John Keracher - Fellow Traveller?

 

There are not many Scots who are aware of the Marxist John Keracher from Dundee.

 Keracher was not only an organiser and propagandist for socialism, he was a pamphleteer.  Keracher was the author of a number of easy-to-read basic pamphlets. They served the important function of introducing the reader to socialist thought and encouraging further study in the classics. His clarion call to the working class was to get rid of the bedlam of out-worn capitalism and to replace it with the sanity of socialism. His pamphlets attempt to disseminate socialist knowledge and understanding — essential ingredients of the socialist revolution. His "How the Gods were Made" has been re-published by the Socialist Party. As a human being, Keracher was full of lively wit and good nature; his calm manner went unruffled by obstreperous opponents, critics, and hecklers. To those seeking personal advice or enlightenment on socialism, he was like an oasis in the desert, a quenching the thirst for knowledge. He was uncompromising in his principles but refrained from ad hominem attacks, and confined himself to the issues as he saw them. He relied on the logic of his arguments to counter critics. Throughout his life Keracher always retained the same admirable qualities with ally and adversary alike. In addition, he was an outstanding organizer, lecturer, and writer; and one always willing to do his share of the menial tasks. His friendships transcended politics and parties. 

Keracher was born on January 16, 1880, in Dundee and died of a heart ailment in Los Angeles on January 11, 1958. He was 77 years old.

In his early twenties, Keracher left Scotland for England, where he lived for a number of years and where he was exposed to the ideas of the Social Democratic Federation and likely coming under the influence of the “impossibilists”. He emigrated to the United States in 1909, settling in Detroit and followed in a family tradition by becoming a shoe-store owner. The back room of the Keracher's store after hours would soon provide a convenient rent-free location for study classes of Marx's Capital. Keracher became a member the Socialist Party of America.

 Detroit was a boom town from the years 1910 to 1918 and because of the growing automobile and other industries, it attracted hosts of workers seeking “good-paying” jobs.  An added stimulus was the advent of World War I, with its government contracts for military supplies. Among the influx of workers to Detroit were Canadian socialists from across the border, who had been active in carrying on socialist work. They were soon followed by Canadian and British "impossiblist" socialists avoiding conscription.  At this time  the Detroit local of the Socialist Party of America was involved in a bitter internal controversy between the large majority of “socialist” reformers  and the small minority of socialist revolutionists opposing the principles and policies of the Michigan Socialist Party. Most conspicuous in this dispute was Keracher on the side of the no-compromisers. Keracher and his colleagues managed to win adoption by Michigan organization of a “short program” devoid of such minimum demands at its 1914 state convention. The new radical program of the Michigan party proved no impediment to further growth, as the group's membership rolls continued to swell. Keracher was able to record another great factional triumph in the Socialist Party of Michigan when he was elected State Secretary in 1915. The state's 1914 “no reforms” platform was adopted one again at the 1916 state convention with minor modifications. Keracher's influence upon the party seemed sure.

 The revolutionary faction also drew encouragement from Kerr’s "International Socialist Review" as well as its Marxian classics and other pamphlets. They served a useful purpose in stimulating the reading of meaningful socialist literature. (Subsequently, when the Proletarian Party purchased the Kerr Company for the purpose of perpetuating the supply of socialist literature, Keracher made an excellent administrator and a valuable contributor). The combination of these circumstances led to the establishment of a Marxian study class in Duffield Hall.  Moses Baritz and Adolph Kohn of the Socialist Party of Great Britain were the instructors, with Keracher playing a leading role in this class by enlarging it to include debates and lectures. The class proved invaluable in spreading an understanding of Marxism and the principles of the SPGB. In July 1916, 43 members of the study class, including 19 members of Local Detroit, SPA, decided it was time to organize a genuine socialist party in the United States along the lines of the SPGB. The Workers’ Socialist Party of the United States resulted. The 50th anniversary of the American Party issue of the Western Socialist  explains how  leaders of the Michigan SPA such as John Keracher and Dennis Blatt were sympathetic to the 'revolutionary tea drinkers' as the Detroit comrades were called, but they thought that Marxists should remain in the SPA and trying to shift it toward socialism rather than organize separately. The formation of a new socialist party was premature, they claimed. Keracher apparently felt he could use his influence to move the SPA closer to the SPGB position by remaining within it as an active member. Keracher defended the members of the new party who were being heatedly criticized for resigning by members of the Detroit Local, SPA.

