Edinburgh Branch Meeting (7/6)

Thursday, 7 June - 7:00pm

The Quaker Hall,

Victoria Terrace (above Victoria Street),

Edinburgh EH1 2JL

The Socialist Party welcomes any upsurge in the militancy and resistance and organisation of our class. But we also know, from bitter experience, that work of an altogether quieter, patient, more political kind is also needed. What we have stated is that to achieve socialism requires a clear understanding of socialist principles with a determined desire to put them into practice. For socialism to be established the mass of the people must understand the nature and purpose of the new society.

Our idea of socialist revolution is grounded in the position of the working class within capitalist society forces it to struggle against capitalist conditions of existence and as the workers gained more experience of the class struggle and the workings of capitalism, the labour movement would become more consciously socialist and democratically organised by the workers themselves and would require no intervention by people outside the working class to bring it. Socialist propaganda and agitation would indeed be necessary but would be carried out by workers themselves whose socialist ideas would have been derived from an interpretation of their class experience of capitalism. The end result would be an independent movement of the socialist-minded and democratically organised working class aimed at winning control of political power in order to abolish capitalism.  The responsibility of the Socialist Party is to challenge the apologists of capitalism and counter the pseudo-socialists in a battle of ideas and that requires talking to, leafleting and debating and engaging with our fellow-workers.

The motivation for building this new socialist world comes from the common class interest of those who produce but do not possess. An important part of this motivation comes from the global problems thrown up by capitalism. There are no national solutions to world problems like world poverty, hunger, and disease. Ecological problems make a nonsense of the efforts of governments. War and the continuing threat of nuclear war affect us all. The problem of uneven development means that many producers in the underdeveloped countries suffer starvation, disease, and absolute poverty. All of these problems of capitalism can only be solved within the framework of a socialist world.

One of the great technological developments under capitalism has been communications and the rapid processing and distribution of information. This will alter our awareness of being in the world and the boundaries between what is local and distant are shifted or become blurred. From one moment to another we are able to take in local news, issues and events and those on the regional or world scene. Socialism will be a co-operative world-wide system. Nations and frontiers and governments and armed forces will disappear. Groups of people may well preserve their languages and customs but this will have nothing to do with claiming territorial rights or military dominance over pieces of the world surface. To move forward, the dispossessed majority across the world must now look beyond the artificial barriers of nation-states and regional blocs, to perceive a common identity and purpose.

There is but one world and we exist as one people in need of each other and with the same basic needs. There is far more that unites us than can ever divide us along cultural, nationalistic or religious lines. Together we can create a civilisation worth living in, but before that happens we need the conscious cooperation of ordinary people across the world, united in one common cause—to create a world in which each person has free access to the benefits of civilisation, a world without borders or frontiers, social classes or leaders and a world in which production is at last freed from the artificial constraints of profit and used for the good of humanity—socialism. There is in reality only one world. It is high time we reclaimed it.

Because political power in capitalism is organised on a territorial basis each socialist party has the task of seeking democratically to gain political power in the country where it operates. This, however, is merely an organisational convenience; there is only one socialist movement, of which the separate socialist organisations are constituent parts. When the socialist movement grows larger its activities will be fully co-ordinated through its world-wide organisation. It is suggested that socialist ideas might develop unevenly across the world and that socialists of only a part of the world were in a position to get political control. This relates to the possibility that the socialist movement could be larger in one country than in another and at the stage of being able to gain control of the machinery of government before the socialist movements elsewhere were as far advanced. The decision about the action to be taken would be one for the whole of the socialist movement in the light of all the circumstances at the time. It would certainly be a folly, however, to base a programme of political action on the assumption that socialist ideas will develop unevenly and that we must therefore be prepared to establish "socialism" in one country or even a group of countries like the European Union. For a start, it is an unreasonable assumption that socialist ideas will develop unevenly. Given the world-wide nature of capitalism and its social relationships, the vast majority of people live under basically similar conditions, and because of the world-wide system of communications and media, there is no reason for socialist ideas to be restricted to one part of the world. Any attempt to establish "socialism" in one country would be bound to fail owing to the pressures exerted by the world market on that country's means of production. Those who become socialists will realise this and also the importance of uniting with workers in all countries. The socialist idea is not one that could spread unevenly. Thus the socialist parties will be in a position to gain political control in the industrially advanced countries within a short period of each other. It is conceivable that in some less developed countries, where the working class is weak in numbers, the privileged rulers may be able to retain their class position for a little longer. But as soon as the workers had won in the advanced countries they would give all the help needed elsewhere. The less developed countries might present socialism with problems, but they do not constitute a barrier to the immediate establishment of socialism as a world system.

