Industrial Autocracy (Part 1)

The capitalists and their paid lackeys of the media insist that commodities are the joint product of capital and labour. They say that the capitalist owns the factory; that he has invested his money in these institutions and that without the use of the factory and its machinery labour would be unable to produce anything. But we have seen that labour produced the factory even the money possessed by the capitalist class. To us, it seems a very simple matter to discover who make the things human beings need and use every day. We see the farmers growing cereals and vegetables, raising cattle and pigs. And we see these foods being transported to the food processing plants by railway workers, in trucks made by vehicle-builders. We wear clothing, all produced and cleaned and spun and woven into cloth and made up into garments by men and women. We live in houses, or flats, or tenements built by labour, from the materials produced by workers. Every shop, mill, factory, warehouse, every road, railway, and runway is the product of labourers and of no one else. We believe nobody will be foolish enough to question that labour produces all the commodities necessary to the life and well-being of mankind.

The employing owning class say that capital is the product of capitalists and that therefore it belongs to the capitalists and that it is “right” and “just” that the capitalists should manage their own products (their factories, shops, or mines) as they please, on whatever terms they may determine. These men who secured the mines, the rich acres produced none of these things; did not even work the land or the mines. They were merely the piratical crews that got here first and grabbed first. And the descendants of some of these early bandits are today engaged in riotous living on the incomes of countless millions, the base of which was thus secured and handed down to them by their grandfathers. First settlers who have been powerful enough and greedy enough to seize and hold the natural resources of any nation have always been able to make that nation pay continuous tribute to them, until the people revolt. You never knew a coal baron, even though the title to “his” coal mine came to his ancestors through large early land grants, permitting people to go down into the mine and get out their own coal, did you? Or a landowner who allowed the landless farmers to work the land for nothing, merely because he, himself, had paid nothing for it? Hardly. One and all the capitalists have held out for their veritable pound of flesh.

Anyone can see that if an owner of vast farmlands, purely by the power of his monopoly of those lands, rents out his farms to tenants year after year, and reinvests these rents in other business enterprises, he will accumulate more and more money capital. But we know who produces the rents paid to him, and we know also that his capital is obtained through sheer theft, and has no foundation on “justice” whatsoever. There can be no such thing as democracy, or “justice” so long as one group of men own the land and are able to hold up all other men for the privilege of using it. Under such conditions, landless men are handicapped at birth.  We do not agree with the hired intellectuals who mumble so much about “the rights” of capital, and the “rewards of capital,” etc., etc. We do not think the capitalist ought to have any share in the products of labour merely because he has appropriated the capital produced by labour. To reward the capitalist for the use of this capital means rewarding the non-producer for stealing from you and me. For the capital the boss uses today is the value produced by the workers and taken away from them last month or last year.

“Just waiting for the magic wand of Capital!” is what all capitalists think when they see rich, uncultivated soil, or water-power running to waste, or when they hear of the need of a new factory. But the need is for the hand of labour, for the tools, the machinery produced by labor. The need is not that capital be invested for private profits, but that free access is given labour to produce for the comfort and happiness of mankind. In a capitalist society, however, where all the lands and the natural resources of the earth, and all the instruments of production and distribution (railroads, mines, factories, etc.) are already privately owned and controlled, Labor, the world’s true magic-maker, is shut off from the productive processes and from the power of producing a living, or of earning a living, except upon the terms laid down by the capitalist class. This is true in spite of the fact that all the capital in all the world is incapable of producing one loaf of bread, one pair of shoes, one house, one suit of clothes. Not one wheel would ever turn productively, not one machine would ever operate, not one train would ever move without the hands and brains of labour. Capital is utterly incapable of increasing itself. Unless he is a financier and banker able to filch the swag from some other capitalist who has exploited labour, the only way a capitalist may force his capital to multiply and bear the fruit of still more capital, is by the employment of labour. Without the hands and brains of labor, capital would remain forever stationary. A million pound investment would remain one million pounds. The increase in this capital is the product of labour alone. We are not discussing a situation in which another capitalist comes along and invests another million pounds in the first capitalist’s plant. What we are trying to explain is how the first capitalist, who possessed a one million pound investment, finds himself at the end of the year, with this same one million AND twenty-five or fifty pounds additional capital (or profit). The only possible increase in capital, in this instance, comes through the exploitation of wage-labour.

A landlord may double the rents he demands of his tenants for his flats or his houses. But this merely doubles the income of the landlord. This does not increase the total commodity, money, or the total capital existing in the world. It merely transfers money from the pockets of your employer (who has to pay you. higher wages in order that you may pay increased rents) INTO the pockets of the landlord. One man will be five hundred pounds “out” and the other will be five hundred ahead in the game. You wage-workers only get a bare living (when you get that) anyway. In this transaction of rent-paying there is no increase in the total capital.

