No Money, No Wages, No Prices, No Private Property

We are living in a class society in which there is no common social interest. The government’s job is to look after the interests of the propertied few who own Britain. This job involves all governments in conflict with the other class in society, those who have to work for a living. Capitalism is a class system that can only work for those who own the means of production. Until these means are commonly owned the problems facing wage workers can never be solved. Those who are going to vote Tory or Labour in the hope of getting a better life will be as disappointed.

In managing the affairs of the capitalists governments have to ensure that profit-making can go on as smoothly as possible and are, from time to time, forced to take measures aimed at restoring profit levels by reducing workers’ living standards. The Labour Party have done this as well as the Tories. The capitalist system just cannot be made to work in the interests of wage earners. his is why a change of government from Johnson to Corbyn would make no difference.

When the Socialist Party proposes that we can do without money, our critics from both Right and Left tell us it would mean we'd have to go hack to barter.

Why?

Who said that barter and money were the only two ways of getting wealth to people? Obviously if that were the choice, money would win hands down. It is a very convenient invention that saves much time and trouble whenever goods are bought and sold. It would not be very sensible to go back to barter anyway, since money developed out of the barter system when it was seen how convenient it was if all goods could be exchanged for one particular one.

It is not quite true that socialists want to "abolish money”. Socialism will not be like today except that there won’t be any money. What socialists want is a society in which, among other things, money will have become unnecessary. That brings us to the third choice: free distribution of wealth, or if you prefer free access to wealth, where people can take from the common store what they need as and when they need it.

Those who disagree with the Socialist Party say there would be utter chaos. People would just grab as much as they could.

Why should they?

People don’t grab those things which even now they can have as much as they like of. Take water. Once you have paid the rates, there is no restriction on the amount you can take. Do we find people leaving their taps running all day or filling buckets to hoard away? Of course not. People know what their daily needs of water are. and that there will always be enough to meet them, so they only take what they need when they need it. There is no charge to use some parks or libraries but people still behave normally: they use these free facilities as and when they want to. In some places they don’t charge for travelling on public transport. Yet still people behave sensibly: they use the trains or the phones only when they want to. This is normal behaviour. In a socialist society, where food, clothing, shelter, travel, entertainment and the other things people need to live and enjoy life will be freely available, why should people suddenly go mad and start grabbing more than they need? Is it not more likely that, as with water today, they will take only what they need?

Many in the environmentalist movement concerned with over-consumption warn the Socialist Party there wouldn’t be enough to go round anyway.

Oh yes there would. You needn’t worry about that. Scientists and engineers have long known that mankind has the means — the modern industries and farms, the technical know-how and the skilled manpower — to abolish forever famine, poverty and slums. There is no technical reason why modern industry should not turn out an abundance of the things people need. We can easily grow more and better food; manufacture more and better clothes: build more and better houses, schools, hospitals and other public buildings. It is a question of incentive. Today where production is geared to profit-making, this is not done because the rule is “no profit, no production”. In Socialism where production will be geared instead to meeting human needs, people can go on producing till all their needs are met.

People who doubt peoples capacity to work cooperatively ask who is going to work for nothing. Once again the underlying assumption, that people are basically lazy, is wrong. Most people don’t want to be idle all day long, doing nothing. It is normal to want to do something — in other words to want to work. For work is simply exercising your mental and physical faculties. Work may be pleasant (as in your leisure-time activities) or unpleasant (as, generally speaking, in your employer’s working time). Most people, quite reasonably, expect the work they do voluntarily to be pleasant. In socialism, with satisfying human needs (including the need for enjoyable work) as its aim and where all work will be voluntary, people will ensure that they work in safe and pleasant surroundings and that they enjoy what they are doing to help run the society of abundance which benefits them all.


Sceptics and cynics then want to know who do the dirty and unpleasant and dangerous work.

Well, that depends on what you mean by that. What work is dirty and what is not is a matter of opinion. The same work can be pleasant or unpleasant depending on why it is done and on how other people think of those who do it. People who wouldn't dream of being a navvy will gladly dig holes in their gardens. And some of the tasks performed by doctors and nurses are not much different from those done by lavatory cleaners.

