Santa And The Holy Ghost

Parents were disgusted after a clergywoman told children that Father Christmas is not real. 'Rev Margaret McPhee made the mistake during a choir concert for primary school children from Stalham Academy, in Norfolk. During the service at St Mary's Church in the town, the curate asked pupils what they thought Christmas was about. When one child said "Father Christmas", she replied that he was make-believe and not real.' (Daily Telegraph, 18 December) Presumably those same parents won't be "disgusted" when the same Rev teaches the kids about virgin birth, making cripples walk and of course rising from the dead. RD

The Gotha Critique

The word "exploitation" often conjures up images of workers toiling in sweatshops for 12 hours or more per day, for pennies, driven by a merciless overseer. This is contrasted to the ideal of a "fair wage day's wage for a fair day's work", the supposedly "normal" situation under capitalism in which workers receive a “decent” wage, enough for a "decent" standard of living, health insurance and security in their retirement. Marxists have a broader and more precise definition of exploitation than this. It is the forced appropriation of the unpaid labour of workers. Under this definition, all working-class people are exploited and it is argued that the ultimate source of profit, the driving force behind capitalist production, is the unpaid labour of workers. So exploitation forms the foundation of the capitalist system. The distinction between "labour-power" and "labour" is the key to understanding exploitation under capitalism. When a capitalist pays a worker a wage, they are not paying for the value of a certain amount of completed labour, but for labour-power. Employers buy labour-power on the market. In general, the wage, the price of labor-power, is, like all other commodities, determined by its cost of production, which is in turn regulated by struggles between workers and capitalists over the level of wages and benefits, and by competition between workers for jobs.

Capitalism can be best defined as generalised commodity production where labour power itself has become a commodity. The workers—those who operate the means of production—are separated from them, they don’t own them. Instead, a separate class of people—the capitalists—own the means of production. The capitalists purchase labor power from people who belong to the proletariat—people who own neither land nor capital. The proletarians sell their ability to work, or labour power, to the capitalists and get in return a definite sum of money—called a wage. Wages are therefore nothing but the price of labour power.

The idea that socialists support everybody getting the same level of pay is basically nothing more than a strawman argument of our actual positions. Equal pay is a concept that has nothing to do with socialism which is about getting rid of "pay" - the abolition of the wages system. In point of fact, Marx argued that equal pay was a theoretical and practical impossibility anyway as it iss at variance with the labour theory of value concerning the value content of labour power which necessarily varies according the the skill of the workers.

Marx said absolutely nothing about building a socialist society as opposed to a communist society. He nowhere mentioned the building of socialism at all in the “Gotha Critique.” Instead, he spoke of a transition period between capitalist and communist societies with both political and economic aspects. Marx wrote: “Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.” So if we are to follow Marx’s logic, there is a transition period between capitalist and communist society that has both political and economic aspects. Marx did not believe that wage-labour would be retained under the first phase of communism.

“Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production,” Marx wrote, “the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor.”

Remember, this is a description of the lower not the higher stage of communism. While under capitalism only the labour that is used to produce the money commodity is directly social, under communism, including its first stage, the labour that goes into the production of all products is directly social. Marx explained that the lower phase of communism is a co-operative society. It is a gigantic producers’ cooperative that embraces the entire economy. Its central feature is the common ownership of the means of production. Notice, not some means of production but all means of production, certainly all means of production of any significance. There is not only no private ownership of the means of production. There is also no group ownership of the means of production such as existed with the Soviet Union. Therefore, there are no classes at all. We are already dealing with a classless society. As far as their relationship to the means of production—ownership in legal language—all people are equal. Second, “the producers do not exchange their products.” This is not only true of the producers of the means of production but also is true of the producers of the means of consumption. Many Marxists over the decades—not only the theoreticians of the Russia but also the Trotskyists –imagined that this was true of only the higher stage of communism. But this was not Marx’s view at all. Even in its initial stage, according to Marx, commodity production has already completely disappeared. “Just as little,” Marx wrote, “does the labour employed on the products appear here as the value of these products—since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labour.”

Without commodity production, there cannot be money relations. Therefore, money will not exist, if we follow Marx, in the lower phase of communism. If commodity production and money still exist, it is not or not yet the lower stage of communism but at best a hypothetical transitional phase that lies between capitalism and the lower stage of communism. Since wages are defined as the sum of money workers receive in exchange for selling their ability to work for a given period of time to capitalists—this includes the capitalist state—how can we speak of wages under the lower phase of communism? Marx wrote: “For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labour (after deducting his labour for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labour cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.”

Notice here Marx does not say the workers receive a certain sum of money for the labour they perform for society but rather certificates that they have furnished a certain amount of labour to society. Marx specifically avoids using the term money here. So there is no wage labour in the sense of a price of labour power in the first phase of communist society as foreseen by Marx in the “Critique of Gotha Program.”

Workers work because they need the certificates that they have performed a certain quantity of work if they are to get access to goods they need to live, giving them the right to draw a certain amount of means of personal consumption. They do not work because work has become their primary need. Marx certainly does not overlook this. Let’s see what Marx has to say about this not unimportant subject:

“Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labour, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labour in another form.”

According to Marx’s definition of the first stage of communism as expressed in his “Critique of the Gotha Program,” all people able to work are required to do so. All the means of production are held in common by society. Therefore, there are no classes, and since there are no classes there is no class struggle. To talk about the class struggle under the lower phase of communism is therefore nonsense. Since there are no longer any classes during the lower stage of communism, the state is no longer truly a state, defined as an organization of repression by which one class holds down another class. But is there equality and justice? Compared to capitalism or any class society, the answer is yes. But is there full equality and full justice?

Here we get to the distinction between the lower and higher stages of communism. Unlike the higher stage of communism, people are paid, with some modifications, according to their work. This element survives from the “wages system” and still exists in the lower stage of communism, according to Marx. Why is this so? Marx assumed that under the first phase of communism the productive forces would not be sufficiently developed to fully meet the needs of all people. Therefore, we cannot yet have full justice and equality. Different individuals have different abilities to work and different interests and therefore needs. So even if goods—notice I say goods, not commodities—were distributed equally—either in the sense of the exact same material use values or a basket of goods that take on average the same quantity of labor to produce—everybody’s needs would not be equally met and the result would not be perfectly just. Perfect justice requires, on the contrary, that we recognize the different needs of individuals. Not equality but the meeting of everyone’s needs is required for a fully just society. Notice that a “just” society is therefore not an egalitarian society.

This is explained by Marx as follows:

“But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only—for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labour, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.”

But Marx foresaw a day when: “In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”

Before society can be described as having reached the lower stage of communism, the private sector that breeds a petty bourgeoisie of small business people must become an economic impossibility. When society achieves the lower phase of communism, any attempts by individuals to engage in private business will come to nothing. Private businesses will die out, not because they are repressed by state power but because there is less and less business for them to do. Therefore, there will no longer be any need to repress such attempts. People will be free to set up private business and hire wage labour without limit—if they can find anybody willing to work for them—but they won’t get very far. Any attempts to hire wage labour under the lower stage of communism will fail not because there are laws against it but because the would-be employers will not be able to find anybody willing to work for them.

