Nationalism - Strong against the Weak, Weak against the Strong

Nationalism is a sign of fear. The bosses are confronted with a possibility that workers everywhere around the globe who have to fight under increasingly similar conditions and who are now moving around will recognise the global nature of the companies and industries so employers and the state use migration in order to play us off against each other; on the company level and beyond. It was no surprise that the normally anti-strike right-wing press applauded the “native” workers at the Lyndsey oil refinery in 2009 when they went out on strike against the employment of Portuguese. The tabloids gleefully featured front page pictures of strikers on picket lines clutching "British jobs for British workers" placards. Less was written by the newspapers about the weakness of the trade unions in the face of their bosses  who blamed the traditional militancy of the engineering construction workers in the UK which led to the necessity to use of overseas workers.

If workers use their various experiences of having lived and fought in different countries they can become stronger. Workers worldwide know enough now about how to get rid of the bosses and politicians, who profit from us. We possess the knowledge and the power to create something better. Nationalism has been transcended by the need for working class emancipation. Since workers have a common interest to overthrow capitalism and establish a free association based on common ownership and democratic control of the economy, national liberation is no longer a desired objective. Capitalism is global, international and has effectively destroyed national boundaries--as far as its interests are concerned. The ruling class has maintained the illusion of nation states in order to better control the flow of the most basic commodity: labour. capitalist and their politicians are constantly preoccupied with "safeguarding" their national borders because the uncontrolled movement of workers and other commodities can give some sectors of their class disproportionate advantage over others. They enlist the support of indigenous workers by convincing them that newly arrived foreign workers threaten their livelihood or otherwise undermine access to social services. They, the capitalists, seem not to mind it too much when foreign capitalists come to the U.S. to invest in their economy.

Workers everywhere are better served when they fight to break down borders, not when they help create new ones. Setting up an independent state in a capitalist world of state is not anti-imperialist. Such a state always falls under the influence of a bigger bloc of states such as Scotland with the EU. The rise of nationalism cannot be separated from the crisis of the enormous vacuum on the left, which leaves those who preach nationalism (or religious fundamentalism) with little socialist competition.

National unity is class collaborationist. Socialism can only ever be won by the working class. nationalist movements - no matter what their rhetoric - are no substitute. hence the idea of them moving us "closer to socialism" is misconceived.  The only "independence" offered by capitalism is the wonderful autonomy granted by the market (i.e. none at all) no matter what flag happens to fly over the places of exploitation. The idea of the division of humanity into nations is etched into people’s consciousness under capitalism. If one national state fails them, the easiest thing is to turn to the idea of creating a different national state. It seems so much more “practical” to rearrange the pieces on the board than to build an entirely new sort of society.  Nationalism makes sense so long as there is not a challenge to the system as a whole.

The ruling class, using nationalism, has side-tracked the aspirations of the working class.  National independence is by no means the liberation of workers.   National capitalists want a bigger slice of the profits from the exploitation of workers. Nationalist capitalists have little political and economic force and cannot take power without the mass support of the working class. That’s why it resorts to all sorts of demagogy to the effect that it will “liberate” the workers (whom it would force to pay the price for “independence”). The “Left-nationalists” contribute nothing but division and confusion as they ally themselves with the little bosses to reach a larger audience. One of the reasons the left is in such poor shape to deal with nationalist challenges is that it does not understand these things.  Pro-nationalists are driven by their desire to find a special explanation for the oppression of minorities. The class struggle is not enough; there must be a “national struggle” as well.  Nationalist theories merely isolate people in their struggle against exploitation.  Only socialism, in removing the material basis of nationalism and racism, the discrimination and exploitation of some workers in the competition for jobs, can achieve equality between different sections of the working class.World socialism cannot be achieved by the adding to nation-states, but by opposition to them all. 

The problems of Scottish workers will not be solved in the framework of an independent capitalist state. Socialists have to understand the only way to bring workers of different nationalities together is to insist on free association. Internationalism does not mean identification with existing states.  The fate of Scot's workers is irrevocably bound up with the fate of the rest of Britain's workers. Socialism is the order of the day. A socialist British Isles as part of a socialist world is the future. Members of the Socialist Party are not proud of their nationality. They are proud of the denial of their nationality. Socialists do not stand for the protection and promotion of their “own” national culture, but for the integration of all that is best in every culture into a new human culture. 

The working class is the only class capable of overthrowing the capitalist system. For this there needs to be a genuinely socialist party. Only a solid working-class base can accomplish the socialist revolution. The Socialist Party opposes all nationalism. With this opposition, we are not alone. For many people, they identify with their home country which they call patriotism. Indeed, in the debate around the referendum for Scottish independence the “Yes” campaign was repeatedly accused of being nationalist, whereas somehow unionists did not have to answer the same accusation of being British nationalists. Some people might reject mainstream or right-wing nationalism as oppressive but posit the “real nation” or local “community” against it. When members of the Socialist Party oppose nationalism we oppose the nationalist segmentation of humanity into different peoples. The Socialist Party aims to win all workers to fight the source of their exploitation.   

