Thoughts about socialism

There are many organisations claiming to fulfill the requirements of a workers’ party. We are not the only group calling ourselves socialist. Anyone seeking to understand what is wrong with present-day society will come across others, all having some such word in their names as “socialist”, “workers”, “revolutionary” or “communist”. Most of these will be of Leninist or Trotskyist origin and have aims, theories, and methods which are not shared by ourselves. By fostering wrong ideas about what socialism is and how it can be achieved these organisations are delaying the socialist revolution. Their basic position is that ordinary people are not capable of understanding socialism, that only a minority of people can understand socialism and are organised as a “vanguard party” with its own hierarchically-structured leadership to lead the workers and hand down “the party line” to the rank-and-file. Contempt for the intellectual abilities of the working class led to the claim that the vanguard party should rule on their behalf, even against their will. Having satisfied themselves that the task is impossible, they then proceed to matters of the moment, reaching an accommodation with capitalism and endeavouring to reform it. 

Vanguardists may protest at this summary, they may insist that they are very much concerned with working class consciousness, and do not assert that workers cannot understand socialist politics. However, an examination of their propaganda reveals that ‘consciousness’ means merely following the right leaders. Their basic idea that most people are not able to understand socialism is just plain wrong. Becoming a socialist is to recognise that present-day society, capitalism because it is a class-divided and profit-motivated society, can never be made to work in the interest of everyone. These are conclusions which people can easily come to on the basis of their own experience and reflection and in the light of hearing the case for socialism argued. Not only can people understand socialism, they must understand it if socialism is to be established. What has been lacking is the understanding and will among those men and women who would most benefit from it. This view held by the Socialist Party, that socialism can only be established when a large majority of the working class understand it, is constantly being attacked. If left-wing parties refuse to take up the revolutionary position which aims at the abolition of the wages system and the conversion of state and private property into common property, then they remain parties of capitalism regardless that they claim to oppose it. Socialism depends on working-class understanding in the same way as capitalism depends on working-class acquiescence and support. The socialist transformation of society is different from all previous ones. It must be the work of the majority acting for themselves by themselves

Since our inception in 1904, our objective, has remained the same - "The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of society as a whole." 

From this statement, it follows that a socialist society must be one without social classes, the abolition of nation states and governments, the end of money and prices and wage-labour. We socialists speak of a community based upon co-operation, free labour, of free access to all goods and services produced by society for all, based on their own self-determined needs, of democratic administration but the absence of government; a society where the fundamental needs of every human being could be met. Democratic control is not an optional extra of socialism. It is its very essence. Socialism is a society based on the common ownership of the means of life but, since something cannot be said to be commonly owned if some have a privileged or exclusive say in how it is used, common ownership means that every member of society has to have an equal say. If there wasn’t such democratic control there wouldn’t be common ownership so there wouldn’t be socialism. This being so, socialism cannot be imposed against the will or without the consent and participation of the vast majority. It simply cannot be established for the majority by some vanguard or enlightened minority. That is our case. The socialist revolution can only be democratic, in the sense of both being what the majority of people want and of being carried out by democratic methods of organisation and action. No minority revolution can lead to socialism. Hence our conclusion that the movement to establish socialism, and the methods it employs, must “prefigure” the democratic nature of socialism. The very nature of socialism as a society of voluntary cooperation and democratic participation rules out its being established by some minority that happens to have got control of political power, whether through elections or through an armed insurrection. People cannot be led into socialism or coerced into it. They cannot be forced into cooperating and participating; this is something they must want to do for themselves and which they must decide to do of their own accord. Socialist society can function on no other basis. Socialists place participatory democracy at the very core of our social model.

The word democracy comes from the Greek: "demos" and "kratia". It essentially means "people power" or "rule by the people", i.e. it is about the majority being able to make decisions and put them into effect. Socialism and democracy are complementary; more than complementary – indivisible since the only possible basis for creating an enduring, truly democratic community is through the conscious choice of strong, independent, politically aware individuals. Capitalism is the antithesis of democracy. Mainstream political theory and practice tries to separate politics from economics. "Political democracy" is allowed in an approved form, but economic democracy is impossible because of economic inequality; the majority are deprived of ownership and control of the means of life. Only when people have real, democratic control over their own lives will they have the freedom that is socialism. Socialism will do away with the inequality of capitalism. With free access to what has been produced, everybody (that's absolutely everybody) will be able to decide on their own consumption and living conditions. Poverty will no longer limit people's lives and experiences. There will be no employment, no employers and no capitalist class. Nobody will, therefore, be able to make decisions about the livelihoods and, indeed, the very lives, of others. Nobody will have privileged access to the media and means of communication and so be in a special position to influence the views of other people.The uncontrollability of the capitalist economy will be a thing of the past. Production will be for use, not for profit. A free environment of free people will have no private property, consequently no exchange of property, therefore no need for a medium of exchange. With all the paraphernalia of money, prices, accounting, interest rates, there will be no obstacles to people producing what is wanted.