So we can say that Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Programme identifies three more or less distinct periods which are often confused. There is a period of revolutionary transformation, a first phase of communist society, and a higher phase of communist society. Within the context of discussing these societal shifts, “socialism” is never described by Marx as a distinct phase, as he did not differentiate between the concept of socialist society and communist society—the terms were interchangeable for Marx. Right from the first phase of communist society, labour must be socially distributed for the purpose of satisfying human needs. Marx consistently maintained that in transition towards communism exchange of commodities and the use of money would be eliminated.

For Marx, money is not simply a unit of measure, but presupposes private commodity owners confronting each other on the market. Its social function is the mediation of the private labours of commodity producers. For Marx in the first phase of communism—this social function of money is no longer necessary. The labour certificates have a different function, that of facilitating a conscious allocation of goods. Marx in no way identifies the idea of labour certificates and labour-time accounting being used in a communist society with the law of value. Marx decidedly does not identify the “rule of value” with bookkeeping and conscious social control over the production process, but rather with the producers’ subordination to the production process. According to Marx, “the concept ‘value’ presupposes ‘exchanges’ of the products. Where labour is communal, the relations of men in their social production do not manifest themselves as ‘values’ of ‘things’.”

Taken and adapted from here 

North Sea Crisis

The volatile nature of capitalist production and distribution is well illustrated by the latest development in the oil industry. 'The UK's oil industry is in 'crisis' as prices drop, a senior industry leader has told the BBC. Oil companies and service providers are cutting staff and investment to save money. Robin Allan, chairman of the independent explorers' association Brindex, told the BBC that the industry is "close to collapse". Almost no new projects in the North Sea are profitable with oil below $60, he claims.' (BBC News, 18 December) This is just another employment insecurity suffered by the working class. RD

Conflict In The Pacific

The struggle for control over the Pacific has recently revealed satellite images showing China is building an island on a reef in the disputed Spratly Islands large enough to accommodate what could be its first offshore airstrip in the South China Sea, a leading defense publication said on Friday. 'The construction has stoked concern that China may be converting disputed territory in the mineral-rich archipelago into military installations, adding to tensions waters also claimed by Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Brunei. ..... The building work flies in the face of U.S. calls for a freeze in provocative activity in the South China Sea, one of Asia's biggest security issues.' (Yahoo News, 22 November) This is an ominous development that increases the prospect of conflict in the area. RD

We need revolution

The great bulk of people would vastly prefer to live in a world free of poverty, unemployment, racism and war. This kind of world is only possible in socialism. Many workers today would readily agree that this is the kind of world they would want for themselves and future generations. But they think it’s a pipedream. In fact, the need for class struggle is the key to what will make the difference for future generations. For decades now the working class has been under attack yet the employers would love for this class struggle to just be considered an “old-fashioned” notion from the past. The class struggle -- the conflict between the capitalists and the workers -- is at the very heart of the capitalist system and without going into the scientific understanding first explained by Karl Marx, simply put, the capitalist class makes profits at the expense of the working class’s wages and living standards, so the two sides are inevitably driven into conflict. The workers create the wealth and the bosses take the lion’s share.

Capitalism has always been brutal in its methods. But it developed technology and a worldwide system of production which laid the material basis or groundwork for overcoming scarcity and creating abundance for all. People could have everything they need to live well. But it’s impossible to achieve under the capitalist system, which is driven to pursue profits rather than human needs. Therefore, as Karl Marx pointed out, only a socialist revolution could bring about a society of abundance for all. Socialism can only be built upon abundance. Racism, sexism, and nationalism would die out, since there would be no need for vicious competition among workers, who are all forced to compete with each other for the miserable jobs and other crumbs that capitalism offers us. As profit margins have fallen in the system as a whole, competition between capitalist firms and nations has become ever more vicious. The needs of the ruling class to boost profit rates also dictates escalated racist and anti-immigrant attacks across the board -- to keep the working class down through divide-and-conquer methods. There exists a “race to the bottom” in which capitalists try to outdo each other in finding the cheapest labour possible is prevalent. A key focus of these recent attacks has been pensions. The employers are demanding that workers either pay into the pension funds themselves or accept inferior plans.

Globalisation brings multinationals which are tools to exploit natural resources, livelihood and finally affected the survival of masses. Yet it also in some way helped people to connect globally with like-minded people and organizations and exchange ideas, tools and information against oppression. Platforms, for all their flaws, like World Social Forum help people to align globally against the neoliberal forces under the slogan Another World is Possible as against There is No Alternative pushed by the market forces.

The Socialist Party argues that socialism is the only solution. In order to build toward this future socialist revolution, we urge interested workers to get in touch with ourselves. We believe that in order to save humanity from the economic chaos, social injustice, and environmental destruction caused by global capitalism, it is necessary to abolish the capitalist system altogether and replace it with a humane, democratically-run planned socialist economy. Socialism is possible only from the self-organised working class realising its power as an alternative to that of its masters, the capitalist ruling class. If socialism is to represent a new society of freedom, then it has to be achieved through a process in which people liberated themselves. Unlike many on the Left who look to an elite to change things for the masses, the Socialist Party argue that the working class has to free themselves. Freedom cannot be conquered for and handed over to the workers. The Socialist Party puts forth the principle of self-emancipation - the principle that socialism can only be brought into being by the self-mobilisation of the working class - a fundamental aspect of the socialist project. Socialism can only be brought into being through the mass democratic action of the exploited and the oppressed.

Socialism means a society restructured according to the working-class principle of solidarity. It means an economy of democratic planning, based on common ownership of the means of production, a high level of technology, education, culture and leisure, economic equality, no material privileges for officials, and accountability. Beyond the work necessary to ensure secure material comfort for all, it means the maximum of individual liberty and autonomy. Socialism can be far freer and more democratic than capitalism could conceivably be - through integrating economic and political power in democratic structures, through accountability and provisions for decision-making participation.

To think that a socialist revolution is not possible, you would have to believe not only that the ruling class and their economic wizards have found a way to ‘manage’ capitalism. You would also have to close your eyes to the spreading wars, and economic, financial, and social crises we are in the midst of. With climate change, poverty, wars, racism and much else - is such that it is not very easy for our rulers to persuade people that everything is alright. But they don't need to. All they need to do is persuade people that there is nothing they can do about it. This is why, when it comes to justifying capitalism, inequality and war, the mantra of: "But you can't change human nature" has always been popular with the powerful and drummed into the heads of ordinary people. It is commonly said that human nature, being greedy and self-interested, makes real equality impossible. But this is false because human nature is not fixed. It changes and develops as circumstances change. We know from the fact that hunters and gatherers lived in democratic and egalitarian societies for tens of thousands of years before classes emerged that there is not some innate obstacle to equality lodged in human nature.

 It is easy to produce a list of revolutions and uprisings that failed. Yet many of today's democratic capitalist regimes are the product of successful revolutions. So how is it, after this abundant experience of successful revolutions, that the claim that they always fail has the resonance it does? The answer is that none of these revolutions have yet produced a society of equality and freedom as almost all of them claimed they would. We need to be clear about the difference between the bourgeois revolutions of the past and the socialist revolution we are talking about today. The bourgeois revolutions were both progressive and successful but they could not introduce economic equality or a classless society. They adopted the rhetoric of "equal rights" to mobilise popular support but in reality were led by, and transferred state power to, a class - the capitalists - which was by its nature an exploiting class and which could not exist without a working class beneath it. The same applies to the various anti-colonial, anti-imperialist nationalist revolutions. For historical reasons these revolutions often adopted radical language, frequently calling themselves socialist or Marxist but they could do no more than establish independent state capitalist regimes which would not only be class societies but would also be subject to all the distorting pressures of the world market.

