Our Immediate Demands

Capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production, is responsible for the insecurity, the poverty, misery, and degradation of the ever-growing majority of people. We are living under a system which is more and more clearly revealed as the enemy of mankind. There is a crying need for an immediate change in the social system and this necessitates the adoption of socialism which is the common ownership of the means of production for the common good and welfare. The capitalist system has created the potential for a vast abundance, but it brings poverty and hunger to the working people. It imposes draconian cuts in living standards on the already poor, simply in the interest of still greater profits for the capitalist class. From the standpoint of the vast majority, it is already an obsolete system, and the productive forces and technology it has created will have to be turned to the benefit of humanity as a whole under a new social system. Capitalism is responsible for the destruction of the environment. Its arms industry sucks up the world’s research and development and cynically profits from a series of local wars of unparalleled destructiveness. The root cause of all this is capitalism’s guiding principle, the quest for profit, which takes precedence over any human interest. Today more than ever capitalism brings nothing but misery and exploitation. Capitalism threatens the future of humanity. The profit motive is incompatible with safeguarding the world’s resources. So long as it is profitable, environmental destruction is perfectly ’logical’ under capitalism. Our problem is not limited resources but the waste of resources which is an essential part of the process of capital accumulation. Marx and Engels explained that only the working class could be the force bringing about the necessary revolutionary transformation of society. Socialism will provide the opportunity for a society planned for the majority rather than for profit.

The Socialist Party will not confine itself to demanding some demand for improvement of this or that condition. Capitalism cannot be reformed. It has undergone many changes in its history, but much of these have simply meant finding new ways to exploit people. The only solution is to destroy it and build a new social system. The purpose of the Socialist Party is to expropriate the capitalists. The Socialist Party is the political expression of what is known as “the class struggle.” The overthrow of capitalism—that is our DEMAND—it is THE demand. This does not mean, however, that the workers will wrest control of the State from the capitalist class simply for the purpose of continuing the class struggle on a new plane, as has been the case in all previous political revolutions when one class has superseded another in the control of the government. It does not mean that the workers and capitalists will merely change places, as many believe. It means the inauguration of an entirely new system of industry, in which the exploitation of man by man will have no place. It means the establishment of a new economic motive for production and distribution. Instead of profit being the ruling motive of industry, as at present, all production and distribution will be for use. As a consequence, the class struggle and economic class antagonisms as we now know them will entirely disappear. If the Socialist Party had no political ideal than the victory of one class over another it would not be worthy. The struggle for working class emancipation, which finds its expression thru the Socialist Party, must continue and will increase in intensity. There is no middle ground possible. Corbyn and Sanders want to bluff the voters that they can transform the capitalist system into a socialist one. All that is necessary are a few new taxation laws. “Squeeze the rich” with taxes and give to the poor. Many of their reform ideas cannot be successfully carried out inside the framework of capitalism, and if some of them are, they will deepen the recession rather than help to overcome it. We only know that the principles of socialism are necessary to the emancipation of the working class. Social changes are preceded by agitation and unrest. The old system is being shaken to its foundations and its passing is but a question of time. The Socialist Party stands against the present system and for the rule of the people; the only party that boldly avows its purpose the overthrow of wage-slavery. So long as the present system of capitalism prevails and the few are allowed to own all, workers will be struggling in the hell of poverty, as they are today. Private ownership and competition have had their day. The Socialist Party stands for common ownership and co-operation. Capitalism is industrial despotism; Socialism, industrial democracy. The Socialist party demands the overthrow of the wages system.

The Socialist Party demand the machinery of production in the name of the workers and the control of society in the name of the people. We demand the abolition of capitalism and wage-slavery and the surrender of the capitalist class. We demand complete control of industry by the workers; we demand all the wealth they produce for their own enjoyment, and we demand the earth for all the people.

Our way is better

As socialists, we see the enemy as capitalism, the social system that exists throughout the world. We do not preach hate against individuals who administer capitalism. To do this would only reveal ignorance of how the system function. Capitalism can only be abolished when the majority of people throughout the world desire the change to socialism and take the appropriate action through the ballot box. The only barrier to socialism now is the lack of socialist knowledge among the working class. Our object is the  education of the working class to their real interest in society, and expose the bankrupt social order, under which we live. Our task is to assist our fellow-workers to discover the nature of the capitalist system, realise their problems and that these problems can’t be solved within it.

Understand that it does not matter how clever, or educated your leaders are, they are helpless in doing anything fundamental about conditions. Politicians are not in charge of things as is widely believed. It is capitalism that is in charge of them! They are elected to administer a system rigged with contradictions and not in the interest of the majority. They can do nothing to change this, regardless of their good intentions. There is no political conspiracy against the poor, it is the system that makes poverty inevitable. A socialist party differs from other parties in various ways, one of the most striking difference being the views socialist hold towards the question of leadership. A socialist organisation does not recognise the need for any one person to be regarded as leader. This is based on the fact that within a socialist organisation everyone is conscious of the objective, and therefore there is no need for any special person to lead.

Most political parties start from the premise that the majority of people can't understand the complex nature of society. They, therefore, encourage members that this analysis of society be left to an "educated" elite. No doubt conscious of the fact that if members do examine our social structure they would soon no longer be members. Observe how we hear quite often people expressing their disappointment in a particular leadership. This is partly due to the fact that the leader, and the members don't share the same philosophy, and are in the organisation for different reasons. Few organisations on the political level, ask people to endorse a set of principles before becoming members. They would, in fact, regard this as suicidal, their chief objective being, to gain as much popular support as possible, and not to put obstacles in the way to this end. This in one reason why they need a leader, someone with the personality to unite so many people with different views. The ability to keep alive hopes that can never be fulfilled is regarded as an essential quality for a modern leader. Despite this, however, it is impossible for any political leader to escape conflict within his or her organisation, with members so confused as to goal, and their natural ignorance of the motive of capitalist society.

Every socialist organisation throughout the world demand that each prospective member endorses a set of principles. This eliminates conflict of goal, and the method of achieving it. Members already conscious of the wrong in capitalist society soon grasp the full consequence of its continued existence. This is done through our literature, and lecture programmes, their educational value are very rewarding, extending to a change of one's life-style. Socialists have often expressed confidence in any person of average intelligence, to understand the socialist case. It is really the intelligence of the average worker they attack, those people who accuse us of inaction. Taken in this sense, our activities rightly reflect the amount who join us, in the different countries around the world. Remembering that we don’t engage in marches, and demonstrations, as we regard such methods as useless. While other organisations do everything to create the impression of false strength, to gain recognition, socialist continue to reflect their true influence in society. We regard politics as serious business and proceed to educate people to realise that capitalist society can be changed to socialism, to others it really is a game, with the leader as the chief player. 

The world cannot change to something better until the majority of people in it visualise a new social system, and then set out to make it a reality. This is everyone's responsibility, not for a few to decide. When people have this vision they won’t need leaders, as they will be certain of where they are going. It is in the structure of society that we live under that create the problems of the world, leaders can’t change the system, all of us can. The record of the staggering failure of leadership is proof enough how useless it is. We only help to make capitalism survive by supporting leaders. We need a social system to establish harmonious, relationship for men on earth. When men are moving consciously to this end they will have no need for leaders.

HUMANITY HAS A NEW FUTURE WITHIN ITS GRASP.

