Socialism - It is all about the family

Socialism is the protest against the waste of human life. Socialists are often accused of holding the delusion of a world in which all men and women will be equal but the socialist idea is not at all incompatible with the development of individual genius and character. On the contrary, until we wish to socialise all the opportunities for healthful living, so that they are the common heritage of all. Socialism is not aiming a level playing field of mediocrity but at the equality of advantage and opportunity for every child born full and free access to every social gift, so that he or she may develop all his or her gifts. Poverty must be abolished, because it is anti-social, and denies millions  an adequate opportunity to develop their abilities. Child labour must go, because it stunts the body and the mind, destroying the physical, intellectual and spiritual forces which are essential to the highest development of a human being.

To-day the production and the exchange of wealth are functions carried on with an anti-social object, namely, the profit of a class of non-producers. That is the fundamental wrong of capitalism. That is the source of its poverty, its crime, its inefficient lives, its inequality of opportunity. No one is poor because there is not enough for all. No child  suffers hunger because there is a dearth of food . No child wears rags or goes without shoes because good clothes and shoes cannot be made in sufficient quantity to supply all. Machinery and labour and raw materials are plentiful. Those who make the bread of the world cannot eat the bread their hands have made.

If our economic activities were inspired and controlled by a social purpose, no human want would remain unsatisfied so long as there still remained productive powers. All our resources and our skill and might would be combined to meet the needs of every human being. If we found ourselves incapable of producing plenty for all, we should, if we were truly social, see to it that all shared in the dearth due to the lack of productive capacity. On the other hand, finding ourselves capable of producing infinitely more than we need, we should, if we mere truly social, see to it that all shared the advantages of our triumph as producers. We should aim to make life better, richer, happier and more beautiful for all. We should see that the result of our triumph was more beauty in the homes of all and larger leisure for all to enjoy the beauty. Inspired and controlled by the ideal of social well-being, we should see that no human being performed in pain a task which might have been performed in joy; that nothing ugly was produced which might have been made beautiful; that nothing was made which was unworthy of our best power; that our work was the worthiest, and performed under the worthiest conditions, of which we were capable.

So long as the prevailing capitalist system lasts this social ideal will remain unattainable. For capitalism is essentially anti-social. Its entire structure rests upon the production of things primarily for sale to the end that a ruling class may profit, instead of upon the social principle of production for use, for social gain, for the common good and joy of all. The only reason why men who are capable of building beautiful homes – as is shown by the palaces they build for the rich – build ugly, prison-like, gloomy tenements for themselves and their wives and children to dwell in is the fact that their labor is governed, not by the desire to attain supreme usefulness, but by the desire for profit. The only reason which explains the wanton destruction of the food for which men, women and children pine, and for lack of which they starve and die is that same anti-social thing, profit.

Production for use instead of profit, for the common good instead of for the gain of a few at the cost of the many, can only be made possible through the collective ownership of the resources of nature and the principal means of production.  Common ownership of the means of production, with democratic management, is the central demand in the World Socialist Movement.

Millions of people have practically no private property at all to-day. They do not own the things they produce.  When sickness, accident, or other misfortune, compels them to be idle for a few weeks they are reduced to dependence upon a state hand-out or private charity as the only alternatives to starvation. Even in the most prosperous times millions of people are so divorced from property of all kinds that they never have enough good food to eat, enough good clothes to wear, or decent homes in which to live.  Socialism would make it possible for every human being to have and own all the private property (common ownership) which that human being could use to advantage and without imposing any disadvantage upon another human being. The collective ownership of the principal means of social production–that is, the natural resources, the mines, factories, railways, machinery, and so on–would not take away anything from the great majority of people. True, the worker would not himself own the machine used by him, but that is his condition to-day. The workers in our great factories and workshops do not own the tools with which they labor. They do not own the raw materials upon which they labor. They do not own the places in which they labor. They do not own the things which they produce by their labor. All these are owned by an exploiting class of non-producers, whose interest it is to see that the producers get in the form of wages as little as they can manage to live upon, and produce as much more than they receive as possible. This is the inevitable interest of the owning class, because its own income is derived from that which the workers produce over and above what they receive in the form of wages.

Common ownership and democratic control of the means of production would not give the ownership of the tools of labor to the individual worker. That was once possible, in the days when production was of necessity carried on by hand labour. It is not possible with machine production, which is only carried on by the organised labour of masses of workers. But collective ownership would make it impossible for the idle few to exploit the industrious many. It would make it possible for the workers themselves to exercise an effective control over the products of their labor and their distribution. It would make certain a fuller enjoyment by the producers of the wealth they produce.

Every person can see that the principle is the same as that which governs the home. The ideal home is, indeed, only a microcosm of the ideal society - the family of Man.  In the well-regulated home there is equal care for the collective interest of the family as a whole and for the individual interest of each member. The comfort and advantage of each individual member of the family depends upon the denial of the power to monopolise many things in the home, and maintaining them as the common property of all the members, sharing. No one member could assert and exercise a right to the sole ownership and control of these things without injuring every other member of the family. On the other hand, there are many things which must be regarded as belonging to individual members, if harmony is to prevail. Every family member understands the philosophy of distribution upon which it is based. If there are things essential to the welfare and happiness of all the members of the family, the control of which by a single member would give that member a power to rule all the rest, and to deny them comfort and happiness except upon irksome and humiliating conditions, the safety of the family is only assured by making those things common to all. But things which the individual needs to own and control for the attainment of personal happiness and well-being, the ownership and exclusive use of which does not subject other members of the family to discomfort, properly belong to the individual, and the happiness of the family depends upon the ability of each individual in it to secure all such things necessary to the satisfaction of his or her wants.