The world belongs to all and to none

The capitalist economy works according to certain economic laws which no government or legislative body can over-ride. So the argument about sovereignty is not really about what the constitution may or may not say. It's about the effective power that a capitalist state can exercise within the capitalist economy. Capitalism has always existed within a framework of competing states, none of which is strong enough to impose its will on all the others. States, as weapons in the hands of rival groups of capitalists, intervene to further the interests of the capitalists that control them. They do this by using state power to set up protected markets, raw materials sources, trade routes and investment outlets. In normal times their weapons are tariffs, taxes, quotas, export rebates and other economic measures. When they judge that their vital interest is at stake their weapons are . . . weapons. They go to war. The extent to which a capitalist state can distort the world market in favour of its capitalists depends both on its industrial strength and on the amount of armed force at its disposal. This is why all states are under pressure to acquire the most up-to-date and destructive armaments that they can afford. In the jungle world of capitalism, might is right. "Sovereignty"—the margin of independent decision-making that a state has—also depends on might. Over the years capitalism has become more and more international, more and more globalised. This has tended to reduce the margin of maneuver open to states, i.e. has reduced their "sovereignty". 


The sovereignty argument is really an argument within the capitalist class as to whether they should give up some of the might of their state to be able to benefit from the greater might of a larger grouping.  Those who voted Brexit believe that a capitalist Britain would be better off going it alone.  But Theresa May realises that Britain can't really go it alone, but has to be associated with some larger grouping. Now their argument is about which this should be: America or Asia or the Commonwealth rather than the EU. As socialists, we don't take sides in this inter-capitalist argument. Let the capitalist class and their parties and supporters settle the matter for themselves. A siege economy is no way out of the global capitalist crisis. In fact, there is no way out for workers other than socialism which, because capitalism is already a global system, has to be world-wide too. In the meantime, we continue to campaign for the establishment of a world society without nations or borders and where the resources of the Earth are used to produce the things we need to live and to enjoy life for us to take directly. Our objective is a world community based on common ownership and democratic control of the world's resources with production to satisfy people's needs, not profit.


In practice, national sovereignty has been deeply undermined – first of all, by the emergence of a global economy dominated by huge transnational corporations. International financial institutions such as the World Trade Organization and IMF have largely taken over economic policy making. Indebtedness leaves many states with merely the formal husk of independence. Some groups of states have “pooled” part of their sovereignty in supranational regional institutions. The prime example is the European Union.  The fragmentation of states is a natural corollary of the globalisation of capital. From the point of view of the transnational corporations, states no longer have important policy-making functions. It is enough if they enforce property rights and maintain basic infrastructure in areas important for business. Small states can do these jobs as well as large ones. In fact, they have definite advantages. They are more easily controlled, less likely to develop the will or capacity to challenge the prerogatives of global capital.


Global versus national capitalism has emerged as an important divide in world politics. This divide exists, first of all, within the capitalist class of individual countries. Thus, even in the US, the citadel of globalisation, some capitalists such as Trump supporters are oriented toward the home market and favour national capitalism. And in Russia some capitalists support globalisation. The pattern of political forces differs from country to country.


Being against capitalist globalisation is not the same as being against capitalism in general. We have ample past experience of a world of competing national capitalisms – quite enough to demonstrate that there is no good reason for preferring such a world to a world under the sway of global capital. The main problem with the movement against globalisation is that it can be mobilized so easily in the interests of national capital, whatever the intentions of its supporters.  Socialism is an alternative form of globalisation – a globalisation of human community that abolishes capital.

Have you ever mailed a letter from part of the world to another and wondered how from a pillar-box in the street to the letter-box of a house in another continent, it gets there?

Have you ever flown from one part of the world to another and wondered about all that air-space you pass through which requires air traffic control to permit a safe journey?

Or how WHO and FAO can mobilise all these NGOs to combat epidemics and famines.

Have you never ever requested a book from your library who then borrow it from another library to provide it to you?

World co-operation already exists in many areas of our life and we are awash with international organisations and professional bodies and business/trade associations that co-ordinate and keep one another informed of facts and developments. 

As often explained when we establish socialism, it is not a blank page beginning but building upon what already exists in a myriad of forms. We take what exists and transform them, sometimes this will be a very minimal change that is required, while in other cases it will need more fundamental adaptations.  Every army in the world has an engineering corps equipped with all sorts of heavy construction equipment and with trained personnel, capable of laying bridges, building roads and runways, constructing barracks and bases, every army has a transport corps to support supplies and logistics, every army has a medical corp and signals corps capable of creating communication across wildernesses - why should they be made redundant and not deployed for peaceful means.

