Socialism is Possible

We live today in a world of potential abundance.  The vast amount of wealth produced throughout the world takes the form of goods and services which are marked, which are intended for sale in order to realise a profit. Repeatedly over the years, statistics from the Food and Agriculture Organisation have demonstrated that world resources could be sufficient to feed the total world population several times over if fully cultivated.  But the world market system is such that production must be trimmed to match sales potential. With the removal of this profit barrier, incredible forces of production would be unleashed.

Abundance is a relationship between supply and demand, where the former exceeds the latter. In socialism a buffer of surplus stock for any particular item, whether a consumer or a producer good, can be produced, to allow for future fluctuations in the demand for that item, and to provide an adequate response time for any necessary adjustments. Achieving abundance can be understood as the maintenance of an adequate buffer of stock in the light of extrapolated trends in demand. The relative abundance or scarcity of a good would be indicated by how easy or difficult it was to maintain such an adequate buffer stock in the face of a demand trend (upward, static, downward). It will thus be possible to choose how to combine different factors for production, and whether to use one rather than another, on the basis of their relative abundance/scarcity. By following the rule of using the minimum necessary amounts of the least abundant factors it will be possible to ensure their efficient allocation. Money as a "general unit of cost" would not come into it.

Defenders of the market such as Von Mises and Hayek appear not to understand the system which they represent. But this is not simply a matter of them putting forward fallacious assertions as a matter of ignorance. Their position is based on a crude defence of the privileged interests which do benefit from capitalism. In arguing in favour of these interests, it appears that any nonsense which defies the reality of experience will do. Their more honest position would be that the market system does work, but for those who monopolise the means of living and that therefore economic calculation of the exploitation of labour is indispensable in pursuit of that interest. Defenders of capitalism never seem to ask themselves the practical question about what is the critical factor determining a production initiative in a market system, and moreover, what is the function of a cost/price calculation in relation to that initiative. The answer is obvious from everyday experience. The factor which critically decides the production of commodities is the judgement that enterprises make about whether they can be sold in the market. Obviously, consumers buy in the market what they perceive as being for their needs. But whether or not the transaction takes place is not decided by needs, but by ability to pay. So the realisation of profit in the market determines both the production of goods and also the distribution of goods by various enterprises.

In the market system the motive of production, the organisation of production, and the distribution of goods are inseparable parts of the same economic process: the realisation of profit and the accumulation of capital. There is no choice about this. Commodity production is organised within the constraints of the circulation of capital. This capital can accumulate, maintain its level or become depleted. The economic pressure on capital is that of accumulation, the alternative is bankruptcy. The production and distribution of goods is entirely subordinate to the pressure, on capital to accumulate. Therefore the practical, technical organisation of production is entirely separate from the economic organisation of the accumulation of capital in which cost/ price, value factors play a vital part. The economic signals of the market are not signals to produce useful things. They signal the prospects of profit and capital accumulation. If there is a profit to be made then production will take place; if there is no prospect of profit, then production will not take place. Profit not need is the deciding factor.

What socialism will establish is a practical system of world production operating directly and solely for human needs. Socialism will be concerned solely with the production, distribution and consumption of useful goods and services in response to definite needs. It will integrate social needs with the material means of meeting those needs, that is to say, with active production. Under capitalism what appear to be production decisions are in fact decisions to go for profit in the market. Socialism will make economically-unencumbered production decisions as a direct response to needs. With production for use, then, the starting point will be needs. Socialism will not depend on calculations of labour-time or the conversion of these into costs since production will not be generating exchange-values for the market. Production for use will generate useful goods and services directly for need, and this will require not economic calculation but the communication of quantities of material things throughout production. This will result from the change in productive relationships. The use of labour in a market system begins with an exchange of labour-power for wages, which is an economic exchange between individual workers and invested capital. This will be replaced by direct co-operation between producers to satisfy social needs in the material form of productive activity.

Marx argued that in socialism/ communism (both Marx and Engels used those words interchangeably) money would be abolished. The Communist Manifesto pointed out socialism would dispense with buying and selling itself and hence with the need for money. People will have free and unrestricted access to the products of industry while contributing to the production process on an entirely voluntarist basis. Those confronted with the proposition that goods and services should be freely available for people to take according to their needs often react by claiming that this wouldn't work because, first, nobody would want to work and, second, people would grab more than they needed so that shortages would again develop. There are simple answers to these objections. First, the threat of starvation is not, and certainly should not be, the incentive to work. If some work is so unpleasant that nobody would freely choose to do it then it ought to be done by machines or not at all. Second, people only tend to be greedy and to grab in conditions of scarcity. If food and clothing were freely available in abundant quantities people would soon adjust to taking only what they needed.  Erich Fromm, the psychoanalyst and writer, wrote:
“I believe, however, that it can be demonstrated that material incentive is by no means the only incentive for work and effort. First of all there are other incentives : pride, social recognition, pleasure in work itself, etc. Examples of this fact are not lacking. The most obvious one to quote is the work of scientists, artists, etc., whose outstanding achievements were not motivated by the incentive of monetary profit, but by a mixture of various factors : most of all, interest in the work they were doing; also pride in their achievements, or the wish for fame. But obvious as this example may seem, it is not entirely convincing, because it can be said that these outstanding people could make extraordinary efforts precisely because they were extraordinarily gifted, and hence they are no example for the reactions of the average person. This objection does not seem to be valid, however, if we consider the incentives for the activities of people who do not share the outstanding qualities of the great creative  persons. What efforts are made in the field of all sports, of many kinds of hobbies, where there are no material of any kind !”

