The World Socialist Movement takes the uncommon, often unpopular, but very much the orthodox Marxist position in accordance with the Labour Theory of Value that the burden of taxation, despite a few minor exceptions, falls upon the capitalist class. When particular businesses cheat by tax evasion, they are stealing from their fellow capitalists by not paying their “fair” share of the revenue for the upkeep of government services. We already see that there are international efforts to unify different countries tax codes to close down loopholes that enable various ways to avoid taxes, as well as calls to reverse decades of tax-cuts given to the wealthy.

This leads to our stance that we don’t really care about the rich tax dodgers, although it does reveal their hypocritical nonsense of being patriotic and law-abiding. Indeed some of the wealthiest claim to be philanthropists who donate to charities but it exposes the undemocratic attitude that spending policy is to be decided by these individual capitalists and not collectively by their “executive committee”, the State. 

So when it comes to naming and shaming the rich for tax dishonesty, we say it is a crime far less than the thievery from working people of the fruits of our labour-power through the exploitation of the extraction of surplus-value. But we take a feeling of schadenfreude when those “captains of industry” are exposed as the crooks that they are.

 The wealth of the 25 richest Americans collectively jumped by $401bn from 2014 to 2018 – but they paid $13.6bn in income tax over those years. The richest 25 Americans paid a “true tax rate” of just 3.4%. By contrast, the median American household paid 14% in federal taxes,

Amazon’s Jeff Bezos in 2007  paid no federal taxes. In 2011, when he had a net worth of $18bn, he was again able to pay no federal taxes – and even received a $4,000 tax credit for his children. Bezos’s wealth grew by $99bn over the four-year period, but he paid a true tax rate of 0.98%.

Tesla’s Elon Musk’s paid nothing in 2018. Over the four-year period, Musk paid 3.27%

 Warren Buffett, founder of the investment firm Berkshire Hathaway, paid $23.7m in taxes from 2014 to 2018, on a total reported income of $125m. But Buffett’s wealth grew by $24.3bn, meaning he had a “true tax rate” of 0.1%.

Michael Bloomberg with a net worth of $59bn paid 1.3%.

“America’s billionaires avail themselves of tax-avoidance strategies beyond the reach of ordinary people,” ProPublica reported. “Their wealth derives from the skyrocketing value of their assets, like stock and property. Those gains are not defined by US laws as taxable income unless and until the billionaires sell.”

Richest 25 Americans reportedly paid ‘true tax rate’ of 3.4% as wealth rocketed | Business | The Guardian

 The body of a toddler washed up on Norway’s shore on New Year’s Day. It took the Norweigan authorities more than five months from that date to confirm his identity through retrieving and matching DNA.

 He was 15-month-old Artin Iran Nezhad. Artin’s family – his mother, Shiva Mohammad Panahi, his father, Rasul Iran Nezhad, his sister, Anita, nine, and brother, Armin, six –  all drowned on 27 October 2020 trying to seek a new home in the UK by crossing the English Channel.

 “They had a lot of hope about making a new life in the UK. Shiva had many beautiful dreams for the children. She wanted them to get a good education at schools in the UK and then go on to university. Anita wanted to become an actress and had already passed some acting screen tests. Of course, Artin did not understand about crossing the Channel and reaching the UK, but the two older children did.” an asylum seeker who he knew the family well told the Guardian.

 Had the family had money to pay a more expensive smuggler, he believes they might all still be alive today. Artin’s family had originally approached a smuggler offering a relatively safe passage but that person had rejected them because they could not afford to pay him what he wanted. “They had very little money,” said the asylum seeker. Another smuggler was charging less said the asylum seeker. “But he forced them to cross when the weather was bad, in an overcrowded boat…”

Hostile rhetoric surrounding immigration has long been characterised by deliberately dehumanising images and terminology. Suspicion towards migrants is often infused with racism. Making it harder to claim asylum does nothing to prevent tragedies such as the drowning of babies.

There are over 30,000 Asian migrant workers across Portugal, according to estimates by civil rights organizations. The success of Portuguese agriculture in recent years has become its curse. As the country exports more and more berries and vegetables, the demand for cheap labour has soared. But Portuguese people no longer want to do this work.

Most of them are in the country semi-legally, still waiting for their Portuguese papers. They live in inhumane conditions, often working more than 10 hours a day and brutally exploited by dubious temporary employment agencies that place them on farms.