Machinery could be designed to do nearly all the dull, repetitive jobs which human beings are now forced to do because it is cheaper to employ them than  to install machines. When society is geared to serving human needs, there will be every incentive to design and install machines to eliminate drudgery. If there prove to be some jobs that cannot easily be done by machines, then either they can be left undone or done (perhaps only for short periods) by people who recognise that someone has to do them. That such people will be found is a reasonable assumption since even today the dangerous, but obviously necessary, job of manning lifeboats is done mainly by volunteers.

Why the Socialist Party?

Capitalism has no policy to solve the crisis of climate change. Within the conditions of capitalist chaos there is no harmonious solution possible. Capitalism can only seek to prolong its life by throwing the burdens of the crisis on to the working people.

Many workers placed their hopes in the Labour Party to bring the solution to their plight and misery. The Labour Party spoke of social change and promised to realise it. Swift disillusionment has followed. Discontent is widespread. The condition of the workers has grown worse; there is no sign of any advance to an egalitarian society. The Labour Government has acted as a representative of capitalism against the workers. Why is this? The failure of the Labour Party is not an accident, not a personal question of this or that particular leader, of this or that particular policy. It is a whole system of politics — the whole system of politics of the supposed “alternative” to revolution that stands exposed in the record of the Labour Governments. They profess the aim of socialism as an ideal for the future yet at the same time they attack the necessity of the social revolution, which alone can realise socialism. They hope to reach their aim without the necessity of overthrowing capitalism, on a basis of co-operation with capitalism, on a basis of winning for the workers gradual gains within capitalism. Therefore their practice is based on capitalism, on acceptance of the capitalist State, on administering capitalism and helping to build up capitalism. This they term  practical and pragmatic policy for the workers to follow. Reformism was able to win small gains for the workers, But capitalism to-day is no longer willing to grant concessions to the workers, on the contrary, through austerity programmes it has cut concessions, made new attacks on  living standards and working conditions.

Millions of workers are turning from the Labour Party and seeking a new direction. What path should they seek? The only way forward is the struggle against capitalism, the path that leads to the social revolution, to socialism. The so-called “left” proclaim their “opposition” to the Labour Party policy and advocate supposed “socialist” alternatives. But on examination their policy will be found to be only the old policy of the Labour Party dressed up in new clothes. Although they speak roundly of “socialism” against “capitalism,” they do not propose the overthrow of capitalism, the working-class conquest of power, the expropriation of the capitalists; their basis is still the same basis of capitalism, of capitalist democracy, of the capitalist State, as with the Labour Party; and therefore the outcome can only be the same. Their only proposals are for the reorganisation of capitalism. But in fact, capitalist reorganisation in the  can only, if the capitalist burdens are maintained, be at the expense of the workers. The question of socialism or the common ownership of industry is explicitly stated to be placed on one side.

It is clear that we shall have to direct production to meet the needs of all. We shall have abolished the rule of class distinctions and privilege, and establish real democracy and freedom for all, the free and equal workers’ society, in order to bring the fruits of the revolution to all, in order to end the present reign of inequality — inequality in respect of every elementary human need of food, clothing, shelter, conditions of labour health, education, etc., and bring the material conditions of real freedom and development to all.

We are not speaking of some utopia, but only of what is immediately and practically realisable so soon as the workers are united to overthrow capitalism and enforce their will. It is  evident that, on the most immediate practical basis, and leaving out of account the enormous increase in production which will result from universal socially organised production, the workers’ rule will be able immediately, so soon as the change is achieved, to realise the most enormous advances in standards, hours, conditions of labour and social conditions. We shall immediately banish poverty.

The choice before the workers is civilisation collapse or the socialist revolution, leading to new life for all. That the workers can by the method of social revolution, and by the method of social revolution alone can rapidly reconstruct and extend production and win prosperity for all. The workers, if they depend on capitalism, can only go down with it.

Not Nationalism

The love for the land of our birth is foolish, absurd, and the enemy of progress. The Socialist Party seeking to win support among working people face the obstacle of class collaboration in the form of nationalism. Socialist principles and working class interests take precedence over all national interests whatsoever. The Socialist Party internationalism involve being also being anti-patriotic. Patriotism is an objectionable sentiment since it means the placing of one’s own country, its interests and well-being, above those of the rest of humanity. We are constantly having impressed upon us by the Left that internationalism does not mean anti-nationalism. Those who wishes his or her country strong invariably requires it to be at the expense of the welfare and interests of other countries. 

