The World Socialist Movement

 

We have always maintained that the spread of socialist ideas does not depend upon the existence of the Socialist Party or its Companion Parties, but that they arise from the system under which we have to live. 

 

1.  The WSM claims that socialism will, and must, be a wage-free, money-free, worldwide society of common (not state) ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution.

2.  claims that socialism will be a sharp break with capitalism with no “transition period” or gradual implementation of socialism (although socialism will be a dynamic, changing society once it is established).

3.  claims that there can be no state in a socialist society.

4.  claims that there can be no classes in a socialist society.

5.  promotes only socialism, and promotes it as an immediate goal.

6. claims that only the vast majority, acting consciously in its own interests, for itself, by itself, can create socialism.

7. opposes any vanguardist approach, minority-led movements, and leadership, as inherently undemocratic (among other negative things).

8. promotes a peaceful democratic revolution, achieved through force of numbers and understanding.

9.  neither promotes, nor opposes, reforms to capitalism.

10.  claims that there is one working class, worldwide.

11.  lays out the fundamentals of what socialist society must be, but does not presume to tell the future socialist society how to go about its business.

12.  promotes an historical materialist approach—real understanding.

13.  claims that religion is a social, not personal, matter and that religion is incompatible with socialist understanding.

14.  seeks election to facilitate the elimination of capitalism by the vast majority of socialists, not to govern capitalism.

15.  claims that Leninism is a distortion of Marxian analysis.

16.  opposes all capitalist war and claims that socialism will inherently end war, including the “war” between the classes.

17.  noted, in 1918, that the Bolshevik Revolution was not socialist. Had earlier, long noted that Russia was not ready for a socialist revolution.

18.  the first to recognise that the former USSR, China, Cuba and other so-called “socialist countries” were not socialist, but instead, state capitalist.

19.  claims a very accurate, consistent analysis since 1904.

 

Month after month, year after year, our fellow workers appear to be too satisfied with the capitalist system — or too apathetic — to want to put an end to it. They seem almost fatalistic and resigned to their poverty and misery. Workers feel powerless to deal with the important questions affecting their lives. So they ‘participate’ in politics only to the extent of investing some emotional energy by identifying with some personality whose victory will give them some vicarious satisfaction. The workers’ sense of powerlessness with respect to events also makes them unconcerned with policy issues concerned with proposals for reform. Middle-level bureaucrats, editorial writers, intellectuals, and all species of ‘middle class’ reformers frequently advance proposals that are intended to solve, within the confine of capitalism, such problems as racial conflicts, riots, decaying cities, unemployment, air pollution, and foreign policy dilemmas. Such people often bemoan the lack of interest among workers for these proposals. Workers, through their experience, have developed a cynicism about such promises and they feel “let those who get paid for it worry about it”. Outside the small strata of the decision-makers for capitalism, little serious attention is given to the stuff that is served up by the news media as the subject matter of politics. Thus, in one sense, the American scene remains unchanged. The frivolities and gossip that pass for political and social issues are discussed by a small number of those concerned, the masses apathetic; businesses keep on making profits that are quietly pocketed by the ruling capitalist class, and everyone continually faces the problems which the capitalist mode of production makes inevitable. From this perspective  capitalism everywhere has not changed fundamentally in the past hundred years—only the problems have gotten larger. War, climate change and pandemics, for instance, now threatens to annihilate the human race. Yet still political class consciousness, the conscious desire for socialism, is still all but non-existent

 

 

Yet this discouraging sameness is deceptive. Beneath the surface, the forces that shape ociety are at work, ceaselessly changing the foundations. It is not merely that machinery improves, workers become more skilled and new commodities are marketed while capital accumulates. Men and women’s ideas also change as their conditions of life change. 

 

The truth of the matter is that, however successful and secure  capitalism looks at first glance, it is plagued with deep contradictions. These contradictions revolve around the inability of  capitalism, despite its wealth, technology and power, to satisfy human needs. On one hand there is fabulous wealth, on the other hand the most basic of human needs go unsatisfied. Scientists will eventually put a man on the moon but  society cannot perform the simple ask of getting a hungry man with his face pressed against a shop window into contact with the food he needs. Children die of rat bites within sight of the world's marvels of engineering. The illiteracy rate and the rate of infant mortality of the US are above that of far less advanced nations. Farmers are paid not to produce food while millions in the world are starving.