Some live in residential containers or crammed into derelict houses, forced to depend on mafia-like employment agencies. Officially, they work for the state-guaranteed minimum wage of around €600, but they have to pay their employer for accommodation, transportation to the workplace and even food. This often leaves them with only €10 or less per working day.

Cheap Asian workers flock to Portugal′s farms | Business| Economy and finance news from a German perspective | DW | 08.06.2021

 Papua New Guinea has vast natural resources, with gold, silver and copper mines dotted around the country, as well as large petroleum and liquefied natural gas reserves, but comparatively little of the wealth from these resources makes its way into government coffers or trickles down into communities.

 Australian mining companies have paid little or no corporate income tax in Papua New Guinea despite earning hundreds of millions of dollars from their PNG operations, benefiting from a complex taxation system that experts say leaves the country’s resources sector significantly “undertaxed”.

In the past decade Australian mining giants Newcrest and St Barbara, which have huge mines in PNG, have paid no corporate income tax some years, with the companies using generous tax rules and accounting practices to minimise their tax burdens.

In 2018, oil and mineral products made up almost 90% of the value of Papua New Guinea’s exports but less than 10% of government revenues. Oil and mineral products contributed an even smaller share of government revenues in previous years.

This is partly due to PNG’s taxation system, which uses an additional profits or “rent tax” method of taxation, which is complex, rather than a more straightforward flat royalty rate.

Australian companies own and operate many of the largest mines in Papua New Guinea, and 97% of PNG’s gold exports go to Australia, but the royalties, salary and other taxes levied in PNG can add up to just a fraction of either the revenue or operating profit.

St Barbara operates the Simberi mine, one of the largest gold mines in the world, in New Ireland province. The mine has generated AU$199m or more in revenues in each of the past four years but paid nothing in income taxes to the PNG government between 2012 and 30 June 2020. Between 1 July and 31 December 2020, St Barbara paid AU$7.7m gross in Papua New Guinea income tax. That mine booked gross profit greater than AU$75m in each of 2020, 2019, 2018 and 2017 financial years. In the 2016 financial year, St Barbara’s Simberi operations booked AU$170m in revenue and AU$50m in gross profit.

Newcrest Mining operates the Lihir goldmine on Aniolam Island in PNG. Newcrest did not pay corporate income tax in PNG in 2016 or 2017. In 2018 Newcrest booked more than US$1.2bn in revenue from the Lihir mine. Earnings before interest and taxes for Lihir were US$261m.

Diane Kraal, a senior lecturer at Monash University, was appointed by the PNG government to research petroleum and mining tax reform in the country in 2014. Kraal said PNG’s taxation system meant there was “no equity” for the Papua New Guinean people and had crippled the government’s ability to provide basic services to its people,

“Looking at the latest World Bank report in PNG, they confirm that the resource sector in PNG is undertaxed,” she said. “It’s undertaxed because of poor tax design and companies aren’t going to complain about that. In PNG they have persisted with a rent tax and it hasn’t worked because it’s too complex,” said Kraal. “These things can be manipulated…” The taxation system in PNG is a legacy from when PNG was an Australian colony and offered tax holidays and other exemptions to attract foreign investors, Kraal said. “There’s a presence of multinational companies in PNG, including Australian companies, and they’re hugely powerful,” she said. “When huge companies start lobbying, you’ve got to have a strong press, you’ve got to have a strong government … and they don’t have that in PNG at the moment… They’ve got Covid, they’ve got economic contraction and they’ve got political problems and that just gives power to vested interests.”

 Australian companies, she said were doing the “right thing” by shareholders in seeking to minimise their tax burden. “You can’t expect foreign companies to pay more tax than the legislation requires.”

Australian mining companies have paid little or no corporate income tax in PNG despite huge profits | Papua New Guinea | The Guardian

 New data shows atmospheric carbon dioxide reached a monthly average level of 419 parts per million in May, which is not only the maximum reading ever recorded since accurate measurements began 63 years ago but also the highest level the planet has experienced in over four million years. Scientists noted that while the worldwide economic slowdown during the coronavirus pandemic led to a significant but temporary decrease in global greenhouse gas emissions, the drop had no discernible impact on the rate of atmospheric CO2 accumulation.