Any particular capitalist investment, of a specific sum, increases only through the employment of labour by the capitalist. For labor produces new values and gives far more than the wages or portion it receives, while the capitalist takes far more than he pays in wages. The capitalist pays wages (determined by the cost of living) for the labour-power, or strength of the workers. The workers produce commodities of three or four times the value of their wages. The capitalist appropriates the difference between the value of these commodities and the wages of his employees AS HIS SHARE IN THE TRANSACTION. It is true that he usually has to share this surplus value among other capitalists, with the wholesale, and retail men and brokers, and their employees. Nevertheless, the general capital increases just in proportion as he and these other capitalists are able to hold on to that value and add it to their own capital. The increase in capital comes through the exploitation of labour and there alone. All other transactions are the mere transfer of already existing capital from one account to another and cannot possibly increase the total capital. So-called increases in the value of unimproved real estate are fictitious and only represent the power of one capitalist to hold up another capitalist. As we said before, the power of one capitalist landlord to raise the rents of shacks inhabited by the employees of other capitalists, for example, is his arbitrary monopolistic power to levy a tribute from the employing capitalists, because the landlord is able to force these employers to pay higher wages to their workers to enable them to pay his increased rents. No value and no capital is added to the total general capital. The landlord forces the corporation capitalists to divide the surplus value they have already extracted from their own workers, with him.

Adapted and abridged from this

https://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/marcy/works/industrial-autocracy.htm

Lest we forget

 Iain S. Williamson, one-time Glasgow Branch member who lived in Japan and wrote The 'Kilt and the Kimono'  died a couple of weeks back.

The Burning Question

Last year was the worst ever year for wildlife fires ever recorded in British Columbia, according to the B.C.Wildlife Service. 

65,000 people were forced to evacuate and fire suppression itself cost $568,000 million. Fire weather is typically hot, dry and windy and there was plenty of it in B.C. in 2017, just as there has been in Ontario this year; already by early August there have been 64. According to wildfire expert Mike Flannigan,'' 

The average area burned in Canada each year has almost doubled since the 70's and human climate change is a major factor''

There is only one major change worth making and that is the abolition of the cause of climate change.

For socialism, 
Steve, Mehmet, John &all contributing members of the SPC.

Hungry Scotland

One in 10 single adults feared running out of food in the last year due to lack of cash.

The figure for the 16-44 age group includes single parents while one in 10 households with at least two adults was in the same position.

And one in 10 of those in the poorest communities has gone hungry after their wallets ran empty.

 15% of adults in the worst-off communities had “eaten less than they should” because of a lack of money. This compares to 3% in the richest areas.

Mary Anne MacLeod of A Menu for Change – a project by Oxfam Scotland, the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, Nourish Scotland and the Poverty Alliance – said: “These statistics paint a grim picture of hunger across the country. Given Scotland isn’t facing a food shortage, this is clearly a problem of widespread poverty.” She added: “The figures show 16 to 44-year-olds are most likely to be going hungry. We know low wages, zero-hour contracts, frozen benefit levels and the introduction of Universal Credit are pushing more and more people to the brink. When so many people are struggling to make ends meet you know something has gone badly wrong with the system. In our rich country no-one should be constantly worrying about how they’re going to feed their kids."

http://www.thenational.scot/news/16902607.study-reveals-food-povertys-tightening-grip-on-scotland/

Lest we forget

Obituary: Bob Norrie (1977)

Obituary from the November 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Glasgow members were stunned by the news of the sudden death of Bob Norrie. He was 72 years old.

Bob joined the party in 1940 and acquired an excellent knowledge of the Marxist case economically, politically and philosophically. His spare time was devoted mainly to the propagation of the SPGB case for Socialism and he did the job effectively and efficiently. Over the years he was a consistent attendee of Branch and propaganda meetings and to the end, he could often be found discussing with members of the audience long after the outdoor meetings had finished and everyone else gone. This activity increases the severity of his loss. He will be missed both as a man and as a socialist. Our sympathy is extended to his widow and family.

Understanding capitalism

The Socialist Party say that before production can be carried out in ecologically-acceptable ways capitalism must go. Production for profit and the uncontrollable drive to accumulate more and more capital mean that capitalism is constitutionally incapable of taking ecological considerations properly into account—and that it is futile to try to make it do so.

If we are going to organise production in an ecologically sound way then we must first be in a position to control production, but we can’t control production unless we own and control the means of production. So, a socialist society of common ownership and democratic control is the only framework within which the aims of environmentalists can be realised. So, environmental activists should be socialist. Yet too often they are advocates of  the idea of an idyllic market economy in which people exchange goods for use—what Marx called “petty commodity production"—but, as Marx demonstrated in Capital, petty commodity production led, logically and historically, to capitalist commodity production where the aim of production and exchange is no longer use but becomes to make and realise profits. Market exchange leads to the domination of production and society by market forces and, if we went back to the simple market system without profit-making envisaged by many Greens, the whole process of development towards a capitalist market economy would start all over again.

 The answer is to establish the common ownership and democratic control of productive resources. Then the whole concept of the market, of buying and selling, becomes meaningless. Where productive resources are commonly owned and democratically controlled so will what is produced, and the problem will not be to sell it— how can you sell to people what is already theirs? —but how to arrange for people to have access to it on an equal basis. In our view, it wouldn't be very long before the principle “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” could apply. That's socialism—real socialism, not the milk-and-water market exchange economy advocated by activists who believe they have radical proposals and it’s what greens if they are to be logical and consistent, should be working for.

Transforming raw materials into some commodity that can be sold, labour adds value to them; this value is the source of both the wages they are paid and the profits of their employer. Profits, in other words, are produced by labour. So said Adam Smith, the apostle of free-market capitalism. So the labour theory of value has a pedigree which ought to be unimpeachable for defenders of capitalism. It has to be said, however, that Adam Smith and his successors, precisely because they were supporters of capitalism, got themselves into all sorts of contradictions. They wanted to justify the capitalist profit system as the best possible, indeed as the only natural economic system, yet the labour theory of value which they accepted out of intellectual honesty implied that profits were a deduction from what labour produced and that capitalism was therefore based on the robbery of the producers.

