What is Socialism?

Definitions matter because imprecision leads to carelessness when clarity is necessary. The term “socialism” has been bandied about by all and sundry, to the point of risking losing its sting, its cutting edge, and becoming instead the catch-all for every social movements or the  political gymnastics antics of individuals claiming to be socialists. To use the term without explanation is to get one’s self and one’s cause seriously misunderstood. The word socialism dates from the early decades of the nineteenth century and was first used by Robert Owen but socialism is not the product of the isolated thinking of an individual.  Rather it is the product of many thinkers and activists.

Socialism is not a reform, it is a revolution. Socialists do not merely wish to patch up the present system and keep it. Old political parties, and new ones that are  springing up everyday advocate reform measures. The Socialist Party of Great Britain are not “reformers” — we are “revolutionists.” By revolution we do not
mean violence or bloodshed. The future may indeed see violence but if such should be the case it would be not the result of the instigation of socialists, but rather the result of the refusal of the ruling class to accept the will of a socialist majority. For socialism offers a possible, a peaceful solution. Socialism will arise from  the capture of the political power by the working class as opposed to the capitalist class. This is the essence of socialism. Whoever sees clearly and holds firmly the necessity of the organisation of the working class into an independent political party, distinct from and opposed to all capitalistic parties to capture democratically the powers of government” in order to carry out the principles of socialism; whoever holds this position of the Socialist Party.

Socialism is an economic proposition, however, the real strength of socialism lies in the  consistency of socialists in pointing out the concreteness of human society in each of its phases of development – in exhibiting socialism, not, indeed, in its details, but none the less in its general tendencies, as a coherent doctrine of social life, to which nothing human is foreign.  It is because the aim of socialism is the recognition of the economic change as being the basis upon which the other changes will he effected that the chief stress is laid upon the latter, and not because socialism has no interest in anything other than the technical economic transformation itself. The intellectual, emotional, artistic sensual  sides of human nature can not escape the influence of their material environment and their dependence on it, Even though these intellectual developments may follow an independent line of causation of its own this obtains only up to a certain point. In the long run material conditions of life assert their importance in modifying the “spiritual” side of things human. The socialist conviction involves a complete revolution in all departments of human life, and that though beginning with the economic change it does not end there. Socialism entails no compulsory abandonment either of current superstitions or of prevailing family relations, but merely leaves the way open for the transformation of traditional ways and modes of life by others more consistent with human freedom and more adapted to the new times than those that have been left behind.

 Socialism is the equal participation by all in the necessaries, comforts, and enjoyments of life and the people themselves will be organised to this end, with the means of production and distribution commonly owned by all and run in  the interest of the whole community. It is  commonly to be heard from the man-in-the-street the idea that socialism involves a spartan way of living and that we are against  luxury which  presupposes a saint-like quality  on the part of the individual. Even the old belief of the general liquidation and dividing up equally of existing wealth as being the economic goal of socialism, is not yet extinct. Nor is charity and alms-giving, whether good or bad, right or wrong, socialism.

 The direct aim of all practical socialists to-day is the transformation of private ownership and control by individuals or the State  of the means of production and exchange into their common ownership and control by the community at large. The word socialism, for many, has come to be applied to any activity of the state or municipal authority in an economic sphere. Hence any industrial or commercial enterprise undertaken by a governmental body is labelled socialism nowadays. State-ownership does not mean socialism. The State is an agent of the possessing classes and industrial or commercial undertakings run to-day by  the government are largely ran in the interests of these classes. Their aim in all cases is to show a profit, in the same way as ordinary capitalistic enterprises. This profit accrues to the possessing classes in the form of relief of taxation, mainly paid by them, interest on loans, etc. In other words these industrial undertakings are run for profit and not for use and their employees are little, if at all, better off than those of private employers.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has always maintained that the change from capitalism to socialism would be a fundamental change, that is, we would have a complete reorganisation of society, that this change would not be a question of reform; that the capitalist system of society would be completely changed and that that system would give way to a new system of society based on common ownership and the democratic control of the means of production and distribution.

What is capitalism? Capitalism is that system of society in which the means of production and distribution are owned by a few individuals for their own profit. You take the large industrial plants. You take the land, you take the banks, you take the railways, you take all of the factories that have to do with production, take all the means of distribution, and you will discover that they are owned by a few individuals or corporations, by financial institutions, for the profits that can be derived from these institutions. Socialists maintain that all our institutions are based on labour-power of the working-people. Labour- power is essential to make them valuable and to provide profits for those that own and control them. All of our institutions are based on the labour-power of the working person. Without that labour-power society could not exist. Not a wheel could turn. Value could not be produced. That is very easily recognisable. Suppose Bill Gates with all of his wealth and all of his stocks and shares and bonds,would go to the Sahara Desert and pile his securities sky high to the billions of dollars, and stay there himself, do you think that value would be produced? Do you think that the assets would be valuable? Do you think that he could get for himself the comforts of life? Not at
all. Bill Gates could stand there, look at his paper mountain of shares and he could not get something to drink, and he could not get anything to eat. But you can take a group of workers. Taken them from any section of the world, bring them to a place and tell them to get busy and make life worth living. And what will you have? What will you find? That the workers will get on the job, they will use their labour-power, by their creating ability they will build a society in which workers of every degree enjoy the comforts and pleasure of life. All of our wonderful institutions, our boasted civilisation, has been the result of the creating ability of the working men who use brains and muscle power. Capitalism controls the creative power of labour for its own particular advantage.

Our era is that of the passage of capitalism to socialism, the era of the struggle between two opposing social systems, the era of socialist revolution and that of the overthrow of capitalism. The fundamental question is which will win out – socialism or capitalism?

Food for thought

In the continuing debate about chemical weapons used in Syria, horror is the usual reaction-' against the rules of war', say some. It is a truly diabolical event but does that make blowing people up or developing bullets that rip a body apart, legitimate? Let's get a real perspective on the whole business of war here! John Ayers

THE PRODUCT OF CAPITALISM

An example of how awful capitalist production is can be grasped from a recent example from China. School was cancelled, traffic was nearly paralyzed and the airport was shut down in the northeast Chinese city of Harbin on Monday as off-the-charts pollution dropped visibility to less than 10 meters in parts of the provincial capital. A dark, grey cloud that the local weather bureau described as "heavy fog" has shrouded the city of 10 million since Thursday, but the smoke thickened significantly on Sunday, soon after the government turned on the coal-powered municipal heating system for the winter. "You can't see your own fingers in front of you, the city's official news site explained helpfully. In the same vein, a resident of Harbin on Sina Weibo, the popular microblog platform, "You can hear the person you are talking to, but not see him." (New York Times, 21 October) Awful? Yes, but as long as the profits come rolling in - who cares? RD

Revolution! Not Reforms!