Socialism will involve people making decisions about their own lives and those of families, friends and neighbours - decisions unencumbered by so many of the factors that have to be taken into account under capitalism. The means of production (land, factories, offices) will be owned in common, and everybody will help to determine how they will be used. This need not mean endless meetings, nor can we now give a blueprint of how democratic decision-making in socialism will work. Quite likely there will be administrative structures at different levels, local, regional and so on. This will not just be the trappings of democracy but the real thing - people deciding about and running their own lives, within a system of equality and fellowship. The essence of democracy is popular participation, not competing parties. In socialism, elections will not be about deciding which particular party is to come to "power" and form the government. Politics in socialism will not be about coercive power and its exercise and so won't really be politics at all in its present-day sense of the "art and practice of government" or "the conduct of state affairs". Being a classless society of free and equal men and women, socialism will not have a coercive state machine nor a government to control it. The conduct of public affairs in socialism will be about people participating in the running of their lives in a non-antagonistic context of co-operation to further the common good. Socialist democracy will be a participatory democracy. The socialism, as envisioned by the Socialist Party, in the words of Marx, will be "a society in which the full and free development of every individual forms the ruling principle", a society "in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." Voluntary solidarity, not compulsion. The greatest degree of individuality is found where there is the highest social organisation and co-operation. This will apply to human beings in socialism. Individual self-expression, self-interest, and social responsibility are the natural incentives for human activity and will prevail in a sane socialist society. In socialism, we wouldn’t be free to do whatever we wished. A socialist society will have to operate according to rules. But the constraints on our personal freedom would be self-determined by local communities agreeing as equals and not imposed on us by the state.

It benefits the workers of the world to organise to defend and extend democratic rights; to widen the democratic space as much as possible. For democracy is the way in which we can unite to free ourselves from the insanity of the profit-system and domination by a minority ruling class. We can replace oppression with equality, waste of resources with production directly for use, and systemic competition with cooperation for the common good. We can create the world that we want, fashioned by the majority, in the interests of the majority. All past changes were due to humans acting in their interests. We have the opportunity to act in ours. Engels wrote that “when it gets to be a matter of the complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must participate, must understand what is at stake and why they are to act”.

The Socialist Party is an organisation of equals. There is no leader and there are no followers. Everybody in the Socialist Party has equal value and equal power. As previously explained many of the so-called socialist parties do not accept the statement of Marx that the emancipation of the working-class must be the work of the working-class itself, but contend that the workers must be aided and guided by the more enlightened. The Socialist Party is committed to a policy of making sure that hearing the case for socialism becomes part of the experience of as many people as possible. It is committed to treating other workers as adults who are capable of being influenced by open discussion, public debate and rational argument and will not to try to hoodwink or manipulate them. It commits us to opposing the whole concept of leadership, not just to get socialism but also for the everyday trade-union struggle or community action to survive under capitalism. We do not seek to lead such struggles but limit ourselves to urging workers to organise any particular struggle in a democratic way under the control of those directly involved. Our own party is organised on this basis and we envisage the mass movement for socialism, when it gets off the ground, being organised too on a fully democratic basis without leaders. The Socialist Party doesn't have a leader because leadership is undemocratic. If there are leaders, there must be followers: people who just do what they are told. In the Socialist Party, every individual member has an equal say, and nobody tells the rest what to do. Decisions are made democratically by the whole membership, and by representatives or delegates. If the membership doesn't like the decisions of those it elects, those administrators can be removed from office and their decisions are overridden.

The more who join the Socialist Party the more we will be able to get our ideas across. And the more experiences we are able to draw on and the greater will be the new ideas for building the movement. That is where the Socialist Party can come in, through making socialists, through that and that alone—making people committed heart and soul to working class interests, democracy and the establishment of socialism. When workers have a strong emotional and practical commitment, they can make grass roots democracy work. It's up to us to encourage that commitment. Because we want socialism, we see our party’s task as to concentrate on spreading socialist ideas. The Socialist Party does not advocate reformism, i.e. a platform of reforms with the aim of gradually reforming capitalism into a system that works for all. While we are happy to see the workers’ lot improved, reforms can never lead to the establishment of socialism and tend to bleed energy, ideas, and resources from that goal. Reforms fought for can, and frequently are, taken away or watered down. Rather than attempting gradual transformation of the capitalist system, something we hold is impossible and has been proven by a century of reformist platforms of so-called workers’ parties which have led instead to the reform of such parties themselves to accept capitalism, we believe that only socialism can end forever the problems of our present society such as war, poverty, hunger, inadequate health-care and environmental degradation. Social harmony is to be sought not by a legislative reform, but by removing the causes of antagonism.