The message of socialism claims for every child all the advantages of healthful and beautiful environment. It would destroy the dread fear of want. It would bestow upon every child, as its rightful heritage, opportunity to develop all its powers. It would apply the principles of the family to the society as a whole. It would end the waste of human lives by poverty, and make true wealth possible for all . It would put an end to war–the war of classes as well as the war of nations. Socialism is the enrichment of life for all and the realisation of human brotherhood. We will no longer be the slaves of fear.

For a' that, an a' that, 
It's comin yet for a' that, 
That man to man, the world, o'er 
Shall brithers be for a' that.
Robert Burns

The impoverished social bargain that lies within

Food for thought 2

Not so for the workers though. The employees are not happy and the company is, "running up against a new appreciation of what economic critics call the impoverished social bargain that lies within" (Toronto Star, Nov 24). Apparently, wages are so low that even Walmart has tried to find a solution (apart from raising the darn wages, of course!). Collection bins have appeared in the employees' backrooms with the sign, "Please donate food items here so associates (i.e. workers) can enjoy Thanksgiving dinner." This is no joke. The Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper brought it to the public's attention asking its readers if they thought that this move was a prove of low wages. (Silly question of the year!). It garnered so much attention that Walmart felt compelled to reply, " It's unfortunate that an act of human kindness has been taken so out of context." Maybe the company can put the top executives heads together to come up with some other form of human kindness like a living wage. John Ayers,

Food for thought

The Toronto Daily Star of November 1^st. reported that Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan and Chase & Co., the world's largest bank, admitted losing $20 billion for the bank. The bank is expected to pay back $11 billion in fines and restitution for " An equally unimaginable variety of misdeeds. They include allegations of money laundering, peddling deceptive mortgages, ripping off customers with faulty investment products, and manipulating world derivative markets." Yet, it is expected that Dimon will get a raise in pay because to do otherwise would, in its directors' eyes, weaken public confidence in the bank. That's something to reflect upon when a worker might get fired for losing his boss a hundred bucks! John Ayers.

End War - End Capitalism

So long as there remain capitalists with the need to realise profits they will find themselves involved in the conflicts which are the inevitable results of capitalism.

 Our chief aim must be to warn the workers against allowing themselves to be misled by the lies of the press and the capitalists, and to remember that the worker in enemy countries is just as much a victim of capitalist oppression as they are. The war to end war is the class war. The war to end wage-slavery, to end capitalism with its evils of misery and degradation. You are called to fight in it; you cannot escape; you must take part. And until that war is ended we do not want peace—because such peace will be the peace of the beggar and the slave.

People would never support a war fought, that is, for the interests and advantages of the governing class; a war fought to protect or extend capitalist profits, and colonial  possessions Unfortunately, no ruling class ever admits going to war for such sordid objects. Every war has to be a “righteous"war, every war is for humanitarian” purposes, for “freedom”.

The causes for the war are to be found in the very process of capitalist production, distribution and exchange which creates the need for business to seek to establish control over markets, sources of raw materials and areas for exploitation.  This search comes up against the existing state boundaries which are in fact mainly based upon other and rival commercial interests. Those industrial and financial interests  first in the field have secured the main territorial advantages. The late-comers are driven to contest the advantageous positions established.

This process, unavoidable so long as capital rules, creates ceaseless conflict. The struggle does not begin when a government – serving its national corporations  – declares war on another state. It goes on all the time, taking many forms; some open, some concealed. Diplomatic intrigues, negotiations and manoeuvres, agreements and alliances between states, subsidised economic warfare, small wars waged ostensibly between small powers, actually as proxies on behalf of great ones – all these are manifestations of the same conflict. The formal declaration of war – nowadays more and more dispensed with – is merely the continuation of this same struggle in a sharper, more open form.  Victory by one group is not the end this struggle. The losses of one group are the gains of another; the temporary cessation of one conflict gives rise to the sharpening of other conflicts. War strengthens the ruling-class grip on the people.

Our policy on war  is an immediate peace to save workers lives and the little freedom we have, had handed down to us, so that the war of classes may be fully prosecuted until we have  accomplished the Co-operative Commonwealth. The duty imposed on members of the Socialist Party is that of refusing to participate in war or the preparation for war. It is necessary to point out that the fight against war is inseparable from the fight for socialism. Only the class war for the overthrow of capitalism can end wars by ending the cause of war - capitalism.

News we like to hear.

Up to half the Catholic churches across swathes of Scotland face the prospect of closure as another diocese warns of a crisis of clergy numbers and falling congregations.

The Diocese of Galloway has released figures showing the number of priests has more than halved since 1990, with the fall in churchgoers nearly as steep. The number of regular Catholic church-goers in the Galloway diocese has dropped by half since 1990 while the number of priests has fallen from 55 to 23.  Across the diocese, which covers most of south west Scotland, there is currently one priest for every two churches.

A similar tale is to be told in the Netherlands. One of the Catholic bishops of the Netherlands, told Vatican Radio they are facing the closure of hundreds of churches and an ongoing exodus of the faithful. “The number of practicing Catholics is diminishing very quickly,” Willem Jacobus Eijk Cardinal and Archbishop of Utrecht and chairman of the Dutch bishops’ conference said. “In the 1950s 90 percent of Catholics still went to church every Sunday. Now, it’s only five percent.”
This mass exodus has hit the bishops hard in their bank accounts. “The Dutch Church,” the cardinal said, “does not have a subsidy from the state but depends on voluntary contributions of the faithful. Therefore, we are forced to close many churches.”  He added. “The Church was losing the relationship with the doctrine of the faith and no longer touched people’s daily life.”