"...By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others...It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.... It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range...The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property." - Engels 

The Shame of Edinburgh Woolen Mill

Edinburgh Woollen Mill was among companies sourcing from Bangladesh that had failed to sign a new accord for the safety of millions of factory workers. The new pact is a three-year extension of the Bangladesh Accord, a legally-binding agreement between global brands and trade unions drawn up after the Rana Plaza collapse, one of the worst industrial accidents in modern history. It established a fire and safety programme for the country's $28 billion a year textile industry, which employs about 4 million people.

So far 175 of the 220 companies in the original accord have signed, but high-profile brands including Abercrombie & Fitch, IKEA, and Edinburgh Woollen Mill have not, the Clean Clothes Campaign said.

"They are doing themselves and their customers a disservice and are knowingly putting the lives of the workers producing for them at risk," said Christie Miedema of the Clean Clothes Campaign which lobbies to improve workers' conditions.

What we are about

Even in its normal state, capitalism is an obsolete oppressive system that ought to be got rid off. At the moment only a relatively small minority recognise this and are consciously anti-capitalist. The rest of our fellow-workers continue to try to satisfy their needs within the system rather than by overthrowing it. The socialist movement requires consciousness and organisation. We must mobilise to transform the existing capitalist society. It is our duty to understand and change the world. The socialist Revolution does not mean that we demand that the multinational corporations do this or that. It means that we, the working class take over the running of industry and make the decisions ourselves, abolishing the market economy. The injustices of slavery and serfdom were eliminated by abolishing the social institutions of slavery and serfdom themselves, not by prohibitions against maltreatment of slaves and serfs. The injustices of wage-slavery will be eliminated by abolishing the social institution of wage labour itself, not by directions to employers to treat their workers better.  

The social revolution required to transform capitalist enterprises into socialist collectives obviously involves far more than creating a workers' state and passing government decrees. We recognise that the revolution itself would have produced workers’ councils in many establishments, which would have taken over responsibility for management from the previous owners. But that doesn't actually solve the problem itself. It seems natural to assume that all problems of control should be resolved by “decentralisation of authority”. After all, the more room there is for lower level units to determine their own affairs, the more chance there is to adopt more progressive policies but a focus on “local” or “community” issues seems to reflect an acceptance that there is really nothing we can do about global issues.

Anarcho-syndicalists seem to imagine that if everybody democratically discusses everything, production units will be able to exchange their products to supply each other’s needs, and to supply consumer goods for the workers, with no more than ’co-ordination” by higher-level councils of delegates from the lower level establishments. Actually things are not so simple, and any attempt to realise that vision would only mean preserving market relations between independent enterprises, still not working to a common social plan, even though anarchists and syndicalists are generally well aware that the right to vote cannot in itself transform capitalist social relations into co-operative ones.  Electing new bosses does not abolish the boss system. It was small-scale production that was suitable for capitalism, while the development of huge transnational corporations with a network management for entire sectors of the world economy, proves that the socialisation of production makes private ownership an anachronism. Capitalism is already transferring more and more authority on the shop floor to workers themselves rather than supervisors or lower level line management. This only highlights the fact that questions like unemployment are imposed by market forces outside the control of “shop floor” management, or higher management for that matter. Workers are paid to think much more than slaves, serfs or peasants would think in their work, and they get sacked if they do not think. It is just that they are not supposed to think too much. Elected workers’ councils would be in exactly the same position of having to lay off staff if there is no market for the goods they produce. Socialism unleashes workers’ intelligence in production, so that “management”, “engineering”, “research”, “science” and so forth would cease to be restricted to an elite, excluding the contributions of the vast majority. Research and development would become much more widespread, be much closer to production, and require much less “management”. Likewise personnel management, “human resources”, is an essentially routine function that will be made much easier by the elimination of “industrial relations” between hostile employers and employees. There should be no problem organising the recruitment, training and allocation of labour. Under slavery, public officials were necessarily slave owners. Under feudalism, magistrates were necessarily landowners and under capitalism captains of industry were necessarily capitalists. But social relations change. All it needs is revolution to change them. 

