Meet the new boss...same as the old boss

The role of “the party,” “cadre” or “vanguard” plays a large part in contemporary Left discussion. Marxism teaches that the revolution against capitalism and the socialist reconstruction of the old world can be accomplished only through conscious, collective action by the workers themselves. Revolution is not a goal in itself. Revolution is an instrument. The goal is building a socialist classless society, the self-emancipation of the working class, and self-emancipation of all the exploited, by building a classless society without exploitation, without oppression.

For almost a century Leninist groups, have been trying to build vanguard parties that would “lead” the working class to power. For its part when the working class has moved to challenge capitalism it has steadfastly ignored its would-be leaders. Rather than relying on a 'revolutionary' party they knew it was task of working people, through the organisations they would themselves create, to open the gateway to a new and better society.

The so-called revolutionary left is in crisis. Their organisations are small and without connection with the class many genuinely wish to liberate. This situation appears unlikely to change in the near future. Yet class struggle continues to take place on both a global and a local scale.

Socialism can’t be created by decree or by force by a minority. It can only be implemented by the majority of the people taking over the economy (taking over their workplaces and communities) and reorganising them as they see fit. Without said process and everyday content, socialism has no meaning but empty slogans.

We are against leaders who have the power to compel simply because they are leaders - but quite happy to have people responsible for others if they are a) accountable to them, b) chosen by them, and c) and recallable at any time.

A leader may say “all that our organisation has gained is because of me”. But it is not so. Whenever a movement wins better houses, or cheaper water and electricity, or prevents an eviction, this is not because of leaders. It is because of the strength of our numbers – as the workers and the poor, the great majority of the people of the world. It is not because a leader persuades the government to be nice, but because the actions of our mass movements force the government to give back some of what the bosses have taken from us. It is not because the leader knows how to get houses or electricity, but because a mass movement is united .

Leaders, indeed, will sometimes pretend that they know best and that the movement depends on them. But they can do this only by holding knowledge and power for themselves, keeping them away from the masses. This is why it is important to try to make our organisations as democratic as possible. If we rely on one leader, or a group of leaders for our victories, we are putting ourselves in a vulnerable position because we can easily be betrayed which can have devastating consequences.

The workers and the poor have nothing to gain and everything to lose by relying on leaders and governments. And we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by relying on ourselves, collectively. We are all leaders.

 The Socialist Party is not Leninist, Trotskyist or Maoist, but plain simple revolutionaries. We do not intend to lead the masses towards a free and classless society because we are a part of the masses ourselves and adhere faithfully to the motto of the First International: “The emancipation of the workers is an act of the workers themselves.” If the masses wait for a revolutionary vanguard to lead them to the classless society or the free society, they will neither be free nor classless. There is enough evidence in support of the foregoing statement.

The term “dictatorship of the proletariat” was first employed by Marx in 1875 in a private document, and then popularised in the 1917 Russian Revolution. Many Marxists rightly think it a very unfortunate phrase, because no matter how many lengthy explanations are given concerning its true meaning, it lends itself to the interpretation that socialists stand for dictatorship. But that is not what Marx had in mind at all.

He was talking of the necessity for a victorious labor government during the transition period to resolutely destroy the old privileged positions and suppress all activities aimed at restoring the old order. In this sociological sense, he labelled the regime a “dictatorship”; not to signify minority rule in the manner of Robespierre’s Jacobin dictatorship in the eighteenth century French revolution, or Cromwell’s dictatorship in the seventeenth century English revolution, but only in the sense that it was still class rule.

 Rosa Luxemburg defined the proletarian dictatorship in her essays on the Russian Revolution:
“Socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat. This dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination; in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of capitalist society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class—that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.”

Lenin assumed power in 1917 within a few years any libertarian content was discarded in Russia and the dictatorship became one not of a class but of a small group, with the Communist Party remaining the only one on the scene and all other parties suppressed and destroyed, and democracy eliminated from the inner councils of this one existing party as well.

 Everyone knows that throughout its history the capitalist class has been represented in most countries by two or more political organizations except in periods of dictatorial suppression. This is explained by the fact that the various subdivisions of the class have different and sometimes even conflicting interests that demand special political consideration and expression. In the United States, for example, some capitalist groups, in highly advanced or favoured industries, are free-traders. In France, Italy and Germany, the capitalists to this very day continue to be represented by anywhere from four to six different political parties, which voice either special group or sectional interests, or different programmatic solutions to meet the needs of the class.

It is irrelevant in this connection to point out, as some do, that the formal democracy under capitalism has very restricted meaning and is robbed of its essence by the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a privileged few who are able to manipulate the political mechanism in their own interests and corrupt the legislators to do their bidding. This is all very interesting and true. But socialists have traditionally insisted that the answer to the corruption and bowdlerization of democracy under capitalism is not to throw out democracy altogether and place their fate in the hands of a few saviors, but to eliminate the social parasitism of capitalism so as to be able to extend, to broaden, to ensure a genuine popular democracy, first for the working people, and eventually for all mankind.

Capitalism Without Austerity?

 The Toronto Globe, May 2, included a photograph of workers demonstrating against austerity in the May Day parade in Paris. They obviously want capitalism without austerity and that is impossible. Governments trying to balance a budget will make cuts in welfare, medicare, education, and other social programs because they are attempting to run capitalism and must save money wherever they can. If the workers must suffer, well, so be it as long as more money is not needed from profit to save the cuts. The only solution is a society without the constraints of profit and money and where people's needs are the priority. John Ayers.

Fracking Nonsense.

A report by the Canadian Council of Canadians on the impact of shale Gas development said, " There is not enough known about the environmental and health impacts of fracking to declare it safe. Key elements of the provinces' regulatory systems are not based on strong science and remain untested." Despite that, the federal government has refused to make amendments to those regulations. Contrary to what people say, you can, then, trust governments. You can trust them to do whatever suits the needs of big business and to hell with the problems. John Ayers.

Wage Slavery or Liberation

The immediate goal of reformists is legislation. The Socialist Party’s immediate goal is the social revolution. We know that most promised reforms will not be realised and that, even if realised, they will only ameliorate the lot of one set of workers at the expense of the others. We also know that gains made may well be later lost. How foolish it is for the workers to ask the capitalists to give them something that they have the power to take. Reforms are either economically unsound or politically impossible. That the workers can get only what they have the power to take. If they have the power to take, and begin to exercise that power, the capitalists will often try to get ahead of them and give, hoping to get credit that they do not deserve and deceive the workers into the belief that the benefits do not come because of their own organized powers but because of kindness in the hearts of the capitalists. All reforms  stop short of overthrowing the capitalist system become co-opted by that system and turned to its advantage (but not necessarily to the advantage of any particular capitalists). We only see one solution: the revolution. We clearly separate ourselves from reformists and believe all interests must be subordinated to the revolution. The Socialist Party above all wants to destroy the cause of all iniquities, all exploitation, all poverty and crime: private property.

We shouldn’t expect a miraculous transformation of human nature: that transformation will take place afterwards by the effects of the new conditions of existence. To suppose them to be instantaneous, contemporaneous with the revolution, means putting the effect before the cause. The revolution we conceive of can only be made by and for the people, without any false representatives. We believe that the new organisation of society from the bottom up and not from top down, by the decrees. The revolution obviously can’t be the work of a party but demands the cooperation of the masses. Without the involvement of the masses we may carry out a coup d’etat, not a revolution. The workers have no need of  leaders: they are quite capable of charging one of their own with a particular task. Workers need to form common aspirations and a community of ideas. Only through this that do workers unite.

The workers must go forward, take possession of their tools, of the means of labor and life without paying tribute and without serving anyone. Workers don’t have to ask permission of anyone to take over factories, workshops and offices and to install themselves there. Wealth will only truly be placed in common when everyone works, when production will have been organised in the common interest. The fundamental principle of the organisation of production is that each person should work, must render him or herself useful unless he or she is sick or frail, too young or too elderly. All men and women should make themselves useful to society through work. it will be up to the workers to organise work and to regulate their reciprocal relations. Force will be nothing about it; voluntary agreement is necessary. It will occur through free association.  People will pass from one job to another, from manual labour to study and artistic recreation. But in working, in studying, in cultivating the fine arts, etc, the goal will always be to make ourselves useful to our comrades. Work is life and also the social bond that unites men and women in society. There must be solidarity in labour in order for society to function properly.