 The aim of the Socialist Party of Great Britain to establish socialism and abolish the right of one person to rob another. Our aim is the unity of the working class movement, and the political unification in one party based on socialist principles. The trade union struggle is the defensive struggle of the workers against their employers. It is an expression of the irreconcilable antagonism between the two great classes of modern society.  At first resistance took the form of isolated outbursts, of smashing machines, of blindly striking out at the capitalists. But soon the individual workers learnt that their oppression is common and that their resistance must be collective. At this point the workers combine into unions, the first, most immediate form of organisation available to them. Through the unions the workers wage a united struggle of resistance, confronting the employing class with one voice, demanding better wages and working conditions, testing their strength through downing their tools, and wringing concessions from the government for improved labour laws for the entire working class. Even when the trade unions are under rank and file control, they cannot on their own,  protect and advance the long-term interests of the working class, cannot touch the foundations of capitalist exploitation. The trade unions can bargain with the capitalists over wages, but they cannot bargain away the wages system. They are geared only to look after the workers immediate interests, to wage a defensive, economic struggle. That is the limit of trade unionism in general. And this is the reason why the working class must have its own political organisation, an organisation which combines the struggle for the workers immediate interests with the struggle for the long-term interests of the entire working class into a consistently waged class struggle. Our task is not only to fight for better terms in the sale of labour-power, but to fight for the abolition of the capitalist system that compels the working class to sell themselves as wage-slaves. We must utilise the economic struggle to teach the workers that their fundamental economic interests can only be satisfied by the destruction of the entire capitalist system and the creation of a socialist society.

Nowhere in the world has socialism been established. The struggle for socialism is the struggle for socialist consciousness. The Left has failed to raise the prospect of what could be achieved by socialism but, rather, advanced arguments for the more efficient management of capitalism. Our argument with the Left and the policies it is advocating is not that they would not benefit the working class, but that measured against the criterion of achieving socialism which is, after all, what socialists  has as its goal, they fall far short. In other words, we would argue that whatever the rhetoric of the Left-wing, it nevertheless remains an ideology of capitalism, and has been utilised as a method of ingratiating capital to the working class. The Labour Party no longer even claims to represent working class interests. On the contrary, it sets out not to present a class interest, but a non-existent “national interest” common to all classes.  Their motive for production would remain profit, the relations of production would remain capitalist relations. There is nothing new here, since Labour Governments have always sought to bolster capital with public subsidy. Nowhere are the problems inherent to the capitalist mode of production dealt with; there is no mention of the class struggle – only of the national interest. All that the Labour Party has laid claim to do up to now is to be able to manage the capitalist ship of state better than anyone else. It has never seen itself – either in its policies or its propaganda – as being, despite its name, a party which represents the working class. It has consistently been a party for “the nation as a whole”. It has claimed to represent the capitalist millionaire ruling establishment as much as the working class.

The class struggle was not invented by Marx. It is a fact, which exists whether we wish it or not. While capitalism lasts, so too will the inevitable class struggle. The change from capitalism to socialism, from capitalist dictatorship to the democratic  rule of the working class, is a revolution and the most far-reaching revolution in human history. That is the objective of the SPGB. 

A CANCEROUS SYSTEM

The World Health Organisation may be a very scientific and worthy organisation but it is also a very naive one. 'Pollutants in the air we breathe have been classed as a leading environmental cause of cancer by the World Health Organization. It said the evidence was clear they cause lung cancer. Sources of pollution include car exhausts, power stations, emissions from agriculture and industry - as well as heating in people's homes.The WHO said the classification should act as a strong message to governments to take action.' (BBC News, 17 October) Governments inside capitalism have one priority - protect the production for profit system at all costs. The continuing use of asbestos after it was well known as a killer substance is ample evidence of that. RD

ANOTHER CUNNING RUSE

The former Labour health secretary Alan Milburn, now part of the government's Social and Mobility and Child Poverty Commission has said that working parents in Britain "simply do not earn enough to escape poverty", and that two-thirds of poor children are now from families where an adult works. 'In its first report, the government's Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission warned the target of ending child poverty by 2020 would "in all likelihood be missed by a considerable margin" - leaving as many as two million children in poverty. Poverty is defined as having a household income that is less than 60% of the national median income. The latest government figures on poverty, released in June, show the median UK household income for 2011/2012 was £427 a week - 60% of that figure was £256 a week.' (BBC News, 17 October) Surviving on £37 a day may be difficult for a family but the former Labour health secretary has suggested some benefits currently protected from cuts - such as free TV licences and winter fuel allowances for pensioners - could be means tested. Wow, cut benefits to the poor to assist those even poorer - brilliant! RD

The Socialist Revolution – Why we need it and how to get it

What will such a socialist society look like?

To use the word “socialism” for anything but working people’s power is to misuse the term. Nationalisation is not socialism. Nationalisation is simply state capitalism, with no relation to socialism. Nor is the “Welfare State” socialist.  “Welfare” in  capitalism means to improve the efficiency of the worker as a profit-maker and is not socialism but another form of state capitalism. It can be an improvement on capitalism with no welfare or safety net , just as a 40-hour week is an improvement on a 60-hour week. But it is not socialism.

Capitalism by itself will not “evolve” into socialism. We do not think it any longer necessary to attempt proof of the need for revolution if we are to achieve socialism, i.e. to develop a classless society. It has to be transformed into socialism by the conscious action and struggle of men and women. The means of production and distribution —the factories, mines, land, and transport—are taken from the capitalists and transformed into social property. This means that they belong to and are worked by the whole of the people, that the fruits of production likewise become social property, used to advance the standard of life of all the people. When we speak of the means of production, the wealth of the country, we mean that wealth which is necessary for the production of the necessities of the people. The industries, the railroads, mines, and so on. We don’t propose the elimination of private property in personal effects. We speak of those things which are necessary for the production of the people’s needs. They shall be owned in common by all the people. No longer can the capitalists by virtue of the fact that they own the means of production, live off  the labour of the working class. No longer are the workers compelled to sell their labour power to the capitalists in order to live. What is produced is no longer divided between the workers’ wages and the surplus taken by the capitalists. The workers are no longer property-less but now collectively own the means of production and work them in their own interests and in the interests of society. For society is now composed or workers by hand and head, i.e. of an associated body of wealth-producers.  Socialism cannot be imposed on the people from above. It develops from below. Socialism is rule by the working people. They will decide how socialism is to work.  Mankind for the first time will be taking charge of its own destiny. We will no longer have things happening to us. We will be deciding what is to happen.

Workers are in a position to establish a socialist society, on the one condition that they themselves wish to do so, i.e. that they understand that this is both necessary and possible. Capitalism, by its method of production, has brought isolated workers together and constituted them as a class in society. Capitalism has made the workers a class in themselves. That is, the workers are a distinct class in society, whether they recognise this fact or not. "I" began to merge with "We" and personal desires with collective strivings.  Historical development calls upon this class to reorganise society completely and establish socialism. To do this, the workers must become a class for themselves. They must acquire a clear understanding of their real position under capitalism, of the nature of capitalist society as a whole, and of their mission in history. They must act consciously for their class interests. They must become conscious of the fact that these class interests lead to a socialist society. When this takes place, the workers are a class for themselves, a class with socialist consciousness.

Workers do not in general accept or seek socialism, but increasingly many do reject capitalism and its values. The need for change is widely realised. It is up to socialists to win them over with a clear, thoroughgoing understanding of capitalist society, their position in it, and the need to replace this society with socialism, explaining what is needed is a social revolution, the replacement of one ruling class by another. We can use only the power of persuasion and no other power. History is filled with revolutions and in almost every case they made possible the progress of society.  Capitalism is maintained by class power and will only be displaced by other class power. The socialist revolution is simply the overthrow of capitalist despotism and the establishment of workers’ rule. The fact that we want a majority of the people to accept our ideas proves beyond all doubt that we want a peaceful transformation.  There may be the possibility that the social revolution will be accompanied by violence but we hope that the ruling class when confronted by a majority determined to establish a new social system will see the advisability of giving in peacefully. The Socialist Party does not advocate violence. We want a peaceful transformation. We want to take over the means of production peacefully but if a minority try to use violence to prevent the majority from achieving this peaceful transformation, then the majority will be prepared to respond in kind to the violence of that minority who may endeavour  to thwart the will of the majority. We are, of course, not pacifists. However, socialists shall try to exhaust all possibilities for peaceful change. The revolution is to be achieved democratically with the support of a majority of the masses.

