Orbiston –The New Babylon

Commemorating Orbiston in Strathclyde Park, the plaque reads
"The Babylon Community, Orbiston (1825-1828)
The first experiment in communal living in Britain" 

 Since the beginning of civilisation, men have repeatedly attempted to build better societies than the ones they have known. The industrial revolution had changed both the prospects and livelihoods of the majority of workers, and rather than increasing their opportunities, they had led to greater uncertainties. The earliest communitarian movements attempted to transform this by forming religious and secular communities with participatory governments and to produce an equilibrium between the private and common ownership of property and work.

The word ‘socialism’ originates with the followers of Robert Owen who is still popularly regarded as “the father of British socialism”. It is not always remembered, however, that the socialism he advocated was co-operative or community socialism. Owen did not think along the lines of the later socialists. His approach was basically apolitical and he rejected the notion of class struggle as a means of social change. Instead, he believed in communitarianism as a method of social reform. Society, he argued, was to be radically transformed by means of experimental communities, villages of cooperation, and this he regarded as a valid alternative to other methods of effecting change, such as revolution or legislation. The foundation of communities was not a series of more-or-less accidental happenings, but the attempt to put into practice a coherent theory of social change. One such project was a Orbiston, later nicknamed Babylon by the locals, near Motherwell and not too far from the reknown New Lanark site. Owen subscribed £10,000, but ultimately withdrew from the scheme because of differences of opinion with other promoters. Instead Owen himself commenced another at New Harmony, in Indiana, America which is surprisingly better known than the Scottish attempt. A  proposal by the British and Foreign Philanthropic Society for the first Owenite Community begn with the purchase of 600 acres of land, owned by Hamilton of Dalzell for the community. After 3 years of inactivity the Motherwell community never came into existence and the scheme was overtaken and in its place, in 1825, Archibald Hamilton and Abram Combe founded a community near Bellshill  at Orbiston, the estate of Hamilton’s father.

Abram Combe was born in Edinburgh on 15 January 1775. In 1826, Combe's health began to fail; he suffered from a serious lung disease, which killed him on 19 September 1827 (11^th or 27^th of  August according to other sources). His death spelled the end of the Orbiston co-operative. In 1820, Combe met Robert Owen and visited his co-operative community at New Lanark. Combe, a tanner by trade, was quickly converted to the cause of co-operation and became an advocate of Owen's principles. He wrote ‘Metaphorical Sketches of the Old and New Systems’ (1823), a critique of competition and exposition of co-operation. Combe influenced the Ricardian socialist economist John Gray, who paid tribute to him in an appendix of his book The Social System (1831).  In Edinburgh, Leather Workers Community was a short-lived community experiment set up in Combe's Edinburgh Tanyard - the leather workers lived communally and operated a profit sharing scheme. The Practical Society was a co-operative venture set up in 1821 by Archibald James Hamilton in partnership with Abram Combe. The Society aimed to improve the lives of members and opened a store for the sale of goods to 500 families. A school was established and members were required to sign a pledge to abstain from drink, tobacco and swearing. At first successful, the Practical Society foundered within a year when the storekeeper appropriated Society funds. Hamilton and Combe proceeded with plans for a grander, co-operative experiment at Orbiston. Archibald James Hamilton (1793-1834) was the eldest son of General John Hamilton, 11th of Orbiston and 6th of Dalzell. Archibald was an idealist and social reformer, and was chiefly responsible for the establishment of an experimental socialistic community on Orbiston Estate. Hamilton's prospectus for establishing a socialistic community at Orbiston was based on Robert Owen's "Report to the County of Lanark of a plan to relieve distress etc ", 1820. Owen's report had been rejected by Parliament as too idealistic, but Hamilton was determined to pursue his dream of creating a community in which "the poor and working classes .. provide themselves…with the necessaries and comforts of life." His prospectus invited wealthy individuals to apply for shares in the Orbiston Community. Share-holders would form a company and could expect in return "full interest and the satisfaction of seeing poverty, and ignorance disappear from their neighbourhood." Funds for the project were not initially forthcoming, and it was left to Hamilton and Abram Combe to bring the project to fruition.

Orbiston Community

The Orbiston Community, dreamt of introducing a new social order to the world and was situated on 290 acres of land. Separate from Owen, Combe purchased land in cooperation with John Hamilton with the help of a bond issued by a joint-stock company, The Orbiston Company. The community did not see the immediate success that had taken place at New Lanark, nor did it predicate its existence on that model. In fact, Owen did not learn of its existence until months after the community was founded. Orbiston was built around the ideals of liberty, security, and knowledge. Combe was to instill this in the membership from the beginning. The commune was constructed around a series of community buildings at its center along a running stream, with a school being central to this plan. As with Owen, Combe tied the idea of education to personal and economic advancement. The main building consisted of a large center building with two wings for living quarters, containing some 120 private rooms. The community also included a theater for cultural advancement, a foundry and forge, and a press for printing its newspaper, The Register. Everything was whitewashed with blue slate roofs. The pearl white community was surrounded by scenic hills and had the appearance of utopia, even if it may not have reached that goal. Combe would work himself to sickness to see its success.

Orbiston was built to earlier plans though with modifications. The main building resembled the design advocated earlier in Relief for the Poor and the Report to Lanark. A classically styled central block (somewhat akin to both the Institute and Mill No. 3 at New Lanark) was to be four storeys high and be intended for community use. It would house the kitchens, dining rooms (to accommodate up to 800 persons), drawing rooms, ball room, lecture hall and library. The vast symmetrical L-shaped wings on either side were to provide private living quarters for the communitarians, with Orbiston was therefore built to earlier plans though with modifications. The last consisted mainly of workers who had fallen victim to the on-going slump following the end of the wars, particularly a group of hand-loom weavers, casualties of mechanisation. As in the original scheme the poor and unemployed were being assisted much as Owen intended. Among the educationists were Catherine Whitwell, and, for a time, Joseph Applegarth, another Owenite teacher, who later participated in the New Harmony community. Economic foundations, in common with the majority of the Owenite communities, were shaky, though as the design suggests, considerable thought had been given to the social and educational aspects of life.

290 members of the community nicknamed 'Babylon' worked as weavers, blacksmiths, joiners, cabinet makers, wheelwrights, printers, painters, shoemakers, tailors, seamstresses and harness-makers. They ran a successful iron-foundery on the 291 acre site that included a 5 storey main communal building, school, apartments & communal dining facilities. 75 acres of the land was cultivated with vegetable garden & orchard. The land being manured with waste from the community sewage system.

 Orbiston community never became truly solvent and survived precariously as it constantly ran short of capital due to the little success it had in production and manufacturing in all areas of endeavor. This had to do with some of the inhabitants it initially attracted, more than a few of which were unsuited for the hard work and others who were idlers by nature. Locals came to call the place “Babylon” referring to the collection of rabble that flocked to the community from the surrounding area. The community spent its second year ridding itself of these and consolidating its membership around those that truly wanted to work toward the commune’s success. Orbiston’s internal government was a further trouble as the members were divided over the operation of the community. The division of income also became a matter of contention as well. The community originally was founded on a system of individual reward for labour, with economic equality to follow later. By integrating agriculture and industrial manufacturing it was believed that this would encourage outside capitalists to invest in the venture. When this did not materialize, the community was hard pressed to survive on its own capitalization.

Abram Combe produced a newsletter "The Register", which reported on progress being made within the community as well as on lectures, plays and other events organised for the edification of Society members. The first edition of the Register was issued on 10 November 1825. Abram Combe wrote of his perplexity at the pessimistic views on the commune's viability being expressed by two Orbiston Company members, who opposed moves to transfer proprietorship of the commune to the tenants, believing that the members were not up to the task. Combe was confident that a restructure of the community into departments was showing signs of success and that an audit of accounts for each department would produce a favourable outcome. Combe disapproved of the thoroughly communistic principles which were adopted in September 1826, after the scheme had been at work for a year. 1827 had begun as a period of hope and renewal at the Orbiston Community. The old payment system had been replaced by one of total communism: communal ownership of property, and equal distribution of wealth. The division of the community into 6 departments or companies was showing signs of success. Weavers were manufacturing cotton for shirts, trousers and jackets. Bookbinders and printers were gainfully employed, and the foundry and horticultural departments were planning to provide goods for the Glasgow market.