The anarchy of production of the capitalist system means there is no overall planning to match production with human need. Anyone can start up or ramp up production when sales and chances for profit are high. Inevitably a saturation point is reached when demand is lower than production and we have an overabundance of goods. Workers must be laid off and factories closed, creating a recession. Since the seeds of the next boom are to be found in that recession - cheap labour, raw materials, machinery, and factory rent - then we have the continual boom and bust cycles familiar to capitalist production. When an opportunity presents itself to the capitalist to expand production, he must be able to find the necessary labour. This is where the poor, unemployed and welfare people come in. They are `the reserve army' standing by on minimum benefits ready to be called on as required. In other words, they are a necessary part of the system and they won't go away while the profit system exists, and the people mentioned above are simply attacking the symptoms, not the disease.

The source of all social wealth is human labour. The working class produces an abundance of wealth, so much so that poverty could be eliminated very quickly if a socialist society, based on the common ownership of the means to produce that wealth was established. Poverty is an endemic part of capitalism and it cannot be different. The fundamental aspects of capitalism are the ownership of the tools of production by a tiny minority of the world's population and the consequent wage-slavery of the majority. With production for profit, the capitalist tries to extract as much as possible from his workers, who inevitably resist and organize into unions to improve conditions as best they can, hence the class struggle.

Governments, dictatorial or democratic, exist to run the affairs of capitalism and therefore to preserve the status quo, which makes the continuation of poverty inevitable. This does not mean that there are no well-meaning politicians or political parties, but they cannot succeed in eliminating poverty within capitalism. For more than two centuries the profit system has held sway over this planet and none have succeeded in this endeavour yet. In 1945, the Labour Party introduced the modern-day welfare state which, in 1948, included the NHS for all. Nobody would deny today that poverty exists in the UK and even their health system is in a mess and suffering from gross underfunding. Nor does it make sense to argue that we don't have socialism yet, so, in the meantime, we need to fight for reforms to at least reduce the worst effects of poverty. This argument has been voiced by so many for so long that `in the meantime' has become forever. The time is long past and too many people have suffered, are suffering, and will continue suffering until we attack the disease itself.

There is one way, and one way only, to abolish poverty, and that is to establish a socialist society in which the tools of production will be commonly owned and administered by the population as a whole in their own interests. In such a world, not only poverty but all the social evils created by the profit system will be abolished. Who would not want to abolish war, famine, crime, preventable disease, planned obsolescence, people having nervous breakdowns, and a host of other problems engendered by profit motives? Who would not want to replace them with a world where all will live in peace, harmony, and prosperity? This can be had as soon as people want it. So why not organise politically in the Socialist Party to bring it to fruition.

The Socialist Party has continually shown that, while there may be some subtle shades of difference between the main political parties of the world’s developed countries, they all support and work in the interests of the current economic system that is the underlying cause of the ailments afflicting the world such as poverty, war and deprivation of necessary goods and services. So long as we keep as we keep electing these parties, so long will those afflictions continue no matter which party is in power or how many new leaders arise.

 “Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.” (Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte).

On the other hand, when socialism replaces capitalism, there will be no leaders, no political parties, and no states, as they are expressions of a class-based society. In socialism, which can only be established by the democratic will of the majority of the working class, it will be up to the people to decide how their society will operate. Elected delegates will carry out the will of the people with no more special powers or privileges than anyone else and would be accountable and recallable at any time. Leadership implies the investiture of special powers in a person and subservience of all others to those powers. Decision-making and policy-making are taken out of the hands of the majority as being incapable, and left to the leader and his small cadre of “experts”. Once the leader is elected, the rank and file who elected him are expected to go away and remain quiet only to be trotted out for support every four or five years. We cannot be led into socialism for if that were the case, we could be led out again by a so-minded politician. It will only be the understanding of the socialist case and the desire for it by the vast majority that will give birth to and maintain a socialist society of common ownership of wealth production and distribution in the interests of all.

“All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.” (Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto).

 The Socialist Party has no leaders, only elected officials following the directions of the membership.

The Capitalist Tricksters

The Socialist Party does not see itself as a part of the Left and view Left and Right as being outmoded bourgeois terms reflecting different aspects of managing the capitalist system which it opposes. Corbyn is as much a part of the problem even though he, probably genuinely, wishes to reform it. But his reforms are just not socialism or even 'socialistic'. As Tony Benn once pointed out, “The Labour party has never been a socialist party, although there have always been socialists in it – a bit like Christians in the Church of England.

We do not have problem with any individual who has enough capital to start up a business and employ others, it is in their economic or class interests to do so and maximise accumulation, but their motivation is to profit from it and certainly not a philanthropic desire to create work for others. We have yet to meet a business-person who worried about how many jobs they were creating, though we have met many anxious ones worried as consequence of how many they would have to shed but increase or accelerate the rate of exploitation to maintain profit accumulation. Capital (stolen from surplus value created by workers) is not invested to create jobs, but to create profit accumulation. This could just as likely take the form of reducing worker numbers and increasing the rate of exploitation of the remaining workers. The purpose of investment, the driving motivation, is to create profit for the parasite class. All wealth springs from labour. It is inevitable that workers are employed, where else would the wealth come from, but this is a consequence of the workers capacity to create a surplus over and above their subsistence and maintenance (waged ration) and not the motivating factor of deploying capital (stolen surplus value), which is profit from exploitation.

As Robert Tressell put it, the workers are the real philanthropists.

Video version of The Great Money Trick explained here.  

The global economy is in a periodic slump so the fat cats can sit it out until it picks up again. Credit Suisse have produced their Global Wealth Report for 2016. It notes, for instance, that 'the 33 million parasite millionaires comprise less than 1% of the adult population, but own 46% of household wealth.' There's lots more data there.

The report can be downloaded from here

https://www.credit-suisse.com/us/en/about-us/research/research-institute/publications.html

The capitalist baby is a monstrous irreformable creature which requires to be drowned forever before it conducts more war science upon hapless civilians such as at Nagasaki or Hiroshima. I do not share your happy-clappy view of capitalism. It is presently the only show in town to be sure, but this is no reason to abandon the only solution to it, regardless of how our class enemies or erstwhile shamefaced supporters of Leftist variants, bring disrepute to its name or traduce the idea of real communism.

A socialist world will, of course, be what we all make it. Everyone's ideas and efforts will contribute. Everyone will if they choose to, have an equal voice in the democratic decisions that are taken. Perhaps this is one thing about socialist society that most of us today would find strikingly different – the amount of discussion that will take place about what things are to be made and built. There will be no market forces offering a quick profit in plastic handbags or causing a shutdown in shipping. There will be no governments imposing taxes, preparing for germ warfare, tapping telephones or closing hospitals. Road-building, shipping, agriculture, manufacturing, distribution, services, entertainment – these things will be everybody's concern. And these things – not crimes or wars – will be news. The whole pattern of production and distribution will become a conscious social process.

We don’t need to become Super Man.  We are ordinary men and women who aspire to do extraordinary things, a class in itself yet to become a class for itself and then to end classes. I think the 'withering away', Engels referred to was that of government as in the state becoming obsolete, as we captured it initially to avoid its coercive apparatus being used to prevent the revolution, being shorn of this repressive possibility and useful parts retained directed over things, rather than over people. The politicians are powerless to do anything other than attempt to manage us in the interests of the global parasite class. All government is over us.

There are not too many people on the planet just too many poor people, but that can be sorted out with a social revolution to make it a commonly owned world.