There were only two ways out of this contradiction. One was to abandon the labour theory of value. The other was to accept that the capitalist system was based on the exploitation of labour and should, therefore, be abolished. Supporters of capitalism chose the first course so that by the middle of the last century the labour theory of value had become “discredited” in respectable circles. Supporters of the workers chose the second course. But they didn't quite get it right. They argued that the alternative to capitalism was a system that would ensure that every individual worker got the “full product of their labour”; this was to be done by pricing goods according to the amount of labour-time required to produce them and giving the workers who produced them a quantity of labour notes that would enable them to acquire the full labour-time equivalent of what they had produced. Under this scheme there would be no profit; all that was produced would go, in one form or another, to the producers. Marx is on record as attacking the idea that each worker could be ensured the “undiminished proceeds” of their labour. A whole section of his Critique of the Gotha Programme adopted by the German Social Democrats in 1875 was devoted to exposing the absurdity of the idea that each individual worker could be given the “full product” of his or her contribution to the co-operative labour of the whole labour force (even supposing this could be measured). In a socialist society, deductions from this would have to be made for such things as the resources to be devoted to the replacement and expansion of the means of production, the general administration of society and the maintenance of those unable to work because of youth, old age, sickness or disability. The only context, in fact, in which the phrases “full fruits" or “full product” or "undiminished proceeds” make sense is that of the whole community enjoying the full fruits of the collective co-operative labour of its working members; which in practice means allowing every member of the community an equal right to satisfy their own personally-decided needs. 

Wealth is not created by market forces; at most it is only distributed by them — unequally and to the benefit of those who own the means of production.

Black Flag Exhibition in Dundee

“I regard anarchism as a political and behavioural philosophy with which I identify fully. However, anarchism is, above all, morality and implies a way of life without concessions. In this sense, I would not be so much because my life is far from that of any anarchist militant.”  says Santiago Sierra.

‘I travel a lot,” explains Santiago Sierra. “But entering a country is like going to jail. Borders disgust me – as an idea and as a personal experience. This work denies all of that.” Sierra is talking about his latest installation, which has just opened at Dundee Contemporary Arts. Called Black Flag, it documents his attempts to have the symbol of anarchism planted at the north and south poles. What was the reason for the project? “To occupy the world, I suppose." 

Sierra’s attempt at world occupation started three years ago when he sent an expedition to the remote Norwegian island of Svalbard. From there, he travelled to the Russian base of Barneo which, because it sits on a drifting ice floe, has to be rebuilt every year in order to serve incoming tourists. From there, Sierra’s team ventured to the nearby north pole and, on 14 April 2015, planted a black flag, as well as capturing the landscape in sound and video.

Eight months later on 14 December – precisely 104 years after Norwegian Roald Amundsen beat Britain’s Captain Robert Falcon Scott to become the first person to reach the south pole – Sierra’s minions planted another at the geographic south pole. The two black flags were both left in place, partly as a rebuke to, as Sierra sees it, nationalists who have befouled Earth’s otherwise pristine extremities with their misplaced national symbols.  He adds: “Planting a national flag in a hitherto unvisited place has never been an innocent gesture. This is how colonial processes always begin.” 

It’s no coincidence that the Tayside city is playing host to Sierra’s latest provocation. “Dundee is no stranger to the subject,” says Sierra, now 52. “Its geographical position and its shipyards have led it to form part of the conquest of both poles.”

Black Flag is at Dundee Contemporary Arts until 25 November.

Dying younger in Scotland

Life expectancy is an estimate of the average number of years a new born baby would live based on that area's age-specific mortality rates.

How long men and women in Scotland can expect to live has fallen for the first time in 35 years. National Records of Scotland (NRS) figures show life expectancy fell by about 0.1 years for males and females. 

Scotland still has the lowest life expectancy of all UK countries. Life expectancy in the UK as a whole remains lower than in many other comparable countries internationally.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-45636457

Achieving Socialism

There are erroneous definitions of socialism which were being spread about in order to breed confusion in the minds of our fellow-workers. For that reason, it is especially necessary to define socialism.

Two false definitions were:

(1) that Socialism meant a system of sharing-out,

(2) that Socialism was a system of rationing.

When the Socialist Party lays down that we are for socialism, we want a system of society where those things necessary for the maintenance of life itself would be owned by society as a whole. Socialism meant the social ownership of the things necessary to maintain life—land, transport, factories, communications, etc. The products would be individually owned and consumed. That definition should be kept clearly in mind. The idea that we would all use the same toothbrush is sheer nonsense. Another bogey put forward was that socialism would restrict individuality. Individuality was already restricted or haven't you noticed?

The only solution was to harmonise production and ownership by society taking control of the means of production and the instruments for the converting of the raw material into the articles we require, and owning socially, product socially—i.e., for the needs of society and not for the profits of a class, The question was how was this to be done—there was only one manner of doing it and that was by the members of society desiring it should be so—it was not going to happen behind one's back as some people fondly imagined. The human factor was necessary to change the present conditions. The only class interested in that change was the working class—it was to their interest that the capitalist system should be wiped out. How, then, to bring about socialism? Political power is essential for bringing about the change.

