditions within the framework of wage-slavery. While it is, of course, preferable that the trade unions be under rank and file control rather than run by a bureaucratic clique, that the workers themselves decide issues of wages, benefits, strikes, and compromises rather than having these things decided over their heads, and that the workers be able to appoint their own officials rather than being subject to appointments from the top, it should not be forgotten that such reforms will still reflect the workers’reformist aspirations  as the open collaboration of trade union leaders. While it is the task of socialists to show that even the most ‘revolutionary’ trade unionism cannot break the chains of wage-slavery, some activists will argue that if only the rust was removed and the chains were made a bit longer it will somehow be easier for workers to wear and bear them.

 As socialists it is our task to explain that the root of the problem is not corrupt leadership, not their anti-democratic manipulations, nor their behind-closed-door compromises and sell-outs, not the lack of palpable lasting results, not the integration of the unions into the state apparatus, not the lack of strike calls for resistance, and not even the restriction of the right to strike or any other curtailment of  ‘labour rights’ but the wages system itself. The problem is the entire system and not some particular injustice within it. We should not confuse the much needed struggle for trade union democracy with the struggle for socialism. Union reforms within the class struggle are a by-product of our real work of explaining the need for socialist democracy. It is not the task of the Socialist Party to adopt slogans of “class struggle trade unionism” or whatever passes at the time for radical posturing. It is the duty of socialists to show that this, too, is still only trade unionist striving to strike a better deal with the employers; that this, too, remains a form of  enslavement of labour by capital and that this, too,  can in no way resolve the workers’ fundamental interests. Militant trade unionism, no matter how much one may embellish it,represents the workers’ interests only within the framework of winning better terms for the sale of labour-power. But it is a starting point in educating our fellow worker to question of the  legitimacy of that sale.

In a strike there is always a  tendency to put forward only a militant trade unionist position, fighting hard for a victory in the strike, but failing to educate the workers about the character of the capitalist system and the need for socialism. We seem reluctant to explain that the fight for better wages or piecemeal reforms perpetuates this corrupt capitalist system that enslaves the vast majority. We need to say that our fight is not only for economic demands in a  particular factory or industry but  to abolish the entire system of wage slavery. We’ve got to combine and fight against this whole capitalist system together. Creating a socialist world, where people live from birth to death never having to suffer under the chains of wage slavery is what all workers should be fighting for.

How ousting the union bureaucrats and putting in their stead “good honest union militants” will advance the workers’ struggle for the requisite political power remains a mystery. How it will be possible for workers to understand that even the most militant trade unionism is still not enough, because it is still the acceptance of capitalist economics, remains unknown. It should go without saying that socialists struggle to expose the corrupt labour autocrats. But socialists are not at all satisfied or content to oust dishonest trade unionists and replace them with honest trade unionists. What we want at the head of the trade unions are not “honest union militants” but dedicated socialist workers. We do not want ‘democratic’ wage-slavery or even the workers to ‘aspire for fighting unions’ to get a better deal under wage-slavery. We want, first and foremost, an end to wage-slavery, and this cannot be accomplished by presenting trade union militancy as a panacea for all the workers’ woes.

We are often offered an analysis put forward usually by Trotskyists that the big union fat cats act as a brake on the working class militancy but it is exacly the the role of the union bureaucray to “see fit” to tie the workers to the trade union struggle alone. It is precisely the role of such bureaucrats to preach class peace and the steady ‘improvement’ of the workers’ conditions. It is precisely the function of such full-time officials to attempt to rally the masses of workers behind themselves. To accuse them of being traitors to the cause assumes that at one time they did not represent such policies of compromise and co-operation with management. One cannot, after all, betray something one has never upheld. But regardless, the working class is entirely capable, by its own efforts and without the assistance of the Socialist Party, of not only exposing but dislodging top trade union bureaucrats. Those bureaucrats may be replaced by militant trade unionists, but this in itself does not at all mark any transformation of the trade union movement. The militant trade unionists may fight to the end for the workers’ immediate interests, may rely upon and rally the rank and file to long and bitter strike battles, may be entirely above-board in their negotiations, may repeatedly break the barriers of legality, and so on. But however impressive this may be, the fact remains that such militant struggle still operates entirely within the bounds of capitalist relations and does not threaten the foundations of capitalist exploitation.  Too many Leftists possess a hazy conception that militancy plus militancy and screaming at the top of their lungs for a general strike is bound to lead to something. To what, they are not at all sure. We all too often hear inflated claims for the general strike from those who will argue that this one massive onslaught will knock the ruling class from their throne with an act of blind faith in the miracle-working power of direct-action. Despite its talk of ‘linking’ the militant trade union struggle to ‘socialism’, all that they accomplish is to perhaps gain for themselves the benefit of a few seats at the top table in the union bureaucracy and make their own deals with the employers. We have witnessed it over and over.