The Socialist Party say that enough is already produced to satisfy all the needs of all people, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and provide welfare to the millions suffering in poverty. There is an abundance today. The landowner and the capitalist only allow the fields and factories to produce for profits. If no profit the landowner leaves the land fallow, the capitalist closes the factory and the workers go hungry. We possess, even today, sufficient means of production to satisfy all reasonable needs. There will be simple relations of reciprocity and assistance. Experience and agreements will tell the individual and the labour associations what society has need of at a given moment. Everyone instead of thinking of their own interests, will fraternise, practice solidarity on a worldwide scale.

The Socialist Party must do everything possible to widen and generalize the movement and give it a revolutionary character. But above all we must be with the workers and prove the need for the future society. We must demonstrate that socialism isn’t an abstract concept, a scientific dream, or a distant vision, but a vital and living possibility. Socialism is not Utopia that OUGHT to be established but a future system which we inevitably MUST attain.

 Capitalism is tremendously wasteful and destructive system. Profits are the heart of capitalism, markets its circulating system; capitalist enterprise consequently required the transformation of production for use into production for profit and increasingly larger markets.

Capitalism is based on wage slavery. The capitalists hire wage workers to produce wealth, give them part of that wealth in the form of wages and keep the rest. We do not sell our labour to the capitalists; we sell our labour power. Labour power is just as different from labour as a machine is different from the work it does. Labour power is the mental and physical capabilities of man which he exercises when he produces wealth.

Terrorism Is Big Business

 Terrorism is big business. The Toronto Star of May 10th. reported that Britain spent $5.9 billion on domestic counter terrorism measures in 2010/11 while the US has spent $1 trillion since 9/11. The chances of dying in a terrorist attack in the States is one in six million. The odds of dying from a wasp, hornet, or bee sting is one in 75,000. As usual, capitalism can't get its priorities right.

 The same issue tells us that Japan is in deep trouble as its population declines and is projected to drop to 50 million by the end of the century compared to its high of 128 million (2008) That would be good news in a world that wants to control population increase, but in capitalism it is the death knoll as the economy is shrinking and to be successful, as we all know, you must keep on growing. John Ayers.

A Crazy Society

Socialists are often accused of being mad because we propose a new society based on common ownership but we feel particularly sane when we read of the following. A very rare 19th Century postage stamp from a former British colony in South America has sold for a record $9.5m (£5.6m) at auction in New York. 'It took only two minutes for the British Guiana one-cent magenta stamp to be sold to an anonymous bidder. It measures just 1in by 1in (2.5cm by 2.5cm), and had not been publicly exhibited since 1986.' (BBC News, 18 June) Children dying for the lack of a couple of dollars whilst some anonymous parasite lavishes millions on a spec of paper. We are the mad ones? RD

The Impossible Dream

The sham “socialist movement” is peopled by a host of competing organisations and many are campaigning for a Yes vote in the referendum. One argument being presented in exemplified in this letter to the Herald. “A revamped, genuinely democratic socialist Labour Party is a distinct possibility once the New Labour chains of London are thrown off, and a resurgence of support rather than continuing decline is more likely in an independent Scotland than in a dysfunctional UK.”  A similar belief is echoed in a Scotsman article by Pat Kelly who is a former president of the STUC and Scottish secretary of the PCS union. “ now feel the only possibility of a change in the Labour party is if there is a vote for independence on 18 September. Once Labour in Scotland is released from the straitjacket of London HQ control then there is the prospect that it will rediscover the moral compass it has lost....A transformed Labour party free of Westminster control could return to being a party representing the needs and aspirations of the people of Scotland and putting into practice its values of equality, solidarity and social justice. It could once again be a party that campaigns fearlessly for the elimination of poverty, progressive taxation, wealth distribution, and the restoration of trade union rights.”

IS THE LABOUR PARTY LESS CAPITALIST THAN THE TORY PARTY?

Successive governments, both Labour and Tory, have been looking for ways to grapple with the problems facing capitalism in Britain. Their attempts have focused on the problem of ’economic strategy’, which is the capitalist euphemism for trying to keep workers’ wages down and profits up. The Labour Party cannot he said to ‘betray’ the working class, for it is not a working class or socialist party in the first place. The Labour Party has not made any error in not introducing socialism, for it wasn’t created to do that in the first place and was never a socialist party from the day of its foundation: it has therefore never ’betrayed’ the working class.  So the Labour Party in the past, so the Labour Party today.  A party’s class nature is determined not by who its members are, or who votes for it, but by its political line, i.e. whose interests it actually serves. It is common knowledge that whenever Labour has been in power it has worked flat out in capitalism’s interests. Just because many workers still vote for the Labour Party does not mean that it is a workers’ party any more than the Liberal Party was at the end of the last century when most working-class electors voted for it. Socialists  do not dissipate their efforts in a flurry of well-intentioned ‘do-gooding’ by creating reformist diversions.

There is an argument that is often used in the support of the ‘betrayal’ theory: namely, that in the ‘good old days’, the Labour Party really was a socialist organisation, but that it has since degenerated. There is a secret force of Labour Party rank and file members whose standpoint is socialist, ready at any time to burst free from the trammels of its leadership, who are unfortunately blocked because of the party’s undemocratic structure. Marxists regard Labour as a bosses’ party, and this standpoint has been amply vindicated.  The slogan – “Vote Labour, without illusions” is to shirk the first responsibility of socialists – to wean the masses away from reformism and win them to revolutionary politics. It is illusory to expect the Labour Party to introduce socialism, and yet fosters the illusion that Labour is more “left-wing” than the Tories. Labour governments have attacked workers’ living standards to shift the burden of the capitalist crises off the shoulders of the capitalist class and onto the backs of the workers. They have passed legislation that has curbed civil and human rights and strengthen the authoritarian nature of the state. Labour has presided over the establishment of a racist immigration controls.

Our Red Myth Past

Of course, the expected retort to the above will be ..."Ahhh, but the Scottish Labour Party was different. We had the experience of Keir Hardie, Red Clydesiders like James Maxton ao an independent Scotland’s Labour Party would radical.” Dream on, comrades.

 The Independent Labour Party in 1922 returned several MPs, among them James Maxton, David Kirkwood, John Wheatley and John McGovern whose ghosts still haunt the Scottish left-wing. They were sent to Westminster in a wave of left-wing enthusiasm. However, they were dominated by ideas of the reform of capitalism rather than by the determination to destroy capitalism. The I.L.P. may have used the language of radicals but instead of calling workers to revolutionary action, it appealed to the good sense and kindness of the ruling class. Lacking as it did any real position of principle, the ILP could accommodate practically any demand. Socialism was, of course, variously interpreted, but to most it meant state control and planning in varying proportions with import and export boards, investment committees, public corporations and the rest. The I.L.P. M.P.s. rarely missed an opportunity to try and “reason” with the capitalists, showing them the “folly” of their ways. Maxton and McGovern and their friends were wasting their time. The ruling class understood the position better than they did.

David Kirkwood, explained:
“We were going to do big things. The people believed that. We believed that. At our onslaught, the grinding poverty which existed in the midst of plenty was to be wiped out. We were going to scare away the grim spectre of unemployment ... Alas, that we were able to do so little!”

When the first Labour government came into office, out of 193 Labour MPs 132 were members of the ILP. Twenty-six of them were in the government and six of them, including the Prime Minister MacDonald, were in the cabinet. In 1929 out of 288 Labour MPs over 200 were members of the ILP. Again it was very strongly represented in the government and cabinet including, as before, MacDonald as Prime Minister. The ILP could congratulate itself on building up the mass party Keir Hardie and Maxton wanted. But what of the next stage, getting the Labour Party to accept socialism as its object?  If the ILP was to win over the the workers to socialism, who was to win over the ILP membership and its leaders to socialism?  The ILP has now vanished and Maxton almost forgotten. Having devoted all his political life in the service of the ILP James Maxton's efforts achieved nothing for socialism.