Wee Matt

The time is now, why must we wait?

Well-meaning people always want a reform passed to deal with a particularly unsavoury aspect of capitalism. They introduce wishy-washy reforms that may in some way or another make a slight improvement to workers lives, only to find them quickly reversed by the next government. The erosion of the NHS is a typical example. No one can deny the world is in a heck of a mess today, and every day there is evidence that the politicians cannot cope. Politicians have long been attempting to manage this anarchic market volatility since the beginning of the modern day industrial state two hundred years ago and haven’t yet succeeded. Do they still wish us to believe they have a chance today? Their job is to manage the day to day chaos of capital little more. It makes not an iota of difference whether they are honest, clever, stupid, or educated. Nor does it matter if they are well meaning. If good intentions or any of these other things were all that were required to fix capitalism there would be no problem.

Wars is being across the world that benefits no member of the working class. All over the world religious fanaticism has reached ridiculous levels. Global warming continues to wreak havoc with the environment with increasing extreme weather events in all around the world.

We in The Socialist Party are not interested in upholding capitalist economics. We are not asking anyone to vote for us who does not understand and want socialism; we are not in the business of providing reformist promises to patch the system back together. We are asking you to study the case for socialism so that when you do vote for socialism, you will, in effect, be voting for yourself for your own interests. We believe in the hard-headed understanding of knowing what we want as a class and the perseverance to achieve it. The Socialist Party has clearly explained for over a century that poverty and all the economic and social evils are caused by the ownership of the tools of production by a tiny minority with the consequent need for the vast majority to sell their mental and physical capabilities and work for wages with which to buy back some of what they produce. If that sounds crazy, that’s because it is! Production for profit has created the mess we are in.

All this can be changed simply and quickly for the better by the world’s working class organizing politically for a socialist world in which the means of production will be owned and used for the benefit of all humanity. The Socialist Party isn’t interested in making life less harsh for anyone within capitalism, but in overthrowing an economic system that makes, and will continue to make, life harsh for the vast majority. We hold that the root cause of today’s social problems is that a tiny minority owns the world’s natural resources, and all political parties, except those of the World Socialist Movement, exist to maintain the status quo. We advocate a society where the means of production and distribution are owned by everyone and where all production is to satisfy needs, not profit. In such a society, there will be no military budget, in fact, no military and no budget; no bombs, no taxes, no funding for anything; no fares, no prisons, no police, no racism, no rents, no homeless, no utility cut-offs, no corporations, no take-home pay, in fact, no money. A society based on common ownership, where all take what they require will eliminate buying and selling and has no need for money. It will be a case of “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”

 Many may argue, ‘that sounds fine, but it won’t happen yet and, in the meantime, we need reforms to make our lives better in capitalism.’ Our answer is that we have had a century of reforms and reform parties and still we struggle and fight for the crumbs. ‘In the meantime’ has become forever, and the only alternative to socialism, the only solution to our major problems of war, poverty, and want, has been put aside. No, the time is NOW! Socialism is there, waiting for you as soon as you want it. How do you get it? By joining with us to capture political power to win the Social Revolution.

The Real Culprit

The only time capitalists speak of patriotism is when they exhort workers to buy their ‘home grown’ products and when they urge them to fight for their interests in wars.
Our current economic system, capitalism, is based on private ownership of the means of producing and distributing wealth produced by the workers i.e. the land, resources, the factories and machinery, the transportation systems etc. Goods are produced with a view to making a profit that comes from the extra value that the worker puts into the products over and above his wage. That is, after working for part of the day to create enough value to pay his wage, the worker then continues to work to create the value that becomes profit. Economist Jim Stanton in 2009 said that the average Canadian auto worker earns $65 000 per year and creates $300 000 in value. If the figures are correct, then, if the worker starts his shift at, say, 7am, he has earned his wage by about 8:45am and the rest of the day he works for his employer for free.

Capitalist production is commodity based, meaning that goods are produced only with a view to making a profit. If that profit doesn’t materialise, or is less than expected, production ceases, no matter what the need is. Food, in many parts of Africa, is a prime example of this system in action. No profit, no production, can’t pay, can’t have, is the logo of commodity production. Capital accumulation must take place for the system to work. Investors expect to take away more than they put into an enterprise. Capital then is value in perpetual search of additional value, and it this continual search for augmentation that drives, or derails, the capitalist mode of production. It must be, of course, predicated on continual expansion, ever greater destruction of the earth to extract resources, ever greater factories, machines, and production systems, ever greater markets to absorb the extra products. Capital’s search for greater value means that the managers of the investment funds and the corporations involved in every aspect of production are charged with finding opportunities for producing the greatest value. In this, they are in a life and death struggle with their competitors. Lose the struggle and your capital investment dries up and you are taken over or, worse, you go bankrupt. Given this analysis of our economic system, it is not surprising that qualities such as ethics, loyalty, or morality are tossed aside when it comes to the economic survival of a business. A Corporation is a paper agreement between groups of risk capital and has no feelings. Its mandate is to protect and augment the capital it has been loaned. If this protection means cutting the payroll, then it is unfortunate but so be it. If returns are better in one area of the globe, then, as water flows with gravity to the lowest level, so capital will flow to the lowest cost area. The profit oriented and competitive nature of capitalist production compel the bosses to keep costs, such as labour, as low as possible. Some may search for long-term solutions to the problem of jobs being out-sourced abroad. There is one solution that would end the turmoil and insecurity of relying on the whims of capital and profitability for good - the establishment of socialism.

What is to be done?

In the short term, there is very little that can be done to reverse the situation. As noted above, when the prospect of profitability returns, capital will be invested again and the recovery will begin. Union activity through pressure on employers, collective bargaining, demonstrations etc. are always available to mitigate the worst aspects of the system, but are even less effective during a recession, as current negotiated concessions of wages and benefits attest. In the longer term, we must examine the system that creates so much wealth but delivers so little to the general population and yet so much to the few owners. It is a change in this ownership that The Socialist Party proposes. Presently, capital dominates our life. It tells us that we must get a job to survive, then tells us when and how we do it, what the conditions of work will be, and even whether we will work at all. We propose that a new system of producing and distributing wealth is needed, one where the ownership of the world’s resources, and the means to turn them into useful goods, is owned by all, in common, and operated democratically, in the interests of all. That would mean all mankind would get a proper diet, housing, clean water, education, health-care, and the need for continual wars over who owns the resources (the major cause of all wars) is ended. The only answer is to abolish capitalism and establish a society where all stand equal in relation to the tools of production, decisions are made by the people in the interests of the people, and love of humanity reigns supreme.

Since reformers accept the status quo, they are condemned like Sisyphus to roll a great weight uphill only to see it roll down again. In a socialist society, where all will stand equal in relation to the tools of production, there will be no unemployment, no one will be homeless and no one will be denied medical attention because the wealth of society will be distributed through a system of free access to all goods and services produced. Who wouldn’t want it? So why not work politically and consciously for that end?