Ineos - the Capitalist Black-mailer

Yet again Ian Bell of the Herald appears to be on the bell with his latest article which the following are extracts, as reading The Herald online is now protected by a pay-wall subscription.

“When the Unite union threatened a strike for this weekend, the company asserted that Scotland would be shut down by a reckless action. Yet with the threat averted, Ineos elects to close its site regardless. It, too, has demands.

Ineos would blame trades unionists for that, of course. Ineos always blames trades unionists. The  Swiss-based concern and Jim Ratcliffe, its multi-billionaire (worth upwards of £3 billion in 2010) ,main shareholder and chairman, have no record of embracing unions. Instead, since 1998, Ineos has grown by cutting wages, stripping out pension schemes and altering working practices.

Ineos wants to be rid of a pension scheme it deems "unaffordable". Once again, it wants to pay less in wages. Not for the first time, duress is inherent in each and every company statement. If workers do not comply, a £300 million investment required for "long-term survival" will not be forthcoming.

The union analysis shows a company describing capital expenditure as a loss. This is an unusual, if perfectly legal, accounting practice, to put it no higher. It shows that the deferring of a tax allowance of £117m implies an expectation of a half-billion profit in the years ahead. It shows that the growth in both sales and operating profit could hardly be healthier. But Ineos won't have it: all such views are "naive" and fail to grasp why a conglomerate would shuffle money between its divisions.

What is plain is that, having faced down the possibility of a strike for which it was strangely well-prepared, the footloose multinational is now exerting maximum pressure on its workforce, the politicians and the general population. The charge is that unions, those which once supposedly "held the country to ransom", have nothing on Ineos.

This is industrial relations in the modern style. If employees are a bar to profit, reduce their cost. If politicians quibble, make them aware of how much they depend on the company to keep the public quiet. Grangemouth contains Scotland's only refinery. Until we cure the oil addiction, it could hardly be more important. But it operates on the whim of a billionaire with his headquarters in Switzerland.

Grangemouth workers do well enough, by most standards. Why should they not? Like their colleagues in oil extraction they do hard, essential work on which the country depends, work from which multinationals extract profits vastly greater than any wage bill. Ineos prefers not to regard productive labour in those terms. Workers are the human nuisances in otherwise flawless accounting procedures.

Now, even for decently-paid industrial workers such as the people at Grangemouth, the terms have been altered. The deal is that there is no deal. One million of the young unemployed, and among those younger and a little older, know this far better than the rest of us.

At the heart of it all are the big employers. They've had all the tax breaks, subsidies and helpful legislation they could ever demand. For thanks, they avoid their obligations, reduce their workers to peasants, and treat government as a helpline. These are oligarchs regarding the inhabitants of a democracy as serfs. The question becomes: for how much longer will the serfs tolerate that treatment?”

Our time is now.

Alex Salmond told the SNP  conference that it was Scotland's time to be independent.

Marx helped to replace an early international organisation of the working class that had the fairly passive slogan “All Men Are Brothers” with the watchword with the instructive “Working Men of All Countries, Unite!”  They did so because history was demonstrating conclusively that the proletariat is the revolutionary class, that the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie is the struggle propelling mankind forward to the communist society which will liberate mankind from the reign of classes forever. The struggle of the working class takes place on a world-wide scale to defeat the capitalists on a world-wide scale. Socialists  “always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole”. This means the simple solidarity of one worker with another, irrespective of nationality.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain views the modern world as one inter-linked and inter-dependent economic unit. No country is self-sufficient. It is impossible to solve the accumulated problems of the present day, except on a world scale; no nation is self-sufficient, and no nation can stand alone. We believe that the wealth of the world, the raw materials of the world, and the natural resources of the world are so distributed over the earth that every country contributes something and lacks something for a rounded and harmonious development of the productive forces of mankind. We visualise the future society of mankind as world  socialism which will have a division of labour between the various regions according to their resources, a comradely collaboration between them, and production of the necessities and luxuries of mankind according to an overall world plan.

We think that the solution of the problem of the day—the establishment of socialism—is a world problem, we believe that the advanced workers in every country must collaborate in working toward that goal. We have, from the very beginning of our movement, collaborated with like-minded people in all other countries in trying to promote the socialist movement on a world scale. We have advocated the international organisation of the workers, and their cooperation in all respects, and mutual assistance in all respects possible.  The Socialist Party is opposed to all forms of national chauvinism, race prejudice and discrimination.  Nationalism  belittles, humiliates and rejects all that is foreign, and proclaims everything of its own as "pure". There is  no country superior to any other.

Everywhere in the world, a study of the national question reveals the use of differences by the ruling class as the foundation for its strategy of "divide and rule," of fomenting strife and friction between the toilers of various nationalities. In the ideology of race, the dominant classes have a much more potent weapon at their disposal than even religion and language. The latter, as social phenomena, are historically transient; whereas race, a physical category, persists. Unlike the white immigrant minorities, the black or brown immigrant, wears the badge of colour, which sets the seal of permanency on his inferior status.

In next year’s Independence referendum  there are only two groups officially sanctioned to campaign – those for the YES and the others for the NO.  It prevents the working class from freely propagating its own position. We unequivocably reject this.

A YES vote is a vote to reorganise capitalism in favour of Scotland’s bourgeoisie, which is after its share of the wealth. The SNP would use its power to collect tax to continue to subsidise Scottish capitalists. In an independent Scotland, the SNP would ask us to further tighten our belts in the interests of the “nation,” i.e. to profit Scottish employers. In an independent Scotland exploitation will still exist. The privileged handful that dominates our country will continue to profit from our exploitation .

Many workers are still drawn towards a YES vote despite the SNP’s alliance with capitalists. At least, they say, it is a step in the right direction, since independence will put an end to 300-odd years of “oppression”.  Scottish workers in order to maintain the competitiveness of Scotland’s business interests will always come second. Nor can the SNP’s plans for separation cannot eliminate the inequalities faced by the vast majority of Scottish workers.

Independence and separation means dividing the working class. This would divert the revolution from its socialist objective by weakening it in the fight to overthrow the capitalist class. Workers must unite to become the greatest possible force against capitalism. But separation would leave  the working class more isolated in the fight against the capitalist class.

A NO vote means simply supporting the status quo and a vote for Westminster and UK bosses. A choice of the pox against the plague.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain affirms an independent working class position that refuses to line up behind either of the two capitalist camps. We are fighting ALL nation chauvinism and for the unity of the WORLD working class. Our alternative is to continue the battle for socialism in Scotland and Britain, in Europe and throughout the globe.

Spoil your referendum ballot with the revolutionary slogan “world for the workers”

Socialist education - a lesson from an anarchist

“To escape its wretched lot,” wrote Bakunin in ‘God, and the State,’, “the populace has three ways, two imaginary and one real. The two first are drink and the church, the third is the social revolution.”

