We are all related

The world is changing quickly and there is a great need for people everywhere to visualize why and how it is happening. If we can see our place in the process, we can consciously and intentionally help it happen faster. Capitalism is characterized not just by inequality that’s always been a feature of class society. In 2015, the richest 1 percent of the world’s population owned as much as the remaining 99 percent combined and just 62 individuals owned more than the poorest three and a half billion people on earth. Capitalism uses a legal framework of private ownership to extract value from the labour of others. The end game is a system that hoards wealth, stifles innovation, and ultimately destroys the value created by cooperation among those who seek to do things that cannot be done alone. The Socialist Party is devoted to building a new political and economic system that is equitable and democratic. It is a challenge that brings the different peoples of the world together, to build something better together for the benefit of all people. We cannot afford not to try, nor to fail. If we can all connect the dots to see capitalism as the root cause of the problems we all face, it could give rise to a global movement powerful enough to halt the profit-driven juggernaut.

The campaigns to improve our lot under capitalism are endless. Once one form of oppression is dealt with, there’s always another left to tackle, but while engaging in that new fight, the former is bound to return because no progress is ever permanent under capitalism. Rights are won, and the next day they’re under attack. We put much of our energy into defence instead of offence. The fight against oppression is never-ending, but does that serve to focus our attention away from the larger fight; from the fight to overturn capitalism and the oppressive structures it perpetuates? We seek to reverse inequality, reduce poverty, achieve equal rights; but why must we fight so hard for basic human decency? The culture of over-work and over-competition is driving us crazy and turning us against each other. Our minds are stuck in a frame of capitalist realism where instead of challenging the very core structures that create the problems against which we fight, we target their products individually; but until the structures that create this oppression are dealt with, the fight will never be over. Racism, sexism, and the class system will always return unless the structures responsible for them are destroyed. We cannot fix the unfixable, or engage in an endless struggle for social justice in a system where justice isn’t on offer. Nor is the opposite of capitalism to be centralised state-ownership and control.

 All the while, those in control of the system get to do what they please. They make us believe we live in free societies when only they have true freedom. They set up sham democracies to make us think elected representatives will represent the will of the masses. They propagandize about the importance of a “free” media when they own the outlets through which the masses are informed, and use them to frame the discussion by distorting facts to fit their narrative and excluding stories they don’t want people to hear. They claim property ownership to be the ultimate freedom, allowing themselves to buy up vast tracts of land, while the masses have to spend a lifetime in debt just to buy a home, requiring them to submit to the wage system for the entirety of their lives in order to pay it back. Instead of placing the focus on the battles for rights and regulations that will eventually be overturned, the fight needs to be brought to the system as a whole. Instead of accepting the usual prescriptions of capitalism, let’s look beyond the horizon to formulate alternative modes of social and economic organization. These new ideas aren’t simply an update of the ideologies of old, but something new that takes inspiration from modern developments and the mass desire for a better world. Much needs to be done to open the minds of the masses to new possibilities beyond capitalism, and to redirect the energies of mass movements from remedial campaigns to political revolution, but after a long period where the pathway to such a goal was narrow, it has expanded in the post-recession era and must be seized if the oppressive structures of capitalism are to be finally overthrown. So if you want to live in a world where people come together cooperation capitalism must end.

Now imagine what kind of future most people do want. We would like to be healthy and happy, have time to pursue our passions, become skilled at doing things we love, and bestow a legacy to be remembered with admiration by our children and their children when we are long dead and gone. People enjoy leisure and developing human contact and friendships. It is in our nature to be social, to make music and art, to make love and seek pleasure. Nowhere in our DNA are we wired to indulge in the destruction of the world and our fellow human beings. Anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists all conclude that we don’t seek to dominate and oppress or to take more than our fair share. Which begs the question: Why is it that wealth and power inequality are the norm today? We have been told a great lie about capitalism — that everyone who works hard in life will be successful, make a lot of money, and have a good life. So why is it that most of us wake up in the morning and go off to jobs that make money for someone else?  Billionaires’ money get comes from the hard work of other people. They just sit back and let their stock portfolios “do the work” for them.

Imagine how the world would look if we revived the fight for beauty. We would care more for the world around us. We’d build our cities, towns, and infrastructure beautifully. We’d protect nature and the countryside, while still producing enough food. We’d care for our cultural inheritance and focus on improving our quality of life rather than striving for unsustainable levels of growth. John Muir, the environmetalist, said the fight for beauty is “not blind opposition to progress, but opposition to blind progress”. The Socialist Party is are focused on reclaiming our “common wealth” in both the economic and political sense and end the unsustainable market behavior. In the struggle for a more just society, we will be aided, not hurt, by our shared nature.

An Honorable Man!

A recent program on TV Ontario focused on the career of the Right Honourable Gentleman Winston Churchill, during WW1. It mentioned as it could not fail to, his enormous cock-up at Gallipoli. 

The significant thing is what it didn't say, which was that 30,000 young men died in the Right Honourable Gentleman's attempt to advance his career. This was something he was very open about during his early years in ''public service''. 

Nor was it mentioned that Navy head Jack Fisher and war minister Kitchener told him it was a hare-brained scheme that would not work. ''Yet Churchill was an honourable man''. 

Would it perhaps be better if we lived in a world where there were no great men, but instead a great society?

 John Ayers.

Quote Of The Month

 Voltaire said,''Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities''. 

Like making workers kill each other believing they are enemies, for example.

 John Ayers.

How do we move toward planetary prosperity?

"In virtue of this monstrous system, the children of the worker, on entering life, find no fields which they may till, no machine which they may tend, no mine in which they may dig, without accepting to leave a great part of what they will produce to a master. They must sell their labour for a scant and uncertain wage." - Peter Kropotkin (The Conquest of Bread)

The few own the many because they possess the means of livelihood of all ... The country is governed for the richest, for the corporations, the bankers, the land speculators, and for the exploiters of labor. The majority of mankind are working people. So long as their fair demands - the ownership and control of their livelihoods - are set at naught, we can have neither men's rights nor women's rights. The majority of mankind is ground down by industrial oppression in order that the small remnant may live in ease." - Helen Keller

We are living through unprecedented global change. Capitalism transformed lives by wiping out millennia-old livelihoods that were ways of life with no sharp division between work and leisure, and replacing them with dreary factory assembly line jobs where we wait desperately for weekends and holidays. For the poor, we face either no employment at all, or insecure, exploitative and unsafe jobs at construction sites, mines, and sweat-shops. Even the vast majority of those in modern sectors of work, such as the IT industry, are mere cogs in a vast assembly line stretching across the globe. During times of uncertainty and hardship, it is well known that people look for simple answers and strong leaders. The polarization of our communities divides us into “us versus them” against the very people who should be our allies.