It’s not enough to say that socialism is the solution. Its vision must be in our hearts. Marxists such as William Morris and the anarchists around Kropotkin saw the new world as a different system, not a change of administration. If we don't get a clearer idea of where we want to go, all the discussions devolve into discussions of changing administration. Sticking to a vision of the cooperative commonwealth as mere worker-run enterprises leads to “workers’ business capitalism”. Today humanity faces a global crisis stemming from the incredible rapacious requirements of the capitalist system. In the first place, there is catastrophic climate change which threatens to end life on our planet, then there is endemic war and civil wars, mass poverty  and an ever more ruthless assault on working people everywhere. It is absolutely clear that the bourgeoisie will continue to put the drive for corporate profit ahead of everything, even our own future as a species. It is incapable of changing. Even when it recognises the danger it cannot stop doing what it does. If capitalism is not overthrown, humanity is most likely doomed. Capitalism will destroy the human race. The only way out is the abolition of capitalism and its replacement by socialismThis can be achieved only through a socialist revolution. A socialist revolution radically differs from all the preceding types of social revolution. What is the difference? Firstly, all previous revolutions did not aim to abolish exploitation, but merely modified its forms. A socialist revolution, however, abolishes every exploitation for all time and ushers in the era of construction of a classless society. Secondly, previous revolutions did not have to create a new economy. They only brought political power into line with the new economic relations which arose within the old society. One of the principal tasks of a socialist revolution is to create a new economy, the economy of socialism which does not arise within the womb of capitalism. Thirdly, no revolution is marked by as much great activity of the people as a socialist revolution.

Reformists have always opposed the socialist revolution. The reformists claim that in present-day conditions there is no need for a socialist revolution, that the possibility has arisen for the evolution from capitalism to socialism through reforms. Contemporary capitalism, they maintain, has ceased to be the capitalism of which Marx wrote in Capital. They claim that it has lost its class nature and has become a “welfare state” capable of bringing about socialism by reforms within the framework-of the existing political system. Reformists do not even toy with the idea of destroying the cornerstone of capitalism, private property.

The significance of the socialist revolution consists in this; that the length of the working day for the average person will shrink, and they will thus be free in the real sense of the word to turn their attention to all of the various activities that round out the human as a species. They would become more involved in art and craft and science, socialising and recreation

The Real Cold War

Fuel poverty is defined as needing to pay more than 10 per cent of income on fuel bills while those in extreme fuel poverty spend more than 20% of income.  Charities have hit out at the big energy suppliers and the Scottish Government for not doing enough for the most vulnerable in society, especially in the winter months.

Fuel poverty has reached its highest level in a decade, with rising energy prices meaning that almost two out of five homes in Scotland are now suffering from the problem. Scottish Government figures for 2013 showed that 940,000 households across the country were classed as being in fuel poverty - a rise of about 100,000 from the previous year. There were 39.1% of households in fuel poverty last year - a rise of almost four percent from 2012 and more than double the total of 16% that were affected in 2003-04. Some 10.5% of households were suffering from extreme fuel poverty in 2013 - up from 9.4% the previous year.

David Stewart, of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, said that fuel poverty was now at "crisis levels in Scotland" and called for more to be done to provide warm, affordable homes. He added: "Too many households cannot afford to heat their homes and they face a choice between heating their homes or eating this winter. 

Almost half of pensioners in Dumbarton and the Vale are living in fuel poverty, according to a report. 

The World Did Wrong!

In an article in the Toronto Star (October 18) titled, "What The World Did Wrong About Ebola: Everything", Joanne Liu, international president of Medicins Sans Frontiers, said, "The reality is, we failed as an international community." She didn't say that funding to the World Health Organization had been cut so badly that there were large gaps in the personnel necessary to conduct health business properly. With our technology, it should have been a relatively simple matter to control the initial outbreak and save thousands of lives. But doing it properly, costs money that must come from profits and here lies the major problem with the capitalist system – profits must trump anything else in the long run John Ayers.

Nationalism And The NHS

At a time when there is opposition to immigration to this country it is worth considering what this mindless nationalism amounts to. Four in five extra nurses recruited in the last year are from abroad, according to new figures which sparked warnings that the NHS has become reliant on foreign labour. 'Nurse leaders accused hospitals of "panic-buying" overseas workers at great   expense to plug staff shortages, while patients groups raised fears that care is being compromised by nurses with poor command of English. ........ Data from every NHS hospital trust in the country shows 5,778 nurses were recruited from overseas over the last year, with the largest numbers coming from Spain, Portugal, the Phillipines and Italy.' (Daily Telegraph, 17 December) It is doubtful that those zealot nationalists who have recently had to rely on foreign nurses are still as committed to anti-immigration. RD

Gimmie, Gimmie, Gimmie

Despite the dangers of over-fishing and damaging the future the British by applying pressure have managed to increase their share of various fishing rights. 'Britain's fishermen will be allowed to increase their catch of cod and other key fish species next year after late-night wrangling between EU ministers in Brussels resulted in a new set of fishing quotas that flout scientific advice. ...... Conservationists said the deal, reached after a day and a half of negotiations in Brussels, was not in line with what scientists had advised.' (Guardian, 16 December) Just another example of how profit is more important than conservation. RD

The Madness Of Capitalism

What will future generations make of the insanity of today's society? 'The Pakistani city of Peshawar has begun burying its dead after a Taliban attack at a school killed at least 132 children and nine staff. Mourners crowded around coffins bedecked with flowers, while other families waited at hospitals for news. ...... . World leaders voiced disgust at the Taliban's deadliest attack to date, which even its Afghan allies disowned.' (BBC News, 17 December) This is just the latest madness in a society wrecked by dissent , dispute and chronic anti-social behaviour. What does the death of young children prove? RD

Socialism, the hope of humanity

Mankind shall turn from Competition's strife, To share the blessings of Communal life.

Consider the definition of socialism/communism - common ownership of the means of production. What does it mean? Common ownership is where everyone owns and has some form of democratic control over something. Socialism is the common and democratic ownership of the means of production, to be used in the interests of people instead of profits. It is thus incompatible with a command economy.

Socialism must be comprised of three main things:

1. Common Ownership.

2. Democratic Control.

3. Production solely for use.

These features of socialist society would be dependent on each other and could only operate together as basic parts of an integrated social system. In combination, these define a way of organizing society that in every important aspect of production, distribution, decision making and social administration, is clearly distinguished from the operation of capitalist society.

The social system under which most of the people of the world live today is known as capitalism and it is based on the private or government ownership of industry and transport for the production of goods for profit. Capitalism produces only when there is a profit for the owner of capital. When there is no profitable market for his product, the capitalist will not produce, no matter how great and urgent the need of the people for work, for food, for clothing and shelter, for a decent living standard, for security. Where wealth is concentrated, power is concentrated. The wealth of our society is made up mainly and primarily of the means of producing and distributing the necessities of life. Whoever has this wealth has the power to rule society and dominate the life of all others. The longer capitalism lives, the more this wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of the few, the giants of industry and finance, as Thomas Piketty has shown in his studies of wealth inequality. 