A social revolution is necessary yet we are faced by the old problem. A socialist society, a co-operative commonwealth, needs socialists for its realisation.  We are shackled and gagged by the system under which we work. The socialist does not preach, we educate. Our  aim is a real social reconstruction and in spite of all the hindrances thrown in the way by those interested in the preservation of the existing order, we must enable our fellow workers to attain a full and clear knowledge of the facts about society. The state exists to defend the existing order; and the people who draw profit, rent, and interest, control education. Our masters will not teach the truth. They are indeed incapable of seeing the truth as the subject class sees it. Antagonism of interests between two classes of society means antagonistic views as regards the desirability or otherwise of “reconstruction” The socialist movement has its basis in the antagonism of interests existing between capital and labour. He and she must grow class conscious, must become fully aware of the existence and nature of the class struggle, must learn how they can employ their energies in the movement by which class rule will ultimately be overthrown. Our aim,therefore, is simply the education of the workers in the interests of the workers. This movement of independent working-class education is world-wide.

The people would make the revolution, but to help on the birth of the revolution we must, according to Bakunin, “first spread among the masses thoughts that correspond to the instincts of the masses.....what keeps, the salvation-bringing thought from going through the labouring masses with a rush? Their ignorance, and particularly the political and religious prejudices which, thanks to the exertions of the ruling classes, to this day obscure the labourer’s natural thought and healthy feelings .... Hence we must aim at making the worker completely conscious of what he wants and evoking in him the thought that corresponds to his impulses. If once the thoughts of the labouring masses have mounted to the level of their impulses, then will their will be soon determined and their power irresistible.” (Memoir of the Jurassic Federation)

Bakunin in effect says that socialist education will be the midwife of the social revolution.

The so-called flood of immigrants?

• In the year to 30 June, 45,100 people came to Scotland from the rest of the UK and 42,100 people left Scotland for other parts of the UK.
• In the same time, 35,900 people came to Scotland from overseas and 26,200 people left Scotland to go overseas.
• This movement of people increased the population by about 9,700

Class War

Ineos using the old tricks to get what it wants – a broken union and compliant workers

The current Ineos dispute is a classic case of corporate blackmail and union-busting combined.

A company that has expanded rapidly in a short space of time by buying other companies’ operations is now in the process of cutting labour costs in order to try to square the circle. It wants an increased return on its investments and to pay off the debt incurred in buying the new operations. The surest way of doing so is to reduce workers’ terms and conditions.

It’s using all the oldest tricks in the book to break the union and undermine pay and pensions.

First, it targets one of the union’s officials on spurious grounds. To get rid of him would decapitate and demoralise the union. Next, it pleads poverty. Then it presses the nuclear button by going for a cold shutdown, effectively saying to the workforce: “Unless you give us these concessions, don’t expect to have a job as the temporary shutdown just might become a permanent one.”

In making its case, it has dispensed with talking to Unite because Unite won’t agree to give the company exactly what it wants. It tries to paint Unite as being unreasonable, despite the union frequently offering talks at Acas and being willing to discuss some concessions.

Instead, it walks away from talks and informs workers directly: here’s the deal – we want your individual responses by Monday because we’re meeting our shareholders on Tuesday. This is a metaphorical gun to their heads.

No doubt the company hopes that when workers consider their response over the weekend, the wives, partners, parents and families will be saying: “Don’t you think it’s better to have a job (even with these concessions) rather than no job at all?”

If Ineos wanted to change terms and conditions in an equally brutal but more conventional way, it could have issued Section 188 redundancies that lawfully allow a period of redundancy consultation whereupon all workers are re-hired on inferior terms and conditions. Hundreds of public and private employers have done this since the financial crash.

It’s not nice, but it does not mean derecognising Unite. If Unite does give in, this will be the beginning of a slippery slope. The workforce will not be in a position to refuse requests for further concessions.

Given an inch, Ineos will gladly ask for a mile.

• Gregor Gall is professor of industrial relations at the University of Bradford.

No "Free" Scotland

Alex Salmond opened the SNP's annual conference with a rousing call for independence – but quickly had to leave for talks that are an illustration of the lack of economic independence Scotland would possess.

Switzerland-based since it moved its HQ in 2010 to reduce its tax bill, after the Labour government refused to allow it to defer payments at the peak of the credit crunch in 2008,  Ineos has put proposals over pay and pensions to workers at the Grangemouth complex, which has 1,400 employees and many more contractors. The proposal includes freezing the basic salary and offering no bonuses until at least the end of 2016. The shift allowance would also be reduced from £10,000 to £7,500 per year, while pensions would be transferred from a final salary to a defined benefits scheme. It has also asked for guarantees that no further strike action will be held by workers. The company has said Grangemouth is "financially distressed" and must reduce costs. The company had told staff they could lose their jobs and be re-employed on poorer terms unless they agreed to the new conditions by 18:00 on Monday. Ineos delivered a  warning that the plant will have to be shut within three years, with heavy job losses, unless the company secures a government loan guarantee and cuts. The union disputes the company's analysis of the financial situation at the plant, and says that the company as a whole is making large profits. Unite  released an analysis of Grangemouth's finances by tax consultant Richard Murphy. He disputed Ineos's claims and said Grangemouth Chemicals – the only accounts he could find – made a profit in 2012 and was expecting £117m of tax gains that could only occur if the company earned £500m over the next few years.  Murphy said total labour costs, including exceptional pension expenses, were 16.9% of revenue and total labour costs "should not be a critical cause for concern".

Pat Rafferty, Unite's Scottish secretary, said: "This is cynical blackmail from a company that is putting a gun to the heads of its loyal workforce to slash pay, pensions and jobs...It is increasingly clear that the company is deliberately generating a dispute and hiding behind fancy accounting to attack its own workforce."”

For the Socialist Party of Great Britain neither geographical boundaries, race, nor creed makes rivals or enemies; for us there are no nations, but only varied masses of workers and friends, whose mutual sympathies are checked or perverted by groups of masters whose interest it is to stir up rivalries and hatreds between the dwellers in different lands.  The Socialist Party embraces all humanity. Socialism, founded the class struggle, has thoroughly killed in our hearts all national sentiment. It is better to be a traitor to your country than a traitor to your class. What matters it to the poor who are starving whether the country in which he or she is hungry is owned by this ruler or that ruler, if his or her miserable status changes not?

What are nationalities or nations? Among peoples there are no nations and nationalities any more, in the sense of a racial community. The Italians are a hybrid people: Romans, Greeks, Germans, Arabs, Celts, Phoenicians (Carthaginians);  so are the Spaniards: Celts, Iberians, Carthaginians (Phoenicians), Romans, Germans; so are the French: Celts, Greeks, Romans, Germans; so are the British: Celts, Romans, Germans; so are the Germans: Celts, Germans, Romans, Slavs.  No one any longer has a fatherland or motherland in the large and heterogeneous modern nations.

The love for the land of our birth is foolish, absurd, and the enemy of progress. We are taught that Britain is the land of the brave, the country of generosity and chivalry, and the refuge of liberty and we all, in the innocence of our hearts, believe it even though the same things are said of their countries by Germans, by the Russians, and the French. Our history  books on every page  reek with race hatred, national vanity and idolatry of the military.

All countries whatever may be the government ideology  with which they are labeled – are composed of two groups of men, one by far the less numerous, the other embracing the immense majority of the people.

The first group is seated at a well-spread table, where nothing is lacking. At the head of the table, at the place of honour, are seated the great financiers. Some are Jews, yes; others are Catholics; others, again, are Protestants, some even atheists. They may be in disagreement on religious or philosophic questions, and even on questions of interest, but, as against the great mass of the people, they work together like thieves at a fair. On their right and on their left are the cabinet ministers, the great officials of all the state services, civil, religious and military, and the gentlemen of the courts of law, judges and lawyers. And then there are the big shareholders of the mines, factories, railways and shipping companies, and the big stores, great squires and great landed proprietors, they are all at that table.