By this time, Keracher had become state secretary of the Socialist Party of Michigan. He was deeply involved in advocating that the next state convention of that party supplant reforms to patch up capitalism with a plank for revolutionary socialism. He also urged that the Party’s position on religion be changed from being considered as a private matter to one of social concern. He and his supporters were successful in changing the constitution of the Socialist Party of Michigan to conform with basic socialist objectives. At the time, this was a bombshell! Under these circumstances, it was understandable that he was unable to participate in the organization of The Workers Socialist Party. Whilst  recognizing the need for a new genuine socialist party, he was unable to join it. Instead, conditions being what they were, he, together with the socialists remaining in the SPA in Michigan, organized an educational group within the Party to disseminate socialist ideas.

Thus was born the Proletarian University, soon followed by its publication The Proletarian, which was in harmony with SPGB principles. The Proletarian University united and formed study circles in a number of towns around Michigan and in other cities throughout the country, including Buffalo, Rochester, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Los Angeles. The establishment and propagation of Marxist study circles of was the hallmark of John Keracher. The task of the revolutionary movement in the current period was deemed to be the training of the working class in the “science” of Marxism in preparation for the inevitable revolutionary overturn of capitalism and the establishment of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat.”

 “Every Local should maintain at least one weekly study class,” The "Proletarian" said, encouraging its establishment around the selection, reading, and discussion of an elementary book, such as The Communist Manifesto.  Meetings were to be led by a “class director” selected based upon experience "The director calls on one of the students to stand and start reading. After a few paragraphs are read, the director, who by the way, should be a good reader, reads the passage over again carefully and calls on the student to explain what has been read, after which he asks for additional explanation from the class. If the students are a bit slow he should try to get it over to them by questioning before proceeding to cover the points missed.... If the student knows that he will be required not only himself to understand, but to analyze and explain what he has read he will be much more attentive and think harder and that is the prime object of working class education — to add thinking capacity to direct and objectify the workers' resentment toward capitalist society." Keracher continued to hammer home his belief that worker education stood as the fundamental task of the socialist movement: "In the past we have not lacked theoretical basis for our movement, but in the consistent application of theory to practice we have been weak. So weak that the majority of the membership is badly confused as to the purpose of the movement — not to speak of the great army of workers outside. There is only one hope for the situation. THE WORKERS MUST BE TAUGHT. By its ability to master this Socialist knowledge the working class proves its fitness to assume control of society. In the struggle for emancipation, Socialist theory is the guide to correct action. Without it the movement flounders about aimlessly, dissipating funds and energy in fruitless effort."

The "Proletarian's"  first issue hit the street dated May 1918. The debut issue of the new paper laid out the fundamental principles of Keracher's faction in a lead editorial: "We will leave reforms of all kinds to those who think the present social system worth reforming. For our part, the revolutionary watchword, “the abolition of the system,” will be the keynote.  The workers must gain political power in order to get possession of the government. It will then be possible for them to use the institution of the State for its final function — the abolition of all classes by the socialization of the means of wealth production, to the end that the toilers, both intellectual and manual, will reap the full reward of their social labors." In the columns of "The Proletarian" could be found articles by Kohn (signed John O’London) and one by this writer titled “Letter to a Wage Slave.” In addition "The Proletarian" published an official statement by the National Secretary of the Workers’ Socialist Party, Lawrence Beardsley, with its endorsement. At that time, the Workers’ Socialist Party was not in a position to have its own journal.

There were two Kerachers — the pre-Russian Revolution one and the post-Russian Revolution one. Beyond question, the pre-Russian Revolution Keracher was a Marxist. This cannot be said unqualifiedly of his post-Russian Revolution position. The post-Russian Revolution Keracher was a Leninist-Marxist, caught in the dilemma of two “socialisms” — Marxian socialism as a system of society, and Leninist “socialism” as a transitional dictatorship of the proletariat. Yet, when the chips were down, Keracher’s Marxist background interfered with any blind conformity to Soviet dogma. Unlike most of those who were joining the Communist Party at this time, Keracher did not believe in an imminent Communist Revolution in the United States. He also opposed the formation of radical "dual" labor unions and later emerged as an opponent of the Communist Party’s exclusive reliance upon “underground” activity.  Keracher and his group in Michigan (including those associated with the group who lived outside that state) were expelled from the Communist Party charged with “Menshevism,” although Keracher himself continued to strongly support the Bolsheviks in Russia. Keracher and the Proletarian Party never got over its infatuation with the Russian social system and Keracher was still publishing a pamphlet as late as 1946 denying that Russia was an exploitative, class society. Adolph Kohn quipped: “The trouble Keracher is that he tries so hard to be Marxist and Bolshevik at one and the same time.”