There was a great deal of confusion about the meaning of political power, and a great deal of superstition. Some thought the vote was merely a bauble to amuse the working class. Others that since politics were corrupted, the workers should not dabble in them, but should devote themselves to economic action. These notions, whether springing from personal experience or manufactured by people whose interest it is to spread confusion, were due to a misunderstanding of what politics meant. The working class had not grasped the historical side of the matter. They join a political party and they see underhand trickery going on that they sicken of the whole business because they do not understand politics.

To-day, the workers perform all the useful functions in society. Occasionally a capitalist may amuse himself by going into the office to dabble in business, but as a class, the capitalists preferred to spend their time at the gambling tables of Monte Carlo or yachting in the Mediterranean, etc. Some people said that it was the capitalist class who provided the brains. What, then, happened when a capitalist died? Surely in such a case, the business must die with him —but what did we find?—more often than not the business went on better than during his life, at all events it did not immediately die. The truth was that brains were bought, and the brains were supplied by the working class. Since the capitalist performed no useful function, the logical deduction was that those who did all the work should enjoy the results. Why didn’t they? It was not a question of numbers—the workers were in the majority. Why didn’t they take control of the means of production for themselves? Simply because if they had attempted to do so they would have had to meet the forces of the Nation—the army, the aircraft, etc. The army, however, is composed of working men, and even the officers, bar the fashionable regiments like the Guards, are working men—they sell their "professional services” for their livelihood. How, then, did the capitalist control the Army? It was a question of supplies. First, the law sanctioning the Army, etc., is passed by Parliament. Then the supplies necessary to maintain and increase these Forces are voted in the Annual Budget. Lastly, the instructions and general orders are sanctioned by Parliament before they can be put into operation, The control of the Fighting Forces is therefore in the hands of those controlling the political machinery. Another point, not so well known, is that a Standing Army—for more than a year—is illegal in this country. How then does this Army continue in existence? By the following method. Every year a Bill called the Renewal of Expiring Acts Bill is passed in the House of Commons. One of the items in that Bill is the renewal of the Army. So that even to continue the Army the control of Parliament is necessary. Since 1867, when the Ten Pound Franchise Bill was passed, the workers have had the majority of votes. The workers, therefore, have ample means to get control of that machine politically. The anarchist says Parliament is no good.

There are two sets of Anarchist Groups, one believes that an individual should be entirely free and that action should be confined to economic lines —i.e.. striking, etc. That a General Strike would wipe out capitalism. They ignore the fact that the first people to suffer are the working class, who have the smallest supplies. A General Strike, therefore, means General Starvation. Moreover, they are quite unable to show how unarmed workers could face the fighting forces, particularly with the latter’s powerful modern weapons of destruction.

The other set believes that syndicates should be organised by the workers in the industries for the purpose of taking over these industries and that each section should be confined to its own trade, i.e., the bakers—the bakery, the miners—the mines, etc. This was known as Syndicalism. It was absurd to isolate the workers in that manner—to put the miners in charge of the mines, the sewermen in charge of the sewers, and the lunatics, presumably, in charge of the asylums. Production was social, the miner depended on the baker for his bread, and the baker depended on the miner for his coal, etc.

About 1905 a scheme was formulated in Chicago that had for its method the “taking and holding" of the means of production without a political party. The body then formed was called the Industrial Workers of the World. When asked how they could hold the means of production the answer usually given was “by locking out the capitalist.” As the capitalist is hardly ever in the factory this did not seem a very hopeful procedure. When asked what power the workers could bring against the armed forces they had no answer, though later on they developed the notion of physical force— a piece of sheer lunacy while the capitalist control political power. The Anti-Parliamentarists, such as Guy Aldred, who ranted about the uselessness of the political machine, were unable to find a substitute. The Socialist Society, in its first stages, may have to maintain a standing army, and it will be the workers then who will determine that question. Having this control, through the political machine, the workers will be able to obtain and distribute what they require.

Lost And All At Sea?

A recent article in the Toronto Star focused on the plight of a young woman, Angela Johnson, who bought a boat to live on because of the price of land in Vancouver. 

Though Ms. Johnson is quite happy with her purchase, of $279,000, it's hardly the point, which is many people are considering living on boats now the price of real land has swelled in Vancouver. 

The average price of a 2-storey house there is $1.27 million; a bungalow is $1.175 million and a condo is $506,624.

The moot question is, ''How will folks cope who can't afford a boat''?

For socialism, 
Steve, Mehmet, John & 
all contributing members of the SPC.

Far Better To Have A Society That Didn't Create Mental Health Problems,

Ontario Health Minister, Christine Elliot is under fire for cutting $335 million from planned mental health funding this year. With the defeat of the previous Liberal government in June's election Doug Ford's P.C.s have clearly demonstrated how much they care about health. This means the planned $525 million annual addition to the mental health budget proposed by the outgoing Wynne government has been slashed by $190 million. 

N.D.P. leader Andrea Horwath was furious saying that, ''Addictions and Mental Health Ontario says $2.4 billion is needed in new funding over the next four years''. 

What neither Wynne, Ford, Elliot or Horwath have said is it would be far better to have a society that didn't create mental health problems for so many in the first place.

For socialism, 
Steve, Mehmet, John & all contributing members of the SPC.