People are becoming increasingly aware that national sovereignty in regards to global problems such as climate change is meaningless. They will charge their local and regional organisations that have grown into the expression of their wishes with the task to co-ordinate and co-operate with all others of like mind well in advance of the revolutionary moment of assuming political power. So the real beginning is the creation of the One Big Union, the One Socialist Party out of the 200 odd workers organisations in each country and from that to their world-wide restructuring...industrial workers of the world and the world socialist party. Workers across the world experience poverty and violence to some extent on a daily basis – it is the common bond that transcends national boundaries. This feature of our class-based society, an inevitable result of the social relation of the worker to capital. The principles underlying socialism, whilst not offering an immediate panacea, do address all the issues of the rights of all individuals, “by the conversion into the common property of society the means of production and distribution and their democratic control by the whole people.” Unlike the UN and numerous international agreements, multilateral accords and protocols which are repeatedly undermined by one or more powerful states consistently overruling decisions and agreements, the ethic of socialism is rooted in the people.

Are Orange Politicians Honest?

The Socialist Courier blog notes that the Orange Lodge Scotland twitter congratulates those Orangemen who were voted in as local councillors.

We wonder if they announced their membership at any of their public meetings or in their campaign leaflets.

We wonder whether they stood as independents or as candidates for a political party, and if the latter, does that party endorse the ideas and practices of the Orange Lodge.

The Robots Are Coming...

Nearly half of Scottish jobs could be carried out by machines in just over 10 years' time, a new report by the Institute for Public Policy Research Scotland warned. It said 46% of jobs - about 1.2 million - were at "high risk" of automation in the period up to 2030.

The report also explained that, by then, adults are "more likely to be working longer, and will often have multiple jobs with multiple employers and in multiple careers."

A Child or Youth Shot almost Daily.

A child or youth is shot in Ontario almost every day according to a study by the Institute for Clinical Evaluation Sciences and Toronto's Hospital for sick Children. The study found there was an average of 355 firearm injuries a year between 2008 and 2012. It also found that immigrant children and youth from Africa are three times as likely, and those from Central America, four times as likely to be a victim than their Canadian counterparts. 

Whether racially motivated or not, these shootings must end, but it sure as hell won't happen while a system as divisive as capitalism lasts. 

Steve and John.

Capitalism Can't Continue Without War.

On April 7th, the Associated Press said U.N. satellite images show at least18,000 structures have been destroyed in the Yei area of South Sudan. The area has become the main centre of fighting between the government and rebels since the "Peace Deal" collapsed in July.The U.N. has highlighted the area for its risk of genocide and an AP reporter saw charred bodies during a visit to Yei last year.

 Since capitalism can't continue without war, let's see to it that it doesn't continue period.

Steve and John.

Edinburgh May Day 2017

Assembled

Bringing up the rear guard action

It is the case and not the face which is important

More photos can be seen here >

A change of masters

“The whole world will be one brotherhood…That can only be obtained when the people of the world get the world and retain the world.” – John MacLean, 1918

One of the strongest holds the capitalists have over the minds of the workers is given by the workers' ready acceptance of the dogmas of nationalism and patriotism. 

Nationalism bequeaths to the working class only a change in the hand that wields the lash. Nationalism is merely the substitution of one style of coercive state for another. Socialism, by contrast, will be a state-free society in which human beings all over the world will co-operate for the communal good. The achievement of that society must be the democratic, conscious act of the world's working class and they will not need violence or coercion to introduce the first age of human freedom, unity and abundance.

When the left-nationalists start talking about the importance of preserving national independence it's a clear sign of a total lack of elementary socialist consciousness. They may call it maintaining local democracy but what's meant is maintaining local capitalism. Real meaningful change to peoples' lives can only take place when the root causes of the problems facing humanity are considered on a worldwide scale. Even in the most politically democratic countries on the planet the producers of all real wealth, the working class, are simply wage slaves whose lives are dominated by the money-shuffling activities of a minority class of capitalists which, by controlling their means of life, controls their lives and denies them freedom.

  Marx, after the most penetrating analysis of capitalism, affirmed that it was a system of social organisation in which a relatively small class exploited the great majority by its ownership and control of the means and instruments of production. The method by which these owners, or capitalists, carry out this exploitation is the wages and money system. Given then that capitalism is a system based on the exploitation of the working class it is patently absurd to suggest that there can be any form of national government that can make it function in the interests of the class it exploits. Within capitalism there is obviously an inevitable conflict of interest, a class struggle, between the overwhelming majority who produce but do not own and a relatively small minority class who own but do not produce. Members of the working class do not voluntarily elect to join this class struggle; we are mostly born into it and it governs the way we live. To promote the notion that the area of our birth (‘our’ country) or a religious or political ideology transcends or neutralises our class status or gives us a common cause with a class that socially deprives and demeans us, that imposes either mere want or grave poverty on our lives and the lives of our families, is to be cruelly deceived by the political machinations of capitalism.