The community could satisfy certain personal goals, particularly of people who were in some way social misfits. It offered a solution to problems of personal deficiency or social maladjustment, and had an obvious appeal to those who sought security or escape from the world. Communities such as Orbiston collected their share of such types.  Combe’s views of the earliest members of Orbiston were recorded in the Orbiston Register of 19th August 1827:

“A worse selection of individuals, men, women and children, could scarcely have been made — a population made up for the most part of the worst part of Society. The adults were steeped in poverty ; lazy, dirty and thriftless : the smell of tobacco in almost every house, and a dunghill beginning to rise under almost every window. The children and youths were no better ; they were quarrelsome, unmannerly”

It is clear that Combe believed that the poor folk seeking refuge at Orbiston were fleeing the designs and misery of the Old System, “rather than to seek the advantages of the New.”

The death of Combe in 1827, the single point of commonality for the community was lost and signalled the beginning of the end for the socialistic community at Orbiston. With the loss of Combe came a loss of direction. Funding for the community was becoming scarce. Pressure for repayment of a loan forced William Combe to announce the abandonment of the bold social experiment in December 1827. In November 1828, Thomas Lawrie from Edinburgh compiled a report on behalf of General John Hamilton advising on the value of the lands, and on the best method of dividing the estate for a sell-off. The proprietors soon suspended all further proceedings and disposed of the property after two years and the buildings were pulled down. The demise of the community at Orbiston was attributed more to a lack of interest and desire by its residents in its success, than to its economic failure. More to the truth was its problem with under capitalization. Profits could not overcome the community’s early over expenditures. At least one of Orbiston’s investors was placed in “debtors prison” for advances made to the community, and this fact cannot be discounted as a detriment to future undertakings.

The last remnants of the "Orbiston Community" experiment in social reform can be found in Strathclyde Park, North Lanarkshire; close to the park's Visitor Centre on the Bellshill side of the park. Stone pillars or Key Stones mark a spot near where the Orbiston Community was sited. Known locally as "New Babylon" on account of the unorthodox views and behaviour of residents, the lands and buildings of the Orbiston Community were sold on 7 December 1830, bought by Mrs Douglas, a local landowner who ordered all trace of the community to be removed. A housing estate now covers part of the site and the community is remembered in street names such as Babylon Rd., Community Rd., Hamilcombe Rd. and Register Avenue.

The Influence

Pioneer socialist, John Gray, published a criticism of Combe's experiment, entitled: A Word of Advice to the Orbistonians, on the Principles Which Ought to Regulate their Present Proceedings. The co-operative, anti-capitalist nature of Owen's New System created tension between the administrators and the communitarian's themselves. And, although various trade persons and artisans were initially attracted to Orbiston, the community itself could not generate enough wealth to permit complete autarky and it began to borrow in order to remain buoyant. Internal factionalism and animosity began to tear Orbiston apart. His death marked the end of the scheme; the buildings were pulled down in 1828. Still, Orbiston came closer to success than some later communities would. But Robert Owen appeared blind to the eminent failure of Orbiston and in 1828 he wrote:

“It will gratify you to learn that the good cause is progressing substantially in all countries, and that your exertions, although not crowned with immediate success at Orbiston, have contributed essentially to make the principles known, and to prepare the way for their practice in many places.”

Some previously involved in the Orbiston project later become active in the trade union and Chartist movements, but most slipped back into what Owen had termed the Old Order.

Henry Jones, who was to become founder of Canada’s only Owenite community and perhaps the earliest avowed socialist in British North America, came to Scotland that year  making a loan of £5,000 (approximately a third of his assets) towards its funds that was given to Hamilton Jones was already sufficiently involved in the Owenite movement to become a member of the society’s committee and became one of its auditors.  In the summer of 1826, when Combe had to leave Orbiston temporarily because of illness, Jones took charge of it. But by 1827 the difficulties caused by the poor selection of members had made him apprehensive of its future. In a letter of 23 March he broached to Hamilton the matter of a return of his loan to the Motherwell community and accused him of an “Aristocracy of decision” in his “pronunciation respecting the identity of the friends of the New Views, – and the proper understanding of the principles of the System.” Nevertheless, Jones continued, “We may go on, separately, to exert ourselves in what we believe will best advance the object which we profess to have in view, and where we can, conjointly.” His forebodings were justified when the Orbiston community came to an end after Combe’s death in August. In later years the loan was to prove the cause of litigation that would consume much of Jones’s time and energy. Archibald James Hamilton had died in 1834 and for several years Jones was involved in complex litigation to get back from Hamilton’s estate the money he had advanced to the Motherwell community.

In 1827 Jones sailed to New York and travelled, mostly by water, to Lake Huron, where Jones found suitable land for a new cooperative community in Upper Canada near the mouth of Perch Creek, about 10 miles northeast of present-day Sarnia. Jones returned to Britain later that year. In 1828 he gathered together a group of settlers from the Glasgow area… the community, which he called Maxwell, reputedly after Robert Owen’s residence at New Lanark, Scotland. He hoped eventually to settle between 50 and 100 families. The first contingent of 20 people, which arrived early in 1829 accompanied by a surgeon, consisted mostly of former members of the Orbiston community, almost all of whom were Lowland Scots and unemployed hand-loom weavers. A log building was erected that year with Orbiston as a model, for there were individual family apartments and common kitchens and dining-rooms. A contemporary sketch shows the building, not entirely completed, occupying three sides of a rectangular green; there is a central, two-story block and the wings are single-storeyed. Jones also established a store and a school on Owenite principles.

In 1834 on 17 May after Jones had left on a trip to England and Scotland a fire started in the community house and, as Henry John Jones, his son, recorded, “in less than an hour Maxwell had disappeared – the greater part of the books and light furniture was saved.” The few people remaining in the community after the fire lived in the barn and above the stables until a new building was erected. Jones returned to Upper Canada some time after July 1843, he may have partly shed his Owenism and may have largely remained immune from phalansterianism. In 1840, after Owen’s presentation to Queen Victoria had resulted in vigorous criticism of his principles, Henry John Jones had noted that his father seemed “a little ashamed of ‘Socialism.’” He nevertheless appears to have remained a utopian thinker and planner and, in the sense of desiring a social change in the direction of voluntary association apart from the state, a kind of libertarian socialist. Henry John Jones, remarked in 1839, that his father became “further gone in Socialism than ever.” He bombarded his reluctant relatives in Canada with letters suggesting that they should form a kind of “family community” with the few settlers who remained at Maxwell. He talked “of bringing out another ragged regiment to form a community in case his own family shd fail to come to terms.” Jones’s days of activity ended. He found that the few people at Maxwell who remained from the original settlement had established their own households and had no interest in forming a new community. The family home at Maxwell had been burnt down in 1839 but was rebuilt in 1842 and there Jones lived the rest of his life. Nobody in Canada was influenced by his utopian ideas,

Conclusions

A study of Orbitson reveals the following:

The creation of a new community is likely to attract those who seek an immediate escape from the old order and interests are liable to conflict. And of course there can be no islands of socialism in an ocean of capitalism. The rules of finance still rule.

Build the Social Revolution!

The debate of revolutionary or reformist approaches to social change have been argued through the ages. After several years of capitalist crisis and the imposition of anti-working class austerity, socialism still seems as far from the political agenda as it has ever been. We live at a time when resistance to capitalism and the struggle for a better world are almost totally detached from any striving for socialism. Instead we hear the calls for the British Left either to “reclaim Labour” or to build a new “Labour” party (e.g. Left Unity.) The capitalism versus socialism distinction is largely irrelevant for many political campaigners who see socialism as constituting neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for overcoming the specific injustice they happen to be concerned about. This is also true of many that call themselves “socialists” but who we can label as Left reformists. While they may still believe in a vague and distant vision of socialism, this vision is so vague and distant that it makes no material difference to their conception of political action and who are willing to make whatever compromises are deemed necessary for the realisation of immediate demands. "Reformism", in short, has replaced socialism; and paradoxically, the most militant protests of today are fought for the cause of "reformism" rather than of socialism. The fact that protests or struggles today are informed not by socialism but by "reformism" makes the contemporary period rather unique in the history of capitalism, since from the days of the "utopian socialists" right until late into the last century, capitalism had always been haunted by the spectre of socialism. The vanishing of this spectre therefore makes the contemporary period quite unprecedented. At present, the working class movement is clearly dominated by reformist forces, trade unions and “social-democratic” parties that are not oriented towards overcoming of capitalism. The prevailing narrative is that there is no alternative to "reformism" and a virtue is made out of necessity by pretending that "reformism" also works, that it is in fact the only thing that works. The danger of reformism is clear for all see, with any social democratic or labour party that has ever been in existence being dragged to the right by the flawed idea that by creating a catch-all broad front based on reforming capitalism, with socialism as some 'abstract' distant goal. Trying to create a mass movement of people united against austerity attacks is one that must be supported, however not providing a clear and detailed path towards a socialist society to that mass movement, and trying to convince them of socialism as a "long term aim" is a mistake. A party without a clear commitment towards socialism will be mired in long term reformism. We don't need to wait until sometime in the future, the time has arrived a long time ago.

