A class-conscious majority

(Reprinted from the Western Socialist, Vol. 37 No. 275, 1970)

“…no government can impose its will upon a consciously unwilling majority…”

The above truncated extract from an article by a Socialist writer is here presented in this form since it struck me as being a suitable text for a sermon—as some parson might say or a theme in music which could be developed and presented with a whole series of variations. I shall now try my hand at a transposition or—to use the musician’s term—an inversion. So from the negative to the positive form my transposition might read:

“…no conceivable power could successfully resist a consciously willing and determined class conscious majority…”

I now replace the quotation as given at the head of this article into the context from which it was taken, by giving the whole of a concluding paragraph of an article by Ivan in the Socialist Standard of February, 1969:

“If we say, then, that Socialism will be the society of freedom which will not know such disfigurements as political prisoners we are inviting an obvious question. Why are there no socialists in prison for their opinions? The answer is equally obvious. At the moment Socialism, is not a threat to a capitalist state. But the socialist movement grows through the developing consciousness among workers— and remember no government can impose its will upon a consciously unwilling majority. So when Socialism is a threat, and the ruling class would like to do something about it—it will be too late. (Emph. mine, W. A. P.)

I pursue the line of thought which is herein revealed because, in so many instances throughout the past years —here and in Canada—have I heard well-informed socialists, from the speaker’s platform, answer a question in such fashion as to make the confusion of the interested questioner even more confounded. Following a usually well-presented argument for socialism the speaker gets a question: “You have put up a rather persuasive argument and I am interested but I would like to know ‘How are you going to do it?’ “

The answers I have heard so many times might be brief, bright and brotherly, but decidedly not to the point. “You select your delegate or candidate and send him to Parliament—or Congress, as the case may be.” Put this way—it has so often been put just this way to my knowledge—it becomes a “bald and unconvincing” declaration.

Of course, it is true, insofar as we know the seat of power to be in these institutions, but such overly simplistic statements—granting them to be true—can result only in greater confusion and misunderstanding than had a direct falsehood been uttered.

Cde. Ivan refers to “a consciously unwilling majority.” I use the phrase “consciously willing and determined class conscious majority.” Both phrases carry the same concept. And that is a majority fully aware of its position, as members of a class, and aware of the needs of that class.

The class which today constitutes a majority of the population, in all those countries where the capitalist mode of production obtains, is the working class. But the majority of this class is by no means aware of its place in this society as a subjugated and exploited one, and therefore is also unaware of the cause of unemployment, poverty, war, or any other of the horrible features of the current scene. So we say of these: “They are not class conscious.” Conversely, of that minority within this majority who do understand their status as exploited producers, and realize that this can be abolished through concerted action and clear knowledge, we say: “These are class conscious.”

The reason for these class conscious being organized into a political party, is to engage in well considered and well-presented propaganda directed to their un–class conscious fellow workers. This calls for an analysis of the character of the power which holds the worker in subjugation—the techniques of brain-washing, distorted information concerning events and peoples, the manipulation of “alleged” educational processes, etc., by which the ruling class is able to keep its ideas as the ideas of society. The workers are thus fooled into accepting these ideas of the masters as being the ideas best suited to the promotion of their material interests. “If it were not for the capitalist where would the worker be? The capitalist creates jobs. And where would we be without jobs?” This crude idea is so often expressed by workers when confronted with the socialist case.

The socialist’s task is to work at removing these cobwebs from the mind of the worker; to stress by diligent and simple presentation the contrary idea: “Where would the capitalist be without the worker?” Completely helpless. For all those goods and services required to maintain society are produced by the labor of the working class, and the surplus value created by labor supplies the wealth upon which the idle owner lives and the capital accumulation by which he increases his holdings and his power.

But this power is maintained and protected through the power of the State—that instrument of coercion and administration which has existed, under different forms, in human society since the dawn of civilization and the birth of the property “idea.” And in all highly developed countries the seat, and the source, of this power, today, is the institution of “parliament” whatever name it may carry in whatever country. For the working class to free itself from its present position, it must capture these bastions of power and privilege, and use them as instruments in that endeavor. Because the vast majority of the working class is unaware either of its real status or of the need for doing away with it, as Ivan puts it: “At the moment socialism is not a threat to a capitalist state.” Ivan states, though, “the socialist movement grows through the developing consciousness among workers.” We work in our propaganda to speed this growth.

While we indicate parliament as the seat of capitalist power and defender of capitalist interests, suggesting thereby that the capture of political power by the workers calls for the prior capture of parliament, there is much more involved than “selecting our candidate and sending him to the House, etc.” And it is incumbent, in my opinion, upon our propagandists to explain these things and not be content merely with a bald and off-hand statement such as this article indicates has been used much too often. If it were only used once that would be once too many?

For the present, then, and until that time when as Ivan says: “the developing consciousness among workers“ has produced the resistance to attempted coercion by a “consciously unwilling majority,” or, conversely, when “no conceivable power could successfully resist a consciously willing, and determined class conscious majority,” we carry on the work of education among the workers, opposing and exposing the “ideology” of the ruling class by stressing and elucidating the “ideology” demanded by working class interests.

In short, to make our ideas pervasive; and when these ideas have become sufficiently pervasive then— again making use of Com Ivan’s term— “It will be too late,” for the masters, or calling upon a phrase once used by this writer on another occasion, “With these agents of power (the state forces) in the hands of an enlightened majority, no aggressive minority, no power on earth, can successfully re-establish itself.”

So, for the present, “when socialism is not a threat to a capitalist state,” and until that time when working class ideas “have become sufficiently pervasive,” we make such use of parliamentary elections as we can, for here is a ready to hand situation—and ready to hand machinery—of which socialists can avail themselves. The day will come when class conscious workers through the agency of their organization (political party) will send their delegates to the seats of power, backed by that ideology which has then become “sufficiently pervasive.”

For the present, education is the first priority. An election provides a sounding board for our ideas, and as a barometer to measure our influence. And for those who may be nominated as candidates at such times and for such purposes as I have outlined, I would suggest their campaign promise be given in this wise. We are running in this election to spread socialist education. All political parties make promises. We also make one: “We promise nothing”—and thus be the only party which is able to keep its promise.

Brethren! Here ends this short and simple sermon. Let us then work, for events are moving rapidly.

W. A. Pritchard

Q&A (5)

To Reform or Not To Reform?

Socialists are frequently asked where the party stands on various reforms and the questioner is usually amazed to hear that we don’t advocate reforms. This does not necessarily mean that we oppose them. What we do oppose is a policy of reformism which is quite a different matter.

There are different kinds of reforms; some are of the immediate, bread and butter kind, e.g. medicare, minimum wage, forty-hour week, safety legislation in the workplace; some affect democratic rights such as the extension of the franchise, freedom of the press and of assembly. Others are similar, but on a broader, more humanitarian level, e.g. civil rights, an end to discrimination in the workplace, the right to abortion, equal rights for gays. The list of reforms both proposed and enacted is almost endless, but there is one common thread – they make life more bearable within capitalism. This is also in the interests of the capitalist class. Contented and healthy workers are less likely to disrupt the system and more likely to be more productive in the process of exploitation and fit to fight the bosses’ wars.