Nationalism is a political doctrine that preaches that people with a common history or language or religion form a separate "nation" from all other people and have the right to have their own political state to defend their common interest. Socialists have always rejected this doctrine, not just because it isn't true (people who have a common history or speak the same language do not have a common interest; they are divided into classes, and a worker who speaks a particular language has a common interest with workers speaking other languages but not with a capitalist who speaks the same one) but also because of its practical consequences. Without the ideology of nationalism, capitalist states would be unstable since, being based on minority class rule, they need a minimum allegiance from those they rule over. Nationalism serves to achieve this by teaching the ruled to be loyal to "their" so-called "nation-state". In states where a sizeable minority of the population do not fit into the definition of that state's "nation"—because, for instance, they speak a different language, especially if this is the language of another state—then there is at least a potential problem, to which the final solution is so-called ethnic cleansing. 

Socialism is the complete antithesis of capitalism. In a socialist world private and/or state ownership of society’s means of life will give way to social ownership and production of goods and services solely for use. So goods and services will no longer be produced as commodities for sale and profit. Accordingly there will be no role in socialist society for a means of exchange; hence, the entire, utterly wasteful commercial sinews of capitalism will be obsolete. The class-free, wage-free, money-free society envisaged in the socialist adage: “From each according to their ability; to each according to their needs” will become a reality. A world free from the corruptive influences of money and power where government of people will give way to a simple administration of things.

Scottish workers who are foolish enough to help Scottish capitalists to win independence from Great Britain should learn that the capitalist system is the same wherever it exists, and whatever the nationality of the rulers who use the State to keep the workers' hands off their property. We, in the Socialist Party have no sympathy whatever with the demand for independence made by native capitalist groups. We would no more assist them than assist the British Government against them. A plague on both their houses! Our only interest is to try to get our fellow-workers leave this quarrel about the right to exploit to the people who gain from exploitation. Many so-called socialists think, or at any rate act, differently. Some of them are still very much the victims of the mental disorder called patriotism.  Some left-nationalists are playing a double game which they call "tactics." They argue that as the people among whom it is desired to propagate socialism are still entirely wrapped up in nationalist illusions, then the way to clear their minds is to tack their patriotism on to the socialist case. It is hard to imagine anything less calculated to further socialism. When the left are so adaptive and opportunist their propaganda becomes a farce and they degenerate usually into the more or less open tools of local business interests.

The sooner they give up pandering to working-class political ignorance and devote themselves to teaching socialism, the sooner will the nationality problem be solved. The capitalists of the “oppressed” nations will line up together for protection against the growing unity of the working class, and the way will be cleared for the real fight — the fight for working-class emancipation. Our vision is of a world without borders where resources are shared communally. A world where a co-operative effort of a free association of producers aims at meeting human need in the widest sense. A world where relationships are based on equality and mutual respect, overthrowing all relationships where a few dominate others. As we struggle for such a society which will put human need first, we need to build up links with others doing the same thing worldwide. Fundamental problems like war and the destruction of the planet by climate change need to be tackled globally. Fostering distinctive cultures is positive but beware of governments and bosses using nationalism to divide us and promote a false “national interest”. In Scotland, as in all countries, there is no common interest between the employers and the working class.

Edinburgh May Day

SHARE THE WORLD
SPARE THE PLANET

The 2017 march and rally will be on Saturday, May 6 –  Assemble 11.30am Johnston Terrace, marching to a rally at the Holyrood parliament 

Edinburgh's May Day may be six days later than many other May Days but better late than never.

There cannot be a true socialist movement without the presence of sound political principles, completely missing today on the Left.

The control over the population the ruling class has is first of all mental, built on an Orwellian-style of hijacked language which has corrupted the meaning of socialism or communism or anarchism.

On May Day we have to reflect on mental chains around our minds that enslave us and makes us accept the capitalist system's brutality, pillaging and theft.

The ruling class is incapable of dealing with our unalienable rights to live in social peace and harmony via self-governance without classes and we should celebrate together with fellow-workers all over the world.

May Day is the day of awaking against small or big, local or global ruling elites, not matter where the class war battle front-lines are located, in your neighbourhood, at school or college, at work, the office or the store.

Let May Day be a day of conscientious objection, resistance, and rejection of a mental and physical wage-slavery and acquiescence to the exploitation we endure under capitalism.

Let May Day be a day of rejection of a political deceit of the fake opposition.

Let May Day be a day of declaration of our most sacred values of family, community, and hard work; unalienable rights to life and subsistence of all humanity as well as our unwavering commitment to political action against systemic institutions of the Establishment.

Let May Day be a day of unity of all humanity and rejection of hatred and all divisions that ruling elites incessantly continue to instil within human society in order to enslave and destroy it.

Let May Day be a day of warning to all those who sold their souls to the master class for 30 pieces of silver and some creature comforts that the day of reckoning is approaching.

Let May Day be a day of the beginning of an honest debate about the completely new system of societal organisation devoid of class or caste or coercion and conspiracy of the ruling class against the people.

Let May Day be OUR day

Happy May Day from ourselves in the

The Scottish Billionaires

The 10 richest individuals or families in Scotland have a combined wealth of £14.71bn, according to a new study.

The 2017 Sunday Times Rich List reveals that their collective fortunes have increased by 9% in the past year.

The Grant-Gordon whisky family is the richest in Scotland, with a fortune of £2.37bn, up £210m since last year.