The widespread existence of volunteering shows that people are prepared to work for other reasons than individual economic necessity.  Most volunteers under capitalism will be doing so because they want to do something useful and help other people. But even if their motivation was to overcome boredom or to meet and be with other people, that would still be a practical refutation of the view that people are naturally lazy. Of course, as in any form of human society, in socialist society too arrangements will have to be made to provide what its members need to live. That will still be a necessity, but that does not mean that these arrangements cannot be based on people volunteering to work, for all sorts of reasons (pleasure, social recognition, wish to do something useful, social contact, even a sense of duty).

Most of us want to work. What we hate is employment. We want to work for ourselves, our families and friends, our community, not for some thieving parasite of a boss. Socialism could work without economic coercion. We are tethered to a life of working for the boss or living off the dole; of boring routines and consuming (if we are fortunate) bland, second-rate goods and services; of being screwed up by the dehumanising effects of relating to each other so often on the basis of buying and selling. We are only really chained to this social system because of the mentality of wage-slavery. Some people don't like the term "wage slavery". It's not nice to be called a slave. But "wage-slavery" is what we are in, whether we admit it or not, even those plush offices, driving their fancy company cars are only a few months from the breadline if their boss decides to dispense with their services.

The consent of the majority which the minority needs to keep its system going. We must unite to change society. We are not presenting the socialist alternative of a world without wages as a utopian dream for the century after next. This is practical now. Socialism is the sensible next step for humankind to take. We have nothing to lose but our chains.

Hayter of the Trots

Book Review from the June 1972 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hayter of the Bourgeoisie, by Teresa Hayter. Sidgwick and Jackson. £1.95.

This book is written by the daughter of the one-time British Ambassador to Moscow, Sir William Hayter. The first few chapters are an account of her personal history (childhood, education, etc.) leading on to her work with the Overseas Development Institute. While with the ODI she visited various parts of the underdeveloped world and saw at first hand the poverty and misery there and which contributed to her growing "politicization".

During her stay in the third world she came to the conclusion that the cause of all this backwardness was the dominance over the economy and the local politicians by the "imperialist" nations (America, Britain, France, etc.) and that the so-called aid programmes were really another form of imperialism in that they bound the third world nations more securely to the economies of the western exploiters.

Thus she came to write a book on the activities in this connection of the World Bank in Latin America. The ODI refused to publish this and it was subsequently published by Penguin as Aid as Imperialism. As a result of all these experiences Hayter jettisoned her liberal fallacies and became a "revolutionary". Alas, all this means is that she has embraced all the old Bolshevik fallacies instead and has joined the Trotskyist IMG (International Marxist Group).

The blurb on the dust jacket tells us that Hayter's current ideas were formed through identifying with the third world. This is nothing new for Trotskyists since, basically, they are trying to fulfill the historic task of the bourgeoisie ( the completion of the capitalist revolution) in those parts of the world where the bourgeoisie are too weak to do it themselves. Hayter and the IMG support all "national liberation" movements on the assumption that national liberation will weaken the imperialist nationals, cause a major economic breakdown, and so precipitate the working class into revolution. Leaving aside the absurdity that a frightened, politically working class will opt for Socialism (more likely to support reaction as in Germany in 1933) we should point that the author has devoted part of this book and all of Aid as Imperialism to showing that exploitation continues in other forms after independence anyway! And even if America loses all influence in, say, Vietnam does she think that the vacuum will remain unfilled by some other imperialist power, perhaps Russia or China? Indeed, when French interests were kicked out of the Far East after the second world war all that happened was that America moved in instead.

When dealing with the Russian revolution Hayter displays either a remarkable capacity for naivety or downright dishonesty. She claims "In Russia Soviet democracy survived longest in the areas where the Bolshevik (later Communist) Party was strong" and mentions Lenin arguing that "workers' councils must be set up everywhere, whether or not there were members of the Communist Party". In fact exactly the opposite happened. The Bolsheviks closed down trade union and peasant bodies which they couldn't control, shot down people who demanded that unpopular Bolshevik-dominated soviets should be subject to recall, and dissolved the democratically elected Constituent Assembly which Lenin had been clamouring for until it failed to produce anything like the anticipated Bolshevik majority.