It must be recognised that reformism is a cancer to the socialist movement, and its only cure is a principled objective towards a socialist society that is under the democratic control of the working class. Perhaps one of the most difficult things many have in understanding the Socialist Party’s almost unique political position is our attitude towards the practice of reformism and actual reforms, which we differentiate between. There is an essential difference between practical struggles for reforms and the ideology of reformism. Although reformism partly grew out of the struggle for reforms, there is a difference. To contrast socialism with "reformism" is not to run down the reforms in which the "reformists" are interested.  Socialists too are in most cases interested in struggling for those very "reforms". The point is not the "reforms" as such but the context and perspective within which the struggle for them is carried out.  And here the contrast between socialists and "reformists" could not be sharper. Surprisingly, Stalin before Stalinism expresses a broadly similar attitude to our own.

“Reformism regards socialism as a remote goal and nothing more, and actually repudiates the socialist revolution …Reformism advocates not class struggle, but class collaboration.” (Anarchism or Socialism, 1907)

The struggle for reforms is a much more mundane aspect of capitalist society. Capitalism is in a constant process of change. These changes generate innumerable and continually varying conflicts which underpin a diversity of social movements for change within the system. Though these movements are typically reformist in scope, it is perhaps of more importance that they move. Workers are brought up to believe that capitalism is normal. Society tells us that anyone who believes the status quo can be changed is simply extremist, utopian or unrealistic. This leads people to believe that capitalism cannot be brought down by working class people, and that we have to rely on reformism.

Socialists and left reformists differ not merely in their methods but in their very goals. Left reformism often involves a state-led, top-down conception of social transformation and frequently does not aim at a genuine form of socialism at all. Left reformists intend merely to take over and transform the existing state into a form of “state capitalism”. Left reformists suggest that a government that is not committed to a socialist perspective can be induced to enact a series of radical reforms which seriously undermine capitalism and galvanise a revolutionary challenge against it, holding to a mistaken view of the neutrality of the capitalist state, totally ignoring the constraints which entail that “realistic” politics is restricted to change within the system and in line with the perceived imperatives of the system. States are capitalist institutions and act as conduits for capitalist “common sense” by constraining the parameters of the reforms considered reasonable. Reformist politicians quickly shift from leading movements to acting as a brake on their further radicalisation if they dare to place unrealizable demands within the limits of the system. The tragedy of reformism is that it tends to become a prisoner of capitalism. It leaves the essentials untouched and doesn’t challenge deeper economic relations. The assumption underlying "reformism" is that an improvement in the condition of the people is possible within the system, and that successful struggles for "incremental" improvements can cumulate to an overall change that constitutes the achievement of a noticeably better world.  What this assumption overlooks is that capitalism is not a malleable but a self-driven system which is governed by its own immanent tendencies. The "normal" role of the capitalist State is to facilitate or aid its development and progress by hastening changes or removing impediments to it.

The argument against "reformism" can also be put as follows. The proposition that the condition of the workers can be improved under capitalism through "reformist" struggles assumes that an advance made by any segment of the oppressed is a durable one over time, that the system will remain "frozen" in the new state where this advance will become incorporated into it, and that from this state a further advance can be made. "Reformism" in short believes in incremental improvements where each improvement is irreversible, and sets the stage for the next improvement; it visualises a sequence of ever shifting, ever forward-moving "equilibrium" states.  But the immanent tendencies of capitalism entail that from each improvement there is a "spontaneous" slide-back towards the pre-improvement situation, unless the balance of class forces is such that the improvement is defended and further extended as part of the dialectics of subversion of the logic of capital, which must be prepared to transcend capitalism and move on to socialism. There exists no possibility of a "frozen" state or "equilibrium", let alone an "equilibrium" from which we advance to another, the next higher one.  Nothing is irreversible, as we witness in the rolling back of the Welfare State, and there is a continuous struggle between moving ahead and moving back. What we see in these times of austerity is that to sustain the initial improvements, more and more intensive intervention by workers in the class struggle becomes necessary, which, if not effected, leads to a slide-back. In times of boom capitalism might concede small demands to workers, but in times of bust bosses always try to claw back their profits by attacking workers.

Is it never possible then for the workers under capitalism to improve their condition within this system? To argue from an absence of class-struggles that such struggles are unnecessary, that the system that prevents the building up of resistance is benign enough to effect improvements even in the absence of such resistance, is spurious.  Because the system has successfully insulated itself against resistance and has successfully blunted working class action, its transcendence becomes all the more necessary.  Even the capitalist is not the hero of the capitalist system acting on the basis of his own free will but an economic agent coerced by the system into behaving in a certain manner. Under capitalism it is economics that drives politics which makes democracy in capitalism hollow.  The "individual" who is supposed to arrive under capitalism undertakes actions not of his or her own volition but under the coercion of the system and hence becomes devoid of "subjectivity".  The "people", far from being the "subjects" as is claimed under bourgeois democracy, i.e. democracy in its capitalist integument, become mere "objects", victims of the inherent tendencies of a system over which they have little control. In fact the objective of socialism is to transform people from being "objects" to becoming "subjects" who collectively take charge of their lives and destiny through political action, under a system where politics drives economics rather than the other way around.  It follows then that authentic democracy can get realized only under socialism. Social ownership of the means of production, which simultaneously entails the end of labour-power as a commodity, puts an end to competition, and hence to the immanent tendencies that originated from it.  Social ownership therefore is a necessary condition for socialism and the realisation of authentic democracy and freedom. Socialism necessarily entails the creation of a new "community". Socialism is essential for the authentic realisation of democracy then democracy too is essential for the authentic realisation of socialism. Socialism, it follows, is not a happening that takes place on the morrow of a revolution.

The Socialist Party  believe that fostering independent working class political activity is of fundamentally greater value to the socialist project than winning parliamentary elections or engaging in “united fronts” coalitions in which socialists work alongside non-socialists to offer a left electoral alternative to mainstream parties importantly there exists different goals. By winning parliamentary elections The Socialist Party’s aim is to achieve socialism. By contrast, the best reformists can hope for by gaining political office is an improved version of the status quo. Reformists play an important role for the capitalist class in that they help to propagate capitalist ideas among the workers and to implement the employers interests. They politically tie the working class to the prospering of their own capital and their own national state. The influence of reformism will not diminish even in periods of revolutionary upheavals. On the contrary, reformist organisations will play a key role because of their traditional roots within the working class in appeasing and preventing revolutions.

James Connolly once said "The day has passed for patching up the capitalist system, it must go." His words ring true more so now than they ever did. The Socialist Party fully understands the fact that revolutions are not made, but that they come, that capitalism itself is bound to create the revolutionary crisis that will ultimately set the working class into motion. It holds, therefore, that it is the duty of a bona fide party of socialism always to hold the issue of the abolition of wage slavery up before the workers and to expose reforms as temporary respite where they are not concealed measures of reaction.

Why be moderate? Demand the World!  

Black Snow! Time Is Running Out.

Scientists have just become aware of a new aspect of global warming – nearly invisible particles of carbon resulting from incomplete combustion in diesel engines. Some particles are being swept by wind from industrial centers to the Arctic. This phenomenon, called black snow, reduces the ability of snow and ice to reflect sunlight. In fact, in one month this process, called albedo, dropped twenty per cent. A team of French government scientists reported that the arctic ice cap, that is thought to have lost an average of 12.9 billion tonnes of ice a year between 1992 and 2010 due to general warming, may be losing an extra 27 billion tonnes a year because of black snow causing the sea level to rise several centimeters . To put it bluntly, time is running out, and since socialism is the only real solution, we must act fast. John Ayers.