The left-wing militants conclude that every trade unionist struggle for a 'just’ demand  is part and parcel of the struggle for socialism. This will of course come as a surprise to many workers who, while struggling for a pay rise, will suddenly discover that they are actually struggling to capture the state machine and overthrow his employer. But workers know well enough that a trade union struggle, even if it involves the government and so assumes a certian political character, is still only a trade union struggle, and that after all is said and done they’ll be punching in their time dockets tomorrow as usual despite some left-wing party hack who comes along declaring that trade unionist politics equals the struggle for socialism. The fact that the workers may, on their own, militantly resist the onslaught of capital, or wage a struggle to influence the government on their behalf, does not mean that such struggles are socialist struggles. A  trade unionist is content  to influence the affairs of state, not to capture the State.

“It is not the name of an organization nor its preamble, but the degree of working class knowledge possessed by its membership that determines whether or not it is a revolutionary body.... It is true that the act of voting in favour of an industrial as against the craft form of organization denotes an advance in the understanding of the commodity nature of labour power, but it does not by any means imply a knowledge of the necessity of the social revolution." Jack Kavanagh, One Big Union

Schools for Socialism?

There exists to-day, so many factions all claiming the course necessary to be taken by the working class towards its emancipation. The Socialist Party does not minimise the necessity and importance of the worker keeping up the struggle to maintain the wage-scale, resisting cuts. There are some signs however that general combativity is rising. Let's not forget that this is vital if our class is to develop some of the solidarity and self-confidence essential for the final abolition of wage slavery. Socialists recognise the necessity of workers' solidarity in the class struggle against the capitalist class, and rejoice in every victory for the workers to assert their economic power.

Trade unions are necessary, not to overthrow the present system, but to resist capitalist encroachment under the system. To struggle for higher wages and better conditions is not revolutionary in any fundamental sense of the word; and the essential weapons in this struggle are not revolutionary either. Industrial militancy is just that: militancy on the industrial field. Those who are most active in this do tend to have political views, generally of a left-wing nature, but it is not for these views that they are supported; it is for their negotiating skills and their ability to stand up to the bosses and express what their fellow workers feel about pay and working conditions. There have been numerous examples of shop stewards and works convenors who at work have been able to “mobilise” thousands of workers but who, when they have stood at elections for the Communist Party, have received only a few hundred votes. Industrial militancy does not lead to political militancy, but ebbs and flows as labour market conditions change – and industrial militants can in no way count on leading their supporters on or on to the political field. Most experienced industrial militants are well aware of this and wouldn’t dream of trying to.

To be sure, participation in the class struggle does not automatically make workers class conscious. Workers are not "reformist" because "the unions" make them so; rather the level of political consciousness within a union will be a reflection of the general consciousness of the working class at the time. If more militant members are losing the arguments then this reflects a wider passivity: something that is hardly surprising given the shattering defeats organised labour has suffered in Britain in recent decades. Trade unions can only be as militant and class conscious (and effective) as their memberships are, which must depend on the wider situation. (Though this isn't to take away from the damage done by servile union bosses) To create a dichotomy between "the unions" and "the workers" can only lead to a distorted analysis of the uses and limitations of union struggle. Ultimately the union and the workers are one and the same thing. If these workers have reformist outlook on life, i.e. believe that capitalism can be made to run in the interests of all, the unions must therefore have the same outlook; on the other hand if there were more revolutionary workers in the unions—and in society generally—then the unions would have a more revolutionary outlook, no longer harbouring any illusions about 'common national interests' . That would not in any way alter the essential nature and role of the trade unions as the defensive organisations of the working class; but it would make them far more effective fulfilling that role

Socialism demands the revolutionising of the workers themselves. This does not mean that workers should sit back and do nothing, the struggle over wages and conditions must go on. But once we have learned the hard lessons, it becomes clear that this is a secondary, defensive activity. The real struggle is to take the means of wealth production and distribution – the factories, farms, offices, mines etc. – into the common ownership and democratic control of the entire world community. Only by conscious and democratic action will such a socialist system of society be established. This means urging workers to want something more than what they once thought was "enough".

Socialists are accused of wanting "too much" because our aim is aim is a society in which the earth is the common property of all . The task of the Socialist Party is to show workers that it is a practical proposition which calls for their urgent attention in order to transform a picture of how we could live into a movement for how we shall live. To transform this desire into an immediancy for the working class. Democratic decisions will need to be made, not by leaders but by all interested people. That people are capable of organising their own affairs in common is one of the things that has clearly demonstrated. The socialist movement must be "the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority" (Communist Manifesto).