 

 

 Capitalism is the cause of these many social problems we endure and those problems are world-wide, existing not only in obviously capitalist countries like Britain or France or Germany but also, in the form of state capitalism, in countries like China or Cuba. Because capitalism is world-wide so too must be Socialism, the system which will replace it and whose common ownership, democratic control and production solely for use will provide the framework within which today’s social problems can finally be solved.

 

This is why we sometimes refer to our object as “world socialism”, making it absolutely clear that we reject all nationalism and all national approaches to working-class problems. It is also why we are linked with Companion Parties in other parts of the world, with the same objective and the same principles as us and which exist in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and India.

Capitalism is war; socialism is peace

 

It is pleasing to note that the feeling of international solidarity between the workers of different countries is growing more and more strongly. Working people regarded any worker of another nation as “a foreigner”. Now the workers are beginning to understand that the “foreign” workers and themselves are really one and the same.

 The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse gallop across the world. This system makes  the lives of the great majority of the people across the world where capitalism prevails, are somewhat empty and somewhat futile.

When we realise what’s possible in society, we come to the understanding that what stands in the way of our having the benefits of the potential that comes with the development of modern technology, we know that this comes from capitalism, the class nature of society.

 War always came from above — from those who live upon the blood and the sweat of the workers. We, in the World Socialist Movement, denounce the capitalist system which creates war and the armament industries. Total mutual alliance, united revolutionary action against world capitalism - these  can bring victory to the working class. We can carry out our war against war. Our war against the class enemy: the oppressors and the exploiters of working people.  Our hearts  long to unite liberated mankind. Our eyes is fixed unswervingly upon the goal for socialism. What we want is to use class unity as a powerful weapon for victory. Instead of workers everywhere uniting more closely in the fight against  capitalism, workers are weakened. We got division among workers, instead of solidarity. We don’t care what language a person speaks, as long as he or she can fight alongside us for socialism. United we stand, divided we suffer.

The Owners of Scottish Land

 Landowners could be barred from buying country estates or forced to sell off land if they are accused of neglect or abuse of power under proposals being studied by Scottish ministers.

The Scottish Land Commission (SLC), an influential advisory body, has recommended that all large or important land sales in Scotland should be subject to a legally enforceable public interest test to make sure the sale has wider social or environmental benefits.

The SLC has told ministers the concentration of land ownership in Scotland, particularly in the Highlands and uplands, is equivalent to the monopolies seen in business, where small groups of people wield excessive economic power. That could include lairds preventing new houses being built; landowners controlling key assets such as filling stations or boat slipways, or important cultural assets like local hotels and shops; or landowners who employ a majority of local people, stifling different activities.

In a detailed report to the Scottish government, the commission has told ministers any future sales involving estates over 10,000 hectares (24,710 acres), as well as any of economic or ecological significance, such as entire islands, should be included. 

Hamish Trench, commission chief executive, said: “History has given us a pattern of land ownership in which localised ‘monopoly’ power can and does exist. This creates risks that run counter to the needs of a modern, dynamic economy.”

 In a major study in 2019, the commission found that 70% of Scotland’s rural land, covering more than 4.1m ha was owned by 1,125 people or public bodies. Of those, 87 of the most powerful owners had holdings totalling 1.7m ha, including major agencies and charities such as Forestry and Land Scotland, a government body that inherited the Forestry Commission’s estates, and the National Trust for Scotland, as well as powerful hereditary owners such as the Duke of Buccleuch. In 2019, the Church of England’s investment fund became the largest private owner of Scottish commercial forestry. 

Wealthy Scandinavians have also emerged as significant forces in the Highlands, with Anders Povlsen, the billionaire owner of the Bestseller clothing group, now Scotland’s largest private landlord. He owns more than 89,000 ha in the north and the Cairngorms. Lisbet and Sigrid Rausing, multimillionaire sisters from the Rausing family, which established the Tetrapak global packaging company, own large estates near Inverness and Fort William.