Our Revolution

Socialism is the reorganisation of society on the basis of the common ownership by the people of the land, mines, factories, means of transport, as well as the health, educational and cultural services required to fulfil their needs. There can be no fundamental change in the living conditions of the people while a minority holds economic power in the natural resources of a country and in the right to exploit the majority for individual advantages and personal gain. The Socialist Party insists that the basis of exploitation — the use of men and women for personal profits and power — lie in the capitalist system. Reforms do not remove the villain of the piece from the scene of action. While the privileged few holds economic power the people will bear the weight of any measures of partial palliatives. The Socialist Party believe that the fundamental basis of a true socialist society must be change from a capitalist system of ownership, exploitation, and control to one of common ownership, democratic administration and control of the affairs of the world by the men and women who produce its wealth. When it is a question of changing a social system based on the assumption that a few are entitled to use the lives and labour of the many for personal profit and power, the forces of the State, based on this assumption, oppose the contention that the many have the right to organise a system of society which will provide for ownership and administration of the natural resources of the country in the interests of the many and not in the interests of the few.  The Socialist Party will organise and educate our fellow-workers so that they will be able to bring about the change in the basis of our social system. We hold that the new system of social ownership and administration can be introduced by the will of the people through the capture of the State machinery. The Socialist Party recognises human welfare as the supreme good. Only when our own and other peoples have established socialism will war be abolished, and a cultural renaissance, based on mutual respect and harmony, unite the peoples of the world in an era of peace, and happier days than the generations of capitalism have ever known.

Things are getting much more serious than the average person thinks or realises or that the media lets people know. No matter how much you are talking about the expansion of the economy, the poor are getting much poorer. The poverty is spreading. The wealth is concentrating. We are becoming a world of have’s and have-not’s. We are heading for a very serious, very difficult time. It’s going to happen as a cataclysmic eruption, it effects are going to be global. Revolution is not the result of subversion of the existing order, nor does it come about through conspiracy. Revolution is the first and inevitable step in the creation of a new social order on the basis.

We have the economic foundation today to give everyone on the planet the fundamentals for a cultured, decent existence. Everybody could go into a nice home and everybody could eat a healthy meal. The resources and materials exists right now. It will be expanded and made better, but we don’t have to create it. We don’t need the State as the owner of all the means of production to guarantee their development. The control of scarcity is the foundation of social strife. Today that can be eliminated. We’re talking about abundance. We’re talking about a world where the automated means of production can operate twenty-four/seven. We’re talking about a world where everybody can become involved and participate in the development of society. We’re talking about a world of happy people. Our troubles arise from material scarcity. When we do away with that, we can begin to build the positive thing, happiness. Happiness is an emotion that arises with contributing and cooperating in fellowship. We’re talking about entering a stage of development that’s no longer controlled by scarcity. We can talk in terms of abundance and that abundance obviously is here. All you have to do is look around. There is plenty of plenty. Happiness is a social thing. The idea is to have as full a life as humanly possible. Reacting to scarcity, we engage in struggling to get food, struggling to get clothing, struggling to get a house, struggling to get an education, struggling for all these things. If these necessaries are in abundance then we can turn to the real matters of life, the intellectual and cultural well-being.

So for the first time, we will truly create our own history. We create our history now, but under defined circumstances that limit our choices. In other words, we are not liberating ourselves. We’ve created our own history but it’s been a limited history. What we’ve created has been limited by the circumstances wherein we carry out our struggles. For example, the struggle against slavery couldn’t really end slavery, it could only transform slavery. We’re talking about an end to the struggle over allocation of scarcity. We’re talking about no longer having to struggle about getting a house. They will be stamped out by a robot at a factory. We will no longer worry about getting food, no longer worry about getting an education. Then, we can go ahead and create.

All we will need, for instance, is an agency that determines that if there will be ten million babies born this year, we will need so many million diapers this year. Somebody has to do that. Some work will need to be done, of course, but the allocation of human resources for that work could be done on a local level. Reconstruction will be so much easier to organise because of the tremendous productivity of the technology and machinery that we have. We have to reach our fellow-workers with a vision. It’s up to them to create this new world. To do this, though, they are going to have to know what to do. We cannot build a revolutionary movement with those who are simply angry with the system. We don’t need anti-social malcontents, we need thinkers with a vision of the kind of world that is possible.

The history of all hitherto existing societies has been the history of class struggle. Now, when class struggle is over and when real human history begins, what does history mean? What we are talking about now is the ability of human beings to grab hold of themselves and their destiny and create a history of accomplishments, rather than this action and reaction. Accomplishments will be things that we choose to do, not that which we have to do, but which we choose to do.

The first task of socialism is to rebuild the earth, to clean it up, to set about reconstructing the earth, reclaiming the earth, becoming part of the earth, again, to stabilise the earth, and consequently stabilise humanity. Happiness will arise in that process. What would you do with yourself if you no longer had to worry about your food, shelter, and clothing? 