Trotskyists, Hayter included, are fond of the theory that the revolution only degenerated with the coming of Stalin and that the Communist Party had hitherto practised "democratic centralism"—democracy within the Party (even if nowhere else). Indeed, during the wrangles between Stalin and Trotsky over the throne vacated by Lenin, Trotsky, the dazzling intellectual, complained that Stalin was suppressing his views; but Stalin, the plodder, simply ran rings round Trotsky by pointing out that he had never complained when other opposition groups had been suppressed at the Tenth Party Congress in 1921. Both Lenin and Trotsky turned a blind eye to murders committed by Bolsheviks and to the packing of factory meetings and soviets by Bolsheviks who had no right to be there. And it was Lenin, not Stalin, who introduced the dreaded Cheka which Hayter rightly calls "an abominable abuse of everything that Marxism stands for". The truth is that "degeneration" began straight away since Lenin and the whole Bolshevik theory could allow nothing less than a complete dictatorship overthe proletariat. 

Although Hayter criticises the "Great Man" theory of history at Oxford she seems to have swallowed it herself. How else can we explain her claim that the "revolution" in Kenya failed because of the treachery of one man, Jomo Kenyatta? And in France in May 1968, again everything hinges on the leaders  . . . if only they had been Trotskyists instead of the traitorous Stalinists. She also has some strange notions about economics although this may be due to her determination to see heaven on Earth in Cuba. She actually claims that money is becoming unimportant there, because, owing to the widespread scarcity, no one can buy much anyway!

All this is bad enough, but when she turns her attention to what life will be like "after the revolution" (which she thinks she will be achieved at the barricades with guns and petrol bombs) then she really goes haywire. She correctly points out that the Left is always reluctant to describe what it means by Communism, so she sets out to redress this need. Apparently society will be run by workers' councils and not by the latter-day Bolsheviks. In case the reader is worried by what happened in Russia she hints that because Britain has "relatively democratic traditions" (which Trots have always said are a sham) then there should be little post-revolutionary violence. But the whole population will have to be armed. Whatever for? To ensure that the capitalists don't stage a comeback! What supermen the left make these capitalists out to be.

Despite the abundance of technical and natural resources which mankind now has at its disposal, we are told that the abolition of exchange relationships and the introduction of production for use is "a remote ideal" so the wages system (rationing) must continue with, in good Leninist tradition, equal wages for all. Perhaps it is just as well that the Left don't try to describe Socialism more often, There's enough confusion on that score already.

Hayter's book is nevertheless a good buy for anyone who wants to have just about every error in the Trotskyist repertoire conveniently placed between two covers.

Vic Vanni

Glasgow Branch

Expectation And The Uninspected.

The New York Times reported "Factory Inspections Fall Short" (Sep 8, 2013) and tell us how a Walmart factory was inspected and approved the goods destined for Xmas sales, except the goods were, unknown to the inspectors, made in another factory (uninspected) and shipped there for the occasion. In February, 2012, just ten months after a Bangladesh factory had been inspected and stamped "Working conditions – no complaints", workers rampaged through the factory demanding better conditions. 'Check the box' fast inspections do nothing to root out and solve problems whatsoever and the companies using the cheap production know it and try their best to hide it - difficult to do when your factory collapses! John Ayers.

Meanwhile. Back On Earth

With India successfully placing a satellite in orbit around Mars local politicians were not long in basking in the glory. Narendra Modi, the prime minister visited the Space Research Organisation and declared that India had a great scientific future. 'While Mr Modi is eager to use the success of the mission to trumpet India's economic and scientific prowess as a rising global power, critics said that the mission was a waste of of money in a nation where 43 per cent of children under the age of 5 are chronically malnourished and 33 per cent of its 1.2 billion people lack access to electricity.' (Times,25 September) RD

Why we need socialism?

Many misunderstand capitalism, and therefore not surprisingly are totally in the dark about the meaning of socialism. Many apologists for capitalism have, for many years, restricted the term  to cover only part of the whole capitalist system, excluding from the definition the nationalised, or state capitalist industries. In keeping with this unjustified limitation both parties have chosen to call the state-owned  industries "socialism". This was not always so.

In 1907 Keir Hardie the "father of the Labour Party" - and its first champion, justified nationalisation, in accepting as he said "State Socialism," despite all its drawbacks, as an evolutionary stage in social development nevertheless held that it was "a preparation for free Communism in which the rule of life would be, from each according to his capacity to each according to his needs." (From Serfdom to Socialism, ).It was only in 1918 that Labour officially adopted the word socialism to describe its aim. It is true that prior to that date Keir Hardie had stated his aim to be that of working for a socialist society whose character we would not have argued against. But Hardie's views was one amongst many in an organisation primarily concerned with representing trade union interests in parliament. He also mistakenly believed that socialism could be offered up to workers after winning mass support for reform programmes.

