GLASGOW BRANCH (17TH OCTOBER)

7-30PM
Maryhill Community Central Halls,
304 Maryhill Road,
Glasgow G20 7YE

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has always held that the essential principle upon which the political party of the working class must be based is the principle of the class struggle.

 The implication is that only the class-conscious may be admitted to membership in the organisation, since only those who are conscious of the working-class position in society can understand the class struggle, and only those who understand the class struggle can effectively engage on the political field.

It is from the workers that the Socialist Party draws its strength because it is the workers whose interests demand the change. Hence the Socialist Party addresses its appeal for members to the working class.

We know that personal contact is a most effective way of making our case known so we warmly welcome all visitors.

To the average person, a member of Glasgow Branch appears as a type of individual who suffers from feverish discontent—full of complaints, always grumbling. We will show, however, that this view is but one of the many illusions which cloud certain minds.

 A Socialist Party member possesses ambitions of a particular kind, which do not allow time for morbid reflections. He or she recognises that the battle goes to the strong, and while, therefore, healthily dissatisfied with modern conditions of existence, nevertheless enjoys contentment of mind in the knowledge that he or she is working for the only thing worthwhile; i.e., the overthrow of the capitalist system and the establishment of socialism.

The only war we prepare for is class war

FOR SALE

Socialist ideas were born in early nineteenth-century Europe, under the harsh and brutalising conditions of the industrial revolution.  The era we live in today is an age of inhumanity.  The Socialist Party continue to hold the basic democratic socialist values of freedom, egalitarianism and the solidarity of mankind. Socialism can be called the society of the free and equal, and its democracy defined as the rule of the people. We cannot build a strong socialist movement until we overcome confusion in the minds of our fellow-workers about the real meaning of socialism.  

Its misrepresentation has been facilitated for the capitalists but aided to a considerable extent by those describing themselves as “socialists”. Many people who self-style themselves radicals have reconciled with capitalist society and come to the defence of capitalism as a lesser evil and the best that can be hoped for.  The progress  of the socialist movement will not be overcome unless and until we find a way to break down this misunderstanding and prejudice against socialism, and convince workers that we socialists are the most consistent advocates of democracy in all fields and that, in fact, we are completely devoted to the idea that socialism cannot be realised otherwise than by democracy.  socialism as a class-free society—with abundance, freedom, and equality for all; a society in which there would be no state, not even a supposed peoples' democracy workers’ state.

This restatement of basic aims and principles cannot wait; it is, in fact, the burning necessity of the hour. There is no room for misunderstanding among us as to what such a restatement of our position means and requires.  It requires a clean break with all the distortions of the real meaning of socialism and a return to the original formulations and definitions. Nothing short of this will do. 

The authentic socialist movement has been the most democratic movement in all history. The Communist Manifesto said:
 “All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority...The first step”, said the Manifesto, “in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.” 

A socialist revolution is unthinkable without the active participation of the majority of the working class. Forecasting the socialist future, the Communist Manifesto said: “In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association.” Mark that: “an association”, not a state—“an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” 
Capitalism, under any kind of government, is a system of minority rule, and the principal beneficiaries of capitalist democracy are the small minority of exploiting capitalists. The socialist task is not to deny democracy, but to expand it and make it more complete. Marxists have always valued and defended bourgeois democratic rights, restricted as they were; and have utilised them for the education and organisation of the workers in the struggle to establish full democracy by abolishing the capitalist rule altogether.  The Socialist Party in the past have used a shorthand definition of socialism as “industrial democracy,”  the extension of democracy to industry, the democratic control of industry by the workers themselves, with private ownership eliminated.  

Today’s widespread illusions in the reform of capitalism solutions will in time give way to the realisation by the working class that they can only rely on their own power to defend their living conditions. Struggles against capitalist exploitation will arise in protests, strikes, and rebellions, and the class war will return with a fury. Those mass struggles will put on the agenda the only possible solution to capitalism’s descent toward barbarism: working-class revolutions that seize state power from the capitalists, overturn the system’s drive for profit and set about building a socialist world of abundance and freedom for all. The Socialist Party oppose any kind of support to capitalist parties no matter how “progressive” or “left-wing” they style themselves. They actually fail to offer any real challenge to capitalism.  It is a tragedy that the working class is confronted yet again and again by a choice between anti-working class parties with no revolutionary working-class alternative. Our goal is the creation of a  world party of socialist revolution which would not promote illusions in reforming the system.   

The only road is the socialist road

Capitalism is the system of production in which capital prevails. Capital essentially is the investment of money in the expectation of making a profit,  money that is invested in order to make more money. Capitalism is and was from the start, a global system but it has different institutional forms in different countries due to their specific historical and political circumstances. Marx did not believe that capitalism would end in some huge economic collapse. It would come to an end only when overthrown by the workers it exploited. It is the task of the Socialist Party to help create that consciousness rather than assume that socialism will come automatically.  As long as profit for the few is the basis of the economic system, that system – capitalism – will continue to go from crisis to crisis, with increasing misery for the people. The bosses have a small army of economists and experts on their payroll, but all their schemes just add up to more exploitation for us.  

