Scottish Myths

In his book, Scottish History For Dummies, former-SPGB member and one-time Edinburgh branch secretary, Dr William Knox , highlights some lesser-known historical facts about Scotland. Dr William Knox is a senior lecturer at the Institute of Scottish Historical Research, University of St Andrews. He is the author of seven books and more than 30 articles covering the past 300 years of Scottish history

1) There is no genetically pure or original Scot

There is no common ancestral or genetic heritage that links the peoples of Scotland. The country was a patchwork quilt of various peoples grouped together in tribes who certainly never thought of themselves as Scottish. They owed allegiance only to their kith and kin, but in the campaigns against Roman imperialism they built federations that laid the basis of kingdoms. Ancient Scotland was made up of four separate groups: Angles, Britons, Picts and Gaels (or Scoti), who each spoke a different language. Latin became the common language of the whole country only after the Christianisation of Scotland in the 6th century AD.

2) Kenneth McAlpin (810–858) was not, as is popularly claimed, the first king of Scotland

What McAlpin did was in 842 take advantage of the Picts who had been severely weakened militarily by punitive Viking raids, and unite the kingdom of the Gaels with that of Pictavia. But while he ruled over the whole of Scotland north of the river Forth, large parts of the country were still in the hands of the Vikings in the north and Islands, and in the south the Anglo-Saxons ruled. But McAlpin was referred to as king of the Picts – a title conferred on him at his coronation on Moot Hill at Scone, Perthshire, in 843 AD. It was not until the reign of Donald II (889–900) that the monarch became known as the ri Alban (king of Alba). McAlpin’s achievement was to create a long-lasting dynasty that gradually extended the territorial borders of Scotland both north and south, but it was not until 1469 that what we know as Scotland today was established.

3) William the Lion (1165–1214) was not, as his name suggests, a strong and fearless king

Although he was on the throne longer than any other Scottish monarch, with the exception of James VI and I, never was a king so humiliated as William. Captured by the English, he gained his release only by signing the treaty of Falaise in December 1174. By the terms of the treaty he only ruled Scotland with the permission of the English crown. The treaty lasted 15 years and was repealed when the Scots agreed to pay a hefty sum of money. But the humiliation didn’t end there, as in 1209 he was again forced to pay homage to John I.  Therefore, his contribution was to heraldry rather than statecraft; he put the lion rampant on the Scottish flag.

4) William Wallace was not the only patriotic leader of the resistance to the English occupation of Scotland

Equally important was Andrew de Moray. In the winter of 1297 he escaped from an English prison and immediately began to organise the resistance in the north of Scotland against English rule. By the end of the year his forces were in control of Morayshire and had taken possession of the principal castles of the region, including Elgin and Inverness. De Moray’s success in the north was matched by Wallace’s in the south. After the defeat of the English at Stirling Bridge in September 1297 de Moray was mentioned along with Wallace in letters as ‘the leaders of the army and of the realm of Scotland’. However, victory came at a price: de Moray was wounded at Stirling and died two months later. Some historians have argued that too much of the credit for this has gone to Wallace, and that the successful campaign of 1297 owed more to de Moray than it did to his more celebrated contemporary

5) The Scots never won a battle when they were favourites

At Flodden Field in 1513 the largest Scottish army ever assembled to invade England was annihilated by a much smaller English army that inflicted 10,000 causalities on the Scots in just two hours. Again at Solway Moss in 1542 a Scottish force of 15,000 men was defeated by 3,000 English soldiers – and 1,200 Scots were taken prisoner. The defeat was so demoralising that James V took to his bed and died of shame. When the Scots were the underdogs they did best. At the battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297 a vastly outnumbered Scottish army inflicted a devastating defeat on the English. Just 17 years later at Bannockburn an English army three times that of the Scots was decimated by the forces of Robert the Bruce. In 1745 the rag tag army of the Young Pretender, Charles Edward Stuart, walked through Scotland and in to England as far as Derby where it inexplicably turned face and marched home with London within its grasp.

6) The proud boast that Scotland has never been conquered is nonsense

This view is part of the folklore of the Scottish people handed down from one generation to the next. There are of course a few grains of truth contained in the assertion: the Romans were frustrated in their attempts to conquer Caledonia and so resorted to building walls to keep the warring tribes from attacking them. Likewise Edward I, the hammer of the Scots, occupied large swathes of Scottish territory, but that only sparked a resistance that ended with the defeat of Edward II at Bannockburn in 1314.

The patriotic Scottish boast regarding national prowess begins to look more than a little threadbare when we take account of the Cromwellian occupation of Scotland in the 1650s: Cromwell’s New Model Army inflicted a crushing defeat on the Scots at Dunbar in 1650, and followed it up with another at Worcester a year later – 2,000 Scots were killed and more than 10,000 were taken prisoner, including almost all the Scottish leaders. Scotland was incorporated into 'the free state and Commonwealth of England', with 29 out of 31 shires and 44 of the 58 royal burghs assenting to what was known as the ‘Tender of Union’.