Yes or No - It Disnae Matter

This afternoon Scottish Nationalists will be parading through the town of Dumfries. Socialists often hear the comment from the Scots Nats that "socialism is a good idea but it’s not practical." But today it’s becoming more apparent than ever that it is the present system — capitalism — that is impractical and unworkable. We know that a better world is not only possible but absolutely necessary. Socialism is the hope of the whole working class. A class-free socialist commonwealth cannot be attained without the overthrow of the rule of capitalism. To accomplish this aim is the historic mission of the working class.

The Socialist Party has always opposed Scottish nationalism. We ask our fellow-workers, “independence for who?” and “freedom for what?”  Sovereignty is presented as being for the good of the nation is purely for the benefit of the bosses. Any belief which denies this is a barrier which must be broken down if the working class is to assert its own independent class interests. Nationalism conceals the real nature of capitalism, turns worker against worker and serves to impede working-class solidarity. Workers must know that under capitalism nationalism is now doing them a great deal of harm, far more harm than the advantages it confers. Independence only enhances the power of the local boss class. Nationalism is an ideology of class collaboration. Here in Scotland, the Socialist Party will not align with those whose antecedents depopulated the Highlands for the sheep and the grouse.

So-called self-determination encourages Scottish workers to waste their efforts in chasing something which cannot be achieved. Not simply because the native capitalist class preserves their power but any rulers of any newly independent Scotland immediately find themselves having to come to terms with a worldwide economic system dominated by powerful blocs and integrated on a global scale. Their room for manoeuvre within this framework is extremely limited. Despite the hopes of the Left-nationalists, either the dominant power relinquished direct political control but continues to exert its domination at an economic level. Or the client state frees itself entirely from the domination of one imperialist bloc only by switching to the all-embracing embrace of a rival bloc. Competition between nation-states puts pressure on each state to maximise its power to avoid subordination to others. States that have little power are under pressure to ally themselves with stronger states that have major economic forces at their disposal. In neither scenario is the result any real independence for the local capitalists or any weakening of imperialism as a whole. The formation of new nation-states can no more put an end to imperialism than the formation of new businesses can put an end to capitalism.

The Socialist Party position on any nationalism is simple. The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. This is not just a slogan, but the reality of the world we live in. The Scottish "national interest" is simply the interest of capital within Scotland. It is the interest of the Scottish ruling class. Nationalism distorts class struggles. Workers can waste their time supporting parties that openly stand for capitalism; they can delude themselves into believing that there is a halfway house between capitalism and socialism; they can even bury their heads in the sand and say they are not interested in politics. Or they can study the case for world socialism. They have the choice of enduring the miseries of capitalism within the confines of national frontiers or enjoying emancipation in a socialist world.

Opposing war in Dundee

It’s estimated that during the First World War some 16,000 conscientious objectors refused to fight across Britain as conscription laws enlisted 2.5 million extra British troops from 1916 onwards.

Dundee-based historian, Dr Kenefick said that at face value, the 105 Conscientious Objectors (COs) recorded in Dundee might not seem like a very high number. Only Glasgow had more COs in Scotland than Dundee and Dr Kenefick said it was likely the numbers of non-fighting men from Dundee was actually much higher due to the prevalence of skilled workers who would have been exempt.

Dundee was also the “epicentre” of a very well organised network of support for COs and war resisters, he added. Regular collections took place every Sunday outside the Dundee High School gates to support the dependents of the COs when they were in prison.

“About 70% of COs were Independent Labour Party members or associated with John Maclean’s Scottish section of the British Socialist Party which was anti-war and very Marxist,” he said. “There were other groups. The Socialist Labour Party for example, the Union of Democratic Control and the Women’s International Peace movement."

He explained, “The greatest majority of COs were political objectors who were against the war before 1914. What happened when conscription came in in 1916 was quite simply they maintained their anti-war stance and said quite simply ‘we will not fight.’ However, I have to add that not all COs were pacifists. They were anti-imperialist if they were political and as far as they were concerned this was a war being fought for capitalist gain and capitalist greed." Dr Kenefick added it’s worth noting that some of the men who refused to fight in Dundee in the 1914-18 war would have been happy to fight on the side of the republic during the Spanish Civil War of 1936.