What the Socialist Party seeks is primarily a society where people are socially equal, have an equal say in how things are run, and feel, and are, part of a genuine community with a common interest, where equality, democracy, and community exist, arguing that this can only happen on the basis of the common ownership by all of the means for producing wealth. Socialism involves constructing an egalitarian system based on the values of solidarity and co-operation. Such a system is not incompatible with human nature and that it can be brought about by conscious human action.  We in the Socialist Party are convinced that a real socialist society is practicable and will actually solve the problems of mankind 

Is it possible to modify and reform the present system by eliminating its bad features? That is what many reformers have been trying to do for many years without the slightest success. The future is full of uncertainties. The fact is that all of us are compelled to work for some employer in order to make a living. Why should that be? There isn't a single one of us who would not prefer to work for ourselves or with our friends provided, of course, we could make a decent living without working too many hours. Why is it necessary for us to go to a factory belonging to someone else and ask to be employed? It is because we have no machinery and no raw materials. The man to whom we apply for a job has all those, and that is why we are compelled to seek employment from him. He, on the other hand, needs us because we have something without which his machinery and raw material would be valueless: we possess have the brain and the muscle the capacity to work, or in other words, the labour power to set production into motion and to transform the raw material into finished products ready to be sold. the employer is interested in only one thing: profits. The sole reason why any owner of a factory hires workers and produces goods is that he can make a profit by selling the goods that he produces and as soon as he is unable to make a profit he closes the factory and the workers are dismissed. Since the capitalists are in business because they want to make a profit and not because they are charitable people, and since the lower the wages, the higher the profits, it is only natural for the employers to pay as low a wage as they can possibly get away with. Should anyone capitalist be so different as to pay high wages, he would soon find himself in bankruptcy because his business would be taken away by his competitors. The desire for profits plus the keen competition between the capitalists guarantees the lowest possible wage to the workers, as long as the workers do not starve to death and leave the capitalists without anyone to do the work for them.

Fortunately, the workers do not submit passively. If they did, their condition would be a thousand times worse than it is now. They organise themselves into unions so that they can sell the only thing they possess, their labour power, at a higher price and under better conditions than the capitalist is willing to give them of his own will. But history has shown that, although the standard of living of sections of the working class has tended to rise, it has not risen proportionately to the growth of industry. In spite of the unbelievably enormous increase in production the vast majority of the workers still lead an existence that is far from comfortable or secure. So long as the profit system exists, so long will the few people who own the means of production will cream off the profits for themselves and leave the working class in deprivation. 

 The means of production are already socialised in the sense that they can only be operated by social, co-operative labour. This has already been done by capitalism; what socialism will do is to end the class monopoly of these means, to establish social or common ownership as well.  When the means of production are socially owned, wealth will be produced purely and simply to satisfy human needs. Production for the market, or exchange, will disappear and along with this banks and other commercial and financial institutions. 

Socialism is the logical evolutionary successor of capitalism. Many say that there are different sort of socialists and different kinds of socialism. But the idea of socialism rests on one fundamental principle, the collective ownership and democratic administration of the social tools of production and distribution of wealth. A socialist is one who believes that the wage system is slavery; that competition is wasteful; that special privilege of any kind is unsocial. Socialists hold we have found a remedy in the common ownership of the means of production and distribution of wealth. 

Looking for socialist answers

Capitalism is full of problems, and of slick, smooth-talking politicians who say they can solve them. The tragedy is that so many people believe their promises, and fail to see the nonsense for what it is. Words are cheap. Any organisation can label itself socialist. Generations of reformers have voiced complaints about capitalism and have dignified their futile efforts to humanise it by dubbing them ‘socialism’.  What is more difficult is to develop a body of socialist theory and to stick to it. The old cliché about the ‘unity of theory and practice’ holds true. A party is only as good as its theoretical platform. The Socialist Party often reveals the impotence of the those who say they can control capitalism and can tame it. Capitalism continually produces unrest and insecurity. It is a society which cannot be at peace nor bring prosperity for all. Capitalism is a mass of conflicting interests, treachery, and coercion. 

It is possible to create a world of peace and prosperity where people actually care about the future of the world and the welfare of humanity. What is required is a change in the basis of society. The people of the world cannot use the resources of the world to satisfy their needs unless they own and control them. It is only on the basis of the common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production that a world of peace and prosperity can be created. For this, men and women need only apply their existing capacity to reason to the problem and then act to change society. As long as people are content that it should be so,  capitalism will continue to map out their future.  They acquiesce because they are misled into believing that capitalism, with its property rights, its economic rivalries, its wars, is the best of all possible human societies. No capitalist party—certainly not the Labour Party—ever does anything to end this massive and fundamental deception. The political ignorance and apathy which supports the system are still there, encouraged by the Labour Party, by its members honest and dishonest, its leaders and its “rebels.” No one will ever know the extent of the confusion and the cynicism the left-wing has caused. 