Far from that table are the beasts of burden, condemned to forbidding, dirty, dangerous and mindless toil, without respite or repose, and, above all, without security for the morrow; small tradesmen, confined to their counters 24/7, and more and more crushed out every day by the competition of the big stores; small industrial employers, ground out of existence by the competition of the big factory owners; small-holder farmers, brutalised by long hours of labour, 16 to 18 hours a day, and only working to enrich the big middlemen and the super-markets. Still farther off from the table of the prosperous are the great mass of the proletarians, those who for their whole fortune have only their arms and their brains; working men and women of the factory, exposed to long periods of unemployment; petty officials, clerks, and other employee, obliged to bow their heads and hide their opinions; domestic servants of both sexes, flesh for toil, flesh for cannon, flesh for lust.

Monstrous social inequality, monstrous exploitation of man by man, that is what a country is nowadays, and that is what the workers take off their hats to when the flag is carried by. They seem to say: “Oh, how beautiful is our country! Oh, how free”

The national struggle is harmful to the workers.  Nationalist slogans and goals distract the workers from their specifically proletarian goals. They divide the workers of different nations; they provoke the mutual hostility of the workers and thus destroy the necessary unity of the proletariat. They line up the workers and the bosses shoulder to shoulder in one front, thus obscuring the workers' class consciousness and transforming the workers into the executors of capitalist economic policy. National struggles prevent the assertion of social questions and  condemn the class struggle to sterility. All of this is encouraged by “socialist” propaganda when it presents nationalist slogans to the workers as valid and when it uses the language of nationalism in the description of our socialist goal. The re-establishment of an independent Scotland has no place in socialist propaganda.

The worker has nothing to do with the necessity of competition between the vying bourgeois classes, with their will to constitute a nation. For us, the nation does not mean the privilege of securing a customer base or market positions. Under the rule of capitalism the nation can never be synonymous with a labour monopoly for workers or guaranteed opportunities for work. In the trade union struggle, workers of different nationalities see themselves confronted by the same employer. They must wage their struggle united.The absurdity where the workers in the same workshop are organised in different trade unions and  stand in the way of the common struggle against the employer is obvious. These workers constitute a community of interests; they can only fight and win as a cohesive mass and therefore must be members of a single organisation. The separatists, by introducing the separation of workers by nationalities shatter the power of the workers in the same way.  This is not only true for the workers in one factory but for workers the world over. To all the nationalist slogans and arguments, the response will be: surplus value,  class rule, class struggle. When nationalists speak of the unity of the nation, we will speak of exploitation and class oppression. If they speak of the greatness of the nation, we will speak of the solidarity of the workers of the whole world. The class struggle and propaganda for socialism comprise the sole effective means of breaking the power of nationalism. The  power of nationalism will  be broken not by independence, whose realization does not depend upon us, but  by the strengthening of class consciousness.  Our politics and our agitation can only be directed to awaken class consciousness in workers.

The poor health of the poor

The gap between rich and poor is leading to thousands of unnecessary deaths in Scotland, health experts say. NHS Health Scotland examined 30 years of health trends and found large differences in preventable causes of death across social groups. It revealed that there was little difference in death rates from non-preventable diseases such as brain and ovarian cancer, but large differences in more preventable causes like alcohol-related deaths and heart disease. The common factor suggested for the persistence of health inequalities was social inequalities.

Dr Gerry McCartney, head of the public health observatory at NHS Health Scotland, said: "Health inequalities represent thousands of unnecessary and unjust deaths per year across almost all social groups in Scotland.”

Director of Public Health Science Andrew Fraser said these patterns of death were not inevitable. "The answers lie in tackling the causes of inequalities, and not just the recognised causes of disease. Patterns of death that are evident in this report are the end-points of circumstances that span Scottish life rather than focus on a particular disease group. Prevention is achievable, and inequalities are not inevitable."

Sadly, Socialist Courier would not agree that inequalities are not inevitable. Capitalism creates such inequality and until capitalism disappears, disparities in health will persist. Nor are we alone in our pessimism. Inequality Briefing – a collective project supported by a range of organisations and individuals, on their website states: "Inequality has been growing for the last 30 years. The gap between rich and poor is the widest since the second world war... If current trends continue, we will have reached Victorian levels of inequality in 20 years." It continues: "Inequality has an impact on all aspects of life in Britain today. It means that some families are going hungry, children are left behind. Health and life expectancy of the poor are lower than that of the rich. Social mobility is at its lowest point in a generation and those born into poverty are likely to stay there."

Fact of the Day

The Indigenous Australian (Aboriginal ) population dropped from about 1 million to 0.1 million in the first century after invasion in 1788 from disease, deprivation and violence [1, 6] (TCHO fails to detail the ongoing ethnocide in which 500 tribes and 250 languages reduced to several dozen. The “full-blood” Tasmania Indigenous population dropped from possibly 10,000 to zero.

In terms of difference in life expectancies between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians of 11.5 years lower for Aboriginal for men and 9.5 years lower for Aboriginal women.

http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/32441-cambridge-history-of-australia.html

Fact of the Day

Okay for some.

The chief executive of pubs group JD Wetherspoon has landed a near 30% hike in his pay and bonus package to £1.1 million.

John Hutson saw his total pay and shares swell through a £95,000 cash bonus, as well as £109,000 worth of shares under a long-term incentive scheme and a £358,000 share windfall in deferred payments from a 2005 plan.

Food Facts

The world currently produces enough calories to overfeed every human—presently,about 2,700 calories per head—and yet the world, as a whole, is underfed. The reality is in no small part due to the overwhelming inefficiency of our global food production and consumption. A third of the food we produce is used to feed animals; another third is wasted; and roughly 5% is used to produce biofuels.

One billion cattle confined in cattle farms occupy about a quarter of the land on the planet, and 2) our taste for livestock is already a leading cause of global warming. Roughly 15% of world carbon emissions stem from the meat industry. The worst offender by far is the cattle industry. The beef and dairy industries alone account for a tenth of global emissions.

 In the US, some 70% of people are obese or overweight; in Latin America and Europe, nearly 60% are. 

The most abundant biological resource on earth, marine microalgae, has not previously been used directly in food production. Also called phytoplankton, microalgae can grow up to 50 times faster than land plants. Indeed one gram of microalgae can grow to several tonnes in only ten days. With such a high productivity rate, this resource therefore offers a huge potential for intensive production of food or animal feed in the future.

According to the United Nations, increased aquaculture production and exploitation of new marine resources are the main basis for food production in the future. Norway produces salmon corresponding to roughly 37 million dinner-sized portions each day, and demand is increasing annually. 

In Nigeria, 27 percent of families experience foodless days. In India it is 24 percent, in Peru 14 percent.

World hunger is caused not by a lack of food but by capitalism that concentrate power in the hands of a few corporations.

Frances Moore Lappe  is the author of the 1971 bestseller “Diet for a Small Planet”. She says,  we must shift from a “scarcity mind” to “ecomind,” one that does not see growing more food as the solution. “The fundamental premise is fear-driven — that there’s not enough,” said Lappe. “The message from the biotech industry is, ‘The world is running out of food. Starvation is around the corner without us. Trust us.’ That leads to the conclusion that we’ve got to give up our power to big corporations.”  Monsanto “are part of a system that is at the root of hunger — the concentration of power, the lack of transparency in the biotech industry.”