Conscientious objectors at Dyce Camp during the First World War

Socialism - A New Perspective

The objective of the Socialist Party is the establishment of a socially and economically equal society. We work for the total abolition of the present system of wage slavery through a social revolution. We seek to win the adherence of the masses to socialism and to spur the workers on towards the social revolution. The Socialist Party conducts an unflinching, campaign against the power of capitalism, and relentlessly strives to urge the working class on towards revolution. Sentimental individuals may hope to persuade the propertied class to stand politely aside. But experience taught by the ruling classes themselves that they will respect only one thing—and that is a power—and a power more mightily wielded than anything which they possess. The Socialist Party repeats that political power is the driving force of the class struggle.

We oppose the mechanical theory that every economic crisis inevitably carries the working class towards socialism.  The Socialist Party does not believe in the automatic theory that capitalism must collapse and that socialism must emerge from the ruin. Capitalism is flexible and complex, there are many avenues which it can travel along and in which it can drag out a slow and painful existence. It could even transform the whole world into a universal battlefield as some observers have determined the present American foreign and military policy to be; such an eventuality could easily end in the complete rending of the social fabric and in the extinction of society itself. History does not solve its own problems and contradictions. It is precisely at the most critical moments in history that human will-power and initiative comes forward as vital factors in social development. Modern history is presenting us with problems which we must solve.  It is because socialists alone hold the solution to the present historical problems that history is on our side.  Historical problems being of a social character are responsive to human will-power and endeavour. Any day a revolutionary situation may develop in this country. The ultimate development of that crisis will depend upon whether the reactionaries or revolutionaries have the best-organised forces. Marxists recognise the influence of the human factor upon history, and it is this that compels us to pay so much attention to revolutionary strategy. Marx, after examining capitalism and foretelling its decadence, concluded the famous Communist Manifesto by appealing to human effort in the now historic slogan: “Workers of all lands unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains; you have a world to win.” Victories during revolutionary situations, as Marx says, are not bestowed upon us, they have to be won.

 A revolution only becomes possible, and therefore historically necessary, when the ruling class finds their institutions unworkable. When this takes place it is the political indication that economic contradictions and class antagonisms are reducing society to chaos and that a new way out is needed. If at such a period no revolution takes place it is because the challenging class lacks the will and courage to seize their opportunity and because they have not created a new political apparatus that will enable the hampered economic forces to sweep forward. The revolutionary struggle is, indeed, the conflict between the old ruling class trying to preserve their institutions and the new challenging class attempting to stamp out the old in order to build up new social organs to solve the political and economic problems of the period. This explains why every revolutionary struggle becomes, in essence, one of class power. The revolutionary class can only become a ruling class by having the power to enforce the new institutions upon the die-hards of the old regime.

 The Labour Party places the blame for all crises upon the sitting Tory Government and contends that it could permanently improve the material comfort of the masses if it were returned to office The Labour Party occupies a most important and strategical position in appealing to the workers because it is the most important and only real influential opposition to the present government. On the other hand the Socialist Party points out to the working class that the present and future capitalist crises cannot be solved within capitalism, even if the Labour Party controlled the government to-morrow. The advocacy of these two opposing policies makes it complicated to our bewildered fellow-workers. Our task, therefore, is to simplify the problem and make it clear and distinct for the workers. How, then, can we assist the workers to understand the problem and win their confidence? By a policy where we drive the Labour Party into revealing itself as the defender of capitalism and profit, and as the oppressors of the working class. As socialists, we know that the Labour Party cannot solve any single important economic problem at present bearing upon the working class. We know that their servile acceptance of the propertied interests can only result in the perpetuation of capitalism and its many problems. To thus expose the Labour Party and to turn the British workers against it would increase the opportunities for socialism. The Labour Party is becoming discredited in the eyes of many voters. Even now, when millions are suffering from benefit cuts, the attitude of the Labour Party has been one of cowardice and characteristic ineptitude. Its timidity and apathy regarding the policies of austerity have been so apparent.  A Labour Party worthy of its name would have used every difficulty of the propertied-interests to have battled for concessions for the workers.  It would have indignantly repudiated every one of its and the Tories desperate and bloody imperialist adventures. A Labour Party worthy of the name would have enforced environmental regulations. Political cowardice can be found in abundance in the Labour Party.