600-700 Catholic churches in the Netherlands will be decommissioned by 2018. In 2010, the group published a report that said two churches a week are closing due to lack of congregations.  According to data collected in 2008, the report said, “it is to be expected that in the near future 1,000 to 1,200 Roman Catholic and Protestant churches will be closed. Of the 170 monasteries which are still in use for religious purposes, approximately 150 will close in the next 10 years. 326 parishes are being merged into 49 “very large” territorial amalgamations in each of which one church is to be designated as a “Eucharistic centre.”

“Today shortage of priests to celebrate Mass in every church, so we have centralized the celebration of the Eucharist in one,” he said.

Niips and Tucks to Pension?

According to Jim Leech, who will soon retire as head of the Ontario Teachers' Plan, more than 60% of employed Canadians do not have a workplace pension but, if you are among the 40% who do, your plan could be underfunded by market upheavals. Your boss may have to make 'nips and tucks' to the pension you thought was guaranteed. Security may seem to be attainable in the good times but we know that never lasts and when the slump comes, anything is up for slashing or even wiping out. John Ayers.

This Fracking Process

In October there were protests against the proposed massive gas extractions from shale formations in New Brunswick. Premier David Alward said," …the development of twenty-five new wells a year could see more than $300 million investments and 500 jobs." However, the locals are more than concerned about polluted drinking water among other hazards from the fracking process but it's a losing battle against the power of capital. John Ayers.

Who Owns the North Pole - Part 68

Vladimir Putin vowed to step up Russia's military presence in the region in response to a claim by Canada to the north pole. The Russian president told his defence chiefs to concentrate on building up infrastructure and military units in the Arctic. He said the region was again key to Russia's national and strategic interests. Russia is returning to the Arctic and “intensifying the development of this promising region” so it needs to“have all the levers for the protection of its security and national interests,” Putin said at an expanded meeting of the Defense Ministry Board. Russia is reinstating its military base in the Novosibirsk Archipelago (New Siberian Islands), which had been abandoned by the military in 1993, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The islands “have key meaning for the control of the situation in the entire Arctic region,” Putin told the top military brass. This year, Russia has also started restoring its Arctic airfields including one called “Temp” on Kotelny Island near the city of Norilsk. It is also overhauling urban facilities in Tiksi, Naryan-Mar, and Anadyr. The country is set to continue the revival of other Russian northern airfields as well as docks on the New Siberian Islands and the Franz Josef Land archipelago, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said. 

His comments were a response to Canada, a rival Arctic power. On Monday Canada's foreign minister, John Baird, said his government had asked scientists to work on a submission to the UN arguing that the outer limits of Canada's territory include the north pole, which has yet to be claimed by any country.  Baird said it would take several years for Canada to map the continental shelf and to complete its full UN submission. "We are determined to ensure that all Canadians benefit from the tremendous resources that are to be found in Canada's far north," he said.

Canada and Russia have been stepping up their military footprint in the oil- and gas-rich region. Putin has said Russia will restore Arctic bases that fell into disrepair after the collapse of the Soviet Union, including one on the New Siberian Islands. On Tuesday he said this base and others were crucial to protecting Russia's "security and national interests".

"It's often said that the Russians act with their Arctic policy in an aggressive, nationalistic and unilateral way. The same thing can be said about the Canadians," said Andrew Foxall, director of the Russian Studies Centre at the Henry Jackson Society. "Harper has said Canada is an Arctic nation. He frequently goes up into Canada's high Arctic. There are large-scale military exercises there."

Cold Facts

One in four Scottish households are living in fuel poverty, according to a new report. 

647,000 households were fuel poor in 2012, which means energy costs more than ten per cent of their income.  170,000 households were living in extreme fuel poverty in 2012, with energy costing more than 20% of their income.

Why a political party?

What is a political party?  Most people would answer this question with something like “A bunch of windbags trying to steal as much of our tax money as they can get away with.” . But if we really want to understand the question, we have to go a little deeper – we have to ask ourselves, “Who do these parties represent?”

According to official mythology, we live in a “democracy” because we get to choose who are going to run the government; but what this really boils down to is that we get to choose which section of the ruling class is going to run the government and exploit the working people.

The Labour Party is more “liberal” – they believe in throwing the working class a few crumbs every now and then to keep them quiet; the Conservative Party is as their name implies more conservative – they’d rather use the stick than the carrot. But both parties represent the interests of the “super-rich,” the small group of people that own and control most of the wealth the working people produce in their factories etc. – and they own and control the Labour and Tory parties, too. A small group of THE immensely wealthy convince the vast majority of the population – who all work their lives away making them rich – that they have the right to decide how the country will be run when in reality the only right they have is to continue to be exploited. Socialists call this system “bourgeois democracy” (bourgeois meaning capitalist) because it’s democracy for the capitalist ruling class, but dictatorship for the working class – under our “two party” system, the working class is left out of politics altogether.

So the answer to our question “What is a political party?” is that a political party is the representative of an economic class in the political arena. The Conservatives and Labour parties both represent the capitalist economic class, and are the main tool by which that class maintains its domination and exploitation of the vast majority of the people. They’re structured entirely around winning elections, or in other words, doing a better job at fooling the people than the other party. The masses of people have no say whatsoever in the policies of either party.  The trade unions may be affiliated to the Labour Party, but this is a mere formality and it certinly doesn’t make the Labour Party a true party of labour.