Sidney Webb signed  the Manifesto of English Socialists which contained this declaration:
“On this point all socialists agree. Our aim, one and all, is to obtain for the whole community complete ownership and control of the means of transport, the means of manufacture, the mines and the land. Thus we look to put an end for ever to the wage-system, to sweep away all distinctions of class, and eventually to establish National and International Communism on a sound basis.”

 It is the declared aim of the Labour Party to bring about a more egalitarian capitalism this is not the aim of Socialists, and even if achieved it would not solve the problems of the working class. Capitalism is not more "capitalist" in Germany and France because income inequality is greater than in Britain, nor less "capitalist" in America because, as regards ownership of wealth. Early Labour theorists, such as R. H. Tawney, saw Labour's role as to suppress unearned income, correctly regarded as a tribute levied by property-owners on the rest of society, by gradually taxing it out of existence. As, once again, socialism will indeed be a society in which shareholding will have no place, the higher taxes on unearned income by Labour governments were sometimes presented, wrongly, as a step towards socialism. Now such pretences are dropped.  Labour leaders, eager to get their hands on the reins of office, accept capitalism as it has evolved in Britain -  a profit-driven market economy providing unearned income for those who own the means of production - and to abandon the attempt to impose on it isolated features of a socialist society. Instead of Labour gradually changing capitalism, the opposite happened. Trying to reform capitalism changed the Labour Party into the out-and-out capitalist party it is today. Elected by a working class that only wanted improvements within capitalism, Labour governments found they had no choice other than to administer capitalism. But capitalism can only function as a profit-making system in which priority has to be given to profits over all other considerations.

It doesn't have to be this way. The greatest weapons we posses are our class unity, our intelligence, and our ability to question the status quo and to imagine a world fashioned in our own interests. Leaders perceive all of this to be a threat and so will do anything to keep us in a state of oblivion, dejection and dependency. Our apathy is the victory they celebrate each day. Our unwillingness to unite as a globally exploited majority and to confront them on the battlefield of ideas is the subject of their champagne toasts.

Socialist Standard No. 1322 October 2014

• Editorial: The Scottish Referendum
• Pathfinders: The Dark Rebellion
• Letters
• Halo Halo!
• John Bird Rehabilitates World War One
• Cooking the Books: More … and More
• Material World: Desperately Seeking Safety
• Greasy Pole: Clashing In Clacton
• Nonviolent Revolution: A Contradiction in Terms?
• Poverty Excludes
• What Labour is Really Worth
• The Rise and Decline of Capitalism
• Ripping off the Patient
• Gospel of Karl
• Cooking the Books: Green Economic Policies
• Mixed Media: 'Marx in Soho', & 'Richard Hamilton at the Tate Modern'
• Book Reviews: 'What About Me? The Struggle for Identity in a Market–Based Society', & 'Manchester in the Great War'
• Capitalism Can Never be Made to Work for Us
• Propaganda: Electronic Heroin
• Scrap Capitalism
• 50 Years Ago: Tweedledee or 'dum
• Action Replay: Basket Case
• Voice From the Back
• Cartoon: Free Lunch

To Save the World - Socialism

The World Bank recognizes we’re on the track for a 4 degree warmer world—by the end of this century. Kevin Anderson of the UK’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research explains a 4 degrees Celsius warming (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) is ‘incompatible with any reasonable characterization of an organized, equitable and civilized global community’. Why haven’t the peoples of the world mobilised to save the planet? The answer is we have not done the things that are necessary to lower emissions because these things fundamentally conflict with  capitalism. The actions that would give us the best chance of averting catastrophe—and would benefit the vast majority—are extremely threatening to an elite minority that has a stranglehold over our economy, our political process, and most of our media outlets. The climate change denialists may be wrong but as Naomi Klein writes “but when it comes to the scope and depth of change required to avert catastrophe, they are right on the money.”  To avoid economic collapse capitalism requires unfettered expansion yet what is needed to avoid society’s collapse is a contraction in humanity’s use of resources. Only one of these sets of rules can be changed, and it’s not the laws of nature. No amount of technological “fixes” will do the trick.

People must confront the perverse and dehumanising logic of capitalism. Socialists have long talked of the class war between capitalists and workers , now we must refer to the war between capitalism and our planet. Humanity’s survival requires a new economic system. Trying to protect the existing social system is  dishonest and delusional because a way of economics based on the promise of infinite growth cannot be defended.  Socialists must build a movement that advocates system change not climate change. Don't expect much help from mainstream environmental groups such as the Nature Conservancy.  Don’t places any hope in the “enlightened billionaires” who have expressed interest in environmental protection policies. Could there be anything crazier than expecting rich people to save us by geo-engeering projects.

