Scottish Company Intimidates African Workers

 More than 1,000 former and current employees of James Finlay Kenya Ltd (JFK) are suing the company for damages at Scotland's supreme civil court, the Court of Session. The workers claim they suffered musculoskeletal injuries while working for Aberdeen-registered JFK at its farms in the Kericho region of Kenya. They have signed up to group proceedings - a class action lawsuit - in the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

Last month the firm won a temporary injunction from a court in Nairobi, stopping workers from pursuing the case. Having failed to stop the lawsuit from going ahead, the company opened up a second front in the legal battle by seeking an order from the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi. It argued that the Scottish case was an "an assault on the sovereignty of the Republic of Kenya" and violated the country's constitution. The court granted an interim anti-suit injunction, bringing the Scottish case to a temporary halt and preventing anyone else from joining the class action.

Lawyers acting for the tea pickers have now won an order from the Court of Session, telling JFK not to continue with the Kenyan action.

They argued that JFK's conduct has been calculated to intimidate the workers and prevent them from having lawful access to the Scottish courts for resolution of a bona fide dispute. They accused JFK of engaging in a "deliberate campaign to defeat the ends of justice and cause distress". The names of the workers involved in the case were published in a national newspapers and pinned to notice boards on the tea farms. The judge, Lord Braid, said the workers' lawyers had put forward a "strong prima facie case" that JFK's actions had been "vexatious and oppressive".

Scottish firm ordered to halt legal action in Kenyan tea pickers case - BBC News

End Complacency. Start Campaigning

 

There are many reasons why socialists want a complete change in the basis of society and why we want a new society based on common ownership and production solely for use. Today we have poverty amidst plenty, international rivalry leading to wars, the destruction of the planet’s environment because of the profit motive – the list goes on and on. Approaching a billion people throughout the world suffer from hunger. Capitalism corrupts everything it touches. In this society the cash nexus is everything. Get up off your knees and organise for a world based on production solely for use. You owe it to your children and their children.

Socialism means a system of life in which the instrument of labour will be common property. Consequently, the fruits of labour under such conditions will be freely available to all. There will be no need for the workers to buy and sell that which they own as a result of their collective effort. Organised distribution, democratically controlled according to a definite plan based upon social needs will replace wages and such-like features of capitalism. Such a system can replace the existing chaos in which you suffer, just as soon as you are ready to establish it by means of your political power. When you realise the need for this you will have no time left to waste on the Labour Party which tinker with effects while leaving causes untouched. You will get on with the job in the only way possible, i.e., by joining and helping forward the work of the Socialist Party.

We say that the workers must first understand socialism, then organise politically and then use the vote to gain control of the political machinery. After securing control, only then will the real and enormous task of changing the economic basis of society begin.

Any airy platitudes to the effect that the trades union movement will be a midwife in attendance at the birth of socialism will be sheer wind chewing and humbug unless the trades unionists can direct their own destiny in the first place. All socialists who are members of their trade union work within the structure of their union to make their fellow-workers understand and appreciate the position of the Socialist Party. With this understanding clearly fixed in the minds of the majority of trade unionists, their unions will become live, fearless and potent bodies in the class struggle, and will play their part in the birth of a new society in which the means of wealth production and distribution will be commonly owned and democratically administered in the interests of the community as a whole. Socialism is the only hope of the working class, of which the trade unionist is a part.

Reminiscent of the boy who, by putting his finger over the hole in the dyke, hoped to stem the flood, reformers waste their time and energies in trying to alleviate the direct effects of capitalism, instead of striving to abolish the cause. Capitalist reforms scratch the surface leaving the underlying problems untouched. While perhaps the worst anomalies are removed, others more subtle become increasingly apparent. It will take more than palliatives to remove the consequences of poverty in a world of plenty. It will take a complete change in the social system to bring about production solely for people’s needs, and not in order to make a profit such as obtained to-day. Poverty for the many is inherent in the capitalist system, and we must work for socialism in order to remove it. By socialism, we do not mean public utility corporations, state control and the National Health Service, which pass for it with some of our less well-informed fellow-workers. By socialism, we mean a system in which all who are able to participate in production, and everyone receive what he or she needs. Only under socialism can the heart-breaking effects of poverty be removed and all have an opportunity of living the good life as well as enjoying a healthy life.

As socialists, however, we give thought to the effects that will be forthcoming in the future. We do not underestimate the enormous obstacles in the path to socialism. The greatest obstacle is getting the workers to understand and want socialism.

William Morris and Revolution

 

William Morris was a 19th-century poet, arts and crafts designer and socialist agitator. He was a revolutionary socialist in the tradition of what might be called “Anglo-Marxism” or “impossibilism” rather than a “proto-Leninist” as he is sometimes depicted to be by the Left.