There are a lot of people spreading false stories about what it means to be human. They tell us we are greedy and selfish, that our primary motivation is to “maximize self-interest”, and that the world is made up exclusively of individuals seeking profit for themselves. If humans are selfish and greedy, the best bet then is to let loose our greed, deregulate financial markets so the rich can “invest” in ways that bring them more wealth. Cut taxes and neglect schools, roads, hospitals (anything that benefits society) so that everyone feels like they have to go it alone. Then divide these suffering people against each other using all the tools of wartime propaganda. However, people are profoundly social. We feel inequality as a physical stress and seek fairness in our dealings with others. We are hard-wired for empathy. Nearly all of our problems are rooted in the massively unequal ownership of land, wealth, and power that exists among the 7 billion human beings on earth. These problems are rooted in the majority of the planet's population being stripped of its ability to satisfy the most basic of human needs. The crises we are going through was a direct consequence of the wealth hoarding, social inequality, and environmental harms inflicted upon the world so a tiny few could accumulate massive profits. If we are to ever establish a free and just society, mass expropriation of personal wealth and property will be a necessity. In other words, the few dozens of families who have amassed personal riches equal to half the world must be forced to surrender this wealth. Expropriation is not theft. It is not the confiscation of "hard-earned" money. It is not the stealing of private property. It is, rather, the recuperation of massive amounts of land and wealth that have been built on the back of stolen natural resources, human enslavement, and coerced labor, and amassed over a number of centuries by a small minority.

The pro-capitalist apologists argue their entitlement on the grounds:

(1) that capitalism equals freedom; or, at the very least, is the only alternative,

(2) that capitalism naturally produces "winners" and "losers,"

(3) that capitalism is as meritocratic as possible, and thus everyone has an equal opportunity to become a "winner" or "loser," and your individual outcome is based solely on your "hard work" or lack thereof, and

(4) that "winners" have earned their wealth through their own exceptionalism, and thus deserve it; while, in contrast, "losers" have earned their impoverishment through their own shortcomings, and thus deserve it.

It is an ahistorical theory that human beings, as we exist today, have just appeared in our current state, and that this state (which is rife with inequality, impoverishment, hunger, homelessness, joblessness, etc.) is justified merely by its being, because it was not shaped by history, as history does not exist. With this blank-slate approach, investigation is not necessary. Inquiry is not necessary. For the world is as it is, the systems we live in are the best we can do. However, we ultimately learn that "other people's money" is really not justifiably theirs to begin with. Instead, things like personal wealth, land, and power are accumulated in only one fundamental way: through the murdering, maiming, coercing, stealing, robbing, or exploiting of others. This is not only a historically-backed truism but it is also a fundamental truth rooted in human relations. There simply is no other way to amass the obscene amounts of personal wealth as have been amassed on earth. Whether speaking of caste systems, nobility, aristocracy, feudalism, indentured servitude, chattel slavery, or capitalism, all modern socioeconomic systems have carried one common trait: they all amount to a minority using the majority through exploitation as a source of wealth, and thus have enforced and maintained this causal relationship by the threat and use of physical force and coercion in order to protect their minority interests. From slavery and the industrial robber-baron era to the modern forms of corporate and finance capitalism, each epoch has continued seamlessly by constantly replacing and rebranding forms of human exploitation - peasant, servant, slave, tenant, laborer - as sources of concentrated wealth.

One of the basic mechanisms of capitalism is the relationship between capital and labor. No matter what argument one may make in support of capitalism, this fundamental relationship can never be denied. Everything from entrepreneurship to small, family-owned businesses to corporate conglomerates must rely on this foundational interaction inherent to this economic system. Whether branded as "crony-capitalism," "corporate-capitalism," "unfettered-capitalism" or any one of the many monikers used to distract from its inherent flaws and contradictions, proponents can't deny its lifeblood - its need to exploit labor. And they can't deny the fundamental way in which it exploits labor - by utilising property as a social relationship. It is in this relationship where masses of human beings are commodified, essentially transformed into machines, and forced to work so they may create wealth for those who employ them. This fundamental aspect of capitalism is not debatable.

The prevailing mindset within capitalist society has been to place property above all else. Consumerism equates self-worth with the accumulation of wealth, land, and other material goods, has conditioned us to view our lives and the lives as others as being secondary, or at best equal, to the value of property. Our property becomes our identity, and for this reason, it becomes as sacred and revered as human life itself. Property means dominion over things and the denial to others of the use of those things. It is the private dominion over things that condemns millions of people to be mere nonentities. The use of private property as a way to exploit others is unique to capitalism. For example, in contrast to feudalism, capitalists only allow workers access to their property during times when said workers are laboring to create wealth for said owners. In feudal times, peasants were allowed to live on this land, and even use it as a means to sustain themselves and their families, as long as this personal activity was done after the lord's work had been completed. Now, with capitalism, workers "punch in," proceed to labor for a specified amount of time in exchange for a fraction of the wealth they create, "punch out," and then are left to find their own means of housing, food, clothing, and basic sustenance with only the wage they receive. This latter task has proven to be difficult for a majority of the world's population for the past number of centuries, even in so-called industrialized nations, which is why welfare states have become prominent as a means to facilitate the mass exploitation of the working class. Capitalists and their governments learned long ago that workers must be able to survive, if only barely, so that they may continue to labor and consume. Private property is lauded by right-wing theories of "libertarianism" as the basis of liberty and freedom. In reality, private property accomplishes the opposite and makes any semblance of human liberty obsolete and impossible.

The wealthy few have stolen from the world; and have enslaved, impoverished, and indebted the rest of us (over 7 billion people) in the process. They have no right to their wealth. It belongs to us - it belongs to global society. Not so we can all live extravagant lifestyles, but rather so we can satisfy the most basic of human rights and needs - food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education - and thus carry on our lives as productive and creative human beings. Righting centuries of wrongs is not "theft," it's justice.

"In actual history, it is notorious that conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, and force, play the great part." - Karl Marx

"I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence." - Eugene V. Debs

The money system must be abolished

All over the world, we feel that there is something deeply wrong with the way we live. Capitalism mindlessly consumes resources, exhausts our soil, deplete fish stocks, pollutes the rivers and seas, and poisons the air. Human labour is just one more resource to be consumed and then discarded. Globalised capitalism is vampire-like web, parasitically sucking the blood and life-force of the planet’s peoples. The Socialist Party's mission is to cast some light on the darker side of capitalism. Our vision is of an abundant, peaceful, sustainable and cooperative society that to some may seem impossible. The socialist solution appears 'utopian' and not practical and for many the efforts to realize this vision should be abandoned in favour of more short term, pragmatic but insufficient remedies. But this is the goal we must aspire to if we seek a sustainable economic system because the one we have now is no longer viable. The mainstream media are doing everything they can to convince us that the solution to our social and environmental problems is going to be found in the very same policies that have created them in the first place. Their T.I.N.A. [There is No Alternative] narrative continues to dominate the debate and the result is that it is infecting people with cynicism and apathy. Rather than accept present day logic the Socialist Party seeks to navigate societal life away from the destructiveness of constant economic growth.