Naomi Klein points out the obvious lesson: hope lies not with a new climate movement but with a coming together of all the living movements to pursue “the unfinished business of liberation” when awareness and political engagement aren't only for activists but become part of everyday life.  She continues that the situation may not look too promising now, but we have to be ready for the “moments when the impossible seems suddenly possible” to be “harnessed not only to denounce the world as it is, and build fleeting pockets of liberated space. It must be the catalyst to actually build the world that will keep us all safe. The stakes are simply too high, and time too short, to settle for anything less.”

No one has magic powers of prediction but put all the bad news together and the apocalyptic downward spiral set in motion by fossil-fueled capitalism may never be reversed in time to save the human race from extinction. Capitalism’s achievement  has been to give us the ability and the process of exterminating ourselves and maybe every other living things as well. Throughout the world, people of all countries need to act with urgency to switch to a genuine socialist economy that aims at sustainability rather than endless consumption and growth, an economy based on renewable energy rather than fossil fuels, an economy devoted to life rather than to profits, an ecologically sound economy that functions as a part of the ecosystem with its people interacting in a cooperative way. The question facing us all is whether we stick with the capitalist rat-race and perish as a species, or abandon that rat-race and survive?

TO THE PRINCES OF THE CHURCH. (poem)

TO THE PRINCES OF THE CHURCH.

From the February 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

You prate of love and murmur of goodwill,
Turn sanctimonious eyes toward your God,
Write on your walls the text "Thou shalt not kill,"
Point out the path your "Prince of Peace" once trod,
While all the time, with murder in your hearts,
You lie, cajole, and bully that the fools
Who heed your words may play their foolish parts
As slaves of Mammon, as the War-Lord's tools.
On many a field, in many a river bed,
Of Flanders and of Poland and of France,
Your bloody-minded words bear fruit indeed.
Preachers of Death! the thought of maimed and dead
Will nerve us when our hosts of Life advance
To crush for ever your accursed breed

 F. J. Webb

Failing Faith and Hope

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

Fantasy And Reality

From time to time the world's media turns its attention to such issues as climate change and the environment. We have such attention at present. 'World leaders including US President Barack Obama are holding a summit on climate change at the United Nations. The aim at the New York meeting is to galvanise member states to sign up to a comprehensive new global climate agreement at talks in Paris next year. "Climate change is the defining issue of our time. Now is the time for action," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said ahead of the summit.' (BBC News, 23 September) After millions of words are spoken and pious resolutions are passed we can confidently predict the outcome will be the same as in the past - nothing! As long as the profit motive is the driving force of capitalism the environment is of little concern. RD

Billionaires And Poverty

Millions of workers throughout the world struggle to survive but it is not all doom and gloom in capitalism - some people are doing exceptional well. 'The population of dollar billionaires across the globe has increased by a net 155 to 2,325 in the past 12 months, according to the latest census....' (Times, 18 September) The Singapore-based Wealth-X, a consultancy that tracks the number of the extremely rich has come up with the following figures for billionaires. US 571, China 190, UK 130, Germany 123 and Russia 114. RD

The Money Free Party

A video from a group that share much of our own analysis. 

Blast from the Past

BRUTAL ATTACK ON A SPEAKER.

From the August 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

We learn from the "One Big Union Bulletin" (Winnipeg) that repeated brutal attacks have been made by Communists in that city on speakers of the newly re-formed Socialist Party of Canada.

We have recently experienced similar tactics in Glasgow, not, be it noted, from Communists, but—or so it is believed—from certain religious fanatics.

On Monday, June 29th, after a meeting at Clydebank our speaker, A. Shaw, was attacked by four individuals, one of whom finally knocked him unconscious with a piece of lead pipe. Comrade Shaw was badly shaken up by the assault, and it was some days before he fully recovered.

The gratifying feature is that listeners, whatever their political or religious views, do not usually sympathise with such methods, and further very successful meetings have been held at Clydebank.

We do not often have cause to complain of attempts to interfere with our meetings. Except at times of high feeling, such as the war years, when outdoor socialist meetings were often made impossible by the joint efforts of the authorities and the patriots, we find audiences ready to give us a hearing. Our great advantage over the other political parties is that we allow our opponents to state their case on our platform. Audiences, knowing this to be our practice, are less willing to tolerate obstructive methods from our opponents. If other political parties extended the same liberty to opponents they would have less trouble than they sometimes get.

There are, of course, exceptional cases. Those who deliberately set out to smash up meetings or to attack socialist speakers can contrive to seize opportunities for so doing. As explained by Mr. Harry Pollitt in the "Daily Worker" (29th January, 1930); it is the deliberate policy of the Communist Party to smash up its opponents meetings by force. If that policy has not been attended by any success the explanation can be no doubt be found in the smallness of the Communist Party membership, which makes it a very risky proceeding for the would-be smashers.