Second on the Scottish list is former Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed and family, who own an estate in Scotland and whose fortune has held steady at £1.7bn.

Mahdi al-Tajir, who owns Highland Spring, sits in third place on the list with an overall fortune of £1.67bn.

Fourth on the Scottish list is Trond Mohn, the founder of a Norwegian pump firm, and his sister Marit Mohn Westlake, who are worth £1.62bn.

Others in the Scottish top 10 include oil industry leader Sir Ian Wood and family with wealth of £1.6bn, and the Thomson family, owners of publisher DC Thomson, who are worth £1.285bn.

John Shaw and Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw have now entered the realm of the billionaires as a result of their Bangalore-based biopharmaceutical firm Biocon. They boast £1.15bn to their names, earning a wealth increase of £530m in the last 12 months alone, and rank joint seventh position in Scotland alongside retail chief Philip Day, who owns Langholm-based Edinburgh Woollen Mill.

The Clark family, of the Arnold Clark car dealership, and Jim McColl, of Clyde Blowers, take ninth and 10th spot, with fortunes of £1.1bn and £1.07bn respectively.

The Shape Of Things To Come.

The Toronto Public Library plans to keep two branches open late without any staff, which has alarmed the Library Workers Union. The Swansea Memorial and Todmorden Room locations will extend services, such as hold-pick ups, book returns, and access to computers in the fall. People will be able to swipe in with their library cards. This way libraries will stay open 24 hours. Maureen O'Reilly, president of the Toronto Public Libraries Union, said, "This is no more than a cost-saving exercise where politicians and senior staff refuse to advocate strongly on behalf of the service." A library official said, "This is not to replace staff, but to expand hours."

Anyone can say anything they want, but it's still the shape of things to come. 

Steve and John.

Falling Sales Leads To Rising Unemployment.

Statistics Canada said, manufacturing sales fell 0.2% in February, as the motor vehicle assembly, petroleum and coal product manufacturing industries declined. Factory sales were down in ten of the 21 industries representing 37% of the Canadian manufacturing sector. Sales in the motor vehicle assembly industry fell 5.3% while the petroleum and coal products industry dropped 5%. Sales fell in seven provinces, led by Ontario, which fell 1.1%.

So there it is folks, things ain't getting better, are they? 


Steve and John.

Leith Militancy

The Leith dockers strike of 1913 was a strike of the dockers of Leith, Scotland from 26 June to 14 August 1913. The dockers were part of the National Union of Dock Labourers (NUDL) union. The strike is said by a newspaper of the time to have brought Leith to a standstill. 

Demands

The Dockers were demanding an increase in pay( a penny per hour on the day rate), better conditions(an increase in piecework rates for handling 'dirty cargo'), a ban on hiring workers outside of the union and shorter hours.

Response from the bosses

The Leith Dock Employers Association replied by bringing in 450 scabs to break the strike housing them in ships- The Lady Jocelyn and The Paris- owned by the company. They were protected by the local police forces from Edinburgh and Leith as well as others who had been drafted in from Aberdeen, Glasgow, Lanarkshire and the Lothians. The Dockers were unable to enter the perimeter wall so picketed in shifts. They were only allowed 6 pickets at a time and always escorted by the police. Questions were raised about the legality of closing a public dock. The authorities argued it was necessary to protect people and property and those with a valid permit could enter.

The strike grows

Soon enough, other workers, the railway workers, and seamen joined and refused to scab. The Lothian Miners soon came out in support of the Dockers and the Leith Dockers were supported by other dockers across the east coast of Scotland.The Railwaymen and seamen became involved and for the duration of the strike, 200 carters and 600 seamen refused to handle any cargo or work any boat operated by scabs.
The Lothian Miners backed the dockers, despite the fact the coal embargo imposed by the NUDL directly affected them and caused considerable unemployment. Dockers at Grangemouth, Granton and Kirkcaldy all refused to handle cargo diverted from Leith.

In July there was a massive outburst in strikes at the time being described as a "strike epidemic" after female ropeworkers also went on strike followed by shipmasters. This led the Leith Observer to remark “All of this has brought about a state of matters unprecedented not only in the history of Leith but in any part of the country”. The Leith Observer reported this was unheard of and that the scabs brought in to do the strikers jobs were unable to match the speed of those on strike and were costly in terms of upkeep for the employers.

This tense situation encouraged rioting on the nights between the 16th and 18th of July. The Leith observer commented that the only trade doing brisk business was the glaziers. The violence grew more intense and the scabs were often attacked while there was an unsuccessful attempt to blow up the perimeter wall with gelignite.

Rioting

From 16th to the 18th of July there was mass rioting. Those workers brought in to replace the strikers were attacked and there is said to have been an attempt to blow up the perimeter wall. During this time naval boats were sent in at the request of the authorities but this only led to hostility from sailors and marines who didn't want to be used in this way.

Effect on Parliament

Questions were raised in Parliament about the use of ships to attempt to break up the strike. The response given was that they came as a form of aid but were found to be unnecessary. MP's expressed unease about the secrecy surrounding the use of the ships. Union officials attempt to control the situation but to no avail. The local press reported sympathetically that the police had often provoked the situation.