Under the terms of the Cromwellian union, the Scots were given 30 seats (half of them held by English officers) in the Westminster parliament. With General George Monck in charge, the conquest of Scotland was complete, and it was only Cromwell’s death in 1658 and the political chaos that followed it that allowed Scotland to regain its sovereignty.

 7) Flora MacDonald [who became famous for helping Bonnie Prince Charlie escape to France after he was beaten at the battle of Culloden, the final confrontation of the 1745 Jacobite Rising] died a Unionist and Hanoverian

MacDonald was and is a Scottish icon ever associated with the romantic but essentially doomed attempt by the Stuart dynasty to reclaim the throne of Great Britain in 1745. After the adventure collapsed following defeat at Culloden in 1746, Charles Stuart took refuge on the island of Benbecula in the Outer Hebrides. Dressed as Flora’s Irish maid, Betty Burke, Charles made his escape.

MacDonald was arrested for her part in the escape and spent some time in the Tower of London, but it was only temporary. Under the amnesty of 1747 she was released from captivity as a prisoner on parole, and lived with Lady Primrose in London. She became a celebrity, and among the many fashionable people who visited her was Frederick Prince of Wales, eldest son of George II.

At the age of 28 Flora married Allan MacDonald of Kingsburgh and moved to the Isle of Skye. Difficult economic times saw the couple emigrate to North Carolina in 1774. When the American Wars of Independence broke out in 1776, her husband and five sons fought not on the side of the rebels but for George III’s royal British army! This gives some credence to MacDonald’s claim that she had helped Charles Stuart out of compassion rather than politics.Her husband was taken prisoner and she left for Scotland. He joined her two years later, and the family took up residence on Skye once more where she died in 1790 a British patriot

8) The Labour Party was not a wholly working-class party in Scotland

Although working people constitute the largest section of society north of the border, they were not always supporters of Labour. Most workers in Scotland in the late 19th and early 20th centuries voted Liberal and it was only after the First World War that the vote went to Labour. However, it was never hegemonic, as the religious divisions in Scotland ensured there was always a sizeable Protestant working-class Unionist (a party that merged with the Conservatives in 1965) vote. The party itself in Scotland was an alliance of skilled male workers and the middle classes – as such it preached against class-based politics, such as those advocated by the far left. A study of the social backgrounds of inter-war Labour MPs found that around 45 per cent of them were from non-manual backgrounds; a social trend that was to intensify after 1945.

9) Sectarianism was not just a west coast phenomenon

Most people would identify Catholic and Protestant rivalry with Glasgow and its satellite towns. But the bitterest conflicts in the 20th century took place not in Glasgow, but in middle-class Edinburgh in the 1930s.

Led by rabble-rouser John Cormack, leader of the Protestant Action Society, Catholics faced harassment and violence. Employers were pressurised into sacking Catholic employees, priests were spat on in the streets, and Sunday congregations were subject to verbal and physical assault.

On top of this, huge demonstrations were held to disrupt important events in the Catholic Church’s calendar. The high water mark was the riot of 1935, when Cormack led a mob of 20,000 Protestants baying for blood against the Eucharist Congress that was taking place at the Catholic priory in Morningside.

The activism was rewarded with seats on the Edinburgh Town Council; indeed, Protestant Action in the municipal elections of 1936 won 31.97 per cent of the Edinburgh vote, pushed Labour into third place and returned nine councillors.

But the popularity of Cormack and Protestant Action was short-lived, as the outbreak of war in 1939 pushed sectarianism on to the sidelines of politics in Edinburgh. In spite of this, Cormack held his seat on the Town Council until his death in the 1960s.

10) Outside of Canada, the central belt of Scotland was the highest recipient of American inward investment anywhere in the world between 1945 and 1970

This little strip of land in the middle of Scotland saw the influx of giant American corporations such as IBM, Timex, National Cash Registers, Caterpillar and many more besides. Why did they come? For three good reasons: firstly, it opened up British and European markets; secondly, there existed a highly skilled and educated pool of workers earning historically relatively low wages; and, thirdly, there were no linguistic barriers, as English was the common tongue

Fact of the Day

Greenpeace concluded that Coca-Cola sells in the region of 108 to 128 billion thowaway plastic bottles each year, 3,400 a second.

Some 16 million plastic bottles end up in the environment every single day in the UK, according to Greenpeace.

There is no better time than now

The basic cause of capitalist ills is the right to private property, the right to exploit, the right to rob, the right of a few to own and control the means by which all must live, the right of the owners of the means of production to use it to exploit the rest of the community in the interest of their personal profit, the right to determine what shall be produced and how, regardless of the suffering and deprivation of those who produce it.  Today we see a world in which huge numbers of people cannot get enough to eat and are literally perishing in the streets for lack of food. Millions are steeped in the misery and wretched living standards. The vast majority of the working class live in constant fear of the effects of a new global economic crisis. The Socialist Party answer to all this is the case for socialism. The Socialist Party is not out to create a bloody revolution but work for the fundamental improvement of the conditions of the people, understanding that that improvement can only be attained by changing basic social relations, by a shift in ownership and control from the few to the many – an all-embracing socialisation when the whole of society is changed by the elimination of the private ownership of the entire means of production, socialism. Capitalism produces its own grave-diggers, the masses of the wage workers and they reach a point where it is no longer possible to live, they see the limitations of the trade union struggle in the persistence of insecurity. Private ownership must go, common ownership must take its place, socialism.