 A research report (pdf) by Zurich-based Swiss RE, Oxfam International warns that the looming devastation of runaway greenhouse gas emissions and the climate crisis could result in economic retractions twice as potent as the global recession unleashed by  Covid-19—a calamity, unlike the pandemic, which could go on for many years without end. Oxfam International said while the world’s poorest nations will be the hardest hit, even the rich nations will not be spared from the economic pain that will come if world temperatures rise by 2.6ºC that some scenarios predict.

Economies of the G7 nations could see an average loss of 8.5 percent annually by the middle of the century―equivalent to $4.8 trillion―if more urgent action to address global warming is not taken immediately. This potential drop in GDP is double that of the coronavirus pandemic, which resulted in an average 4.2% reduction among G7 nations, recessions that resulted “in staggering job losses and some of the largest economic stimulus packages ever seen.” But, Oxfam added, “economies are expected to bounce back from the short-term effects of the pandemic, the effects of climate change will be seen every year.”

India could lose 27% of its economy.Australia, South Africa and South Korea are projected to lose 12.5, 17.8 and 9.7% respectively.The Philippines is projected to lose 35%Colombia is projected to lose 16.7%

 Tennessee’s Constitution includes a provision that bars three groups from holding office: atheists, ministers and those engaging in duels. Efforts are underway in the state legislature to remove this exclusion for ministers, but not for duelists – nor atheists.

In January 2021, Republican Tennessee State Senator Mark Pody proposed Senate Joint Resolution 55 to amend Article IX of the Constitution of Tennessee to rid it of a clause that states “no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature.” No mention is made in Pody’s resolution about Section 2 of the same article: “No person who denies the being of God … shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.” 

Tennessee is one of seven states that has an unconstitutional ban on atheists holding public office despite the US Supreme Court holding such laws to be unenforceable. These bans periodically impede atheists from holding public office, obliging some to go to court.

 Politicians show little interest in removing the bans on atheists that exist in state constitutions.  The belief in God rule implies good and moral citizenship.

 Americans embrace national slogans such as “In God We Trust” and “one nation, under God.” A 2015 survey found that 69% of respondents thought it was important to believe in God to be “truly American.”  Polling shows 4% of Americans identify as atheists, and about 23% identify more broadly as nonreligious. While identifying as “nonreligious” does not necessarily mean not believing in God, research suggests that as many as 1 in 4 Americans is atheist, but that most are unwilling to reveal this, even in anonymous polls.

Atheists have long been framed as un-American. When Democratic Representative Louis Rabaut proposed adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, he argued that an “atheistic American” is a “contradiction in terms.”

When Bernie Sanders was running for president in 2016, leaked emails from Democratic National Committee leaders revealed a plot to try to out him as an atheist to negatively influence perceptions of him. Only 60% of Americans would be willing to contemplate voting for an atheist president.

In a 2021 survey of Congress’ religious identity, only one person, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, identified as “religiously unaffiliated.” Eighteen members replied “don’t know” or refused to answer the question. As such, there are likely more atheists in Congress – they’re just not open about their beliefs. In fact, in 2014, the American Humanist Association claimed that 24 members of Congress privately stated they did not believe in God but would deny it if outed.

This anti-atheism extends beyond politics. Atheists face discrimination in the workplace and hiring practices. Parents who are religious often have an advantage in custody cases. Even though atheists are no more likely to commit crimes than theists, stereotypes surrounding atheist criminality and untrustworthiness persist. In court, atheist rape victims are less likely to be believed than Christian or religiously ambiguous victims.

Atheists are ‘not to be tolerated’: 7 states still have bans on non-believers holding office – Alternet.org

There are critics of capitalism who argue that the way out is for workers to form co-operatives. For many,  the cooperative movement as it exists today is associated with socialism and the struggle to overthrow the capitalist system of society. Co-operatives have in fact a long association with attempts by workers to improve their lot under capitalism.  The Socialist Party has no problem with workers forming cooperatives if that’s the best way they can survive under capitalism. However, we disagree with the sometimes-made claim that they can be a route to socialism because, aside from any political consideration, unless they are in a small market niche with no competition, they tend to be out–competed by the brutal cost and wage-cutting tactics of conventional businesses.