The Call (poem)

The Call

From the December 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

Come from the slum and the hovel,
From the depth of your dumb despair;
From the hell where you writhe and grovel
Crushed by the woes you bear;
There are joys that are yours for the taking,
There are hopes of a height unknown,
A harvest of life in the making
From the sorrows the past has sown.
Come from the dust of the battle,
Where your blood, like a river, runs,
Where helpless as driven cattle
You feed the insatiable guns.
You fight when your masters bid you,
Now fight that yourselves be free,
In the last great fight that shall rid you
Of your age-long slavery.
There's a murmur of many voices
That shall roll like thunder at last;
The shout of a world that rejoices
In a harvest ripening fast.
For the slaves their shackles are breaking
With wonder and ecstasy;
There is life, new life, in the making
In a new-won world made free.

F.J. Webb

Understanding Socialism

The Socialist Party aims at achieving a parliamentary majority. The working class of this country will not attempt to reach socialism in any other way, unless events proves to them that this approach has been closed down. At the bottom of this strategy is the expectation by our fellow workers for a bloodless revolution. Surely therefore the first job of a socialist movement must be to capture the state machinery so to disarm the capitalist class to thwart any attempt  obstruct the introduction of socialism.  It is a socialist pre-condition that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class although this is not necessarily is confined to voting for socialism. In tandem with political action will be industrial organisation.

 The Socialist Party has no need for Marxist theoreticians, great, clever scholars. We are not required to be the mentors of the working class – only of it. They alone will resolve the question of their own freedom. They alone are the revolutionary force. The task of our party, which is of the working class and in it, is to accelerate that movement.  We are disappointed by our inadequacies, our lack of impact that is so necessary today.

Our task is to remember the history and heritage which out of class relationships and struggle is ours. We have the duty to say: there is no easy road, there is no gradual road. Nor does the Socialist Party accept the view that crises necessarily brings revolution prefer to put it the other way: revolution prevents catastrophes. We do not share the view that, in some automatic way, out of chaos comes progress.

Bankrupt capitalism has out-lasted its time.  It has inflicted untold evil on the world and it must go. That is the job of our Party. It is your job too, all of you, wherever you are, to struggle for the emancipation of the working class.

The prolonged survival of capitalism, with all its dire consequences, is due to the influence of the reformist current in the labour movement, falsely calling itself “socialist.”  It is the bitter fruit of opportunist class collaboration. We of the Socialist Party have nothing to do with these brands of so-called “socialism” or “communism.” and explain that socialism will not fall from the skies. Neither will it be gained by any appeals to the good will and compassion of the capitalist exploiters. It is by the class struggle and the experience and education arising from it that the socialist society will be realised. There is no other way. And every attempt to find another way, by supporting the capitalists, by conciliating them, by collaborating with them, in peace or in war, has led not toward the socialist goal but to defeat and disaster for the workers.

No Reformism

What we see today is a wholesale embrace of the anti-working-class policies to replace the old discredited ones. The leftists are now attempting to build or support openly class collaborationist populist parties. It is not coincidental that this patching up the capitalist political system is occurring just when this system is once again proving itself to be unreformable. Temporary ups and downs cannot hide the fact that the global economy constantly founders where exploitation is rampant. The gap between the capitalists and the increasingly impoverished working class is widening, and the so-called middle class are disintegrating. Reformism is a proven failure and  that the mainstream parties are moving to the right. The left’s rehashed reformism has even less viability. Its programme is worse than illusory: it is dangerously misleading. Reformism reactionary policies dressed up with progressive terminology. Reformism by its very nature means class collaboration. This is, of course, not the first time in history for the left when the gradualists preached the utopian dream where capitalism would be made humane by legislative measures supported by our class enemy. Today another act of class treason is being advocated by supposed friends of labour. Capitalism is eating away at past gains made by the working class.

As the struggles accelerate and consciousness grows, the left reformists are capable of misleading workers creating obstacles to the formation of the world party of socialist revolution. The Labour and Trotskyist parties tried to derail the workers’ struggles. The cynicism they leave  contribute to the steady decline in their ability to resist capitalist assaults. Reformist parties may retain their electoral strength but rarely do they retain workers’ committed loyalty as they jettison even their past paper-thin claim to “socialism” and the working class. Aware of the looming danger of credibility gap they gravitate even more closely to the power of the big business. The vacuum created leads to new formations and electoral blocs such as Left Unity and the  Green Party to replace the former leaders.  They use the terms “socialist” and “radical” to  in order to disguise their own flavour of palliatives that won’t trouble the capitalist class despite the hackneyed use of the description “anti-capitalist” to offer the impression of some revolutionary content. These radical reformists draw to them people who are not yet politically aware to understand the concept of socialism and class struggle which helps to perpetrate illusions in  capitalism and its state.

The emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself; it is a task it must carry out in opposition to the vanguard cadres offering themselves as our “condescending saviors.” Reformism is not a moderate or slow way to achieve socialism, but a barrier to reaching it.

Spoil the Referendum !

Few people know what the word “democracy” means. If asked, they tend to say things like “being able to express your opinions”, “doing what you like”, etc.. Very few people are aware that the meaning of the word is ‘rule by the people’. If people are asked whether they think that parliamentary democracy actually brings about rule by the people then most are sceptical. They have a healthy contempt for politicians because it is known through long experience that the measures they enact are not usually in the interests of the people. What is very clear is that whoever forms the government they serve the interests of the capitalist ruling class. It is the owners of the means of production who exercise real power. They have power to make the decisions that have a major impact on the lives of the rest of us. Yet most go on voting because they have a vague feeling that the civil liberties we do enjoy are somehow dependent on people voting in elections. Although most of us have serious doubts that it gives us any real power over our lives we go through with the ritual. Somehow it is easier to go along with the crowd than to stand out by abstaining or as we advise, spoiling the voting paper.

“Working Men of all Countries, Unite!” because it is the struggle of workers against the bosses which will propel mankind forward to the socialist society and which will liberate all peoples  from the reign of classes forever. This struggle of the working class takes place on a global scale to defeat the capitalists on a world-wide scale.  This principle simply means the solidarity of one worker with another, irrespective of nationality and support for the struggles of workers in other countries.

The Socialist Party wishes to make it clear that we consider the referendum not from the point of view of nationalism, but from the point of view of socialism and from the desire to find the best method of struggle for socialism.  We do not accept that the struggle for independence is more important than the struggle for socialism. A century or more of experience of reformist, national liberation governments has amply demonstrated that this neither gives the  people power nor poses any threat to the rule of the capitalist class. On the contrary, the nationalism of  governments has helped perpetuate the rule of capital by taking off some of its sharpest edges and by holding out the false hope of bringing about more fundamental changes within the present capitalist system. As a socialist party we have always asserted, there can be no real democracy – no rule by the people as a whole – while the means of production are owned and controlled by a small minority, the capitalist class. Their control of the economy and the state means that they can resist and obstruct any serious threat to their class interests. A century or more of experience has shown that attempts by nationalists parties to change capitalism are doomed to failure.Resistance to oppression and exploitation is a constant factor in every country who have acquired their independence. There are many left nationalists in Scotland , people who wish to see Scotland become a “socialist” country. But there is more to the achievement of socialism than that.

 Socialism is the answer to Scotland’s problems and that only through socialism will exploitation and  alienation be done away with. To say this may only be to state a truism, a truism that is equally valid in England, and in every country in the world.  It is quite clear that we can only achieve real control over our lives by getting rid of the capitalist system as a whole and this can be done only by means of genuine socialist revolution.

The World Struggle

Left nationalists will argue that Scottish nationalism is somehow progressive and different to British nationalism and therefore Scots should vote Yes in the referendum. We say that this is a dangerous poison that is being spread by Leftists. It has served to divide workers. We argue that every nation state is by its very nature anti-working class. There can be no community of interests between two classes in antagonism with one another, the non-owners in society and the owners (the workers and the capitalists). And the state ultimately exists only to defend the property interests of the owning class at any given point in history – which is why modern states across the world send the police and army in to break strikes and otherwise seek to protect the interests of the capitalists and “business” at every turn.

Basically, the SNP is just another reformist party angling for support on a programme of reforms styling itself on the Nordic social democrats. They are endeavouring to outbid all the other parties by proposing that the wealth from North Sea Oil be divided among five million plus people only, instead of fifty million, and paint a picture of how, given self-government, oil revenues will provide a paradise in Scotland. Predictably the nationalists claim that their first priority is to launch a "war on poverty". The important thing to note is that the nationalists are merely making promises, and politicians have always found that far easier to make than fulfil. They pretend to the workers that should independence come then all the oil revenues will automatically go into the Scottish exchequer and be used mainly for the benefit of the workers. They must know that the capitalist class in Scotland would insist that oil revenues be used to reduce the burden of taxation which rests on them. The other people to benefit from Scottish independence would be the local politicians, who would be able to award themselves grander titles and grander salaries.

Should a sovereign Scotland be established Scots will discover that they cannot will or legislate away those problems of capitalism. No country in the world, no matter how independent or rich in resources, has yet succeeded in eliminating poverty, unemployment, insecurity, etc. For the working class there will be wages while they are working and pensions when they are too old or infirm. It is of no concern to workers in Scotland whether they are governed from London or by a separate independent government in Edinburgh. This is because the cause of the problems they face is the capitalist economic system of production for profit, not the form of government. And the capitalist economic system would continue to exist in a constitutionally independent Scotland.