Scottish ministers consider stringent land ownership tests | Scotland | The Guardian

World Socialism - The Emancipation of Humanity

 

Against capitalism the Socialist Party has taken its stand. The Socialist Part declares that the emancipation of the working class can only follow the downfall of the capitalist system of production, which places the means of production into the hands of society, reorganised without class distinctions. The Socialist Party holds that the working class the world over is indivisibly one; that as victims of the capitalist class their interests are common, regardless of race, nationality, or gender. While immigration does add to the number of workers, and to that extent increases competition among the workers, it is relatively insignificant compared to the real cause — the introduction of labour-saving technology. Even if every foreigner from now on were excluded, the misery of the workers would still exist and increase. The question of racial superiority or inferiority foments race-hatred, and prevents the organising of the workers.

The Socialist Party does not refuse ameliorations and palliatives offered by the capitalist class, but contends that the more revolutionary the workers become, the stronger they make their economic and political organizations, the more ready will the capitalist class be to throw the sops of reforms to them in order to keep them contented. The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working-class themselves. There is no other way.  Our one aim is to help liberate the working class from the bondage of wage-slavery.

The Socialist Party members are not visionaries nor are they dupes and blind followers. We are students of social evolution who understand history and the laws underlying society and its development. We not only hope for socialism and believe in it, but we hold a confidence if not a certainty that capitalism is impotent to avoid the worsening of its many problems and conflicts. Capitalism is no longer capable to administer the work of the world, or even to preserve it. The merciless capitalists and their mercenary menials have run their course. The time has come when our fellow-workers understand that interests of society are paramount to individual interests, and the two must be brought into harmony, brotherhood in society. The Socialist Party is the only party that honestly stands for economic justice, and this is impossible in a system based upon exploitation.

The Socialist Party is the only world political party in the world. Its fundamental principles are essentially the same in all lands. The Socialist Party recognises no national boundary lines. Every worker everywhere, across all frontiers, are brothers and sisters. The socialist movement, therefore, is a world movement. It knows of no conflicts of interests between the workers of one nation and the workers of another. It stands for the freedom of the workers of all nations; and, in so standing, it makes for the full freedom of all humanity.

Socialism means that all those things upon which the people in common depend shall by the people in common be owned and administered. It means that machinery shall belong to the producers and users; that all production shall be for the direct use of the producers; that the making of goods for profit shall come to an end; that we shall all be workers together; and that all opportunities shall be open and equal to all men and women. The campaign of the Socialist Party is and will be wholly educational. To arouse the consciousness of the workers to their economic interests as a class, to develop their capacity for clear thinking, to achieve their solidarity industrially and politically is to invest the working class with the inherent power it possesses to abolish the wage system and free itself from every form of servitude, and this is the mission of the World Socialist Movement. We shall not compromise, nor shall we be deflected in the least by any consideration from the straight road to the cooperative commonwealth.

The Socialist Party is the only party that does not want a vote that is not intelligently cast. The popularity of a candidate is against him or her rather than for him or her in the Socialist Party. No vote is wanted on account of the personality of a candidate. It is the value of the socialist principle that is taught and emphasised, and if this is not understood and approved the vote is not wanted. Mere disgust with other parties is not accepted by socialists as sufficient reason to encourage the voting of the Socialist ticket. Such votes are unreliable, deceptive and misleading. Those who cast them are apt to desert at the very time they are most needed. Any vote that is subject to the influence of personal considerations is so vacillating that it is of no use in the constructive work of a revolutionary political movement. Better united on the solid basis of principle, than ten times that number thrown together on the shifting sands of personality. The people, like children, are forever looking for some “great man to watch over and protect them. In the Socialist Party principles are paramount; the candidates are the last and least consideration. Socialists are not searching for some mythical Moses to lead them into a fabled promised land, nor do they expect any so-called “great man” to sacrifice himself upon the altar of the country for their salvation. They have made up their minds to be their own leaders and to save themselves. They know that persons have deceived them and will again, so they put their trust in principles, knowing that these will not betray them.

The Socialist Party addresses itself to the working class, seeking to develop the intelligence of that class, while it appeals to the ballot for the realisation of its cooperative commonwealth. It is the only party that is unequivocally committed to their economic interests. The Socialist Party does not expect the support of the capitalist class, for it is opposed to their economic interests, and it would be foolish to expect them to abolish themselves. One class now owns the tools while another class uses them. One class is small and rich and the other large and poor. One wants more profit and the other more wages. One consists of capitalists and the other of workers. These two classes are at war. There can be no peace and good will between these two essentially antagonistic economic classes. Nor can this class conflict be covered up or smoothed over. The workers are not all blind to the causes underlying this great struggle. They are beginning to see and to think.