Lappe even critiques the notion that genetically modified seeds create higher yields, citing a New Zealand study comparing yields from non-GMO crops in Western Europe with GMO crops in the U.S., which found no difference. “What we need is seeds that don’t make people dependent on purchased things they cannot afford.”


She argues that in the last 30 years, the Green Revolution has hardly reduced hunger. “If it weren’t for China’s progress since 1990, worldwide we’d have managed to cut hunger by 6 percent — leaving 842 million still chronically hungry. ”

The Banksters

The Financial Conduct Authority allows banks accused of mis-selling “swap” loans to appoint external reviewers and devise their own processes. They are paying former treasury bankers £1000 a day to conduct reviews whilst telling customers they do not need expert help in the process. If a client's complaint is rejected, however, he is then told by the bank to seek independent advice. The customer has to identify exactly what was wrong with the sale and what the bank should have done, though he didn't understand it at the time.

Former Bank of Ireland banker Scott Cowan, has said banks are discouraging customers from seeking support in the review process, whilst deploying £1000-a-day bankers and up to two lawyers across the table. He said one client had contacted him on the eve of a meeting at his home, involving two lawyers and a banker, which was to be recorded. "In any other walk of life, you would not want to go into a recorded meeting with two lawyers without getting some advice.

Edinburgh law firm MBM Commercial has already warned that banks have "a series of set questions aimed at eliciting material which will enable them to exclude the customer from the review and so block any redress".

Quote of the month

Quote of the month – as reported in the Toronto Star, August 17 - when John Larson, the former chairman of the House of Congress Democratic Caucus, was asked why the Democrats did not make minimum wage an election issue, he replied, "They think they'll raise less money from the Walmarts, the fast food industry etc."

Food for thought

Recently, singer Neil Young compared Fort McMurray, Alberta, the home base of Keystone XL Pipeline to an atom bomb strike, " The fact is it looks like Hiroshima. Fort McMurray is a wasteland. The Indians up there and the native people are dying. The fuel's all over, there's fumes everywhere. You can smell it when you get to town." Young's comments came the same day that Canada's Natural Resources Minister, Joe Oliver, was in Washington talking up Canada's environmental policy and the Keystone project designed to carry Alberta Oil Sands bitumen to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast. "This is truly a disaster and America is supporting this" Young said. In short, money rules and to hell with the environment and people's lives! John Ayers.

Food for thought

The BRIC countries are in something of a slump. The New York Times wrote, " India's once booming economy is sliding into a deep slump. The country grew just 4.4% this summer, a far cry from the 7.7% average for the past decade." Capital is flying away to better fields and, at least for now, the dream of plucking millions out of poverty is on hold. Just another day in (capitalist) paradise! John Ayers.

Food for thought

In the continuing debate about chemical weapons used in Syria, horror is the usual reaction-' against the rules of war', say some. It is a truly diabolical event but does that make blowing people up or developing bullets that rip a body apart, legitimate? Let's get a real perspective on the whole business of war here! John Ayers.

Food for thought

A Toronto meat packer works fifty to sixty hours a week to make ends meet on minimum wage, $10.25/h. A Call Centre worker cannot afford new clothing or other personal things on $10.25. Last week, York University students staged a flash mob dance (?) in support of a $14/h minimum. This would undoubtedly help somewhat but why stop there? Surely if this situation has always existed and always will, why not get rid of the wages system altogether? Too much common sense? John Ayers.

NO SYMPATHY FOR THE UNEMPLOYED

Many workers foolishly imagine that a future Labour government would be more sympathetic to the unemployed than the present government, but they should pay attention to what the Labour Party's position really is. 'Labour will be tougher than the Tories when it comes to slashing the benefits bill, Rachel Reeves, the new shadow work and pensions secretary, has insisted in her first interview since winning promotion in Ed Miliband's frontbench reshuffle. The 34-year-old Reeves, who is seen by many as a possible future party leader, said that under Labour the long-term unemployed would not be able to "linger on benefits" for long periods but would have to take up a guaranteed job offer or lose their state support.' (Observer, 13 October) The Labour Party want to run British capitalism and there is only one way to do that - as cheaply as possible. RD

THE CLASS STRUGGLE TODAY (2)

It is a popular notion, reinforced by politicians, that the police force is completely independent of class interests. Recent disclosures by the Independent Police Commission however show that this is not the case. 'Police  officers across the country supplied information on workers to a blacklist operation run by Britain's biggest construction companies, the police watchdog has told lawyers representing victims. Independent Police Complaints Commission has informed those affected that a Scotland Yard inquiry into police collusion has identified that it is "likely that all special branches were involved in providing information" that kept certain individuals out of work.' (Observer, 13 October) Workers blacklisted for raising issues about health and safety on information from the police should come as no surprise to anyone aware of the present day class struggle. RD

Food for thought

The futility of reform - A proposed bill in the Ontario legislature would nullify a fifty-five year-old agreement between the unions and EllisDon, a giant construction company. A company spokesperson commented, " If the bill does not resolve the outcome of a recent board decision…it would have a negative impact on EllisDon's ability to remain competitive." In other words, the company wants to hire a 'flexible' workforce that works for much less, has no benefits, and can be let go easily as capital dictates. That the government is pushing this bill is no surprise. John Ayers.

THIS IS PROGRESS?

Supporters of capitalism extoll its progressive nature but we wonder what they make of this development. Energy giant SSE announced a price rise of 8.2 per cent. It will send gas and electricity bills rocketing by more than £100 and there is expected to be a domino effect in the next few days with other major suppliers also slapping hefty rises on the average dual fuel bill. 'Pensioner groups said the elderly will be hardest hit, with many forced to decide whether to "eat or heat" as the weather turns colder.' (Daily Express, 11 October) A winter of discontent for many members of the working class seems certain. RD

HOW CAPITALISM OPERATES

Mr Szymkiowiak is astounded by how capitalism operates. 'A first-time investor has told BBC News how he is "pretty delighted" after Royal Mail share rose by more than 38% after the start of conditional trading. "I could potentially make £300 for doing nothing," Jamie Szymkiowiak said.' (BBC News, 11 October) Mr Szymkiowiak may be astounded but that is how capitalism works. His modest little investment is as nothing compared to the billions of pounds that members of the capitalist class make from the exploitation of the working class. The owning class do nothing either except live on the surplus value produced by the working class. RD

A CHAMPAGNE LIFESTYLE

Two Russian multimillionaires racked up a bar tab of more than £130,000 at a Mayfair nightclub after going head-to-head to see who could produce the most extravagant bill. The men, both in their 30s, ordered vast amounts of vintage champagne after arriving at the Embassy nightclub in Old Burlington Street, London just before midnight. 'According to one clubber, every time one table would order a round of drinks the other man would add more on his next order. A spokesman for the Embassy venue described the tab as "off the scale",   as the men worked their way through 30 Magnums of Cristal and 20 bottles of   Dom Perignon. By the end of the evening the bills were an eye-watering £66,778.91 and £64, 279.70 making a grand total of £131,058.61.' (Daily Telegraph, 10 October)Politicians and the media are forever going on about how the working class are a drunken mob whose drinking should be curbed by higher prices, but remain very quiet about the expensive drinking of the owning class. RD