Every day the lives of millions and hundreds of millions become more and more dependent upon these powerful few, the tiny minority of capitalists. Where such power is in the hands of a ruling, exploiting, oppressing minority, all talk of genuine freedom is nonsense. All talk of genuine equality between those who have the power and those over whom they exercise this power, is likewise nonsense. With the economic and political power they have at their disposal, they control the newspapers, the radio and television, the movie screens, the schools, the churches, the legislatures, the courts, the police, the main political parties, and all other means for shaping the minds and controlling the bodies of the people. What is worse is the more discontented the masses of the people become over the conditions to which capitalism reduces them, the more determined are the capitalists to rule over the people, to keep them docile and silent which can be seen in the nefarious attempts to control the internet and the World Wide Web. The longer capitalism is allowed to exist, the greater becomes the inequality—social, economic and political —and the lesser becomes the freedom of the people. We oppose the commodification of culture and support the free cultural development of all peoples.

Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production and exchange and their democratic organization and management by all the people in a society free of classes, class divisions and class rule. Socialism is the democratic organization of production for use, of production for abundance, of plenty for all, without the exploitation of man by man. Socialism is the union of the whole world into an international federation of free and equal peoples, disposing in common of the natural resources and wealth. Socialism means peace, security, prosperity, freedom and equality—all the things that the working people of society, have always wanted and longed for. Decades ago, socialism could be looked upon as a noble ideal, but nothing more than a noble ideal. Today, in light of an impending environmental catastrophe it need to be more than an ideal, and become an urgent necessity.

Production is organised for use, not for profit. Production is carried on in a planned, decentralized but coordinated, democratically-controlled way, not on the basis of whether or not the private capitalist can make a profit on the market. Everyone has different tastes, different ambitions, different hopes but where production is rationally planned, all the needs and comforts of society can easily be provided for, year in and year out. Every new improvement and advance in the field of production, would mean not only a higher standard of living for all, but a reduction in the working-day and the work-share that every member of society will voluntarily contribute to the community. Where there is abundance for all, the nightmare of insecurity vanishes. Where there is abundance for all, and where no one has the economic power to exploit and oppress others, the basis of classes, class division and class conflict vanishes. Where there is abundance for all, and where all have equal access to the fruits of the soil and the wealth of industry, the wars between nations and peoples vanish.

The Socialist Party advocates a society in which class divisions are abolished and the state that enforces class rule withers away. A society based on common ownership and control of its resources by each and every one of its citizens, democratically determining the development of its economy and society, will eradicate the divisions of class, race, sex and religion. A democratically planned society has the potential to progressively reduce the burden of work allowing greater and greater participation in the running of society by those that create its wealth through their labour. The world of necessity (work) will give way to the world of freedom. This will lead to humanity actually living the ideas of cooperation and solidarity and see the true development of human personality in all its potential. Such a society will not create perfection because perfection itself is not a feature of humanity. It will remove the social causes of inhumanity so that everything that is truly human will be free. Only the working class, as the overwhelming majority and the creators of all wealth can be the agency of this change. 

A socialist revolution simply means the vast majority of society carries out this task. It represents society’s majority becoming truly politically active for the first time. This emancipation of the working class can only be achieved by the working class itself. Because the capitalist state is a creation of the capitalist class and functions as a weapon of its rule it cannot be taken over by the workers and used to further the abolition of classes and itself. In other words it cannot be reformed because society is structured around the ownership of productive resources by a tiny minority and the compulsion of the majority to work, in order to live, to create profit for that minority, society cannot be reformed to abolish exploitation or the periodic economic crises that result from it. Only common ownership and control of the economic and social resources of society can abolish exploitation and the unemployment and attacks on living standards that arise from crises. Again this is only possible through revolution. Socialism cannot be achieved in one country but must embrace every country of the world and therefore socialists are internationalists, irreconcilably opposed to all forms of nationalism, which preaches a false identity of interest between workers and bosses.

The Invergordon 1931 naval mutiny

A strike by a thousand sailors of the Royal Navy occurred in northern Scotland in 1931 against proposed wage cuts, won significant concessions and provoked vicious government reprisals.

Britain of 1931 was in the first throws of the Great Depression. Economic stagnation had led to mass unemployment with the number of people out of work having more than doubled to 2.5 million during the previous year alone, homelessness was rife, and those who still had work were faced with enormous pay cuts. The government, wishing to create savings in public spending, put forward of series of pay cuts to be enforced in the public sector, including cuts to the Armed Forces. Those who had joined the RN after 1925 were to receive a cut of 10% and ratings below the rank of petty officer who had joined before 1925 would have their pay reduced to a new rate, in most cases this amounted to a 25% cut in pay. These cuts essentially condemned many sailors and their families to poverty.

Agitation amongst the crews began almost immediately and on the evening of the 12^th Sept. a group of sailors held a meeting on a football field in Invergordon and voted in favour of a strike. Singing the Red Flag, the men left to spread the news among the others and to make preparations for the action. Several meetings were held in a canteen in Invergordon on the 13th with hundreds of sailors in attendance, many climbing on tables to make impromptu speeches in favour of the strike. The strike was to take place on the 15th, a day designated for practice maneuvers. When ordered to put to sea that morning the commanding officers of four of the ships were met with flat refusal from their crews. The crews of HMS Hood, the fleet's flagship, and HMS Nelson carried out harbour duties but refused to put to sea, and the crews of HMS Valiant and HMS Rodney carried out essential duties only and simply ignored other orders. Sailors gathered on their ship's decks, cheering and using semaphore signals to indicate to each other that the strike was in effect. Only four ships had put to sea, and three had to return to dock after several hours for lack of crew members who were willing to obey orders.

Over a thousand men had taken part in the strike, and it was successful in forcing the fleet commanders to abandon plans for the maneuvers. Rear Admiral Wilfrid Tomkinson, temporary commander of the fleet at the time telegraphed the Admiralty in the afternoon explaining the situation and insisted that any restoration of order would be impossible without immediate concessions to the strikers. Not wishing to spread the mutiny, Tomkinson ordered concessions to the strikers. These included extending marriage allowances to sailors under the age of 25, and that those on lower rates of pay could remain on the old rate, effectively cancelling the 25% pay cut in favour of a universal 10% cut. These allowances were accepted by the government and the Admiralty, and although not completely cancelling out the pay cuts, were largely accepted by the strikers. They had won a small victory.

A highly embarrassing incident for the Admiralty and the government, and fearing repeats of the mutiny from other sections of the armed forces, attempts were made to suppress any record or public knowledge of the strike at Invergordon. The government refused to hold an inquiry, public court martials for strikers were forbidden and the Atlantic Fleet was renamed the Home Fleet. Strikers were punished out of the public eye however, many were jailed, and many more punished in barracks and then dispersed throughout the Navy.