Volunteers Needed

When socialists advocate a society in which everyone will contribute their abilities to the community on a voluntary basis in return for having their needs met, we are often met with the argument 'it's a nice idea, but it would never work', yet millions of people every day give their services free of charge simply because their services are required.

 Socialists are often accused of being unrealistic when we advocate a world in which people will work without the motivation of money. Yet even today men and women do work without financial incentive because they see their efforts are needed. There are some seven million unpaid carers in Britain—people (a majority are women) who help physically or mentally disabled relatives, friends and others on a regular basis. Not only do these people not get paid for their efforts, they often deprive themselves of other income-earning activities.

We don’t suggest that everyone is a potential member of a lifeboat crew or a mountain rescue team. But there is no reason to suppose that socialist society will lack such people because capitalism usually doesn’t lack them today.

With capitalism there are three ways of getting people to work: they can be paid, they can be forced, or they can be encouraged to volunteer. Payment for labour is the economic basis of the capitalist system: owners of capital has made a profit from the past efforts of workers are able to pay for further work to be done which, on average, will yield further profit.

Forced labour is not a very efficient way of producing wealth, so it has gone out of favour except as punishment. But the third form of work—volunteering, or working for no pay—is highly regarded. We live in a society that decrees most people have to work for money to live, except the few who own enough capital to avoid that necessity. But it is not a society in which no work is done except for money. All employment involves work, but not all work involves employment.

We speak of capitalism as the dominant economic and social system, but its dominance is not complete. Capitalist relationships are between suppliers of labour power and holders of capital, and between various other buyers and sellers. Socialist relationships are not just in the imagination of socialists today. In embryonic form, they are in the many types of voluntary work that are done today.

Within most households, domestic tasks are performed on a voluntary basis. No charge is made to do the washing-up, the shopping, the decorating or the gardening (the “wages for housework” campaign is not supported by the Socialist Party, who see it as an unwarranted extension of capitalism, although this does not mean that we encourage anyone to exploit anyone else, with or without a money' system).

Outside the household, men and women volunteer their services in a variety of ways. Hospital visiting, school governing, being on the local council, helping to improve the environment, are just some of the ways in which useful work is regularly done without the intervention of money by some 13 million people in Britain. Of course, voluntary work in the capitalist world is not the same as all work will be in a socialist world. For one thing, there won’t be the need for the vast apparatus of collection boxes, adverts, appeals and the bureaucratic administration of the “voluntary sector”. All effort will go directly to meeting needs.

Charity and volunteering may be seen as mitigating some of the inherent nastiness in the capitalist system. But it remains a culture of winners and losers, based on buyer and seller relationships, with capital always holding the upper hand. Socialism means the ending of such a culture and such relationships. In their place will be an extension of the principle of volunteering which can be seen in the pro-social actions of men and women today.

Some cynic once said that people who volunteer to work when everyone else gets paid must be soft in the head. Today each of us has to try to sell our labour power for the best price we can get. But at the same time, there’s nothing to stop us volunteering to join the socialist movement in helping to bring about the kind of world that expressed the best, not the worst, of what humans are capable.

Volunteering for socialism means choosing to replace the capitalist system with one based on all of us working directly to meet our own needs and the needs of others and on having free access to what we collectively produce by way of goods and services. In short, from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.

The Bitter Irony. Neglect and Abandonment of Housing.

In West Vancouver, one of Canada's most expensive neighborhoods, stands a row of abandoned mansions. It's difficult to find a person on Highview Place however hard one looks.

According to Statistics Canada's 2016 census, West Vancouver has the highest rate of unoccupied homes in all the municipalities that make up Vancouver, at 9.2 per cent.

Single detached house prices there rose 37 per cent in 2015 as a wave of real estate speculation swept the region and the affluent suburb became a hot spot for luxury homes.

The homes were built by British Pacific Properties in 2013, which, according to its website builds “exceptional master-planned communities.” These homes are presently valued at between $6 million and $8 million. The average price of a house in West Vancouver is $3 million and the municipality is now facing a decreasing population as there are few affordable houses in the municipality.

It's a bitter irony that most of the people who built these mansions cannot afford to live in them, including the small fry capitalists who own the construction companies that build them.

It cannot be much fun living near the abandoned houses as they have not been maintained, proving their absentee owners don't care. Reports have come in that there are six foot weeds in front of some properties, water seeping out of others, dead and dying plants in the yard, a flooded basement and raccoons going in and out of some of them.

The only explanation of such neglect and abandonment is the houses are used for investment rather than a home to live in.

For socialism, 
Steve, Mehmet, John & all contributing members of the SPC.

Our campaign for socialism

Marx wrote a great deal, on a wide variety of subjects and over a long period of time.  Some of their writing was in response to political issues of the day which are long forgotten, some were concerned to criticise opponents who held views now rarely encountered, while some were of a very abstract and philosophical nature.  So it can be very difficult for someone with no previous acquaintance with their work to know where to begin.  And diving in at some unsuitable place (Capital, vol. 1, ch. 1, for instance) may discourage further exploration. Marx’s writings cannot be simply divided into those on economics, those on history and those on politics, for these subjects, were for Marx closely interrelated. “Production for use” is a phrase uttered so often by socialists as to become almost a cliché, yet understood (in a superficial fashion) by both enquirers and opponents. It describes our concept – our visualisation – of a future social system superceding the present “un-social” system we call capitalism. The descent of millions of families into relative poverty is beyond appalling.