For many years, left-wingers have painted a picture of Glasgow and Red Clydeside as a revolution that almost was. Willie Gallacher later claimed that they should have marched to the Maryhill barracks and tried to persuade the troops stationed there to come out on the protesters' side. "We had forgotten we were revolutionary leaders of the working class. Revolt was seething everywhere, especially in the army. We had within our hands the possibility of giving actual expression and leadership to it, but it never entered our heads to do so. We were carrying on a strike when we ought to have been making a revolution." This piece of imaginative hindsight has led to the left-wing to argue that the unrest during WWI and the immediate post-war period was a prelude to the establishment of a workers' republic. Memoirs written decades after the 1914-1919 period and the government's hysteria paint a picture of Clydeside which was far more revolutionary in hindsight than it ever was in reality. Glasgow was not Petrograd and it never could have been. In 1983 Iain McLean's "The Legend of the Red Clydeside" asserted that Red Clydeside was neither a revolution nor "a class movement; it was an interest-group movement" - Engineers defending their skilled status and their pay differentials.

The Left parties began to decline from 1920. By early 1922, the Socialist Labour Party was a near-dead party. By 1924 it had 100 members or less, and its journal, The Socialist, ceased to be printed due to a lack of subscribers. In the 1919 Glasgow Trades Council annual report, of the 74,951 members of the Glasgow Trades Union Congress, 71,860 were in non-socialist unions. Of the remaining 3,091 members, 2,568 were affiliated with the I.L.P., while 523 were affiliated with the B.S.P. The explicitly socialist unions or branches of such unions numbered a mere 31 out of 255 in the Trades Council. The following year  would see a relative decline in socialists as the membership of unions in general increased to 84,465 while those in openly socialist unions increased only to 3,134.

 The history of Scottish labour movement is often marred by religious bigotry but racism too  also existed. Emanuel – Manny – Shinwell gained fame as a union firebrand, a national hero remembered for his fight for workers' rights. Stirling University historian Dr Jacqueline Jenkinson, in her book "Black 1919", accuses Shinwell of encouraging Glasgow seamen to launch a series of attacks on black sailors. Jenkinson reveals how Shinwell's British Seafarers Union banned black members and how labour histories of the period  fail to mention this Glasgow race-riot.
Jenkinson said: "There has been a reluctance to accept that many of the Red Clydesiders promoted actions that were discriminatory and unfair to the black sailors. Manny Shinwell was one of those who campaigned to stop black sailors getting work. His radical seamen's union, the British Seafarers Union, openly banned black members. It was felt they were keeping Scots out of jobs when they returned from service in the First World War, and lowering wages. Shinwell gave what some consider inflammatory speeches in which he condemned the employment of black sailors in the merchant fleet."
Her view is supported by Professor Elaine McFarland, a specialist in modern Scottish history at Glasgow Caledonian University, who said: "Red Clydeside does have this dark, racist underbelly, and there has been a reluctance to expose it. It may be due to the political leanings of some historians, but there has been a sentimental view of those who took part in Red Clydeside."

Willie Gallacher joined with Shinwell in the tactic to import the old demand that black and Chinese crews should be expelled from British ships, parroting the mis-conception that it is the  immigrant who is responsible for wage cuts and unemployment. This incitement led to a race riot on the eve of the 40 hour a week strike that led to five dead and which swiftly spread from the Clyde to other British ports.  It is an example of how one element of the working class can be made the scapegoat, by those supposedly protecting the interests of all workers, in order to secure a better deal for their members, at the expense of the minority.

 Keir Hardie, canonised as a labour saint, could declare: “It would be much better for Scotland if those [Scottish emigrants] were compelled to remain there [in Scotland] and let the foreigners be kept out. Dr. Johnson said God made Scotland for Scotchmen, and I would keep it so.” According to Hardie, the Lithuanians migrant workers in the mining industry had “filthy habits”, they lived off “garlic and oil”, and they were carriers of “the Black Death”.

The story of Red Clydeside is one of disappointment in that the "revolutionary" movement was not truly revolutionary and was ultimately unsuccessful. Red Clydeside was far more pragmatic, from a trade union perspective, and not to mention more patriotic, than the left-wing rhetoric asserts.

No historical review of Scotland’s supposed radical past can omit the damaging influence of religion. Thomas Johnston, a leading labour personality of the times, was particularly dismayed by the religious sectarianism that existed. No sympathiser with Orangemen, he nevertheless tried to convince them without too much success that their Protestant heritage could find expression through the Left. In 1919 the Orange Order attempted to establish the strikebreaking "Patriotic Workers League" In 1923 the '"Orange and Protestant Political Party" defeated the sitting Communist MP in Motherwell and Wishaw to win its one and only seat. In the Depression years specifically anti-Catholic parties - the Scottish Protestant League in Glasgow and Protestant Action in Edinburgh - took up to a third of the votes in local council elections. Ratcliffe of the SPL had previously been a member of the "British Fascists", along with Billy Fullerton of the Bridgeton Billy Boys. Fullerton was also a thug who was awarded a medal for strike-breaking in the 1926 General Strike. Ratcliffe became an anti-Semite and follower of Hitler in 1939, but by then his support was waning. Edinburgh's John Cormack of Protestant Action lacked such fascist connections, and even led physical opposition to Oswald Mosley on his visit to Edinburgh in 1934. The Blackshirts sympathy for a united Ireland and Mussolini's associations with the Vatican were too much for them to take. But Cormack's own violent incursions into Catholic neighbourhoods and combination of electoral intervention with control of the streets suggest at least an outline of a Protestant variety of fascism. Cormack remained a councilor in Leith for twenty years. Orangeism had long been a crucial element to working-class Toryism.The Orange Order leadership's Conservative politics can be stressed but it can also be contended that the Order's appeal to the working class was to a large extent based on issues such as education and jobs  and  the perceived Irish Catholic immigration, issues which did not break down neatly into party political terms.

Religious divisions in European politics are not unusual, but the Catholic church's support in Scotland for the traditional Left is. The Catholic church hierarchy had previously always reserved strong opposition for its socialist opponents, and raised money for Franco in Glasgow Churches in the 1930s. They remained arch-enemies of those on the Left, organising against them both at elections and within the unions. But they could not prevent their followers from recognising a basic class interest and voting Labour, once the Irish question was effectively removed from Scottish politics in the early part of the 20th century.

John Wheatley formed the Catholic Socialist Society in 1906 and suffered the hostility of local priests who on one occasion incited a mob of several hundred to burn an effigy of him in front of his house. Glasgow of that era was solidly Liberal due to the Liberal Party's support for Home Rule and it was the shift of activists towards the labour movement that led to a re-positioning of politics and religion. Until 1914 the main outlet for political activists within the Catholic community had been the United Irish League. The UIL expertly marshalled the Catholic vote to the ends of Irish nationalism. Historian Bill Knox comments in his Industrial Nation that Irish Catholics might disobey their priests and the UIL and vote Labour; however, it was a rare occasion, and was never repeated in local elections. Many Irish Catholics in Scotland were afraid that labour politics, dominated as they were by men of Protestant backgrounds might lead to secular education. The STUC in 1913 had voted for such secularism in all state-aided schools. Knox refers to the anti-Irishness of the likes of ILP hero Keir Hardie who described the typical Irish immigrant coal-miner as having "a big shovel, a strong back and a weak brain" and to Bruce Glasier who declared upon the death of Protestant Truth Society's, John Kensit, "I esteem him as martyr... I feel a honest sympathy with his anti-Romanist crusade" et history changes. The 1918 Education Act, which brought Catholic schools within the state system in Scotland and guaranteeing their religious character, although provoking opposition, expressed in the cry of "No Rome on the Rates" was a transformative moment for the Catholic Church and Labour Party relationship. Although the Labour party had no responsibility for the Act, its general willingness to support denominational schooling encouraged an identification of Labour and Catholic.

When the story of Scotland’s radicalism is scrutiniesed, it is no more and no less left-wing than large swathes of England. There is no guarantee that an independent Scotland would produce a socialist Scotland.

Affecting?

Recently, Grand & Toy announced the closing of the remaining nineteen Canadian stores 'affecting' one hundred and sixty employees. By 'affecting' they really mean firing and being unemployed. In a socialist society it would be a wonderful thing to free up workers to do something more necessary and no worry about where the means of life would come from. In capitalism it means misery, making choosing between the two systems an easy task! John Ayers.