20th July 1913

Around the middle of July, Edinburgh Tramwaymen and Boilermakers went on strike too and together on 20 July 1913 held a demonstration with dockers, seamen, firemen and other trade unionists.Local paper, The Scotsman reported there was 3,000 dockers, 600 firemen and sailors, 500 tramwaymen, 150 boilermakers, mill girls, and 350 children of the striking workers led by two labour school board teachers, all in all totalling about 4,600. During the procession, there were banners calling for a living wage and protesting the use of force. A loaf of bread painted green to look mouldy was held high which the strikes suggested was symbolising their share of profits made. The dockers and tramwaymen separated with the dockers and others heading along to Leith Links. Once there speeches were made. French Anarcho-Syndicalist Madame Sorgue spoke. A later speaker suggested the solution lay in electoral politics and advocated voting for the Labour Party in upcoming elections. James Airlie from the Boilermakers union spoke pointing out that the army had been used more times during the strike - 20 times he claimed - than during the war.

Financial support

The tramwaymen strike was called off on August 2 but they along with the Amalgamated Society of Engineers(ASE), the Leith and Edinburgh Labour party councillors and Edinburgh and Leith Trade Councils pledged financial support to the continuing dockers strike. By the 6th week of the strike, those charged with rioting were up in court and were soon found guilty. Local paper, The Leith Observer under the cover of a pseudonym ("Leith Laddie") lambasted the decision.

The end of the strike

The strike finally ended on 14 August when James O' Connor Kessack informed a mass meeting of dockers gathered at Gaiety Theatre that more scabs ready to cross the picket-line were coming from Newcastle.

Advised by the leadership of the NUDL, the assembled mass meeting voted by a large majority to end the strike but it came as a surprise to all because no one expected it to end so suddenly. The Dockers returned to work on the same conditions as before. As things returned to normal, many faced court for their part in the riots. 

Repeated strikes of the dockers of Leith would continue into modern times with another strike in 1983 and a National Dock strike in 1989. The Henry Robb shipyard in Leith was occupied in 1984 by its workers in an attempt to stop its closure.

Article based on account of Leith Dockers Strike 1913 found in Red Scotland!: The Rise and Fall of the Radical Left, c. 1872 to 1932: The Rise and Fall of the Radical Left, c. 1872 to 1932 by William Kenefick

Manifestoon (video)

Nationalism is the tool of capitalism.

What part can the Scottish workers, devoid of capital, take in any industrial revival except the toiling part? So long as private property is the order of the day it matters little to the property-less Scottish worker who rules Scotland. National boundaries may be altered—may even disappear—but such re-arrangements of things geographical can in no way abolish, or even lessen, the poverty of the many. 

The working class have no country—they have the choice of enduring the miseries of capitalism within the confines of national frontiers or enjoying freedom in a socialist planet.  Only when the over 90 percent of the world’s people, who make a meaningful contribution to life on earth, realize that their interests need a new outlet, can politics become real and meaningful.

Independence will not benefit the working class of Scotland. It will not free them from wage slavery. It will not free them from exploitation and inequality. The Scottish economy is not run on behalf of the people who live in Scotland, but on behalf of the owners of capital. For all the state intervention, it is still subject to the anarchy of production and the vagaries of the market. In the good times Scotland’s wealth grows based on the work of its citizens, most of which is stolen from them. When the market turns sour, they are shown the door, or robbed some more to balance the books. The mass of the people suffer because they own little or no property in the means of life. They are propertyless. Only when Scottish workers unite together to make the land and the other means of life the common property of all, together with the workers of other lands, will they be able to solve their problems.


Scotland is enmeshed in a worldwide capitalist system, and only by joining a general struggle to emancipate the working class of the whole world, and turn the planet into the common property of humanity will people in Scotland liberate themselves. The Scottish Nationalist Party claims to stand in the interest of the workers in Scotland. It is not concerned with the fact that because of the international nature of capitalism, workers are exploited everywhere and therefore the attack against exploitation must be on a broad front recognising no national barriers. The S.N.P. naturally cannot possibly possess this world outlook being a parochial organisation not recognising exploitation as being synonymous with capitalism. Its members base their policy on the importance of the national tate, demanding sovereignty for Scotland arguing that with its achievement the workers' troubles will end. The nationalists base their appeal on economic policy and we realise that this party of "patriots" is just another party of capitalism and has failed to produce anything new apart from the better administration of capitalism. The first reaction of a socialist born and bred in Scotland and knowing something about the past and present of the country, is that the question of independence is irrelevant. The question that the Socialist Party puts to the nationalists is—if Scotland succeeds in obtaining independence what will be the political outlook of the Scottish government? Will industry be carried on for profit? Will monetary considerations rule the field of planning and production? The answer is clear—all the machinery of capitalism will be in operation; nothing will have changed basically. The Scottish "patriots" have no compunction in pawning the freedom of the new national state to outside capitalist interests “Foreign" capitalists are to be allowed to exploit the Scot workers first, and then are to be taxed. The Scottish wage slave will have the satisfaction of knowing that the government has rented workers' labour power to outside interests in order to receive the wherewithal to keep them alive.