A Bit Marxist Economic Theory

The Cash Nexus 

Every recession is a crisis in the capitalist mode of production. Marx wrote that capitalist production moves through certain periodic cycles. It moves through a state of quiescence, growing animation, prosperity, overtrade, crisis, and stagnation - what is referred to today as ‘the business cycle’. The manifestation of a recession is an oversupply of goods to the market that cannot be sold immediately, sending a signal to the production units to slow down or stop production and thus creating unemployment. The production units reduce orders for the means of production, raw materials and machinery, which causes more lay-offs and the unemployed reduce their purchases, creating a snowball rolling down a hill effect. But what causes the overproduction? Marxist scholars such as Rudolph Hilferding and Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky pointed to the anarchy of capitalist production as the culprit and other socialists developed this idea. For steady sustained growth, capitalist production needs a state of equilibrium between the various sectors of the economy and between supply and demand. The absence of social regulation means that this is rarely achieved and only for short periods of time. Production is based on the expectation of profit and profit is highest in a boom period. Then the drive for maximum profits sees production lines ramped up and new ones created. No one wants to miss out on the bonanza and no one expects to be the one who can’t sell his commodities. Eventually, of course, all this expansion means that productive capacity goes beyond what the market can absorb and productive capital is tied up in the form of unsold goods. Profits drop and capital turns over slower or is withdrawn altogether. In addition, the reserve army (that part of the work-force that is often unemployed or on welfare and kept around only to be activated in times of expanded production) disappears in a boom so that demand for labour increases, raising its price and reducing profitability and depleting the investment fund of the capitalists. This results in a lower demand for producer goods, i.e. natural resources, machines, etc. producing a crisis in that sector. Thus the anarchy of production, the loss of equilibrium between sectors, and rising wages, create the climate for recession.

Once the recession is upon us, conditions that are favourable to a recovery become apparent. Companies that declare bankruptcy sell off their assets cheaply to their rivals. Less demand for producer goods means lower prices. The reserve army and many others are laid off creating a competition for jobs and thus lowering wages. Lower demand for loans reduces interest rates like any other commodity. The large stocks built up before the advent of the recession gradually decline to a point where production is again necessary. All of these factors make investing in production more attractive and the cycle begins its upward swing. It is evident then that the seeds of every boom are to be found in every recession and, conversely, the seeds of every recession are to be found in every boom. This boom and bust cycle is an entirely natural occurrence of the capitalist mode of production. It hasn’t collapsed capitalism yet, and, in fact, recessions tend to strengthen the system by weeding out the weak and inefficient enterprises, something not apparent in the state-run capitalism of the Soviet Union, contributing to its demise. Collapse theories developed in the latter part of the nineteenth century, in part as a response to the Long Depression, 1873 to 1895. Several leading theoreticians and leaders of left organizations presented collapse scenarios. Karl Kautsky said that capitalism is incapable of prolonged survival because of the inability of markets to keep pace with production. Henry Hyndman, of the Social Democratic Federation, thought that the depression would bring an attempt to substitute collective for capitalist control, i.e. a social revolution. Engels wrote that while productive power increases in geometric ratio, markets increase in an arithmetic one. Rosa Luxembourg, Kautsky, and Bogdanov based collapse theories on the restricted purchasing power of the working class. This underconsumption theory argued that aggregate demand, i.e. workers’ consumption fund plus capitalists’ consumption fund could not buy the total product, especially when the capitalists used some of their fund for reinvestment thus reducing the total available for buying products. Luxembourg theorized that the extra product, not bought by the workers or the capitalists, was disposed of in those parts of the world not yet under the capitalist mode of production. Since the tendency of capitalism is to expand and spread, then that market would shrink until the extra product could not be sold putting capitalism into a crisis from which it could never recover. The World Socialist Movement argued that total aggregate demand consists of workers’ consumption plus capitalists’ consumption plus capitalists’ investments because those investments were not lost but used to buy the means of production raw materials, machinery, buildings etc.

In addition, since the exchange value of a commodity is determined by the amount of socially necessary labour embedded in it, then a value equal to that must be shared between the workers and the capitalists, i.e. the total purchasing power is equal to the total sum of values. Even though value and price may vary (according to the supply and demand of the market) the sum total of values equals the sum total of prices. Thus the workers and the capitalists together would be able to buy all the products on the market. If underconsumption were true, then it would have stifled the growth of capitalism completely. A second collapse theory centered around the falling rate of profit due to the rising rate of the organic composition of capital. Capital invested is divided into two parts. Constant capital is that part that buys the raw materials and producer goods such as machinery and is transferred directly through the productive process to the finished product. Variable capital is used to buy labour-power that produces surplus value (that value created by the worker over and above his wage) that is embedded in the commodity and realized at its sale. That is the only source of profit. As technology and machinery develop, more of the invested capital goes into the constant part and less into buying labour-power, more into dead labour (machinery) and less into living labour. Thus the part producing surplus-value shrinks and with it the rate of profit. However, so far, the fall in the rate of profit has been very slow and often not apparent at all. Marx noted that this falling rate is only a tendency, not a law, and is offset by many other factors such as shift work, increased use of the machinery, (increases the rate of exploitation), cheapening of the elements of constant capital (cheap goods that don’t last long), higher productivity, including higher intensity of work, and the increased rate of the turnover of capital. Thus, it is unlikely that the rise in the organic composition of capital will bring about the collapse of the system. The real evidence is that capitalism has continued and continues to expand despite regular crises and doesn’t look like collapsing any time soon. Whether other factors such as the end of a fossil-fuel economy and climate change will have a major effect on the health of capitalism remains to be seen What we can say for sure is that:

1. A recession is a normal consequence of capitalism.

2. A recession can invigorate capitalism.

3. Capitalism is not likely to collapse of its own accord anytime soon.

4. If collapse theories were true, all socialists would need to do is sit back and do nothing.

5. If capitalism did collapse, it wouldn’t necessarily mean that socialism would follow.

6. Socialism is the task of the working class and can only come about by the actions of a conscious majority understanding and wanting socialism.

7. Thus we must assume capitalism will continue and work towards its demise.

8. Collapse theories, therefore, undermine the real work of socialists, just as do time and energy spent on reforms and alternative systems within capitalism such as cooperatives, fair trade, and communes.

The problem with capitalism

Trade unions can only fight a rearguard action against the worst excesses of capitalism. They try to improve conditions for their members within capitalism in the form of higher wages, fewer hours, better overtime rates, sick pay, pension plans, safety legislation, etc., but can never be a means to establish socialism. Nor can it be argued that workers in unions can capture the tools of production within capitalism, thereby creating a new society within the womb of the old, which Industrial Workers of the World advocate. For a union to be effective, it must embrace workers of all political beliefs in its ranks, including reformers, liberal, conservatives, and fascists - hardly an organization that will change anything fundamentally. Benefits won by years of union activity and strife can be lost in the blink of an eye, as we see here. This doesn't mean there is no solution to the problem. In fact, the solution exists and can be implemented as soon as most people decide we need a complete change. It's called socialism - common ownership by all and free access for all to the products of society - and to establish it we need to work politically for its speedy arrival. One thing that Marx stressed that the unions these days no longer concern themselves with and it is the complete abolition of the wages system.

Socialism, the only viable alternative to capitalism will be a system based on the common ownership of the production and distribution of wealth and worldwide cooperation for the benefit of all. Of course, there will be disputes, solved by discussion, mediation, and majority vote that will heed the greater good for all the earth’s people, not just the interests of the tiny minority of owners, as our the present system. But socialism, being a truly democratic system will certainly put an end to borders. There is no answer within the competitive capitalist system where every country looks after its own welfare, or rather that of their capitalist class, doesn’t mean that there is no answer. In a socialist society of common ownership, where production is for the satisfaction of human needs, it naturally follows that there will be no need for money, the profit system, or the profit motive. Decisions, including ones concerning the environment, will be made by the majority of the world’s citizens in the interests of the majority. All due regard will be given to satisfying need without environmental murder. The problem is that time is running out. If there is any time left to establish a socialist system to solve this world problem, before environmental destruction is irreversible, then the time is now.