Murray Bookchin possessed a vision of democracy and majority voting, which he considered as the only equitable way for a large number of people to make decisions. According to him consensus, in which a single person can veto every decision, presents a danger for society to be dismantled. However, all members of society possess knowledge and memory, and thus the social collectivity does not have an interest in depriving “minorities” of their rights. For him, the views of a minority are a potential source of new insights and nascent truths, which are great sources of creativity and progress for society as a whole. Through the electoral processes, Bookchin strives at “liberating” the people from politics, and no longer leaving it in the hands of professional “representatives”. Although the system enables people to vote for their representatives, we don't have to look far to see that election campaigns are funded by wealthy elites, that elections only partially or superficially address important issues, and that politicians consistently abandon campaign promises. Politicians are professionals whose careers depend on obtaining power. Regardless of the intentions of the politician, he or she soon learns that for their career to remain and prosper they must serve economic interests, rather than the people who they are supposed to represent. Representative governments and the bureaucracies that sustain them are fundamentally opposed to popular democratic power. Whatever power the State gains is at the expense of popular power, and any power that people gain is done at the expense of the State. It is thus futile to turn to the State with major appeals for change, for these appeals would only be subverted by the State in an attempt to strengthen its own power. To be sure, there are reforms that are necessary and valuable. But if we only work for the completion of these minor reforms, then the root causes of social and environmental problems will persist, and worse, grow and intensify. As long as we live under the State’s power, we cannot expect to have full control over our lives, to fulfill all of our needs, and to be free from oppression altogether. No decision is democratically legitimate unless it has been proposed, discussed, and decided upon by people in a face-to-face assembly. Professional politicians cannot handle social decision any better than “amateurs” everyday people, who reflect a range of perspectives and possess detailed knowledge of the experiences of daily life.

Unlike the widespread current acceptance of nature as a commodity, as something separated from society, Bookchin viewed it in direct link with social life, relationships, and values.  His essential premise is that all environmental problems are rooted in social problems. He supports Peter Kropotkin's argument that mutualism is as essential, if not greater, a component of evolution than what is commonly referred to as competition, that a participatory and cooperative outlook focused than a “struggle for existence”. Capitalism is an economic system that necessitates continuous expansion, exploitation, and the concentrated ownership of wealth. The driving force of capitalism is the competitive market. The market economy's essential purpose is to sell commodities for profit. Profit has to be realized, regardless of the broader effects the commodity has on the environment or society at large, or the capitalist will go bankrupt. In order to gain a competitive advantage over other businesses, the capitalist is compelled to eliminate all social constraints on the exploitation of labor, and to reinvest a large portion of accumulated profits into technologies that will increase productive capacity, thereby lowering the cost of production through its economy of scale. A slow process of cannibalization occurs in which businesses must fail thereby causing wealth to be concentrated into the fewer hands of those who succeed. Due to the “grow or die” imperative imposed by the market, economic growth cannot be contained by moral persuasion, it must continue to expand without any regard for human needs or environmental impact.

Thus, capitalism should be seen for what it is, a malignant cancer. It will continue to grow. The rich never have enough. The more they get, the more they want. Under capitalism, people get rewarded according to their profitability, and economic decisions are put into the individual hands of those who control land, money, machinery, and technical knowledge. Each actor must do what it takes to keep their sales going or else face bankruptcy or unemployment. Due to the market imperative to sell, every aspect of life is eventually assigned a price tag. Not only is this system undemocratic, it is also dehumanizing. Community relationships and the whole orientation of society are reduced to business relationships while individuals are fixated on egotism and conspicuous consumption. Capitalism also has a destructive effect on the urban environment. Instead of humanly communities, industrial capitalism has created mega-cities and urban sprawls. People have become anonymous in their environs.

History has shown that there is ever growing potential in what we can achieve. The socialist concept of freedom is twofold, freedom from exploitation and the freedom to realise one's own individual potential as a human being. A socialist society would seek to minimize anyone's suffering while enabling everyone to fulfill their creative potentials. Socialism is a society of empowered individuals freed from an exploitative market and freed to participate in an economy based on the common-good. Socialists maintain that there are no technical impediments to achieving a “post-scarcity” society of relative abundance. Modern technology, for instance, holds the potential of producing a sufficiency of goods for all people, while reducing the hardships of human labour. The fact that robotics and automation can be used to provide for everyone's needs gives people a choice of what extent to utilize such techniques. What is important is that these technologies can be decentralized and placed under the direct control of a community. Today, capitalism creates an artificial scarcity of goods, while the mass media is used to generate artificial needs in our minds. A post-scarcity society is made possible by rejecting the notion of limitless needs, and replacing it with a commitment to enhance the welfare of all individuals and our environment.

The move from our current society to the free society necessarily involves convincing a majority of the population to support these ideals. To do this, we must build a movement that is organised around the socialist vision. The Socialist Party’s electoral attempts are never be engaged for the purpose of gaining a large following. Losing by a large margin is desirable if people are not yet educated on the ideas being promoted. If a socialist campaign ever surrenders its far-reaching goals to gain a large following, it will inevitably become ineffective, demoralized, and corrupted. It is desired that educated individuals, not propagandized voters, come to accept and join the socialist movement. A different kind of society is truly possible for us to achieve together. Let us begin to take the steps necessary for collectively freeing ourselves from the irrational system that enslaves us.

We oppose nationalism.

Scottish nationalism did not go away with the referendum. Repeated calls are being made for a second referendum. The starting point of any nationalism is the assertion and appreciation of a particular group: “we”. Scotland as a nation was taken for granted by all sides arguing over Scottish independence. The British State considers Scotland a nation and itself a country of four nations. Consequently, Scottish nationalists did not have to agitate for its recognition as a nation. The taken-for-granted starting point for all separatist and unionist agitation was Scotland and the referendum simply presupposed Scotland and the Scots as a collective who now decide on an important aspect of their lives. The referendum could happen because the British State, which asserts absolute authority over its citizens, gave a part of itself — the Scottish Government — permission to subjugate a part of the British population in the case of “Yes” vote.

“We” is also the assertion of an accordance between the people of the nation (“Scots belong and fit together”). When nationalists speak of “us”, they do not simply mean to describe a group that is somehow distinguished from the rest of humanity like “all people with brown hair” or “all people who like tea”, instead “us” characterises a community. Nationalists think that their personal interests and the interests of other members of the community — and hence of the community in total — are somehow aligned. Not necessarily perfectly so but at some level. Nationalists think that somehow the national community is the place where they fit in, where their purposes have a place, where people accomplish their respective goals somehow with each other. They believe that there is a connection, some accordance, some cohesion even, that “we” are “better together”. Nationalists differ in where they see the basis of this accordance. Some see the basis for why “we” fit and belong together in a presumed common biology (“Celtic blood”, “Aryan race”), some in a common culture (language, customs, cultural values) and some even in a common conviction (constitutional patriotism). None of these reasons holds water. There is no “Celtic blood”, language does not preform thought but ideas can be expressed in any language, a habit of drinking tea makes for a tea drinking society, not an all-encompassing community. For example, Cornish nationalists invoke a wide range of historical, political, linguistic and cultural reasons to illustrate that Cornwall does constitute its own nation.

Nationalists identify with their nation. Nationalists assert that belonging to a certain nation is not a lifestyle choice, a conscious, calculated decision or a particular interest, it is an identity. To nationalists, being Scottish or English is not something you decide to do, but it is something which claims to define your being. For an English nationalist when eleven English players win a world cup, we won the world cup in 1966. Thus if the British State goes to war, we go to war and its soldiers are fighting for us. The assertion “we” is as much an invitation as it is a demand. Firstly, “we” is an invitation to look beyond the day-to-day competition and to recognise the needs of the community as being greater than mere individual materialism and calculated decisions for personal gain. Secondly, “we” is also a demand that this unity is not up for debate, it is an invitation you cannot refuse, it is essential.