However, different and competing sections of the capitalist class will have different priorities. In the last forty years, during which the upholders of neo-liberal capitalism have mostly held power, there has been a general trend by those politicians, (Thatcher, Reagan,) to remove or water down reforms. The habolition of medicare would create business for the private health insurance companies who pour fortunes into politicians’ election expense funds.

We of the Socialist Party do not oppose measures that are beneficial, however, temporary the benefit may turn out to be. What we oppose is any party that offers a program of reforms. This is because no amount of reforms will change the fundamentals of society as presently constituted, i.e. the ownership of the tools of production by a small minority and the consequent wage enslavement of the majority, leaving capitalism to stumble and blunder along from one crisis to another.

 Many parties of the Left have argued that socialist consciousness grows out of the struggle to satisfy immediate needs. If there were any credence to that theory, we would have socialism now, or at least a movement for socialism millions strong.

When any party claiming to be socialist advocates a reform or supports one being advocated by an avowedly capitalist party, they attract new supporters and voters. These may or may not support, or even understand, socialism, but they are primarily interested in the reform of their choice. If too many join they become a majority and the party becomes a reformist one. It may be interesting to review the performances of our critics on the Left in this regard. There are many examples of them falling into the reformist trap. There were many socialists in the early days of the British Labour Party, The Socialist Party of America (SPA), and the Canadian Cooperative Commonwealth Party (the forerunner of the New Democratic Party). The philosophy of these parties was, ‘We want socialism but it will take a long time to convince millions of people and since conditions are so bad now, we need something in the meantime’.

The problem was ‘in the meantime’ became forever. Nobody would say these parties are socialist now, including the parties themselves! What may not have been obvious in the early years of these groups, but has become so with the passing years, is that if one wants reforms the avowedly capitalists parties will be only too happy to pass them if there is a pressing need and it is popular to do so or when socialist ideas start taking hold.

The Second International, that contained many brilliant socialist writers, fell into the reformist trap to such an extent that our companion party in Britain  refused to affiliate. After the Russian Revolution, some of these parties fell into another trap, that of state capitalism, which is just another way to administer capitalism. Trotskyist groups have campaigned against unemployment without regard to its cause, and in the US worked hard in the Civil Rights movement, oblivious to the fact that white people do not even have equality with each other. There can be no equality within a capitalist society. At the last federal election in Canada, the so-called communist party published a manifesto of their policies, all of which were reformist. A typical example was that they would heavily tax the major corporations, thus indicating that corporations and the capitalist system would still exist if they won power.

The International Socialists Organization (Socialist Workers’ Party in the UK) are in the forefront of campaigning for reforms, believing it will lead workers to draw socialist conclusions. Not only are they unsuccessful, but have become elitist thinking that the working class cannot by itself arrive at socialist understanding but would need them (the ISO) to organize a coup and establish it from above, which any knowledgeable socialist knows would be a disaster.

For socialism to be established, it would have to be the democratic act of the immense majority who understand what it is and don’t need leaders to tell them. The Socialist Labor Party has insisted for years that they are not reformist, but in the presidential election of 1896, they presented a whole platform of reforms. A Few years later, Teddy Roosevelt took all these ideas and used them as the platform of his newly formed ‘Bullmoose Party’. Nor have they changed much. In the last issue of their now-defunct journal, “People”, they advocated campaigning for the repeal of the US Immigration Act. If one fights against a reform, one is still attacking the effects of capitalism.

All of the above organizations have criticized the Socialist Party and its companion parties for never advocating reforms, yet all of them have fallen into the trap of attempting to grapple with the worst effects of capitalism, which is all reforms do, and by doing so, knowingly or not, they are working for the continuation of capitalism. Time and energy spent in such activities is time and energy not spent working for socialism. Since the Industrial Revolution we have had two hundred years of reforms and still poverty is rampant, still industrial plants pollute the air, ground, and waters, still, wars rage killing millions.

We of the World Socialist Movement stand alone in advocating the immediate dissolution of the capitalist system and thus putting an end to its disastrous effects for mankind. Only by gaining control of the tools of production and the world’s resources and managing them democratically in the interests of all humans, can we have a society where there will be no need for reforms.

So, why don’t we advocate reforms? Because we have something better in mind.

Q&A (4)

What’s in a Price

In the Capitalist mode of production, the creation and distribution of commodities and goods take form in the shape of prices. The rise and decline in prices can be attributed to many varying factors. Production of a single commodity does not occur within a vacuum, rather many different aspects and circumstances go into the production of a product that is out of the hands of the workers that produce them.

Let’s,for example, use the automobile as an illustration of this. An automobile takes its final form as a finished product in the shape of a price, let's say $40 000. If you break apart the process by which the production of an automobile occurs you find that hundreds of different forms of labour were involved in its final form. A car is composed of thousands of different mechanical parts, the majority of which are produced in different factories by different workers. We can deduce even further that the production of a single mechanical part in the car has many different aspects of labour involved with its production. The worker who labours down the mine producing ore is as much involved in the process of automobile production as the worker that assembles the finishing pieces of a single car. The same can be said for the truck driver who transports the raw material from the mine to the processing plant to be further refined into industrial grade steel. Even more so we can lump into this process the farmer, who by their production of food allows individual workers in this chain the sustenance required to be a productive producer.

We can see then, that the $40 000 dollar price tag is not some arbitrary number created out of thin air by money-crazed capitalists. The final price is the amalgamation of all other forms of labour value that goes into the production of a single product for sale on the market.

Neither are the wages that we receive just an arbitrary number created by our employers. A wage takes its form in the shape of a sale and purchase. The sale is brought forth by the worker, who confronts the market with his only true possession, that of his mind and muscle. The purchase occurs on the side of the owner who buys from the worker his time and labour. Wages are calculated by the cost of the goods and services a worker needs to consume in order to continue being a productive worker, this being the necessary things a human needs in order to live and support a family. Simply put, the price of labour is what constitutes a wage. The labour a worker expends during production adds value to the thing the worker is producing. It is this factor that creates what is called ‘surplus-value’ i.e. profit. It can then be considered that the worker, throughout one portion of the day works to produce the equivalent value of their wage, and in another portion of the day works to create profit for the capitalist. The wage a worker receives must always be less than the value of what they produce, otherwise, there is no profit to be made, and production will cease. Profit is merely the value created by the worker above and beyond the cost of the wage; it can be considered that profit is the equivalent of unpaid labour.

Consider this next time you are in your workplace, for most of your working day, you are essentially working for free.

J. HODGINS, SPC

Resisting the Boss

Amazon is the fourth most valuable corporation in the world. On Black Friday last year, Amazon.co.uk sold more than 7.4 million items, at a rate of around 86 items per second.