When workers are on strike, or when they are locked out, The Socialist Party stands by their side and try to show them the real cause of their industrial struggle and the only way to end it. We do this because we are on the side of our fellow-workers in all their conflicts. We are not superior theoreticians seeking to create a sect apart from the masses. We are an integral part of the working class movement. We are neither above it nor below it, but of it. The capitalist class can make no concessions to the workers and are actually trying to depress their already low standard. These attacks of the employers and the chronic conditions of capitalism must keep driving all alert workers towards the idea of socialism.  It is at this great moment in history when crisis-ridden capitalism is showing its inability to solve the immense problems confronting humanity and at this moment when hundreds of millions are determined to throw off the fetters of an enslaving sweat-shop existences, and leave behind the ignorance, squalor, and hunger enforced upon them by their rulers - it is at this moment that socialism appears with all its hopes and potentials. Great possibilities are urging forward humanity.

Today mankind is planning the scientific control of production and distribution, and abundance for all, as the basis of a class-free and peaceful society. This is demanded by the imperative need of the historical process; this social need is reinforced by the urge of scientific and technological development. Henceforth instead of being the plaything of powerful economic forces and social crises, mankind will make and direct the process of history. Here mankind will be able to develop their real social characteristics. In the words of Frederick Engels—“It is humanity’s leap from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom.”

Socialist Standard No. 1366 June 2018

• Editorial: Pandering to Prejudice
• Pathfinders: The opposite of binary oppositions
• The Lecturers’ Strike: More than the employers could chew
• Cooking the Books: Mark Carney as Vulgar Marxist
• What if We’re Wrong?
• Material World: The End of ETA
• Capitalism, Counting and Economic Freedom
• The Myth of the 'Self-Made Man'
• Was the Jewish Bund anti-Semitic?
• 'What are your views on?'
• Weather, Water and Borders
• Cooking the Books: No Need for More Capitalism
• Proper Gander: Image And Identity
• Book Review: 'China and Russia - the New Rapprochement'
• Book Review: 'Money'
• Book Review: 'Rent Strike - St Pancras 1960'
• Exhibition Review: Slaves of Fashion
• 50 Years Ago: The Founding of the Trades Union Congress
• A New Slave Trade
• Rear View
• Cartoon: Free Lunch

Anarchism in 1940s Glasgow

A little bit of working-class history of Glasgow

Taken from here

 https://libcom.org/history/anarchism-1940s-glasgow

1) Charlie Baird Sr. : An Interview

6th June 1977

Before the war I’d been sympathetic to the Communist Party, as early as 16 or 17 years of age. It wasn’t until the war, when Russia had signed the pact with Hitler, that I started to have my doubts about the CP. But even prior to that I’d drifted away from them. When the war started, I took up the Conscientious Objector position, and finished up, of course, in jail. It was in jail - I hadn’t been conscious that there was such a movement as the libertarian movement, the anarchist movement - I thought that the CP was the last thing in left-wing movements.

I met two lads in prison (I also knew one prior to going in, who’d told me to look out for these two lads) ; one was Jimmy Dick. He’d managed to get some anarchist literature in. I went through that and discovered that was what I’d been looking for. It was what I’d believed, even when I was in the CP ; I was dissatisfied with the centralised character of the movement.

Then, of course, when we came out, there was an anarchist movement in Glasgow at that particular time. We came out of jail and teamed up with them. It was around 1942 when I came out of jail,and there were about 40 active members of the group. By 1944-45 it was probably around 70-80 members.

The peculiar thing about the Glasgow group was that there was no such thing as recognised members of the group. The only way you could recognise a regular member of the group was by his activities ; there were no things like membership cards or anything like that. The 70 or 80 would include the lads from Burnbank and Hamilton - miners, the small groups out there with 3 or 4 members. They organised meetings and we supplied them with speakers.

Edinburgh was the same. We’d contacts in Edinburgh who organised meetings and we supplied them. There was an old diehard there, but you couldn’t say there was a group. There were many sympathisers, right enough, who were always there at the meetings. They were active insofar as during the meetings they would go round with literature and a collection. They were sympathetic and that was good enough for me. There was an Italian lad who was the original contact ; he had a cafe on Leith Walk, but his father was very reactionary - pro-fascist - while the lad was very revolutionary, very keen, but obviously under his father’s influence. Nevertheless, you went through and saw him, and organised the meetings at the Mound in Edinburgh.

We had the members in Glasgow, plenty of speakers : Jimmy Raeside, Eddie Shaw, Jimmy Dick, Sammy Lawson, Frank Leech, Johnny Gartmore. But Raeside and Shaw were the main speakers, they seemed to enjoy it. They were good propagandists. Shaw was more the humorous type ; he was a satirist - he ridiculed the system in a humorous fashion which went down big with the public. They got entertainment, and at the same time they got the message. Raeside was a more serious type, very logical, and enjoyed a debate - SPGB, Marxist Study Group. Raeside was the main speaker ; he’d an extensive knowledge of the movement. Even apart from that he was an incredible speaker, very convincing. There were even occasions when he was taken up on aspects of the struggle which he wasn’t aware of. He could carry the audience with him.