The ABC of socialism teaches that the socialist system is not some sort of poetic ideal society, thought out in advance, which may be reached by various paths in various more or less imaginative ways. Rather, socialism is simply the historical tendency of the class struggle of the workers in the capitalist society against the class rule of the employers and investors. Outside of this struggle between two completely discrete social classes, socialism cannot be realised   neither through the propaganda of the most ingenious creator of a socialist utopia nor through peasant insurrection or revolutionary conspiracies.

All employers, “good” and “bad,” share one all-important thing in common: they are owners of the means of production or exchange, and derive their income from this ownership. By virtue of this ownership, they are in a position to dictate to the employee the conditions of his existence. They therefore have in common a basic class interest. It is to maintain capitalist private property, and the social system built upon it by which the relationship between capitalists and workers is preserved. “Good” and “bad” capitalist, “friendly” and “unfriendly” capitalist – all are united in the effort to maintain the private ownership of the means of production and exchange and the power that is derived from it.

This ownership keeps the workers at the mercy of the capitalist class. It makes them dependent upon the capitalist class for their livelihood and therefore for life itself. Without this ownership, the capitalists would not have the power, the wealth, the privileges and the ruling position they now enjoy. Without it, there would still be personal distinctions among people, but there would no longer be a basis for social or class differences, for class rule and class conflict. This fundamental division of capitalist society into economic classes is often obscured by other divisions which cut across it, or seem to do so. The worker sees members of his class antagonistic to each other and sometimes even tom by violent conflict. He sees the same thing in the ranks of the capitalist class. He sees employers who favour workers of the same religion, or nationality, or sex, or colour, or age, and who discriminate against all other workers. He even sees workers of the same color joining hands with their employers against workers of another colour, or another religion, or another nationality. These are all facts. Naturally, the capitalists, who are a small minority ruling over the big majority, do not want the workers to grasp the truth about the real class division in society. That would not be in their interest. If the workers understood that they are part of one class, with common basic social interests, then the days of the rule of the capitalist minority would be numbered. The capitalists therefore create, stimulate and exploit every possible difference, every prejudice, in the ranks of the working class. 

If the native-born worker can be led to believe that the basic antagonism in society is between those born in this country and those born abroad, that will make it easier for the capitalist to rule undisturbed by a united working class. The same is true if the capitalist can make the worker believe that the basic antagonism in society is between white and black, or Catholic and Protestant, or Gentile and Jew. If the working class is fighting among itself along such lines, capital, whose only real religion is capital itself, and which has neither colour, nationality, age or sex, can continue to rule society and to keep labour at its mercy. The worker who understands his class position in society has already freed himself from the most oppressive and misleading idea that capitalists seek to pump into his head from childhood on. With this understanding comes the first big step toward freedom. Only if you know what society is based on, what position you occupy in it, what your relations are to other classes, can you begin to transform society into what it can and should be. Above you, ruling society and ruling you, is the capitalist class. 

Fact of the Day

The Tomahawk cruise missiles the United States used to devastate a Syrian air base were made by Raytheon, the fifth-largest arms firm in the world, an arms firm located in Glenrothes. 

A World Citizen.

In the TV Guide it said CNN were showing,"The History Of Comedy", so when this twit switched on, expecting to see something about comedy, it was always something about Trump. I may have missed the point, is there a connection?

Another, ''unlikely'', connection is, on March 25, at Toronto's Royal York Hotel, there was a seminar instructing American citizens on how to give up their U.S. citizenship. It was titled, "Make Sure You Renounce the right way." The aim of the organizers, The Moodys Gartner Tax Law Company, is alright as far as it goes, which isn't far enough. 

It would be a fine thing if everyone gave up their citizenships in every country in the world. It's private property society that divides people into countries, races, nations, in fact, divides people against each other to compete with and fight each other in wars: all in the interests of the capitalist class in those countries, which are competing with each other over markets and raw materials.

 By all means, let's give up our citizenships and have one world for all people. As Charlie Chaplin said when asked if he had taken out U.S. citizenship, "I am a citizen of the world." 

Steve and John

Dying alone

In June 2015 police in Edinburgh were called by a GP because an elderly patient named Henry Summers had not been seen for several years. The police went to Henry's address on Easter Road, one of the most densely populated areas in Scotland. When the police knocked the door down they found a mountain of mail in the hall and Henry Summers was inside, dead. He had been dead for three years, undiscovered, because all of his bills were paid by direct debit. A few years before that, a woman had been found dead in Rodney Street, undiscovered for five years. Isabella Purves, was also understood paying her bills by direct debit. It is a story every town and city has shared. As long as you pay your bills, who cares about you. 

The alienation and atomisation of capitalist society.