A Dangerous Society

Capitalism is a very dangerous society. Millions die every year from hunger and lack of clean water, and thousands die in wars, riots and as a result of an ever increasing crime wave. Now a new hazard of modern society is becoming more and more apparent. Pollution is no longer a problem in far off Asia it is occurring in Central London. Oxford Street has the world's highest concentration of a toxic pollutant that can trigger asthma and heart attacks, scientists have found. 'A monitoring station installed in London's famous shopping street found high levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), an invisible gas produced by diesel engines.' (Sunday Times, 6 July) Scientist estimate that this air pollution causes 29,000 premature UK deaths a year because it provokes inflammation in the lungs and blood that can in turn provokes heart or asthma attacks and strokes. RD

A Happy World

How little discussion there is about socialism. Activists concern themselves with  practical day-to-day issues of the class struggle, leaving the future society to take care of itself. Many people know that life can be improved to make it better for all. Socialists understand that within the way our society is ordered today, there are already forces growing that can change it for a better one and that life can be made happy for all. It is not “human nature” that is the cause of the problems people face today. It is the way society is organised, with a minority of people owning and controlling the wealth and the industry, excluding the vast majority of the people from any say in the operation of society. This is what lies at the root of the problems that working people face. It is this system we call capitalism. The Socialist Party believe that it can be changed for the better if the people are willing to fight for  the ending of capitalism so that the people will decide how industry is to be run. Socialists are concerned more with people and change than with anything else.

 Under capitalism the world is divided into classes and their respective interest cannot be reconciled which means there exists class struggle  between  employers and their employees. The workers want better wages and conditions, and the bosses wants to make the maximum profit out of the labour of the workers. Profits can only come from the value created by the workers. Hence the conflict. Capitalism is based on the production of goods for sale and employers are only interested in organising the production of those goods which will make him a profit. Workers are  not particularly interested in profit, but in being paid so to be able to buy what he or she needs or wants. The higher the wages paid to the worker, the greater the threat to the capitalist’s profits.

It is often suggested that the state is above the vested interest of the two class and cares only for the peoples general well-being. That it is neutral between the contesting classes. Far from being independent, it acts in the interests of the capitalists and serves as  the instrument through which the the capitalists are able to rule the workers.

 Society is composed of human beings, of men and women. There is one phenomenon that is more important than all the propaganda of the ruling class, and this is experience, the experience of the reality that people go through in their daily struggles. Men and women cannot be fooled by lies and false promises forever. It is to try to slow down people’s thinking, to withhold information, that the ruling class keeps such a tight rein on education  and the media. People come to learn the need for radical change in the way things are. They start to draw the conclusions about what needs to be changed. They begin to look towards a future society organised without exploitation.

To change the system, however, political organisation is needed. While people think and act as individuals, they come together as a class. To be put into practice, to become reality, ideas must be adopted by the people. To bring about change, therefore, demands explanation of the facts and in a way that can be understood by the people. The trade unions are the collective organisations  of class struggle at the point of production. The demand for ending the exploitation of man by man is a political demand, and workers must also have to organise in a socialist party to take state power out of the hands of the bosses. These political actions to win fundamental change for the better for the vast majority of the population cannot be brought about without the active participation of the people. Decisions can never be left to others. Democratic popular control must be brought into the economic and industrial world.

This is what socialists mean by a revolution that must take place. Reforms have not shifted society one inch along the road to people’s rule, to socialism, so no continuation of the reforms will end in socialism. Today workers can defend and improve living standards and win extension of democracy. But they cannot solve the wages problem or triumph the struggle for democracy while capitalism continues. This capitalist society demands, not patching up and blood transfusions, but the death blow and its over-throw to enable the introduction of socialism, an order of society that can manage the new technology revolution to the benefit of the all the people.

No leader, no political party can do the job of ending capitalism and building socialism. This can only come about when the people engage in action themselves. When people learn the need for the fundamental change, the revolution that will end capitalism. Against the power of the rulers , the workers has the potential weapons of unity and organisation. Working people make up the overwhelming majority. No power on earth can stop their advance if they are united and have the understanding of how a socialism can be achieved. In all parts of the world people are ready to make the break with capitalism.

Our path to revolution is based on a careful study of the actual, not wishful, conditions of  today’s society. We do conjure up a vision of how we would like to see socialism, and then to try and force this image on to reality. That is for dreamers. Clearly, the actual conditions of the social revolution will decide what socialism will look like. To do everything to make this possibility more real requires the building, cementing and strengthening of the movement of the people. As been already mentioned, socialism means, above all else, that political power has been taken out of the hands of the capitalists and their representatives and placed in the hands of the people. There will be common ownership of all the means of production and distribution. From the present day production for profit, the aim will be changed to production for use for the whole of the people. Life for the people will become secure.

Work will become more interesting and more meaningful as the result of its benefits will be going entirely to the people. With the harnessing of science and technology, boring and repetitive work will be eliminated. Work for all will become as it is today for only a very small minority—interesting and satisfying. The boundaries between mental and physical labour will be removed as all people receive the freedom and means by which to exercise their potential, their talents and abilities. As more goods are produced, so working hours will be shortened. As the market is filled with particular goods, so production will be switched to other goods. This will be possible, because, for the first time in our history, the economy will be planned. It will be planned by those who own it, the community,  through co-operation and collaboration with the factory committees. Industry will have a completely different purpose in socialism, to serve the people. The enormous wastage by which the same goods are sold by different competing companies will be replaced by real variety in goods. Choice will be more real and less of an advertisement illusion.

Social and industrial democracy will be extended in a way not possible under capitalism. All of the people will be able to make their contribution to the productive life of society. The oppressive functions of the state as we know them will become redundant, and will wither away as they fall out of use. What will remain will be only a democratic administration of production in the hands of the people. Socialism will enable us to overcome the brakes on progress of capitalism. It will release the creative energies of the people, making it possible to meet their needs in food, clothing and shelter. Humanity will be freed from worry about basic material needs as we know them today. Mankind will be able to develop his own personality and talents to the full. Life for all will be plentiful and secure, and most probably, a happy one.

Need More Examples?

Need more examples? – the BP Gulf oil spill, GM's recall of cars because Of a faulty ignition switch worth pennies, the train disaster at Lac Megantic, Quebec, the loss of a Boeing 747, the sinking of a ship that 'turned too quickly' and many more, all of which could have been avoided with more money on infrastructure and maintenance. That money, though, would have to come from profits and hence does not happen, clearly showing capitalism for what it is. John Ayers.

Looking For A Flat?

Any worker in New York looking for accommodation in that city should be aware of a recent bargain that has come on the market. It is the Battery Park City penthouse, comprising the top two floors of Manhattan's Ritz-Carlton building.  'A trio of owners have put their neighbouring flats in an exclusive building on the market at the same time, creating the potential for a luxury 12 bedroom worth £69m - the highest asking price for any downtime home in the city. However, that still pales into comparison next to the £140m price tag attached to a flat which sold in London's One Hyde Park earlier this year.' (Sunday Express, 6 July) Probably nothing contrasts the life styles of the owning class and the working class better than the type of housing they can afford. RD

Break Their Haughty Power

Some think it is foolish to contemplate ideas that still haven’t seen any success after 100 years  But to socialists visualising the actual goal is what motivates and energises us. We can only work with our hearts and minds. It’s not legislation from on high that will change the lives of those who live in poverty and misery. We have to take responsibility for allowing the 1% to control us. Slavery, serfdom, wage labour, have been means to an end for centuries. The name changes but the game is always the same - to provide a privileged few with comfort.

We live in a world dominated by capitalism, a system which allows a small minority of capitalists to oppress and exploit the great majority of humankind.  It is capitalism that brings about great inequalities in living standards with more poor people now in the world than ever before, starts wars to steal the resources and causes the growing devastation of our natural environment. The only viable way forward is a classless and stateless society on a world scale where people do not oppress and exploit each other and where we live in harmony with our natural environment. The working class must establish socialism, a system of real, popular democracy that sets about the reconstruction of society.

The wages system is a form of servitude. The freedom so loudly proclaimed is, for the workers, merely a freedom to change from a bad master to a worse one, or at the worst to starve. Realisation of profits is the sole consideration for continuing production. When profits ceases, industry ceases, or the scale of wages goes down until there is a sufficient margin of surplus value to induce the proprietor to again open the factory doors.