The Election Scramble

As we near the general election we can see the contract between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats beginning to crack up. George Osborne has ben accused by his Liberal Democrat deputy Danny Alexandra of planning the "wilful destruction of key public services if the Tories win the general election". "Danny Alexandra, a loyal ally of the Chancellor since the coalition was formed in 2010, said Mr Osborne would make £60bn of unnecessary cuts by 2020." (Independent, 23 December) Alexander claims that his Treasury boss wants to "shrink the state", he warned that even deeper cuts would be needed to deliver the Tories planned "unfunded" £7.2 bn income tax reduction. RD

Teacher Shortage

In times of economic recession one of the first actions a government takes is to make welfare cuts and education is one of the most likely targets. Teachers numbers have fallen in half of Scottish areas this year. 'The largest fall was in in Fife, which lost 67 teaching posts in 2014. This was followed by Edinburgh where 63 teachers were cut, then 44 in the Borders, 29 in Dundee and 28 in South Lanarksire. ..... Overall, the number of teachers in Scotland have fallen by more than 205 to 50,824 over the course of this year.' (Times, 23 December) RD

Avoidable Deaths

Hospital specialists have protested at plans to reduce funding for specialised operations and treatments NHS trusts provide, including some cancer care. 'Some 345 specialists have written to NHS England saying the changes could mean longer waiting lists and avoidable deaths, the Daily Telegraph reports. Under the plans, centres treating more patients than expected would receive just half the extra treatment costs.' (BBC News, 24 December) Avoidable deaths, so what? Think of the money the owning class are saving. RD

It is Not Enough to Be Anti-Capitalist

 The anti-capitalist movement has produced some tremendous figures, Susan George and Naomi Klein to name only two, yet the ideas of the leading writers and thinkers of this movement has still failed to present a convincing alternative which challenges capitalism and lays the basis for a new world, a socialist one. They and ourselves in the World Socialist Movement may share a similar aspiration which involves humankind sharing the resources of this planet, but it is only possible by production for use on a world scale, not be re-formulations of tax-laws. If there is no alternative to capitalism, why fight it?  The Socialist Party is entitled to ask the question “anti-capitalist but pro-what?”

Capitalism has stopped “delivering the goods” for quite a while now. Malcolm X once said “Capitalism used to be like an eagle, but now it’s more like a vulture and can only suck the blood of the helpless”. Capitalism is marked by wage labour. If the means of production are managed by some group other than the direct producers then we have capitalism, regardless of who owns them. Unless the relations of production are revolutionised, the means of production can change hands (passing, for example, from private to state hands) without fundamentally changing the nature of society. Whatever the formal status of property, capitalism will still exist if workers are separated from the means of production and do not own them in common and manage them directly. Our aim is to replace capitalism altogether by a free cooperative commonwealth and we further argue that the social revolution finds its agency in the self-organisation and the self-education of the working class.

Why isn't socialism dead? Many anti-socialists say it is. As proof, they point to the failure of the Soviet Union, an undemocratic government controlling the means of production with bureaucratic planning of production and distribution. But our own view of undeveloped countries like tsarist Russia with a minority working class was they were in no position to make  a global change from an interdependent world market to socialism "as the act of the dominant peoples 'all at once' and simultaneously."  If anything the USSR's failure proved us right! Marx envisioned not government control of the means of production but control by the working class, joined to democratic planning not by bureaucrats but "by the associated producers." So Marx's own vision of socialism was not proved a failure by the demise of the USSR because it was not tested.

Granted none of us will live to see Socialism, and like millions before us we will probably die without seeing that really better world we long and struggle for. No genuine working class fighter fought only because he or she believed in “Socialism in our time” but simply to bring it that bit closer. We can understand why workers join and build union, collective self-interest. We recognize socialist solidarity was built upon the vision of something better, not just to get ourselves a wage rise. The hope of a socialist utopia was around long before Marx and continues to this day, although today it exists only by a thread. At a certain point, a new principle comes on to the scene, it gets a name which is spoken publicly and understood, everything else begins to redefine itself in the light of the new principle and a process of concretisation begins which is the real business of overthrowing existing social conditions. We are not there yet, so far as the socialist ideal is concerned. We are living through that period when many different principles exist side-by-side in mutual contradiction. To abandon the search for such an ideal however would be just as foolhardy yet interestingly, it is those on the Left who today are the first to explain to you why genuine socialism is a fantasy. Hardly surprising since their own activity and relations are so remote from socialist principles. The majority of young anti-capitalist activists are blissfully ignorant of the socialist ideal in fact. The Trotskyist transitional demand programme is the height of deception: politically conscious workers, including the socialists themselves, understand that the demand cannot be met other through the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism — otherwise it wouldn’t be a transitional demand at all — and yet, what is desired is that the mass of workers shall embrace the demand as if it can be achieved without a revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of the state, something for which the workers are not yet prepared — otherwise you wouldn’t need a transitional demand! How do socialists come by their ideas? By hearing about them from someone. Isn’t it an insult to think that others in the mass movements are too dumb to get these lofty ideas, and have to be somehow tricked into becoming radical?

Capitalism stinks. It doesn’t work for the overwhelming majority of the globe’s people. The profit system has proved itself unworthy to exist. And now, with global warming and other environmental crises, it threatens the very existence of the planet. As for the likelihood of reform, capitalism has been around since the 16th century. If it were capable of transforming into a humane and sustainable system, that would have happened by now! So being anti-capitalist is logical. But to become a socialist means believing that a collectively owned, planned economy is a workable and desirable alternative. One basic difference between socialism and capitalism is that nobody really controls capitalism — even the capitalists! That is why it regularly runs amok from boom to bust.  Socialism short-circuits this insanity with a planned economy, in which we only produce what we need, without the waste caused by market competition. Supermarket shelves will no longer brim over with 20 brands of identical toothpaste; buildings lacking occupants won’t go up. Technology won’t be cornered to drive up prices, or buried when advances might injure profits.

The organised use of resources and the end of war will make the Earth a far richer place in a hurry. We will be able to turn to solving the problems of climate change and toxic waste, stopping the destruction of cultures and species, developing renewable energy and aiding the world as a whole to develop in a rational, sustainable, and humanitarian manner. Imagine the freedom of never knowing the struggle for survival that occupies so much of our lives today! Contrary to myth, it is not “human nature” for people to be at each other’s throats. Rather, dog-eat-dog attitudes are learned behavior, taught by a ruling class based on theft, competition and greed.

In becoming whole people, and a whole society, we will naturally get rid of all the hateful divisions that mark society today. There are those who argue that the bigotries of racism, sexism, homophobia, and national and religious antagonisms are so deep-seated that it is naive to think socialism can get rid of them easily. But all of these things are driven by poverty and under-privilege. Humans are a social species. We succeeded in evolution because we worked together cooperatively for survival or all would be chaos. Socialism will be far ahead of what we can even imagine today!

The Socialist Party spreads the word that socialism is not only a workable alternative, but the only alternative — that capitalism has proved itself incapable of permanent, significant reform and that reformism is the real utopian delusion. We spread the word that socialism is the next step of human evolution, in which we as a species can fulfill everyone’s needs, and then proceed to find out what humanity is really capable of achieving.

homeless at xmas

Shelter Scotland who say over 4000 youngsters across Scotland will spend the winter in temporary accommodation. Glasgow with the most in the whole of Scotland, with 1088 homeless kids. 353 children in South Lanarkshire will be homeless this Christmas.

Graeme Brown, Director of Shelter Scotland work said: “No child should be homeless at Christmas but each December Shelter Scotland’s helpline advisors have to help hundreds of families at risk of losing their home.”

Rutherglen MSP James Kelly described the situation as an “absolute scandal…Despite this crisis 23,000 homes across the country are lying empty, and the Scottish Government’s own figures have shown a 22 per cent drop in social house building in the last year.” 