HUNGER IN THE UK

We are all aware of charities launching campaigns to feed the hungry in Asia and Africa but here is one aimed at the UK hungry. Hard-up families could be forced to turn to the British Red Cross for help this winter for the first time in nearly 70 years, as thousands face crippling cuts to their household budgets. 'The Red Cross said it was about to launch a campaign in supermarket foyers asking shoppers to donate food to be distributed to the most needy through the charity FareShare. Rises in basic food prices and soaring utility bills have helped push more than 5 million  people in the UK into deep poverty. Nearly 500,000 people needed support from food banks last year, according to figures from the Trussel Trust.' (Guardian, 11 October) Half a million relying on food banks in one of the most developed countries in the world - isn't capitalism wonderful? RD

THE CAUSE OF WAR

Many workers believed at the time that the 1st. World War was a war to end all wars. Millions died in that war. Many workers believed that the 2nd World War was a war to halt fascism. Millions died in that war.  The rise of right wing parties in Greece and France has shown the emptiness of that idea. 'One in four French voters are ready to support the far-right National Front in next year's European elections, a new poll shows. A survey of voting intentions for the May 2014 election found the party could win more support than the government and the main opposition party.' (Guardian, 10 October) War is the inevitable outcome of economic conflict in capitalist society. Must millions more die before that lesson is learned? RD

THE CLASS STRUGGLE TODAY

The notion that we live in a modern freedom loving society wherein the owning class and the the working class co-operate without nasty out-dated class conflicts has been shown as a complete nonsense. Britain's biggest construction companies finally admitted that they used  a secret industry blacklist to vet workers as they announced the creation of  a compensation scheme.  'Unions believe construction companies face paying hundreds of millions of pounds to the 3,213 workers whose details were kept on a database kept by a shadowy organisation called The Consulting Association.  The information was used by 44 companies to vet new recruits and keep out trade union activists or those who had raised concerns about health and safety.' (Times, 10 September) RD

A Taxing Problem

The bosses have tried every imaginable remedy for the crisis. To no avail. Now they hope to find a lever to raise their profits by lowering taxes. The campaign to lower taxes has swept the bourgeois world like wildfire. Through every avenue at their command the capitalists and the landlords are clamoring for economy in government. They want “cheap government” and the support of the working class to force a curtailment of expenses. We workers are robbed as producers, robbed of the surplus labor, of the surplus value which the capitalist divide among themselves as profits, rent, interest and to pay their office boys’ (government) and for the gangster racketeers who rob the robbers.

The government (the state) operates for the benefit of the capitalists,  owners of the basic means of production and circulation of all commodities and wealth. Government functions through an army of administrators and officials who must be supported. Taxation is the general method by which capitalists collect State revenues to keep the State going. Under the modern development of capitalism, however, the State has been impelled to undertake large economic tasks which private capitalists may not be able to do, such as the welfare  provisions for the young and old,  the sick and the infirm, and those unable to work, as well as construction of transport infrastructure and communications networks, research and development projects, and, of course, defence which all call for large expenditures to be met by taxation. The government is often placed under huge debts by the capitalists so that heavy interest rates have to be paid through taxation. Taxes can assume many forms and without taxes the State could not maintain itself. Modern capitalism has also requires adequate housing, sanitation, health, and educational facilities. For this the State must impose and collect tax.

But on whom can the tax be levied? It is clear that taxes can be paid only by those who have the wherewithal to pay them. Taxes, on the whole, must be paid by the propertied classes, by the big and the small bourgeoisie who are divided into many sub-sections each one trying to throw the weight of taxation onto the others. Hence a bitter fight arises over which sections of the capitalist class shall have the dominant voice in the taxation process. A myriad of ways are found to minimize the effects or to avoid taxation by the various groups, including: tricks of omissions evasion and avoidance, exceptions, exemptions, rebates, preferences, tariff arrangements, subsidies, etc.. One thing capitalism cannot do is kill the goose that lays the golden egg; it must not destroy by taxation the overall production or productive development of the country. Since capitalism is the structure of a country’s economic strength and power, the State must not hamper too greatly that growth by taxation.

The level and items of expenditure needed to pay for the consumption for the replenishment of lost labour power naturally can and does vary regionally and nationally and according to individual and family needs. Each people or group maintains an historic standard of living often differing markedly since a worker may replenish his labour power by consuming meat, fish, wheat, milk, beer, and vegetables, etc., or by consuming beans, bananas, and water. Within certain limits the workers’ living standards can be driven lower and lower and yet suffice to replenish the lost labour power expended in the production process. The worker must be eternally vigilant to defend his or her historic standards. Workers must continue to ensure the burden of taxation falls onto the wealthy classes and does not adversely affecting the workers’ cost of living. 

A poem - The Respectables

The Song of the Respectables

Respectables are we,
And we fain would have you see
Why we confidently claim to be respected;
In well-ordered homes we dwell,
And discharge our duties well—
Well dressed, well bred, well mannered, well connected.
We hate the common cant
About poverty and want,
And all that is distressing and unhealthy;
Certain cases may be sad,
But the system can't be bad,
If it gives such satisfaction to the wealthy.
As the Times each day we read,
We realize the need
Of more and more repression for the Masses;
And we muse with wondering awe
On the sanctity of Law,
As administered and construed by the Classes.
To us the breath of Change
Is ominous and strange,
And Reform is but a cloak for Revolution;
Our concern is not for self,
Not for property nor pelf,
Oh no, but for the British Constitution:
And our care transcends e'en that,
For in sable coat and hat
We never fail to flock to church each Sunday,
That with renovated zest,
And conscience lulled to rest,
We may yield our hearts to Mammon on the Monday.
So our wealth, which swells apace,
Is the outward sigh of grace,
As property goes step by step with piety:
In the present world we thrive,
Then save our souls alive,
And move for evermore in good society.
Thus on through life we march,
Stiff with decency and starch,
Well bred, well fed, well mannered, well connected—
For Respectables are we,
And you cannot fail to see
Why we confidently claim to be respected.

H. S. S.
The Commonweal,
 May 31, 1890

Food for thought

Once again, we can point out the futility of revolution without clear socialist understanding as the Arab Spring continues to run into problems. The New York Times reports, " It is clear that the region's old status quo, dominated by rulers who fixed elections and quashed dissent, has been fundamentally damaged, if not overthrown, since the outbreak of the Arab Spring uprisings. What is unclear is the replacement model. Most of the uprisings have developed into bitter struggles over the relationship between the military and the government, the role of religion, and what it means to be a citizen, not a subject." Well, actually we could help with that replacement model. John Ayers.

Fact of the Day

The survey, which is based on publicly available data, breaks down wealth to an average of $51,600 per adult around the globe, but in reality only a tiny sliver of the world’s population at the wealthiest end owns 86%  of the wealth.

Some 3.2 billion individuals—two thirds of the world’s population—have less than $10,000 each, the Swiss bank found. The top of the pyramid,  numbers just 32 million people who have $1  million or more, about 41% of global wealth. Nearly half of them live in the United States.

Increasing the world's food supply won't end hunger

An article by Jill Richardson of the Organic Consumers Association makes interesting reading and confirms much of the socialist case.

Some extracts  

Every October, world leaders and corporate executives gather in Iowa to present the World Food Prize to celebrate those who make the largest contributions to increasing the world’s food supply. The corporations that fund the World Food Prize may not entirely drive its agenda, but they certainly influence it. By focusing on the sheer volume of food in the world, they aim to reduce global hunger to a simple matter of science. Then they sell us on the idea that we need their products to increase the amount of food farmers harvest from each acre. But producing more food doesn’t always mean feeding more hungry mouths.  Ending hunger is not a simple matter of growing more food. It involves social science as well as physical science.