United Scotsmen Revisited

George Mealmaker 

The revolutions in America and France found extensive support among the Scottish working classes. Corresponding societies, groups in favour of peaceful but radical constitutional reform, grew in the Scottish lowland cities.  The outlawing of the corresponding societies did not bring an end to radical political activity in Scotland, it merely drove it underground. The main secret society which emerged in the wake of this repression was the Society of the United Scotsmen, formed In the late 18th century and sought widespread political reform throughout Great Britain. It grew out of previous radical movements such as the Friends of the People Society. Their aims were largely the same as those of the Society of the United Irishmen. The aim of the Society was universal suffrage and annually elected parliaments, with a strong streak of republicanism running through it as well.  In fact this was a totally new development in Scottish politics, for it was a truly revolutionary body advocating a French-style armed revolution and the foundation of a Scottish Republic.

By the mid-1790s the society had around 3,000 members, which was then more than the entire electorate of Scotland. This membership continued to grow rapidly beyond that level. Precise membership figures are not available, since the organisation kept no records at all, in the interests of security. Some estimates of as many as 22,000 have been made by modern historians. The two Fife villages of Strathmiglo and Auchtermuchty alone has over 2,000 members. The membership was comprised overwhelmingly of working men; handloom weavers, artisans, small shopkeepers, and the like.

The weakness of the corresponding societies had been their openness and transparency; penetrated by government spies, their compromise had been inevitable. As an illegal organisation and owing to its aims and activities the United Scotsmen had to remain a secret society, and organised themselves into cells of no more than 16 people which would send delegates to larger bodies on occasion. This way it meant the organisation was more difficult to penetrate, but it also meant that many members did not know other members of the organisation. The society was further boosted when the Parliament passed the Militia Act 1797 which allowed for the conscription of young men into the army. This proved vastly unpopular with many ordinary Scots, and in August 1797 there were large protests across the country which were brutally suppressed, with many protesters killed (e.g. Massacre of Tranent). Ordinary people hated the Act.  It was seen as a direct attack on workers because members of the bourgeoisie could always buy their own exemption.  The United Scotsmen got involved and began to foment resistance.  Working class people soon declared that they would "not risk their lives for the gentry and their property."  They would "rather die to a man than be pressed for soldiers." 

The United Scotsmen hoped to get support from the Dutch as well as the French, and there were plans for the Dutch to land in Scotland with some 50,000 troops and to take over the Scottish Central Belt. Such a force would almost certainly have succeeded had they appeared, given the widespread opposition to the Militia Act. However the Royal Navy intercepted a Dutch fleet and defeated them at the Battle of Camperdown in October 1797. Further hopes for French assistance were ruined when a French fleet was dispatched to England in the hope of encouraging English radicals to rise against His Majesty's Government. However, radical activity was not as entrenched there as in Scotland, or Ireland in particular. If they had dispatched the fleet to either of these countries then they may have met with more success. The United Scotsmen still organised a rebellion against the government in 1797, but despite initial successes for the insurrectionists, government troops quickly drafted in from England soon quelled the rebellion.

 The United Scotsmen's aims in the rebellion were to establish a new Provisional Government with Thomas Muir as President. Various leaders of the United Scotsmen were arrested and tried.  The most prominent activist arrested was Dundee weaver who had re-formed the Dundee Sons of Liberty group, George Mealmaker who had published a pamphlet called, "The Moral and Political Catechism of Man."  In it he articulated the United Scotsmen's key demands i.e. universal suffrage and annual parliaments.  He was now regarded as a dangerous revolutionary.  George Mealmaker was sentenced to 14 years transportation to Australia. Others such as Robert Jaffrey, David Black, James Paterson and William Maxwell were all found guilty of seditious activity. The last record of a United Scotsmen member having been tried before the courts was the trial in 1802 of Thomas Wilson.

Our future, or theirs?

The Socialist Party can perceive a future where there will be neither wages nor prices. By socialism we understand the system of society the material basis of which is social production for social use; that is, the production of all the means of social existence — including all the necessaries and comforts of life — carried on by the organised community for its own use collectively and individually. Socialism does not mean governmental ownership or management. The State of to-day, nationally or locally, is only the agent of the possessing class and, has, in the interests as employers, to treat the employees just as other employees are treated.

By socialism, the Socialist Party mean the establishment the common ownership and control of the whole of the world’s industry. The entire means of production thus being common property, there would no longer be a propertied employing class to make a profit out of the workers swat and toil, or the interest on loans or in any other way, and then classes themselves would disappear.

Mankind is facing threats to its physical survival with the growing risks of destruction of the environment. That’s why we need socialism, and that’s why many remain in the Socialist Party.  The real choice will be not “socialism or barbarism”, but socialism or the physical extinction of the human race. The working class cannot solve the global warming crisis because it has no belief in an alternative social order.

We in the Socialist Party believe that mankind is not necessarily doomed.  The problems to be solved in this case are not technical or cultural ones. It is a social one. Political power needs to be in the hands of the workers willing to let solidarity, cooperation and generosity prevail by democratic means over the short-sighted irresponsibility of the profit-system. Science and technology have no power independent of the social groups who invented them, apply them, and bend them to their interests as they see them.  The key decision is to subject science and technology to conscious social control in the democratically established interests of the great majority of human beings. To free them from submission to special pecuniary interests, which abuse them regardless of the long-term interests of the human race. For that purpose the organisation and structure of society itself must be subjected to democratically determined, conscious control. What socialism is all about in the last analysis is the conquest of human freedom for the greatest possible number to decide their own fate.  Only the democratically organised self-activity of the masses can achieve that. Socialism is a social order in which these masses decide their own fate in a free way.