It is capitalism, not overpopulation that is the cause of present-day pollution, resource depletion, and environmental degradation, and, even if population growth were to become a problem in terms of putting pressure on the Earth's resources, it would only be within the framework of a world of common ownership and democratic control that such a problem could be tackled. Similarly, if people's pessimism were to be confirmed and capitalism really did bring ecological catastrophe, then socialism would still be relevant as only a global approach treating the Earth's resources as the common heritage of all humanity would provide any chance of minimising the damage and saving what could be saved. Capitalism is incapable of tackling the ecological question in a rational way since under it production is carried on by profit-seeking enterprises all competing to maximise their profits. 

Socialism won’t evolve automatically or gradually out of capitalism. Its establishment requires a decisive break — a political and social revolution — that will replace class ownership by social ownership. Our argument is to replace capitalism by a planned money-free society. Technology, if not restricted by the money system, could provide goods and services in such abundance that they could be given away free. But certain people, the rich have a vested interest in preventing abundance since only in conditions of scarcity can they make profits. If goods were abundant, prices would be nil — and so would profits. So the rich seek to prevent abundance and maintain scarcity by all sorts of artificial methods: wars and preparations for war, planned obsolescence, not automating. The unleashing of modern technology would not only allow goods and services to be given away free; it would also allow the abolition of toil. With machines as their slaves, people could lead a life of leisure and creative activity. Modem technology now means that a money-free society in which people’s needs are fully satisfied is possible and it can never materialise under capitalism. As technology advances, capitalism becomes increasingly a system of artificial scarcity and organised waste. One of the things we face is the fact that after over a century of remedial legislation the world is still an unhappy place for most of its inhabitants. The alleged progress has been, to a considerable extent, backwards.

Profit comes out of the difference between what the workers get in wages or salary for producing, and what the owner gets for the sale of the article. Wars, crises and industrial strife arise out of this basic position. They will plague the world until a new system of society is established in which all that is in and on the earth is the common possession of all mankind. Where all will join in co-operative production, privilege will no longer exist, and each will take according to need.

The Socialist Party exists to encourage the working class to establish socialism by democratic political action. We are a political party which advocates socialism and nothing else. Members join on this basis and we are in effect a body dedicated exclusively to spreading socialist ideas by all available means. As a political party, our field of operation is the political arena. Here we oppose all other political parties since they all seek to reform or manage capitalism in one way or another while the only form of political action we support is political action for socialism. This is why we also do not support or join broad campaigning movements which, without aiming at winning political power themselves, aim to bring pressure on governments to adopt certain policies or enact certain reforms. In this sense they too are reformist. This does not mean, however, that we stand apart from such organisations in the physical sense and rely solely on our own meetings and publications. We attend their meetings and demonstrations to make contact and discuss with those involved in them, with a view to pointing out that only in a socialist society will the problems they are rightly concerned about being able to be solved. Indeed, many of our own members first came into contact with socialist ideas in this way.

Trade unions, on the other hand, are not political organisations but organisations formed by groups of workers to negotiate their wages and conditions with employers. Workers in employment have to bargain over the sale of their productive skills and it is clearly better that they do this collectively rather than individually (“unity is strength"). Members of the Socialist Party do participate in trade unions (and similar bodies such as tenants associations, parents associations, claimants unions), but as individual workers directly affected not as party members carrying out some "party line". We do not practice "entryism" like the Trotskyists who infiltrate organisations with the aim of taking them over. On the contrary, our members always insist that such organisations should be run on a fully democratic basis and on the need to avoid being manipulated by politicians and politically-motivated groups. We are, for instance, opposed to unions being affiliated to the Labour Party.

Money must go

Money: the curse of our lives. Waste your week working for it. Rush round the shops looking to spend it then waiting aiting for the bills to arrive through the letterbox—now you have less of it. Dreaming of winning the lottery. Dreading debt and the knock on the door from the bailiff to tell you the consequences of not paying it. On the streets the homeless beg for it. Women sell their bodies for it; so do rent-boys. Families break up over it. Criminals smash and grab it. Bitter strikes to get bosses to pay out a few more pounds of it.

Money stunts our lives until we are hardly living at all but on the treadmills of money payments. Money afflicts the many and makes affluent the few.
The parasitic rich live in expense-account luxury, thinking little of a few hundred pounds for a business lunch. Mothers anguish over how to buy shoes for three pairs of children's feet. It is a sick set-up.

The one workable alternative, the sane way forward which the Socialist Party will not be silent about. We must abolish the need for money. Money is only needed when some possess and most do not. Most must buy from some. Workers who produce must buy the necessities of life from the capitalist few who possess the world's wealth. The right of the minority to own and control must be ended. Class division must be ended. Buying and selling must cease. Money will then be done away with. We will produce for use. The ingenuity of administering money madness can be devoted to the infinitely saner and worthier cause of organising world production to satisfy human needs.

In a money-free world, there will be an end to the hardships which are faced by millions today as if they were a natural plague. No more starvation or homelessness or debt or repossession or cheap and shoddy bargain lifestyles. But we do not romanticise “the good old horny-handed worker”. We members of the working class also are conditioned to know ourselves only through a slave consciousness which fights against trust and collectivity. The young are turning against the old and white against black and men against women and fit against disabled—and all of these the other way round as well. The struggle to survive makes petty-minded money-grabbers out of the best of us and drives us as workers to adopt the meanness of spirit and factional hatreds of our oppressors.