 Distinct from the earlier Kerensky Revolution, the Bolsheviks and Lenin spoke the language of Marxism. It issued proclamations, the most stirring being the appeal to socialists in Germany and elsewhere: “We have seized power in our country, take power in yours and come to our aid.” It aroused emotional fervor and inspired the hope for international solidarity for the socialist revolution! Had a genuine socialist movement been predominant in Europe, there might have been a different story to tell. In the absence of a socialist majority, a socialist revolution was impossible, both in Russia and the rest of the world. Certainly the material conditions in Russia were not ripe for socialism in 1917. John Keracher, still the State Secretary of the SPA, also watched what was happening in Russia. As a Marxist, he was aware that circumstances in Russia were not really ripe for Socialism. But what if it could muster support from workers all over the world? Wasn’t there a role that the SPA could play to help? The Proletarian University became enthused with the Leninist doctrine of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and joined in the efforts to organize a communist party in the United States in support of the Bolshevik regime.
Shortly after the Third International was organized, a referendum was initiated in the Socialist Party of America by the supporters of Soviet Russia calling for quitting the Second International and joining the Third International. This referendum was sponsored by three groups: the Left-Wing group, the Foreign Language Federation, and the Michigan group. The referendum was carried by a majority of ten to one. However, the Executive Committee of the SPA vetoed the referendum on the grounds that the result was “fraudulent.” After the veto of the referendum a call was issued for a national conference of t he three groups to formulate a national declaration of principles and to conquer the Socialist Party of America for "revolutionary socialism.” The charter of the SPA–Michigan was the first to be revoked on the grounds that it had amended its constitution to repudiate legislative reforms. The anti-reformist repudiation of "immediate demands." and anti-religious stand of the Michigan SPA inspired by the SPGB caused the charter of the SPA–Michigan to be revoked on the grounds that it had amended its constitution to repudiate legislative reforms and led to them being expelled by the SPA in early 1919. Keracher had indeed persuaded the Michigan SP to change the first clause in its Constitution so that the Party would no longer support reforms of capitalism; and he had also rewritten Clause II, regarding the role of religion in capitalist society,  amending their State constitution as follows: 'Any member, Local, or Branch of a Local, advocating such reforms or support organisations formed for the purpose of advocating such reforms, shall be expelled from the Socialist Party. The State Executive Committee is authorised to revoke the charter of any Local that does not conform to this amendment'. An attitude upon religion identical with that of the SPGB had also been adopted and enforced by the constitution of the following clause: "It shall be the duty of all agitators and organisers, upon all occasions, to avail themselves of the opportunity of explaining religion on the basis of the materialist conception of history as a social phenomenon."

Then in short order, both the Foreign Language Federation and the Left-Wing were expelled. In the ensuing meetings of the three groups, differences between them made it difficult to organize a communist party to represent America in the Third International. The delegates of the Michigan Socialists themselves were in a hopeless minority. Michigan's platform and policy drawn up specially for presentation as the basis of the  new party was superior to that of the Russians, which was adopted. If  the Michigan delegates had kept to their former and fairly clear position long since associated with the 'Proletarian' the chances for a new party here would be brighter. The Michigan group could not fit in with any other group but was tolerated on a technicality. To its credit, it had refused to accept any office or to affirm any responsibility for the programs that were adopted. It was finally settled by orders from the Third International in Moscow, to the exclusion of these factions as groups, who should constitute the Communist Party in the United States. In 1920, the central committee of the Communist Party ordered that the Proletarian University become a party institution under its supervision. The Michigan group refused to accept this decision and chose to leave the Communist Party for good. In June 1920, the Proletarian Party was organized by Keracher and his comrades. Draper describes it as a “small, self-satisfied sect.” Obviously he was no sympathizer. On March 29, 1923, the Executive Committee of the Communist International requested that the PPA liquidate itself and that its members join the WPA. The Proletarian Party answered aggressively in the negative, declaring that it could see no reason for renouncing "sound, constructive, and honorable revolutionary action" in order to be absorbed into the "fetid swamp of sentimentalism" known as the Workers Party. The group similarly declined to participate in the Trade Union Educational League, due to dissatisfaction with the tactics of TUEL which "makes cooperation practically impossible."