Socialism is a society in which all the members of the community collectively determine their conditions of life and their way of living. In order to do so, they must control, in common, the use to which machines, factories, raw materials – all the means of production – are put. Unless the means of production are effectively in the hands of the whole society, not where 1 per cent of the population owns more than half the wealth, there can be no question of the democratic control of the conditions of life.

The Socialist Party opposes any condition in which human beings are despised, alienated, exploited, oppressed or denied basic human dignity. Understand that you cannot be happier than if you have dedicated your life to this defence of humanity everywhere in the world: the defence of the exploited, the oppressed, the downtrodden, the despised. There is no better way to be a decent individual in this world than to dedicate your life to the cause of socialism and that is why the future is with the socialists.

Capitalism At Its Cruellest

On March 10, Stephen O'Brien, the UN's so called Humanitarian director, said the world faces its greatest humanitarian crisis since the UN was founded in 1945, with more than 20 million people in 4 countries,Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria, facing starvation and famine. To quote,''Without collective and co-ordinated efforts, people will simply starve to death and many more will suffer and die from disease." 

This is a typical example of Capitalism at its cruellest; if food, or anything else for that matter, can't be sold for a  profit the people who need it go without. As for those who face death by starvation very soon, they can be saved very soon, by the establishment of Socialism which can come as soon as people want it. 

Steve and John.

Another Reason Why Capitalism Should Be Abolished

The International Peace Research Institute in March released figures on the world's arm sales. 37.9% of the world's arm sales comes from the United States: 20.5% comes from Russia, the number two exporter. There's been a 43% increase in U.S. arms sales since Obama took office in 2009. The estimated value of U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia during the Obama administration, was $115 billion. Pretty good for a peace-loving country.

Some may argue that arms sales keep the economy working (to whatever extent it does work) and gives employment to lots of people. 

This must be the most sickening thing about capitalism: for it to work, it has to murder millions of people in the interests of competing sections of the capitalist class. Is there any better argument for capitalism's abolition?

 Steve and John.

Bloody Capitalism

The civil war in Syria took on a new turn when the US in revenge for an alleged chemical weapon attack on civilians launched scores of Tomahawk missiles against the Syrian government.

You don't create peace by making war.

We cannot just decide to end war. What we can do, though, is decide to establish a society in which war is inconceivable. Wars can be stopped forever by simply removing the reasons for their existence. What is needed is a clear analysis of why humans go to war. It is never too late, even now, for people of this and other lands to ask themselves WHY? Many people believe they have got the answer. “Liberty and freedom is at stake," they say; “that precious freedom for which our forefathers fought.” Others maintain that “dictators and despots must be stopped, else they will seek to dominate the world.” With such fine-sounding sentiments do men and women delude themselves.

It is not because of our genes, our natures or our beliefs. It is because capitalists make themselves richer and more powerful by obtaining more and more markets and trade routes and exploitable populations and raw materials. And until capitalism is abolished, its ruthless, competitive drive for profits will condemn workers to die needlessly in wars. Conflict over access to and control of vital resources by competing nations have for the past one hundred years been rendered respectable by the cloak of capitalist ideology. They are no longer capable of being so masked.

Since the formation of the Socialist Party in 1904 our opposition to all wars has clearly distinguished us from other organisations claiming descent from Marx and Engels and the early socialist pioneers. For the Socialist Party, capitalism and war are inseparable. There can be no capitalism without conflicts of economic interest. Our consistent view has been that it is the duty of socialists to oppose the wars of the ruling class of one nation with the ruling class of another, and refuse to participate in them. So long as the working class continues to support capitalism so long will its wars, and preparations for war, continue.

  Because wars are the outcome of economic and strategic conflicts between the capitalists of the various nations any attempt to abolish war while those economic conflicts remained will be futile. And as such, anti-war campaigns from the working class standpoint is absurd. Just as the class struggle cannot be abolished save by abolishing classes, so it is impossible for capitalist nations to get rid of the grim spectre of war, for Capitalism presupposes economic conflicts which must finally be fought out with the aid of the armed forces of the State. The only solution to war is to abolish capitalism and replace it with socialism.  We do not single out one or two aspects of war – atomic or chemical weapons, or land mines or cluster bombs or white phosphorus shells or the use of child soldiers – we oppose the system that give rise to these things.

The great tragedy of to-day: the workers have not yet learned their most important lesson, the lesson of CLASS. They allow themselves to be lined up as Britons, Americans, Russians or Chinese, never as workers and capitalists. Capitalism puts everyone in his or her place, not according to language or nationality, but according to the economic position. That is the fundamental fact for the workers to consider, and all other questions mean little in comparison.  When socialists allow themselves to be recruited for a war they do not only commit suicide physically but ideologically as well. For they renounce completely the fundamental axiom of socialism, namely, the directly conflicting interests of workers and capitalists, a conflict that, so far from being abrogated during a war, stands out in sharper contrast than ever.