Buying and selling commodities is the basic principle of the capitalist system of exchange of private property, and it is but natural that the labour-power of the working class should also be regarded as a commodity. It is inevitable that, under a system of production for profit, labour-power should take on such a character and that it should be bought and sold in the open market according to the law of supply and demand of commodities.

Ranchers branded their cattle with their personal logo to mark their ownership. Today, corporations impose their ownership brand upon us in a similar fashion, not upon our hides but imprinted upon our minds by their company logos and slogans, their familiar trade-marks. Businesses spend hundreds of millions  in order to fix their “brand” in people’s minds and differentiate it – supposedly – from all similar products and create customer loyalty. It’s not about producing a better, more reliable, longer lasting and healthier product, but by getting people to believe their “brand” is better than any other, despite any evidence to support such claims. Athletes, entertainers and other celebrities show the way like the Judas goat leading the others into the slaughter-house.

Socialism comes only at the desire and with the consent of the majority of workers, for it is evidently the only class able to safeguard humanity by means of a new society; and the revolution can properly occur only after the working class demonstrate its ability to successfully continue production and handle distribution—so that all may be fed. No class ever yet successfully dominated society unless it demonstrated its ability to direct industry. To merely destroy modern society without substituting something better would be the most monstrous of crimes. To achieve emancipation only to plunge the world into economic chaos would be the bitterest of travesties.

We say “Enough” to the present society and to its reformists. Reformism regards socialism as a remote goal and nothing more. Reformism is a programme of relying on gradual change and making things a little bit better, slowly. Reforms are regarded as a partial realisation of socialism. It develops out of faith in the fair mindedness of the liberal capitalist and trust in the good intentions of the politicians. Only when the working-class has seized political power can it develop co-operative labour on an all-national scale, i.e., really liberate the working classes. To convert social production into one large and harmonious system of free and co-operative labour, general social changes are wanted, changes of the general conditions of society, never to be realised save by the transfer of the organised forces of society from capitalists and landlords to the producers themselves. The transition from capitalism to socialism does not take place by itself. For this, the working-class must break the dominance of the capitalist class.

A Strange Sort Of Unity

Governments in the so-called Western Bloc like to portray themselves as united against the Eastern bloc but their so-called unit is of a somewhat fragile nature. 'The German authorities have summoned the US ambassador in Berlin after a man was arrested on suspicion of spying. The US diplomat "was asked to help in the swift clarification" of the case, the foreign ministry said. ......... US-German ties were strained after allegations last year that the US National Security Agency (NSA) bugged Chancellor Angela Merkel's phone as part of a huge surveillance programme.' (BBC News, 5 July) The man arrested on Wednesday is a 31-year-old German employee of the federal intelligence service, the BND or Bundesnachrichtendienst, federal prosecutors say. Media reports suggested the suspect - a man with a mid-level rank at the BND - had been spying for the US for a period of two years. RD

Unsporting Activity

Capitalism taints everything it touches and so-called sport is not immune from its evil clutches. The New Zealand test cricketer Vincent has given an extremely frank confession about his activities. 'The cricketer Lou Vincent has admitted attempting to fix matches. His apology came in stark style. He exhales loudly. Then he begins his statement"My name is Lou Vincent and I am a cheat." The former New Zealand cricketer, in 10 words, admits what he has done, how he has contravened and undermined his own sport by accepting money for match-fixing.' (BBC News, 5 July) Vincent recorded his statement after admitting to the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) that he had committed match-fixing offences in Twenty20 games when he played for Lancashire and Sussex. RD

What was the USSR?

“Abolition of the wages system” was, for Marx, “the revolutionary watchword” 

The original role of money, before the development of capitalism, was to serve as a medium, a standard that made easier the exchange of one commodity for another. But under capitalism, this medium of exchange has taken a life of its own. For the capitalist, the aim of production is not to produce goods to exchange and to use, but instead it is a compulsory drive to accumulate capital through exploitation–simply put, to make more money.

Once money becomes the aim of production, labour power has to become a commodity. In other words, a worker’s labour power can be bought and sold. Besides the fact that people must be legally free – that is, not slaves owned by others or serfs tied to the land – the labourer must have lost all means of production and thus all ability to produce either for consumption or exchange for himself. An example of this is peasants being driven off the land. Labour power as a commodity is the necessary complement of the private ownership of the means of production by the capitalists.

Only by buying the worker’s labour power can the capitalist make profits. Workers produce more than what the capitalist pays them in wages and benefits. This is the basis of exploitation of the workers. What the workers produce over and beyond the socially necessary labor for keeping themselves and their families alive and working is surplus value. Surplus value is the only source of profits and is ripped off by the capitalists.

While under socialism labour power is no longer a commodity, we are not thus equating it to labour power in the serf-like conditions of the past. The context is modern society, a complex, highly productive and healthy society compared to the past periods. And in a socialist society not only do you no longer sell your labour power to the capitalists, but high consciousness is required for you to be concerned about the overall production and be one of the masters of your own country. You are no longer the exploited class, but the ones who run the country. The difficulty will be a democracy on a far greater scale with far more people participating than ever before. It will be the first time the vast majority become the rulers rather than the ruled. That’s why socialist revolution has to be so thoroughgoing, so far-reaching, and is so difficult.

Whatever the claims, the Soviet Union was not remotely socialist in the authentic sense of the word: workers’ control and popular democracy for the common good. Soviet Russia was an authoritarian state-capitalist and bureaucratic despotism that had little to do with Karl Marx and other socialists’ dream of capitalist class society being replaced by “an association, in which the free development of each is the conditions for the free development of all” – a “true realm of freedom” beyond endless toil and necessity. Workers produced surpluses that were appropriated and distributed by others: the council of ministers, state officials who functioned as employers. The Soviet Union was actually an example of state capitalism in its class structure….by describing itself as…socialist, it prompted the definition of socialism to mean state capitalism.

There were basically four distinct contending positions  on the class character of the Soviet Union:
1. The Soviet Union was socialist;
2. The Soviet Union was in transition to socialism;
3. The Soviet Union was a new exploitative mode of production;
4. The Soviet Union was state capitalist.

 Some have argued that the existence of many capitals competing in the market is the essence of Marx’s concept of capitalism. This is wrong. The exploitation of wage labour by capital and the extraction of surplus value is the essence of capitalism. Surplus value is the source of all profit. The unending search for surplus value, for profit, is the motive force of capitalist production. The government is an executive committee for managing the common affairs of the capitalist class as a whole. The industries are still run for profit by committees composed of members of the state bureaucracy. They intensify the exploitation of the working class.

Under capitalism labour power is a commodity because the worker enjoys a double freedom. He is free in a sense which the slave or the feudal serf was not, to sell his labour power to any employer who is willing and able to buy it. But, he is also free in the sense that he is dispossessed of and separated from the means of production. That means that he has no real choice but to sell his labour power to some employer or other. It also means that he lacks directive power and control over the means of production. He must constantly face the consequences of decisions taken by the owners of capital and their agents. And in order to come to grips with the means of production to earn a living he must accept a subordinate role within the labour process. So how was Russia different? In the USSR the worker was free to sell his labour power to a wide range of employers, for there are many enterprises, but had no real choice but to sell his labour power to some employer or other. True, during much of the Stalin era the State made strenuous efforts to deprive workers of their freedom to change jobs, but even under Stalin’s reign of terror these were only partially effective and have long been superseded by “normal” capitalist practice.

 Some may say but there are no owners of capital. All enterprises are state owned. There are indeed no individuals with legal title to bits of Moscow Metro. But how does this affect the position of the worker? He lacks directive power and control over the process of production. He is confronted by an employer and “must accept a subordinate role in the labour process”. He is in the same position as a worker employed by the previous National Coal Board or British Rail (which also had no shareholders) or for that matter as a worker employed by ICI or GEC – with this important difference: unlike the British worker, the Soviet worker has no effective trade union rights.