Socialism cannot be established by general strikes or insurrections. It can only be established when the working class, not only of Britain but throughout the world, understanding what socialism is, are willing to co-operate to establish it. It is much easier to vote and work for socialism than to die uselessly on some stricken barricade or street battle. Such ideas are not only foolish but dangerous as it would leave the powers of State, the armed forces in the hands of the ruling class which has still control of the machinery of government could crush any attempt to seize the factories and the means of production and distribution. That is why we claim, as laid down in our Declaration of Principles, in Section 6, that the working class must organise consciously and politically to obtain control of this machinery of government, to dispossess the ruling class of their ownership of the land and means of wealth production and distribution. Socialism cannot be established by a minority group trying to impose it upon the working class against their will and understanding. 

The Socialist Party was founded with one purpose, that of achieving socialism. Socialism is not something akin to reformists' efforts to improve capitalism, but an alternative social system. One in which class ownership of the means of production and distribution would be replaced by common ownership, buying and selling, profit-making and the wages system would disappear, and with them the wars that are caused by capitalism's commercial rivalries. The Socialist Party has campaigned all these years to increase the understanding and acceptance of the socialist message, and from time to time have contested elections. The Socialist Party seeks to shorten the day when we, the workers, will recognise that our shared interests, and demand the abolition of capitalism and establishment of socialism through the intelligent use of the vote by a world working class. 

YOU ARE REALLY TOO MANY

“Fresh air and freedom, everyone should taste it.”

While the Nackin people, who first appear in official records in the twelfth century in Scotland, have adapted their lives to keep up with economic change over the centuries, this commitment to a life on the road has remained resolute. The word ‘Gypsy’ comes from English medieval references to the Roma people, who scholars believed came from Egypt. In fact, DNA testing and linguistic studies show that the Roma originated in the Punjab, and many words in the Romanis language have their roots in Sanskrit. The Scottish Nackin, meanwhile, speak Cant, which has Scots, Gaelic and Norse roots, with some Romani influences from when the Roma reached the British Isles. One such word, ‘gadgie’, is a commonly used Scots slang word and is the Cant word for man. In Romani, the word ‘gaji’ is from the ancient Sanskrit word for civilian.

Most of the Roma in Scotland now are immigrants from Europe, alongside English Gypsies and Welsh Kali, both of whom have Romani roots.

Irish Travellers, usually called Pavees or Minkiers, also settle in Scotland and, like the Nackin, have their own history and language.Finally, there are also professionally nomadic folk, like show people, with their own communities. 

We’ve always lived on the margins of society. And we’ve always tended to do something to get by and survive,” 20-year-old Traveller advocate and activist Davie Donaldson tells Holyrood.

The commitment to stay mobile has meant the Nackin have valued self-employment, first as tin and silversmiths, making and repairing weapons for the clans, then in more recent years at seasonal agricultural work, he says. 

When farms grew, consolidated and turned to migrant labour, many travellers then picked up trades such as landscaping and roofing.

“There’s always that want to be self-employed, in control of yourself,” says Donaldson.

 The travelling community tends to experience poorer health and education outcomes than almost any other minority group in Scotland.  Put bluntly, travellers can expect shorter lives, with only four per cent of the community aged 70 or over, compared to 12 per cent of the population as a whole.

A huge distrust of social work, for example, stems from an era when Traveller children were frequently taken into care, he says.

Religious institutions forcibly took traveller children in the first half of the 20th century after an 1895 report had called for them to be saved from their “vagrant” parents. Other children were deported to be servants in Australia and Canada.

Full article can be read here

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/inside-politics/scotlands-travelling-communities-right-roam

This what socialism means

Rosa Luxemburg said, “We shall hardly make any progress without a clear understanding of the work of proletarian self-education.” 

 Would-be dictators and admirers of dictatorship consider the earth’s people pawns, to be used for the profit of some few controlling rulers. 

Socialism is a system of society in which the land, the means of production, and distribution are held in common. Production is for use, as and when required, not for profit, exchange or sale. The organisation of production and distribution is by those who do the work. Each work-place is an autonomous unit working in unison with others and in mutual harmony with other enterprises. Socialism is a class-free society in which all shall have leisure and culture, and all shall be secured from want. We shall be cultured, equal co-workers for the commonweal. Our goal is a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the industries and services to be administered in the interests of all society. Achieving this revolutionary change from capitalism to socialism can only be through the class-conscious action of the working-class itself. The issue, literally, is survival. The harm and damage already done to all of us and to our environment by capitalism’s existence is beyond exact calculation. If it is not abolished and replaced with a socialist cooperative commonwealth by the organised working class, there is the distinct possibility that capitalism may destroy humanity and the world in the process. That need not happen. And it won’t happen if all who realise the need for a socialist reconstruction of society join us to appeal to our brothers and sisters of every race, of every colour, to accomplish the revolutionary change to socialism and thus guarantee the future safety and well-being of the humanity. 