We, socialists, have never tried to forget the obvious fact that the working class does not yet want socialism, but we are encouraged by the knowledge that we, as members of the working class, have reacted to capitalism by opposing it. There is nothing remarkable about us as individuals so it cannot be a hopeless task to set about changing the ideas of our fellow workers - especially as they learn from their own experience of capitalism. The self-emancipation of the working class remains on the agenda. It is not the wish of the Socialist Party to be separate for the sake of being so. The position is that we cannot be a popular reform party attempting to mop up immediate problems, and revolutionary at the same time. We cannot have a half-way house; nor can we accommodate the more timid members of our class who abhor what they describe as "impractical" or "impossible" policies, and spend their time looking for compromises. The socialist case is so fundamentally different, involving as it does the literal transformation of society, that we must expect mental resistance before socialist ideas have finally become consolidated in the mind. The master-and-servant mentality is imbued in the worker. Left -Wing propaganda offering leadership adds to the impression that he is an inferior being who is incapable of thinking, organising and acting. If workers do not accept the need to establish a revolutionary system of production based on democratic control and common ownership, there is no other way open to them to achieve their release from capitalism. It is all or nothing. There has been no shortage of diversions along the way. How much stronger would we be if our fellow workers had not experienced that bitter disillusionment of failed reformism and the indignity of abandoning principles for the sake of short-term gains? Pitiful has been the wasted energies of workers who, instead of uniting uncompromisingly for the socialist alternative, have gone for reformist or other futile options. We have seen a century of cruelly extinguished hopes of those who heaped praise upon the state-capitalist hell-holes which posed as "socialist states" which pseudo-socialists promoted. The system which puts profit before need has persistently spat the hope of humane capitalism back in the face of its advocates. The progressive enthusiasm of millions has been stamped out in this way. Dare we imagine how different it will be when all that energy which has gone into reforming capitalism goes into abolishing it? As for the claim that the capitalists might use violence to stop the establishment of socialism, well they might, but what chance would they stand against a conscious movement of well-organised workers? Would the army and police (just wage slaves in uniform) allow themselves to be used to murder their brothers, sisters, parents, and friends?

Emancipate the Mind

The owners of all resources and means of wealth form one; the owners of labour power, the ability of others, another class. The capitalist class owns and controls the economic resources of the world. That class, for its own protection and perpetuation in power, subjects all institutions to its own interests. Capitalist ownership of industries had its origin in the unfolding of conditions which hastened the downfall of the feudal system, and the advent of the capitalist class to power. The feudal lords had to surrender their supremacy to the ascending bourgeoisie. When the workers understand how the capitalist system of today has developed they will not wantonly destroy what generations of industrial and social forces have brought forth. The workers will apply the knowledge of ages to build the foundation of a new industrial and social system.

Many people in the workers' movement talk incessantly of the rising tide of class struggle as if revolution is on the immediate agenda. This belief does not correspond to reality. We must advocate revolutionary, militant, mass criticism.

Few gains are being made by workers and more often than not organised workers are enduring losses in real wages. The frequency and extent of strike activity is well down. The effects of the capitalist crisis have been felt almost entirely by the working class and the pressure on the “middle class” is pushing them “down” into the working class. The result of the crisis has been the temporary intimidation of parts of the working class, making it in many ways more difficult for us to organise. There is a low level of militancy and union membership is declining. Workers have been forced into retreat while employers' profits rise. The people are still apathetic, unawakened and collectively weak yet despite handicaps and disadvantages more and more people have now seen the need for more struggle and many are becoming active in resisting in white-collar jobs such as junior doctors and airline staff. A new upsurge of class war has taken shape and is now assuming the form of a social movement. 

All our hopes and aspirations are based on the possibility of the total overthrow of capitalism. We are engaged in the building of a mass socialist party and class movement, made up of workers everywhere building the fighting bodies of a workers’ movement. Out of our actions, with the attendant frustrations and awareness of limitations, arises a need for a reassessment and to take a hard look at our aims, our directions, the scope of activities of the struggles.  Our socialist revolution is a revolution to eliminate the exploiting class once and for all. The Socialist Party's task is to root out all the ideas of the ruling class which is injurious to the people. Political, judicial, educational and other institutions are only the mirror of the prevailing system of ownership in the resources and means of production. The working class alone is interested in the removal of industrial inequality, and that can only be accomplished by a revolution of the capitalist system. The workers, in their collectivity, must take over and operate industry, the means of production and distribution, for the well-being of all humanity. Harmonious relations of mankind in all their material affairs will evolve out of the change in the control and ownership of industrial resources of the world. That accomplished, the men and women, all members of society in equal enjoyment of all the good things and comforts of life, will be the arbiters of their own destinies in a free society. We need socialism more urgently than ever.

No return into barbarism

Secular Scotland

More Scots than ever have described themselves as having no religion, according to new research.

The Scottish Attitudes Survey, compiled by the independent research body ScotCen, found 58% of respondents said they had no religion at all. When the survey was carried out in 1999, the figure was 40%.

The Church of Scotland has seen the sharpest decline, with just 18% saying the belong to the Kirk. The Church of Scotland figure for 1999 was 35%. 

Researcher Ian Montagu said, "As each generation coming through is consistently less religious than the last, it is hard to imagine this trend coming to a halt in the near future."

Great Minds Don't Think Alike.

I recently read a BBC report in which Prof. Stephen Hawking calls for leading nations to send astronauts to the Moon by 2020.

"Spreading out into space will completely change the future of humanity," he said.

How can one criticise the opinions of such a distinguished thinker?  Well, I think that another renowned thinker called Karl Marx had a better idea for changing the future of humanity. A moneyless society, where the means of production would be owned and used to everyone's benefit.