The worker in the USSR, then, sold a commodity, his labour power, in the same way as any other worker in, say, the USA. Nor is he paid in rations like a slave or in a share of the produce like a serf. He is paid in money. What does he do with this money? He spends it on commodities, on goods produced for sale. We mention this rather obvious point because  capitalism is a system of commodity production and implies, although he is not reckless enough to state, that commodity production has disappeared in the USSR. In short, the dominant mode of production in the USSR includes, as an essential feature, wage labour; a wages system in the strict marxian definition of that term. That is indisputable.  But wage labour implies capital just as slavery implies slave holding (individual or collective).

We socialists are up against the fact of life that a new generation has to be convinced afresh that socialism does in fact represent a superior system for the peoples, that Marx’s idea of the eventual withering away of the state is not a pipe-dream, but a realistic if very rough sketch of the future state of human society.  Only when people believe these things again, and only by  reason and persuasion can we hope to convince them, not by repeating the same old, tired slogans, can we re-ignite the imagination and vision of the working class. 

It's Driven By Market Forces.

A mobile home park in Barrie, Ontario is closing its doors as have most such sites in the province. Trouble is many who live there for their affordability will be hard pressed to find accommodation elsewhere. David Amborski, director for Urban Research and Land Development at Ryerson University was able to put it succinctly, " It's (the closing is) driven by market forces to a large extent. The owners aren't in the business of providing affordable housing. They are in the business of making a profit. They see an opportunity to sell it and cash in." Another example where profit comes before people. John Ayers.

Foul Play

Capitalism is a corrupt, criminal society so the following should come as no surprise. 'Christopher Forsythe, a registered Fifa agent, and Obed Nketiah, a senior figure in the Ghanaian Football Association, have been questioned by police after they told an undercover investigator and reporter working for the Telegraph and Channel 4's Dispatches programme that they could employ corrupt officials who would rig games played by the Ghana football team.' (Daily Telegraph, 3 July) The arrests are the latest development in match fixers targeting teams playing   at the World Cup.  It emerged that members of the Cameroon team could be interviewed as the country's football federation (Fecafoot) examines allegations of match fixing in Brazil. RD

The Labour Party Exposed

Away back at the beginning of the 20th century when they were formed  the Labour Party may have appeared to some misguided workers as an alternative to capitalism. No such delusion can possibly exist today though. Here is Ed Milibrand their leader sucking up to the British capitalist class. "What I seek to offer is a clear mission for the country, a genuinely 'one nation' mission, which can tackle the big problems we face. A mission we can share. You as British business are vital to that mission because of your entrepreneurship, your inventiveness, your ability to change people's lives through the power of your ideas and your businesses." (BBC News, 3 July) He never once mentioned their most important function of all - to exploit the working class. RD

Raise the Red Flag, Not the Saltire

IT DISNAE MATTER

Scotland is gearing up for the question that it will put to the Scottish people in a few months time. The SNP seek to be masters in its own house. The SNP seek to make maximum use of the state to foster the development of the Scottish capitalist class. As the various politicians whip up jingoism  to save their collapsing profit system, workers should not be fooled by sugar-coated patriotism used by the bosses to pull their chestnuts out of the fire. Workers should never turn away from the advocacy of, and the fight for, socialism. For many months now, a debate has been going on within a number of left-wing organizations in Scotland. What programme will succeed in winning over  Scottish workers to socialism? What strategy and tactics will ensure victory for socialism? The economic crisis is more and more devastating in its effects on workers. The reactionary forces are on the rise on all fronts. Yet the socialist alternative remains very much a fringe phenomenon within the workers movement and emphasis placed instead upon Scotland’s  separatism. The Socialist Party proposes spoiling your ballot in the referendum. Spoiling your ballot means refusing to support the aspiring Scottish capitalist class and it means rejecting the status quo. It shows our determination to affirm an independent working class position that refuses to line up behind either of the two capitalist camps. Our alternative is to continue the battle for socialism .

In a few months the people of Scotland will be voting in the referendum. Many have been anxiously awaiting the referendum, particularly whow this is the first time in a few hundred years the Scottish people will have the opportunity to express their will on their political future. But is the referendum truly the historic moment so emotionally claimed. The question being put is to to choose one state over another. A YES vote is an vote anti-worker vote and objectively  means condoning the SNP policies To re-organise capitalism and re-distribute Scotland’s wealth  in favour of part of its ruling class, which is after their share. The SNP would use its power to  to continue to subsidise native capitalists to the tune of millions. It would use its exclusive power to make laws to repress workers. In an independent Scotland, the SNP would ask us to further tighten our belts in the interests of the “nation,” i.e. to profit the domestic economy. In an independent Scotland, exploitation will still exist, as before, and will intensify. Yet many workers and progressive people are still drawn towards a YES vote, despite that it would be “business as usual.”  Voting for the NO option is acting as an apologist for the current system.

Various left-nationalists hope to persuade the working class that Scottish independence would be a step towards socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. The independence of Scotland would not mean a step forward towards socialism. It would be a step backwards. lf the Yes side wins, Scotland will not be independent. What the Socialist Party want is real independence. What we want is freedom from capitalist domination. Nationalists should stop pretending that sovereignty would be a step towards independence.

The nationalists are working overtime to convince Scottish workers not to demand too much. Thus the working class would be sacrificing its struggle for socialism, which is the only way to do away all forms of oppression and  exploitation, in return for a few meagre changes, for crumbs. The left wing Yes strategy of independence first and socialism later is utopian and suicidal that pushes the workers into support for the Scottish bosses. In other words, the working class must first follow the nationalist employers and fight at their side, until one day, in the undetermined future it will develop its own  autonomy. How much longer will so-called leftists keep on telling the  workers’ movement that is it is still too premature to act on its own. An independent working class position can and does, in fact, exist right now. It is a plague on both your houses, Yes or No. It is no support for any pro-Unionists and no alliance with any separatists.

In the fight for socialism one thing is certain that the success of that struggle depends on achieving the greatest possible unity of the working class. Promoting independence does exactly the opposite. Instead of uniting the Scottish working class against the capitalist, it divides them from the rest of the working class. It delays socialist revolution and unites the Scottish  people with the Scottish capitalists. It is utterly ridiculous to argue that the working class ought to divide itself into two different countries in order to accomplish this unity. They cloak their position in “Marxist” garb and pose as fierce opponents to the SNP. They say that the struggle for independence is the principal class struggle for Scottish workers, claiming this will bring them to socialism. For all the fine talk about “capitalist exploitation” it amounts to nothing but hollow words. Their attacks against the SNP are only for show as their performance can’t hide what’s at the bottom of their position – it’s  support, albeit critical, for the SNP.

Supporting Scottish independence in the name of socialism is a monumental hoax. To advance toward revolution, the working class must develop its consciousness of being a class with common interests radically opposed to those of the capitalist class. The “real” independence pushed by the nationalists is shown up for what it really is, a mirage and an illusion intended to attract Scottish workers and tie them to the interests of the national bourgeoisie. By subordinating  the class struggle for socialism to the nationalist struggle, they help keep capitalism alive.

These “national socialists” are not at all interested in destroying the capitalist system – far from it. They want to make it more efficient, all to the profit of the “national” capitalists and their well fed bureaucrats in the  public administration, council halls and universities. Nationalisation and state planning carried out by a Scottish sovereign state still in the hands of the bosses’ class!   Socialism is not a question of nationalisation but means bigger profits for the “national” parasites. Waging immediate struggles alone is not enough to bring about victories which last. We view that those struggles must be fought clearly within the framework of a conscious struggle to overthrow the entire capitalist system. Capitalism can be transformed more effectively to the extent that we properly understand the specific conditions.

Working class unity is a must right now if effective resistance is to be mounted to the crisis austerity measures imposed by the capitalists. Those groups who dress up as socialists in order to push nationalism in the working class are the objective allies of the capitalists who are busily trying to fulfill their ambition to join the ranks of world capital. The left nationalists would have us believe that the demands of the Scottish people can only be met through independence. Thus, they claim, the task is to transform bourgeois independence into a socialist independence. In reality, they find themselves in the camp of those promoting division of the working class and reactionary policies. Independence then socialism option is nothing but a dead-end road. It doesn’t bring us closer to socialism, only farther away from it. It maintains and reinforces the divisions within the working class – a real boon for the different sectors of the ruling class which do their best to keep us divided. Furthermore, it pushes narrow nationalism and in so doing, strengthens the SNP. And one thing is sure, we’re not going to get any closer to socialism by building up the SNP, a party that represents the interests of Scotland’s capitalists. This is pure and simple class collaboration while posing as combative, radical “left-wingers”. By isolating Scotland in a separate struggle against international capital they split the international working class before their common enemy. Separation is no stepping stone to socialism, despite what these phony “Marxist” theoreticians may say.