Nationalism is really only thinly-veiled imperialism. All nationalisms are reactionary. Nationalist struggle denies class struggle. The left wing error is assuming that national liberation struggles lead to an escalation in class struggle. Nationalism is a weapon in the hands of the ruling class in order to mislead working people.

Too many nationalists say “My country right or wrong.” Even if it is is committing crimes against international law , they wish to see that crime succeed to a certain extent. The Socialist Party regards patriotism as the enemy of socialism and human justice. W e aspire to a greater sentiment than that of loyalty to a particular piece of soil, or even to a particular section or group of the human race into which one happens to have accidently been born into. This is the adequate ground, speaking for myself for my enthusiastic espousal of the cause of the wantonly invaded against the wanton invader. The principle of nationality – of “fatherland” or “motherland”- is not held dearly by ourselves. The principle of being part of the human family is. It is incumbent upon every socialist to assume an anti-patriotic, anti-nationalist, attitude. It is a question of fighting, not for the political independence of one nation, but for a new society – for the worldwide Socialist Cooperative Commonwealth. The cause of the working classes is lost if we allow ourselves to be caught again in a web of patriotism.

The achievement of socialism awaits the building of a mass base of socialists, in factories and offices, on farms and campuses. The development of socialist consciousness, on which can be built a socialist base, must be a socialist’s first priority. Socialism is a process of raising socialist consciousness, and a strategy to make visible the limits of capitalism. Capitalism must be replaced by socialism. Any section of the capitalist class is an enemy of the working class. Only the working class can change society. No small group can perform this task for them. The conspiratorial methods of terrorism runs counter to the mass mobilisations of workers and are alien to the labour movement. It is a tactic of despair which is doomed from start to finish.

There can be no socialist movement which does not face the elementary question of the unity in struggle of the working class beyond borders and nation-states. Nationalists have successfully dress themselves in ‘radical’ clothes. They succeeded because there was no genuine class alternative. Workers can be won from the blind alley of nationalism only if the socialist movement spells out the alternative, drawing workers together around its red banner. Let us cast off all sectionalism, all parochialism, and sit down as brothers and sisters.

Lest we forget

 

Obituary from the June 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

Yet another old comrade, Jimmy Dowling, died suddenly in the latter part of March. He joined the Glasgow Branch in the early 1930’s and despite many vicissitudes never relaxed his adherence to the socialist case. Only those who knew him intimately could appreciate his solid grounding in the Marxist classics. An omnivorous reader, he specialised in the philosophical aspects of historical materialism. Unfortunately, he never became a speaker or writer. Nonetheless, everyone will remember him for his quiet caustic wit and his undying hatred, based upon understanding, of capitalism.

Tony Mulheron

The only path is revolution

The Socialist Party has fought the good fight since its foundation, and will fight it again and again until at last the co-operative commonwealth shall be established and the red flag flies over all lands. Now the time is ripe for the working class to move on to a different system of society.

Capitalism is an uncontrollable economic system which will bend neither to the wishes of politicians nor to the opinions of experts. To live under capitalism is to live for some other purpose than our own fulfilment, as Erich Fromm recognises. We strive and suffer, not to grow more fully ourselves, but to amass figures on a screen somewhere. Our lives only have meaning, and our needs will only be met, if someone else can extract some value from us. To live is to be used. Capitalism can be seen as a big abstract parent, telling us what we can’t have, punishing us for not being good enough. In the face of this system, our deepest needs have to be set aside as we try to satisfy its endlessly changing demands. Perhaps our acceptance of such a punitive social system is merely our replaying in a different form our punitive childhoods.