The world cooperative commonwealth

Capitalism sucks. Corporations poison our environment with toxic wastes, they market products known to be defective or even lethal, and they devastate our communities through factory closures that make thousands idle. They get away with this in part because they fund politicians of all the major parties who are in positions to protect their interests. To mitigate some of the worst excesses of capitalism, reform movements have pushed for various health and welfare programmes.

The socialist revolution will not be made by the Socialist Party. The task is too complex to be accomplished by one section of the population. Planning the new economy and society generally would be far more efficient than it is now because it would include the views of everybody. The logical outcome of a party seizing the initiative in a revolution is that the role of the class becomes redundant. Why participate if a political party can accomplish it for you? When we act for ourselves we learn useful lessons for the future as well as influencing the present. If socialism is to be achieved, people will need to have confidence in their own ability to run society. When we organise constructively in the present we are training ourselves for the future. A free socialist society, the cooperative commonwealth, needs the active involvement of millions of people. And crucially that participation can only happen voluntarily. Socialism cannot be imposed on the people from above, from the outside. It has to be a voluntary, organic process. It has to be a libertarian process. When you are acting for youself, you are clearly not obeying the commands of a leader. No doubt you will be influenced by some people's arguments more than by others but you are free to decide your own course of action. Nobody is compelling you to do anything. The question is not really one of organisation or not, but rather what type of organisation: libertarian or authoritarian, for the spirit of cooperation and mutual aid is vital.

The cooperative commonwealth is realistic. We understand that most people have little interest in making a revolution next week. Or that making one will be easy. Far from it. Many are daunted by the task and search for shortcuts that only result in dead-ends. But if we are serious about achieving socialism, then we have to start about it now. It isn't going to drop from the sky. The longer we wait to begin acting for ourselves the longer it's going to be till we achieve our aim. Too many people are used to letting others run society for them. Sure they might get indignant over corruption or a particular war, but it's fair to say that their actual involvement in changing anything is pretty low. The whole point of having a minority of brainy and benevolent leaders presented by the Leninists and Trotskyists is that they will do the difficult work for you. As such it follows that you yourself don't need to change, to participate on an equal footing with everybody else, to think about why we need socialism, you don't need to get deeply involved in making it happen. This will be fatal for any revolution because the new society will face tough times. But if people have a good understanding of what they are fighting for and have made a deep personal commitment to achieving it, it's unlikely that they are going to let it go easily. The Socialist Party think that the creative capacities of the working class as a whole far outweigh the capacities of a few individual leaders. It is our view that a truly democratic society would be more efficient than it currently is, simply because it would harness everybody's ability.

Most of us have a feeling that, in most things, cooperating with others is generally better than competing against them. That feeling is a sound one. Cooperation is so fundamental to the existence of society that we don't even think of it as cooperation: it seems simply "natural" behaviour. Thus it is normal for two people to move to the side when passing on the footpath, normal to queue for admission to the theatre or sports ground, normal to hold the door open for the person entering behind you. We are an intensely social species who become aware of ourselves as individuals by interacting with our fellow human beings. From the recognition of humans as social beings flows our view on organisation. Workers join unions because they realise that they are better off cooperating with workmates rather than competing against them. All forms of production of goods and services involve cooperation — often by people thousands of kilometres apart. It is the reason why capitalism, itself, depends upon cooperation: the simplest factory couldn't operate without it. Historically, capitalism has greatly increased human cooperation by making production a national and international process. But capitalism also creates contradictions to cooperation. There is cooperation in the factory, but the factory competes against other factories in the same industry. If a single company controls an industry and imposes cooperation, it competes against producers overseas, and against other industries for resources, finance and higher profits. So capitalist cooperation is usually wasteful (duplication of efforts, destruction of losing competitors). It is also imposed from the top — not brought about by the free decision of those who do the cooperating. The real alternative to competition is the freely decided cooperation of working people: cooperation to produce the needs of all human beings, not higher profits for a minority. A major problem with capitalism is that it is based on the concentration of economic power in the hands of a small elite unaccountable to the rest of us. Economic systems are not limited to this choice, however. There is another way, referred to variously as socialism, communism, social democracy, the resource based economy, anarchism, or the cooperative commonwealth. We need a people's movement to democratise the economy.

The cooperative commonwealth is not government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Cooperative commonwealth or socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools.  The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. The cooperative commonwealth produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth. People across the world need to cast off the systems which oppress them, and build a new world fit for all humanity. Democratic revolutions are needed to dissolve the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government. By revolution we mean a radical and fundamental change in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations. The building of free-access socialism requires widespread understanding and participation, and will not be achieved by an elite or a vanguard working "on behalf of" the people. The working class must implement libertarian socialism themselves. If an attempt is made to impose socialism from above by a state or a benevolent few, it'll prove just as disastrous as it did in the Soviet Union. And socialism won't result anyway. Democratic socialism is an international movement for freedom, social justice and solidarity. Its goal is to achieve a peaceful world where these basic values can be enhanced and where each individual can live a meaningful life with the full development of his or her personality and talents.

The Earth cannot withstand the onslaught of capitalist culture for very many more years. We are already close to some irreversible tipping points (if we haven’t already reached them). Only a few more years of production for profit, using cheap energy such as coal, will usher in catastrophic global changes. We will have annihilated beyond comprehension vast areas of arable land needed for growing vegetables, despoiled and polluted the supply of fresh water. We are on a march towards planetary suicide. libertarian communism/socialism is where everybody has an equal say in making decisions that affect them and where everybody is assured of equal access to the benefits of society. It's summed up in the old phrase "from each according to ability, to each according to needs." There isn't any reason to keep the wage system after a revolution. As every product is a social product - nobody produces anything in isolation any more - the products themselves ought to be socialised. It's simply not possible to ascertain the true social value of anyone's labour, and in truth not worth the effort of finding out. Everybody's contribution matters. It wouldn't matter how many surgeons we had, if we didn't have cleaners ensuring a hygienic workplace. Both contribute to society. Why discriminate in favour of one in the future society? It'll only preserve the class nature of society. We should move immediately to a system of "to each according to need". We envisage that autonomous cities and industries will federate together and co-ordinate their activities. With socialism there won't be any competitive reason not to. With voluntary co-operation there won't be any need for a centralised authority.

Who Owns the North Pole - Part 80

Denmark challenges Russia and Canada over North Pole. Denmark has presented a claim to the UN, arguing that the area surrounding the North Pole is connected to the continental shelf of Greenland, a Danish autonomous territory. Foreign Minister Martin Lidegaard said it was a "historic and important milestone" for Denmark.

Lidegaard said data collected since 2002 backed Denmark's claim to an approximate area of 895,000 sq km (346,000 sq miles)- roughly 20 times the size of Denmark - beyond Greenland's nautical borders. Danish scientists were firm in their claim on Monday. "The Lomonosov ridge is the natural extension of the Greenland shelf," Christian Marcussen of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland

Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen of Denmark's Syddansk University said the government in Copenhagen had staked its claim, partly to show the world that Denmark could not be pushed about, but also to prove a political point to the people of Greenland. "There's a strong push for independence in Greenland, and Denmark wants to show it's capable of taking its interest into account," he told the BBC. "By taking this step, Copenhagen is sending a signal to Greenland: 'Listen, we're on your team'."