A lot of energy is spent by professional nationalists — politicians, journalists, teachers, etc. — on educating the population about “their” national customs, culture and history. Students learn the national language, learn about national history, about their “cultural heritage”. National holidays encourage the celebration of the nation. Nationalists hold that a national community requires actualisation in a state. Nationality — in the eyes of nationalists — is an identity which requires a political authority. The nationalist proposition is “the right of nations to self-determination”. Or rather the right of their nation to self-determination, e.g. “Scotland should be an independent country”. Even if the “Yes” campaign had won the independence referendum, it would not have been “the Scottish people” who would have given themselves a state. The Scottish independence referendum was an attempt of a nationalist movement — around the Scottish Government — to subjugate Scottish people under a new state. If the “Yes” agitation had been successful, then the Scottish Government would have subjugated those it defined as Scottish under a new Scottish state, regardless of whether they voted “Yes” or “No”.

The “Yes” campaign and the Radical Independence Campaign argued for independence by listing many nice things which could be done in an independent Scotland: better health care, higher benefits, greener energy … None of these policies were actually on the ballot. The ballot did not ask voters what they think of the welfare state, citizenship laws or where government spending should be directed. The question was if the authority ruling over Scotland should be Scottish and this is the first standard by which nationalists judge it.

Nationalists judge all and sundry from their nationalist standpoint, also other nations and their states. On the world stage, nation states confront each other with their demands and compete for power. They compete economically, threaten each other with their military might and engage in open war. Nationalists observe these conflicts in a peculiar way. To nationalists, their own nation is the home of the decent and universal, the guarantor of everything that is good in the world. In contrast, other nations are merely French, Russian, American etc. The respective national standpoints are merely their particular standpoints. This does not necessarily make them foes, but every nationalist can identify base motives driving other nation states’ policies. Watching a BBC report on Russia compared with RT provides ample material of this kind. From this perspective then, it only makes sense for nationalists to wish their own the best of luck in every endeavour, even the most contemptible ones.

Adapted and abridged. Full original article can be read here

Sheep No More

To paraphrase Martin Luther King, we must shift from a thing-oriented society where the profit motive and property rights are considered more important than people, to a community and person-oriented society. A world without capitalism and its hierarchies and domination, its environmental destruction is often depicted as “utopian” and “unrealistic” by the mainstream media but it is what the Socialist Party strives towards as an achievable and attainable goal. It is not some future mirage from the books but our capacity to imagine real radical change in society which inspires us. There’s no time for self-doubt and despair. Our political activism goes beyond the “either/or”. We need a revolution that establishes new foundations. We need a revolution of solidarity that benefits all. This revolution will not be achieved by switching political power from one party to another. We reject the politics of lesser-evilism. After decade after decade of failed reforms, we are well aware that existing institutions are not up to the task of carrying through system change. The actions of businesses are limited by their adherence to the profit imperative and the pressure to grow shareholder value, while governments are constrained by short-term political imperatives and their commitment to economic growth above all other concerns. Change ‘within-the-system’ changes are not succeeding, and often do not even generate the small wins or incremental improvements that they seek. Time for ‘outside-the-system’ change for a sustainable future society. The problems of the world are so immense and interrelated, and the need for a global revolution and social transformation is urgent. The Socialist Party is drawing the battle lines worldwide. The nationalist call for separate nation-states results from the interests of the ruling class but does not reflect the interests of the people, since another state would only involve the creation of additional injustice.

We live in tumultuous times. Who knows what possibilities still lie ahead? Faced with a relentless austerity assault, protesters seek to secure some of the most elementary ingredients of a just, humane and democratic society. The one solution is to unite people throughout the world, which is our only hope for social transformation on a planetary scale. The only solution is the power of the people united. Politicians don’t like it when people come together because then they are threatened with losing their power and privileges. No other solution will work until the people across the globe rise up in unison and in doing so, we recognise that we are one humanity. The millions of people who shout for justice are standing for a better world. The politicians may decry these spontaneous uprisings as leaderless or unstructured, but they do not understand. Ordinary men and women are shouting out with the people’s voice on behalf of all the human race. It may please the populists who blame the bankers for all of society’s problems, but it will never bring a solution to social injustice as long as the system itself is based on the interests of privilege and wealth.  Imagine if there were millions of people demonstrating for sharing across the world, not for a redistribution of tax revenue, but saying ‘The food in the world belongs to everyone.” All for all. Each person in the world is family.

Socialism is the only humane alternative to capitalism. The role of the working class is the most critical. Only workers —labour in the broadest sense of the term that would include both the so-called blue-collar and white-collar workers—can bring an end to the rule of capital. Transforming the world economy in the interests of the majority of the people is not easy. It is clear, however, that to change the world economy in the interests of the majority of its inhabitants, workers need a new politics and new organisations to articulate the struggle for change. This requires a new independent labour movement to represent the interests of the entire working class and to challenge the logic of the profit-driven market.

Not The Way To Go

While the French authorities were busy dismantling the migrant camp at Calais, scores of migrants attended the final service at their makeshift church. They squeezed into it and prayed for a place to go. It's really pathetic how little the working class has learned. 

They appealed to an invisible, non-existent being to solve their problems when, like the petitioners in ''The Wizard Of Oz'', if only they realized it, they have the power to do that for themselves. 

John Ayers.

A Strange Anti-poverty Plan

The trauma of many in matters concerning the Toronto Transit Commission continue. Advocates for the poor are attacking the city administration for dragging their feet in creating a discounted transit pass for them. They say this is not consistent with Mayor Tory's anti-poverty plan - what a joke. A debate on the matter scheduled for October 26 has been delayed till December, and to think this is something the council voted to study in July 2014. Tory made it clear that it's unlikely any low-income fare policy will be implemented until late 2017 at the earliest. 

Under capitalism, if your poor don't expect politicians to bust their buns to help you. 

John Ayers.

The Battle-Field of Ideas

We are a movement of ideas; ideas cannot be imprisoned, they cannot be killed, and they do not require leaders. Across the world, it is becoming clear that the capitalist system is in its death throes, and that it must be put out of its misery before it takes us down with it. The acceleration of environmental destruction is unimaginable and it's happening quicker and quicker. We increasingly understand our responsibility in its dismantling. Whatever your particular campaign — be it the environment, food sovereignty, labour rights, or simply wanting the world to be a better place— it’s time to link up. Socialism needs to be an open and diverse movement. Many different people have contributions to make. Radical grassroots movements are the groundwork for the new world we carry in our hearts.