Socialism can only be established by a class-conscious majority of the world's people working together. It will mean an end to nation states, their central governments, and to competition and replace it with a cooperative, democratic system where producers meet as equals to produce goods for use, not profit, and to look for real solutions that benefit all mankind, based on science and common sense. Only in such a system can the revolutionary changes in our life-style be enacted that will put an end to the dirty production, indiscriminate resource extraction, and unchecked development that characterize capitalist production. It is common sense to end our dependency on fossil fuels and to develop green technology, to move to local production and self-sufficiency, and produce only what we need in an economy planned to meet the needs of all humans. This kind of common sense is impossible to contemplate, never mind implement, under our capitalist system because its only reason for being, and its driving force, is the production of profit. Capitalism that has brought the productive powers necessary to create abundance for everyone is incapable of making the revolutionary social and economic changes needed to nurture the earth and all its inhabitants. Only socialism can usher in the next greatest step in human progress - the era of mutual cooperation, the real beginning of our history on this planet.

Our employers are class-conscious and they practice the class struggle. The bosses picked their battles carefully and prepared for them thoroughly.  During a strike companies show their capitalist class solidarity, joining forces to fight against their workers. On the other hand, workers look for every opportunity to turn things around.

The employing class makes their profit by taking it out of the blood, sweat and tears of their workers. The boss tries to squeeze as much profit out of the worker as he possibly can. And if the workers stopped resisting, they’d just be squeezed even more. Of course, there are some nice bosses and plenty of nasty bosses. On the Southern cotton plantations, there WERE kind slave-masters and cruel ones. The working class wants NO slave-masters and NO bosses. The capitalist class and the profit system does not change their spots. This system is designed to run on profit, not philanthropy or idealism. That’s why it’s called the profit system. Wars are fought – for profit. And peace treaties are written – for profit ... to the victor.

Everything you use, everything you eat or wear, your car, your housing — you didn’t make any of these things. We don’t produce these things as individuals. We produce socially. We have a division of work in the United States, and in the whole world for that matter. People in one part of the world make things which people in another part of the world use. But, even though we produce socially, through co-operation, we don’t own the means of production socially. And this affects all the basic decisions made in this society about what we produce. These decisions are not made on the basis of what people need but on the basis of what makes a profit.

Take the question of hunger. There are people going hungry all over the world but farmers don’t make their decisions by saying: “We need a lot of corn to feed those folk, so I’m going to plant a lot of corn.” Instead, the question is: “How much profit am I going to make if I plant corn?”

Take the question of housing. We could build beautiful homes for every family. The potential exists to clear out every slum and shanty-town. We have the factories, machinery and the materials for building. Yet, these houses are not going to be built to solve the housing question because it’s not profitable for the construction companies.

Did you know that because of the way the system is structured a large percentage of the people do not do any productive work at all? You have the unemployed who are not hired because it’s not profitable to hire them. Then you have the people who consume a great deal but don’t produce anything such as those in the army and the police. Then you have things like the people in the advertising industry. They don’t do anything really useful or necessary. In addition, you have a mammoth, organised effort to create waste. For instance, if you designed a car that would last 50 years, they wouldn’t build it. Because that would destroy the purpose of making cars, which is to produce profits by bringing out newer models each year – built-in obsolescence.

In the developing world — in Asia, Africa, and Latin America consider this: When a worker finishes working a full eight-hour day, he or she produces as much as an average American or European worker does in an hour. In order to raise this figure, you have to industrialise, you have to mechanise, you have to invest new technology and automation. Instead of getting real assistance from the industrialised sections of the world, developing countries are looted and drained of their wealth. Tariff barriers and protectionism blocked them from industrialising simply because the advanced capitalist countries will not permit the competition which would result from it. In fact, they impose trade treaties that permit them to out-compete and under-cut developing countries in their own domestic market.  In terms of the effect such exploitation is having on the developing world, in terms of people actually dying, starving and suffering, and their whole lives being destroyed by poverty, this is one of capitalism’s greatest crimes.

The conflict between capitalism’s drive for profits and human needs inevitably leads to social explosions. Capitalism cannot resolve its basic contradiction by becoming more responsive to social needs except for short temporary periods of time, and then only in a limited manner. Human needs always comes up against capitalism’s reason for existence - profits and this opens up the road towards revolution.

The Socialist Party believe we can win a majority of the people to support a fundamental change in the system. The right to vote, the right to representation, is deeply ingrained in our culture and traditions and can become a powerful weapon against the ruling class. We have to present our conception of a future society in which there would be no rich or poor, where society would be run democratically both politically and economically, where the economy would be rationally planned and production would be based on human needs not profits for individuals, until it become accepted by millions throughout the world. That future society is socialism. The Socialist Party’s goal is to help mobilize the whole working class, to unite the class in action.

What is Money

Money is merely a means of exchange, in a commonly owned world, where production is for use, no means of exchange would be necessary access could be free and, money would be in the museums of antiquity.

The monetary system has evolved gradually and has been in existence as a system for about 250 years in England and for a much shorter period abroad. We make a distinction between the ancient coinage of Greece, Carthage and Rome, which although used to effect the exchange of commodities was at that period incidental to the main stream of an exchange system which was based on surpluses and barter.

As a general social form, money developed alongside the development of commodity production, and at the point in history when all wealth was produced in the form of commodities money became the universal medium or equivalent through which all exchange transactions were carried out.

The first condition for the introduction of a monetary system is when social products become commodities, i.e. articles produced for sale and exchange. It is quite obvious that commodities cannot go to the market on their own. As they are owned by someone or other, he is the person who will take or send them there.

Likewise, there are other owners of commodities carrying out a similar function. Each will recognize the other as a private proprietor — that is, they respect each other’s rights to dispose of the social product to their own immediate advantage. Eventually they embellish their right through a set of legal relations:

"This juridical relation, which thus expresses itself in a contract, whether such contract be part of a developed legal system or not, is a relation between two wills, and is but the reflex of the real economical relation between the two. It is this economical relation that determines the subject matter in each such juridical act." (Marx, Capital Vol. I, p. 96. Kerr ed.)

 Read the chapter on Money on Capital, on how money is transformed into capital. Money by itself is not capital.

 The transformation of Money into Capital

Wealth is torrented upwards to the owners of the means of producing and distributing it. It is created by the wage slaves but rationed out to them in the form of wages and salaries based upon the value of the workers commodity, 'labour power'.

The value of a commodity, even the workers commodity, is dependent upon the amount of 'socially necessary' labour time incorporated within it. (Note value and price are not the same thing.) Exploitation takes place at the point of production. This labour power produces a surplus value for the employer which is realised on the market place. This is so even if the employee is engaged in non-manufacturing, say a service industry as they are a part of supporting the wealth generating sector or a part of its maintainance, say as health workers.

Capitalists are not 'bad’ people, it is not a question of morality, but rather, the necessity of capital to accumulate arises out of its economic class interest, which can only be done so from exploiting the workers disadvantaged economic situation (i.e. non-ownership of the means of production and distribution) for their capacity to produce surplus value, when exploited for waged rations. We are not making a moral argument, but a class one.