Some nationalists argue that the main enemy of Scottish  workers inside the country is the English ruling class. According to this theory, Scots have little to fear from our native capitalists, because they’re not part of the main enemy. But the truth of the matter is that Scottish  capitalists have been an integral part of the British  bourgeoisie ever since the Union, when the old Scottish  ruling class sold out the rights of the Scottish  people to benefit from the markets created by the soon-to-be  British Empire. Capitalists who are natives of Scotland, be they big or small, are not any less a part of the British bourgeoisie than English capitalists. Support for independence can only chain workers to the local employers and hold back the struggle for socialism. With full control of a separateScottish state, the Scottish  section of our worst enemy will have added instruments to force Scottish workers to “tighten their belts in the interests of the nation.” The Yes camp is an alliance of thieves who want to increase their part of the profits –  at the expense of the workers.
 Many say, “Wouldn’t it be a positive step on the road to socialism to gain independence for Scotland?” “Even though we know the Scot Nats is not a party for the workers couldn’t we support it in a ’critical’ way and give it our vote?” Isn’t theSNP at least more progressive than the Labour Party?” As socialists we must take a clear stand on these questions. We must answer the questions being raised in the working class from a Marxist perspective. The only way socialists can make their decision is if it in the interests of the working class. Does the separation of Scotland promote the best interests of the workers  in its struggle for socialism? We say that the answer is no. That to support separation is to support narrow nationalism and that the main problem for the working class is not national oppression but capitalist exploitation . The working class of all nations has one common and main enemy: the bourgeoisie. To struggle for independence would not bring those in Scotland any closer to getting rid of capitalist oppression and exploitation. Instead it would divide the working class against its main enemy; it would weaken the struggle for socialism all across the land; it would hold back and retard our struggle.  Unity is necessary to make revolution. This is why we say that nationalism is not in the interests of the working class. The SNP is a pro-capitalist party basically no different from the Tories or Labour.  We cannot give such a party any kind of support whatsoever, critical or uncritical, total or partial. The SNP in Holyrood has always defended capitalism. The only correct course to follow in the coming referendum is to denounce all the parties involved, to give our support to none of their solutions whether it be the “sovereignity” offered by Salmond  or the Union status quo. The working class has nothing to gain from a Yes or No which only serve to deceive and to mislead.

Independence is not in the interests of the working class. The task of workers is to attack the root of their problems. Our goal is socialism, a new social order based on common ownership of our resources and industry, cooperation, production for use and genuine democracy. Only socialism can turn the boundless potential of our class and resources to the creation of a world free from tyranny, greed, poverty and exploitation. Capitalism has failed, and so have efforts to reform it. That failure puts a campaign for the socialist alternative on the immediate agenda. The referendum question of national independence is not an important question for Scottish workers. As for workers in the rest of Britain and the world, the basic question is capitalist exploitation and the fight for socialism. Class solidarity is the necessary antidote to the nationalist poison. National  chauvinism  is a barrier to our unity in the struggle for socialism, an obstacle we must overcome.

We gain nothing from changing the government in power, from throwing out one old set of thieves and voting in a new set of bandits. It’s not the government, the First Minister becoming a Prime Minister that we must change but the capitalist system itself. The referendum is being used  to mystify the people, to cover up the really important political questions and to attempt to impose on us their false solutions.  We say participate in the struggle to build a real working class party, a mass socialist Marxist party. We say that at this time the struggle we must take up is not for independence but the struggle for the social revolution to liberate us from the chains of capitalist exploitation. The working class has every interest in building the class unity that is indispensable in overthrowing capitalism.  Socialism will put an end to this system based on exploitation, injustice and inequalities once and for all. The Socialist Party’s alternative to a Yes or No is to defend an independent position from the two pro-capitalist options in the referendum in the common interest of all workers. 

Food For Thought

Crime and society – on March 27th. Federal Justice Minister, Peter Mackay, announced a grant of $500,000 for a three year plan to reintegrate youths who have been in Prison in Toronto. He further stated that the 'For Youth Initiative Plan' was making a real difference, but like the war on drugs, the war on crime will continue as long as a system of deep inequalities exists. John Ayers.

Too Poor To Live

Age discrimination may be preventing older people from having access to vital surgery, a report suggests. The Royal College of Surgeons and Age UK looked at surgery rates for six common procedures for English over-65s. It found a wide variation in access to treatment depending on where people lived and a "worrying" difference between the over 65s and over 75s.  'People with breast cancer who were aged over 65 faced the biggest variation depending on where they live - with a 37-fold difference in the rate of breast tissue removal. In terms of the difference between age groups, there was a 34% drop in gall bladder operations and a 16.5% drop in breast tissue removal between the over 65s and over 75s. This came despite the fact the need for the treatment increases with age.' (BBC News, 3 July) Needless to say this discrimination does not apply to the elderly who can afford private treatment. Rd

Child Poverty

The fall in British unemployment figures has been heralded by supporters of capitalism, but this is not the solution to the poverty of the working class as these figures show. 'But now two-thirds of children in poverty are from households where at least one parent is in work, compared to only two-fifths in 1996. Over the longer term increases in working age benefits are being capped at 1 per cent and earnings growth has been weak - lower than CPI inflation in almost every month for the past 6 years. The IFS has estimated that by 2020 child poverty will increase back to levels seen at the turn of the century, largely driven by the decision to switch to CPI uprating of benefits (which in the long run will mean that benefit income is expected to grow more slowly than earnings and low income families, dependent on benefits will fall behind).' (Independent, 1 July) By the year 2020 child poverty will be the same as 20 years previously. Hardly a cause for celebration is it? RD

The Comforts of Socialism

Socialism is a free society; a society without rulers and ruled, leaders and led, masters and slaves. Within the factory rigid dictatorship, where the dead machine rules living labour, where the man or  woman is transformed into a cog of the machine, where labour becomes wage-slavery. Outside the factory there exists economic chaos and the wild forces of the market of which we can be only the victim.

The present economic relations breed the capitalist class and the working class, with opposing interests. Inasmuch as our ideas rationalise our interests, the ideas of the ruling, capitalist class will be along the line of preserving their property and their right to exploit labourers, while the working class will follow their interests and go along the path of solving the contradictions by removing their causes. The capitalists and their agents in the seats of government are blinded by their self interest, by the profits which they make as beneficiaries of the present system. The workers, on the other hand, having nothing to lose, are free to see that the present society must evolve into a new one; they see that nothing can free society from its convulsions save the change in the mode of production from a capitalist one, of private ownership of the means of production, to a socialist one, where the means of production are socialised and classes are no more.

As the working class fights against its worsening position it comes to the realisation that the only way out is for labour to take what it has produced for itself. To take over the means of production, the mines, mills and factories and run them for their own benefit. Then we will have production for use and not for profit. Then we will end both despotism in the factory and anarchy in the market. Then society will allocate its resources and labour power according to a social plan that will benefit all. The interest of the workers is diametrically opposed to the interest of the capitalist exploiters who, controlling the government and it agencies, strive to keep the workers down. The capitalists, blinded by their interests, want to keep the old relations of exploitation.

 The working class has acquired a natural understanding of a cooperative economic system. Workers cooperate with other workers all day long in collective production. To the worker it presents no problem to see how the various industries and branches of production could work as a team for the most efficient production all around, and thereby pour out such a mass of products that there would be plenty for everyone concerned. That is the obvious thing to do with modern machinery and technology. This working class understanding of rational economics exists as a firm feeling that modern industry is suited to cooperative production at high efficiency with abundant output assured, and that there is no good reason why such efficient production could not start right now. The difficult thing to understand is the irrational fact that all production can be stopped, and that the millions of mankind can be taken away from their work and forced to halt production, merely because under capitalist ownership the whole of society has to stand still except when it can add to the accumulated riches of a tiny class of capitalists.