When a farmer produces an extra ten bushels of crops from each acre of land, perhaps more people will eat — or maybe not. Americans don’t have to travel around the world to see this, we must only ask our grandparents. During the Great Depression, farmers grew a great surplus of food, and food prices crashed. Both farmers and consumers suffered, as farmers went into bankruptcy while the urban poor starved. Today, we grow more food than we need — and then throw 40 percent of it away. Meanwhile, many Americans can afford to eat enough calories but only by buying cheap junk food that will ultimately make them sick. And that’s just in America, a wealthy nation. What about poor countries?

If we aim to make any real progress toward ending poverty and hunger, we must start by challenging the inequality in our world today.

Food for thought

The New York Times critiques a new book about Jeffrey Sachs entitled, "The Idealist – his quest to end poverty". Sachs started 'The Millenium Villages Project" in 2005, imposing interventions on seven sub-Saharan villages in agriculture, health, and education, to show how Africa could 'loosen the grip that extreme poverty had on so many of its people'. He spent $120 million but refused to compare 'his' villages with others outside the program. However, Michael Clemens, a senior fellow at the center for Global Development did, saying, " There is zero evidence that the Millenium Villages Project is meeting its goals". If only he had subscribed to the Socialist Standard or Imagine or Socialist Review, he could have saved himself time and money and the futility! John Ayers.

Fact of the Day

Even ancient Rome was more egalitarian than the world today. Marcus Crassus, whose wealth was calculated as being roughly equal to that of the empire's entire government treasury, had an annual return on it equal to the average yearly income of 32,000 Romans. But that, to use Boris Johnson's description of a £250,000 paycheck, is chicken feed. If one measure of wealth, and there are many, is how many of your compatriots you can buy, then give a big hand for magnate Carlos Slim, the interest or return on whose stash is the equivalent of the average annual wage of 400,000 Mexicans.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/08/plutocrats-rise-new-global-super-rich-review

Food for thought

Thomas Walkom, writing in The Toronto Star details the failing 'faith and hope' in president Obama – he promised to close Guantanamo and didn't;he promised a short sharp war to defeat the Taliban, never happened; he authorized drone strikes; he permitted the National Security Agency to snoop on American citizens, among others; he promised openness but went after whistle blowers like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. As the Socialist Standard said at the time if his election, "Welcome to the New Boss, Same as the Old". John Ayers.

The Socialist Object

The Socialist Party of Great Britain’s primarily concern is analysing the capitalist system, pointing out its defects and advocating for the replacement of the capitalist system by the common ownership and democratic administration of the means of production and distribution. Only socialism can turn the boundless potential of  people and resources to the creation of a world free from tyranny, greed, poverty and exploitation. It is our work to clarify and educate the vast amount of vague, undeveloped socialistic sentiment existing today, and crystallise and organise it into something palpable and definite.

Capitalism has failed, and so have efforts to reform it. That puts the socialist alternative on the immediate agenda. The needs of people, not profit, are the driving force of a socialist society. Under capitalism, labour is a commodity. Workers are used as replaceable parts, extensions of machines—as long as they provide dividends. Employers use their power of ownership to devastate the lives of workers through layoffs, shutdowns and neglect of health and safety. Unions, despite their courageous efforts, have encountered difficulties eliminating even the worst abuses of management power.

As socialists, we see that the only way for the working class to put an end to the increasingly vicious attacks on our working and living conditions is to overthrow the capitalist system that breeds them and build a new society of abundance. There is no fundamental solution to poverty, joblessness, homelessness, racism, sexism and all the other ills of this society short of socialism.

GROWING OLD DISGRACEFULLY

Capitalism is an uncaring and brutal society, but perhaps the worst suffers of its harshness are the old and the disabled. 'Short care visits to elderly and disabled people are "disgraceful" and on the rise, a charity has claimed. In England, 60% of councils use 15-minute visits, which are not long enough to provide adequate care Leonard Cheshire Disability says. The charity says such visits can "force disabled people to choose whether to go thirsty or to go to the toilet".' (BBC News, 7 October) Needless to say this awful dilemma only applies to the working class as the owning class can afford the best of  care.

Plenty for All

Perhaps it is true that we in the Socialist Party have become the naggers of the working class. Have you not worked hard all your life, since you were old  enough for your labour to be of use in the production of wealth?  Have you not toiled long, hard, and laboriously in producing  wealth? Whether it is the “good boss”  or the “bad boss” cuts no figure whatever. You are the  common prey of both, and that their mission is simply robbery.  Can you not see that it is the economic system and not the “boss” which must be changed? The capitalist theory is that workers  always have been, and always will be, merely “hands” ; that it needs a “head,” the head of a capitalist, to hire them, set them to work, boss them, drive them and exploit them, and that without the capitalist “head” workers would be unemployed, helpless, and starve; and, sad to say, a great majority of workers, in their ignorance, share that opinion. They use their hands only to produce wealth for the capitalist scarcely conscious that they have heads of their own and that if they only used their heads as well as their hands there would be no “bosses”  but free producers, employing themselves co-operatively, tsharing all the products of their labour and shortening the work day as machinery increased their productive capacity. Bosses “good” or “bad” would disappear. .Brains are wanted, but not bosses. All would be have fit houses to live in, plenty to eat and wear, and leisure time enough to enjoy life. That is what Socialists are striving for.  The servile puppets of the capitalist class insist that working men and women are “hands” to be worked by capitalists, that they can never be anything else and seek in a thousand other ways, secret and subtle, covert and treacherous, to thwart the efforts of the socialists to open the eyes of the workers. Our work, then, is of organising and educating the worker, to fight for wealth and freedom, and not for poverty and slavery; to fight their masters and not their fellow slaves, and to win that victory in the class war.

 The workers are in a great majority and without them every wheel would stop, industry would drop dead, and society would be paralysed. All they have to do is to unite, think together, act together, strike together, vote together and then the world is theirs. They have but to stretch out and take possession. But to reach this point requires education and organisation—these are the essentials to emancipation. The workers must organise their own emancipation to achieve it and to control its limitless opportunities and possibilities. We are living in a time when the comforts of life, and all the material wealth needed to bring happiness to every human being, can be produced in abundance. We have  material resources in inexhaustible abundance, the most marvelous productive machinery on earth, and millions of eager workers ready to apply their skills to that machinery to produce in abundance for every man, woman, and child—and if there are still vast numbers of  people who are the victims of poverty and whose lives are an unceasing drudgery all the way from youth to old age it cannot be charged to nature, but it is due entirely to the outgrown social system in which we live that ought to be abolished not only in the interest of the toiling masses but in the higher interest of all humanity.

There is no need whatever for one human being to go hungry or homeless. The ignorant worker instead of fighting the capitalist, with wealth and freedom as the prize at stake, fall to fighting each other; and the stakes in that conflict are: destitution or death to the loser; poverty, misery and wage-slavery to the winner.

 Socialists argue that all things that are jointly needed and used ought to be jointly owned—that industry, the basis of our social life, instead of being the private property of a few and operated for their enrichment, ought to be the common property of all, democratically administered in the interest of all.  Socialists are opposed to a social system in which it is possible for one person who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence. We must reorganise society upon a mutual and cooperative basis. Let people everywhere take heart and hope at the coming dawn of the better day for humanity, the people are awakened. The darkness of capitalism is passing and the a new tomorrow is rising. The worst in socialism will be better than the best in capitalism. For the first time in history the working class
will be free and no class will be in subjection. We have outlived the usefulness of the wage and
property system