The Socialist Party is the party of the workers, who are on the right side of this worldwide struggle, and, although a minority today, it contains all the elements of self-development and will expand to a majority. The Socialist Party is the party of the present and of the immediate future. It believes that the competitive system has outlived its usefulness, that it has become an obstruction in the path of progress, that, like feudalism, from which it sprang, it must pass away to make room for its cooperative successor. The Socialist Party stands for the abolition of the wage system, for the economic freedom as well as the political equality of the working class. The Socialist Party stands for the common ownership of the means of wealth production and distribution and the operation of industry in the interest of all. The Socialist Party stands people’s power, by the people and for the people, that wealth may be produced for the use of all instead of for the profit of a few.

Blue-prints aren't drawn up in indelible ink

 It is not particularly scientific to lay down an exact blueprint of how future socialist society will be organised but we are not concerned to design a blueprint for socialism - to say that this or that is how the future must be. No individual, or any minority of socialists, can abrogate to itself the decisions about how to live. These must be determined democratically by the people who make the socialist revolution. We can also imagine that the detailed structures of socialism in the different parts of the world won’t have to be exactly the same and will become clearer the nearer we approach it. Drawing up a detailed blueprint for socialism is also premature, since the exact forms will depend upon the technical conditions and preferences of those who set up and live in socialism. When a majority of people understand what socialism means, the suggestions for socialist administration will solidify into an appropriate plan. It will be based upon the conditions existing at that time, not today. 

Socialism is not a blueprint as to all aspects of the alternative society to capitalism, only a definition of what its basis has inevitably to be. What we can do, however, is to offer a glimpse into society as it could become once it is freed from the stranglehold of the money-men. We can describe certain basic principles and guidelines, and give an indication in very broad and tentative outline of the way we think society might be conducted. But the exact administrative structure and precise mode of behaviour of people in a socialist society will be determined by the specific material conditions of that society. What these specific material conditions will be, and how people will react to them, cannot be known to us at the present time.

Marx and Engels had relatively little to say about the future, partly because they held the drawing up of blueprints for an ideal society to be the very essence of utopianism, utopian as in idealistic, in the sense of an ideal society projected into the future and unconnected with existing social trends. Before the coming of industrial capitalism, the yearning for an egalitarian society could only be a yearning, without any concrete analysis of social reality. By refusing to write recipes for future cook-shops, by failing to talk about the future society except in very general terms for fear of being dubbed “idealist”, they in fact signalled that the building of socialism, as distinct from the opposition to capitalism, was not high on their agenda. Yet for socialists the building of the new society, by spelling out what common ownership, democratic control, production solely for use, and free access mean as a practical alternative that people can support now, must now be part of our agenda.

It is not easy to convince someone of the necessity and feasibility of a fundamentally new society by simply elaborating the description of the future. No matter how appealing that future society might appear, compared to present-day reality, it will probably still seem to be a figment of the imagination. 

Nevertheless, what Marx and Engels did say was usually positive and in line with their generally optimistic view of human nature and the capacity of workers to build a better, more equal and more truly human society than that of capitalism. In particular, Marx wrote of the variety of useful and pleasurable work that would be available to people, in this well-known passage:

"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic"

On another page he summed up the same thought as follows:
"In a communist society there are no painters but only people who engage in painting among other activities" 

(Nor should we forget his son-in-law Paul Lafargue penned a pamphlet with the title "The Right to be Lazy")

Communism, as envisioned by Marx, was to 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".