Morris’s views were that capitalism cannot be tamed, only overthrown, and that any other approach was a diversion from the ‘real task', that the function of a socialist party is to ‘make socialists’ and that anything short of that was a waste of time and effort. Morris did envisage that the changeover to socialism would involve some degree of violence—he introduces this into his description of how socialism came to be established in News from Nowhere—but this was never the essence of what he meant by “revolution”  and it is misleading to suggest that Morris was advocating violence as a socialist tactic as opposed to expecting the violence to be started by those opposed to the socialist revolution.

 

Morris was quite clear about what he meant by “revolution”. As he put it in the opening paragraph of his How We Live and How We Might Live:

 

“The word Revolution, which we Socialists are so often forced to use, has a terrible sound in most people’s ears, even when we have explained to them that it does not necessarily mean a change accompanied by riot and all kinds of violence, and cannot mean a change made mechanically and in the teeth of opinion by a group of men who have somehow managed to seize on the executive power for the moment. Even when we explain that we use the word revolution in its etymological sense, and mean by it a change in the basis of society, people are scared at the idea of such a vast change, and beg that you will speak of reform and not revolution. As, however, we Socialists do not at all mean by our word revolution what these worthy people mean by their word reform, I can’t help thinking that it would be a mistake to use it, whatever projects we might conceal beneath its harmless envelope. So we will stick to our word, which means a change in the basis of society.”

This is exactly our definition too. “Revolution” means a change in the basis of society, irrespective of whether or not this happens to involve violence. It also implies that this change will be fairly rapid rather than a prolonged, gradual one, so that terms such as “overthrow” and “upheaval” are not out of place. It’s our view the fact that these days, the socialist revolution could be carried out more or less peacefully, with a socialist-minded majority using existing elective institutions to win control of political power and employing this to overthrow capitalism. In other words, we don’t see Morris’s description in News from Nowhere of how socialism came to be established as a likely scenario today.

The Russian revolution but this was never the sort of revolution Morris (or ourselves) advocated. It was a political revolution that led to a social revolution—a change in the basis of society—but from feudalism to capitalism via a prolonged period of state capitalism rather than from capitalism to socialism. Since this was only a change from one class society to another it could be, and was, carried out by a minority some of whose members became the new ruling class. 

 The sort of revolution William Morris had (and we have) in mind is about a majority revolution from class society to a class-free society, not about a minority revolution from one class society to another. Unfortunately, these latter types of revolutions described themselves as “socialist” and it is their failure to bring about the equality associated with the word “socialism” that has led people to conclude that there is no revolutionary answer and indeed that trying to achieve one will only make things worse. We refuse to accept this defeatist conclusion that we say that Morris’s policy of making socialists is still the most constructive activity that those who want a better world should engage in at the present time.

Socialism is the only hope peace

 

It is the Socialist Party’s contention that so long as capitalism remains in existence, war or the threat of war must likewise remain to torture our minds and bodies. What solution can capitalism provide against the recurrence of a third world war? The Socialist Party’s answer is that there is none. Those who are aware of the real forces at work in the modern capitalist world hold out little hope for a future in which war will not rear its ugly and vicious head. To the Socialist Party, this is nothing new. It is because we understand the nature of capitalism and its inevitable development that we refuse to be lulled by all sorts of hole-in-the-corner reformers who pander to ignorance by claiming to have solutions for problems which are incapable of solution within the framework of capitalism. The reader may ask now, If war is inevitable under capitalism, what solution has the Socialist Party to offer?

The main outstanding feature of capitalist society is the capitalist ownership of the means of production. By this we mean that relatively all the powers of production in existence to-day are owned and controlled by a small minority, known as the capitalist class, leaving the vast mass of the population without any means of obtaining a livelihood than by working for one, or for a group of these capitalists. “You have my very life if you have the means whereby I live,” are the words Shakespeare puts into the mouth of Shylock, and this is true—nay, even truer—than it was then. The workers, with the help of their master’s machinery, raw materials, etc., produce vast quantities of goods which the owner or owners endeavour to sell at a profit on the home and world markets. That is, at such times when they are not engaged in armed conflict with other groups of capitalists.

The most important point to remember about this process of exploitation is that the workers only receive back a relatively small portion of this product in the form of wages, such an amount as will suffice to keep them in “working efficiency.” Consequently, they are never able to buy back all that they produce, and no matter how much the capitalist may spend in the way of luxurious living, there is always a large surplus left over. This results, as we know only too well, from bitter experience, in slumps, crises and mass unemployment. But it also leads the capitalist to search for new markets or to extend the existing ones. It is here, however, that he meets his colleagues from other parts of the capitalist world, who are engaged in precisely the same hunt. Hence ensues power politics, back-room diplomatic intrigue, secret agreements, quarrels over territory and spheres of influence, and other nauseating features of world capitalist politics and diplomacy. This, we should like to stress, is not due to some inherent predatory instincts to which capitalists and their henchmen are particularly susceptible, but is the logical result of their pursuit of profit.