Socialists think the working class can and must have its own political party, a party that will serve its own interests, not those of the exploiting class. Basing themselves on the Marxist theory of society, socialists understand that politics is essentially a war between the two main classes in modern capitalist society: those that work (the working class or proletariat) and those that exploit those who work (the capitalist class or bourgeoisie). Just as the bourgeois parties strive to defend and maintain capitalism and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, a working class party would strive for socialism where the fruits of our labour, the immense social wealth we create each and every day, will be shared equally through a planned economy based on the needs of people rather than profit. We will have a society where the majority of ordinary people govern themselves rather than serve a small ruling class sitting pretty on top of the rest of society; in other words, we will have a society where democracy is a reality for the many and not a privilege of the few.

Secretary of the London Working Men’s Associalition  William Lovett describes the task of a socialist party admirably:-
 “We had seen enough of the contentions of leaders and the battles of factions; to convince us, that no sound Public Opinion, and consequently no just Government, could be formed in this country as long as men's attention was constantly directed to the useless warfare of pulling down, and setting up, of one Idol of Party after another ....
The masses, in their political organisations, were taught to look up to "Great Men" (or to men professing "greatness") rather than to great Principles. We wished therefore to establish a political school of self-instruction among them, in which they should accustom themselves to examine great social and political principles, and by their publicity and free discussion, help to form a sound and healthful public opinion throughout the country .....
We have not wished, neither do we desire to be, Leaders, as we believe that the principles we advocate have been retarded, injured or betrayed by Leadership, more than by the open hostility of opponents. Leadership too often generates confiding bigotry, or political indifference on the one hand, or selfish ambition, on the other.
The principles WE advocate are those of the peoples' happiness, and for these to be justly established, each man must Know and feel his Rights and Duties. He must be prepared to guard the one; and perform the other with cheerfulness. And if Nature has given to one Man superior faculties, to express or execute the general wish, he only performs his Duty at the Mandate of his bretheren; he is therefore the "Leader" of none, but the equal of ALL ....”

The class struggles we are forced to wage each and every day just to survive can only lead to trying to cure a cancer with a band-aid. This is because these “spontaneous”, everyday struggles only attack part of the problem (a particular corporation, a particular employer, etc.), not the problem itself – which is the capitalist system. Short-term policies will not change economic and political inequality, and repeating the strategies of the past will not bring hope to a society worn down by powerlessness and dependency. The past is mother to the present, but the future is limited only by what we can imagine. An alternative future demands new ideas and the courage to make deep changes. Let the workers remember that in every country there the same struggle is going on between the workers on the one hand, and the exploiters  on the other hand. Workers have learned  by bitter experience that industries nationalised by the State, are no cure for wage-slavery, because they are still carried on for profit; and nothing but the SOCIALISATION OF THE MEANS OF LIFE under a free Co-operative Commonwealth will abolish the present system, and give the wealth of the world to the workers of the world.

Polluted Power

Longannet in Kincardine, run by ScottishPower, was highlighted by international group the Health and Environment Alliance (Heal) as one of Europe's top polluters, according to environmentalists who claim the plant's emissions affect the health of people for hundreds of miles around by belching out thousands of tons of pollutants which travel in the atmosphere.

WWF Scotland said the report showed key health reasons for power providers to move away from coal. WWF Scotland director Lang Banks said the findings were significant. He said: "This study shows there are important health reasons why we need to be ending our reliance on coal especially. It's clear that action is needed today to cut emissions from all existing coal power stations, including Longannet."

The report claimed fumes from coal-fired power stations cause 1600 premature deaths in the UK each year and that the emissions are linked to 18,000 premature deaths in the EU each year. Heal said: "A growing body of evidence shows how early-life exposure to air pollutants is contributing to higher risks of developing chronic diseases later in life, including obesity, diabetes, and hormone related cancers."

29.8 million slaves (excluding wage slaves)

A recent survey said there are now 29.8 million slaves (excluding wage slaves) in the world today. Mauritania was the last country to abolish slavery in 1981. Today there are 140,000 slaves in Mauritania, the most enslaved country in the world. There are now 57,000 slaves in the US and 5,600 in Canada. So socialism will mean more than the abolition of capitalism. John Ayers.

Food for thought

Recently, former real estate mogul, Paul Reichmann passed away. When his company took over the Canary Wharf project in London in 1987, Reichmann believed England was on its way to a new era of prosperity under Margaret Thatcher. Contrary to his expectation, Britain slumped and so did its real estate market. So, if a guy who obviously knew his business could be so disastrously wrong, how can anyone predict how a market will perform. Forget the casino economics and opt for socialism. John Ayers.

Who Owns the North Pole - Part 68

Canadian officials confirmed Monday that the nation is preparing to include the North Pole as part of its Arctic Ocean seabed claim in the multi-country push to prove jurisdiction over further territory in the resource-rich area.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and Arctic Council chair Leona Aglukkaq officially announced Monday Canada’s claim to the extended continental shelf in the Arctic. It was reported by The Globe and Mail last week that Prime Minister Stephen Harper requested a government board charged with assessing Canada’s claims beyond its territorial waterways, per United Nations rules, to seek a more expansive stake of Arctic area to include the North Pole.

"We have asked our officials and scientists to do additional work and necessary work to ensure that a submission for the full extent of the continental shelf in the Arctic includes Canada's claim to the North Pole," Baird said during a press conference at the House of Commons.