I was watching a programme about work going on at the South Pole. All the equipment and housing and machinery had to be moved to a safer area because of a great crack in the ice were threatening the whole project. All the people were removed back home because of a perceived danger as winter approached again.   You can be sure that no buying and selling of food took place between the workers while on the South Pole.

On the Moon dangers arriving so far away would not be so easy to avoid. The question of money being used between exchanges of necessities unthinkable  

The problem for the vast amount of people is they work for wages or a salary and projects such as this require money. The capitalist class may spend money on Moon projects should they perceive a profit in doing so, however, I think we should take the road Marx declared. "Abolish the Wages system."

.

Let's change the world for the better

 The world is experiencing negative political changes. “The uncomfortable truth,” Istvan Meszaros argued 15 years ago, “is that if there is no future for a radical mass movement in our time, there can be no future for humanity itself.” 

Class determines everything from where one lives to one’s likely life expectancy, to the food one eats. How bad must it get before we put an end to the insanity of it all? It has got to end; we can no longer continue to live like this. But new trends are developing below the surface. 

Political parties alternate holding office but the rule of capital always remains. Capitalists believe that the magic of the market will solve all the planet's problems. You don’t have to be a socialist to know that the political order is a corporate and financial plutocracy. Examining data in the United States from more than 1,800 different policy initiatives in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, reseachers Gilens and Page found that wealthy and well-connected elites consistently steer the direction of the country, regardless of and against the will of the U.S. majority and irrespective of which major party holds the White House and/or Congress.  “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy,” Gilens and Page wrote, “while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.” As Gilens previously explained, “ordinary citizens have virtually no influence over what their government does in the United States.”

To be successful in capitalism a capitalist must have a supply of disposable people. The greed and selfishness that the capitalist economy inspires seem to impact every area of social interaction. In the USA, nearly two-thirds of all working-age poor are actually working, but unable to earn a living wage, forcing them to rely on food stamps, which only provide about $5 a day per person for meals.  We live in a world where working people are denied access to the wealth that they help to create. As a consequence, the vulnerable working class have entered a more precarious state than ever. 

The Socialist Party calls for the end of exploitation and an end to the domination of the few privileged over the majority.  We view our fellow-workers as the revolutionary force that could overthrow the tyranny of the capitalist system, freeing people and breaking their chains of wage-slavery. Sadly, organised labour is at a low level since the Great Depression with the unemployed and the underemployed desperate. The “gig economy” is pauperising a growing segment of the labour force.  

Socialism is the answer to a great many of our problems and needs to be placed at the heart of a new approach to living, locally, nationally, and globally. It is a unifying sharing principle that will encourage cooperation, which, unlike competition, brings people together and builds social solidarity.

 We hold that as the Labour Party is committed to the policy of trying to reform capitalism, instead of the policy of abolishing capitalism. We counsel our fellow-workers to ignore with contempt such a treacherous party. Have nothing to do with them.  The Socialist Party is not opposed to the Parliamentary system. We hold that the only important thing that is wrong about Parliament, from our point of view, is that it is controlled by the wrong people and for the wrong purpose. Its M.P.s at present have been sent there by electors who want capitalism to be retained. When a majority of the electors have become socialists they will send their delegates to Parliament with the mandate to establish socialism. In the words of our Declaration of Principles, the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, will be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation. We have never been beguiled by various opposing views that have had their long or short periods of popularity. The Socialist Party never went in for theories of armed revolt or general strikes, or "taking and holding" the factories by industrial organisations. Nor did we ever give support to the idea of soviets or dictatorship.

The Future Is Yours To Mould (1945)

From the January 1945 issue of the Socialist

Standard

The Allied Powers have again asserted their supremacy and are ruthlessly stamping out the opposing forces. It has now become certain that victory is for the Allies on the Continent. As the conflict nears an end, the press, the pulpit and the radio prepare the minds of the people for things to come.

Let us cast our minds back to the “dark days,” when Britain stood alone with her “back to the wall." The capitalist class suddenly discovered there seemed to be some sort of inequality existing among the people of this fair isle (a startling discovery), and began to voice opinions such us, "Why should rich men's sons go to public schools and poor men's not? Why shouldn’t working men and women have a decent standard of living? As a matter of fact, why should there be any unemployed? By gad, sir, something must be done about it! But for this war being in the way, we might get on with the job immediately. Drat those Nazis! Let us all throw our weight on the oars and pull together until such time as we have rid ourselves of this menace."

So the workers fell in and pulled on the oars of the good ship “Kidology," sailing towards the ever-receding mirage of security and plenty.

The time for the pay-off is coining near, but there seems to be a change in the attitude of our saviours; their voices are weak, we can't hear them any more. The opinions of our masters and their henchmen have changed. Now it is, “We will have to work hard for the peace or else we can have no new order." No, your eyes have not deceived you; you did read in a newspaper that unless we find a foreign market for goods there will not be any employment for the working class. Yes, you also read that British shipping would be in a very bad position after the war. “What is this all about? Why, didn't someone say something about this before?"