Freedom from money will mean freedom of access to all that we need. But it will mean much more. It will mean the freedom to be freely human; to explore our natures and to nurture our behaviour. We shall be free to work not for money, but because we are social beings who express ourselves best through the expenditure of useful energy. We will be free to be more than just postmen or just mothers or just doctors or just painters: we will be free to be all of those things. The alienating division of labour will come to an end. It is humanity which will look after humanity, not a class whose function is to service higher (i.e. richer) forms of humanity. The struggle for a new system of society—for social revolution and nothing less—is more than a struggle for workers to "get more" out of society. A revolution carried out to let the homeless have shelter and the starving eat and the families on benefits to enjoy more. But we in the Socialist Party do not advocate and struggle for a few more “things"—or even a lot more. 

We do not seek a new world system which is just like capitalism only with more of everything for everyone. We seek—we demand—the freedom of all humans to have full control over society, for only then will we have full control over our humanity. We do not want more money, we want no money. We are not demanding welfare for the poor, but an end to the condition of buying and selling which necessitates poverty. We seek not a better-off working class but an end to the working class. We are workers who want to be humans, victims of wage slavery who will be satisfied with nothing less than an end to all slavery in all of its forms. Only then will we be free to live as true social animals: co-operatively, consciously, happily, in dignity.

 To become human we must abolish money: nothing less, no compromises. 

Three Days in Calcutta

Party News from the May 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

A new party advocating world socialism was founded in Calcutta at the beginning of March when a previously existing organisation, the Marxist International Correspondence Circle, publishers of the Bengali-language Lal Pataka, adopted the principles of the World Socialism Movement and changed its name to the World Socialist Party (India). 

Two delegates from the Socialist Party of Great Britain were present at this conference. One of them, Richard Donnelly, gives his impressions.

The streets of Calcutta are alive with the harsh throb of poverty and desperation. To visit Calcutta for the first time is to experience the sharp pain of human helplessness in the face of such deprivation.

In Sealdah railway station families sleep on the concourse, counting themselves fortunate not to have to face the relentless onset of the monsoon that has to be endured by the pavement dwellers outside.

I have felt the unforgettable rage of seeing young women suckling their young on the pavements of these filthy streets, where dead dogs lie rotting in the sun and rats scamper in the rubbish heaps in competition with human beings.

It was amidst these awful scenes, where starving children follow you from street to street begging for a few coppers, that I arrived at Bankim Jatterjee Street for the inaugural meeting of the World Socialist Party (India).

There I heard young men speaking of threats of violence, of loss of jobs, hounding of their parents, and their pledge to work for World Socialism. It was the most crushing indictment that I have ever heard of the money-grubbing, self-aggrandisement of all reformist parties.

Truly, to have been in that hall was to be proud that you were part of a movement that said: "To hell with reformism, we are dedicated to win this planet for World Socialism."

Those days, from 1 to 3 March, may not have been "three days that shook the world", but they have undeniably shaken the writer of these so inadequate words.

Richard Donnelly
(Glasgow Branch)

No-Ownership

The environmental crises grows ever more threatening with each new day yet we are no closer to a solution because that requires nothing less than a social revolution. Some day or fellow-workers will awaken from their stupor. They will set about the task of ridding themselves of an obsolete social system; a system that prevents them from enjoying the fruits of their labours. They will take the land, the factories and “all that in it is” from those who now own it and will work to produce the necessities and comforts of life for all. You name it and the nations attending the climate change conferences have reneged on it. Ideas of a world compatible with a profit-driven market economy are illusory and their prospects for reform in the interests of humans and the environment a fallacy.

The aim of the Socialist Party is to persuade others to become socialist and act for themselves, organising democratically and without leaders, to bring about a new socialist society. We are solely concerned with building a movement for socialism. We are not a reformist party with a program of policies to patch up capitalism. Our aim is to build a movement working towards a socialist society and seeks to deepen and better articulate our understanding of the world.

 The Socialist Party has consistently advocated a fully democratic society based upon co-operation and production for use. It has opposed every single war and offered solidarity to fellow-workers in their class struggle Since its foundation the Socialist Party has functioned as a democratic and leader-free organisation. The Socialist Party is an organisation of equals. There is no leader and there are no followers.  The more who join the Socialist Party, the more we will be able to get our ideas across. The more experiences we will be able to draw on and greater will be the new ideas for building the movement for socialism.

In all class societies, one section of the population controls the use of the means of production. Another way of putting this is that the members of this section or class own the means of production, since to be in a position to control the use of something is to own it, whether or not this is accompanied by some legal title deed.

It follows that a class-free society is one in which the use of the means of production is controlled by all members of society on an equal basis, and not just by a section of them to the exclusion of the rest. For a society to be ‘class-free’ would mean that within society there would be no group with the exception, perhaps, of temporary delegate bodies, freely elected by the community and subject always to recall which would exercise, as a group, any special control over access to the instruments of production; and no group receiving, as a group, preferential treatment in distribution. In a class-free society, every member is in a position to take part, on equal terms with every other member, in deciding how the means of production should be used. Every member of society is socially equal, standing in exactly the same relationship to the means of production as every other member. Similarly, every member of society has access to the fruits of production on an equal basis.