Unpredictable Capitalism

Once again the British economy has shown its unpredictable nature by growning more slowly in the past year than previously thought, official figures indicate. 'Revised figures show gross domestic product (GDP) in the third quarter of this year was 2.6% higher than in the same period in 2013, down from an earlier estimate of 3%. Also, the UK's current account deficit widened in the third quarter to £27bn. That put the difference between the country's export and import of goods and services at a record 6% of GDP. (BBC News, 23 December) The current account widening to £27bn points to troubles ahead. RD

A Grim Future

The plight of hundreds of thousands of pensioners receiving care at home is so poor that they have to choose between eating or being taken to the   lavatory. 'Three quarters of councils in England are offering pensioners just 15-minute  visits from carers, a Freedom of Information survey has disclosed. The number of local authorities booking carers for the shortest possible time slot has risen to 74 per cent from 69 per cent in the same survey last year.' (Daily Telegraph, 23 December) Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, described the figures as "unacceptable", saying there were "too many examples of councils buying rushed care visits". RD

More Cuts To Come

Thousands of police officers around the country face losing their jobs by the end of the decade as part of George Osborne's plans to shrink the size of the state, if Labour's analysis of figures compiled by the House of Commons library is correct. There is a warnings of a return to the emergency-based policing of the 1980s and  the analysis suggests that the Metropolitan police, Britain's largest force, may have to cut between 1,300 and 5,200 police officers - out of a total strength of 31,000 - if the full planned cuts are introduced. 'The Commons library made the assessment after it was commissioned by Gareth Thomas, shadow London minister, to assess the impact of a recent warning by the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, that he has to cut his budget by £1.4bn over the current decade.' (Guardian, 22 December) RD

Make Socialism Our Future

 Every human transaction is tainted by the influence of money. We are shackled to it, deprived of our liberty. Money and barter were required in times of scarcity. Today we live in abundance. There is enough for all to thrive. Totally sustainably. We now have the knowledge and technology to provide easily for all human need. Without war, poverty or exploitation. There is no shortage of land, food, building materials or the capacity to produce the things we need. Most things can be unlimited, there is plenty for all, for the benefit of all. (But some things may be rationed, like some rare metals perhaps, so that they can be used in science or healthcare.) The technical advancement has been incredible, and logically should be helping us to lead less stressful lives and lessen global inequality. Ironically, the opposite has happened and global inequality continues to rise more and more people are suffering from stress. When technical advancement is applied to the work place, the worker is made unemployed, economically and socially punished through a severe drop of income. When capitalism takes one of its regular down turn, the corporate media blames the world’s woes on the least powerful of society, the unemployed, refugees and economic migrants, all of which are victims of the capitalist system and not controllers of it. Pollution which now kills another 6 million people on the planet every year (and the numbers are rising) is also a problem, yet any attempts to reduce emissions are bad for business and profits so are not implemented.

Most people are kind, caring and responsible and wish to contribute. We all want a good society don't we? As understanding grows, people from wider and more diverse groups are realizing that common ownership is the answer. Once a majority of the population understand and want socialism the change can take place. It can happen just as soon as enough people desire and work for it. The Socialist Party is a political party to promote the values and benefits of a global, stateless, moneyless society, embracing the values of human freedom, social equality and sustainability, a worldwide production and distribution network, that allows all people free access to sustainable housing, shelter, food, healthcare, education, communication and transportation.

It isn't human nature to be greedy. Most people are perfectly content once they have enough. Enough is easy to sustainably produce today but the 'infinite growth' that the money system needs ensures we are being continuously bombarded with marketing trying to convince us we need more to make us happy. After money there won't be advertising or marketing. Nor is there any need to possess everything you want. When humans have a decent standard of living, they behave very differently. Currently we are perpetually starved of our humanity by falsely induced poverty and subtly marketed brainwashing. People can share from a pool of resources such as car-sharing.

 Nor are people lazy and require the incentive of money do anything. The vast majority want to help each other and take care of their communities. At the moment, they simply can't afford to. Once all our needs are provided freely and easily, as they can be now, we will be free to do what our conscience tells us. If a job is worth doing for society then society will see that it gets done. Like volunteer firefighters or the RNLI today. There will be fewer really unpleasant dirty jobs left anyway. Humans have already invented systems and machines to do them much more easily, if not eliminate them altogether. It has been estimated that it will require an average of 16 hours per week, per person to contribute their time, their skills in order to allow the system to operate efficiently. When almost everyone enjoying leisure time people will offer their services because there will be social status and admiration from their peers for those who contribute the most. When people aren't treated like slaves and are secure and contented, they will volunteer their time to do what's important. Under capitalism, we look up to those who take. In socialism we will look up to those who have given.

The psychopaths and corrupt people who currently control us through money, without the bribing power of money can ever force people to things they otherwise wouldn't. When everything is voluntary, just like in any voluntary organization today, the members vote democratically for whoever they think would be best for the job.  The Socialist Party doesn't pretend to be able to deliver what you won’t do for yourselves and will only pledge to act in the best interest of the people within the limits of our ability. People have had enough of broken promises and lies from politicians. The Socialist Party strongly opposes the manipulation of people against their will. People are social beings and express and realise their potential within a free and open community which they can trust and relate too. The core tenets of our party are free access to goods and services, and open access to all the decision making processes.  

People will achieve the social revolution. Each day brings fresh evidence of the anomalies of capitalism: each day opens some worker's eyes. As the wheel of capitalism with its ever increasing slumps and wars accelerates, so their realisation grows. One day it will reach its crescendo and the revolution will take place.

Internal Criticism

The Roman Catholic Church for centuries has basked in the the reputation of the highest possible standards of moral and spiritual reputation, but its latest Pope has called that reputation into question. 'Since his election last year, Pope Francis has launched a clean-up of the Vatican Bank, officially known as the Religion Institute for the Works of  (IOR). The IOR has long had a poor reputation, after a succession of scandals. He has appointed a team of advisers to tackle corruption and poor administration in the Vatican.' (BBC News, 22 December) RD

Booms And Slumps

Chancellors of the Exchequer like to claim that they control capitalism but in fact they are controlled by capitalism. 'On December 3rd, George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, in his Autumn Statement, announced plans to turn Britain's deficit, which stood at £108 billion ($169 billion) last year, into a surplus of £23 billion by 2020. Because the government does not want to raise taxes to fund these plans, public spending is forecast to fall from 41% of GDP today to just 35% by the end of the decade.' (Economist, 20 December) Osborne's attempt to control capitalism is futile it will boom and slump beyond his control. RD

Cooped up in Co-ops

Socialists should learn from history and experience. The idea that society can be transformed by the introduction of cooperatives is not a new one. The first cooperatives represented a peaceful attempt to build an alternative economic system by organising peoples' institutions that would co-exist alongside capitalist ones, and would gradually expand to involve the majority of the population as cooperative producers and consumers. The first American dairy cooperatives were founded in the Goshen, Connecticut and South Trenton, New York, both in 1810. A decade later a group of Ohio farmers formed America's first agricultural marketing cooperative on record. In 1822 Pennsylvania barley farmers set up the first cooperative brewery. The first cooperative wheat elevator was opened in Dane City, Illinois, in 1847. The Amalgamated Houses is the oldest non-profit housing cooperative in the country established in 1927, now with 1500 families in 11 buildings on 15 acres between Van Cortlandt Park and the Jerome Park Reservoir, New York.

In 1933, the author turned activist, Upton Sinclair, outlined a plan for ending the depression in California, in a widely-distributed pamphlet. His plan, EPIC (End Poverty In California), was to create "land colonies whereby the unemployed may become self-sustaining" in the countryside, while in the cities EPIC would procure "production plants whereby the unemployed may produce the basic necessities required for themselves and for the land colonies, and to operate these factories and house and feed and care for the workers." These two groups, in the cities and countryside, would "maintain a distribution system for the exchange of each other’s products. The industries will (constitute) a complete industrial system, a new and self-sustaining world for those our present system cannot employ." EPIC planned to incorporate the widespread "self-help" cooperatives into the program. The plan's supporters began forming EPIC clubs; in less than a year Sinclair won the Democratic Party nomination for governor, dumping out the "regular" machine. With the slogan Production for Use, Sinclair and EPIC waged an uphill campaign against both the Republicans and the Democratic machine, who joined to defeat him, spending twenty to thirty times as much and controlling virtually every major newspaper and radio station in the state. Still, Sinclair got 38% of the votes but not enough to jettison the Republican/Democratic political machine from the driver's seat and seize control of the steering wheel.

With the collapse of the campaign, numerous EPIC clubs turned their energies to organizing co-operatives, mostly stores and buying clubs, reviving the consumer movement. Consumers Cooperative of Berkeley, which became the largest consumer cooperative in the United States. But reckless expansion undertaken in closed-door sessions by a “conservative” board, without membership input or approval, brought it to ruin. The Berkeley Co-op expanded into surrounding areas where there was no base of support, simply taking over other (and already failing) supermarkets. The whole house of cards came tumbling down in 1987 when the Berkeley Co-op filed for bankruptcy and dissolution.