In 2008, a US Geological Survey report estimated that as much as 22% of the world's undiscovered and recoverable resources lay north of the Arctic Circle - 90 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil, 1,670 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of technically recoverable natural gas liquids in 25 geologically defined areas thought to have potential for petroleum.

Common Ownership V State Ownership

Marx and Engels visualised a socialism where all the accumulated treasures in machines and technical appliances created by the genius of man, all that science and art had given to the human race in generations is to be utilised, not for the few, but for the benefit of mankind as a whole. Those who considered themselves to be Marxists saw socialism as being based on the common ownership of the means of production and distribution, a new and higher economic system is to be built up, raising production to a higher economic level, and ending all social oppression by dissolving the hostile classes into a community of free and equal producers striving not for sectional interests, but for the common good, socialist commonwealth, liberating the individual from all economic, political and social oppression. This would provide the basis, for real liberty and for the full and harmonious development of the personality, giving full scope for the growth of the creative faculties of the mind.

At present there prevails a great confusion of thought, and certain forms of state capitalism are often referred to as Socialism. Some who called themselves socialists mistakenly regarded state-ownership as stage on the way to socialism. The experiences of the Russian Revolution have revealed to us the grave innate dangers of State capitalism. History has taught us that the Leninist-inspired left-wing parties turn from a sheepdog into a wolf, preying on the very flock it promised to guard. State capitalism concentrates an overwhelming power in the hands of the state, and places the citizen completely at the mercy of the State, presenting a bureaucracy with this tremendous power to subjugate the people. Under State capitalism the government derives its income automatically from the economic enterprises of the State and as the owner of banking, industry, agriculture and transport becomes the universal employer, that controls everything on which the fate and happiness of the individual citizen depend. The citizen is dependent on the State as regards his employment, his housing, his supplies, his amusement, his educational and transport facilities. A conflict with the State might affect the citizen as an employee, tenant, etc. This enormous power of the State over the individual citizen must needs call forth or strengthen tendencies towards a dictatorship. State capitalism does not solve any of the outstanding problems. It does not abolish crises, the classes, the wage system. Under State capitalism there is production of commodities for sale, not production for use. Between production and consumption there still remains the partition wall of the purchasing power.

State capitalism is the ownership, i.e. the right of disposal, by a public body representing society, by government, state power or some other political body. The persons forming this body, the politicians, the ministry and department officials, and the managers of the various enterprises , are the direct masters of the production apparatus; they direct and regulate the process of production; they command the workers. Common ownership is the right of disposal by the workers themselves; the working class itself — taken in the widest sense of all that partake in really productive work, including employees, farmers, scientists — is direct master of the production apparatus, managing, directing, and regulating the process of production which is, indeed, their common work.

Under State capitalism the workers are not masters of their work; they may be better treated and their wages may be higher than under private ownership; but they are still exploited. Exploitation does not mean simply that the workers do not receive the full produce of their labour; a considerable part must always be spent on the production apparatus and for unproductive though necessary departments of society. Exploitation consists in that others, forming another class, dispose of the produce and its distribution; that they decide what part shall be assigned to the workers as wages, what part they retain for themselves and for other purposes. Under State capitalism this belongs to the regulation of the process of production, which is the function of the bureaucracy. Thus in Russia the Party bureaucracy (the nomenclature or the apparatchiks) was the ruling class and the Russian workers were the exploited class. In other words: the structure of productive work remains as it is under capitalism; workers subservient to commanding directors. Nationalisation is the programme of supposed“friends” of the workers who for the hard exploitation of private capitalism wish to substitute a milder modernised exploitation.  Therein lies the chief danger of State capitalism. It hides an abyss into which the nation may easily tumble, sinking back into barbarism instead of making its way further towards socialism.

Common ownership is self-liberation. The working class themselves can take care of social production if there is no police or State power to keep them off. They have the tools, the machines in their hands, they use and manage them. They do not need masters to command them, nor finances to control the masters. If the working class rejects State ownership with its servitude and exploitation, and demands common ownership with its freedom and self-rule, it cannot do so without fulfilling conditions and shouldering duties. Common ownership of the workers implies, first, that the entirety of producers is master of the means of production and works them in a well-planned system of social production. It implies secondly that in all shops, factories, enterprises the personnel regulate their own collective work as part of the whole. So they have to create the organs of administration by means of which they direct their own work as well as social production at large. The State and its government departments cannot serve for this purpose because it is essentially an organ of domination, and concentrates the general affairs in the hands of a group of rulers. But under socialism the general affairs consist in social production; so they are the concern of all, of every worker, to be discussed and decided at every moment by themselves. Their administrative organs must consist of delegates elected to be bearers of  opinion, and will be continually returning and reporting on the results arrived at in the assemblies of delegates. By means of such delegates that at any moment can be changed and called back the connection of the working masses into smaller and larger groups can be established and organisation of production secured. Such an organizational structure may well be based upon workers’ councils. They cannot be devised beforehand, they must be shaped by the practical activity of the workers themselves when they are needed. Such delegates are not politicians, nor rulers or leaders, but mediators or messengers, forming the connection between the separate workplaces, combining their separate opinions into one common resolution. Common ownership demands common management of the work as well as common productive activity; it can only be realized if all the workers take part in this self-management of what is the basis and content of social life; and if they go to create the organs that unite their separate wills into one common action.

It is important to note that the Socialist Party does not speak here of a higher stage of development, when production will be organized so far as to be no problem any more, when out of the abundance of produce everybody takes according to his wishes, and the entire concept of “ownership” has disappeared. We speak of the time that the working class has conquered political and social power, and stands before the task of organising production and distribution under most difficult conditions. We talk about the here and now.

For over a hundred years the cause of socialism has been dominated by the machinations of two statist creeds, social democracy and Leninism. These have fed off the discontent and aspirations of the working class to become alternative managers of capitalism. Their heydays are long past; the Labourites have long abandoned any pretence to 'reforming capitalism' in favour of simply managing it, after the end of 'communism' the Leninists have been reduced to mini sects which replicate within their own structures the regimes of the old Stalinist States in a homage to Marx's dictum, "first astragedy, now as farce". Their aspirations have shrunk with their horizons, whilst they grandly imagine storming the winter palace and fantasise about bloody revolutions, in reality they have little or no belief in the working class ever rallying to their 'proletarian leadership', and even less in the ability of the working class to emancipate itself. They hide themselves in front campaigns for partial reforms, and embrace and promote a succession of 'Saviours from high' who they are sure will deliver us, until the inevitable betrayal, when they move on to the next. All previous revolutions have been the overthrow of one minority ruling class and the victory of a new one. Such revolutions have needed abstract slogans and ideals (Liberté, Fraternité, Egalité, or Peace, Land, and Bread, ) in order to enlist the support of the masses. They have needed heroes and demagogues to inspire the majority to give their lives for the victory of new masters. The state socialists may talk about socialism, but in reality they wish to replace our present system of class exploitation with another, only with a new bureaucratic exploitative class. This is why they too need heroes, martyrs, demagogues and saviours, because they need to beguile the masses to support their revolution, to support another new ruling class.

The socialist revolution can only take place when the majority of the working class not only understand that it is possible, but also desirable. It needs no abstract ideals to mask it's true purpose, no demagogues to beguile the masses. It needs no heroes.