Wee Matt

Organise. Organise. Organise.

As anyone can clearly see, the world is heading closer to the brink of environmental disaster brought about by the rapacious and ruthless nature of capitalism. In these disturbing times, it is refreshing to see movements appear and spread globally, saying, in effect, 'There must be something better than capitalism.’ Many are beginning to realize that it is pointless getting rid of a government and putting a new one in power if its intention is to continue to administer the system for the benefit of the ruling class. These revolutionary ideas cannot be stopped at borders and they don't need leaders. So to those people, we say that socialism, common ownership of the means of producing and distributing wealth, production for use, not profit, free access to all humanity to the goods our society produces, will solve our major problems. Take a look at our case and act. We are working for a society where there is no such thing as a capitalist class or a working class. The basics of capitalist society are that the working class produces the world's wealth that the capitalist class legally steal and apportion the loot out among themselves in the form of fat-cat dividends, CEO salaries, share options, and bonuses. The only answer is a society where production is for use, where all may freely partake of the world's wealth, and money, in any form, does not exist.

Capitalist society teaches everyone from birth to shun that which is different. It's a case of 'hate him, he's black, or white, or has long hair, or short hair, is a Protestant, a Catholic, a Shiite Muslim, a Sunni Muslim, a Jew, an immigrant, an atheist, and so on.’ The list is endless because there are millions of specific and superficial differences, but they all have one common denominator - that at a given time and place this person or persons is different to the rest and therefore deserves to be attacked in one way or another.

By the above, the capitalist class, whether it be part of the secular or religious authorities, achieves two objectives. They create pressure to conform and give protestors someone to blame when the going gets tough. As socialists, we believe that these differences are superficial and should not divide the working class; that, a member of the working class i.e. anyone who sells their labour-power for a wage or salary, has more in common with the worker anywhere than a capitalist who lives in the same country.

The fact that the reaction to hard times in Pakistan has taken the form of religious differences is further testament (no pun intended) to how the capitalist class everywhere strives to maintain ignorance among the working class. Religion, which is another word for superstition, is something people cling to when it seems all hope has gone. As Marx said, 'Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions."

Socialists, too, are divisive. We divide the nonsense from the truth. Nothing but a socialist society can save the world's population from the disaster it's heading into. We stand on the cusp of financial and environmental collapse and quarreling amongst ourselves prevents organizing to avoid it. Nor can one blame the capitalist class for their lies that perpetuate capitalism. They are driven by economic conditions, just as the working class is so driven.

There is only one answer to intolerance, genocide, destruction of the environment, food and water shortages, preventable diseases, poverty, and war, and that is the establishment of a socialist society. So why not study the case for socialism now and organise for its arrival and a world organisation that is capable of tackling those problems.

Solidarity is our protection

Capitalism is full of social problems but politicians say they don't have the money for all projects and  programmes that would be required to solve them. Because our present society is organised on the basis of the capitalist mode of production. That means the small minority who own the means of producing wealth get to distribute it, too. And they feel they are entitled to the lion's share. That means that money for the benefit of society, in general, is scarce. The more money that goes to society, the less goes to the owners. So, if we accept that the situation is caused by money, the obvious answer would be to abolish money and establish a society of common ownership of the means of producing and distributing wealth. That means abolishing capitalism, the system that relies on money, profit and the market system, a system that is designed to meet the needs of the capitalist class at the expense of those who do the work and create all the wealth. As everyone would have free access to the goods and services produced by society, poverty would be a thing of the past. Capitalism will never be able to do that.

The Socialist Party offers a solution and that is to establish a system of common ownership of the means of producing wealth and free access for all to the goods that are produced. This will mean that society as a whole, not a tiny minority, decides where the wealth goes.

"But it can't be done" many say, 'society needs a means of exchange.' Wrong. Capitalist production needs it, a sane society doesn't.

Some may be surprised to learn that for 97% of the time mankind has inhabited the earth, he lived without it, and it has only been in the last two or three hundred years that monetary exchange has dominated.

Some then ask, 'Who will go to work if they are not getting paid?' The answer is that millions do now, as volunteers, time and labour freely given for something they enjoy and/or believe in.

In a socialist society, all would contribute to the common wealth by performing tasks they enjoy or think are important. In the unlikely event, there were tasks that nobody wanted to do, automation could do so. In a socialist society, the problems besetting the planet would not exist because they would be irrelevant. With no money, and hence no problems relating to it, public services could be maintained and improved, including, and especially, those relating to the health and well-being of the citizens. Homeless shelters would not exist because there will be no homeless. Fear of unemployment will not exist because there will be no employment in the accepted sense. All will contribute freely according to their abilities and partake from the common store of wealth according to their needs. The problems around the globe are the natural consequence of the operation of the capitalist mode of production. We need to change that.

Surely by now it is  clearly shown that the competitive nature of capitalism makes any attempts to work out reform solutions are doomed to failure. They are just foolhardy attempts to make capitalism work. It has been clearly shown over the last two hundred years that capitalism can work in one way only - producing profits expropriated by the capitalist class from the surplus-labour of the working class. A life of struggle and uncertainty with poverty, unemployment, war, and pollution a natural and constant condition is the lot of the workers. Furthermore, competing interests of the capitalist class in the various countries of the world will only doom reforms to failure. If anyone wants a pristine environment, fairness, equality, peace, or security, they won't find it under capitalism, which is another good reason to work for socialism and get rid of capitalism - it's way past its 'best before' date.

Socialists have always argued that it makes no fundamental difference which party is elected if it stands for the continuance of the capitalist system. Some will argue that, though this is the case, nevertheless, some parties are more inclined to initiate reform measures beneficial to the working class than others. Certainly, there have been reforms but often their effects are temporary and can, and sometimes are, diluted or canceled when another party takes power. Furthermore, directly or indirectly, reforms are beneficial to the capitalist class or they would have a tougher time getting through the legislatures, e.g. safety legislation in the work-place means the insurance companies don't have to fork out large payments. Reforms to give equal rights to minorities delude these minorities into thinking they have equality with everyone else but, in reality, there is no equality under the capitalist system, nor will there be until that system is swept away and replaced by common ownership of the means of production. One of the great reforms initiated in the twentieth century was the NHS of 1948. Naturally, it was hailed as a wonderful event; the poorer sections of the working class had access to health care that previously was denied to them. Socialists did not oppose it as it benefited the working class but pointed out the class nature of the act. During the Second World War, many conscripts, after a decade of depression and hunger, were found to be in an unhealthy condition and not ready to fight capitalism's war. Enhanced health care took care of that. Nor can it be argued that if reforms don't solve everyone's problems, the quality of elected officials must make some difference. The answer to that is minimal while retaining the system that caused the problem

Capitalism is a market system and nothing can change that. When a market exists for a product, competing capitalists glut that market with far more product than can be bought in the hope of higher profits, supply eventually outstrips demand, resulting in recession, lay-offs and all the accompanying misery for the working class. War is part of the functioning of capitalism as competing sections of the capitalist class clash over resources and trade, sending members of the working class to fight for their interests. Within capitalism, there is no solution. Booms and busts and the unpredictability of the market will continue. The only permanent solution will occur when a class-conscious majority of the working class decide to elect socialist deputies to the state legislatures around the world with the mandate to abolish capitalism in favour of a socialist society.