What is responsible for the disparity between the steady abundance the workers could produce, and the uncertain pittance that they get? Under capitalist ownership, the capitalists make profits by keeping as much as they can, and paying out as little in wages as they must. They pay the workers the smallest wage they can bargain them down to. On the average, that amounts to a wage which is just enough to get along on, the smallest amount a worker can afford to work for. Even, for a large part of the workers, it amounts to not enough to raise a family or maintain their own health. And this is the case even in the most prosperous capitalist country. Thus, it is the very system of capitalist ownership and wage labour which sets this ceiling on the standard of living. This same system prevents production of abundance. To force the workers to work for low wages the capitalists need a permanent group of unemployed workers as a threat. Every worker must know that there is a man out of a job that the boss can put in his place if he demands higher wages. This ever-existent unemployed group under capitalism Marx named the industrial reserve army.

Capitalist employers are in business and must be, to make money for themselves, and not to make goods for society. They can afford to start production only when they can sell their goods and end up richer than they started. If production will not increase their wealth they don’t permit any production. It is better to close down and keep what they have, rather than spend money producing what they cannot sell. For sales to increase their wealth they need a market; but they can’t get richer by passing out their own money to make the market for their own goods. They wouldn’t be ahead a penny. Therefore, they have nothing to gain by paying any wages above the least that they can bargain the workers down to. The more they have to pay the workers, the less is left for profits. As long as capitalism remains capitalism, surplus capital will never be used for the purpose of raising the standard of living of the masses, for this would mean a decrease in profits for the capitalists.

If the capitalists merely hoarded their profits, the system would run into a crisis at once because all this vast buying power would be withdrawn from the market. To keep the system running the capitalists must be able to keep their profits and spend them too. They do that by spending their increased money-capital for capital equipment, additional machines and factories. Thus their accumulation of wealth can really grow, and only such growth can avoid a crisis for the system. Yet capital investments through the building of new factories is possible only as new markets are found for the increased output. The growth of the home market is soon used up; and the capitalists must look outside, to yet undeveloped countries as fields for growth. Once there is no profitable use for capital at home, it will be used to increase profits by exporting the capital abroad, to backward countries.

The workers know what full production can accomplish, they know that the fetters on production must be removed, and they are searching for the program that will do it. The working class as a whole is voicing this demand, a demand which cannot be satisfied except by socialism, because only socialism can take the capitalist fetters off production.

 A capitalist owns a factory for making, let us say, clothing. He also owns, or can borrow from the bank, some funds to buy raw material, such as cloth and thread, and to hire workers. He owns the necessary machinery and money for production, therefore he gives the orders to run, or to shut down and lay off the workers. The capitalist estimates how much clothing he can sell at a good price and orders production of that much. His money is tied up in the commodities that have been produced until he sells them and gets his money back, plus a profit. The central point here is that profit comes from production and is collected in the sale of commodities. The connection with production may be hidden by one or many steps in between. For instance, if this manufacturer borrows some bank funds the bank seems to draw interest from “loaning money” rather than production, but in reality, the bank’s interest comes from the factory’s production and sales, just the same.

The capitalist ties up his money in production, and he must sell the commodities at a good price or suffer a loss. Therefore, if he sees no market for the commodities he is wiser to shut down the factory and keep his money instead of risking it. Of course if he shuts down the workers go without jobs and society goes without clothing, but that’s the system. Under capitalism clothing factories are run by capitalists for increase of capital, and not by society for clothes.

Thus any single capitalist can allow the wheels to turn in his factory only when production will increase his capital. This also is true for the capitalist class as a whole; production is possible only when it will increase the total capital wealth. Capitalism cannot run on an even level; it must expand or perish. If the clothing factory owner has made a profit, his money-capital has grown. But a mere growth of a hoard of idle money, without growth of the plant which it can serve, is not a growth of real wealth. Nothing irks a capitalist more than idle money, bringing no return. Moreover, if he and his fellow capitalists should try to pile up idle money, instead of buying commodities with it, their hoarding would discourage the production of commodities, since they could not be sold, and this would bring on a crisis in the economic system.

The solution, of course, is for the capitalists to invest their money-capital in real capital equipment, that is, buy more machinery and build more factories. Thus their real wealth would grow, their money would be invested to bring a profit, it would be buying commodities, machinery and building materials, and thus keeping the economic system in a healthy state. This solution has this catch to it. There has to be a growing market to buy the additional commodities that the additional factories would produce. Otherwise the new factories would prove a losing investment. To maintain capitalism this growth must go on forever. When the capitalists can’t find new markets they can’t invest by buying machines for new factories. Their failure to buy throws workers out of jobs, workers who were part of their old market, and the further drop in their old market thus builds up into a crisis. The capitalists must have the very special condition of always finding new markets or they can’t even keep their old markets. Again it becomes clear that capitalism must expand or perish.

The problem of the capitalists is to keep finding a steady supply of new investment opportunities for their capital. Not employment for workers, but “employment” for capital is their need. The aim is to stabilise capitalism, not to give jobs to workers. Still, one might say that if they want to save capitalism by providing plenty of good jobs, we don’t have to object just because the offer comes from the bosses. But when we dig into the economics of this program it turns out to be a plan for full “employment” of capital, not of workers. Under capitalism, this must necessarily be the case.

The working class has a long history of militant class struggle against the capitalist system. The courageous struggles of the workers have played a major role in the international workers’ movement. The working class has produced countless heroes of the world proletariat. The fight to build and defend the trade unions has been an essential part of the history of working class struggle. The trade unions are the broadest and most basic organisation of the working class and have served as centers for organizing the class as a whole. We build the unions and defend them from the capitalist assaults, for they are indispensable weapons of the class struggle. Workers have learned the necessity to unite against the capitalists. Employers have recognised the strength of the organised resistance of the working class and tries to destroy the trade unions.

 The bosses and the workers are locked in constant battle for their survival. Failing to bring out clearly that the capitalists are driven by the laws that govern their system, we contributed to the illusion that capitalists can re-order their priorities to meet the needs of the people. Capital chases after the highest rate of profit, as surely as iron is drawn to a magnet - this is a law beyond anyone’s will, even the capitalists’, and it will continue in force so long as society is ruled by capital.

 The capitalists have attacked with every weapon at their command. They have battered down our wages to destitution levels. They have cast many of us on to the scrap-heap of unemployment. They call upon us to agree to their power for another five years, in order that they may cover the further degradations they have in store with the appearance of our consent.We want an end of class tyranny so don’t vote for capitalism, despite the label on the particular political party. They all stand upon the backs of the workers, and differ on only over their share of the plunder. We must stand together against them. The only struggle for us is the struggle of the workers against their exploiters.

“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” The two parts of this phrase are inseparable. “From each according to his abilities,” means: work has now ceased to be an obligation, and society has no further use for any compulsion. Only those unable to will refuse to work. Working “according to their ability” – that is, in accord with their physical and mental capability, without any harm to themselves – the members of the community will, thanks to highly developed technology and production methods can sufficiently fill up the stores of society so that society can generously endow each and all “according to their needs,” without humiliating control. This assumes abundance and equality.

The first task of socialism is to guarantee the comforts of life to all. A socialist society as Marx envisages it is a society beyond scarcity. There exists a perversion of Marx’s description of socialist society that says “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” where workers are still paid wages for their labour power, and more particularly by piecework. Their labour is forced from them on penalty of deprivation, just as under capitalism. One of the most basic principles of Marxism is that the working class are the makers of history and that correct ideas arise from and in turn serve the struggle of the people. 

Tory Party Backers

The Conservative Party are well aware that in a period of economic difficulties it is not a good idea to advertise the immense wealth of their backers, so when they had a fund-raising dinner they made certain that no champagne would be served. 'There may not have been vintage Krug, but there was plenty of money, with guests worth a collective £10bn-plus. The leaked seating plan reveals an extraordinary coming together of British and foreign wealth - a who's who at the upper echelons of Cameroonian power. There were Greek shipping magnates, hedge-fund managers, cash and carry barons, investment bankers, and Russian tycoons.' (Guardian, 1 July) Perhaps to illustrate that it was not a completely frugal affair though David Cameron sat at a table with Howard Shore, the multimillionaire banker and Tory donor whose firm, Shore Capital, sponsored the event. RD