The cause, then, is clear. Not human nature, nor individuals aspiring to power, nor lack of “brotherly co-operation among nations,” but the profit-making system, the capitalist order of society. The remedy follows logically. Deprive the capitalists of their ownership of the means of wealth production, and make these the common property of all the people—in short, end capitalism and inaugurate socialism. Profits, spheres of influence, trade routes, and armed might will then no longer interest anybody because they simply won’t exist or be able to exist. This is because in socialist society things will be produced solely for use, and the sole motivation of production and distribution will be to minister to the general welfare and happiness of mankind. Instead of war, we shall have peace, real peace, not the periodical armistices that capitalism holds out for us. Instead of adulteration and distortion, perfection and beauty to the utmost limits of the capacity of society to provide them. Finally, but certainly not least, instead of exploitation and poverty, we shall bequeath to ourselves freedom and abundance. This transformation, however, can only be achieved when the majority of those persons most likely to benefit from the change—i.e., the working class—have reached an understanding of the cause of their miseries. Armed with this knowledge, they will organise with determination and enthusiasm in the political field for the sole purpose of getting to power for socialism.

The Socialist Party stands for this social revolution, the only political organisation in this country, without exception, to do so. We, therefore, appeal to all workers to interest themselves in our great work, and when they are satisfied that our position is clear and unambiguous, and founded upon a correct and true interpretation of the facts of the modern world, to join with us in the furtherance and growth of the World Socialist Movement both here and abroad. Socialism is the only practical alternative to poverty, war, and all its kindred evils. The time is now most opportune for socialist activity. Only by following this course of action may we hope to abolish the poverty of the workers and the possibility of yet another future calamitous holocaust.

The Socialist Party and Parliament

 

It is a tenet of our policy that parliament is the means through which the working-class will achieve socialism. The Socialist Party does not offer itself to the workers as alternative leaders, willing to replace the Labour Party and promising to conduct the working class to socialism. Socialists, like other beings, cannot escape the pressure of the forces surrounding them, and there is no reason to believe that socialists would be more trustworthy than other people, except that they at least understand the social forces and may be expected to avoid gross blunders of ignorance. If socialism depended upon finding trustworthy leaders, in or out of Parliament, then socialism would never come into being. The Socialist Party tells the working class that they alone can replace capitalism with socialism, putting their trust in no leaders at all. The only guarantee against the evil effects of betrayal by leaders is to have no leaders. The capitalist class do not buy leaders for their brains or their ability, but because they have a sheep-like following. Socialists know what they want and how to get it, and are not followers. A socialist membership will make their own policy, and M.P.s will not be able to “emasculate" that policy. The policy of the Labour Party has never been socialist because its members have never been socialist. Its past and its present policy accurately reflect the views of the majority of its members. A socialist membership would not formulate a non-socialist policy, and if an M.P. elected by socialists advocated a non-socialist policy he or she would be disavowed by his constituents. The question is not whether Socialist Party M.P.’s would be offered inducements to modify their attitude, but whether the electors would tolerate such modification. Labour electors do not want capitalism overthrown, and therefore do not object to their M.P.’s non-socialist politics and actions. Socialist electors would object and would enforce their wishes.

When the working-class have become predominantly socialist, and are organised politically and economically on class lines, they will be easily able to obstruct the normal working of capitalism. The majority of the capitalist class, faced with the alternative of yielding to the wishes of the majority of society, or of entering into a period of continued industrial and administrative chaos, will certainly choose the former.

The majority of the capitalist class are well aware of the limitations and dangers of using force openly against discontented workers. They use, and are likely to continue to use, the much more effective weapon of propaganda in the media, etc. When they use force now they can still defend themselves by the plea that they have the majority of the electors supporting them. When that plea has been undermined (i.e., when the majority of the electors are socialist) the capitalist class will have to yield or be faced with the problem of trying to administer capitalism by military force, against a hostile majority of the population. That problem is insoluble, not because of any scruples of the capitalists, but because of the nature of modern industry and trade, and the complexity of the administration of capitalism. The great majority of all workers are still ignorant of their class position, and are not socialists. As regards those members of the working-class who are military and police officers, civil servants, etc., the majority, even apart from acquiring greater knowledge of their class position, will act in accordance with their bread and butter interests, i.e., they will take orders from the authorities who control the political machinery.