In the 60s, thousands of people, mostly young, moved out of the cities into rural cooperative communities and communes, and tens of thousands stayed in their own communities and worked to create a survival network outside of and against the capitalist system, with a common ideological base of working to build a new social system based on cooperation and sharing "within the shell of the old.' At first the mass media called it the "counterculture" or "alternative." Although most of its participants did not know it at the time, it was stemming from one of America's oldest and deepest traditions. Groups such as the Quakers and Mennonites have used the collective form for hundreds of years and before them the Iroquois Confederacy. The basic idea was to withdraw, (drop-out) from the system of competition and exploitation, and create a new system based on cooperation (tune-in) which could expand to embrace all of society when the old system collapsed, as many naively expected to happen imminently. Very old forms of cooperation found rebirths. The San Francisco Diggers' built a system of gathering necessities and giving them away. But the need was endless. The class problem ran through all countercultural organisations, including rural communities: since it was only people with access to money who could gather the resources to get the projects started, they usually wound up in control, at least in the beginning. Many founders never relinquished control, and those projects never became truly cooperative.

Cooperatives did about a third of the total farm production and marketing in the US in 1980, with 7500 farmer co-ops and almost six million members. But these numbers have been shrinking continually through the century. Twenty-five years previously there were 1600 more farmer co-ops with 1.6 million more members. Most rural people today are no longer independent farmers as they once were, but wage-earners, part of a fast-growing "rural proletariat."

Millions of people around the world are desperately searching for a way out of the misery inflicted by capitalism. Within the constant mass upheavals taking place in many parts of the world, many are debating new and old ideas of how to change society for the better. The idea of worker’s and consumer’s cooperatives is one issue that has regained some attention. In the United States the current popular advocates are David Schweikart, Richard Woolf and Gar Alperovitz. The problem to get around is that cooperatives are established in the context of the capitalist market and so must compete in order to survive, and if the rate of exploitation is high among your competitors, then you must match it. Co-operatives means a continuation of the market. Some cooperatives find small niche markets in which to survive, but the majority will either be driven out of business or be forced to copy the practices used by other employers. Co-operatives are bound to fail within the confines of capitalism. Cooperatives that exist within a general framework of capitalism are still subject to the laws of capitalist operation. They often must seek loans and finance from capitalist banks and they must compete on price against other privately owned capitalist businesses, amongst other restrictions. This means the cooperative workers are pushed and pulled to play the contradictory role of exploiter to themselves. If they refuse to play by the rules they face the prospect of the cooperative collapsing.

In Rosa Luxemburg’s words:

“The workers forming a co-operative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur—a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving.”

There is also the related argument that co–ops by themselves do not challenge the system and may divert energy away from doing so. Individual co–ops do not threaten the system, are likely to degenerate, and can absorb time and resources that could be used for other kinds of organising. Workers can potentially learn about the need to take economic and political power from the capitalist class through this process. However people tend to lean towards what seems to be the least complex or easiest solution to any problem they face. Rather than grapple with broader political, economic or social questions those involved in the cooperatives often take on the outlook of small business people or focus exclusively on commercial problems that face their own cooperative. Many of the old cooperatives around the world have ceased to be cooperatives except by name. Many are out and out capitalist enterprises now. Cooperatives under capitalism are ‘islands of socialism’ in a sea of capitalism. They are battered by the storm forces of that capitalist sea i.e. credit conditions, the price of raw materials, rent, competition, the ability to make profitable sales, etc. They can only temporarily shelter from some of these pressures by finding a guaranteed market to avoid ‘free competition’.

Co-ops are not a microcosm of a socialist society any more than socialism will be simply co-ops writ large. Worker collectives and cooperatives keep a vision of a different and feasible system alive in daily practice. Cooperatives can be a legitimate way in which workers attempt to better their circumstances. But some people go much further, arguing that establishing cooperatives is a strategy capable of fundamentally transforming the world. But is it possible that capitalism can be overcome and replaced by a critical mass of producers and consumers cooperatives? The answer is no. Cooperatives offer no ability to take this power away from the capitalist class. As such, it is impossible for a cooperative movement in and of itself to overwhelm capitalism. Luxemburg put it cooperatives are “an attack made on the twigs of the capitalist tree”.

For sure, the history of the 20th century shows that centrally planned economies don’t work.  Knowledge is too widely distributed in society for a tiny group of masterminds to be able to direct the economic activities of everybody else.  But unfettered capitalism isn’t working either.  Power has migrated into the hands of financiers and corporate executives who are rewarded for exploiting their positions. Cooperative movements will almost certainly find new life as capitalism rolls on. The working class will instinctively and understandably seek ways to patch over social wounds to improve their quality of life. Both producer and consumer cooperatives can provide some immediate relief from the various symptoms of capitalism. Cooperatives can also act as an important school for those involved. They are real-life examples that it is possible to organise production and distribution without greedy private capitalists at the helm. In doing so they help dispel the myth that working class people can’t organise or run society and go some way to showing that the capitalist class is unnecessary and parasitic. They make a vision of an alternative society seem more practical and possible.

Today the people who run this world speak about "capitalism", "freedom" and "democracy" as if they are all synonymous. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Although individuals are "free" to take a job or quit it, for the vast majority there is no viable option to taking a job. Others own all the means of survival, so the only way to survive is to get money, and the only legal way to get money is to find a job. Being an employee should be considered a form of bondage – wage slavery. Whoever controls the basic means of survival controls society. There is no such thing as democracy or equality without the people having collective control of these means, both locally and on a large scale, in the neighborhood and the workshop, and the transport and communications interlinking it all. The fortress of capitalist power is in production a widespread co-op network is by itself no real threat: for just as long as capital rules production, all gains can be taken away in a different form. If the world is ever to become truly free, the organised power of the people must be used to ensure that everyone has an alternative to wage slavery. That choice can only be through socialism. The way of capitalism and competition offers only increasing bondage, while the way of collectivity and cooperation offers real freedom. Market “socialism” is oxymoronic. These days the '99%' and 'Another World is Possible' are slogans fluttering atop many a radical social movement. Yet on those occasions activists' deliberations turn to what a post-capitalist future might look like, there will be a lot of talk about participatory democracy, community networks, the decentralisation of power and so on but at the bottom of it all, an acceptance of the basic principles of capitalist production. 

Penny Pinching

The government has come up with a scheme that saves it £74 million and cuts payments to the working class. 'Citizens Advice is urging a rethink of reforms that have caused claims against employers to plunge.  Employment tribunal fees have been branded "a barrier to justice", the high charges discouraging four out of five workers from pursuing claims against their employers, according to Citizens Advice.' (Independent, 21 December) Employment tribunal fees were introduced by the Government in July 2013, aiming to transfer the £74m cost of running tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal from the taxpayer to the claimants. Before the fees were introduced, Employment Tribunals (ETs) received an average of 48,000 new claims per quarter. However the most recent ET figures for July to September 2014 show that this had dropped to 13,612 new claims. RD

The Distortion Of Democracy

The UK likes to portray itself as the perfect example of democracy in action, but it is a complete fallacy. Donations to the Conservatives' key marginal and target seats have been provided by David Cameron's exclusive diners' group of top Tory benefactors. 'Fifteen of the Tories' key 40/40 seats "those the party is defending and their top targets" were entirely reliant on the controversial Leader's Group money in 2014, the figures from the Electoral Commission show. Donors can gain access to the exclusive circle by giving £50,000 or more a year to the Conservative Party a year, which wins them access to the Prime Minister and other top Tories over dinner.' (Independent, 21 December) Since the last election, of the £2,638,752 donated directly to the Conservatives' 40/40 seats, £798,120, or 30 per cent, came from organisations or individual members of the Leader's Group. The 40/40 seats are those Mr Cameron's party needs to win to secure an outright majority on 7 May. This influence by the extremely rich distorts democracy. RD

Free Speech - At what cost?

“Every government is run by liars and nothing they say should be believed.” I.F. Stone

We have all heard Lincoln’s dictum, “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” But he failed to add the political truth “But you can fool enough of the people enough of the time.”

Without objective information, there can be no meaningful free choices.