The Thing That Frightens Everyone.

We all know that continual growth is at the center of capitalist economics. It's nice when the mainstream press says it, too. In the Toronto Star, October 25, in an interview with a staffer, Yuval Noah Harari who wrote the book, " A Brief History of Humankind" said, " If you look at modern economic history, the most salient feature is the exponential growth of the economy. Growth has become the central value of the capitalist ideology. People today are obsessed with growth. Everybody wants their income to grow…The thing that frightens everyone is zero economic growth." John Ayers.

Young Lives Ruined

Capitalism is a fiercely competitive society, so much so it distorts the lives of very young  workers. This has led to an increase in children being treated in hospitals for self-harming. 'Admission of boys aged 10 to 14 have gone up from 454 in 20009-2010 to 659 in 2013-2014 while the number of cases of girls nearly doubles from 3,090 to 5,055 over the same period, according to the Health & Social Care Information Centre.' (Times, 13 December) Capitalism is so awful it even ruins lives before they enter the workplace. RD

Flaunting It

Modesty is not an affliction that the owning class suffer from, thus when it comes to spending their vast wealth they make no secret of how proliferate they can be. 'The top ten most expensive house sales of the year have been revealed - topped by a stunning £50million penthouse. Land Registry data confirmed that an apartment on Princes Gate, London, was the biggest deal of the year and cost almost twice as much as the second most expensive property, a £27million terraced home in west London.' (Daily Mail, 13 December) The contrast with the working class trying to keep up with mortgage payment or paying a council rent should not be lost on any thoughtful worker. RD

Socialism – The Resource of Hope

'The greatest cause of poverty is hover-population,' remarked Harlow.

'Yes,' said old Joe Philpot. 'If a boss wants two men, twenty goes after the job: ther's too many people and not enough work.'

'Over-population!' cried Owen, 'when there's thousands of acres of uncultivated land in England without a house or human being to be seen. Is over-population the cause of poverty in France? Is over-population the cause of poverty in Ireland? Within the last fifty years the population of Ireland has been reduced by more than half. Four millions of people have been exterminated by famine or got rid of by emigration, but they haven't got rid of poverty. P'raps you think that half the people in this country ought to be exterminated as well.'

The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, Robert Tressell

In ‘Imagine’ Lennon was asking us to imagine a place where things that divide people (religion, possessions, etc.) did not exist. The thing that set us apart is class. He felt that would be a much better place. Lennon said this song is "virtually the Communist Manifesto." Lennon added: "even though I am not particularly a communist and I do not belong to any movement." Take a moment to think about living in a world as imagined by John Lennon in this song, take away material possessions (wealth, status, greed, envy); religion (holy wars, terrorism, religious persecution); countries (war, tyranny, oppression.) And to all those who speak about socialism never ever working. Think of this: early man for thousands of years lived in a society based upon communism. The community was needed to survive. The community or tribe or clan or herd was all that mattered. Share and all survive. That is communism. We as humans have the ability to shape the world into whatever we want.

The Economic Research Service estimates that over 130 billion pounds of edible food goes uneaten per year at the retail and consumer levels in the United States, equating to over 1,200 calories per day per man, woman, and child.  On average, this suggests that as a nation almost one-third of the edible food that could meet our caloric needs goes uneaten. Globally, in developed countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia, almost 40 percent of the food is wasted after the dinner table.  In contrast, in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and South America, almost 40 percent of the food is lost before the dinner table, owing to pests and supply chain issues, including inadequate storage, transportation, and marketing challenges.

The food waste in landfills decomposes, emitting carbon dioxide, methane, other gases, water vapor, and leachates, thus exacerbating our ecological footprint.  Additionally, consider the land, water, fertilizer, labor, energy, and other inputs that went into producing that food, which is now wasted. Indeed, globally food waste/food loss is contributing to the estimated loss of one quadrillion liters of water per year—enough to fill Lake Erie approximately eight times over.

Studies point to the need to double food production to feed the nine plus billion people predicted to populate planet Earth by 2050.  Imagine the possibility:  By eliminating or significantly reducing food waste and food loss, humanity could be closer to achieving food and nutrition security without having to bring in significantly more arable land, energy, water, labor, and other inputs needed to double food production. Mitigating food waste and food loss globally is the “low hanging” fruit in our toolkit to ensure the food and nutritional security of humanity, while husbanding our natural resources such as water and land, and minimizing our ecological footprint.

Americans have steadily moved from farms to cities. The country was 95 percent rural in 1900. Today, 81 percent of Americans live in metropolitan areas. It is predicted that 70% of the entire world will be urban by 2050. For most of human history, food was produced within walking distance of where it was consumed—a way of life in which people maintained a direct connection with the land and their food. Urbanization and the industrialization of food production have rendered this a distant memory for most of us.

Too many households abound in areas that have little or no access to healthy fruits and vegetables. Most of our food is grown from genetically modified and hybrid seeds, sprayed with chemicals and shipped to us from around the world. Quality food is the most important part of being healthy and we are not getting it. Fast food is killing us. We’re eating 31 percent more packaged and processed food than fresh fruits and vegetables. We are consuming more packaged food per person than people in nearly any other country. And food insecurity is growing. Americans spend considerably more on healthcare than any other country. Yet, too many of our children are unhealthy. Our elderly are sicker for longer periods of time.

How will we feed, clothe, shelter, and educate these steadily swelling urban populations? Up until now, too much of the discussion surrounding global warming and the climate crisis has been cloaked in gloom and doom. The fact is, we have the power to reverse, not just mitigate, global warming. We can avert the impending climate catastrophe, mass starvation, resource depletion and endless wars. And while we’re at it, we can also restore soil fertility, eliminate poverty and hunger. We need a global grassroots movement. Our immediate task therefore is to spread this profound message of hope. What is important is that we identify the different messages that will motivate different segments of the population, and then build upon our shared concerns. Through a diversity of messages and campaigns we can build the largest grassroots coalition in history—for our survival, and the survival of the future generations.

Humanity has a shared history and culture, came into being based on some very specific factors. Principle among these was/is a population having access to food and natural resources. Throughout history, population centres formed in the most fertile places – river deltas (Nile, Amazon, Ganges) and those places where plentiful rainfall allowed cropping (Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, SE Asia, where rain-fed agriculture is a viable way to produce food. If we look at a world population distribution map, there is a very strong correlation between rainfall and where people live. The density in South East Asia is incredible, something only possible by historical high rainfall and fertile land. Also, in India, Pakistan and China, this rainfall fed agriculture is supplemented vastly by annual glacier melts that feed their inland river systems. Agriculture is the foundation of life, as we know it. It is what led to our contemporary human societies. “There is no culture without agriculture.” Civilization began when humans settled in one place and started growing crops. We cannot live without a system that grows our food. We cannot flourish without healthy food. Most experts agree that despite advances in modern medicine (or perhaps in part because of them), as a population, we face a serious health crisis. This is particularly apparent in western nations, where there is plenty of food—but much of that “food” is highly processed, nutrient-deficient junk food. Yet the food produced by our modern industrial agriculture system debilitates, rather than enhances, our health.