The North Pole is 817 kilometers north of Canada’s - and the world’s - northernmost settlement, Alert, Nunavut. The town is home to a Canadian Forces station and Environment Canada station.

"Fundamentally, we are drawing the last lines of Canada. We are defending our sovereignty," Aglukkaq said, according to CBC News.

Canada has spent nearly US$200 million on the scientific-discovery process of the area, including dozens of icebreaker and helicopter trips for teams of scientists. An unmanned submarine was used to collect data below the frigid Arctic water.  About 90 billion barrels of oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lie in the largely untapped 18-million-square-mile Arctic region, according to the US Geological Survey, making up about 10 percent of the world's petroleum resources. The dominant portion of these resources are hidden beneath the ice that is shared between five nations bordering the Arctic: Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Russian Federation and the US.

Both Russia and Canada say the resource-abundant Lomonosov Ridge, below the ocean and close to the geographic North Pole, is a natural extension of their continental shelves.
“As for the Arctic, there are not only large economic interests for the country – a huge amount of mineral resources, oil and gas,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week, underlining his nation’s interests in the region. “But there lies a very important part of our defense capabilities.”

Observations on Fascism

Definitions matter because imprecision leads to carelessness when clarity is necessary. The term “fascism” 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 antics of individuals. , allowing the more dangerous causal factors, e.g., capitalism, militarism, etc., to remain in shadow  therefore neglected. Fascism comes in many forms; one size does not fit all, tempting as such an analysis might be. Nor is there an historical line drawn in the sand, the crossing of which acts to confirm the genuine article. This is merely to warn against the construction of simplistic models.  Indeed, models are a waste of energy; history is a better guide for us.

Fascism’s many guises—Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain, Hitler’s Germany; all are relevant, and perhaps even constituting a unified sequential historical phase. But that isn’t good enough, at least to account for the historical forces post-1945, although certainly beginning earlier, which define fascism in modern times. The concentration camp is no longer a sure-fire indicator, not when techniques of surveillance are being perfected and mass manipulation, particularly via consumerism and political propaganda from all quarters, has taken its place in softening the body politic and inducing conformity and complacence. Today fascism speaks with a mellow voice  and dons softened gloves, the better to achieve the regimentation of thought and opinion heretofore reliant on force. Force is externalized, propelled forward to maintain hegemonic aspirations and, on the side, enlist the populace at home into the display of fervent patriotic support, without which the total formation might stagnate, fall backward, or actually crumble.  Fascism represents sustainment of the existing structure of wealth and power whilst the political economy itself bounds ahead—that is, the conservation of the Old Order under the conditions of modern industrialism.

From Here

Some Rough Notes on Tax

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.

As part of the cost of business the capitalists have to pay wages. Generally the worker receives in return for the sale of his labor power to his employer wages that will buy necessities enough to: (a) replenish that labor power, (b) allow the worker to keep in reasonably good health, (c) allow the worker to go to and from work and to seek work freely, (d) allow the worker to maintain an average family to reproduce children who will survive to become the wage-slaves in the future, including the maintenance of a wife and aged parents, (e) permit the family to survive in bad time of depression and of unemployment, as well as in good times of prosperity, since both aspects are inevitable processes under capitalism.

Wages paid the workers have to be large enough to be sufficient to cover periods of unemployment and to provide for old age.  In the past often this level of wages had not been paid and long periods of unemployment have found a destitute and rebellious working class increasingly difficult to control, especially as these workers became class-conscious. Hence arises the need for establishing a compulsory unemployment saving fund that will at least partially guarantee that the wages paid will cover periods of unemployment as well.

The level and items of expenditure needed to pay for the consumption for the replenishment of lost labor 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 labor 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 labor power expended in the production process. The worker must be eternally vigilant to defend his historic standards.

 Corporate profits can either be distributed as dividends, bonuses, and other payments, or may be ploughed back into the business either first accumulated as a hoard, or spent directly on re-investment. We should not let the production capitalists shift their costs on to the general public.  Workers must continue to ensure the burden of taxation falls onto the wealthy classes and does not adversely affecting the workers’ cost of living.

Wages paid workers theoretically have to cover periods of no work funds have now also been established as a permanent compulsory savings fund for old age, disability. This fund, for the most part, again is collected by business companies as part of the cost of doing business, although here not only the employer but the employee is taxed as well. The employee is never trusted to pay the bulk of the tax; the employer does it for the worker as agent of the State.

But how can the worker be taxed if his pay covers only the bare minimum for his immediate expenses? The obvious answer is that the tax can be levied and collected because the worker has already received as wages a sum sufficient to cover this tax. What the employer has given with one hand he has been very careful to take immediately back again with the other hand as agent of the State. But why all this indirection? Would it not be simpler and better were the tax levied directly on the employer and no wages increased? Let us look at the reasons  behind this indirect procedure.

In the first place, in most cases the relation between pay increases and taxation is not a simple mechanical one. The State does not decide to tax workers and then order their agents, the employers, to increase wages so as to enable the workers to pay these taxes. In most cases the workers have been able to force the wage increases first, due to favorable circumstances and struggle. It is possible for workers to increase their real wages because the economy of their country is strong and prosperous and stands in a monopolistic or imperialistic position in the world earning super-profits for employers. It is possible for workers to have strong and militant unions to threaten the employers with dire action unless wage increases are forthcoming. Employers may be attacked individually, not collectively, and in some cases may be too weak to stand the struggle of a powerful working force leveled against them. Now with such real pay increases the workers are able to pay the tax especially needed as a compulsory national insurance savings fund for old age security. At the same time their income is reduced and the power of the employer, especially as agent of the State, is reinforced.