People refer to the 99%, The Socialist Party prefers to refer to the working class. When they hear the term working class, some people think simply of factory workers, but this is not what we mean. The working class is not limited to blue collar workers in factories, but instead, it includes all of us who are forced to sell our labour power to survive. This includes people who are in paid employment, whether in a factory, office or retail store. It also includes those who are unable to find paid employment, who provide a vast potential pool of labour that enables the ruling class to further keep wages down. The working class includes stay-at-home parents. It includes people who are too sick or unable to work for other reasons and their carers. In short, if you don´t own a business or if you aren't independently wealthy then chances are you are a part of the working class. It is necessary to understand how society is structured and how capitalism actually functions, in order to know where our collective strength comes from. One thing, from looking at this history, is abundantly clear. Mass action is vital for mass change. If you look through history, time and time again, it is when large groups of people have got together and shown themselves to be a threat to those in power that concessions have been granted. This happens on a small scale as well as a big one – when employees at a small business go on strike and refuse to work until their boss gives them a pay rise, the boss is forced to listen. Capitalism is not a static system, it is ever changing and adapting in response to situations. The threat of working class power has resulted in a number of changes to the functioning of capitalism over time. As workers, we create wealth for the bosses each and every day at our jobs. Some of this wealth is returned to us in the form of wages, but much is stolen. This stolen wealth is often called ¨surplus value¨. It is the accumulation of surplus value, stolen by our bosses, that forms the wealth of the ruling class. But because the goods and services that create this surplus value ultimately come from our hands and our brains, through collectively withdrawing our labour, we can force the bosses to give in to our demands. Taking collective action the workplace is one way we can impose our power on the bosses to help us better meet our needs and desires. It is important to recognise that this collected voice of engaged workers who are aware of the need for world reconstruction and renewal can be sufficient to challenge the immense forces of profit, greed, and control that stand in the way of transformative change. For global citizens who identify themselves as part of an emerging world community, the starting point is recognising our common humanity. When accept that the world is ‘one human family’ with the same needs and rights, as ourselves, the first priority must be to provide the very basics to those in a life-threatening state of deprivation. This may sound like utopian thinking but it assumes that the precondition of curative world change is goodwill from ordinary people towards the most deprived and marginalised people of the world. It assumes nothing more than redirecting public attention towards immediate human need, a fundamental reordering of global priorities in favour of securing the most basic necessities of food, water, healthcare and housing for the majority poor. For the necessary social transformation to come about by democratic means we will have to want these changes for ourselves. Few people are likely to oppose the restructuring of modern societies if it leads to less formal working hours, more recreation time, a less frenetic pace of life and greater well-being for all. Nonetheless, the desirability of a new way of living has to be recognised by a majority of people. Can we foresee masses of ordinary people who genuinely identify themselves as brothers and sisters of one human family, and who therefore demand that all the resources, technology and scientific know-how of the world are freely shared among everyone? It is a revolution of people coming together for the first time in human history, the united voice of the people, consciously mobilised in all lands towards a common set of principles and aims – world socialism.

Humanity’s Big Bang

We live in a world filled with loving and caring people. We all crave a world of compassion. Yet most of us cannot experience such relationships beyond our own private lives and homes. Why? Because the ethos of the capitalist marketplace places the greatest value on money and power. The truth is that most of the suffering in the world is directly attributable to capitalism. If it were not for the capitalist system, most of the social ills in the world could be eliminated, hunger, ignorance, homelessness, environmental destruction, congestion, warfare, crime, insecurity, waste, boredom, loneliness, and so forth. Capitalists are not merely thieves; they are murderers. Their theft and murder are on a scale never seen before in history. In the capitalist economic marketplace, we are taught to look out for ourselves, maximize our profits, and do what we need to do to get ahead, even at the cost to other people. Even much of the suffering caused by hurricanes, floods, droughts, and earthquakes can be laid at the feet of capitalism because capitalists prevent us from preparing for and responding to these disasters as a community, in an intelligent way. And capitalists are to blame for the increased severity of some of these events due to global warming, which capitalism has caused. The current economic and political system has created an unprecedented environmental crisis that is wreaking havoc on peoples’ lives and has the potential to destroy the life-support system of the planet. As the crisis intensifies and the system shows signs of degrading, the ruling class, rally support for their system by undermining democratic rights and imposing authoritarian rule.

It is now too late to avoid some of the impacts of climate change and the possibilities of worse to come is more than a little troubling. We simply don’t know how bad it will get but capitalism was well warned of the impending catastrophes. But because more and more are becoming aware of an approaching apocalypse there exists a chance for meaningful change. People are beginning to understand that minor tinkering with the current system is not the answer and they are engaged in re-thinking their previous assumptions. The “bottom line” is always of money and power and we are increasingly realising it. People everywhere are recognising that the current system is built on manipulation and deceit and is now obsolete. Everyday more and more people are more and more aware of the human potential. People are beginning to conceptualise something massive on a global scale that envisage new ways of living that will make our modern age like look the Dark Ages.

We have been so conditioned to believe that the world we want is impossible. Popular culture promotes this view and makes it seem true. But the Socialist Party strives to help to create a world in which we see and value each other’s humanity where compassion and kindness can flourish in our communities and our workplaces. Rejecting the “common sense” of capitalist society that human beings are primarily motivated by their narrow material self-interest of greed and selfishness is a central message of the Socialist Party. We envision a new kind of political movement that could actually win majority support for transforming our world, a fundamental reshaping of our economic system, political system, and societal practices.

The socialist revolution is a revolution of revolutions. It does not come top-down from the predetermined theory of one man (despite the contribution of many like Marx) or one party, which creates followers and dogma. Instead, it will come from the awakening political consciousness of each of us, igniting a critical mass of spontaneous transformation. It will come from the very grassroots, affecting all forms of social relations, the political and economic structures and our ecological approach. The purpose of the Socialist Party is to help catalyze this movement’s emergence—to articulate it and help put it into action—by gathering and joining together with others inspired by the same revolutionary spirit of cooperative synergy. Socialism is all about redesigning the decision making of human systems. Socialist ideas empower people. The achievement of workers’ control alone would leave no way for the community as a whole to allocate its resources (e.g., to decide whether to phase out a project or start up a new one), whereas the achievement of community control alone, without simultaneously controlling the means of production, is meaningless, empty.

There are thousands of organisations seeking to resist some aspect or other of what is an unjust or environmentally destructive world. All too often, these groups know what they are against but fail to offer a vision of the world they are for. These movements try to avoid anything that sounds “too ideological” out of fear of splintering the group or losing funding. They believe they will be more successful if they focus on just a specific struggle without trying to educate people about how the global system works or connect the disparate parts.  When success inevitably fails to materialize this leads to exhaustion, burnout, and cynicism about any possibility of transformation and they become deeper immersed in the swamp of reforms. The Socialist Party strategy is to show people from all different struggles to see their common interests and the need to work together to build socialism. Without this, we have little chance of heading off the disasters that face humanity in the coming decades. It may take a long time of commitment until we reach a tipping point, but at that point, millions of people will suddenly realise that they would not be alone in acting on their yearning for world socialism based on solidarity. At that point, a non-violent transformation of our world becomes possible. It is the contention of the Socialist Party that every human being is capable of living in harmony with one another and with the planet. This potential is systematically thwarted in a society in which people are encouraged by the dominant culture to focus primarily on their own needs without simultaneously putting equal energy into developing a world which supports the actualization of everyone else’s needs. We can’t be who we need to be without everyone else being able to achieve his or her fullest human capacities. It is the frustration of these needs, as much as the denial of material well-being and political rights that underlies the suffering of much of humanity today.