Workers at an Amazon warehouse in Dunfermline have called in protests by young anti-exploitation activists over working conditions in the wealthy corporation’s shipping operation. Activists from campaigning groups including Better than Zero (BtZ) and Fife People’s Assembly organised the protest to coincide with ‘Black Friday’ the busiest shopping day of the year which sees the online market’s business soar. A Unite union organiser said: “We are taking action against Amazon as one of the most exploitative employers in the country. As we did with Sports Direct Unite the union are joining forces with Better than Zero to shut down their distribution plant in Dunfermline at the start of Black Friday.”

Representatives from Fife People’s Assembly were joined by colleagues from Fife Trades Union Council with the support of the STUC to make their views heard

One Amazon worker at the Dunfermline site said: “Amazon are a multi-billion pound company yet workers at the site here in Dunfermline are employed via agencies with little job security and of course few union rights. I'm glad to see Better than Zero raise some of these issues and demand that Amazon treats its workers with respect and pays them a decent wage.”

BtZ, founded by young trade unionists to campaign against exploitative working conditions including zero hours contracts and unpaid work. The demonstration marks the beginning of a season of efforts by campaigners to hit the Christmas profits of exploitative employers.

A spokesperson said “Amazon has it within its power to create a truly first class working environment, but this is always negated by the drive for bigger and better profits at all costs. It is always at the expense of the workers who are treated no better than drones. Workers who are treated as commodities to be used and abused for a few weeks then sent back into the arms of the DWP.”

Q&A (3)

What is poverty?

Many articles and editorials have pointed out the levels and effects of this social disease, poverty.  Corporations relocate their production to low wage countries with “flexible” labour laws are only doing what they have to do to survive. This is what drives wages down and prevents workers from getting out of the poverty cycle. The conclusion is that as long as this system of increasing profits continues, poverty is not only endemic in that system but is actually an unavoidable consequence.

Thus to eliminate the problem is not a matter of political will or morals, or of finding the money. It is simply a matter of who controls the wealth distribution in our society. Once that control passes into the hands of all of society to distribute however we want, then, and only then, will that wealth be used for the common good, including eliminating poverty.

Poverty usually falls into two categories for the benefit of sociologists, government departments and the media: relative and absolute. The former refers mainly to developed nations to identify those people not receiving enough money to provide the basic necessities of life expected in our society for themselves and their families. It is usually calculated as a percentage, 50% or 60%, of the median wage. Absolute poverty is used to refer to many people in the “developing world” who are in life-threatening situations and who require immediate intervention from government or world agencies.

It is worth remarking that, for the vast majority of the time that humans have wandered the earth, hunting and gathering societies were the general mode of producing the necessary goods, and it was rare that these societies experienced starvation. When it did occur, it was entirely due to natural causes such as weather or animal migration patterns, and it affected the whole society equally. It was only with the coming of the first agrarian revolution and the advent of private property that access to the necessities of life became restricted for some.

As class systems developed dividing humans into the oppressors and the oppressed, so did equality and the idea of privileged access to wealth. All the ancient empires—Sumerian, Greek, Roman, Egyptian—had the rich, the free producers, and the slaves, in descending order of wealth and influence. The feudal system, which succeeded the slave system of the empires, operated with the oppressors—the king, the lords, the church, and their entourages—and the oppressed serfs who worked the land to enrich the owners. Marx wrote, “But whatever form [societies] may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by another.” (Communist Manifesto)

Many parts of the world, especially in the “Third World”, continued to function with a mixture of these systems while capitalism was establishing itself in Western Europe. While the more primitive societies were falling behind technologically speaking, and inequality was sometimes a part of their systems, it was again rare that starvation occurred as they were very viable societies in their own environments.

The situation changed radically with the adoption of the capitalist mode of production. Based on private property, large-scale commodity production for profit only, and the exploitation of the worker through the creation and theft of surplus value—that extra value produced by the worker over and above his wage—capitalism introduced a new concept, managed scarcity.

The value of commodities is determined by the amount of socially necessary labour that is put into them—i.e., the amount of labour under average conditions of work by the average worker—but price will vary around that value according to availability. If you want to get the highest price for your commodity, then you control the amount available—flooding the market cheapens the commodity; scarcity raises prices. This is why wheat, for example, is locked away in elevators on the prairies until the price rises sufficiently to make it worthwhile to sell and realize a profit, no matter how desperately it is needed. When the price is high, only the wealthy can partake freely, while the rest make do.

In other words, capitalism is driven by the necessity to get the best price on the market and realize the highest possible profit, which not only gives you more capital to work with, it can also give you a leg up on the competition. The fact that people are starving in the millions is of no consequence to the dictates of capital. This applies to other necessities of life such as housing, health-care, and clean water.

When capitalism reached the less developed areas, it destroyed their local economies by turning cropland into cash crops for the world market and forcing the displaced farmers to become wage earners at the whim of the market and the profitability of the multinational corporations. The ability of the indigenous populations to feed themselves diminished as they lost control of their lands. This vicious cycle is the cause of poverty in the Third World.

Relative poverty in developed nations is also caused by the need to maximize profits and accumulate and attract capital. Capitalism is in a perpetual boom-and-bust cycle. This is because each enterprise decides for itself how they will operate and how much they will produce—the anarchy of production. When the economy is expanding to meet growing demand, the production units must also expand and employ more labour to take advantage of that demand. There is no planned effort by capitalism as a whole to regulate production to match the need. When supply overtakes demand and there is a surplus of goods on the market selling at low prices and reduced profit, factories are closed down, machinery is scrapped, and workers are laid off to await the next boom. Thus a certain number of workers is needed to meet the demands of expansion and then tossed away as production slows. In the meantime, they are unemployed or living on welfare, and if lucky enough to find work, usually it is temporary or at minimum wages. In any case, it is just barely enough to exist. This group is referred to by Marx as “the reserve army” or “the surplus population” and is as necessary to capitalism as wage labour. Marx wrote, “In such cases [of industrial expansion] there must be the possibility of suddenly throwing great masses of men into the decisive areas… The surplus population supplies these masses… Periods of average activity, production at high pressure, crisis, and stagnation, depends on the constant formation, the greater or lesser absorption, and the re-formation of the industrial reserve army or surplus population.” (Capital, The Process of the Accumulation of Capital).

There is another form of poverty that you will not hear about in the media. Whenever a mode of producing wealth for a society is put into motion, a set of relations develops simultaneously between the participants. In capitalism, there develops a set of antagonistic relations between the producers who do not own, and the owners who do not produce. The owners determine what will be produced, when, where, and in what manner. The producers must simply follow instructions and the dictates of capital. All workers are subject to strict parameters set by the owners who employ solely at their discretion.

Here the reserve army plays another role— that of maintaining those relations so favourable to the capitalist class. Marx writes, “The industrial reserve army, during the periods of stagnation and average prosperity, weighs down the active army of workers; during the periods of over-production and feverish activity, it puts a curb on their pretensions,” and, “The overwork of the employed part of the working class swells the ranks of its reserve, while, conversely, the greater pressure that the reserve, by its competition, exerts on the employed workers, forces them to submit to over-work and subjects them to the dictates of capital.” (Capital)

In addition to the subordinate position of those who actually produce all the wealth, the owner takes all the surplus value the worker has embedded in the product—that value the workers have produced over and above their wages; the source of all profit. This legalised theft is supported by the systems of society that are essential to, and support, the current economic system—the state government and its legislation, the court system to uphold the legislation, the military and police forces to enforce it, and the prison system to punish transgressors, and the media to propagandize the whole thing. This means that the class responsible for producing the wealth of society, not only does not own and control its own product, but it is severely limited in the access they have to that wealth.