Many people believe that socialism means government or state ownership and control. Who can blame them when that is what is taught and repeated by the media, politicians and our schools? But worse, some people and organizations that label themselves “socialist” preach it, too —  not the Socialist Party which says that socialism means something entirely different. If nationalisation or state ownership is not socialism, what is?  In socialism, the workers who operate the industries and services would collectively own and democratically manage them. In each workplace, the producers would elect their own immediate management committees. They would also elect representatives to local and national assemblies of the industry or service in which they work, and to wider all-industrial congresses to coordinate production and distribution of all goods and services throughout the region and world. In short, socialism would replace the political government run by politicians with a democratic administration run by workers, their elected delegates and their communities. And when the Socialist Party uses the word “worker,” we mean everyone who sells his or her labor power, or ability to work, at so much per hour, or so much per week, to a capitalist employer. Coal miners are workers, but so are musicians, scientists, nurses, teachers, architects, inventors, and mathematicians. 

Socialism means not just political democracy but also economic democracy.  Under capitalism workers receive only a small fraction of the wealth that they alone produce, while the lion’s share goes to the capitalist owners and to the bankers, landlords, insurance companies, lawyers, politicians, and all the other parasites who live off the back of labour and perform no useful work. By ending this robbery of the working class, socialism will enable workers to share in the full fruit of their labour.

Socialism would also enable us to raise our living standards dramatically by ending the billions in resources thrown away on arms production and “defence,” by ending the waste, duplication, and inefficiency of capitalist industries, and by returning millions of soldiers and unemployed workers to useful occupations.

In socialist society, there would be no wage system. And since the people would collectively own the industries, anyone would be free to select any occupation in which he or she has an interest and aptitude. No longer would workers live under the fear of being laid off, or be compelled to spend their lives at some job they hate or are unsuited for. Also, since the people would collectively own the colleges and universities, no longer would workers be denied education or training because they lack the money to buy it.

Furthermore, with socialism, we would produce for use and to satisfy the needs of all the people. Under capitalism, the industries operate for one purpose—to make a profit for their owners. Under this system, food is not grown primarily to be eaten. It is grown to be sold. Cars are not manufactured primarily to be driven. They are made to be sold. If there are enough buyers here and abroad, then the capitalists will have their factories turn out cars or everything else for which buyers can be found and where a return can be made. But if people lack money, if the market cannot absorb them, then these factories shut down, no matter how much people need these commodities.

At the present time, Big-Ag knows that they can produce more than market conditions permit them to. Meanwhile, millions suffer from malnutrition and hunger.

Inside a socialist society industry and technology would be used to benefit all of us, not restricted to the creation of profits for the enrichment of a small group of capitalist owners. Our farmlands would yield an abundance without great toil; the factories, mines, and mills would be the safest, the most modern, the most efficient possible and productive beyond our wildest dreams—and without labourious work. Our natural resources would be intelligently conserved. Our schools would have the finest facilities and they would be devoted to developing complete human beings, not wages slaves who are trained to hire themselves out for someone else’s profit. Our hospitals and social services would create and maintain the finest health and recreational facilities. Under capitalism, new technology, robotics, automation and Artificial Intelligence is used to replace workers and increase profits. Instead of creating a society of abundance, capitalism uses our inventiveness to create unemployment and poverty.  It is not the technology that threatens us. By themselves, improved methods of production and distribution are not social evils. They could be a blessing, but under capitalism, technology is used for anti-social purpose in the interest of the few and not the many.

The Socialist Party, on the other hand, propose that should own in common the factories and means of production, where would have full and free access to the means of wealth production and distribution. We would collectively produce the things we want and need for full and happy lives. It would be to the benefit of all to find new inventions, new means of production, improved means of distribution. Society as a whole would have a vital interest in providing opportunity to each individual to find the work for which he or she is best suited and in which he or she will be happiest. There would be the fullest freedom and opportunity. There would be a complete and full democracy. Democracy that will truly be based on the broadest lines. Democracy in which the final and only power will be the great mass of our people, the useful producers, which in a socialist society would mean everybody. Society no longer would be split into two contending classes. Instead, we would all be useful producers, collectively owning the means of production and distribution, collectively concerned with producing the most with the least expenditure of human labour, and collectively jealous of the rights of the individual to a full, free and untrammeled life of happiness and accomplishment.

How can we get such a society? The answer is easy. It is within the power of the working class to establish such a society as soon as they recognise the need for it and organise to establish it. By learning about real socialism you will learn how to effectively demand the end of capitalism and to organise with your fellow-workers for the establishment of socialism. 

Pricey Energy

In a new report, Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS) says electric heating is “significantly more common in Scotland than elsewhere” in the UK, with 11% of people here reliant on it.

However, the agency’s new Hard Wired Problems report found electric heating is the most expensive form of domestic fuel and costs three times as much as gas.