Co-ops - Self-exploitation

We have nothing against working in a 'workers cooperative' if it means better conditions at work under capitalism and not being treated like shit every single day - though whether it does this long term is open to question. Similarly, we’d all rather work for a boss who at least treats us like a human being rather than a boss who acts like a little Hitler and makes us miserable every day. However, seeing cooperatives as anything other than a localised, immediate, temporary and partial solution for improving your working lifestyle is definitely a big mistake. And if cooperatives were taken as something more than a palliative measure to problems at work, then those involved face failure and demoralization. We do not think that the capitalist system can be gradually changed by the multiplication of cooperatives. The real interests of the working class are served only through the abolition of the wages system.

For those of us brought up in the struggle against the idea that it is possible to build socialism in one country, the conception of ‘mini-socialism’ co-operatives in one factory’ has little attraction. Some defend these and accuse critics of dogmatism and they argue that unless workers gain experience of management before the socialist revolution, they will not be able to learn from one day to the next, upon the transfer of power. The experience of small-scale self-management under capitalism, they explain, is useful education and preparation. Many examples are quoted yet here have been many examples of workers’ cooperatives that went wrong, and where they have ‘succeeded’ – it has been in capitalist terms, transforming themselves into profitable capitalist enterprises, operating in the same way as any other capitalist business. None of the successes could have been achieved without the acquiescence of the banks, of all the economic institutions and above all, the State. Co-ops can only exist to the extent that it is tolerated by the capitalist regime as a whole. For this reason, there is no way in which it can pose any solutions for the working class as a whole.

Our goal is what some have called the “community of goods”; everything is to be made common property, everything will be everybody’s. “The association of free men who work with the means of production and who employ, following a concerted plan, their numerous individual forces as a single force of social labor … the work of freely associated men who act consciously and are masters of their own social activity”; “free and equal association of the producers”; such was for Marx and Engels the form of socialism. Association—this is the key-word of socialism: individuals, instead of acting, as in capitalism, each for himself, associate with one another for the purposes of common labour. This simple definition of socialism already allows it to be distinguished from certain false socialisms. The variety of “self-management socialism” making the workers the owners of the enterprise has no trace in the Marxist conception of any kind of “communitarian social order.” It has changed nothing: the enterprise is still autonomous, and therefore competes with other enterprises in the same sector; for this reason, it is the market rather than a “concerted plan” that regulates production, and is, therefore, subject to all the fluctuations of the market; finally, as in capitalism, there will be enterprises that will be “winners” (the workers in the competitive enterprises) and “losers” (the workers in the less profitable enterprises who will be laid off). This is not socialism: there is no real association of producers that supersedes the limits of the enterprise. If socialism corresponds to management of production by the workers themselves, this “self-management”, if one wants to preserve this phrase at all costs, is utterly without semblance to a truncated vision of this idea that consists in managing “their” enterprise, which would not amount to much and would only reproduce a system of private appropriation.

The argument is often put that it is possible to establish "little islands of socialism—workers co-operatives — within the framework of capitalism, thus making a revolutionary, world-wide change from capitalism to socialism unnecessary. One way to challenge capitalism those “revolutionary” reformists envisage is to build more democratic, egalitarian, participatory economic relations in the spaces and cracks within this complex system wherever possible, and to struggle to expand and defend those spaces. The idea of eroding capitalism imagines that these alternatives have the potential, in the long run, of expanding to the point where capitalism is displaced from this dominant role. The strategic vision of eroding capitalism imagines introducing the most vigorous varieties of emancipatory species of non-capitalist economic activity into the ecosystem of capitalism, nurturing their development by protecting their niches, and figuring out ways of expanding their habitats. The ultimate hope is that eventually these alien species can spill out of their narrow niches and transform the character of the ecosystem as a whole.

But socialism means common ownership and free access to everything that is produced. The rigorous economic law of profitability at all costs imposed by the market must be supported by defenders of co-operatives; if under capitalism, you don’t observe this law you very quickly go out of business.

The fundamental flaw of many proponents of cooperatives is an obsession with workers “self- management" as a solution to working-class problems. They fail to appreciate that in terms of genuine human freedom, how work is managed is a side issue. The important thing is that all work should be entirely voluntary—a condition demanded by Marx's slogan "Abolition of the wages system!"

Life Under Crapitalism

More than 200,000 Iraqis are expected to be displaced as the Iraqi army advances towards Mosul, according to the Norwegian Refugee Council. Camps have been set up to accommodate 60,000 people, so there will soon be overcrowding. Both the Iraqi government and the Kurdish authorities are mired in an economic crisis, (what government isn't?), brought on by low oil prices and say they do not have the resources to care for a large number of displaced people. They have urged everyone to stay put, which, of course ], they're not going to. So more people are fleeing from a war and going into camps. 

One thing about life under 'crapitalism' - it never changes. 

John Ayers

Co-opting cooperatives

COOPERATIVES - JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Socialism is beginning to show signs of life again. This reawakening of the labour movement is to be welcomed. A political movement which has been in a state of suspended animation never begins again exactly where it stopped. The men and women who take it up afresh are like children repeating their lessons: they must go back to the beginning and run rapidly through the stages already traveled. Many have returned to the early promise of co-operatives or s some re-label “workers self-directed enterprises” and re-wording the vocabulary of the 19th C co-operators. The socialist movement had started with the proponents of co-operatives but these days some view that the economic emancipation of the workers can only be brought about when the workers themselves become owners of the elements of production – raw materials and the instruments of labour which are really as a matter of fact only a version of different capitalist ideas. The co-operators represent the benevolent notions of the philanthropists, who attempt to lull the awakening spirit of the working class by measures not of a very controversial  nature.

In its normal state, capitalism has become an obsolete oppressive system that ought to be binned. A relatively small minority recognise this and are consciously anti-capitalist, but the majority continue trying to satisfy their needs within the system rather than by overthrowing it. There is presently no real possibility of overthrowing that system and attempts to do so degenerate into futile reformism and/or terrorism, whatever the “revolutionary” rhetoric. Reformism is capitalist trickery used to keep the working class under wage slavery. Reformists maintain that we can arrive at a certain “socialism” by winning reforms one after the other. What they don’t say is that whatever the employers has to give up with one hand after a hard struggle, it will just take back with the other. To fight against reformism means not only to stop creating illusions about capitalism but also to break with reformist tactics in our struggles. For workers, there is an urgent need to understand the limitations of the co-operatives before the revolution. The fact that co-operative ideas are demonstrably utopian does not prevent them having a wide following. The ideas are influential because they correspond to certain tendencies in the development of capitalism. To pretend that you can go in for anything but capitalism in a capitalist society is really folly. General laws, born out of the form of property, impose themselves, and those people who want to build oases in the desert cannot escape those laws; the oasis will be swept by the simoom just as the desert is. And the oasis, in this case, is the co-operative, forced to bow before commercial or mercantile necessities. Whatever you do as a co-operative, you cannot help being governed by all the laws which determine and regulate production and exchange in the society of profit of to-day. There is a widespread feeling that co-operatives are enough, that there is no need for strikes, for conflict. Cooperatives are totally incapable of transforming the capitalist mode of production.