On the other hand, the tiny minority of owners not only get the lion’s share, but they are able to re-invest the surplus profit as capital to dominate the workers again and increase their capital once more. This constant growth of capital is the reason we see the great and ever-growing gaps in living standards between the multi-millionaires and billionaires who produce nothing, and the workers who struggle to put a roof over their heads, feed their families, pay for health, education, and so on. In this sense, all workers, no matter what their financial situation, are in a state of relative poverty—relative, that is, to what they are entitled to the whole loaf, not the crumbs.

Marx quotes economist James Bray in ‘The Poverty of Philosophy’:

“The workmen have given the capitalist the labour of a whole year, in exchange for the value of only half a year—and from this, and not from the assumed inequality of bodily and mental powers in individuals has arisen the inequality of wealth and power which at present exists around us. It is an inevitable condition of inequality of exchange—of buying at one price and selling at another—that capitalists shall continue to be capitalists, and working men to be working men—the one a class of tyrants and the other a class of slaves—to eternity. The whole transaction, therefore, plainly shows the capitalists and the proprietors do no more than give the working man, for his labour of one week, a part of the wealth they obtained from him the week before!—which just amounts to giving him nothing for something… The whole transaction, therefore, between the producer and the capitalist is a palpable deception, a mere farce: it is, in fact, in thousands of instances, no other than a bare-faced though legalised robbery.”

It can be seen, then, that poverty, relative or absolute, is a natural consequence of the capitalist system. It can be no more eliminated by raising minimum wages, fairer taxation, or income supplements, than an elephant can fly. While we must give credit to the decency of those people and organizations involved in the struggle to improve conditions for fellow human beings, it is tragic that they spend all their time and resources to alleviate a symptom of the problem and nothing at all to eliminate its cause. The effect, like all attempts to reform the capitalist system, is to treat the symptoms and prolong the disease.

Poverty, like many of the ills of our world caused by capitalism, can be eliminated only when we, the producers who do not own, finally realize that the resources of the earth and the products of our labour are the common heritage of all humankind, to be shared freely, as needed, among all peoples of the world. Only then, as Marx said, can we put an end to man’s prehistory and begin man’s history.

J. Ayers

Socialism Q&A (2)

Is it worthwhile for the worker to struggle for gains in wages and benefits if this will cause an increase in prices and negate his efforts?

This is a common argument of the capitalist class to discourage workers from taking action to improve their lot, and depends on the fraudulent claims that the price of commodities will, in fact, rise, that the price of commodities depends on the price of labour and that the capitalist can raise his prices as he pleases.

Firstly, a pay increase will mean increased spending by the workers on their usual necessities—food, clothing, household goods, etc. This increased demand will cause prices to rise temporarily. However, this increase in prices ensures that the capitalist producing those products will be compensated for paying out higher wages. The capitalist producing luxury goods will experience a drop in sales and profits because of overall demand of all goods will remain the same and if the demand for necessaries rises, then demand for luxuries must fall. Thus the luxury producers will be hit with increased wages and falling sales and profits. This will bring about a transfer of capital and labour to the production of those goods giving the highest rate of profit (necessities) until supply equals or exceeds demand and prices fall to their original level or lower.

For proof that higher wages don’t mean higher prices, Marx points out (see ‘Value, Price & Profit’) that the English worker was higher paid than workers in other European countries, but English products undersold those of their competitors. The price of commodities does not depend on the price of labour. Marx has shown that the value of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary labour time required to produce an article:

 “As the exchangeable values of commodities are only social functions of those things, and have nothing to do with natural qualities, we must first ask, ‘What is the common social substance of all commodities?’ It is labour.” (Value Price & Profit)

 Price is simply the monetary expression of value. The market price may fluctuate up and down from the value according to supply and demand, but always tends towards the natural price (i.e., the expression of value as quantities of equal social labour) and over the long term sells at this price. Therefore, as price is set by value, and value is the amount of socially necessary labour crystallized in a commodity, and as any price fluctuations are due to supply and demand, then it is clear that the capitalist cannot raise his prices on a whim, however much he may want to.

In conclusion, we must state that, as wages depend on supply and demand, rising when demand outstrips supply and falling when supply outstrips demand, the worker should take advantage of any opportune time to increase his wages and benefits. This, of course, must be done when demand for labour is high, as it would be economic suicide to do so when demand is low.

It must be seen that any advantage gained could easily be wiped out at the next recession or legislative attack on labour.

 Secondly, as the capitalist cannot raise his prices whenever and to whatever level he pleases, wage increases must come from gaining a greater share of the profits. The capitalist must resist any loss of his portion of the profits, thus creating the inevitable and continuous conflict between worker and capitalist. Consequently, the worker should be aware that the fight for better wages is secondary to the main goal of overthrowing the wage system and replacing it with a system of democratic control of the means of production by, and in the interests of, the people. The social conditions under which Marx wrote have altered little in their general character since he addressed Value,Price & Profit to the First International Working Men’s Association in 1865.

What he states about the limitations of trade unions holds as equally true for today as it did when he wrote it:

“Trades Unions work well as centres of resistance against the encroachment of capital. They fail partly from an injudicious use of their power. They fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerilla war against the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change it, instead of using their organized forces as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class, that is to say, the ultimate abolition of the wages system.”

Toronto Socialist Discussion Group, 2002

Socialism Q&A (1)

Is capitalism really broken, and is there anything we can do to fix it?

The World Socialist Movement’s purpose is to promote the establishment of a socialist society to replace the current capitalist system.

What is the difference between capitalism and socialism?

Capitalism is a world economic and social system where the means of production (land, factories, etc.) and the distribution of wealth are owned and controlled by the capitalist class. The basic unit in this system, the commodity, must be sold for a profit to pay rent, costs, and produce the necessary capital to be reinvested to accumulate more capital. Workers are forced to sell their labour power to the capitalists, who then extract the surplus value (i.e. value the workers put into a commodity over and above the wages they receive).

Thus two classes are formed, the capitalists who own but do not produce, and the workers who produce but do not own. Socialism is also a world economic and social system, but one where the means of production and the distribution of wealth is based on common ownership and democratic control and is operated in the interests of society as a whole.

 Socialism will be a world without states, classes, or money; where production will be to meet human needs, and everyone will have free access to all the goods provided by society according to their self-determined needs.

Why should we change a system that works?