 For that war, although it will be fought mainly by the workers, will not be RUN by the workers; it will be run by the ruling class, and their method will be to crush ruthlessly any attempt to express any working class opposition, whether in the factory or politically. In other words, the workers will have to place themselves wholly under an iron control of militaristic capitalism, and who is going to argue that if and when such a war is ended workers can start again where they left off? The tactics advocated for the defence of democracy in the War Against Terror has led to the severe curtailment of civil liberties and the establishment of a virtual dictatorship.

 We do not preach passive acquiescence to populism and fascism any more than to any of the other evils for which capitalism is responsible. We preach the Class Struggle for Socialism. And that struggle is not for a Utopia of a dim and distant future.  As the Socialist movement extends its influence to an ever-widening circle of the working class, so will we be able to actively interfere with the machinations of the capitalists, whether they be of so-called “peace" or even those of war. Let there be signs to-day that more and more workers are becoming class-conscious enough to understand the real causes of capitalist wars and see just how quickly our rulers forget their internecine quarrels.

 We want to remind those people of what happened during World War One in one country—Russia. The workers and peasants there were not socialists. But they refused to fight and turned their attention to their real enemy at home. And what was the result? Not only did they drive out a most reactionary regime, but their move helped to play a decisive part in the collapse of German imperialism, and thus hastened the end of the war. How much better could a strengthened Socialist Party in this country play its part in bringing home to workers everywhere die madness of fighting each other in the interests of the class that oppresses and exploits them. Let British workers set an example to their fellows in all lands by proclaiming that the interest of the working class is in internationalism, not in wars for markets.


 We call upon you, fellow workers, to help us. Are you ready take the first steps to end war? 

The clarion cry goes forth

The Socialist Party works for the continuation of a policy by which socialist men and women and their ideas penetrate more and more the elective bodies, and this implies constant education and propaganda among fellow-workers. We declare that the present capitalist system is based upon the legalised robbery of the real producers of wealth producers and the undoubted object of socialism is to get rid of these social parasites, the capitalist class. By socialist co-operative commonwealth, we mean the common ownership by the whole people, of the raw material and machinery of production in the common interest.  The centralised nation would give place to a federation of communities who would hold all wealth in common and would use that wealth for satisfying the needs of each member, only exacting from each that he should do his best according to his capacity towards the production of the common wealth.
 It is to be understood that each member is absolutely free to use his share of wealth as he pleases, without interference from any, so long as he really uses it, that is, does not turn it into an instrument for the oppression of others. This view intends complete equality of condition for everyone, though life would be, as always, varied by the differences of capacity and disposition; and emulation in working for the common good would supply the place of competition as an incentive. This social transformation means the emancipation not only of the proletariat but of the whole human race.

The battle of the working class against capitalist exploitation is necessarily a political battle. The working class cannot carry on its economic battles or develop its economic organisation without political rights. It cannot effect the passing of the means of production into the ownership of the community without acquiring political power. To shape this battle of the working class into a conscious and united effort, and to show it its naturally necessary end is the object of the Socialist Party. The interests of the working class are the same in all lands. With the expansion of world communications and production for the world market, the condition of the workers in any one country becomes constantly more dependent on the state of the workers in other countries. The emancipation of the working class is thus a task in which the workers of all countries are concerned in a like degree. Conscious of this, the Socialist Party feels and declares itself one with the class-conscious workers of all other lands.

The Socialist Party fights thus not for new class privileges, but for the abolition of class domination and of the classes themselves, and for the equal obligations of all, without distinction. Setting out from these views, it combats in contemporary society not merely the exploitation and oppression of the wage workers, but every kind of exploitation and oppression, whether directed against towards on the basis of gender, sexual orientation or nationality. The Socialist Party strives on behalf of the whole people without distinction of nation, race or sex for emancipation from the fetters of economic dependence and political oppression.

 The cause of these unsatisfactory conditions lies, not in particular political arrangements, but in the fact essentially conditioning and dominating the whole state of society, that the means of working are monopolised in the hands of individual possessors. Society is thus divided into two opposite classes, one, the capitalists and their sleeping partners, the property owners and the financial loan-mongers, holding in their hands the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and being, therefore, able to command the labour of others; the other, the working-class, the wage-earners, the proletariat, possessing nothing but their labour-power, and being consequently forced by necessity to work for the former. The working class, suffer and endure the most oppressive dependence upon the owning class in possession of the means of working, which include land whose political domination is expressed in the class state of today. Just as all the citizens have and handle in common, democratically the political power, so they must have and handle in common the economic power, the means of production.

 Children are dying by the millions, mothers are weeping because they cannot command life’s necessaries for their children, and millions of men barred by unemployment from getting life’s necessaries, this in the midst of an abundance of wealth the like of which the world has never known before.