And while almost one-third of all Scots are said to be in fuel poverty, the level for electricity users is one half. In comparison, two-fifths of gas users are considered fuel-poor.

CAS says many of the worst-off are unlikely to either access available support or switch to cheaper fuel sources.

Craig Salter, energy spokesman for CAS, said: “Electric heating is by far the most costly heating type in Scotland, yet many of the people who use it are those least able to afford it. So they are paying over the odds to heat their home. People are in this situation for a variety of reasons. In some cases electricity is the only source available, as gas supply pipes don’t reach their home. In other cases they are renting their home so have to accept whatever system the landlord has installed."

http://www.thenational.scot/news/16974591.heating-costs-in-scotlands-poorer-homes-are-three-times-more-expensive/

Netting the profits

Five families are netting millions of pounds by controlling nearly half of Scotland’s offshore fishing rights.

Greenpeace today reveal how these so-called “Codfather clans” are reaping huge rewards exploiting “a vastly unequal, mismanaged system”.

The quotas system enables a minority of wealthy families to corner huge swathes of fishing rights. Three of the dominant family-owned firms are based in Scotland.

 Peterhead’s Alexander Buchan and family, with an estimated net worth of £147million. Their Lunar Fishing Company own or control 8.9 per cent of quota holdings (739,153 FQA – Fixed Quota ­Allocations).

Fraserburgh's Robert Tait’s family have an estimated worth of £115million. Their Klondyke Fishing Company are the UK’s third-largest quota holders with 6.1 per cent of the UK total (506,953 FQAs). Greenpeace’s investigation unit, discovered they paid out dividends of £56million in five years.

Oil and gas billionaire Sir Ian Wood still has a strong foothold in the family’s original fishing business. Their family firm JW Holdings hold one per cent of the UK’s fishing quota (83,463 FQAs) and minority investments in ­businesses/partnerships with a further 2.3 per cent (192,169 FQAs).

Two other family-owned firms in England are netting a slice of Scotland’s fishing stock.

Plymouth-based Jan Colam and family, with an estimated worth of £130million, own Interfish, the second largest quota holders, with 7.8 per cent of the UK total (643,927 FQAs).

And Andrew Marr and family, worth £209million, at Hull-based Andrew Marr International, own or control 5.1 per cent of UK quota (419,937 FQAs), making them the UK’s fifth largest. They also have minority stakes in companies and vessel partnerships who hold a further 5.4 per cent of UK quota (445,981 FQAS).

Charles Millar, executive director of the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust, said: “The misallocation of fish quotas in ­Scotland’s fishery, as unearthed by Greenpeace, is now plain to see. The vast majority of the fleet have almost no quota to work with while a handful of multi-millionaires hold enough to make them even richer."

In Scotland, quotas for species such as herring and mackerel have been bought up by a handful of families. Two-fifths of the entire Scottish catch by value, and 65 per cent by tonnage, was landed by 19 powerful super-trawlers in 2016. Small-scale coastal fishermen, who operate 80 per cent of Scottish boats, have to make do with just one per cent of quotas.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/five-wealthy-families-uk-codfathers-13397619

Against Racism

When workers are struggling for homes and jobs anything that appears to stand in their way becomes a menace to be got rid of.  Consequently, immigrants were bound eventually to appear as the threatening menace, Dispossessed, frustrated and alienated workers will always look for a short-cut to even up the imbalance between themselves and their masters. The root of the problem is not colour, but social conditions that are produced by capitalist society. Various solutions to the problem have been put forward, but these solutions ignore the root from which the problem grows. Present racial antagonism is bound up with the general conditions of capitalism. Like the other evils of capitalism, it will only disappear when capitalism itself has been replaced by a social system in which all human beings will be able to move freely over the earth and live in harmony because their interests will be identical. This can only be a reality under socialism. Racism is not the poorly-thought-out doctrine of a few hundred boneheads. Racism will only be destroyed through a change in society, not with physical force, nor with laws. Racism has to be seen for what it is — a parasite on the back of nationalism, which is itself a disease of world capitalism. 

The Socialist Party deplore attacks of workers on each other, regardless of the colour of their skins. Workers should be aware that the only way to confront such attitudes is on the battlefield of ideas, not with clubs and boots. The fact that so many “left-wing” groups believe they should be banned is evidence that they have yet to come up with the arguments to discredit them. It does not say much for allegedly socialists to call upon the state to pass laws proscribing fascist activity. A ban on the thought-crimes will not eradicate racist sentiments. If they really had the interests of the working class at heart, they should be pointing the finger of blame at the real perpetrator of racism — the capitalist system.  Is it any wonder workers are hoodwinked into believing ethnic communities are the cause of their misfortune, and so must bear the brunt of their frustration. 