Many have heard arguments in favour of workers self-management based on the experience of the factory occupations in Argentina. The occupied factories were factories that had been abandoned by the capitalists precisely because they were not profitable. The desertion of employers from companies ceded space for workers to takeover and begin production. The experience of Argentina shows us that these factories were able to become profitable for the market again by becoming competitive at the price of self-exploitation and operating within the very same entrepreneurial logic that prevailed before the factories were occupied. By calling attention to the mythological nature of these occupations of the workplace we do not intend to discredit the impulse that lies behind them: the people could keep their jobs in order to survive, a collective process was set in motion that could create a common project and, if any profits were forthcoming, they could be socialised. In these cases, we can see that the fact that conflicts took place after these occupations, if the managers of the enterprise quit or were dismissed, it was not because of pressure from the workers but for other reasons—economic recession, economic crimes, etc. Thus, the enterprise under the control of the workers actually means that the latter are under the control of the enterprise, that is, that the logic of competition will continue to regulate production, regardless of who manages production. If self-management causes our material conditions to improve, then we may support this process. If not, all that remains to the field of critique is how to manage capital and therefore to argue that an egalitarian capitalism can exist if the latter is managed correctly. That is, if the expropriation of the capitalist is carried out in order to redirect production towards the satisfaction of needs, then it is self-management that we will defend. Otherwise, if it is a matter of going back to work, producing in the same way and selling commodities, only now without the direction of the employer, then this is self-exploitation. The act of occupying a factory gives room to workers’ control of the labour process and to a more democratic, collective decision-making. But workers’ need to compete in the market reduces the sphere of collective decision, leading to centralisation of power and divisions between directive and productive workers, hampering the possibility for workers to enrich their job and avoid self-exploitation.

One hears arguments that capitalism is only an unjust economic system because it profits a handful of people to the detriment of the rest and so by achieving certain institutional and legislative changes that will lead to a more equitable division of the wealth that is produced by the vast majority, we have a solution to our social ills. The “revolutionary” version would want to overthrow the parasitic minority and organize, on that basis, the economy in a collective and egalitarian way. Both versions believe that the change is brought about by those who make the decisions and who decide how the economy is managed. Both versions are mistaken. Capitalism is not a very small group of rich people, this group exists and they are the ones with the most privileges in this social form, but they are only one part of the problem. We see that capitalism is a social relation that permeates all the aspects that affect us as human beings and which it falsely attempts to present as separate compartments: economics, politics, culture, etc. If we do not confront them in all their forms, capitalism will re-arise. If we do not see that it is not just a relation that is established between the powerful classes and the rest of us but instead that it is a relation that we reproduce among ourselves, horizontally, capitalism will return again once we have thrown the capitalists out of power. We thus see that, if what we are fighting for is a form of society that is not based on either exploitation or oppression, this will inevitably condition the way that every aspect of this society is managed.

We are workers, whether we like it or not. It is not a question of ethics, morality or politics, or because we want to cling to words that some have already abandoned. We are workers due to an objective issue: in the capitalist world, we are condemned to have to pass through the circuit of labour in order to survive. We are disinherited, and the fact that you may have a house or a car does not free us of this scourge. Whether we are looking for work or whether we are doing everything in our power to avoid it by taking from the state in the form of benefits, our condition is that of being exploited. And only the destruction of work and the relations that derive from it will be able to situate us in a new context. We say this it is because, at times we forget this and succumb to the widespread illusion that it is possible to escape from our class condition and transform ourselves into people who are free from capitalist relations without having to pass through the process of an open war against capital, once we have set up our business, once we are working for ourselves. And that is false. Members of co-operatives necessarily live schizophrenic lives. On one hand, they must function as owners of small businesses and contend with all the insidious forces of capitalism. At the same time, they are members of an egalitarian corporate entity working together day-in-and-day-out dealing with all the tensions arising from individual personality quirks. The ability to collectively manage an enterprise in a democratic manner isn’t utopian to us. The problem is that while there would be no external bosses, the co-operative members have to be both bosses and workers themselves. They will still be existing within a capitalist marketplace, and so will still be subjected to competition and the whims of the market. So while their boss may not cut Joe's hours, if market forces dictate it they will have to cut their own hours themselves.

Say, for example, a capitalist chain coffee shop we can call Coffeebucks opens down the road from a co-operative coffee shop. The co-op will have to compete with it in terms of prices if it is to attract customers. Coffeebucks only pay minimum wage, with no sick pay, no pensions, no benefits etc. They are also a large chain, so they can use their purchasing power to drive down suppliers' prices to get cheaper coffee and food. So they sell their products much cheaper than the co-op.  Facing going out of business, the co-op members either internalise the capitalist boss and cut their own wages, conditions or jobs. Or they go bust. In a capitalist economy, we cannot extract ourselves from the market. We cannot self-manage capitalism in our own interests as it is automatically weighted against workers. The only way we can really live without exploitation and bosses is not by internalising them but by abolishing capitalism. Co-ops facing competition do have one option which is to go more niche market: make the co-op part of their brand and market themselves to people for whom that would be a selling point, a campaign based on "Come to our coffee house, where we are still alienated and self-exploiting but y'know got to make a living somehow and it's better than working in Starbucks"

Socialism is a non-property system, and systems which accept and reject property cannot co-exist. However, critics claim that “socialistic” relationships will invade the capitalist economy. The main example of such an invasion which is sometimes presented are co-operatives. It is proposed that as socialist consciousness develops these co-ops will be gradually be gutted of their capitalist content. They will be run eventually upon the basis of “free production” and ultimately they will link together and evolve “towards a totally socialist society.” This projection of social change is incompatible with what capitalism can allow. Relationships are being envisaged as developing within capitalism which the system dooms to failure. Where is the financing of these co-ops to come from? Presumably not from workers’ savings. If capitalist banks are to provide loans to finance these co-ops is it not certain that they will make demands upon them which will undermine their “socialistic” nature? Existing within the cut-throat environment of the world market, is it not inevitable that the economic goodwill of the co-operators will be swamped by the iron laws of the profit system, with all of the exploitative demands which it places upon enterprises? Indeed, far from being able to “demonstrate a better life to workers trapped in the remaining units of capitalism”, the workers making an inevitable failure of running “free production” under capitalism would provide an ideal case study for the anti-socialist propagandists—even more so if such enterprises failed with the backing of the socialists. 

Let us remind ourselves that socialism aims not to establish "workers power" but the abolition of all classes including the working class. In socialist society, there would simply be people, free and equal men and women forming a classless community. That is the goal and co-ops are not a step on the path towards it. While the co-operative form might provide an example of how production ought to be run in a socialist society, this cannot make a meaningful and sustained contribution to the emancipation of the popular classes now. Once we realise socialism, we can call it the co-operative commonwealth, because co-operation is not a means, but the aim of the workers. It will then triumph and gather into the hands of the whole of society all capital and labour so that there shall be no more exploitation, sale, nor profits. And we are bound to say that co-operatives, as they are operated to-day, have is only one means of emancipation, viz., the capturing of the political power, and through the help of it, of the capitalist property, industrial and commercial. The socialist idea, the idea of a society owning its means of production, utilising them socially, and distributing among all its members the products of a common labour.

nothing in common with socialism. Co-ops bring nothing to the socialist movement but the fruits it can contribute when it is a socialist co-operative. Otherwise, it becomes a diversion if not an obstacle to the recruiting and developing of the socialist movement. Workers concentrate upon co-operative, carrying inside their heads nothing but commercial schemes, how to create a market for it, how to secure its prosperity and development, and thus there is no room left in their brains for the socialist idea, no more time for the socialist education, to whom we cannot repeat enough that there