Secondly, by first increasing the nominal pay to the worker and then taxing that increase away the State and capitalism give certain illusions to the worker: that he is the recipient of real wage raises and to some degree a property owner, and that as property owner he is like all other property owners paying taxes to a State that acts in his behalf. The State now is partly his State and he must eschew all thoughts that the State is his deadly enemy controlled only by enemy classes. He can be induced to take part in the large number of taxation struggles and make them a decisive part of his political activity, rather than concentrating on the employer.

Taxes levied directly on business would be considered part of overhead expenses and reduce net profits accordingly, other things being equal. Taxation on the payroll however, forcing an increase in the payroll to meet the charge of taxes, causes an increase in the cost of production upon which the average rate of profits is to be calculated, other things being equal. Such a tax thus may increase prices and profits. Taxation thus has a great influence on the price and profit structures. It must be said that the workers have not opposed these “transfer” taxes, in fact they demand a greater unemployment compensation tax on employers so that they can receive full pay for the entire period of their unemployment. It is different with taxes levied for social security and medicare. Here the working class wants the whole tax paid by the employers. Also the working class violently objects to the mass of fraud and corruption, the inefficiency and waste by which the tax funds are dissipated, with cheating employers and professionals ripping off billions of dollars annually and workers deprived of the adequate care they need and expect.

Some taxes are hidden in prices. Excise duty on fuel, alcohol and tobacco, for instance. Then there is VAT (or purchase tax or sales tax) on particular goods.  This is the principle tax on consumers,  levied through retailers on the consumer when sales are made. Here it is the merchant who is the agent of the State, who collects the tax and must turn it over to the authorities. If such a tax is on luxury, the working class is little concerned  If the tax is on necessities which raise the cost of living, it is a blow at the sufficiency of the wage structure and the historic standard of living. This might bring protests on whose backs the regressive tax falls most heavily. The workers try to shift the burden of the sales tax on to the employer by securing compensation cost of living wage increases; but generally the cost of living rises first and the wage levels rise belatedly after. If the workers have developed a pay scale already higher than adequate to meet the costs of replenishing their labour power, then the sales tax is an act by the State to strip the workers down to that minimum level which the employers by themselves were not able to do. Again the State comes in to help the employer while a good part of the sales taxes goes for purposes to favour employers objectives.

 Consumer taxes abound and large sections of the unemployed or poor cannot shift these consumer taxes on to the employer. They can only demand a belated relief by increases the in unemployment, sickness or pension benefits which can be won only with the help of the working class also adversely affected.

Food for thought

An Socialist Party od Canada member's wife works at the Food Bank. To quote, " One lady came in, she was wearing very good clothes, very nice make-up and was very attractive, professional looking. After I had finished helping her with choosing food, she started to cry. She was embarrassed about having to go to a Food Bank. Possibly she had lost her job, probably a good one, and had to resort to this." Not only does capitalism create insecurity, but it can be damn humiliating. John Ayers

Independence without independence!

Aince there was a king, wha sat 
Scrievin’ this edict in his palace haa’ 
Til all his folk: ‘Vassals, I tell ye flat 
That I am I, and ye are bugger-aa’.
Robert Garioch, 

Common Weal is an old term meaning "shared wealth," but in todays political parliance it means policies aimed  to abolish poverty in Scotland through higher pay, higher taxes, and a beefed-up welfare state based on the policies of Scandanavian countries, particularly promoted by  Radical Independence Campaign (RIC), a loose coalition of Scottish left-wingers, environmentalists,  militant trade unionists, republicans, and veterans of the anti-nuclear and anti-war movements.

 The RIC’s basic  belief is that the Scottish worker is more radical than his English counter-part. But being anti-Tory doesn’t necessary correspond to being more socialist.  Yet many of workers’ struggles in Scotland and England have been linked together and the victory of each often depends on the other.  The Scottish, Welsh and English working class have not developed separately but, because of capitalism, have developed as part of one united working class. Independence may rupture the united British working class movement at trade union level. Scottish independence would disrupt the unity of the working class fueling the myths of national brotherhood between exploiters and exploited.  In reality, a socialist transformation of Scotland could only take place in a British ( European and world) context. Mass movements would take place also in Wolverhampton and Walsall, as well as in Glasgow and Greenock. A socialist transformation would be on a world scale. There is no Scottish road to socialism. For there can be no socialist Scotland, socialism is global or it is not socialism. The Scottish working class is exploited in the same way as the English working class: by the English, Scottish and international capitalist class. The bosses organises internationally and they want to ensure our class doesn’t do the same.

The SNP are a capitalist party, orientated towards the EU, who have tactically positioned themselves to the left of Labour as defending the interests of Scotland against the Tories, with high profile signature policies such as free prescriptions and care for the elderly. The largest force outside Labour and the SNP is the Scottish Green Party, which is explicitly anti-cuts and anti-NATO, with two MSPs and 4.4 per cent of the vote in 2011. The combined vote of SLP, SSP, and Solidarity in 2011 was 1.62 per cent. These left  nationalists offer a fake veneer in an effort to sell a capitalist and nationalist agenda as some ill-defined step towards a Scottish “socialist republic”. With the domination of capital in Scotland as throughout the world, such a solution would not offer true autonomy. The independence put forward by the SNP is one which includes the Queen as head of state, retaining the pound sterling, British military bases to remain as well as continued membership of NATO and the continuance of the BBC as the mouthpiece o the ruling class.