One school of thought in the working class political movement sees unofficial and wildcat strikes as bona fide rebellions, not only against the labour leaders, but against the capitalist system itself. This school views unofficial actions and wildcat strikes as the beginnings of a real rank and file movement which will eventually result in the workers throwing out the union bureaucrats, taking over the factories, establishing workers' councils and ultimately a "workers society" based on these councils. Often If one reads in leftist journals an impression that a tremendous political movement of the workers is under way. Yet these wildcats still remain purely economic struggles on the part of the workers. They have a grievance arising out of the conditions of their work, instinctively they bring to bear their only weapon, withdrawal of their labour. For a brief period the workers are aroused. They assail their union leaders in no uncertain terms. But they learn nothing of the role of these union leaders in support of capitalism because they do not understand the society under which they live. In a few days, after the wildcat is over, the workers return to their routine thinking.

Some believe these wildcat unofficial strikes can be used as a lever to push the workers along a political road, towards their "emancipation." How is this possible if the workers do not understand the political road, and are only engaging in economic struggles? The answer is that "leaders in-the-know" will direct the workers, much as a guide-dog leads a blind person. But more often than not these leaders will also try to lead the workers in the wrong direction, toward the wrong goals (nationalisation and state capitalism), as the workers later find out to their sorrow.

The socialist approach of education - rather than the non-socialist approach of leadership - is much better. Through education it can be pointed out to the workers that strikes arise out of the nature of capitalism, but that they are not the answer to the workers' problems. These economic struggles settle nothing decisively because in the end the workers still wear the chains of wage slavery. It is the political act of the entire working class to eliminate the exploitative relations between workers and capitalists which can furnish a final solution. The socialist teaches the nature of both capitalism and socialism, so that, armed with this understanding, the workers themselves can carry out the political act of their own emancipation. This is the lesson of all other outbursts of class struggle among the workers. These struggles can be used as a means of educating workers to the real political struggle - socialism. They should not be used as a means to gain leadership over the workers, or to lead them along a political path they do not understand.

Power to the people

There is no copyright on the term socialist and it is used by all sorts of people in all sorts of confused ways. The differences is that we contend that socialism can only logically and scientifically mean one thing

The capitalist class is only one of the two classes of capitalist society. The other is the working class. These two classes have no interests in common so that any party which takes on the task of governing is inevitably brought into conflict with the working class. The class struggle is a social phenomenon which cannot be abolished by mere pronouncement or by signing scraps of paper. It has its roots in the structure of society. Capitalism is based on the monopoly over the means of production by a minority, the capitalist class. As a result the working class are forced to work for this class.

And there is a struggle over the division of the product of labour. The share of the capitalist (profit, rent, interest) can only be increased at the expense of the share of the worker (wages) and vice versa. But this is not just a price struggle which can be settled by bargaining; it is a class struggle which can only be finally ended by the expropriation of the capitalist class.

This struggle takes place whether it is recognised for what it is or not. The trade unions in Britain, though to a certain limited extent an expression of this struggle, have never recognised this. They have regarded the struggle between employers and workers as a mere price struggle. They have sometimes acted on the assumption that there is a community of interests between employers and workers. Now trade unions have become an accepted part of the capitalist order in Britain. As long as the membership of the trade unions are not class-conscious, it can hardly be expected that the unions themselves would act on the principle of the class struggle. Although the trade unions are not all they might be as working class organisations, this does not detract one bit from the importance of trade unionism, of working class organisation on the economic field.

Ever since socialists first appeared and made the case for abolishing capitalism, they have had to contend with opponents voicing variations on the common theme of retaining that system. All of these reformers agree with each other in rejecting the Socialist argument that we can and should have a social system which will have no place for prices, wages, profits etc. They say that the human race cannot do without these things, and in any event has no need to waste time trying to do so because there is nothing wrong with them in principle, only with the way they are used. So at each general election we start a new round of schemes supposed to rid us of worries about prices, wages, strikes, monopolies and so on. And each succeeding election finds things just the same except that the government and opposition may have changed places.

The Socialist Party contends that the only way society will be transformed is for there to be a majority of workers who understand and want socialism. These workers must take away power from the capitalist minority. Just as workers give social power to the master class through the ballot box, so the ballot box can be used to show that a majority rejects capitalism and those who seek to run it. The ballot box will only be one part of the revolutionary process, the far greater part being the development of majority class consciousness and the building of an active movement by the revolutionary class. Unless political power is taken from the minority it will be used against the majority.

Of course, the precise details of the revolutionary change will differ from country to country depending on the political conditions (where legal ballots do not exist or cannot be trusted the workers must create our own) and it will also differ in accordance with different creative ideas about what needs to be done before the establishment of socialism which will emerge as the socialist movement grows. In this sense it is quite right to say that the millions of men and women who will be the architects of the new world. will decide the exact means by which the revolution is to occur. However, the revolutionary process cannot avoid democratic political action and still produce socialism. Without democratic action there will be no democratic society: without political action the state will be used to crush a non-political "socialist" movement. 

The Socialist Party cannot conceive of a way in which a socialist system of society will be established except by democratic means.