While we can sympathise albeit with a critical mind those cooperatives aimed at abolishing the wages systems, private ownership and profit-making we acknowledge the vast majority of the others merely wishes to redirect the flow of profits from the private owner or investor to the cooperative members. It has not and cannot solve the poverty problem either of its members or of its employees. The basic fallacy in the co-operative idea is a wrong explanation of rent, interest and profit. Because the means of production—land, factories, steamships, etc.—are privately owned, the workers who wish to operate these instruments must first enter into a one-sided bargain; one-sided because the goad of semi-starvation forces their hand. They bargain to produce wealth for the owners of capital and receive as the price of the energies they sell wages or salaries which, over the whole field of Capitalism, are only a small proportion of the values they produce. What the capitalists get is a property-income, something which arises from their monopoly and not from their services, and which varies according to the size of their capital. Rent, interest and profit, if the terms are cleared of some looseness which surrounds their common use, are merely names for this income that goes to the owners of property because they are owners.

Proponents of co-operatives want to eliminate the middleman and redirect the flow of profit—but what is profit? Profit is the child of private ownership and is obtained by the exploitation of the workers. Co-operative “divi” is derived from the exploitation of cooperative employees. The relation between the latter and the societies is precisely the same as that between other workers and their employers. The co-operative movement has all the trappings but none of the substance of success. Its members are still wage-earners, still exploited by the capitalist class and still, therefore, poor; its employees are in the same condition. If the societies as at present constituted extend until they cover the whole working-class that will still be true. It has made no inroads into the capitalist system.

Co-operatives have not and cannot emancipate the working class. Only socialism will do that. The workers cannot escape from the effects of capitalism by joining cooperative societies. They must obtain for society as a whole the ownership of the means of production and distribution which are now the property of the capitalist class. For this, they must organise in the Socialist Party for the purpose of controlling the machinery of government. Once possessed of power they can then reorganise society on a socialist basis of common ownership. The cooperative commonwealth can only be achieved by socialist methods.

Evicting the bosses from their directors’ board rooms and organising production from the shop-floor without them is one thing; escaping from the economic laws of the market is another – as, within capitalism, it is not just a question of organising production, but also of selling what is produced. The cooperative model tends to operate within the capitalist logic of productivity and profitability … the pressure on them to adopt a capitalist business logic is immense. Cooperatives are embedded in the framework of the capitalist economy and compete on the capitalist market following the logic of profit-making.

Cooperatives do not provide a real solution to the workers’ situation. It is incapable of providing an answer in the interests of all workers. At no time does it question the capitalist production relationships – it questions only superficial features (management structures, for instance). Even less can a network of cooperatives create a parallel system to capitalism? The more coop members  have to discipline and pressurise themselves in the way the old bosses did – what we call “self-managed exploitation.” Workers in cooperatives have in effect to organise their own exploitation for profit to be accumulated as more capital. They are not the way out. As Marx pointed out, co-operatives ‘must reproduce everywhere in their actual organisation all the shortcomings of the prevailing system.’ And they do. Although Marx mentioned workers’ cooperatives as possible harbingers of the new society, he cautioned that, as long as they exist within capitalism, the cooperatives ‘naturally reproduce in all cases…all the defects of the existing system, and must reproduce them…the opposition between capital and labour is abolished here…only in the form that the workers in association become their own capitalist.’ On their own, there is nothing intrinsically socialist about cooperatives.

A co-op does not cease being a capitalist enterprise simply because votes are taken on how its assets are used within a society of generalised commodity production and wage labour. The imperative to accumulate with all the drive to minimise the labour time taken to do a task this requires remains even in a co-op. Thus cooperatives are under the same pressure to seek to maximise profit as a condition for surviving as an economic institution embodying capital. It is just that in their case the trustees – the functionaries of capital – are different: worker-elected boards.

Socialism takes over the means of production, by abolishing all sectional property rights over them and that includes members of worker-owned businesses and uses them to directly produce, without the intervention of buying and selling, what people need, both as individuals and as communities. 

There are critics of capitalism who argue that the way out is for workers to form co-operatives. For many,  the cooperative movement as it exists today is associated with socialism and the struggle to overthrow the capitalist system of society. Co-operatives have in fact a long association with attempts by workers to improve their lot under capitalism.  The Socialist Party has no problem with workers forming cooperatives if that’s the best way they can survive under capitalism. However, we disagree with the sometimes-made claim that they can be a route to socialism because, aside from any political consideration, unless they are in a small market niche with no competition, they tend to be out–competed by the brutal cost and wage-cutting tactics of conventional businesses.