The task for the Socialist Party in their argument with racists is to convince them that workers have no nation and that there is more that unites the exploited members of the human race, all of whom have the same basic needs than can ever divide us culturally or historically. Racist ideas are a manifestation of capitalism in crisis, and will only be eradicated when the capitalist system itself is expunged — not through physical violence or laws, but by workers taking control of their own destiny, becoming conscious of their position in the relations of production and by democratically establishing a socialist society. It is worth saying also that only in a socialist society will it be possible for the first time for all people to develop freely towards satisfying and full lives. 

If workers want to end self-defeating competition, it is necessary that they s that racial antagonisms are a tactical measure of capitalism to prevent working-class unity. The capitalist class that controls and profits from the wealth produced by working people clearly benefits from racism because it enables employers to impose lower wages on minority workers and thus increases capitalist profits. Further, racist ideology among the working class divides it, weakening its ability to resist the austerity now being imposed by the ruling class. In fact, racism has in the past and will continue in the future, to pit worker against worker and to prevent them from taking collective action against capitalism. In this way, racism acts as a powerful force militating against working-class solidarity and is as such one of the main pillars of capitalism. Racism has been with us for centuries. Under capitalism, it has become a social institution. In implementing the austerity aimed at boosting profits at the expense of workers generally, the ruling class has not hesitated to fan the flames of racism. Capitalism has generated an atmosphere in which racist ideology and racist violence can grow and fester.  

Working class conscious of its political and economic potentials and of the means to achieve a liveable world for all can put an end to economic insecurity and the interracial distrust it breeds by putting an end to capitalism.  One thing is certain. So long as the destructive competitive spirit generated by capitalism continues to permeate every aspect of society, racism will not only prevail, in many respects, it will grow worse. For it is primarily a product of the conflicts generated among workers of all races as a result of the competition for jobs, housing, and social services, all of which are steadily falling further below the need and the demand. All workers have a stake in fighting racism. The lower wages paid minorities and high minority unemployment rates increase job competition and thus exert a downward pressure on all workers’ wages. As a result, capitalists reap every higher profits from the working class as a whole. The fight against racism must challenge the capitalist status quo that reinforces it. For example, under capitalism, there are a limited number of jobs. Accordingly, white workers tend to see gains for minorities as coming at white workers’ expense. At the same time, the disproportionate share of unemployment borne by minorities and the failure of the trade unions to fight on their behalf has left millions of jobless minority workers without access to the economic power they might otherwise have to defend themselves.

The Socialist Party has long pointed out that the fight against racism is an indispensable element in, and part of, the struggle for working-class emancipation. The capitalist class can be effectively challenged only by the economic and political strength of a united working class. If white workers are to free themselves from capitalist exploitation, they must contribute to the building of a labour movement that embraces the struggles of minority workers against racism.

A movement to defeat racism once and for all must seek to replace the racist social institutions, artificial economic scarcity and profit motive of capitalism with a collectively owned and democratically administered economy that produces on the basis of satisfying human need. This means building mass, workplace-based organizations that will struggle for socialism and rebuild society from the bottom up. Such democratically controlled economic organizations would enable workers to bring their collective economic power to bear in struggles against all forms of capitalist oppression and ultimately provide the working basis for a socialist society.

In the face of the upsurge in racism, workers must link the demand for an end to the more intense exploitation and oppression suffered by minorities to the class struggle for socialism. For the struggle against racism cannot be successful unless and until it is transformed into a force for building the working-class unity needed to end exploitation generally. 

Once again, there is a demand that the racist groups in this country should be legally banned. This demand comes mostly from what we can loosely call the left-wing.  Racist theories, with their vicious fallacies, are as active in the world as ever. Whatever ideas they may try to proscribe, will make no difference.  At the moment ignorance is in charge and racism rolls on.

The Freedom of Socialism

No social movement can mature without a cause and a vision. That vision is a vision of a world free forever from economic exploitation and want, from race and national hatred and from sexual oppression. That vision is a vision of a world where the material needs of the people are satisfied by an ever-expanding technology that has freed humanity from toil. The vision is one of peace and social harmony. Today, the level and development of the means of production makes this cause possible. We no longer have to work long hours just to eke out a miserable existence for our families. The new technology makes a world of material abundance and cultural development for all possible. Yet it is the capitalists who have reaped unprecedented profits from new technology. But relative poverty is growing worldwide. With little hope of a decent future we, wage-slaves, represent a threat to the capitalists. Increasingly, the ruling class is making its intentions clear. It is unable to solve the problem of growing poverty. Therefore, it is moving to tightly control the tens of millions of workers who will not suffer in silence.  The ruling class aim is to divide the poor.  