The future Scots Government need not worry about finance; it will be sufficient to advertise that the Scottish workers are up for sale; that they are available to any capitalist concern that cares to come and exploit them—as they are at the present time.
Is there a case for Scottish nationalism? From their own capitalist point of view there might be—it might be more profitable to operate capitalism from  Edinburgh than from London. From the point of view of the Scottish workers, the position would remain broadly the same – he or she would remain the vehicle creating surplus value. They could go to work singing “Flower of Scotland” and “ Scotland the Brave” knowing they have achieved “independence”. On the other hand they could get down to the fundamentals of socialism and throw their exploiters out and raise their voices in a mighty chorus which would reverberate through the glens and beyond. “Workers of all lands, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains, you have a world to gain.

This is the real message of freedom.

Fife May Day - Our Day

Nationalists - masters of deception

Members of the Socialist Party prefer to describe ourselves as "world socialists" rather than "international socialists." Socialism can only be a united world community without frontiers and not the federation of countries suggested by the word “international”. The term assumes and accepts the concepts of nations/nation-states.

Roll on 8 June so we won't hear the humbug of the politicians for a few years. The issues of poverty, unemployment and crime, however, won't disappear so easily though. There always seem to be a plentiful supply of Scottish nationalists who claim that the "English" parliament doesn't care about the Scots, who should get their own parliament and run their own affairs. The Brixton and Tottenham riots happened almost within spitting distance of the House of Commons; clearly, having the "mother of parliaments" on your doorstep is no sure way to peace and prosperity. The Scottish Parliament over the years has illustrated that it can be just as helpless as Westminster when dealing with social problems.

Capitalism has to begun to become a dirty word again. All over the world people are protesting against the profit system and the effect it is having on the quality of life .  The left-nationalists, despite referring to themselves as “socialists” have no confidence in socialism, little confidence in the workers to win through. They tell us in the Socialist Party, your socialism will come...eventually...someday ... when we are all dead and gone. The task of building and establishing socialism does not fall to them but to others sometime in the far future. There is no logic to this whatsoever. For the world is ready now and painfully waiting – how is socialism to ever come in the future when we are never to explain it to people here now, for it takes a while? What will happen that might cause this future embrace of socialism, we are not told. 

Capitalism is by its nature divisive and competitive, whether it divides people on the grounds of race, sex, nationality or geographical location. Workers have got to transcend these artificial differences and recognise our common interest - that of a degraded, exploited class. Once we recognise our basic class interests then no force on earth can prevent us from acting accordingly, and putting an end to all social division once and for all.  We have no objection to “cultural diversity”. Differences of language, food, music and the like will continue to exist in a united socialist world; indeed would no longer be subjected to “Mcdonaldisation” as today under capitalism. We would add that different cultures can exist in the same geographical area and that individuals can partake of elements of different cultures (you don‘t have to come from Scotland to enjoy its folk music or from China to enjoy Chinese food). Our objection is to the exploitation of cultural differences for political ends, as for instance to set up or maintain a state or as the basis for a political party.

  There is an old nationalist lie that we are one country, one people, working together for a common interest. This ideology allows politicians to present us as if we have one common interest. Nationalism allows the politicians to limit democratic choice on the grounds that there is only one national interest and therefore only one general programme, one set of policies to be followed. These days there are plenty of people who say that class is irrelevant and that in fact it never was. The Socialist Party is not amongst these. One of the basic points about liberal democracy is that, as we put it in our declaration of principles, "all parties are but the expression of class interests". Democracy is not a set of rules or a parliament; it is a process, a process that must be fought for. The struggle for democracy is the struggle for socialism. It is not a struggle for reforms, for this or that political system, for this or that leader, for some rule change or other—it is the struggle for an idea, for a belief, a belief that we can run our own lives, that we have a right to a say in how society is run, for a belief that the responsibility for democracy lies not upon the politicians or their bureaucrats, but upon ourselves.

Whether Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom or becomes a sovereign independent state will make no difference whatsoever to the basic structure of society where a privileged class monopolises the means of production while the rest have to work for wages and where wealth is produced not to satisfy human needs but for sale with a view to profit. It won't even make much difference to your present standard of living in terms of wage levels, housing, unemployment and the other problems you face. it is this class structure of society which is the basic cause of the economic and social problems faced by the great majority of society, those who, whatever their religious background, depend for a living on earning a wage. This is why a mere constitutional change will make no difference, not even a radical one achieved by violence. The Irish Republic achieved "independence" in 1921. What difference has this made to the position of wage and salary earners there? It has merely provided a different political framework within which they can suffer the problems of capitalism, governed by Irish, instead of British, politicians representing capitalist interests. It has meant little more than painting the pillar boxes green.  Not, of course, that staying part of the United Kingdom is going to make any difference to these problems either. The only change that will is a world-wide social revolution that would make all that is in and on the Earth the common heritage of all mankind to be used to provide an abundance of wealth to which all could have free access according to need. This essentially peaceful revolution can only occur when the great majority of people in all countries are in favour of it and organise democratically to carry it out. It involves a rejection of all nationalism and all attempts to solve problems on a national scale. 