While we can sympathise albeit with a critical mind those cooperatives aimed at abolishing the wages systems, private ownership and profit-making we acknowledge the vast majority of the others merely wishes to redirect the flow of profits from the private owner or investor to the cooperative members. It has not and cannot solve the poverty problem either of its members or of its employees. The basic fallacy in the co-operative idea is a wrong explanation of rent, interest and profit. Because the means of production—land, factories, steamships, etc.—are privately owned, the workers who wish to operate these instruments must first enter into a one-sided bargain; one-sided because the goad of semi-starvation forces their hand. They bargain to produce wealth for the owners of capital and receive as the price of the energies they sell wages or salaries which, over the whole field of Capitalism, are only a small proportion of the values they produce. What the capitalists get is a property-income, something which arises from their monopoly and not from their services, and which varies according to the size of their capital. Rent, interest and profit, if the terms are cleared of some looseness which surrounds their common use, are merely names for this income that goes to the owners of property because they are owners.

Proponents of co-operatives want to eliminate the middleman and redirect the flow of profit—but what is profit? Profit is the child of private ownership and is obtained by the exploitation of the workers. Co-operative “divi” is derived from the exploitation of cooperative employees. The relation between the latter and the societies is precisely the same as that between other workers and their employers. The co-operative movement has all the trappings but none of the substance of success. Its members are still wage-earners, still exploited by the capitalist class and still, therefore, poor; its employees are in the same condition. If the societies as at present constituted extend until they cover the whole working-class that will still be true. It has made no inroads into the capitalist system.

Co-operatives have not and cannot emancipate the working class. Only socialism will do that. The workers cannot escape from the effects of capitalism by joining cooperative societies. They must obtain for society as a whole the ownership of the means of production and distribution which are now the property of the capitalist class. For this, they must organise in the Socialist Party for the purpose of controlling the machinery of government. Once possessed of power they can then reorganise society on a socialist basis of common ownership. The cooperative commonwealth can only be achieved by socialist methods.

Evicting the bosses from their directors’ board rooms and organising production from the shop-floor without them is one thing; escaping from the economic laws of the market is another – as, within capitalism, it is not just a question of organising production, but also of selling what is produced. The cooperative model tends to operate within the capitalist logic of productivity and profitability … the pressure on them to adopt a capitalist business logic is immense. Cooperatives are embedded in the framework of the capitalist economy and compete on the capitalist market following the logic of profit-making.

Cooperatives do not provide a real solution to the workers’ situation. It is incapable of providing an answer in the interests of all workers. At no time does it question the capitalist production relationships – it questions only superficial features (management structures, for instance). Even less can a network of cooperatives create a parallel system to capitalism? The more coop members  have to discipline and pressurise themselves in the way the old bosses did – what we call “self-managed exploitation.” Workers in cooperatives have in effect to organise their own exploitation for profit to be accumulated as more capital. They are not the way out. As Marx pointed out, co-operatives ‘must reproduce everywhere in their actual organisation all the shortcomings of the prevailing system.’ And they do. Although Marx mentioned workers’ cooperatives as possible harbingers of the new society, he cautioned that, as long as they exist within capitalism, the cooperatives ‘naturally reproduce in all cases…all the defects of the existing system, and must reproduce them…the opposition between capital and labour is abolished here…only in the form that the workers in association become their own capitalist.’ On their own, there is nothing intrinsically socialist about cooperatives.

A co-op does not cease being a capitalist enterprise simply because votes are taken on how its assets are used within a society of generalised commodity production and wage labour. The imperative to accumulate with all the drive to minimise the labour time taken to do a task this requires remains even in a co-op. Thus cooperatives are under the same pressure to seek to maximise profit as a condition for surviving as an economic institution embodying capital. It is just that in their case the trustees – the functionaries of capital – are different: worker-elected boards.

Socialism takes over the means of production, by abolishing all sectional property rights over them and that includes members of worker-owned businesses and uses them to directly produce, without the intervention of buying and selling, what people need, both as individuals and as communities. 

There are critics of capitalism who argue that the way out is for workers to form co-operatives. For many,  the cooperative movement as it exists today is associated with socialism and the struggle to overthrow the capitalist system of society. Co-operatives have in fact a long association with attempts by workers to improve their lot under capitalism.  The Socialist Party has no problem with workers forming cooperatives if that’s the best way they can survive under capitalism. However, we disagree with the sometimes-made claim that they can be a route to socialism because, aside from any political consideration, unless they are in a small market niche with no competition, they tend to be out–competed by the brutal cost and wage-cutting tactics of conventional businesses.