Most people believe they have a range of choices in their daily lives and that they may choose among them freely. That is, they intuitively believe that their choices are made autonomously and without outside interference. How many individual daily decisions are determined by some degree of media manipulation? Well, for many they can include what we eat, what we wear, how we entertain ourselves, how we groom ourselves.  Those that use the media to try to sway our behavior declare that they are simply providing information that allows informed choices: “advertising ensures that we don’t have to settle for second best. It helps us exercise our right to choose.” However, this is problematic. Advertisers seek to restrict choice, not broaden it and ultimately they want to determine the choice for you. So, generally, what you see as a range of choices is really limited options within a predetermined context - the context of the marketplace. And your freedom of choice? Your choice may well be made on the basis of which product sponsor is most effective in manipulating your perceptions. This is media determinism in action and it has proven very successful. U.S. businesses spend some $70 billion a year on TV advertising alone. And, as one ad executive comments, “companies would not invest [that much money] in something they thought didn’t work.” This is discouraging news for those who believe in the everyday consumer’s freedom of choice. There are, however, other categories of our lives where media determines our thoughts.

You would think that when it comes to choosing political leaders and deciding between war and peace, the public would deserve information approaching objectivity. This is exactly what they never get. For instance, political campaign promises and party platforms are almost never scrutinized by the media, nor does the media point out that they are only rarely translated into post-election blueprints for action. Instead the media present manipulated information. Yet such is the power of the myth of democracy that the charade is ongoing

The mass media are quasi-governmental organs, predictably predictable and predictably dishonest. The truth is not in them. You don’t need to ban or censor newspapers or critical books, because the only people who read them already agree with them. You don’t need to kick in doors at three in the morning to seize forbidden computers or duplicators. People might revolt against that sort of thing. Better just to keep prohibited topics off the networks and out of the papers with a well-placed word, a hint that access to government spokespersons will be withdrawn or that advertisers will go elsewhere. It is enough.

The alliance between government and media can be seen in what soon followed. President Bush’s determination to attack Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, led to an orchestrated campaign of misinformation. In March of 2003, as the invasion took place, polls showed that between 72% and 76% of Americans supported the president’s war. In doing so, did they exercise free choice? Most of them would probably have told you that they did. Yet a strong argument can be made that because of the misinformation given them in the run-up to the war - for instance, misinformation about the Iraqi people’s desire to be rescued from Saddam Hussein and the notorious issue of weapons of mass destruction - they were in fact victims of the media.

This system is breaking down under the onslaught of the internet. Papers are losing both credibility and circulation. So are the television and radio networks. We now have a press of two tiers, the establishment media and the net, with sharply differing narratives. The internet is now primary. The bright get their news from around the web and then read the New York Times to see how the paper of record will prevaricate. People increasingly judge the media by the web, not the web by the media. Before the internet, people who wanted a high level of intellectual community had to move to a large city or live on the campus of a good university. Magazines of small circulation delivered by snail mail helped a bit, but not much. Today, email, specialized websites, and list serves put people of like mind in Canberra, Buenos Aires, Bali, and Toronto in the same living room, so to speak. There exists now a decreasing ability to control opinion. Because growing communication of voiceless groups to realize that they are numerous and have interests in common. It’s a new ball game.

The major media are not comfortable with intelligence. Television is worst, the medium of the illiterate, barely literate, stupid, uneducated, and uninterested. It cannot afford to air much that might puzzle these classes. They are dull because they have to be, bland because they must avoid offending anyone, controlled because they can be. They write to the least common denominator of their clientele because they have to be comprehensible to non-specialist readers.

A major component of the free press illusion is the notion that some media outlets are more liberal while others are more right wing. Widespread belief in this myth further limits the already limited parameters of accepted debate. The media are as liberal or conservative as the corporations that own them. Whether you label them liberal or conservative, most major media outlets are large corporations owned by or aligned with even larger corporations, and they share a common strategy: selling a product (an affluent audience) to a given market (advertisers).

Therefore, we shouldn’t find it too shocking that the image of the world being presented by a corporate-owned press very much reflects the biased interests of the elite. That’s why every major daily newspaper has a business section, but not a labour section.

NHS Crisis

It used to be a boast of the UK government that they had the finest NHS in the world. No such boast is heard today. 'Casualty wards could hit major difficulties if the numbers suffering from flu and norovirus continue to rise, experts warned. ......  More than 10,000 patients had to wait longer than four hours for a bed after being admitted from A&E. Last year the figure was under 4,000. Public Health England data showed flu infection rates last week were 66 per cent higher than last year. ..... Dr Peter Carter, chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing, said: "Although patient numbers are rising NHS trusts can't hire enough nurses because of misguided cuts to training places.' (Daily Express, 20 December) RD

Madness In Islamabad

Anti-Taliban protesters in Islamabad demanded action against pro-militant cleric. Hundreds of people gathered outside police station to protest against refusal of Abdul Aziz, head of the Red Mosque, to condemn killings in Peshawar. 'The cleric, who makes no secret of his admiration for terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, caused outrage earlier in the week by refusing to condemn the brutal attack by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) on the army school in Peshawar.' (Guardian,  19 December) A so-called man of god that refuses to condemn the slaughter of 132 innocent school kids. Does capitalism make everybody insane? RD

Who are scoring the goals?

In Scotland, there are approximately 414,000 people currently paid below the Living Wage.

Heart of Midlothian Football Club has become the first football club in Scotland to become an officially accredited Living Wage Employer. The move will see all staff employers at the club paid the Living Wage. The Living Wage was uprated to £7.85 per hour in November, £1.35 per hour more than the National Minimum Wage.

Peter Kelly, Director of the Poverty Alliance, said: 

“Congratulations to Heart of Midlothian on becoming Scotland's first Living Wage Accredited football club.  We are delighted that Heart of Midlothian will pay all staff who work at the club the Living Wage, and that they have opted to have their commitment to the Living Wage recognised through the accreditation mark. This is an important step forward for the campaign to end poverty pay in Scotland. Almost two in three children in poverty in Scotland live in a household where someone works, and the Living Wage is a vital tool in lifting people out of in work poverty. Football clubs have an important role in communities across Scotland. With thousands of people turning out every week to support their local clubs, they can play an important leadership role, not only for fans but for the businesses they work with. I hope that more clubs will follow Heart of Midlothian's example but not only giving their staff a pay rise this Christmas, but by showing real leadership on this issue on and off the pitch.”

Chelsea FC has become the first English football club to be accredited as a Living Wage Employer. At the same time the club will also start the process of ensuring staff of external contractors will also receive the Living Wage for working at Stamford Bridge, Cobham training ground and all areas where the club operates. Chelsea will also ensure any additional agency employees not currently meeting the criteria to recieve the Living Wage will also get the same rates of pay.

In contrast, in the Observer, Kevin McKenna writes:

“Last month, Celtic, the richest sporting organisation in Scotland, had to be dragged screaming and protesting by its own fans to a decision to pay the living wage to its full-time employees. The club still refused to budge on a similar rate for its hundreds of part-time workers and was still bleating about remaining competitive and not allowing its wage policy to be influenced by a third party (the Living Wage Foundation). This club was established by poor people for poor people and receives loyal backing still from many poor people. The entire board of directors, a gentrified assortment of CV-embellishers, ought to be made to resign"

Told you so

Throughout the referendum debate, the Socialist Party and this blog, tried to explain that there was no such thing as actual independence in the economic sense. That a sovereign Scotland would still be subject to the world market and despite all the SNP promises of jam tomorrow it would be still subjugated by world capital.

Today we see how the world market and the fall in oil prices would have directly impacted upon Salmond’s budget and any reforms he would have proposed. An independent Scotland in its first year would have faced a £6.4bn "gaping chasm" in its finances, the Treasury has calculated based on the slump in the oil price and would have forced the Scottish Government in 2016 to implement unprecedented levels of cuts in public services, according to the Whitehall department. The pay freeze announced by one of the biggest employers in the oil business in the North-east is just the first symptom of the chilling effect the low price could have on one of Scotland’s key industries. The number of insolvencies of UK oil and gas services companies has trebled in the last year amid the huge fall in oil prices, according to a new report by the accountancy firm Moore Stephens. The drop in oil prices is triggering cost cutting across much of the sector and the reduction in capital investment means less work for oil and gas services companies.

And for those left nationalists who sought to claim a “free” Scotland would tax the rich, the oil industry is already lobbying for relief from taxes.

Jobs Going Abroad. That's Capitalism.