Socialism is — on the face of it at least — attractive to many: the apparent principles of “fairness”, or looking after everyone in the community (rather just number one) have broad appeal of course. But that is often insufficient to outweigh what many consider to be the main downsides to socialism. Prime amongst the perceived disadvantages of a socialist society is the idea that socialism is an inefficient way to produce wealth. In contrast, the market system portrays itself as a dynamic, productive and creative mechanism. By incentivising the inventors, the entrepreneurs and the risk-takers (so the fairy-tale goes) capitalism liberates human beings to work harder and smarter, producing more wealth and more choice. The only problem with this superficially-appealing narrative is that capitalism is not in fact geared to the production of wealth per se, but rather is tailored to the production of profit, a very different thing. The reason is that inside a market-based system of buying and selling, wealth is not produced to meet human needs of the entire population, but instead to meet the profit expectations of the minority who monopolise ownership and control of the means of producing wealth.  Capitalism liberates nothing. The market system itself creates nothing beyond profit and misery, and will routinely stifle or sacrifice productivity for profitability. The ideological claims for capitalism as being an efficient system just don’t stand up to any sort of examination, with endemic inefficiency and wastage inherent. And attempts of governments to “correct” or regulate the market are usually cosmetic, partial and powerless in the face of the iron law of profitability. 

Many people still believe that hunger is caused today by over-population and that if there were fewer people in the world, then, and only then, could they be adequately fed. This is not so. In the first place, the resources and technology exist now to feed the world’s population many times over. Second, even if the population did decrease substantially, there would still be a hunger problem, since hunger like homelessness is essentially an economic problem, a poverty problem. People can buy food if they have money, but hungry people do not have money. The hungry have no money to buy food at existing prices, so they do not constitute a market. Under capitalism, food is a commodity and commodities are only produced when there is an effective economic demand. People feeling hungry is not the same thing as “economic demand for food”. Capitalism has developed all the productive techniques necessary for production for abundance. But the capitalist economic system can only produce in response to economic demand and the prospect of a profit is a sine qua non, in farming as in every other sphere of capitalist production. The farmers must have “incentives” — and Oxfam pictures of starving children do not amount to an incentive. The begging bowl is not just a symbol of the charities: it is a symbol of the misery and want in many forms endured by the poor. It is the hallmark of the most productive economic system mankind has ever developed. The stark contrast between the starving millions on the one hand and the enormous potential for food production, on the other hand, emphasizes the need to end commodity production. We have developed social production, with global cooperation we can make use of the techniques for increasing food output. Socialism can make this possible: only Socialism can release our productive potential and make the begging bowl a museum curiosity. 

The Socialist Party's foremost task is to agitate and campaign around the cause of the working-class movement. Our vision is one of peace and social harmony. To teach the ideas of revolution, our classroom has to be the streets, the factories, and wherever there are injustice and oppression. They are few; we are many. Socialism will allow more personal freedom because it will permit individuals to develop their identities more fully in the absence of capitalist pressures. The social evils that infest and corrupt our life, and that men and women must uproot and eliminate before general happiness becomes possible is poverty, a life-long struggle to obtain food, shelter, and clothing.

Climate Change and Change

The IPCC 2018 special report on 1.5°C comes at the request of a number of vulnerable nations made at the time the 2015 Paris Agreement was reached. The report compared the effects of warming at 1.5°C with 2°C. The report interpreted the existing body of scientific literature (6000 studies reviewed by 91 experts from 40 countries) using a consensus-based approach and so this means it adopts a fairly conservative bias to describe the impacts of climate change. The conclusion is that preventing an extra single degree of heat could make a life-or-death difference in the next few decades for multitudes of people and ecosystems on this fast-warming planet. These world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

“For some people this is a life-or-death situation without a doubt,” said Cornell University climate scientist Natalie Mahowald, a lead author on the report.

1.5C versus 2C of global warming

• Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5C, and increase further with 2C.
• Those at disproportionately higher risk of the adverse consequences of global warming at 1.5C and beyond include disadvantaged and vulnerable populations, some indigenous peoples and local communities that make a living from agriculture or coastal activities like fishing.
• Regions that are particularly threatened include Arctic ecosystems, dry regions, small-island developing states and least-developed countries.
• Any increase in global warming is expected to affect human health, largely negatively. The risk of heat-related deaths is lower at 1.5C than at 2C, while risks from some insect-carried diseases, such as malaria and dengue fever, are likely to rise with the temperature.
• Limiting global warming to 1.5C compared to 2C could reduce the proportion of the world population exposed to increasing water stress by up to half, although this varies considerably between regions.
• Sticking to the 1.5C target would keep global sea level rise 0.1 metre (3.9 inches) lower by 2100 than warming of 2C. That suggests up to 10 million fewer people would be exposed to related risks, based on 2010 population levels and if no adaptation occurs.
• If sea levels rise more slowly, there will be greater opportunities for small islands, low-lying coastal areas and deltas to adjust to coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion and damage to infrastructure, among other risks.
• Countries in the tropics and Southern Hemisphere subtropics are projected to see the largest negative impacts on economic growth due to climate change if warming rises from 1.5C to 2C.
• Extreme hot days in the planet's mid-latitude temperate regions would be hotter by up to about 3C at global warming of 1.5C, and 4C at 2C of warming. Overall, the number of hot days is projected to increase in most regions, especially in the tropics.
• Risks from droughts and rainfall shortages are likely to be higher in some regions at 2C of global warming compared to 1.5C.
• Heavy rainfall associated with tropical cyclones is projected to be higher at 2C compared to 1.5C of global warming. Globally, heavy precipitation is likely to be higher at 2C of warming and, as a consequence, the fraction of the world's land affected by floods is also projected to be larger.
• Holding warming to 1.5C is projected to result in lower net declines in yields of maize, rice, wheat and potentially other cereal crops, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central and South America.
• Less food is likely to be available at 2C of warming than at 1.5C in the Sahel, southern Africa, the Mediterranean, central Europe and the Amazon. Livestock are also expected to be adversely affected as temperatures rise

• Curbing warming to 1.5C rather than 2C would be less damaging for global efforts to develop in a sustainable way, eradicate poverty and reduce inequality.