For the vast majority of people in the world, capitalism does not work. Wars, disease, starvation, and poverty continue unabated year after year. Basic human needs are not being met because capitalism by its very nature must choose profit over people. Without profit, capital cannot be accumulated and the system would fail. Thus, human needs can be met only if you are able to pay for them. That’s why some 15 million people die of starvation and malnutrition-related diseases every year, even though we are quite capable of producing enough to feed everyone. We even destroy food and pay farmers not to produce food to keep prices and profit high. Capitalism is also why many millions more die of easily treated diseases when we have an abundance of the necessary medicines. Starving and sick people who are unable to pay for food or drugs simply don’t receive them. You may look upon this as evil. We see it as the normal functioning of the capitalist system and the reason we want to replace it.

But hasn’t socialism been tried and failed? Doesn’t the USSR prove socialism/communism’s failure?

The word socialism is probably the most misrepresented in the English language. Many groups, parties, and countries have called themselves socialist. That does not make them so. If you look back to our description of socialism, you will clearly see that we have never had a world economic system without states, without money, without classes, where production was owned by and for the whole of the population: not in the Soviet Union, China, nor in Cuba. Our party stated in 1918 that the Bolshevik revolution was not socialist but rather state capitalist. Certainly, the socialist society that we promote has never been advocated by the world’s Social Democratic parties.  Despite what the capitalist media would like you to believe, socialism has never been tried.

Can’t we simply work to improve the system we already have?

There are hundreds of organizations, such as Greenpeace, and various anti-poverty groups, full of well-meaning people who want to change capitalism for the better; to make it a responsible system that works for the benefit of all. They have not understood the true meaning of capitalism: that everything must be sacrificed to accumulate capital— workers’ rights, human rights, the environment, your grandmother’s medical treatment, and anything else that impinges on profit. For the last 200 years or so that capitalism has been the dominant economic mode, we have fought innumerable battles for better working conditions, more pay, improved social programs. We have won some of them, only to see our hard work legislated away when it became politically expedient to so.

  Despite our best efforts, we still have the capitalist system and we still have its unacceptable exploitation and abuses that we had at the beginning. We call the endless drive to make capitalism better reformism. We would spend our time, energies, and resources educating people to establish socialism rather than waste time in the false belief that our present system can be made to work in everyone’s interest.

But isn’t reformism working? Aren’t we better off than we used to be?

Many people around the world are worse off than in former times. Many countries who have fallen under the guidance of the World Bank, World Trade Organization, and International Monetary Fund have been forced to give up local economies that could at least provide the bare minimum. They are coerced to restructure in the interests of the capitalist class, using valuable land to produce cash crops for export. The proceeds are used to pay off huge debts that never go down. The results have been disastrous, invariably bringing greater poverty and gutted social services. Some of us in the so-called developed world have better living standards than our parents and grand-parents. By most projections, we may be the last generation to be able to say that. Recent studies point to an exponential growth in the gap between the capitalist and worker classes. In other words, we’re getting a smaller and smaller share of all the wealth we produce.

How does the WSM differ from other socialist parties?

There are many groups/parties out there who use the name “socialist”. Many of them believe capitalism can be changed incrementally into socialism. They are generally referred to as “Left- wing”. We believe the Left wing and the Right wing are both parts of the same bird: capitalism. Other groups want to suddenly replace capitalism by a military or violent coup led by a small group who will later convince the rest of the population that they need socialism.

We promote a peaceful revolution, taking control of the existing political system democratically only when the vast majority of the people understand socialism and make a conscious choice for it. We are the only party working for our own demise, as there will be no need for political parties when we achieve our objective.

The WSM does not have leaders, as leaders imply followers who are told what to do. Rather, we expect everyone to be able to promote their ideas in a democratic forum. We base our arguments, objects, and principles on a scientific understanding of society, and we have maintained the same principles since 1904.

J. Ayers SPC

Imagine

A wee bit of news

Scottish population growth would go into reverse within a generation without EU migrants, according to new government projections. After more than two decades of decline, Scotland’s population has risen steadily since 2001, and in 2014 was estimated to be 5.35 million.

On current trends, including net migration from the EU of around 9,000 a year, the population is expected to grow to 5.7m in 2039, a rise of 7 per cent over 25 years. However if EU migration were cut to zero, the population would rise just 3 per cent. After peaking at 5.5m in 2033, it would then “gradually decline”, hitting 5.49m in 5039. If EU migration was halved, the population would grow five per cent to 5.59m by 2039, while if it was 50 per cent higher, it would grow nine per cent to 5.81m. Because migration is “concentrated among young adult ages”, changes have the greatest impact on the numbers of children and working age people, rather than pensioners. A reduction in EU migration would therefore lessen demand for some public services, such as schools, but would increase the burden on taxpayers to pay for an ageing population. Numbers of over-65s in Scotland are expected to grow by 53 per cent by 2039, rising from 311 per 1000 people of working age to 397 per 1000.

Scotland has been wasting 1.35 million tonnes of food and drink annually, according to Zero Waste Scotland (ZWS). 60% of the waste is avoidable. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38086062

Households were responsible for 600,000 tonnes of the waste, while businesses generated about 740,000 tonnes.

The amount of food dumped would, according to ZWS, fill 17 million wheelie bins. The financial cost to households has been calculated as £1.1bn each year - an average of £460 per household.

Despite grand ambitions, Scotland will not achieve 100% renewables generation by 2020, however experts believe it could still generate 50% from renewable sources by 2030. Currently, 4% of Scotland’s heat is sourced from renewables.

Fewer Scots are being paid the living wage despite Scottish Government efforts to increase the number of companies doing so. Statistics for 2016 show 467,000 people in Scotland are in employment and earning less than the living wage, an increase of 7,000 over the year. Almost two-thirds (64 per cent) of those earning less than the living wage are women. 

Daily Dangers.

The Conference Board of Canada released a study in October which determined that lack of transportation alternatives are causing some senior citizens to continue driving cars when it's no longer safe for them. 28 per cent of seniors with Alzheimer's are still driving. 

Obviously, they are a danger to themselves and others. If transportation for them isn't profitable they won't get it. Just another example of the dangers we face in daily life under capitalism. 

John Ayers.

Atrocious!

On October 18 the RCMP said 32 people have been charged with 78 offences in an investigation into sex trafficking across Canada. Charges include trafficking in persons under 18, procuring sexual services under 18, exercising control, making child pornography and distributing it. Despite the efforts of the police, hardly a dent has been made in the sex trade which is a big industry.

 Probably no writer ever summed up capitalism better in one word than Robert Tressel in 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, the word is – "Atrocious . . ." 

 John Ayers.

No war but the class war!

Many people have opposed capitalist conflicts and among them are many religious groups. St. Augustine developed the principles of a just war that are supposed to still guide us on when to go to war.

They are as follows:

1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort.

2. A war is only just if it is waged by a legitimate authority.

3. A just war can only be waged to redress a wrong suffered.

4. A war is only just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success.

5. A war is only just if its goal is to re-establish peace. Moreover, the peace established as a result of the war must be an improvement over the circumstances that would have prevailed had the war not been waged.