Why does it matter if the temperature changes? Hotter earth means more energy, which means more frequent violent storms. The NAOO in the US believes that once a century storms will occur every two-three years with 1.5-2 degrees warming. Storms like that wipe out crops, destroy homes, ruin infrastructure, in places where the majority of human beings live. It matters because if the temperature changes, the location and degree of rainfall will change as well, because of changed ocean and atmospheric conditions. 70% of African food is produced by farmers at or close to subsistence level and in SE Asia the level is around 50%, any substantial change in yields will impact those populations hugely. By definition, subsistence farming produces no or small surpluses. We live in a hungry world already. If yields drop too far, literally billions of people will face chronic food shortages. Who cares if the globe warms up? Well, all those hungry people will. Drought, storms and changing rainfall patterns will combine to drastically reduce crop yields. Massive storms will destroy homes and infrastructure. What will hundreds of millions of hungry, homeless people do? What would you do, if your home was repeatedly blown away, and you couldn’t feed your family? You’d find somewhere else to go, just as sure as they will. It’s demonstrably clear that most Australians don’t like boat people. Imagine if millions of starving boat people made their way to Australia?

The hour is late. We are facing the life or death challenge of our lives. Each and every one of us must join the world socialist movement. Environmentalists have argued that waiting for "the revolution" in order to try to save species from extinction, or prevent the planet from boiling over because of climate change, is denying the urgency of environmental problems. They have argued that, given the urgency of environmental problems, we have to use whatever mechanisms are available to us, from high-tech geo-engineering solutions to market mechanisms, to rich philanthropists. Critics of many environmentalists, however, accuse some in the environmentalist movement of willing to accept compromises with elites in ways that ultimately compromise and undermine the environmental cause. Socialists draw attention to the common cause the myriad of different ecological problems share and point to the common enemy, capitalism. Socialists grasp the conclusion that many greens are reluctant to accept, society will have to make massive changes to the economic system, and that the reforms being offered up are not deep enough to stabilise the climate change much less reverse the consequences of global warming. The reformists’ compromises and concessions with capitalism is like driving towards the edge of a high cliff. It doesn’t matter if we roar at it at 150kmh or trickle towards it at 1kmh. Once we reach that tipping point, where global warming is self-reinforcing, we’re not going to stop until we hit the bottom.

A global poll of more than 6.5million people has placed climate change at the very bottom of a long list of priorities, with the finding being consistent across both genders, almost all age ranges, all education levels and in most regions of the world. Across the whole of Africa and Asia climate change rated last, but Europe, Oceania and the Americas promoted the issue to around half way up the table. In the US it ranked 10th, whilst in the UK it was placed 9th. Participants are offered a choice of sixteen policy issues, which also include “a good education”, “Political freedoms”, “Protecting forests, rivers and oceans”, and “Equality between men and women”. We are failing to communicate the urgency and the seriousness of the threat to the environment and the planet.

Many socialists are willing to concede that a key problem is failure to point to solutions. We tend to point to problems - endlessly - as if that will somehow automatically generate action.  In the city of the future we will no longer jump in our cars, burn fossil fuels to go and buy “food” at giant suburban shopping malls that is grown on farms far away. Instead, we will walk to a farm or garden in our neighborhoods to get fresh, nutritious food harvested by urban growers that we know personally. We will no longer pass empty blighted waste-ground. We will eat, work and play close to home, in beautiful spaces. Urban agriculture empowers people with food self-sufficiency, maintains stewardship over the environment and builds a sense of community. And all of it can be done with just a hoe, a rake and a spade. Urban agriculture and the development of local food systems is a way to bring city dwellers closer to their farmers and provide an abundance of natural, nutritious food. In the city of the future, wholesome food will be a right for all, not just a privilege for the few. Urban agriculture transforms both people and places. Growing food in urban areas will grow remarkable cities. The Chicago city planner, Daniel Burnham, famously said, “Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood”. We have no other choice. We must become advocates and campaigners for socialism.

Murphy's Law

Blairite Jim Murphy, a former shadow defence minister, has been announced as the new leader of the Scottish Labour party. Since 2001 Mr Murphy has claimed over £1 million in expenses, voted to cap benefits in March 2014, failed to show up for the vote against the Bedroom Tax, voted for tuition fees despite being NUS president, went on 100 day tour of Scotland campaigning for a no vote, which meant leaving his Eastwood constituency without an MP for almost a third of a year. Yet claimed over £200,000 in Westminster expenses, is a major figure in Labour Friends of Israel, who refuses to recognise of the state of Palestine and strongly supported the illegal invasion of Iraq and unaligned himself with Ed Miliband when he apologised for said invasion. Murphy has never rebelled against the party line in Westminster. Murphy has been sharply critical of any left turn, saying that “galloping off leftward” would be a big mistake. “The SNP would love it if we did that.” [FT, 09/11/14]

All Socialist Courier can say is “Who cares?” According to the best political pundits in the business, the bookies, 90% of the money they had taken for the contest had been for Murphy. But what does it mean? Very little, the Socialist Courier blog says.

The SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN has consistently maintained that the 'left-wing', despite their claims to being socialist are, in reality, reformist rather than revolutionary organisations, with no more than a sentimental attachment to the working class. The rise of the Labour Party has caused inestimable damage to the revolutionary movement for Socialism. The SPGB argued from its formation in 1904 that only socialism can provide a solution to the problems of the working class. Genuine socialists have to be prepared to swim against the tide of popular sentiment, clearly have to combat all manifestations of chauvinism, both unionist or separatist.

The Labour Party in Scotland has consistently shown a readiness to reshape itself, discarding principles, to acquire votes yet even its opportunism has been unable to avoid the slide in support that has been going on for years. Although Scottish Labour has never won over 50% of the national vote, the party did hold the overwhelming majority of parliamentary seats and had control over local government for decades. This was not least because Labour was associated with mass council house building, the formation of the NHS, and other reforms following the second world war. Former Labour voters feel ignored and betrayed by the party. Infested with careerists, it has lost touch with the people it was supposed to represent. Labour has become increasingly viewed as simply another party of the Establishment, which, of course, it always was. At present many are disenchanted, disgusted or outright hostile to Labour, The party is largely empty of active workers.

 Capitalism can no longer afford reforms and as a result we have capitalist austerity and he probably realizes that any promises he makes will never be achieved. Capitalism has no reforms to give. We have seen bursts here and there which are expressions of the deep discontent, frustration and anger that exist in society. There is a deep appetite in society for a greater and more fundamental change. The ideas of reformism or nationalism, which attempt to patch up capitalism, offer nothing for working people. Elaine C. Smith argued that the reason for Scottish Labour’s  poor performance was a lack of socialist analysis and socialist solutions. “The root of the problem is class society; the root of the problem is inequality; the root of the problem is in-work poverty; the root of the problem is unemployment. The root of the problem is avaricious capitalism and our job and the job of the Labour Party, surely, is to root it out.” Yet all she offers is neo-Keynesian state investment that is utopian and undeliverable.

 Socialism, in its modern sense, was born in Scotland. Robert Owen at New Lanark is where it all began. It is the task of the Socialist Party to win those open to revolutionary ideas and offer a real alternative to capitalism and nationalism. What we need is a revolutionary socialist transformation of society! Let this be the message to those who believe in real socialism, we are the party for them, we are the rightful home for you.