In October, Ontarians lost a high stakes bidding war over auto-manufacturing jobs. Unifor, the auto workers' union, said that Ford will build a new type of engine in Mexico instead of Windsor. The project would have meant about 1,000 jobs. The minister for Economic Development and Employment, Brad Duguid, said, " Our government is committed to partnering with business in a fiscally responsible way, but we will not invest taxpayers' dollars in any partnership that does not provide a strong return for Ontarians". Governments at all levels have been stung hard and often by companies taking the money and running away in short order. It will be, as usual, the working class that loses out with fewer good jobs while the capitalist class can still invest their money in the company no matter where it operates. Many other countries are competing for work by offering huge incentives and low labour costs resulting in higher profits. It's the natural thing for capital to do. To beat it, drop capitalism. John Ayers.

Death In Gaza

Israeli aircraft have bombed a site in Gaza, in the first such action since the declaration of the truce in August. The strike was carried out on a Hamas facility in response to a rocket fired earlier from Gaza, a statement from the Israeli military said. 'Residents of the Khan Yunis area in Gaza reported hearing two explosions, the Associated Press news agency said. The August truce ended seven weeks of fighting that killed more than 2,200 people - most of them Palestinians.' (BBC News, 20 December) Compared with the day to day conflicts of capitalism this will be only considered a minor military clash, but big enough to claim 2,200 lives. RD

Connect the dots

The world has estimated 30 million humans still confined to modern-day slavery. Slavery still exists through laws and their practices. If you’ve seen the state of migrant workers in various Middle Eastern countries, you’d think twice before you can call their employers “humans.” Have you seen how Qatar forced all its migrant workers to surrender their passports to their employers, the migrants involved in laying the groundwork for the 2022 World Cup? Money is the name of the game, and there's nothing more profitable than owning other humans.

It’s been three years since the Syrians started leaving their country. A total of 3.1 million humans have become homeless, and they are regarded as unwelcome aliens in another country. The UN say there were roughly 10 million people worldwide who lacked a nationality and the human rights protections that go with it. If you think of Rohingyas in Myanmar, you can tell the extent to which humanity is disregarded.

Governments, claiming to be champions of human rights, are engaged in torture and arbitrary detention in Guantanamo Bay, police brutality, and creating groups such as the Islamic State. There’s not a single day that goes by without reports of loathsome human rights abuses everywhere. We’ve also seen beheadings in Mexico, and we’ve seen racism and xenophobia in Europe.

Every day, almost 25,000 people starve to death, that too after prolonged suffering. Dying of starvation is the worst kind of death in the modern age of science and food production.

People are fed up with the the rule-rigging that is favouring the wealthy few. This discontent isn’t something that “left-wing groups” are engineering. People are fed up and they are seeing the signs of betrayal, all the back-room, under-the-table deals that help the banksters, the giant corporations, the 1 percent, the polluters, the fraudsters, the tax-dodgers, the out-sourcers, the union busters, the wage-thieves, the pension-cutters and the rest of those who are rigging the system against the rest of us. We the people have had enough.

Sankhari Devi, a 54 year old widow in Rajasthan who had never received formal education, “I am not aware if Constitution exists or what is it…But all I know is just one thing that we need food, water, land and employment, to survive…those are our basic needs….who else can give us those…. Not courts, not laws, not panchayats, not police ….why should we go and ask them….These are ours…. If anyone threatens our survival we have to fight on our own….because for us this is life”. Or, in other word, “Nobody can give you freedom, nobody can give you justice. No laws or formal institutions can help you survive. You need to assert for your survival” as quoted here.  

The threat of revolution is all we have. Not so long ago we could negotiate but today, established power does not see human needs as a calculation. The capitalist system does not have capacity to turn back the clock to restore adequate pensions, decent wages, and a humane social safety net. Across the world, millions of activists campaign against climate chaos, the escalating conflicts over scarce resources, the growing impoverishment and marginalisation of the poor and the looming prospect of another global economic collapse. But despite this growing awareness of a global emergency and the need for massive combined action. Clearly not enough is being done to tackle the systemic causes of the world’s interrelated problems. What we still lack is a truly unified movement, the fusion of causes under a common banner, one that can create a consensus for transformational change. Unless individuals and organisations in different countries align their efforts in more concrete ways (a process that is already underway), it may remain impossible to overcome the vested interests and entrenched structures that maintain business-as-usual. While there is no shortage of individuals, organizations, and even nations wanting to alter the system to be more humane, there is an obvious shortage of respect for those with their hand out. On the other hand, there is no serious discussion of what wealth is, of how it is created and who owns.  The bottom line is we create it and they take it. The mess we are living through is not a matter of evil and greedy people becoming ever more callous as they grow. It is not a matter of capitalists or politicians being evil and selfish. The problem is much more serious. The problem is systemic and even if we jailed all the capitalists and the politicians today, the system would run exactly the same way tomorrow.

Reform minded movements and individuals are barely fighting to increase wages and restore working conditions. Our collective powerlessness including the powerlessness of the union movement is obvious. Aside from begging we have no strategy at all. Collective begging that consists of complaining to lawmakers, signing petitions, protesting, and various other means are utterly toothless. Reform had been granted in the past as a result of building class consciousness among citizens. In 1936 and 1937 workers in the United States began sit down strikes all over the country. The capitalist class were insecure. They were terrified of revolution. Arguments against neo-liberal policies may conclude that extremists like Thatcher or Reagan have ruined our standard of living. They assume a return to standards and regulations and general sanity will right the ship and so, it is a matter of getting the right politicians elected. Something amiss however. No matter what social democratic party or good guy politician is elected, like Obama, they always govern for the banks and the corporations and against Main Street. It isn't that the politicians are cruel or cowardly as much as politicians do not govern. They merely sit in a given seat and are told what to do. That is a more serious matter than if we were simply dealing with opportunists and self-serving fools.  These are not necessarily evil people. They are simply immersed in a system they barely understand and they are powerless.

Inequality doesn’t just happen; it results from people making decisions under a specific political and social conditions. During the past few years many economists confidently have predicted an acceleration in wage growth. But wage growth for most Americans remains only slightly above inflation. We see the reason every day in the news, as the 1% uses their power to boost their profits at their workers’ expense. The process accelerates as they grow stronger — and seize more — while we grow weaker. The 1% grows stronger and seizes resources to grow still stronger.

Political change occurs first in the minds of individuals. Conservatives convinced workers that their mechanisms of collective action —unions — were ineffective or illegitimate, and that only as individuals could they win. That’s the equivalent of convincing medieval peasants in the divine right of kings. Such doctrines render a people powerless. They’re shackles of the mind. We can continue to whine about it. Or we can organise, once again.

Who owns the North Pole Part 81

Russia's interests in the Arctic go beyond the economic and military advantages offered by the Northern Sea Route. The region is rich in minerals, wildlife, fish, and other natural resources. Some estimates claim that 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil reserves and almost one-third of the world's undiscovered natural gas reserves are located in the Arctic region. For now, the Arctic region is an area of low conflict, and it is in everyone's interest to keep it that way. Although the security challenges currently faced in the Arctic are not military in nature, there is still a requirement for military capability in the region that can support civilian authorities. So it should be no surprise that like Russia, other Arctic countries deploy military assets into the region. Even so, Russia has taken steps to increase military capability in the region that seems to be beyond the scope of supporting civilian operations.

Russia's primary military focus in the Arctic is in the maritime sphere. New Russian naval doctrine calls for Russia to increase its maritime presence in the Arctic. Already, Russia's Northern Fleet, which is based in the Arctic, counts for two-thirds of the Russian navy. There will be a significant increase of Russian ground troops based in the region too. Over the next few years two new so-called Arctic brigades will be permanently based above the Arctic Circle, and the current regiment of marines assigned to the Northern Fleet will increase by one-third. Russia has plans to build 13 airfields as well as 10 radar posts along the course of the Northern Sea Route. Most of these airfields will be refurbished Soviet era bases, but others will be new.

Nationalism is on the rise in Russia, Putin's Arctic strategy is popular among the population.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/12/russia-arctic-opportunity-2014121854828947405.html

Cuts, Cuts And More Cuts

In an effort to deal with a national economic crisis the government has attempted to make major local welfare cuts. 'English councils will face an average cut of 1.8% in their overall spending power, the government has said. Minister Kris Hopkins said the funding grants settlement for 2015-16 was "fair for all parts of the country". He said no council would face a loss of more than 6.4% - but Labour said councils in the greatest need were facing the biggest cuts in funding. Local authority bosses said cuts of up to 6.4% would "push some authorities to breaking point".' (BBC News, 18 December) One of the difficulties of these local cuts were they tended to hurt those who were the most vulnerable. RD