The goal of the socialist movement is to establish a real world community without frontiers. The Left Ntionalists proclaim themselves visionaries but they cannot see beyond the narrow confines of the nation-state, conceived in medieval times and as outmoded as the clan system it replaced. It is the Socialist Party who are the true men and women of vision, who look forward to and struggle for a new world of common ownership and democratic control of society's resources, and uncluttered with the frontiers and class divisions which go hand-in-hand with "the nation".

We don’t want or care about Scottish independence any more than we care or support a “United Kingdom”.  We do want world socialism, where the means of life will be owned in common by the whole of the world socialist community. The real liberation struggle for freedom is the class struggle.

Agit-prop

The Socialist Party would like the future society to be a society without bosses or bureaucrats.   We reproach our adversaries for being unable to think beyond present conditions and of finding socialism unattainable. When we are told that some people won’t want to work, there are a string of reasons to show that  it is ridiculous to think that healthy people would wish to withdraw from the need to produce for the community when work would not be oppressive, exploited and despised, as it is today. Our task is that of “pushing” people to demand all the freedom they can and make themselves responsible for providing for their own needs.  We must encourage people to do things for themselves and to think by their own initiative and inspiration. Everywhere socialists must endeavour to combat hostile organisations of capitalism, and win the confidence of the workers.  Education and agitation, are the indispensable weapons in the Party’s arsenal because the primary and decisive main weapon of the working class is its large numbers. Only through the majority can the workers be victorious. This presupposes the long existence of unified activity and organisation, and this in turn is only possible by organising openly and democratically.

 The working class have time and again displayed the will to learn and acquired the ability to fight in defense of their living standards against the corporations and in defiance of the government. The more the class struggle develops then the more the workers can begin to see through capitalism.  However, the current discontent has not translated into support for the socialist option. At the present time the socialist alternative does not appear so attractive to many. First of all, the word “socialism” in the popular consciousness was closely associated with the old USSR. While these regimes were not socialist we never stop hearing that these countries typify socialism. Not only did supporters of the ex-Soviet Union ceaselessly repeat this to cover up the exploitation of workers in their societies, but the capitalist media also took up the same refrain, since there was nothing better than to point their finger and say, “Look, that is socialism,” knowing full well that the police-state structure and the faltering economy was unlikely to interest workers. As a result many workers are hesitant to endorse the socialist aspiration or remain sceptical about whether it can ever be established.

This situation presents an important challenge for the Socialist Party. If more workers are to be won to the cause of socialism it is clear that we must greatly advance in our ability to explain the advantages of a socialist society and how we can achieve it. It is clear we must improve our explanation of our fundamental socialist ideas. We must combat the capitalist misrepresentations  and distortions of what socialism is. Working people are looking for change but they are yet to be convinced that socialism can provide them with a better life – greater democracy and improved material well-being. The Socialist Party must push forward the discussion of the experiences of socialism to date and the clearly define and depict the type of society we would like to see. A new socialist society does not exist in some text to be mechanically implemented. Education, debate discussion and agitation are essential if the socialist movement is to win over more workers so that the unconscious working class, that is a “class-in-itself”, is transformed into a conscious “class-for-itself”. We must never cease to expose the brutal class character of capitalism and demonstrate the advantages of socialist democracy. In the battle of ideas every member of the Socialist Party has a part to play to counter the enemy propaganda and state the socialist attitude on every social question. No one can stand aside.

Nationalism is irrelevant

Birds of a feather

Many nationalists say that class is as irrelevant as it is outmoded, that it is much more realistic to talk of common national origins, such as Scots or Welsh, or whatever. By doing so, the nationalists hope to gloss over the obvious fact that in any nation state—independent or dependent—there exists deep conflicts between different sections of society and no amount of patriotism or flag-waving will overcome them: Scottish employers do not treat their workers any better than, say, Japanese employers would. Employers, no matter their national origins or colour, are only interested in getting as much from their workforce for as little as they can pay: profits come before patriotism.

Nationalists deny the operation of the class struggle by insisting that there is a community of interests between the workers and management with both working towards a common end. (To a certain extent this is true, both are working for a common goal — the enrichment of the shareholders!).

National independence" means  nothing to wage-slaves. The class war must be fought out by workers against the capitalist class of the world. If the working class of any country are too apathetic or spineless to stand erect against international capitalism, it does not matter by whom they are enslaved and exploited. The Scottish working class, when it organises on class lines, can have but one object, to throw off the capitalist yoke. The English or Welsh or Irish working class, opposed to a different group of the same capitalist class, can only prosecute the class war for the same object. For the working class of all countries, "national independence" is an irrelevance compared with their great need for a real International.

Nationalism and  independence means nothing to the wage-slave because poverty and degradation are the same in all the nations; class organisation is everything because on its growth and perfection, and, above all, its international character, hangs the hope of working-class victory over sordid, tyrannical, and bloody-capitalism, and the establishment of the one-and only socialism.