Capitalism or socialism, this is no longer a debating issue of the future, it is a life and death issue for so many of our fellow workers around the world. And on which we ourselves may be facung with the on-coming climate catastrophe. There is no going backwards. There is only going forward to the socialist future. The old ideas of progress of the old reformist Labour Party which sought to win advances for the workers within capitalism has ended. Capitalism maintains its profit solely on the basis of lowering and worsening the standards of the workers. The crisis is not a crisis of natural scarcity or shortage. Harvests are abundant. Foodstuffs are rotting in the warehouses, or are being burnt. Stocks of goods of all kinds are piled up, unsold. Millions of workers are willing and able to work; but existing society has no use for their labour. The crisis is a crisis of capitalism alone.

The power of producing wealth is greater than ever. It has grown far more rapidly than population, thus disproving all the lies of those who talk of “over-population” as the cause of the crisis. Although capitalism does not use more than a portion of modern productive power, although it wastes most and deliberately cuts down and restricts production in order to increase profits, actual production has grown much faster than population. More foodstuffs. More raw materials. More manufactures. More power. All increasing beyond the rate of increase of population. And the outcome? It would seem natural that the outcome should be greater abundance for all. But what is the result to-day under capitalism? The result is mass impoverishment and lowering of standards. Why? Because capitalist monopoly cannot organise production for use; because the growing discord between ever-greater capitalist accumulation of wealth on one side and growing poverty on the other, makes impossible the use of more than a diminishing proportion of the rising productive power. Every advance of production only intensifies the ferocity of capitalist competition for the market.

Would-be reformers of capitalism (including the Labour Party) urge that if only the capitalists would pay higher wages to the workers, enabling them to buy more of what they produce, there would be no crisis. This is utopian nonsense, which ignores the inevitable laws of capitalism — the drive for profits, and the drive of competition. The drive of capitalism is always to increase its profits by every possible means, to increase its surplus, not to decrease it. Individual capitalists may talk of the “gospel of high wages” in the hope of securing a larger market for their goods. But the actual drive of capitalism as a whole is the opposite. The force of competition compels every capitalist to cheapen costs of production, to extract more output per worker for less return, to cut wages. Just as in America, where the “gospel of high wages” was most talked of to conceal the real process of capitalism at work (intensified output from the workers, with a diminishing share to the workers.) All the leaders of capitalism, economists, financiers, politicians, are at sixes and sevens.

“Who would have thought that cheap and abundant supplies of all the basic commodities should find the science and civilisation of the world unable to utilise them? Had all our triumphs of research and organisation bequeathed us only a new punishment “the curse of plenty?” (Churchill: Romanes Lecture, 1930.)

There are voices crying out to know how a world can produce so much food that people starve, and so many manufactured goods that people go without. Any attempt to organise the growing productive power to meet human needs is a question that does not even enter into their heads because it cannot arise within the conditions of capitalism. Capitalism has no solution. Only socialism can bring the solution. Only Socialism can cut through the bonds of capitalist property rights and organise production to meet human needs. Once capitalism is overthrown, then and only then can production be organised in common for all, and every increase in production bring increasing abundance and leisure for all. This is the aim of the Socialist Party. Only the organised working-class can drive the capitalists from possession and organise social production.

“But these inventions and discoveries, which supersede each other at an ever-increasing pace, this productiveness of human labour, which increases day by day at a hitherto unheard of rate, finally creates a conflict, in which the present capitalist system must fall to pieces. On the one side, immeasurable wealth and a surplus of products which the purchasers cannot control. On the other, the great mass of society proletarised, turned into wage workers, and just on that account become incapable of taking possession of that surplus of products. The division of society into a small over-rich class and a large propertyless working-class, causes this society to suffocate in its own surplus, while the great mass of its members is scarcely, or, indeed, not at all, protected from extreme want. Such a condition of things becomes daily more absurd and unnecessary. It can be abolished; it must be abolished. A new social order is possible, wherein the class differences of to-day will have disappeared, and wherein — perhaps, after a short transitional period, of materially rather straitened circumstances, maybe, but morally of great value-through the systematic use and development of the enormous productive forces already in existence (with equal obligation upon all to work), the means of life, of enjoying life, and of developing all the physical and mental capabilities, will be at the equal disposal of all in ever-increasing fullness.” (Engels: Introduction to Marx “Wage-Labour and Capital,” 1891.)

Marx and Engels wrote in the nineteenth century, this is still the theory to hold  by.