Independence would offer no way out under capitalism and would only serve to foster divisions in the working class.  On the basis of continued capitalism in Scotland and the rest of Britain, Scottish and English workers would be placed in direct competition. This is especially true if we consider SNP plans for a more “business friendly” environment, with lower corporation tax and other incentives, in an attempt to encourage businesses to relocate from England to Scotland. The whole approach would be to drive down costs, i.e., wage to become more competitive. They would encourage a race to the bottom and pit worker against worker. Such competition between Scottish and UK businesses would result in a driving down of wages on both sides of the border. Such competition between Scottish and UK businesses would result in a driving down of wages on both sides of the border. A loss of jobs or fall in wages would also be used by the British ruling class to stoke up resentment south of the border, and vice versa.  England would dominate the Scottish economy. The ownership of Scotland’s economy, including its banks and trade, will still  be controlled from the City of London. Scotland would still be at the whims of international capital.

A recent study by the Centre for Public Policy for Regions (CPPR), a Glasgow University-based think tank, has underscored that the biggest cuts in day-to-day spending on public services will come in 2016-17 and 2017-18. Only half of the intended austerity measures have been implemented in Scotland, and most of these have been made at the expense of capital spending. Writing in the Scotsman, CPPR economist John McLaren dismissed the claim that Scotland would be insulated from spending cuts by independence. This “ignores the reality that, in practice, similar fiscal circumstances are almost bound to exist for an independent Scotland, and so greater clarity would also be needed in terms of a medium-term to long-term budgeting strategy, with or without any oil fund.”

The task before workers in Scotland and the UK is to join in struggle against their common enemy, whether they wave the Union flag or the Saltire. The overriding goal is not to build new, smaller states but to end the nation state system through social revolution. We stand for the overthrow of capitalism and a  precondition for this is the unity of the working class in this common struggle for socialism.  Nationalism is on the rise in Europe with the strengthening of  Fortress Europe as well as a rise in the far right within member states.

 All nationalisms are based upon sweet seductive fairy tales about the great destiny of this that or the other people, their historic unity and the beautiful landscapes that surround them.  We want unity and friendship – but with all the peoples of the world. We are stirred by our history and natural beauty – but by the history of our class and natural beauty of all countries, not just our own. We have to resist the ideology of nationalism. Every effort is put forth by the exploiting capitalist to prevent workers from seeing the class struggle. The Scottish bosses insists that there is no such struggle, just the national interest. The hired editors in the employ of the capitalist echoes “no class struggle.” The academics dependent upon the capitalist for the chance to make a living, agree that there are no classes and no class struggle. In unison they declaim against class agitation and seek to obscure class rule that it may be perperuated indefinitely. We insist that there is a class struggle; that the working class must recognise it; that they must organise economically and politically upon the basis of that struggle; and that when they do so organise they will then have the power to free themselves and put an end to that struggle forever.

Who owns the North Pole - Part 67

While many existing oil and gas reserves in other parts of the world are facing steep decline, the Arctic is thought to possess vast untapped reservoirs. Approximately 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil deposits and 30 percent of its natural gas reserves are above the Arctic Circle, according to the United States Geological Survey. Eager to tap into this largess, Russia and its Arctic neighbors — Canada, Norway, the United States, Iceland and Denmark (by virtue of its authority over Greenland) — have encouraged energy companies to drill in the region.

 Arctic drilling poses an unacceptable threat to the region. Any major spill that occurs there is likely to prove far more destructive than the one produced in the Gulf of Mexico by the Deepwater Horizon disaster in April 2010, because of both the lack of adequate response capabilities and the likelihood that ice floes and sea ice will impede cleanup operations. As more companies push into the Arctic and accelerate their operations there, the risk of accidents and spills is bound to increase.

The risk of conflict over the ownership of contested territories is likely to grow. Five of the Arctic states have asserted exclusive drilling rights to boundary areas also claimed by one of the others, and control over the polar region itself remains contentious. In an area with the “potential for tapping what may be as much as a quarter of the planet’s undiscovered oil and gas,” Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel warned recently, “a flood of interest in energy exploration has the potential to heighten tensions over other issues.”

Most of the Arctic states have asserted their right to defend their offshore territories with force and have taken steps to enhance their ability to fight in these areas. Russia, for example, recently announced plans to establish what it calls a “cutting-edge military infrastructure” in the Arctic.

Another  big danger in Arctic drilling is posed by the release of mass amounts of Methane gas trapped under the permafrost. Enough gas will be released into the atmosphere to kill all life on the planet.

None of this, however, is likely to deter other interested countries. With the demand for oil at an all-time high and existing fields incapable of satisfying global needs, the major energy firms are bound to pursue every conceivable source of supply.

No extra measure of oil and natural gas is worth the destruction of pristine wilderness or the onset of an Arctic arms race but capitalism will not stop its expansion.  What do they care about wildnerness? All they see is money and power, power and money. The capitalist’s greed  always trumps common sense. Rushing for profits and greater ownership is what world capital interests seek above all else.

From here 

The Fair Wage - A Mythic Dream

All the wage increases over the past 15 years have gone to the wealthiest 10%, according to the Economic Policy Institute. All of them. And almost all, 95%, of the income gains from 2009 to 2012, the first three years of recovery from the Great Recession, went to the very richest 1%.