Someone did tell you about it. The Socialist Party of Great Britain told you, as we told your fathers during and after the last war, that war solved no problems for the working class; that conditions after the war would be the same as before—nay, even worse. War is a product of this system of society, as unemployment is, and all the other miseries the working class are subjected to. No one is going to “save" the workers. No one is going to lead them into paradise. Your fathers fell for that tale after the last war. They left things to leaders, then sat back and waited. Whilst they waited in poverty, the rotten conditions got some of them and they drank themselves to death: others just died the natural death of a worker, in the workhouse.

You are young, fellow-worker—the future is yours to mould. Are you going to go on in the same old way as your fathers did, or are you going to make an effort to understand the world in which you live? Until you do, you are doomed. You are going to feel the cold, clammy hand of poverty in its worst form. You are going to know what means test investigation is: what it means to stand in a dole queue and wish to Christ you had never been born; see your children grow up and then be snatched from you, to go out and kill or be killed in a war where the bombs will be “better and more beautiful.” War is as sure to come under capitalism as day follows night.

It is quite simple to understand the fundamentals of Socialism. One doesn’t require an awful lot of study to realise there are two classes in society. You, fellow-worker, belong to the working class, the useful section of society— makes all the wealth. You build the palaces, the mansions whose labour, when applied to nature-given material, and the liners. You also build the rotten bug-walks you live in.

The other section—only a small fraction of the population—own and control all the means of living. Only when this section can find a market for their goods is the machinery of production set in motion. Only when this section can find a market for their goods do the working class find employment. When goods are piled high and no market is to be found, the workers are unemployed and go hungry. Goods are produced for profit, not for use.

War results from different sections of the international master class searching for places to dump goods, sources of raw material or trade routes. Whether the country of their birth has a large empire or none at all makes no difference to the working class. They have nothing to sell but their labour-power, which they sell to the highest bidder, the amount received in return is only enough to replace the workers’ energies and reproduce the species, that there may be someone to slave when they are thrown on the scrap-heap, incapable of acting their part as work beasts.

There is only one way by which the workers can escape the hell which they are subjected to, and that is to realise the only solution is Socialism—the common ownership of the means of production and distribution, and their democratic control by the whole people. Socialism will only be possible when the majority of the people understand and consciously organise to capture the powers of government, including the armed forces.

Fellow-worker, you have a duty to perform to your children. Your job is to seek knowledge and organise for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. In years to come, when your children ask you, "What did you do after the last war. Daddy?” don’t let it be said you hung your head in shame and said, "Nothing, Son.” Rather let it be said. "I fought along with my comrades to establish Socialism.” The world is yours to mould.

Bert Vallar

Solidarity-Based Economics

Why do so many members of the working class find it difficult to understand the socialist case? Certainly not because of its complications. On the contrary, it must be because of its simplicity. So accustomed are they to having placed before them the complicated plans, programmes and policies of other political organisations that the simplicity of the socialist proposition makes them suspect that there must be a flaw somewhere.

The detailed plans of reformist left-wing parties, their hotch-potch of incomprehensible “immediate demands”, and the populist's cunningly conceived schemes of currency reform cranks gives them the idea that politics is most complex. Then to be told that all their problems have a common origin in the capitalist system of society and that the solutions lie in the abolition of capitalism, leaves them somewhat bewildered and suspicious. The socialist declares that the workers have it in their power to build a society wherein the wealth produced shall be freely available to everyone without the need to buy, sell or exchange everything that is required. To imagine themselves having access to the goods that they have worked to produce without having to ask “How much?” or "Can I afford it?” makes many workers smile and shake their heads. They recognise everything as the property of some person or persons. They accept without question the fact that goods are only available to them when they can afford to buy. The proposal that there can be a condition of things where the institution of buying and selling does not exist, makes them look for a flaw.

The socialist recognises that the present system of producing things in order that they may be sold, and that someone may make a profit out of the process, is the cause of all working class problems. From this root cause arises the poverty of the workers with its attendant problems of housing, malnutrition, overwork and unemployment, economic insecurity, crime, etc. Also from the same source comes the greatest of all catastrophes, War. To eliminate these evils It is necessary to remove the cause.

So what must we do? If the cause is private ownership with its production for sale, what stands in the way of abolishing this condition? Private ownership. Only things that are owned by someone can be sold or exchanged. When goods are produced they are not made available to the producers. They remain in the hands of those who own the tools and machinery which are used to make them. By virtue of their ownership these people have the right to say what shall be produced, how much shall be produced and how the goods and services shall be distributed. The whole of the structure of present day society is directed towards maintaining this order of things. The majority of the workers accept this system, governments administer it, police, judges and jailers enforce it, soldiers, sailors and airmen fight for it, and the owners of the land, mines, factories, transport systems, workshops, etc., thrive on it. Only the socialist challenges it. Socialism being the conversion of private property into common property replacing competition with co-operation will restore society from one of wanton waste into one of plenty, where human beings will take from society according to their need, freed from the necessity of having to live for others but where man can finally live for himself but in cooperation with others. We of The Socialist Party have cherished no fond delusions concerning the Labour Party. From our inception we have consistently opposed it.