What Marx and Engels envisaged for the future society, from its very beginning, was a kind of participatory democracy organised without any political leaders or administrators at all, which requires some effort of imagination and historical understanding for the present-day readers to grasp

"Communism puts an end to the division of life into public and private spheres, and to the difference between civil society and the state; it does away with the need for political institutions, political authority, and governments, private property and its source in the division of labour. It destroys the class system and exploitation; it heals the split in man's nature and the crippled, one-sided development of the individual...social harmony is to be sought not by a legislative reform that will reconcile the egoism of each individual with the collective interest, but by removing the causes of antagonism. The individual will absorb society into himself thanks to de-alienation, he will recognise humanity as his own internalised nature. Voluntary solidarity, not compulsion or the legal regulation of interests, will ensure the smooth harmony of human relations… the powers of the individual cam only flourish when he regards them as social forces, valuable and effective within a human community and not in isolation. Communism alone makes possible the proper use of human abilities" so wrote Lezlek Kolakowski, a Marxist commentator, ‘Main Currents of Marxism’,

But some statements by Marx and Engels about the socialist/communist future seem to show that they were not entirely immune from a conception of that future still rooted in the capitalist past. A particular worry about scarcity of goods in the early stages led Marx to consider labour time vouchers or certificates:

"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; and which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birth-marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society—after the deductions have been made, exactly what he contributes to it. What he has contributed to it is his individual quantum of labour"

Two points here. One is that modern production is social, not individual. It is doubtful whether the value of the "individual quantum of labour" could have been measured in Marx's time except in the crudest terms of time. It is even more doubtful whether such a measure could be made today. The second point is where Marx made it quite clear that, if labour time vouchers were used in socialism, this would be a temporary measure resulting from the comparatively low level of technology. Today potential abundance resulting from improved technology has made the idea of labour time vouchers quite outdated. It will no doubt become even more outdated in future. In a particular situation of actual physical shortage perhaps resulting from crop failure we can assume that the shortage can be tackled by some system of direct rationing such as prioritising individuals needs by vulnerability (according to needs), and if there is no call for that criteria, by lottery, or simply by first come - first served.

The socialist goal will be achieved by force of argument, by democratic methods, not by force of arms or authoritarian methods.

"Communism rises above the enmity of classes, for it is a movement that embraces all humanity and not merely the working classes. Of course no communist proposes to avenge himself against any particular individuals who are members of the bourgeoisie…Should the proletariat become more Socialist in character its opposition to the middle classes will be less unbridled and less savage… It may be expected that by the time the rising comes the English working classes will understand basic social problems sufficiently clearly for the more brutal elements of the revolution to be eventually overcome—with the help of the appearance of the Communist Party" (Engels).

This shows a progression of Marxist thought from a capitalist present that is in many ways divisive and brutal, to a communist/socialist movement that is in a transitional stage from divisiveness/brutality, to a future society that will embrace all of humanity. Engels quite reasonably expected workers to become less brutal as they adopted socialist ideas. The working class puts and end to human exploitation not as a conscious goal on behalf of all humanity, but as the inevitable by-product of ending its own exploitation. It accomplishes the general interest of humanity by acting in its own self-interest.

 This “movement” of the working class could be said to be implicitly socialist since the struggle was ultimately over who should control the means of production: the minority capitalist class or the working class (i.e. society as a whole).

 At first the movement of the working class would be, Marx believed, unconscious and unorganised but in time, as the workers gained more experience of the class struggle and the workings of capitalism, it would become more consciously socialist and democratically organised by the workers themselves. The emergence of socialist understanding out of the experience of the workers could thus be said to be “spontaneous” in the sense that it would require no intervention by people outside the working class to bring it about. Socialist propaganda and agitation would indeed be necessary but would come to be carried out by workers themselves whose socialist ideas would have been derived from an interpretation of their class experience of capitalism. The end result would be an independent movement of the socialist-minded and democratically organised working class aimed at winning control of political power in order to abolish capitalism.

 As Marx and Engels put it in The Communist Manifesto, “the proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority”.

This, in fact, was Marx’s conception of “the workers’ party”. He did not see the party of the working class as a self-appointed elite of professional revolutionaries but as the mass democratic movement of the working class with a view to establishing socialism, the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production.

Marx and Engels' own vision of communist revolution pre-supposed the masses' prior self-education. Perhaps the key distinguishing feature of Marx and Engels' thinking was precisely their conviction that the masses could and would educate themselves, organise themselves, liberate themselves, and rule themselves. The nature of a revolutionary movement was seen by Marx and Engels as crucial for the kind of post-revolutionary society that could be expected to emerge. A mass movement of workers meant that a democratic regime was feasible after the overthrow of bourgeois rule. A small conspiracy of professional revolutionaries implied a dictatorial post-revolutionary regime.