6. A war is only just if the violence used is proportional to the harm suffered

7. Non-combatants are never permissible targets of war. Their deaths are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

So far, we have been able to determine neither what terms such as “legitimate authority”, “a wrong suffered”, “a reasonable chance of success”, and “an improvement over circumstances” actually mean, nor how to figure out the proportion of “violence used” to “harm suffered” or what proportion is satisfactory. We now understand why the likes of Blair have become devoutly religious. St. Augustine gave him the green light to wage war against anybody, anywhere in the world, at any time with any pretext. It also explains a lot about his rhetoric to attempt to justify his advocacy of armed conflict to the world community.

The companion parties of the World Socialist Movement have opposed all wars, except the class war, since it first formulated a policy regarding armed conflicts in response to the First World War. It is worthreiterating the position of the Socialist Party of Canada on war in October 1939:

“It is in the nature of capitalism that in their quest for markets, raw materials, sources of exploitation, etc., the respective capitalists of the world are engaged in a constant, competitive struggle, either to preserve or to gain advantages over their rival: and by virtue of their control of the powers of government they are in the position to transfer this struggle from the economic field to the military field, where they endeavor to gain by wholesale slaughter, what they have been unable to gain by other means.

This is the explanation, not only of previous wars, but also of the present war. Thus, the declarations of the ruling class propagandist agencies that this conflict is being waged for democracy, freedom, and the independence of small nations, are merely the bait that must be used if the active participation of the politically uneducated workers is to be gained.

The Socialist Party of Canada, in placing on record its opposition to this new, horrible demonstration of capitalism’s unfitness to survive, herewith reaffirms:

That society as at present constituted is based upon the ownership of the means of living by the capitalist class and the consequent enslavement of the working class, by whose labour alone wealth is produced;

That in society, therefore, there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle between those who possess but do not produce and those who produce but do not possess;

That this antagonism can be abolished only by the emancipation of the working class from the domination of the capitalist class and the conversion into common property of society of the means of production and distribution, and their democratic control by the whole people;

That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of plutocratic privilege.

The Socialist Party of Canada further declares that no interest is at stake in this conflict which justifies the shedding of a single drop of working class blood; and it extends its fraternal greetings to the workers of all countries and calls upon them to unite in the Greater Struggle, the struggle for the establishment of Socialism, a system of society in which the ever-increasing poverty, misery, terror, and bloodshed of capitalism shall be forever banished from the earth.”

The pertinence of this statement in today’s world is a sad testament to the continuance of the destructive nature of our economic and social system and to the accuracy of its analysis.

Being a Worker

People like you and me go to work, sweat out our jobs—in factory, office, home—those “lucky” enough to have work. Some—a goodly number—fret out their time in quiet desperation wondering how they are going to make ends meet on what little unemployment dole cheque they get.

We work when we can, some five days a week, others accepting overtime to pay bills and the mortgage. We try to build up a fund to live comfortably enough to keep paying bills and accumulating goods in the belief that we are living the good life. We try to plan a future, get married, and raise kids, in a world where everything has become a commodity for sale—with the forced message from television, radio, and newspaper to buy, buy, buy because that is how we will supposedly find happiness. Meanwhile, we keep a watch over our shoulders in the hope that the latest round of economic “restructuring” and “rationalisation” and “globalisation” won’t throw us on the economic rubbish heap.

This is the best of all worlds, we are told, even though the corporate powers that be know that all is not well; that recession is constantly nipping at their heels. They tell us, “There is no alternative.”

We are the workers. We’re the ones who build things, make things, provide services, make things work, provide the ideas. But though we build the world around us, it does not belong to us. We produce not for ourselves, but at the behests and whims of others.

We are the ones who are told what to produce, how to produce it, how much, and how fast. We are the ones who receive a pay-cheque, be it high or low, not for selling what we produce but for selling our power to work. With that pay-cheque we try to buy back what we make. The source of someone else’s profits comes from our work.

How did it come to this? How did we end up with a worldwide society in which there is an overwhelming majority forced into this situation while a few—the ones who own capital, the means of producing things, by right of a thing called “ownership”—are the ones who “employ” us and live off this thing called “profit”? It’s certainly not any part of nature’s order to have a society which is divided between those who are workers (the many) and those who are capitalists (the few)—this arrangement is entirely human-made.

We, as workers, have a history. You see, what we call the working class didn’t always exist. It was created. Some six hundred years ago, the idea of a vast majority of people really owning nothing except their ability to work and working for a wage or salary in order to survive would have been considered preposterous.

That old philosopher Karl Marx made the comment that capitalism came into existence with much violence and bloodshed. It’s true. Peasants— independent producers—were driven by starvation from their land. Clan systems of ownership such as in Scotland and Ireland were forcibly destroyed. Small producers of goods had their livelihoods taken away from them. People were forced into the cities and towns through arrest, starvation, or maiming by the powers that be, with assistance from the Church and State laws.

It was a common occurrence across the face of Europe. In Africa, whole peoples were torn from their homes and sold as slaves. Capital and those who owned and controlled it conquered every sphere of activity to make a society where everything is for sale with a view to profit (and the profit for a few). It made inroads to destroy the economies of South America and Asia.

 At each stage of the game there was a revolt by our ancestors because being forced to work in factories and workshops for a wage meant dehumanization on a vast scale. Workers stood ready to smash the machines and workshops; they rallied to build unions(often at the expense of their own lives, brutalization, threats, exile, and imprisonment). At times they rose to desperately try to change these conditions.

Our history is a history of struggle against a system where the profit of capital is the be all and end all of production. It has been a struggle in which many died for the right to organize into unions, for the right to vote, for the right not to work sixteen hours a day, to stop forced child labour, to stop our exploitation, for the right not to starve, for the right to at least a minimal education in schools where we are taught that this and only this is the best of all possible worlds.

We have been divided by clever mystifications, by the colour of our skin, men against women, one religion against another, and on the basis of sexual preference, and it has been used well against us, making us compete against each other and making us ready to wage war upon each other at the whim of governments.

When the cost in human misery was too great, a myriad of reforms was presented by politicians—a tinkering with the system to aĴempt to put a human face on it. Yet reform after reform has not brought us any closer to any solution of the problems inherent in the system itself. Old notions die hard. Just as the rulers of ancient empires told their slaves that slavery was the natural order of things, and just as the feudal lords told the serfs and peasants that their society reflected the natural order, so we too are told that capitalism and the rule of profit is natural; that there is no alternative. It’s taught to us in schools, through the media, through the regulation of everything we do. What they have not been able to take away from us is our ability to think. There is an alternative. Everything that has been built around us is the result of our work and yet we don’t work for ourselves.

The fundamental fact is that this system we call capitalism, like any other economic system, is the creation of men and women. And men and women can choose other systems. As long as a system is in place, be it the so-called “free market” or state control (what some people mistakenly or deliberately pass off as “socialism”), workers will remain in their positions and nothing can change. Society will remain geared to the creation of profit, a society ruled by the needs of capital rather than the real needs of people.

Some of us have banded together. We call ourselves socialists and have joined the Socialist Party, working together with other companion political parties in the World Socialist Movement. We are not politicians, we do not propose to lead anyone to the “promised land”, we do not advocate reforms or state controls, and we do not promise any utopias. We too are workers, but with a vision of workers creating a fundamentally different kind of society. It can be done.