We must aim for a world in which men and women are truly free and can move over the earth as they like without meeting economic hardship or racial prejudice and violence. Until that happens, the reformist tinkerings will continue to blunt themselves against an insoluble problem. Whilst capitalism lasts, the hardships of the working class will follow them all over the world. That is the lesson they must learn. There is no hiding place down here. The basic fallacy of all nationalism is in seeking national solutions to world problems. The working class is a world-wide class. A change of state would not help solve working class problems any more than a change of government. For their cause lay not in the form or type of political set-up but in the economic system. Workers of all lands should unite to change this system from one based on the class ownership of the means of life to one based on common ownership and democratic control with production for use, not profit.

We address you not as citizens of one country to citizens of another but as world socialists to fellow members of the world working class. We reject frontiers as artificial barriers put up by governments. All men are brothers and the world should be theirs. All men should be social equals with free access to the plenty that could be if only the means of living belonged to a socialist world community. We oppose governments everywhere, all nationalism, racism and religion, all censorship, all wars and preparations for war.

Fellow-workers, we share your distaste for the indignities and hypocrisies of the present order. We share your wish for a new society with no exploitation of man by man. But do not underestimate what a task it will be to change society. It will be a hundred times more difficult than changing the government. A democratic world community, based on common ownership with production for use not profit, can only be set up when people want it and are ready to take the steps needed to get it up and keep it going. Democratic political action is the only way to Socialism. There are no short cuts. We must have a majority actively on our side.  Political power is always in the hands of those who control the machinery of government, including the armed forces. Do not be misled by those who say that universal suffrage is a fraud. Learn from your masters. You too must organise to win political power if you want a new society. Do not let cunning politicians assume office on your backs. Ignore those who would be your leaders. Rely on your own understanding and organisation. Turn universal suffrage into an instrument of emancipation.

Socialist Standard July 2017

• Editorial: Burning Injustice
• Pathfinders: Farron, Fossils and Fire Ice
• Road-map to Socialism
• Russia 1917: As We Saw It
• Cooking the Books: The Magic Money Tree
• Greasy Pole: Theresa - Strong And Stable
• Material World: One Thing the Romans Did For Us
• Corbyn: What He Did Achieve and What He Could Not Have
• Terrorism: What is the Truth?
• The Civil War in Yemen: Britain Supports Our Bastards
• Ups and Downs in China
• After the Show has Passed
• Cooking the Books: Back to Basic
• Proper Gander: Maid In America
• Book Reviews: 'Why the Dalai Lama Is a Socialist', & 'The People's Marx. Abridged Popular Edition of the Three Volumes of Capital'
• Exhibition Review: The Peace Museum, Bradford
• 50 Year Ago: Middle East War – the Aftermath
• Don't Read This Unless You Believe That Our World is in Need of Urgent Change
• Cartoon: Free Lunch
• Rear View

Reclaiming Socialism

ABOLISHING WAGE SLAVERY

Capitalism is now being increasingly challenged.  Yet socialism has lost its position as the goal. The “socialist” parties now support capitalism but with a human face. The word "socialism" lacks a clear, concrete definition.  To enrich and strengthen anti-capitalism by giving it such a definitive objective, we need to envision a socialism that can inspire and motivate.

The ability to find paid work is rooted within supply and demand. If there is a demand for your labour, and few can supply it in the same way you do, you will do well. If many can supply it just like you, you may not do so well, but you may also manage to just get by if you’re lucky.  Without paid work, you suffer deprivation and misery. we cannot guarantee that everyone can always find jobs for the fulfilment of their basic needs. The Socialist Party proposes that can stop requiring the exchange of money for basic needs, making things like food, water, and shelter entirely free.  This would end the price system and make the requirement for money redundant. Work will be motivated not by money but by a planned economy for goods and services. Money itself loses meaning. The result is something more like an economy based on resources instead of money, where what is possible is measured by if we can physically achieve it instead of if we can “afford” it. Some may call this post-capitalist common ownership. Others may call it a Star Trek economy. Still, others may call it a resource-based economy. But it doesn’t really matter what we call it. Our critics argue that this would, in turn, destroy the ability to calculate just what to produce, how much of it produce, and where it’s needed. We say, that is not so and we can rationally determine planning by calculation-in-kind

No one person can claim 100% ownership of their wealth. It’s all fractions of the whole. As the saying goes, no one person can make a pencil. As simple a creation as that seems, it is the collective work of humanity. The wood comes from somewhere. The graphite comes from somewhere else. The eraser and what comprises it comes from elsewhere. Shipping networks transport raw materials that are made into component parts that are manufactured into a finished product that is shipped all over the world. More than that, no one alive thought of the pencil. That person is long dead. We all prosper because of knowledge from the past, passed down to us. This is our collective “something for nothing” we all enjoy on the one hand while deriding the idea of something for nothing on the other. Civilization itself is something for nothing. It is the result of billions of interdependent parts working together as part of a social system known as humanity.

Socialism is rule by the working people. They will decide how socialism is to work. This was how Marx and Engels defined socialism. The task of socialists, therefore, is to help and guide the transfer of power from capitalists to working people.  To use the word “socialism” for anything but working people’s power is to misuse the term. Nationalisation of mines, railways, steel, etc. is not socialism. Nationalisation is simply state capitalism, with no relation to socialism. Nor is the “welfare state” socialist.  “Welfare” in capitalism is to improve the efficiency of that state as a profit-maker, is not socialism but a form of state capitalism. It can be an improvement on capitalism with no welfare, just as a 40-hour week is an improvement on a 60-hour week. But it is not socialism. As capitalist crisis develops the “welfare state” also inevitably turns into the “means test state”.