The only test is to compare the practicability of one policy with that of an alternative, and weigh up the respective advantages and disadvantages. The dead and living members of the Socialist Party have thought deeply before offering the S.P.G.B. Declaration of Principles, and so far none of our critics has succeeded in discovering a practicable alternative.

The points of difference between the left and ourselves can be traced back to the use of the term “transition period.” What is the transition period? We live now in a capitalist economic system with the capitalist class in control of the political machinery and the armed forces of society. They make laws and enforce them, laws which are always framed within the limits imposed by the nature of capitalism and (so far as these limits permit) always directly in their interests as capitalists. When, and not before, the working-class, organised for Socialism, have gained control of the political machinery, the transition period will begin. The working-class cannot begin the work of abolishing the present private property basis of society until they have obtained political control from the capitalist class. 

Our explanation is plain. The SocialistParty does not deny or underestimate the difficulties of the economic transformation to socialism, but the difficulties of the period after the conquest of power have no relation to the policy of supporting capitalist reforms before the conquest of power.. We shall not leave “transitional politics” alone, but what the left-wing has in mind as “transitional politics” are merely the politics of capitalist reform. We are not in the “transition period,” the workers have not obtained political control, and the advocacy of nationalisation and other reforms is not work towards socialism or towards the capture of political control for socialism. Also the left is  based on the assumption that socialism can be established in one country alone. It certainly cannot. Socialism will be international and cannot be other than international.

The Socialist Party Promise

 

The Socialist Party advocates the expropriation of the landed and capitalist class, the deprivation of their way of living and the organisation of the wealth-producing by the whole people acting in co-operation, for the benefit of all. The socialist commonwealth is a society in which land and property are communally owned and the processes of production, and distribution are social functions. Socialism is the ownership of the means of life by the people and for the people. The object of the Socialist Party is to secure the common ownership of all the means of production and distribution.

The Socialist Party position is plain. It invites votes from socialists on a socialist programme, that and nothing else. It campaigns for socialism, telling the workers that no change in the administration of capitalism will raise them from their subject position in society. We must use elections to teach fellow workers the connection between their employer and the state and the connection between their status and the economic system.

While the end in view must be an economic one, it does not follow that the means to that end is an economic one also. The ruling class do not rule the workers simply because they are owners, but they are able to continue their rule and domination because they control the political machinery which gives them the protection necessary to maintain their position. The working-class, therefore, must get control of this same political machinery in order to get access to economic possession. The mere refusal of the workers to give up the fruits of their toil is insufficient without the power to back up their refusal. Industrial action or striking does not bring the workers into possession, but leaves the owners in complete ownership of all the means of life. A general strike is a policy which brings the workers up against the full forces of government without in any way giving the workers any access to the means and instruments of production, or the wealth already produced.

Poverty is when people are not able to secure for themselves all the benefits of civilisation. If a person is only able to provide oneself and his or her family with the bare necessaries of existence, that family is living in poverty since they cannot enjoy the advantages of civilisation and so might just as well be a slave.

What are rights under capitalism? The right of private property, 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 utilise 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 misery and wretchedness of those who produce it.  The right to private property, the right to exploit, the right to rob, the right to over-produce and cause crises, the right to compete, and cause wars.

The Socialist Party answer? The abolition of the right of private property, and instead the common ownership of the means of production, so that all may enjoy the fruit of their labour. It is as simple as this – a choice between two worlds, a world of exploitation, social injustice, chronic insecurity, economic crisis, and recurring wars and a world of proper economic planning, increasing living standards, prosperity and a durable peace.

The Socialist Party is not out to create a bloody revolution but to work for the improvement of the conditions of the people. Its understanding of social science teaches  that in the long run, such is capitalist development, that improvement can only be attained by changing basic social relations, by a shift in ownership and control from the few to the many, all-embracing socialisation where the whole of society is changed by the elimination of the private ownership of the entire means of production, socialism.

The following are humankind’s prime necessities: Air, water, food, clothing, shelter and good health. Without air we should die in a few minutes ; without water, in a few days. Socialism simply means that the basics for life shall be supplied similarly without question or condition; that they shall not be for the benefit of profit-makers, that access to them shall not be through a check-out bearing the sign, “Pay Here.” Without the necessities of life we die. To obtain them we hire ourselves for a period to those who own the means whereby we live. How do they make and retain themselves masters of our lives? By force and custom. We propose to dissolve the first by converting a majority to our opinion, and at an election taking control of the machinery of government. We propose to vary the second by substituting common ownership of the masses whereby we all live, for private ownership of them. When people thoroughly understand these simple facts, we venture to think they will have a diet of choice food, roomy houses instead of stuffy boxes, long-lasting clothing instead of shoddy rags. 

Socialism will not abolish  earthquakes, volcanoes and tornadoes, storms and blizzards and other natural hazards but will effectively mitigate the effects of them.