Globalist Socialists

Those who voted leave in the EU referendum wish Britain to remain a fully independent sovereign state, with Westminster not Strasburg as the supreme law-making body. It is the narrow view of the nationalist, in this case of the British nationalist. It is a view shared by many on the Left . It is not a view shared by the Socialist Party. We are neither British Brexit nationalists nor European Union federalists but world socialists. But we can see the special fallacy of the nationalist argument. In the world as it is today, it is neither possible nor desirable for the people of one part to stand apart from the rest. We are already living in a global village where what happens in one part of the world effects us all. In terms of the production of wealth one world already exists. The goods we consume and the machines and materials used to produce them are all joint products of workers from many parts of the world - something for British nationalists to ponder over as they drink their tea. There has been a growing consciousness that we are all inhabitants of a single world, that we share the globe in common despite our different languages and cultures, is something to be encouraged. Indeed it is essential if we are to tackle problems such as global warming.

The European federalists of the SNP for all their faults, at least realise that the people living on this island off the north-west coast of the Eurasian land-mass need to be closely associated with those on the mainland. Where they go wrong is in imagining that this can be fruitful within the context of capitalism. A federation of European capitalist states will no more provide a framework for the resolution of working-class problems than the so-called independent so-called nation-state. What is required is association with the other peoples of Europe, and beyond that with those of the rest of the world, on the basis of socialism. What is required is not a European market, nor a single currency, nor a European super-state but world socialism where the Earth's resources will be owned in common and democratically controlled through various inter-linked administrative and decision-making bodies at world, regional and local levels. We appreciate that this vision of a united world represents a nightmare scenario for some but that's their problem not ours.

Capitalism is an economic system where, under pressure from the market, profits are accumulated as further capital, i.e. as money invested in production with a view to making further profits. This is not a matter of the individual choice of those in control of capitalist production – it’s not due to their personal greed or inhumanity – it’s something forced on them by the operation of the system. And which operates irrespective of whether a particular economic unit is the property of an individual, a limited company, the state or even of a workers’ cooperative. Some radicals have opted for cooperatives where workers could elect their own management committee , but not even this would make much of a difference. The coop would still have to take decisions in accordance with what the market dictated. Real control by the producers over the production and allocation of wealth is not possible within an exchange economy. The production of wealth is now a process involving millions of men and women in even,' part of the world. What used to be the division of labour between individual skilled workers has become, with the development of modern technology, a division of the work of production between hundreds of thousands of collectively-operated workplaces (farms, mines, docks, railways, factories, offices, warehouses) spread all over the world. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that every article produced today is the product of the world labour force co-operating within this world-wide division of labour. Wealth production is no longer individual or local or national; it is social and worldwide.

“Anti-globalisation” is not a very good choice of name for progressives since you can’t be against globalisation. Well you can, but it doesn’t make sense. Globalisation – in the sense of the world becoming more integrated, of the emergence of “one world” – is basically a good thing, part of the preparation of the material basis for a world socialist society.

A single world society already exists but, because the workplaces of the world are controlled by enterprises, it takes the form of a world exchange economy. The fact that there is only one, worldwide exchange economy is obscured by the political division of the world into states, each with the power to issue its own currency, impose tariffs, raise taxes and pay subsidies. The different economic policies of these states mean that conditions in the world market vary and give rise to the illusion that rather than there being one world economy there are as many "national economies" as there are states. But although states can, and do, try to change world market conditions in their favour, because of the worldwide character of the productive process they do not have the power to isolate exchange within their frontiers from exchange outside. Far from it. World market conditions are in the end the most important factor states have to take into account when formulating their policies. They, like enterprises, have to work within the terms of reference of the exchange economy. Of course, states do have the power to make laws about the production and allocation of wealth, as about any other human activity, but enforcing such law is another matter. The natural and industrial resources of the world are now controlled by profit-seeking private and state enterprises. In every state only a small minority can draw on these profits as a source of personal income. Whether or not they have title deeds to prove it, they are in practice the owners of the means of production. This applies equally to profit-taking politicians and managers and to shareholders and bondholders. Collectively these owners form a class with exclusive control — a monopoly — over the means of production. This class monopoly is the basis of modern society.

When we say “Another World is Possible”, we know what we mean, another sort of globalisation is possible: a world without frontiers in which all the resources of the planet,have become the common heritage of all humanity and are used, under democratic control, to turn out what is needed by people to live and to enjoy life. As far as we are concerned, that is the only framework within which can be solved the problems facing humanity, not only obviously world problems such as global warming, wars and the threat of war, but also more “local” problems such as in the fields of healthcare, education, transport and the like but which are basically the same in all countries.