Len Wallace, SPC.

Imagine, 

We can make socialism work

Change is coming. Hundred of millions of people, young and old, from all over the world are now demanding change. Most people are already vaguely aware of this but they just don’t have a shape or form for it yet. They know something or other is coming but they don’t know what. We do. Their consciousness will catalyse into new sharing socialist economy.

‘You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink’. No-one is going to agree with our ‘crazy’ socialist ideas until they can see it for themselves. For most people, seeing the common-sense logic of a money-free society is counter-intuitive to everything they have been taught. It takes time. Introducing socialist ideas and the very concept of a money- and wage-free society may create a sufficient question mark in their minds for them to seek more information. Socialists often say ‘well, if we didn’t have capitalism, we wouldn’t have that problem.’ Nevertheless, we are fully aware that questioning someone’s political beliefs, can be personal. These beliefs are part of their personality, their way of life, so an attack on their beliefs is an attack on them and is very often resented.

First, we try to persuade people to entertain the very idea of a world without private property, no money, and no wages. We have to explain that people will still do things without money even performing tasks they wouldn’t particularly like to do. We point out that greed is only borne of scarcity and is not human nature as some would have you believe and all people are basically good and will help each other without reward.  Our education means demonstrating to people that technology can actually now be implemented to create abundance. To build a society which can be self-governing and self-regulating. System. These ideas have to be accepted before people can consider socialism as possible.

The United Nations, no matter how ignoble it is used by its member-states’ political motives is one of many global institutions in existence that can viably represent the common interests of all peoples in reshaping the world and becoming part of the administration of the global economic system and the involved in the process of resource-sharing as its basic operating principle. The UN requires the dispensing with the corrupt, divisive function of the Security Council to fulfill its destiny of the World Assembly that we can envision based on genuine cooperation and sharing. The theories and blueprints may well exist, as evidenced in the proposals of many forward-looking policy thinkers and civil society groups, but no-one can predict with exactitude the eventual appearance of a commons-based system of global resource distribution. As humanity comes of age we are tasked to act on behalf of the good of the whole planet on the basis of satisfying everybody’s material needs while promoting the concept of the interdependency of all lands as one village while respecting and preserving the distinct identities of diverse populations with all their manifold cultures.

For those who finds this vision too vague or lacking in technical details, we apologise. When everyone participates in this cause of all causes, this movement of all movements, we will determine clearer what actions we should take in our unwavering concern for the suffering of others. While many shall disagree, no doubt, and many shall remain passive or unmoved by the worsening world crises, we do predict the prospect of millions of people coming together worldwide to prevent the needless poverty-related deaths, and uniting in peaceful protest on behalf of the good of the whole—the One Humanity. Socialism cannot be structured without the embrace and awareness of ordinary people. There can be no socialism throughout the entire world, benefiting every family and individual in equal measure, until we have established a more participatory way of life in our respective societies and the existence of  a preliminary consensus among a significant proportion of the global public who demand free access to planetary resources. Those who realise this are our last hope of averting further social, economic and environmental catastrophe.

Adapted from 

http://freeworlder.com/2014/08/10/dear-invisible-friends/

http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/11/the-true-sharing-economy-inaugurating-an-age-of-the-heart-2/

Invisible Friends

I’m breaking up with my invisible friends. Of course, it’s always right and proper to do these things face-to-face, but unfortunately it’s not possible in this case as they are all, well, invisible. Anyway here goes…

Dear God,

Sorry, but I’m breaking up with you. They told me all about you when I was young and you sounded like a really decent guy – and really smart too. All those amazing things you did? Wow! But when I grew older I couldn’t see you anywhere. I couldn’t find any evidence of you or your intervention anywhere. People I know who did everything you wanted had terrible lives, or even suffered cruel, untimely deaths.

The world you created was teeming with problems, yet all you wanted people to do was to adore and praise you. WTF? You could have sorted all this stuff out in seconds, but you didn’t bother. So I reckon either you don’t exist at all, or maybe you’ve just moved on to your next project and aren’t interested in us any more. Either way, it’s over for us, because I’ve found something much better.

Dear Country,

I was born here in this country and everyone I know makes out like it’s the best place ever. They wave around coloured pieces of cloth, sing songs about it and say that the country beside us is no good, but I was there once and it looks just the same to me. In fact, I travelled around the world quite a bit and saw that everywhere is much the same. It’s all just land with people who all pretty much want the same thing – to live happily and in peace.

Sometimes our country’s leaders decide to go to war with another country and loads of their people and our people get killed and injured. Why? Because they wave a different colour cloth and sing different songs? Sorry, but that’s fucking bullshit. What century are we living in? These leaders are picking fights in our country’s name without even asking us, then sending some of us off to kill or be killed? I don’t like that, so let’s just drop the whole country thing, shall we – then they won’t be able to do this to us any more. My country is just a piece of land, divided from some other piece of land by an imaginary line drawn by some dead guy. Sorry, this makes no sense to me any more, so no, it’s over. I choose to be a free citizen of the world, thank you.

Dear Money,

I loved you all my life, yet you were always trying to get away from me. Was I too possessive? LOL. You were my light. The spark that drove me on to try and succeed. Then one day I noticed that you only seemed to have any value when people believed in you. The less people believed, the less you were worth. That’s crazy. I thought. If money was real, its value would never change, right?

Then I heard about all the big problems in the world ‘cos some people don’t have enough money, or some have too much and it makes them all go a bit mad. They do crazy things like destroy forests and rivers to make more money, or they attack and hurt other people to steal it from them. But it’s all just for a bunch of numbers written on a computer?? You know, like 4,235,987,520,987,859,876,530,948,755,349,875. People tell me that we all have to work and sacrifice our time to make these numbers. Why? People help each other all the time without exchanging numbers, so that’s bullshit.

These numbers only mean something when we all believe in them. If we stop believing, they vanish. That means it’s not real. Sorry, but I don’t want to spend my life running after something that’s not real. That’s a total waste of my life. Anyway I found something much better…

Dear World,

You rock! Hey in fact, you are a rock! And that’s what I love about you: you are REAL. You are big and blue and beautiful. Your animals are fantastic, the oceans are incredible, and your air so fresh and exhilarating.  Your people are wonderful, peaceful beings with immense creativity, warmth, love and laughter. I love this place. I love it because it’s real. It’s solid, strong and full of amazing things.

When I was younger, we had some childish ideas about things that people told us mattered a lot – that our time in the world was just a test for another better world – but I never saw it and, to be honest, I don’t want to. I love it here, now.

They told us we had to live in between certain lines and act differently within those lines, but I never saw any lines, nor could see any real difference between people on either side. All I could see were good people, land, sea and open skies.

They told us we had to use a numbering system and that everything had to have a value, including our time. That’s so limiting I thought. Look at all the amazing things we could do if we didn’t have to put a value on it? We’ve got all these incredible brains, only to be limited by a crude scale of scarce numbers? Haha, no thanks, I think we can do a hell of a lot better than that.