Democratic control is not an optional extra of socialism. It is its very essence. Democracy does not mean that all decisions have to made at general assemblies of all concerned or by referendum; it is compatible with certain decisions being delegated to committees and councils as long as the members of these bodies are responsible to those who (s)elected them. Certainly, workers' councils or something akin to them, as workplace organisations of the workers, are bound to arise in the course of the socialist revolution. But to claim that they are the only possible form of working class self-organisation is to go too far, is in fact to make a fetish of a mere organisational form. What is important in working class self-organisation, however, is not the form but the principle. As stated, what is important is not the form of organisation but the democratic - and socialist - consciousness of the working class. This can express itself in a great variety of organisational forms.

The Imagination of the “Impossiblists”

 

When one talks to people about socialism or communism, one very frequently finds that they entirely agree with one regarding the substance of the matter and declare communism to be a very fine thing; “but”, they then say, “it is impossible ever to put such things into practice in real life” - Engels

 Fantasy is the first act of rebellion said Freud. Let us indulge ourselves here in that most human of all pursuits – let us imagine the future.

 

Human society is a particular case in universal evolution. Nothing is eternal and unchangeable. Everything is variable. Every given social form is entirely relative, entirely conditional. Classes and systems succeed each other and differ from each other. For centuries, people have imagined Utopias where advances in technology and attitudes create freedom for all. Capitalism distorts the vision of a future society. We can only see a different system in terms of our present one. The first victim of education is imagination. From a very early age every worker is taught to be “practical”, “realistic” and stop “dreaming dreams”. And yet imagination is the very act of being human. Whatever other aspects make human beings different from other animals, the human capacity to imagine is one of the most striking. The stifling of imagination is essential if the owners are to retain their class monopoly of the planet. That’s because the great revolutionary act for the working class is to imagine an alternative to present day society.

A very natural question arises: “If one can visualise a possible future society then one should be expected to tell something of what that society will be like”. And so one should and so one can, but only within certain limits and with many reservations. In making projections into the future one should realise that one is dealing with the realm of speculation. Where a definiteness of opinion can be allowed is in the realm of the actual: what is and what has been. With the future the best we can hope for is to observe trends in the present and the creation and development of potentials, etc. These can be projected as trends into the future scene which may grow to greater potentials and into actualities that may become definite powers, agencies and institutions. Science does not deal in certainties but in high probabilities. It does not depend on clairvoyance or astrological forecasts for its findings. Nor does it admit the determinists, who tell us that this shall be and that shall not be. Yet, notwithstanding what has been stated, one must allow that science, in its ever restless search for greater knowledge, must permit itself flights of imagination, so to speak, for lacking these it would hardly venture on those essential journeys into the future. In much the same way a socialist speaks of “visualising a future social system”. Science does create for itself what are termed “working hypotheses”; that is to say, it presumes certain things to be so, and for the purpose of establishing a point of departure for definite scientific inquiry it takes its hypothesis as established fact. Of course it recognizes that this at best is speculation but proceeds to then gather data that may prove, or disprove, such hypothesis. In the same way we permit ourselves certain speculations and in so doing “we visualise a future society which will be organised for public good”. But we must never lose sight of the fact that these are speculations, but like the “working hypotheses” of the scientist can be considered valid to the extent that such speculations arise naturally out of our knowledge of the past and the present – and in the absence of any contrary body of facts.

 

The question is thus put “How will production and distribution be carried on in this visualised possible future society?” Socialism is often described in negative terms: a society with no money, no classes, no government, no exploitation. But it is also possible to speak of socialism from a positive viewpoint, emphasising the features it will have, as opposed to those it will not. The future always looks strange when people's minds are imprisoned within the past, but the nearer we get to the next stage in social development the less strange the idea of production for need becomes. There are thousands of workers walking around with ideas in their minds which are close or identical to those advocated by socialists; as that number grows, and as they gather into the conscious political movement for socialism, the doubts of the critics grow fainter and more absurd and what once seemed unthinkable rises to the top of the agenda of history. 

 

“Have you not heard how it has gone with many a Cause before now: First, few men heed it; Next, most men condemn it; Lastly , all men ACCEPT it - and the Cause is Won", so said William Morris. We must not suppose that socialism is therefore destined to remain a Utopia.