Some might ask “Why don’t they tell us how we are ever going to achieve all this?” We don’t pretend to have the full step-by-step strategy and tactics all worked out and can offer only a guide-line and sign-posts, not an actual blueprint. Our main point is that our case for socialism is enough of a contribution to help unify and bring together the various strands and organisations of social change, a sufficient vision to the people in the world who have never even heard these kinds of ideas so that they can be taken seriously in the public sphere. We are not about winning this or that election so much as we are about fostering a new way of thinking and winning the battle of ideas. You can help by popularising these ideas. The Socialist Party is a consciousness-raising movement, so our primary task, like that of the other major movements that have had a lasting impact, is to refuse to compromise our ideals for the sake of short-term political gain. We must instead advocate for our fullest vision and insist on why it makes the most sense as the path to heal present-day society. You can never know what is possible till you struggle for what is desirable. The socialist vision, needless to say, is “unrealistic” and “not feasible” in the sense that it does not conform to the assumptions of politicians and the mass media. But we all know inside of us that our well-being depends on the well-being of everyone else on the planet and on the well-being of the planet itself.

Humanity on a deadline

'When it comes to climate change, there’s precious little time for lesser evils; the physics—as scientists are quick to tell us—has put humanity on a deadline.' - Kate Aronoff, political commentator

If current economic, social, political, and environmental trends continue, as they seem set to, the future seems ominous. There has been rapidly worsening decline in living conditions for many: poverty, inequality, unemployment, sickness, pollution, and the erosion of social and political rights. There is a tendency to perceive these and other ill-effects as separate problems when, in fact, they are all connected. They can all be traced to a single source – the capitalist system. As George Monbiot explains capitalist liberty is, “Freedom from unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation is the freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, and charge iniquitous rates of interest. Freedom from taxes means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.”  Governments around the world have allowed corporations to continue their iniquitous behaviour, further impoverishing billions, worsening inequality, and eventually wrecking the planet.

Our world is being ravaged for the profits of the few. We are poisoning of soil and seas. Wars are instigated by elites for interests that only benefit themselves. Isn’t it ridiculous that when the financial system slumps millions go poor and hungry, while there is enough food, manpower, and means to provide for everyone? Everything is economised, which means if you don’t increase profit to the system, read are old, sick or unemployed, you are a burden to society – non-earning humans. Rather than provide cures politicians sell us palliatives to treat the symptoms. Why aren’t enough people doing something about it? Perhaps because people are willing, collaborative, positive kind people, we trust the promises. Changing leaders changes little. Others take their place and nothing really changes. So don’t expect any new prime minister or president to be a solution. Throughout the world there is discontent and the dissatisfaction is growing.

If you hope to have more control over your own life and not be exploited by others, you owe it to yourself to learn about the principles and vision of socialism. The Socialist Party introduces you to the idea of a society based on common ownership. It is a society beyond capitalism. For socialists, it is a dilemma in that we are aware how much the world is in trouble and yet be hopeful about the future. We don’t have to sit back and watch the world collapse around us. Socialists voice the truth in a world where almost everyone is living in self-deception and that means confronting the herd mentality of our fellow-workers. Socialists desire to live the way we want to live and not the way our masters seek to impose upon us. We require that we be in community with and make connections to others of like heart and mind. Our shared awareness of our problems means we can create solutions for them. In order to maintain our sanity, we need to not only understand our potential but also recognize that we are not responsible on our own for fixing the world. Ask any psychologist about the human mind and they will tell you we are wired for human connection. We feel a strong foundational need for belonging. This need is so fundamental. Similarly, the fundamental unit of human existence is the group and not the individual. Power goes to the people that see their personal happiness and security is bound up with all people meeting their common needs for happiness and security. There is unity in recognising that our problems are one and the same.

Socialist question all beliefs that have been handed down to you from tradition, no matter how back in time they go. This will help you see the world with differently and will allow you to better understand it and your relation to it. Socialists challenge those who want to keep humanity enslaved, the politicians and the capitalists. Never forget that this economic and political system is not for us. Party platforms and campaign promises are routinely violated is undeniable. The only route to a better world is through mass movements articulating clear goals. But instead of settling for reforms, the only way out of our present crises is to push beyond what is possible in the world’s present political systems.

Some day we will have Socialist Party candidates who we can vote for rather than the lesser evil who we presently vote against, but there is much work to do before we reach that day. Socialism is something we have to build it together and fight for. The Socialist Party accept that common ground is not always possible or even advisable. Some things need to be argued over because our class interests, our ideological understanding, our political projects are not simply different; they are often in opposition to each other. Sometimes we need to stop talking and just do what we believe we have to do. If people know why they believe what they believe, and have already considered the arguments we make and reject them, so be it. Time will be better spent engaging those who are more receptive to our ideas. The reason people don’t act on the crises humanity is now facing, is simply they don’t have confidence in how to do it.

Hope is an essential ingredient for change. Let’s be clear about what hope is not. Hope isn’t blind confidence that things will, somehow, work out. Hope possesses power. It takes courage to speak out and demand change. It requires that we not allow ourselves to be side-tracked from our goal. Our task remains the same: organise and mobilise as never before for socialism. Cynicism and despair are among socialism’s worst enemies that dilute our creativity and energy.

Falling Costs In Winter

A recent report from the Toronto Public Health Department stressed the need for the city administrators to do more to protect people, especially seniors, from falling on the ice in the winter. The report suggested the city should lower the threshold for sidewalk snow clearing from eight centimetres to two.

 During the last ten winters, almost 30,000 people went to emergency rooms and 2800 were admitted, because they fell on the ice – 225 had life-threatening injuries. The average age of the injured was 51, prompting Antony Quinn, a director of CARP to say, ''It can make them afraid to venture outside. Fear of falling causes them to be less active which increases their chances of falling again.'' The report emphasized this costs the City of Toronto $6.7 million annually in claims.

 In other words, it would be cheaper to do a better job - another lovely aspect of capitalism - to put a price on people's well-being. 

John Ayers.

Dreaming Beyond Capitalism

Things are changing and a lot is at stake. It is even possible that civilisation may collapse in our lifetime. We need a revolution that builds new foundations for humanity. We need a revolution of solidarity. This revolution will not be achieved by switching government from one party to another.

For much of the last million years, human beings have lived in communities; in fact, the era in which we have not is only a tiny fraction in the entirety of human history. Making our human existence compatible with nature again may well be our only opportunity to secure ourselves and our children a future worth living. We need a revolution. Poverty is a tremendous waste of human resources. The human potential that is lost is massive. Real political change is a revolution of social consciousness. We need to be unified. For that, we have to heal the divisions the elite fuel within the working class: the antagonisms of white vs. black, men vs. women, young vs. old, native vs. newcomer. This requires being organized. Just being angry isn’t enough; unless we actively join with others, we won’t be able to build a successful alternative to the capitalist parties. Working together is an antidote to the isolation that can afflict those who try to go it alone. Bonds of comradeship and solidarity sustain us in difficult times.