I loved my imaginary friends, for a while. But, well, it’s time to move on now and get real. Goodnight.

Taken from here

http://freeworlder.com/2014/08/10/dear-invisible-friends/

The Socialist Idea

Our task in the Socialist Party is basically two-part. First, to persuade fellow-workers of the benefits of socialism and then to convince them of its feasibility. The benefits are many, and most reasonable people will have no trouble accepting them: better quality of life for all, less inequality, poverty, crime, greed, corruption, pollution and waste; greater health, education, trust, respect, awareness, sustainability, community values, technological advances, etc. Most people want these things, so our problem is not really about convincing them of the benefits – it’s about demonstrating the feasibility. How is a money-free society to be achieved? It requires people to reject pre-conceived beliefs that they thought fundamental to how the world operates and to supplant them with ones closer to the true reality of things.

People have been led to accept the following:

1. You need to have exchange (You can’t get something for nothing)

2. No-one would do anything (money motivates lazy idle people)

3. People would take advantage (greed is human nature)

4. I will lose everything I have (fear of loss of personal possessions)

5. Chaos and violence would ensue (society requires policing and control)

6. Society would stagnate or regress (markets and entrepreneurs provide incentives for progress)

1. You need to have exchange (you can’t get something for nothing)

 Along with popular phrases like ‘There’s no such thing as a free lunch’, various idioms have been used to bolster the belief that nothing happens without some exchange of value, whether by money or barter. You could be forgiven for thinking that certain groups would happily wish to continue to perpetuate this thinking, but the fact is that it is simply false, and not based on anything else we see in nature. In nature the closest thing we have is something called symbiosis where two species benefit each other (the bee taking nectar while helping the plant to pollinate is the most obvious example), but there is no intentional transaction taking place. Both species are ignorant of the desires of the other. It is purely an accident of evolution that has caused both species to survive and flourish. Nowhere else in nature do we see evidence that intentional exchanges are an essential ingredient to life or to the community.  The money / value system that we operate in has its origins in more primitive times, but now the capitalist economy has made us hell-bent accounting for everything in a monetary sense, and at the expense of common sense and sustainability. We ourselves don’t seek exchange in our families or in our circles of friends, so why do we seek exchange in others? Among our family and friends we tend to help each other out without obligations being imposed. .

2. No-one would do anything (money motivates lazy idle people):

People are motivated by money, yes. It is perhaps the biggest motivator of people, but the only reason for that is because we need money to live. It’s linked to survival – our most fundamental instinct. This is what gives it such power. There are, of course, many other human motivators: the desire to love and be loved, to meet people, to have children, to help others, to improve ourselves and our surroundings, to look good, to feel good, to learn, to challenge ourselves, to express ourselves, to innovate, to demonstrate our skills, etc. Every person alive is motivated by these desires to some degree. Because, after survival, these desires are what give our lives value and meaning. So if we didn’t need money to survive, and society could be better without money, then it follows that any or all of these desires would become our primary motivators. Since technology can now make the basic business of survival incredibly easy for us, all we would have to do – rather than working and earning – is to spend just a little time serving our community to ensure that the system works for everybody, then spend the rest of our time doing whatever it is that makes us happy. If technology was not limited by a market system, and peoples’ desires to help, innovate and improve became their prime motivators, then our technology could be completely maximised to take in almost all jobs that no-one wants to do, and create a highly advanced culture.

3. People would take advantage (greed is human nature):

Greed is not human nature – it is simply the desire to stockpile something scarce which you need to live. Like a squirrel collecting nuts, greed makes good sense – because we don’t know what the future will bring. In a monetary world, the greatest scarcity is money itself, so it makes sense to accumulate it, and, since there is no upper limit to the money and property you can have, there’s no reason to stop accumulating it. But if society can work better without money and everyone has access to everything they need, then there would be no point in stockpiling anything in large quantities. Who wants a basement full of coffee or cornflakes when all these things are freely available at any time? For the first time in history, we have the technology to eradicate scarcity and create an abundance of necessities for all humans on Earth with minimal physical effort. The market system is the only thing that prevents this from happening, as it intrinsically requires scarcity to perpetuate itself.

4. I will lose everything I have (fear of loss of personal possessions)

We all need privacy and a certain amount of exclusivity. Who wants to share their toothbrush, or have strangers walking around their home, for example? Our normalised belief tells us that we define who uses what through something called ‘ownership’. Our laws define and protect ownership, with the threat of punishment to those who disobey (ie. stealing). The point is that most things in the community should belong to no-one. Whatever items within the community that are not the personal possessions of someone can be used and shared by all. If we respect privacy then we can begin to move beyond the traditional inefficient limits of ownership and with it, any fear of loss.

5. Chaos and violence would ensue (society requires policing and control)

It is worth first pointing out that our world under its current system is already rife with crime and violence, so any argument for a moneyless society must be measured against that standard for comparison. Also, no-one is suggesting that a free world would be perfect – just very much better.

Most crime and violence is driven by desperation through lack of basic requirements for living, ie. theft, armed robbery, burglary, etc. Almost all other crimes can be seen as the secondary effects of poor upbringing where parents are poor, over-worked, unemployed, frustrated, depressed or disillusioned, etc. – all factors that can contribute to an unstable and unloving environment for children, who may later turn to crime as a result of low self-esteem or maladjustment. If society can work better without money, then most of the reasons and contributing causes of antisocial behaviour will no longer exist. Society will automatically be more cooperative and inclusive, and everyone will have free access to good food, housing, education, and technology. It won’t be perfect or eliminate all crime, but if everyone has a good quality of life and free access, then crime will have little or no incentive.

6. Society would stagnate or regress (markets and entrepreneurs provide incentives for progress)

Many economists cite economic incentive and competition as good for progress. But since the money system is everywhere, people who make this claim really have nothing to compare it with, so are drawing a false conclusion. Are we really to believe that all innovators, inventors, and artists will down tools the moment someone ends wages and money? Obviously not, since we all know so many creative people that never achieve financial success, it shows us that they are not driven by money, but rather by their passions and desire to innovate. We have already seen the rise of the Open Source movement and how large scale innovative projects are becoming the optimum means of production without a monetary incentive. Many computer programs like Linux, Chrome and Android have been developed freely by enthusiasts in their spare time. The computer industry has led the way on this, but of course, there is no reason why ‘open source thinking’ cannot be applied in agriculture, crafts, construction or education, etc.

History has shown that, in general, our greatest innovators and artists have come from privileged backgrounds. Does that mean that they were smarter? Of course not. It means that they had a comfortable upbringing, access to good food and education, and had the luxury of time – not labouring for their keep – but spending it on developing their ideas and skills instead. If society can work better without money, then all potential young Einsteins and Mozarts will have the optimal opportunity to exercise and advance their talents.

All this new information usually takes some time to filter through the subconscious and back into the conscious mind so that we re-evaluate all these lifelong-held beliefs and be receptive to new ones. We are not victims of culture or destiny – we can shape the world as we please. Let’s make it better!

If you agree with a money-free future, please support the Socialist Party

Adapted from http://freeworlder.com