Shaw and Raeside were highly developed social animals. Even in the company of opposition they were very friendly - no chip on their shoulder. They could walk into the company of Communists or Trotskyists, who you’d find would be very careful, but Shaw and Raeside would walk in, they wouldn’t have to be introduced. Shaw especially - he would just wade into a company, any company at all.

UBI - No Panacea

Plans to give every Scot a basic income of £100 a week would risk making child poverty worse, according to the Institute for Public Policy and Research has warned.

The Institute said by increasing the median income, a so-called Citizen's Income would raise the relative poverty line, leaving more families with children below the line.

Assuming a UBI was set at just over £100 per week per adult and £50 per week per child, even in the best case scenario - measuring poverty in Scotland by comparison with incomes in England - only 60,000 children would be lifted out of poverty, the IPPR said.

A spokeswoman for the IPPR said poverty was increasing faster than a UBI would be able to take people out of poverty, and would get rid of means-tested benefits, by replacing money targeted at the poorest with universal payments. She claimed topping up the child element of Universal Credit by £150 per month could lift 100,000 children out of relative poverty in Scotland, at a much lower cost of £950m per year.

Russell Gunson, Director of IPPR Scotland, said: “The idea of a Universal Basic Income has gained attention in recent years in Scotland with supporters across the political spectrum. And it’s good to research the idea and test its feasibility. However, our modelling shows that far from being an anti-poverty measure, a UBI could increase relative child poverty in Scotland.

"There may be a number of good reasons to consider the introduction of a Universal Basic Income in Scotland but it seems reducing relative child poverty is not one of them. A UBI could cost an eye-watering amount of money, around £20bn per year in Scotland at these rates. Even just a small proportion of that could be used to make huge inroads into poverty rates in Scotland.”

Real and Radical

Many people are again talking and writing about socialism nowadays. While welcoming every move that the workers make towards a more vigorous prosecution of the class struggle against Capital, we must not relax our determination to build up the revolutionary arm of the workers. The Socialist Party realising that all economic wealth is produced by the social labour of the international working class sets out to organise the world's workers upon class lines, sweeping aside the poison of sectionalism and nationalism which sets worker against worker. Socialism is an industrial democracy. With the destruction of the capitalist State, the capitalist system will be destroyed. And with the destruction of the State, the work of the political organisation will be accomplished. But the ushering in of socialism—the constructive act of the revolution—must be the work of an industrial organisation. Parliament does not represent the whole community neither does it manifest the will of society. Parliament merely reflects the well of the class that has the organs of public opinion in its power.  Though its economic dictatorship, the capitalist class is able to dominate all the institutions in the modern “democracy.”  To them, the people are not citizens but commodities, bought and sold for wages in the labour market. The parliamentary Labour Party desire to use Parliament as an instrument for positive and constructive work, but we will use it for the very opposite, reason—to expose and oppose everything of any nature destined to buttress and stabilise capitalism.

The class struggle reflects itself in the domain of ideas. The property-owners seek to manipulate the ideas of the workers in such a way that their intellectual, industrial, and political activities may not be directed against Capitalism. Marxist-Socialism is but the intellectual counterpart of the class struggle. In so far as the revolutionary organisation of socialism asserts itself it is ferociously assailed by the ideologues of capitalism. And so in the domain of ideas, the theories of socialism are most viciously attacked. The very bitterness of these attacks prove with what dread the capitalists looks upon the socialism of Marxism. It instinctively realises that Marxism is the theoretical expression of the revolutionary movement which is destined to destroy capitalism. It is the recognition of this fact which has made many intellectual apologists of modern society declare that the destruction of the revolutionary movement of socialism can best be accomplished by destroying the theories of Marxism. It is strange that anyone cannot see that all modern education is hopelessly biased in favour of the perpetuation of capitalism.