Reformism hasn’t yielded any lasting changes. Reforms have had only a temporary impact. A kinder, gentler capitalism is impossible, and the hopeful rhetoric of progressive reformists isn’t going to change this economic reality. Their program is designed to divert potentially revolutionary energy into the dead-end of tinkering with the system, trying to fix it. But capitalism isn’t broken; this is how it functions. We have to junk it, not fix it. It needs to be replaced with socialism. The two systems are mutually antagonistic, and the struggle between them can’t be comprised. From the 1950s to the ’70s unions were able to force through higher wages and better working conditions in many industries. Back then capitalists could afford this because the main market for products was the home country, and higher wages stimulated consumption. This Keynesian approach created a bubble of prosperity in North America and Europe that has now burst and can’t come back. The hard-fought gains of those days are being reversed because the world market has become more important than the home country. To compete globally with low-wage countries such as China, India, and Brazil, corporations here have to slash their labor costs. The pressure of international competition is being shifted onto us, the workers. These conditions will inevitably intensify; capitalism needs ever more profits to keep growing. It finances its expansion through bonds and bank loans, so it needs increasingly more money to pay the interest charges. And it must invest more in plant and equipment to stay competitive. Its rate of profit is always under pressure. And if it stops growing, it dies. The rival capitalist blocs are fighting among themselves in a dog-eat-dog struggle for survival. To lower costs and hold on to its markets — to remain top dog — the elite are pursuing repression at home and war abroad.

The Socialist Party is opposed to capitalism. The economic system based on private property and production for a profit literally creates poverty by depriving the poor of the means of subsistence. The poor are then exploited by the rich as a source of cheap labor. As long as there is capitalism, there will be poverty, misery and exploitation. We are opposed to borders. Borders are artificial barriers that divide us and facilitate our exploitation. They allow the rich and their investments to pass easily while impeding the free movement of people. Borders are the inhuman laws that allow humans to be labeled “illegal” and exploited as cheap labour. We want economic equality and industrial democracy. We want the land and the means of production and distribution held in common. We want a state-free society—a society without rulers and ruled. We want political institutions created out of free association and not coercion. We want autonomy and self-government for all peoples and for all people. We want a class-free society, where people are free to define themselves and interact as equals. We want local, regional and global solidarity and mutual aid. Those who profit off of misery will do everything in their power to maintain the world as it is. Only through struggle on the part of the poor and exploited, against their exploiters can we ever hope to bring about an end to exploitation. A global socialist organisation is our link to the future. It gives us assurance that knowledgeable and committed people will be there to make it happen: to overthrow capitalism and build socialism, in which the resources of the world are used to meet human needs rather than to generate profits for a few owners.

It may already be too late. Much environmental and social harm has already been inflicted.

How we became slaves

“You wretches are detestable both on land and on sea. You seek equality with the lords, but you are unworthy to live. Give this message to your fellows: rustics you are, and rustics you will always be. You will remain in bondage, not as before, but incomparably harsher. For as long as we live we will strive to suppress you, and your misery will be an example to prosperity.” Richard II

Despite what you might have learned, the transition to a capitalist society did not happen naturally or smoothly. The peasants didn’t want to give up their rural communal lifestyle, leave their land and go work for below-subsistence wages in the factories being set up by a new, rich class of landowning capitalists. And for good reason, too. Using Adam Smith’s own estimates of factory wages being paid at the time in Scotland, a factory-peasant would have to toil for more than three days to buy a pair of commercially produced shoes. Or they could make their own traditional brogues using their own leather in a matter of hours.

In order for capitalism to work, capitalists needed a pool of cheap, surplus labour. Adam Smith’s proto-capitalist colleagues complaining and whining about how peasants are too independent and comfortable to be properly exploited, and trying to figure out how to force them to accept a life of wage slavery. Over time, they enacted a series of laws and measures designed to push peasants out of the old and into the new by destroying their traditional means of self-support, forcing the peasants off the land such as the enactment of so-called Game Laws that prohibited peasants from hunting.

Daniel Defoe, the novelist noted that in the Scottish Highlands:

“people were extremely well furnished with provisions. … venison exceedingly plentiful, and at all seasons, young or old, which they kill with their guns whenever they find it.’’

 If having a full belly and productive land was the problem, then the solution to whipping these lazy bums into shape was obvious: kick them off the land and starve them into the new towns and rising cities by fencing off the commons.  

John Bellers, a Quaker “philanthropist” saw independent peasants as a hindrance to his plan of forcing poor people into prison-factories, where they would live, work and produce a profit of 45% for aristocratic owners:

“Our Forests and great Commons (make the Poor that are upon them too much like the Indians) being a hindrance to Industry, and are Nurseries of Idleness and Insolence.”

Arthur Young, a popular writer and economic thinker respected by John Stuart Mill, wrote in 1771: “everyone but an idiot knows that the lower classes must be kept poor, or they will never be industrious.”

Sir William Temple, a politician and Jonathan Swift’s boss, agreed, and suggested that food be taxed as much as possible to prevent the working class from a life of “sloth and debauchery.” Temple also advocated putting four-year-old kids to work in the factories, writing:

‘‘for by these means, we hope that the rising generation will be so habituated to constant employment that it would at length prove agreeable and entertaining to them.’’

John Locke, often seen as a philosopher of liberty, called for the commencement of work at the ripe age of three.

David Hume, that great humanist, hailed poverty and hunger as positive experiences for the lower classes, and even blamed the “poverty” of France on its good weather and fertile soil:

“‘Tis always observed, in years of scarcity, if it be not extreme, that the poor labour more, and really live better.”

Reverend Joseph Townsend believed that restricting food was the way to go:

“[Direct] legal constraint [to labor] . . . is attended with too much trouble, violence, and noise, . . . whereas hunger is not only a peaceable, silent, unremitted pressure, but as the most natural motive to industry, it calls forth the most powerful exertions. . . . Hunger will tame the fiercest animals, it will teach decency and civility, obedience and subjugation to the most brutish, the most obstinate, and the most perverse.”

Patrick Colquhoun, a merchant who set up England’s first private “preventative police“ force to prevent dock workers from supplementing their meager wages with stolen goods, provided what may be the most lucid explanation of how hunger and poverty correlate to productivity and wealth creation:

Poverty is that state and condition in society where the individual has no surplus labour in store, or, in other words, no property or means of subsistence but what is derived from the constant exercise of industry in the various occupations of life. Poverty is, therefore, a most necessary and indispensable ingredient in society, without which nations and communities could not exist in a state of civilisation. It is the lot of mankind. It is the source of wealth, since, without poverty, there could be no labour; there could be no riches, no refinement, no comfort, and no benefit to those who may be possessed of wealth.

What was true for English peasants is still just as true for us.

From here

Abundance and Scarcity

First we have to define what scarcity is. Orthodox economics argue it is limited supply - versus- boundless demand. Our wants are essentially “infinite” and the resources to meet them, limited, claim the economists. Von Mise claims that without the guidance of prices socialism would sink into inefficiency. According to the argument, scarcity is an unavoidable fact of life .It applies to any goods where the decision to use a unit of that good entails giving up some other potential use. In other words, whatever one decides to do has an "opportunity cost" — that is the opportunity to do something else which one thereby forgoes; economics is concerned with the allocation of scarce resources .However, in the real world, abundance is not a situation where an infinite amount of every good could be produced. Similarly, scarcity is not the situation which exists in the absence of this impossible total or sheer abundance.

