|
|
|
Green
capitalism?
Thanks
very much for your email of July 15 (with the article “Capitalism
versus Nature“, July Socialist Standard). Excellent article!
And
I certainly agree with the broad thrust of your analysis, though I
guess I would distinguish between capitalism as some monolithic
entity incapable of any change, and the kind of capitalism which
might (just!) be able to avoid coming into conflict with nature.
Touch and go, I have to admit, but I guess that’s what I’m still
working away at trying to test out.
JONATHON
PORRITT
Reply: Reforming capitalism to serve
the common interest has been tried before and has never worked. Our
view is that it never will.–
Editors.
Olympic
Retrospect
I
started watching the Olympics and at first was just taken by how well
the participants excelled in their particular activities. Then an
unease about the whole show leaked through. The elitism, the flag
waving and the full-on nationalism made me switch off. Better the
athletes, etc had competed in the name of their multinational
sponsors or pharmaceutical company than this hideous exhibition of
national identity. Backed up by officials and commentators winding up
the patriotic fervour, even that stupid chump Adrian Chiles and other
media prostitutes, screaming for “their” country. Doubtless the
same was happening in all the other countries’ media. I expect the
1936 Olympics was much like this.
STUART
GIBSON, Bournemouth
Not
Standard terminology?
I
have long been impressed by the range and quality of writing in the Socialist
Standard, but in “The Irish No”
(September)
Declan Ganley is described as a 'self-made millionaire' and reference
is made to 'former Communist countries'. Unqualified use of such
terms, repeated ad nauseam in the capitalist media, is surely
something to be avoided in a socialist journal..
ROBERT
STAFFORD, Norway
Reply: You’re right of course. No
millionaire is “self-made” as they get rich by exploiting
workers. And the so-called “Communist” countries were not
communist but state-capitalist. Apologies for the missing inverted
commas.– Editors
|
|
|
Behind
the Race Riots
Recent
disturbances in Nottingham and London have brought up the question of
the attitude between people of different colour; as if there must
always be a fundamental difference in outlook and conduct between
people with differently coloured skins.
Although
on the surface the feeling associated with the recent disturbances is
anti-white and anti-colour, and the rougher elements on both sides
have taken the opportunity to turn this feeling into an occasion for
rioting, the origin of the feeling has a deeper cause than just
anti-colour.
The
origin of the conflicting attitudes is fundamentally economic. Out of
economic relationships arise emotions that take many forms which do
not appear to have any connection with the relationships and are
transformed into a variety of beliefs; for example, the false belief
in the mental and moral superiority of people with white skins.
The
conditions of capitalism produce a mental, or intellectual,
atmosphere in which many conflicting attitudes flourish and older
attitudes are modified. For instance, a pro-war and anti-war, a
pro-religious and anti-religious, a pro-nationalist and
anti-nationalist, and so on.
When
the West Indians and Nigerians first came here in force there was no
particular antipathy to them; there was only some amusement and
admiration of their liveliness and colourful clothing, as well as the
customary patronising attitude that is generally displayed towards
any "foreigner," whatever his skin colour. Labour was
scarce then and unemployment was practically non-existent. However,
when unemployment began to grow and the housing question remained
acute, sufferers, and prospective sufferers, looked around for
something to blame their troubles on and newcomers, as always,
appeared to them to be an obvious part cause of their sufferings. In
these circumstances the general attitude towards coloured people
began to change and they became scapegoats for a failure of
capitalism to meet society's needs.
(from
front page article by Gilmac, Socialist Standard, October
1958)
|
|
Declaration
of Principles
This
declaration is the basis of our organisation and, because
it is
also an important
historical document dating from the
formation
of the party
in 1904, its original language has been retained.
Object
The establishment of a system of
society based upon the
common ownership and democratic control of the
means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in
the interest of the whole community.
Declaration of Principles
the socialist Party of Great Britain
holds,
1.
That society as at
present constituted is based upon the ownership of the means of living
(i.e., land, factories, railways,
etc.) by the capitalist or master class, and the consequent enslavement
of the working class, by whose labour alone wealth is produced.
2.
That in society,
therefore, there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a
class struggle between those who possess but do not produce and those
who produce but do not possess.
3.
That this antagonism
can be abolished only by the emancipation of the working class from the
domination of the master class, by the conversion into the common
property of society of the means of production and distribution, and
their democratic control by the whole people.
4.
That as in the order
of social evolution the working class is the last class to achieve its
freedom, the emancipation of the working class will involve the
emancipation of all mankind, without distinction of race or sex.
5.
That this
emancipation must be the work of the working class itself.
6.
That as the machinery
of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to
conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from
the workers, the working class must organize consciously and
politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and
local, in order that
this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an
instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the
overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.
7.
That as all political
parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest
of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all
sections of the master class, the party seeking working class
emancipation must be hostile to every other party.
8.
The Socialist Party of
Great Britain, therefore, enters the field of political action
determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether
alleged labour or avowedly capitalist, and calls upon the members of
the working class of this country to muster under its banner to the end
that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system which deprives
them of the fruits of their labour, and that poverty may give place to
comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom.
|
|
|
|