Socialism is a type of society in which all the members of the community collectively determine their conditions of life and their way of living. In order to do so, they must own and control, collectively, the use to which machines, factories, raw materials – all the means of production – are put. Unless the means of production are effectively in the hands of the whole society, not as today where 1% of the population owns more than half the wealth of the world, there can be no question of the collective control of the conditions of life.

Every capitalist competes with every other one for a market. When they sell similar goods, their competition is obvious. Even when they sell altogether different goods, like TV sets and houses, they still compete for the limited wage-packet of the worker. If one capitalist does not compete, he is lost. To become big the Capitalist must first squeeze out his weaker competitors and add their capital to his – centralisation of capital – or make as much profit as possible from his current sales and reinvest it – accumulation of capital.

Never underestimate the unwillingness of someone to see the reality, if their lives depend on seeing a fantasy.

Thieving Banks

Nine out of 10 easy access savings accounts pay interest of less than 1%. Moneyfacts found that a third of easy access accounts failed to even pay a rate matching the current base rate of 0.25%. The cost of living is rising at 2.9% a year, so many savings rates are failing to keep pace. Moneyfacts said people faced a "never-ending battle" for decent returns.

The Bank of England pointed to the potential dangers from the "benign" economic conditions, highlighting growing levels of consumer borrowing on credit cards and car finance. The same conditions have led to the paltry rates of return for savers, with the Bank of England base rate having been at a record lows for years.

 Government lending initiatives and consecutive cuts to bank base rate have resulted in savings rates plummeting," said Rachel Springall, of Moneyfacts. "To add insult to injury, the governor of the Bank of England's view is that there will not be a rise to interest rates in the foreseeable future. There is a fundamental flaw in the savings market, with a distinct lack of competition among the biggest banks for savers' cash."

We Need Your Voice

If we do not resist, we languish. Although these are trying times, we cannot afford to withdraw into despair. We must discover once more the solidarity to stand together firm. We must fight the fear that grips us. This time around, let’s fight for socialism from the start. Revolution cannot be an abstract idea or distant-goal. It must be a living, breathing social movement that brings hope. Revolution will not be a single spectacular event, but instead it is a process. The important part is to come together and build power from below that does not rest in the hands of any leader or party in any way. The Socialist Party strategy relies on the unity at the ballot box, a strategy which begins with us, the exploited workers. We must push for greater unity of working-class movements. We need to reach out to our fellow-workers.

Let’s build structures that ensure workers keep control. Let us not hand over political power to a State that can institute tyranny all over again. Exploitation blossoms so the rich feast delicacies while the poor starve. Change is on its way. We seek socialist organisation, bottom-up administration, and democratic decision-making. Our only chance is to build a movement that relies on the power of the people. Together we hold the solution to the problems of capitalism. Our organizing begins by taking control and creating their own democratic mass movements, based on our collective power against the State and capital. We need to build the people’s power from below. Knowledge of what is wrong with a social system and knowledge of how to change the system for the better are two completely different things.

 Democracy is vitally important to the working class and, as we see it, this process is enhanced by the degree of democracy which workers have won for themselves. Regardless of how radical the reforms which new Left leaders promise, they will never be anything approaching common ownership of the mines, factories and other means of producing wealth. The initiative for this social revolution will have to come from the working class. Socialists do not take sides in struggles between sections of the ruling class. Socialists will have to form their own party, hostile to “all sections of the master class.” Capitalism is leading the world towards catastrophe. We are sure this is the time to learn and help build the new world.

Democratic control of industry will not work while production is still to be geared to the market (look at co-ops). The market and money must go. Socialism can be built only when the working class has taken political power from the capitalist class: that is, when there has been a revolution. Only a socialist party with a clear understanding of the nature of capitalism and committed to its overthrow can help to effect such changes. The Labour Party is not such a party, nor can it ever become one.  A Labour government pursues capitalist policies not because it is in the hands of any right wing, but because the Labour Party is itself a capitalist party whose role is to keep the present system in existence. All illusions about easy shortcuts to socialism must be exposed. The basic arguments for a non-exploitative socialist society should be presented. It is no use trying to produce ‘sensible’ and 'practical' reforms. Socialism is the rule of the workers and not for or over them. 

Socialism is the system under which classes and exploitation are abolished for good and the differences between town and country and between manual and mental labour no longer exist. People are not forced to obey the division of labour as slaves. 