Much of the planet and its people, today and in the future, are going to experience significant climate impacts—including worsening drought, water scarcity, flooding, heat waves and wildfires—even if we succeed in reducing emissions. The task ahead for the world's survival is clear: cut emissions as much as possible  Future generations depend on the choices we will make today. The scientific consensus is that we cannot afford to delay action for very much longer.  Current emissions reduction pledges are not enough to meet the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement. The only way out of runaway global warming is for nations of the world to come together to tackle the climate crisis. We already have the technical know-how to limit emissions such as low-carbon energy sources like wind and solar energy. and expanding carbon-friendly re-forestation and management of land use practices. We’ll possess the technologies and processes to decrease reliance of fossil fuels in the transportation and industrial sectors. We can also development and deploy next generation solutions, battery storage, carbon capture and sequestration, safe nuclear power, off-the grid electricity generation to increase energy access for the millions of people in the world who still don’t have access to modern energy services. The choices we make now daunting and  they may come with adverse unintended consequences.

 Earth’s weather, health and ecosystems would be in better shape if we could somehow limit future human-caused warming to just 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit (a half degree Celsius) from now, instead of the globally agreed-upon goal of 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C). Among other things:

• Half as many people would suffer from lack of water.
• There would be fewer deaths and illnesses from heat, smog and infectious diseases.
• Seas would rise nearly 4 inches (0.1 meters) less.
• Half as many animals with backbones and plants would lose the majority of their habitats.
• There would be substantially fewer heat waves, downpours and droughts.
• The West Antarctic ice sheet might not kick into irreversible melting
• And it just may be enough to save most of the world’s coral reefs from dying.

Limiting warming to 0.9 degrees from now means the world can keep “a semblance” of the ecosystems we have.  The world has already warmed 1 degree C since pre-industrial times, so the talk is really about the difference of another half-degree C or 0.9 degrees F from now.

“Global warming is likely to reach 1.5 degrees C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate,” the report states.

The pledges nations made in the Paris agreement in 2015 are “clearly insufficient to limit warming to 1.5 in any way,” one of the study’s lead authors, Joerj Roeglj of the Imperial College in London, said.

“I just don’t see the possibility of doing the one and a half” and even 2 degrees looks unlikely, said Appalachian State University environmental scientist Gregg Marland, who isn’t part of the U.N. panel but has tracked global emissions for decades for the U.S. Energy Department.

For socialists, here is a problem which we can all agree must be tackled swiftly and decisively? What a hope!

 Governments are more concerned about the effects which determined action against carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases would have on the economy. For example, the coal and chemical industries would suffer badly. Despite all the talk about the need to do something about global warming, despite all the policy strategies, emissions targets and ingenious incentive schemes, governments have failed to constrain the extraction of dirty oil. If even this energy source, the most harmful of all, cannot be ruled off limits, then what can be the purpose of those strategies, targets and schemes? Presumably only to conceal the helpless complicity of governments in face of the blind and relentless drive of capital to expand.

What about the underdeveloped countries? They stand to lose most from global warming so aren't they keener to take action? Afraid not, because they insist that they must industrialise even more if they are to help their starving, homeless millions. 

We have never thought that achieving socialism will be easy, but compared to getting capitalism to outlaw global warming at the expense of profit and political power, it should be a push-over.

Houses for People

Scotland has approximately 2.5 million homes for the estimated 2.45 million households recorded by National Records of Scotland in December 2016. On the face of it, a balanced equilibrium between supply and demand. 

Why, then, do we have a housing crisis with more than thirty thousand people homeless in Scotland

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/comment-co-ops-could-open-doors-to-solve-housing-crisis-1-4810464

Who owns Scotland?

Denmark’s richest man,Anders Holch Povlsen, whose family owns the Bestseller clothing company, has spent much of the past decade snapping up vast swathes of the Scottish Highlands.

 Povlsen’s 221,000-acre property portfolio has now overtaken the 217,000 acres controlled by the Duke of Buccleuch.  Povlsen’s estates also surpass the 133,000 acres controlled by the 27-year-old Duke of Westminster, although the latter is Britain’s wealthiest landowner because of his holdings in Mayfair and Belgravia in central London.

 Povlsen, , who is thought to be worth £4 billion,