Once the use of the means of production is under the democratic control of all members of society, class ownership has been abolished. The means of production can still be said to belong to those who control and benefit from their use, in this case to the whole population organised on a democratic basis, and so to be commonly owned by them. Common ownership is when no person is excluded from the possibility of controlling, using and managing the means of production, distribution, and consumption. Each member of society can acquire the capacity, that is to say, has the opportunity to realise a variety of goals, for example, to consume what they want, to use means of production for the purposes of socially necessary or unnecessary work, to administer production and distribution, to plan to allocate resources, and to make decisions about short term and long term collective goals. Common ownership, then, refers to every individuals potential ability to benefit from the wealth of society and to participate in its running.

Even so, to use the word "ownership" can be misleading in that this does not fully bring out the fact that the transfer to all members of society of the power to control the production of wealth makes the very concept of property redundant. With common ownership no one is excluded from the possibility of controlling or benefiting from the use of the means of production, so that the concept of property in the sense of exclusive possession is meaningless: no one is excluded, there are no non-owners. We could invent some new term such as no-ownership and talk about the classless alternative society to capitalism being a no-ownership society, but the same idea can be expressed without neologism if common ownership is understood as being a social relationship and not a form of property ownership. This social relationship equality between human beings with regard to the control of the use of the means of production can equally accurately be described by the terms classless society and democratic control as by common ownership since these three terms are only different ways of describing it from different angles. The use of the term common ownership to refer to the basic social relationship of the alternative society to capitalism is not to be taken to imply therefore that common ownership of the means of production could exist without democratic control. Common ownership means democratic control means a class-free society. When we refer to the society based on common ownership, generally we shall use the term socialism, though we have no objection to others using the term communism since for us these terms mean exactly the same and are interchangeable.

Overcrowded?

 Scotland has 12,000 hectares of vacant and derelict land. A register of disused property was set up 30 years ago but the total area - around twice the size of Dundee - has barely changed since.

It is estimated that three in every five people live within 500m of a vacant or derelict site.

There are more than 37,000 long-term empty homes, according to Shelter Scotland

Can Robots Free Us?

With capitalism once again running into choppy waters, its administrators, of whatever party, will be casting about them for policies to keep it on an even keel. But, as usual, the problems which have always baffled them continue to do so. There has been a stagnation of wages and a stubborn increase in insecure employment, and after all this time they are still talking about urgent measures to solve the housing problem.

Lacking knowledge of the real cause of these problems, workers will cast their vote in despair from one capitalist party to the other. It is only the Socialist Party which says “a plague on all their houses” and works on for the day when the alternative of common ownership will be known on a mass scale and capitalist society will be no more.

We are in the middle of a technological revolution. Once, the craftsman had to give way to the factory worker. Now, the factory worker has to give way to the programmer. Eventually, the penny will drop that we possess the means of producing and distributing wealth which can belong to everyone. This will mean that computers will be used to satisfy the needs of everyone. It is not possible to predict exactly the uses to which computers will be put, because it all depends on the will of the majority of people at the time and none of us is a mind reader. But it is useful to think about what computers could be used for, because this gives us an insight into what socialism could be like. The possible uses are:

• matching production to needs;
• “electronic democracy”
• automation of dangerous or unpleasant work;

Matching production to needs:
If you want to know what people need, you ask them, or better still, arrange for a computer to ask them for you. It saves you travelling all over the world, asking monotonous questions such as: "Do you use aftershave?" — useful information for someone who does his/her bit by brewing aftershave. In turn, the aftershave manufacturers could enter into the computer the raw materials that are needed and in what amounts. The computer would transmit this information to the suppliers.

“Electronic democracy”
If a computer can count aftershave users, it can also count votes cast for and against any proposal presented by any person, such as "Should we continue making aftershave?" It is likely that the system will be polycentric, a local computer counting votes for local proposals, a regional computer counting votes for regional proposals and a world computer counting votes for world proposals. Bigger decisions affect more people and so would be decided by delegated democracy. This system could be implemented today. Ask yourself why governments which spend millions on supposedly defending democracy are not willing to spend even thousands implementing it.

Automation of dangerous or unpleasant work:
There will always be dangerous or unpleasant work that needs to be done. It will be possible to automate work that produces essential goods and services. The technology to do this has existed for several years. Robots can now assemble cars, manufacture computers. make furniture and so on. More recently, computers can mimic workers that make decisions according to rules, such as quality control inspectors, lawyers and doctors. The reason some work is not automated yet is because it is still unprofitable to do so. But the technology is there, waiting to be used should society decide to use it. For example, if our aftershave producer decides to grow bananas for a change and no replacement was immediately available, he/she could see an expert systems programmer. This programmer would write a programme that would instruct the computer to operate the aftershave brewery. Should the ex-aftershave brewer get nostalgic, he/she could always return and pull the plug on the computer.

The building blocks for constructing the computer systems described above have been available for decades. What you have read is not science fiction. It is fact. computer networks are used by companies, especially multi-nationals, in order to co-ordinate their activities and to communicate with each other. The hardware is already in place. All that is necessary is to reprogramme the computers to perform the tasks described in this article, should that be the wish of the majority of the people at the time.

Defenders of the capitalist status quo tell people that socialism is not workable. They think that workers are not intelligent enough to run a system of production for use, one where there are no followers and leaders but a system where everyone co-operates in decision making. They forget that workers are intelligent enough to perform the tasks necessary to run a capitalist society. It is workers who design, build and operate computer systems. When the wage and salary earners of the world, the working class, want socialism they will have it.