Scottish Nationalism (1968)

From the May 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard In the Scottish National Party, they must feel that somebody up there likes them. Right now they are on top of the world and everywhere the signs are apparent. The Party badge— a hipped-up thistle—sprouts as thickly as the weed itself. Membership has rocketed to over ninety thousand, and all the frenzied electoral activity has resulted in the election of a Nationalist M.P. Undoubtedly, independence is the current big issue and the Nationalists claim they will have it by the early ’seventies. How have the SNP been transformed from the old image of a bunch of Tartan-clad cranks into a considerable political force? The Party is still the expression of some “Professional” and small-business people who see their advancement in breaking with England, but they now enjoy what they never had before—widespread working class support, although how constant this remains to be seen. This support was a long time coming, but the breakthrough was helped by Labour’s long absence from power during the ’fifties. This resulted in some of Labour’s traditional support, particularly among the lower paid, switching to the Nationalists. Another factor was disillusionment with the performance of Labour controlled Town Councils. Thus, the Nationalists got what they needed above all—a foot in the electoral door. What are the forces behind the Nationalist upsurge? Of course, the movement’s “intellectuals” see it as a revolt by a people yearning to return to a Golden Age which existed before the Act of Union of 1707, when a united populace shared a “Scottish Culture” which was the envy of Europe. The idea is absurd. The culture of the untamed, Celtic Highlander was completely different from that of the settled, English-speaking Lowlander. Indeed, Dr. J. M. Beale makes this very point in the Book, Common Errors in Scottish History. Today, in the populous industrial belt, the average inhabitant will sneer at the sight of the Kilt and a significant proportion owes their loyalties to Ireland rather than Scotland. Even so, Nationalist feeling certainly exists and is implanted at an early age. This is very important in any country’s educational system. Also important is regional pride within a country. Ruling groups find this useful, particularly in a time of war—how many Scotsmen have died proving that they were the bravest in the land? So Scottish children have their heads filled with the deeds of national heroes like Wallace and Bruce while the feats of Scots in civil life—Carnegie, Watt, Stevenson—also receive much attention. In sport, especially soccer, the press give the full treatment to encounters with “The Auld Enemy”, with every victory a “Bannockburn” and every defeat a “Flodden”. All this, against a background of Scotland’s historical subjugation by England, has provided a breeding ground for national illusion and resentment. But why is the revolt happening now rather than ten or twenty years ago? First, there is the decline of the long-established industries with the accompanying hardship and insecurity. Engineering, Shipbuilding, and Mining were what Scotland depended on and their cut-back has meant a chronic high unemployment rate. Secondly, the main Parties have been tried over and over and found wanting: they cannot produce the goods, so where else to go? In England many people faced with this dilemma have turned to the Liberals. In Scotland, in the same circumstances, it can only be the SNP. In short, the Nationalist upsurge is really a revolt against a depressed standard of living, and this is where the SNP makes its biggest impact. Every example of lower wages, higher prices, more emigration and less amenities than south of the border is seized upon and skilfully used. The most interesting point about the demand for independence is that, basically, it is in line with the growing idea that the problems of modem society—Capitalism—lie in its sheer size. Thus, we see the Liberals arguing for smaller administrative units through more Regional Government; the Anarchists and some leftists for smaller productive units through worker-owned factories, and the Scots and Welsh Nationalists for smaller political units as exemplified by the Scandinavian countries. Sweden, with its allegedly high living standards and full employment, is quoted as an example of how smallness plus independence equals prosperity. These theories are false. Capitalism's problems are the result of non-social ownership of the means of life in the field of social production: more diversity of government or of ownership cannot alter this fact. Nor can the national identity or location of the legislature have much effect on our standard of living. This is influenced by such as the degree of technical and natural resources and, more especially, the state of the world market—what can be sold profitably—and any serious change in this will affect Sweden just as it did in the ’thirties. Anyway, Sweden’s full employment is due to acute labour shortage, and those Irish workers who had a spell in Swedish Shipyards soon returned home, unimpressed by the living standards. Another Nationalist argument is that there is a deliberate “trend” towards more numerous and smaller Nations and point to the seventy-odd newcomers which have sprung-up over the last twenty years. These have emerged owing to the disintegration of the European colonial Empires. The Nationalists ignore the fact that in the developed world the trend is the opposite way. Nor do these new Nations choose to be small; in fact they are as large as they can get and often squabble with one another over disputed territory and resources. What it all boils down to, is that the SNP just don’t understand the world around them. Although they claim to be against exploitation they support the production for profit system. Arthur Donaldson, the Party’s chief spokesman, even invites capital to take advantage of "cheap” and "tame” Scottish workers (Scots Independent, 11/2/67). It is time to reject the notion that there are "Scottish problems” which apply exclusively to Scottish workers and which can be solved by a "Parliament of their own”. Instead of turning their eyes to Scandinavia, those of them who thronged "prosperous” London recently on the occasion of the seating of the Nationalist MP should have looked across the Thames to Southwark, Battersea and Brixton. They would have seen plenty of hardship there, despite the proximity of Parliament. And did it not occur to those who saw the TV epic of the homeless, Cathy Come Home, that the action took place in an English City? Above all else, independence will not mean their release from wage-slavery, and, as everywhere, access to the means of life will be governed by whether the owners find it profitable or not. Socialists echo the Poet’s desire for the day 'That man to man the world o’er shall brothers be for a' that”. This will be a fact when the world's wealth, owned in common, can be utilised for the satisfaction of all mankind. Capitalism, with its attendant national boundaries and prejudices, makes this just another Poet’s dream. Vic Vanni (Glasgow)