The minimum wage has not risen since 2009 -. If the minimum wage had just kept pace with inflation since 1968, it would be $10.77 an hour today instead of $7.25. If the minimum wage had kept up with the growth of workers' productivity, it would be $18.67. And if it had matched the wage growth of the wealthiest 1%, it would be more than $28. For tipped workers, the minimum wage rate has been stuck at a scandalous $2.13 for 20 years. A raise in the minimum wage would give 30 million workers a little more money to pay for rent, food and other needs.

The median household income in the USA is about $50,000. The average household size is about 2.59 people. $50,000/2.59 is about $19,300. Assume a 2000 hour work year. Then you have $19,300/2000 hours equals $9.65 per hour. Based on these simple and fact-based calculations above, the bare minimum living wage is $9.65 per hour if you work full-time. Face the facts my friends. Even if you work full time at $9.65 per hour, you are still pretty poor.

The share of workers in "good” jobs -- paying more than $37,000 a year and providing health care and retirement benefits -- has fallen, even though workers' average age and education level have grown. And today, most job growth -- and six in 10 jobs expected to be added over the next decade -- are in low-wage fields.

Under no circumstances can a wage be fair. It is a common delusion that wages are a payment for work done. If they were this, then to the worker would go the full market price of his product. To the miner would go the full selling price of the coal less only the cost of maintaining the railwaymen, transport workers and others incidental to the transfer of coal from pit to power station . To the engineer would go the price of his product—to the agricultural labourer his. To the worker would go the whole produce of his toil, and there would be none left for profits or dividends. It is clear, then, that the wage of the worker is a part, and only a part, of his own product. Any “wage” bring only a part, is an injustice—an unfairness—to those whose labour has begotten the whole. Anything fair to the worker as producer would be unfair to the “employer . From the nature of the relation, employer and employee, there can be no such thing as “fairness” about the reward of the latter.

It is often suggested nowadays that the wage should be governed by the “cost of living” - the living wage.  One has only to ask the meaning of “living” in this connection to expose its fallacy. If  worker accepts this as a principle, they lay themselves open to all the old attacks upon their lifestyle -  extravagance, wastefulness, drunkenness.

The Citizens Wage 

Those who are not into radical politics, the basic income is an income granted unconditionally to all citizens (or inhabitants) - Citizens income or universal benefit,

Promotion of the concept of social wage invariably means arguing against fighting for pay rises, and is based on the assumption that class struggle is a bad thing; better to use the democratic process to elect social democrats to government and legislate improvements in the social wage.

“Social wage” fell out of use in the latter part of the 20th century, as social democratic parties around the world were engaged in running down health services and pensions while unions were bargaining for employer contributions to health insurance and superannuation funds.

“If workers do not only want to survive, but also want a car or a holiday abroad, it will become difficult to put pressure on employers. It is clear that trade unions will lose much of their power. The freedom not to work is very relative and is only valid when one is satisfied with a life in relative poverty. Chances are real that wages above the BI will remain very limited. An unconditional income outside of the labour market cannot influence that labour market. Contrary to the thesis that capitalism is being eroded, it is possible that one ends up with a capitalism without a labour market and that employers pass on as many costs as possible to the whole of society. It makes labour more cheap, without allowing to eradicate poverty.” said one critic

A "Citizen's Income", is defined as: "a monetary payment distributed at regular intervals to all those who enjoy citizenship and residency for a certain period of time, which allows a minimum dignity of life . . . It is paid to those of working age, for the period that goes from the end of obligatory schooling to pension age or death."

Negri supports this as he sees the demand for it as "a refusal of work and of the wage relationship". If introduced other than as some tinkering with the tax and benefits system it would indeed undermine the economic compulsion to go out and work for an employer; which of course (apart from its cost) is why it is never going to happen under capitalism. In any event, as a goal, it is a poor substitute for "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".

His answer is, perhaps surprisingly from someone who was associated with Militant for a while, “yes”, in the form of the scheme proposed by the Belgian social thinker, Philippe Van Parijs, for paying everyone a Basic Income as of right and irrespective of whether or not they work, referring to an article by him in a book with the revealing title of Redesigning Distribution: Basic Income and Stakeholder Grants as Designs for a More Egalitarian Capitalism. Or, as Van Parijs himself has put it:

“In classical Marxism, socialism is just an instrument for achieving the society in which people can work freely according to their abilities but still get enough according to their needs. If socialism doesn’t work, because of threats to freedom and problems of dynamic efficiency, then why not harness capitalism to achieve the same objectives?” (The Bulletin, Brussels, 19 July 2001).

It’s a pipedream of course and a bit currency cranky (though to give Van Parijs his due, he did come up with a brilliant title for one of his books in What’s Wrong with a Free Lunch?). A Basic Income paid as of right would have to be funded (even squeezed) out of profits and would either undermine the wages system (why work for a capitalist employer if the State is paying you whether you work or not?) or make no difference (since wages would fall by the amount of the State wage subsidy that a Basic Income would represent). Or it would be fixed at so low a level as to be just another name for “Income Support”.

land backed interest free currency –spent into the economy to create infrastructure, rental income to fund citizens income and public services.’

In other words, the government would get money by taxing away the rental income, real or notional, of landowners (which these days includes not just the Duke of Westminster but those who own the leasehold or freehold of their homes) and using this to pay everybody a basic income as well as to finance its own expenditure. It is not clear that this is actually an ‘alternative currency’ since the existence of rental incomes to be taxed away assumes that there already is a currency. What they seem to mean is ‘land based interest free government financing,’ which would allow the government to dispense with borrowing money.

Let it never be forgotten that a  basic income guarantee is always perfectly compatible with alienation and oppression.