While we can sympathise albeit with a critical mind those cooperatives aimed at abolishing the wages systems, private ownership and profit-making we acknowledge the vast majority of the others merely wishes to redirect the flow of profits from the private owner or investor to the cooperative members. It has not and cannot solve the poverty problem either of its members or of its employees. The basic fallacy in the co-operative idea is a wrong explanation of rent, interest and profit. Because the means of production—land, factories, steamships, etc.—are privately owned, the workers who wish to operate these instruments must first enter into a one-sided bargain; one-sided because the goad of semi-starvation forces their hand. They bargain to produce wealth for the owners of capital and receive as the price of the energies they sell wages or salaries which, over the whole field of Capitalism, are only a small proportion of the values they produce. What the capitalists get is a property-income, something which arises from their monopoly and not from their services, and which varies according to the size of their capital. Rent, interest and profit, if the terms are cleared of some looseness which surrounds their common use, are merely names for this income that goes to the owners of property because they are owners.

Proponents of co-operatives want to eliminate the middleman and redirect the flow of profit—but what is profit? Profit is the child of private ownership and is obtained by the exploitation of the workers. Co-operative “divi” is derived from the exploitation of cooperative employees. The relation between the latter and the societies is precisely the same as that between other workers and their employers. The co-operative movement has all the trappings but none of the substance of success. Its members are still wage-earners, still exploited by the capitalist class and still, therefore, poor; its employees are in the same condition. If the societies as at present constituted extend until they cover the whole working-class that will still be true. It has made no inroads into the capitalist system.

Co-operatives have not and cannot emancipate the working class. Only socialism will do that. The workers cannot escape from the effects of capitalism by joining cooperative societies. They must obtain for society as a whole the ownership of the means of production and distribution which are now the property of the capitalist class. For this, they must organise in the Socialist Party for the purpose of controlling the machinery of government. Once possessed of power they can then reorganise society on a socialist basis of common ownership. The cooperative commonwealth can only be achieved by socialist methods.

Evicting the bosses from their directors’ board rooms and organising production from the shop-floor without them is one thing; escaping from the economic laws of the market is another – as, within capitalism, it is not just a question of organising production, but also of selling what is produced. The cooperative model tends to operate within the capitalist logic of productivity and profitability … the pressure on them to adopt a capitalist business logic is immense. Cooperatives are embedded in the framework of the capitalist economy and compete on the capitalist market following the logic of profit-making.

Cooperatives do not provide a real solution to the workers’ situation. It is incapable of providing an answer in the interests of all workers. At no time does it question the capitalist production relationships – it questions only superficial features (management structures, for instance). Even less can a network of cooperatives create a parallel system to capitalism? The more coop members  have to discipline and pressurise themselves in the way the old bosses did – what we call “self-managed exploitation.” Workers in cooperatives have in effect to organise their own exploitation for profit to be accumulated as more capital. They are not the way out. As Marx pointed out, co-operatives ‘must reproduce everywhere in their actual organisation all the shortcomings of the prevailing system.’ And they do. Although Marx mentioned workers’ cooperatives as possible harbingers of the new society, he cautioned that, as long as they exist within capitalism, the cooperatives ‘naturally reproduce in all cases…all the defects of the existing system, and must reproduce them…the opposition between capital and labour is abolished here…only in the form that the workers in association become their own capitalist.’ On their own, there is nothing intrinsically socialist about cooperatives.

A co-op does not cease being a capitalist enterprise simply because votes are taken on how its assets are used within a society of generalised commodity production and wage labour. The imperative to accumulate with all the drive to minimise the labour time taken to do a task this requires remains even in a co-op. Thus cooperatives are under the same pressure to seek to maximise profit as a condition for surviving as an economic institution embodying capital. It is just that in their case the trustees – the functionaries of capital – are different: worker-elected boards.

Socialism takes over the means of production, by abolishing all sectional property rights over them and that includes members of worker-owned businesses and uses them to directly produce, without the intervention of buying and selling, what people need, both as individuals and as communities. 