Abundance is a situation where productive resources are sufficient to produce enough wealth to satisfy human needs, while scarcity is a situation where productive resources are insufficient for this purpose. Abundance is a relationship between supply and demand, where the former exceeds the latter. In socialism, a buffer of surplus stock for any particular item, whether a consumer or a producer good, can be produced, to allow for future fluctuations in the demand for that item, and to provide an adequate response time for any necessary adjustments. Thus achieving abundance can be understood as the maintenance of an adequate buffer of stock in the light of extrapolated trends in demand. The relative abundance or scarcity of a good would be indicated by how easy or difficult it was to maintain such an adequate buffer stock in the face of a demand trend (upward, static, or downward). It will thus be possible to choose how to combine different factors for production, and whether to use one rather than another, on the basis of their relative abundance/scarcity.

We are seeking what some call a "steady-state economy" or "zero-growth", a situation where human needs are in balance with the resources needed to satisfy them.

Such a society would have decided on the most appropriate way to allocate resources to meet the needs of its members. This having been done, it would only need to go on repeating this continuously from production period to production period. Production would not be ever-increasing but would be stabilised at the level required to satisfy needs. All that would be produced would be products for consumption and the products needed to replace and repair the raw materials and instruments of production used up in producing these consumer goods. The point about such a situation is that there will no longer be any imperative need to develop productivity, i.e. to cut costs in the sense of using fewer resources; nor will there be the blind pressure to do so that is exerted under capitalism through the market. Technical research would continue and this would no doubt result in costs being able to be saved, but there would be no external pressure to do so or even any need to apply all new productivity enhancing techniques.

In a stable society such as socialism, needs would most likely change relatively slowly. Hence it is reasonable to assume that an efficient system of stock control, registering what individuals actually chose to take under conditions of free access from local distribution centres over a given period, would enable the local distribution committee to estimate what the need for food, drink, clothes and household goods that would be required over a similar future period. Some needs would be able to be met locally: local transport, repairs, and some food produce are examples as well as services such as libraries and refuse collection. The local distribution committee would then communicate needs that could not be met locally to the bodies charged with coordinating supplies to local communities.

The individual would have free access to the goods on the shelves of the local distribution centres; the local distribution centres free access to the goods they required to be always adequately stocked with what people needed; their suppliers free access to the goods they required from the factories which supplied them; industries and factories free access to the materials, equipment and energy they needed to produce their products; and so on. Production and distribution in socialism would thus be a question of organising a coordinated and more or less self-regulating system of linkages between users and suppliers, enabling resources and materials to flow smoothly from one productive unit to another, and ultimately to the final user, in response to information flowing in the opposite direction originating from final users. The productive system would thus be set in motion from the consumer end, as individuals and communities took steps to satisfy their self-defined needs.

Socialist production is self-adjusting production for use. It will be a self-regulating, decentralised inter-linked system to provide for a self-sustaining steady state society. And we can set out a possible way of achieving an eventual zero growth steady state society operating in a stable and ecologically benign way. This could be achieved in three main phases.

First, there would have to be urgent action to relieve the worst problems of food shortages, health care, and housing which affect billions of people throughout the world.

Secondly, longer term action to construct means of production and infrastructures such as transport systems for the supply of permanent housing and durable consumption goods. These could be designed in line with conservation principles, which means they would be made to last for a long time, using materials that where possible could be re-cycled and would require minimum maintenance.

Thirdly, with these objectives achieved there could be an eventual fall in production, and society could move into a stable mode. This would achieve a rhythm of daily production in line with daily needs with no significant growth. On this basis, the world community could live in material well-being whilst looking after the planet.

Socialism will seek an environmental friendly relationship with nature. In socialism, we would not be bound to use the most labour efficient methods of production. We would be free to select our methods in accordance with a wide range of socially desirable criteria, in particular, the vital need to protect the environment. What it means is that we should construct permanent, durable means of production which you don’t constantly innovate. We would use these to produce durable equipment and machinery and durable consumer goods designed to last for a long time, designed for minimum maintenance and made from materials which if necessary can be re-cycled. In this way we would get a minimum loss of materials; once they’ve been extracted and processed they can be used over and over again. It also means that once you’ve achieved satisfactory levels of consumer goods, you don’t insist on producing more and more. Total social production could even be reduced. This will be the opposite of to-day's capitalist system's cheap, shoddy, throw-away goods with its built-in obsolescence, which results in a massive loss and destruction of resources.

We have said above that the most urgent task will be to stop people dying of hunger but the supply of decent housing will require a vastly greater allocation of labour than any necessary increase in food production. This means that a great surge of required materials and equipment will flow through the units producing building supplies. A structure of housing production that is generally adjusted to the market for housing under capitalism, which is what people in socialism would inherit, will in no way be able to cope with a demand for housing based on need. So, within the wider context of a democratically decided housing policy, in which questions of planning and the environment would have been taken into account, the job of implementing housing decisions would eventually pass to the committees or works councils throughout the construction industry.

We see the technological perfection in modern society – automation. And we see also a productive apparatus capable of producing more than a sufficiency for all. The age-long problem facing man – production – has been solved. The very evolution of capitalism itself has solved the problem of production. The material conditions are now ripe for the establishment of Socialism. The " World of Abundance" referred to by socialists has never referred to the open-ended consumerism encouraged by the advertisers but has rather as its target a stable and more satisfying way of life in which the scramble to accrue things is no longer central. With material survival removed from the marketplace by the abolition of commodity production, we can expect that individuals will calm down their acquisitive desires and pursue more satisfying activities.

For socialism to be established, there are two fundamental preconditions that must be met. Firstly, the productive potential of society must have been developed to the point where, generally speaking, we can produce enough for all. This is not now a problem as we have long since reached this point. Secondly, the establishment of socialism presupposes the existence of a mass socialist movement and a profound change in social outlook.

When we propose different scales of social co-operation such as local, regional and world scales, this is not a question of there being a hierarchy with power located at any central point. What we anticipate is both an integrated and flexible system of democratic organisation which could be adapted for action to solve any problem in any of these scales. This simply takes into account that some problems and the action to solve them arise from local issues and this also extends to the regional and world spheres. Crucial to the question of democracy is not just the ability to make decisions about what to do but also the powers of action to carry out those decisions. But with the abolition of the market system, communities in socialism will not only be able to make free and democratic decisions about what needs to be done they will also be free to use their resources to achieve those aims. Problems are not solved with money resources. They are solved by people using their labour, skills, and the necessary materials and there is, in fact, an abundance of these material resources. But it will take the relations of common ownership to release them for the needs of communities and this will also mean that communities will be free to decide democratically how best to use those resources.

If people didn’t work then society would obviously fall apart.

If people want too much? In a socialist society "too much" can only mean "more than is sustainably produced."

If people decide that they (individually and as a society) need to over-consume then socialism cannot possibly work.

This does require that we appreciate what is meant by "enough"

To establish socialism the vast majority must consciously decide that they want socialism and that they are prepared to work in socialist society. The establishment of socialism presupposes the existence of a mass socialist movement and a profound change in social outlook. It is simply not reasonable to suppose that the desire for socialism on such a large scale, and the conscious understanding of what it entails on the part of all concerned, would not influence the way people behaved in socialism and towards each other. Would they want to jeopardise the new society they had helped create? We think not. If people cannot change their behaviour and take control and responsibility for their decisions, socialism will fail.