In every phase of the development of socialist theory in this country, the Socialist Party has played a pioneering part. We do not consider that the strength of any party in the workers' movement is determined by the number of individuals which compose it. The real strength of a revolutionary party is rather to be measured by the manner in which it indicates the tendencies of economic development and outlines methods of action. When the Socialist Party first outlined the real function of revolutionary political action we were most bitterly opposed and earned us the title of “impossibilists.” We are convinced that socialism is the only hope of the workers. Neither reforms nor palliatives can in any way remove the great economic contradictions inherent in capitalism. The time has now arrived when all revolutionary workers must either join hands with the Socialist Party or strengthen the reformists and state-capitalists. The latter exercise an influence as great as it is sinister in the labour movement. We can only win the workers when the Socialist Part has been so strengthened that it can carry out its work upon an even larger scale. To that end the party appeals for members. In these days, when the world grows ever more darker, it is the duty of every socialist to be where he or she can best assist the movement. Neither personal feelings, nor a false sense of duty or loyalty to some other party which does not function as revolutionary in the militant army of labour in the class war, should prevent anyone from fearlessly throwing in his or her lot with the Socialist Party. Every-thing in these days must be subordinated to the class’ aspect of the struggle against Capital. We, therefore, appeal to those comrades who complain regarding the shortcomings of their present organisations to come inside and help us to convince the working class, to the policy we have so often outlined. Inside our party, you will become identified with the most fearless party of socialism in the country. Outside, your efforts are probably being exercised in a wrong direction. With the Socialist Party of Great Britain, your efforts will be directed upon the greatest work in history—the emancipation of the working class and the freedom of humanity.

Windfall for investors

Shareholders in Standard Life Aberdeen are due for a windfall pay-out of £1bn. A further £750m is to be spent on buying back shares, which has the effect of raising the share price, as a further benefit to shareholders. It leads directly to a reduced number of shares when dividends are distributed, so the share price can be expected to rise.

One of the reasons Standard Life Aberdeen can give away so much capital is that divesting itself of the investment division reduces the amount of capital it needs to carry.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-44296599

School Poverty

Teachers cannot tackle the impact of child poverty on education by themselves, according to Scotland's largest teachers' union, the EIS. EIS president Nicola Fisher has argued that austerity in public spending and welfare reform have added to the child poverty problem.

BBC Scotland has heard several stories which highlight the effects of deprivation on school children. They include stories about dirty clothes, hunger and children being unable to start school on time.

"I think we actually have to look at the fact that this will take a whole society to fix and stop expecting the teachers and the schools to fix it all."  Nicola Fisher explained.

 It is not simply about the cost of living on a low income or, for instance, helping a child in a house without books improve their reading. It is also about difficult issues which face society as a whole: for example social exclusion and intergenerational unemployment and poverty. There is also the issue of the "working poor" - a child may be living in poverty even though a parent is working.

For class unity and world socialism

The Scottish Socialist Party has said the party will not participate in a new Yes Scotland organisation if it puts the economic recommendations of Andrew Wilson’s Sustainable Growth Commission at its centre. Colin Fox said the SSP would instead make its own separate case for independence in the event of a second referendum being called. He said the economic outlook presented in the SNP’s growth report was “straight out of Tony Blair’s playbook.” 

“The key to victory in a second independence referendum is winning over working class No voters unconvinced by the 2014 Yes case and whose votes are essential to win,” he said writing in The National. “However I feel duty bound as a member of the wider independence movement to say Andrew Wilson’s voluminous Sustainable Growth Report offers nothing to working class Scots under austerity’s cosh these ten years past. Rather it offers them another ten years of the same! The Scottish Socialist Party will not participate in a Yes campaign that puts this report at its centre. It risks driving hundreds of thousands of former Yes voters into the hands of Jeremy Corbyn." 

Left-nationalists never learn.  The Socialist Party puts our class before all else, whereas, Colin Fox collaborated with millionaires for Scottish independence.  Some accuse its members in Scotland of being unpatriotic. We are in fact proud to be anti-patriotic. But just because we are not prepared to back the efforts of Scottish nationalists to break away from the United Kingdom does not mean that we are a Unionist party. We don’t support the Union. We just put up with it! Socialists are just as much opposed to British nationalism as we are to Scottish. Our rulers have decided to ask us our opinion on the matter. We should be flattered, but don’t be fooled. Constitutional reform is of no benefit or relevance to us. 

The Socialist Party argue that every nation-state is by its very nature anti-working class. While we certainly sympathise with those oppressed and displaced on national grounds, we refuse to simply identify with the many "solutions" offered up by the liberals and leftists in support of the victims. The “nation” is a myth as there can be no community of interests between two classes in antagonism with one another, the non-owners in society and the owners (the workers and the capitalists). The state ultimately exists only to defend the property interests of the owning class at any given point in history – which is why modern states across the world send the police and army in to break strikes and otherwise seek to protect the interests of the capitalists and their businesses at every turn.