There are critics of capitalism who argue that the way out is for workers to form co-operatives. For many,  the cooperative movement as it exists today is associated with socialism and the struggle to overthrow the capitalist system of society. Co-operatives have in fact a long association with attempts by workers to improve their lot under capitalism.  The Socialist Party has no problem with workers forming cooperatives if that’s the best way they can survive under capitalism. However, we disagree with the sometimes-made claim that they can be a route to socialism because, aside from any political consideration, unless they are in a small market niche with no competition, they tend to be out–competed by the brutal cost and wage-cutting tactics of conventional businesses.

While we can sympathise albeit with a critical mind those cooperatives aimed at abolishing the wages systems, private ownership and profit-making we acknowledge the vast majority of the others merely wishes to redirect the flow of profits from the private owner or investor to the cooperative members. It has not and cannot solve the poverty problem either of its members or of its employees. The basic fallacy in the co-operative idea is a wrong explanation of rent, interest and profit. Because the means of production—land, factories, steamships, etc.—are privately owned, the workers who wish to operate these instruments must first enter into a one-sided bargain; one-sided because the goad of semi-starvation forces their hand. They bargain to produce wealth for the owners of capital and receive as the price of the energies they sell wages or salaries which, over the whole field of Capitalism, are only a small proportion of the values they produce. What the capitalists get is a property-income, something which arises from their monopoly and not from their services, and which varies according to the size of their capital. Rent, interest and profit, if the terms are cleared of some looseness which surrounds their common use, are merely names for this income that goes to the owners of property because they are owners.

Proponents of co-operatives want to eliminate the middleman and redirect the flow of profit—but what is profit? Profit is the child of private ownership and is obtained by the exploitation of the workers. Co-operative “divi” is derived from the exploitation of cooperative employees. The relation between the latter and the societies is precisely the same as that between other workers and their employers. The co-operative movement has all the trappings but none of the substance of success. Its members are still wage-earners, still exploited by the capitalist class and still, therefore, poor; its employees are in the same condition. If the societies as at present constituted extend until they cover the whole working-class that will still be true. It has made no inroads into the capitalist system.

Co-operatives have not and cannot emancipate the working class. Only socialism will do that. The workers cannot escape from the effects of capitalism by joining cooperative societies. They must obtain for society as a whole the ownership of the means of production and distribution which are now the property of the capitalist class. For this, they must organise in the Socialist Party for the purpose of controlling the machinery of government. Once possessed of power they can then reorganise society on a socialist basis of common ownership. The cooperative commonwealth can only be achieved by socialist methods.

Evicting the bosses from their directors’ board rooms and organising production from the shop-floor without them is one thing; escaping from the economic laws of the market is another – as, within capitalism, it is not just a question of organising production, but also of selling what is produced. The cooperative model tends to operate within the capitalist logic of productivity and profitability … the pressure on them to adopt a capitalist business logic is immense. Cooperatives are embedded in the framework of the capitalist economy and compete on the capitalist market following the logic of profit-making.

Cooperatives do not provide a real solution to the workers’ situation. It is incapable of providing an answer in the interests of all workers. At no time does it question the capitalist production relationships – it questions only superficial features (management structures, for instance). Even less can a network of cooperatives create a parallel system to capitalism? The more coop members  have to discipline and pressurise themselves in the way the old bosses did – what we call “self-managed exploitation.” Workers in cooperatives have in effect to organise their own exploitation for profit to be accumulated as more capital. They are not the way out. As Marx pointed out, co-operatives ‘must reproduce everywhere in their actual organisation all the shortcomings of the prevailing system.’ And they do. Although Marx mentioned workers’ cooperatives as possible harbingers of the new society, he cautioned that, as long as they exist within capitalism, the cooperatives ‘naturally reproduce in all cases…all the defects of the existing system, and must reproduce them…the opposition between capital and labour is abolished here…only in the form that the workers in association become their own capitalist.’ On their own, there is nothing intrinsically socialist about cooperatives.

A co-op does not cease being a capitalist enterprise simply because votes are taken on how its assets are used within a society of generalised commodity production and wage labour. The imperative to accumulate with all the drive to minimise the labour time taken to do a task this requires remains even in a co-op. Thus cooperatives are under the same pressure to seek to maximise profit as a condition for surviving as an economic institution embodying capital. It is just that in their case the trustees – the functionaries of capital – are different: worker-elected boards.

Socialism takes over the means of production, by abolishing all sectional property rights over them and that includes members of worker-owned businesses and uses them to directly produce, without the intervention of buying and selling, what people need, both as individuals and as communities.