 The times are ripe for great changes not the mere trifling of reforms but definite deep-rooted drastic changes, the dethroning of the capitalist class and the people themselves becoming the owners and controllers of the wealth they produce. This is not the time to ask for peace but to declare class war. The Socialist Party will always declare in favour of the solidarity of the interests of the workers of every country. The future of the world is to be co-operative, and not competitive.  There must be free access. The object of the Socialist Party is to secure economic freedom for the whole community, ie, that all men and all women shall have equal opportunities for sharing in wealth production and consumption untrammeled by any restriction.  The only possible basis for advance and progress that will admit of all sharing in the advantages of new technology is the co-operative basis.  Many people now feel deeply the urgent necessity for a revolutionary change in the basis of human society.


Workers of all countries, unite. You have the whole world to win and nothing but your chains to lose.

John Maclean

Dear Editors

It was with interest that I recently read on the SPGB Blog that the SPGB recognised one positive achievement of Lenin in that he helped to get Russia out of the bloody capitalist First World War (http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2011/02/time-to-bury-leninism.html).

Although I recognise that Scotland's John MacLean  was not in the "Impossibilist" tradition (although he was once a member of the Social Democratic Federation),   I write to ask if the SPGB  recognised the vigorous anti-war work of John Maclean?

Harry McShane, of the CPGB, wrote in his book that John Maclean was persecuted to the extent of exhaustion and eventually dying of pneumonia. McShane wrote that "....The authorities hated him more than any other man. He was jailed five times; the first time was in 1915, and he spent four of his remaining eight years in prison.   When he was out of jail he was followed everywhere by plain-clothes policemen. They were more frightened of his revolutionary stand than of the shop-stewards...."  (Harry McShane, No Mean Fighter, page 151)

Just being curious, but did the Socialist Standard of the time make any mention of John Maclean during the First World War?

J. MELROSE,  Glasgow

Reply:

We can’t find any mention of John Maclean in the Socialist Standards of the war period, but no doubt we would have respected him for the anti-war position he took up as that was what our members were doing and suffering from it too, also being sent to prison.

We did not think much of his Scottish republicanism and said so in an article on the party he founded in the October 1925 Socialist Standard from which here is an extract:

  “A correspondent sends us the Manifesto of the Scottish Workers' Republican Party, and asks for our opinion of it. The object of the Party, founded by the late John Maclean, is a Workers' Republic for Scotland. The Manifesto sets out the slave position of the working class, and urges that the workers must carry through the Social Revolution.
  The chief fallacy of their position is their insistence upon a Scottish Workers' Republic. This demand is both reactionary and Utopian. The struggle of the workers of the United Kingdom must be a united one. The workers are under the domination of a class who rule by the use of a political machine which is the chief governing instrument for England, Scotland, Wales, etc. To appeal to the workers of Scotland for a Scottish Workers' Republic is to arouse and foster the narrow spirit of Nationalism, so well used by our masters. Economically the demand is Utopian, as the development of capitalism has made countries more and more dependent on each other, both through the specialisation of industry or agriculture, and also by the force controlled by the Great Powers to suppress or control the smaller nations.
  The history of " independent " Hungary, Poland, and the Balkan States shows that the realisation of " political independence " by a country leaves the workers' conditions untouched and actually worsens them in many cases.
   The appeal to the worker in this Manifesto to "rally to the cause of a Workers' Republic for Scotland" is made "so that we might win you away from the service of the imperialist gang who direct their activities from London" If the worker is to be won for Socialism, it is by getting him to understand the principles of Socialism, and not by appealing to him to concentrate on Scottish affairs. Socialism is international.”

This is still our position in face of those today who seek to revive the idea of a “Scottish Workers’ Republic” - Editors.

We Must Correctly Apply Nature's Laws

We needn't fool ourselves that messing with the environment is a recent thing. Frederick Engels in his work, ''Labour In The Transition From Ape To Man'', had plenty to say about it.

''Let us not , however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each victory it takes its revenge on us. Each of them, it is true, has in the first place the consequences on which we counted, but in the second and third places it has quiet and different, unforeseen effects which only to often cancel out the first. The people who in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor and elsewhere, utterly destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land never dreamed that they were laying the basis for the present devastated conditions of these countries, by removing along with the forests the collecting centres and reservoirs of moisture. When the Italians of the Alps used up the pine forests on the southern slopes, so carefully cherished on the northern slopes, they had no inkling that by doing so they were cutting at the roots of the dairy industry in their region; they had still less inkling that they were thereby depriving their mountain springs of water for the greater part of the year, and making it possible for them to pour still more furious torrents of it on the plains during the rainy seasons. Those who spread potato in Europe were not aware that with these farinaceous tubers they were at the same time spreading scrofula. Thus at every step we are reminded that we by on means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature - but that we, with flesh, blood, and brain, belong to nature and exist in its midst and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to know and correctly apply its laws. Since this has been happening for so long its about time we had a society that will put an end to it."

Steve and John.

Fight for the Future

 There is very great need to-day to clearly define what is socialism. Needless to say, it is irrevocably hostile to capitalism. Socialism has been attacked at all times, but never with more animosity than recently. Socialists are reproached with every kind of evil. If the workers, however, attack ocialism it is not from a clear perception of the aims of socialism by which their judgment is guided, but by a dim and vague ideas spread by disinformation and misinformation.
 About socialism many lies have been told, especially by people whose interest it is to do so, i.e. by those money-making idlers, so that now most people cannot but connect with the word socialism with negative ideas. Therefore it is not an easy matter to speak of socialism without running the risk of being condemned before one commences. Many people will not hear, will not see, will not judge. Their verdict is formed. All social prejudices are awakened and called forth by this expression. For that reason it is very difficult to come to a quiet understanding about it.

What do Socialists demand? The abolition of every form of expropriation and oppression of man by man in social, political and economic life. Men and women shall be free and equal without exception and they shall be permitted to fulfil their life as human beings. And in order to attain this object, mankind ought not only to have the right but also the opportunity of harmoniously developing and educating, in accordance with its needs, the physical and intellectual capacities which nature has given to humanity. From this arises the need for society to increase both the quantity and the quality of the means of life and of culture, so it shall prove adequate to meet the very highest demands that can be made upon it; and it follows, therefore, that it is the duty of everyone to co-operate in accordance with ability in the production of these means of culture and life.
 Consequently, “all for one and one for all” will be the principle of the coming socialist society. The goal of socialism is not to destroy civilization nor to throw humanity back into barbarism but, on the contrary, we desire to lift the whole of humanity to the highest thinkable level. We wish every individual without exception to have a share in the means of culture and education according to his and her needs. This ideal is possible today because it is only now that, in consequence of the thousands of years of progress, we only now are all the means and possibilities given through which we may realise this ideal condition. Socialism is a society which serves the needs of mankind.

  Socialists do not desire to "divvy up" wealth more equally, as some would have us believe.  Baron Rothschild took a walk and two labourers accosted him: “Baron, you are a rich man; we want our fair share.” The Baron Rothschild took out his purse good-humouredly and answered: “Certainly! We can do that business on the spot. The account is easily made. I own 40 millions of florins; there are 40 millions of Germans. Consequently each German has to receive one florin; here is your share;” and giving one florin to each of the labourers and then he walked off smiling.  Socialists do not intend to introduce division of wealth and property; on the contrary, we are for abolishing its division. Socialists are of opinion that division of property is flourishing in our society at present, and further they are of the opinion that this division is carried on in a very unjust manner. Socialists do not intend to divide, but we do intend to abolish property.  But it is a firm principle of socialism never to interfere with personal property or possessions.

 Think of our millionaires, and say whether those fellows did or did not understand how to divide and to appropriate to themselves large sums of money. Think of those swindling industrialists and bankers. How many honest working-people have been swindled by them out of the little sums of money they had gathered by hard work and saving? We see how those who work hard do not make money, do not amass riches – on the contrary, many of them suffer. But those who never worked, or whose work hardly deserves the name of work benefit from the working class. A few workers may succeed but do they ever reach a state in which they are safe from sorrow and strife.

 Those who have a little shop or a small business of their own and work on a small scale have to battle with poverty and too many of them fail in this battle; they give up their small enterprises and turn wage-labourers. One manufacturer on a large scale deprives hundreds of small establishments of their independent existence; one large shop or even “co-operative” store crushes out fifty small shopkeepers. As things stand to-day, only those who command great amounts of capital succeed. Merchants with small means rarely do a good business; many go bankrupt. Merchants with large means grow richer and richer. It is similar with farmers. Owners of small farms just eke out a scanty living and have to work very hard. Very oftn, we find that small farms are bought out by owners of large commercial farms. For toil and sweat scarcely a living! No sensible person can approve of that. This state of affairs cannot and must not continue. It is wrong, and therefore it must be changed.

 In everyday life of capitalist society everybody looks out for his or her own interest, even at the cost of their fellows. Egoism and selfish self-interest rules supreme. Everybody thinks of his or her own welfare, and does not care whether by doing so they destroy the welfare of others.  Socialism is nothing but the principle of the common interests of society where  beneficent and useful institutions are established by the whole people in common. Whoever declares him or herself opposed to socialism confesses to be an enemy of common interest, an enemy of society and mankind.


 Capital becomes a means for enslaving workers forcing them to give up the greater part of their produce to him who owns the capital. Might is right, and by the title of such right the slave-owner considers the fruit of the work of his slaves his property; by this right, the feudal land-owner made his serfs work for his employment and benefit. Slavery is injustice; serfdom is injustice; so the right which capital claims to the work of the worker is injustice. As far as anything is the personal property of a person he may enjoy it as he chooses; nobody has a right to interfere. But as soon as he tries to use this property to enslave other people, he steps beyond his domain and must be checked. Nobody has a right of ownership over his fellow-men. Slavery has been, abolished, serfdom has been abolished, so the power which capital exercises now will be abolished: its place will be occupied by the natural and sacred right of the worker to the proceeds of his work.

 Socialism, far from intending to abolish any property to-day or to-morrow, only predicts that there will be a time brought on by historical development, when the working people will insist upon their right to the product of their own work, against the privilege which property enjoys with regard to the work of others. Freedom and equality will then be no longer empty and cheap phrases, but will have a meaning; when all men and women are really free and equal. Working people will then no longer be deprived of the fruits of their labour.