As the Proletarian Party grew, local branches emerged in at least 38 U.S. cities. Keracher moved from Detroit to Chicago in the early 1920s, the city where the Proletarian Party was thereafter based. "The Proletarian" was  an anti-Communist Party journal, but supported the Russian Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The Proletarian Party was “more communist than the Communists,” believing that the soviet were the transitional form of the proletarian state! ("The Proletarian", Jan. 1926).  A soviet, though, is merely a council. Applicable to the historic circumstances of developing Russian capitalism though it may be, no evidence is forthcoming that, in highly developed countries like England, U.S. and Germany, such special machinery will be needed to accomplish the proletarian revolution. The Proletarian Party, too, called for "the unfaltering support of the class-conscious workers everywhere” to “the movement of Anti-Imperialism among the backward nations,” because they “fight … the Imperial Capitalist Class.” A travesty on Marxism. The class conscious workers, everywhere, have nothing in common with the nationalistic struggles of backward nations. What lies behind the developing national consciousness of China, India, Nicaragua, Arabia? — the economic interests of different sections of the bourgeoisie. Countries like China, India and the rest, blossomed into capitalist countries. No longer are they merely sources of raw materials and markets for the disposal of commodities. The newly rising bourgeoisie in such backward countries find the ideologic expression of their economic and political needs in movements of nationalism. They are anti-imperialist only whilst being choked by the capitalist imperialism of England, the U.S., and the rest of the great powers. They aim at monopolizing for themselves the natural resources and the opportunities for profit by exploiting the workers of their respective countries.

The Proletarian Party retained its pro-Bolshevik stance while at the same time, maintaining its general stand against reformism as this 1928 quote from Keracher indicates "The Socialist Party [of America] and the Workers Party [Communist Party] are both parties of social reformism. Their election platforms are made up of capitalistic reforms, calculated to catch the votes of the petty bourgeoisie and the capitalistic- minded workers. Although they both claim to have for their object the ultimate establishment of a new social order, their immediate aim is the reforming of the present social system. Their appeals are mainly made to the small property owners and to those workers who desire to improve their lot within the confines of the capitalist system...The Proletarian Party is not a reform party. Its avowed purpose is the abolition of the present social order, the ending of the exploitation of labor by an idle parasitic class. It makes its direct appeal for the support of the workers as propertyless wage-slaves, not as “tax-paying” citizens, nor as charity chasers, seeking  a handout, or dole, from the capitalist state..."
Nor was Keracher a proponent of industrial unionism and explained that "The framework of the new social order requires no building within the old. It is already built — in the form of highly organized, socialized production, which by the way is in no way connected with industrial unionism. The task that presents itself is to abolish the present class ownership. Let us not fritter away our time dreaming about how affairs will be administered in the future social order. Let us rather take up the work of clarifying out movement; let us cast out the dross of legislative reform, and carry to the working class an uncompromising message, rallying them for the first step — the conquest of political power."
The Proletarian Party formally disbanded in 1971.

Appendix

The American secret police apparatus maintained a substantial network of professional agents and undercover spies observing and reporting upon a range of left wing and labour organizations in the early 1920s. This is the report on Keracher.

Warren W. Grimes, Special Assistant to the Attorney General.
DoJ/FBI Investigative Files, July 20, 1921

In 1916 two of the active leaders of the Left Wing movement at Detroit were DENNIS E. BATT and JOHN KERACHER. They considered even the Left Wing too conservative and decided to establish a new organization — which first took the name “Proletarian Club,” later becoming the “Proletarian University,” and after developing taking the name “The Proletarian Party.”By 1920 the Cleveland organization was 250 members. Buffalo was and continues to be one of the most active centers.

John Keracher.
Alias John “Kerr.” Alien (British subject) with first papers here. Born Dundee, Scotland, January 16, 1881. Arrived at New York in 1908 or 1909. Unmarried. First papers about 1915. Fed from Scotland, using the name John Kerr, to avoid payment of debts. (Apelman 8/18/
20).
Operates the “Reliance Shoe House,” 612 Dix Avenue, Detroit, Michigan. Admits being an alien and an active member of the Communist Party. (Apelman 1/9/20).
Arrested on immigrant warrant January 2, 1920 and proceedings cancelled on June 7, 1920. Record of hearing before immigrant inspector on file. Close friend of Isaac Ferguson. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Ferguson ]
Delegate to first convention of the Communist Party of America (though he claims now he disapproved some of its actions and left the convention before its conclusion) and secretary of the Detroit local of the Party. (Kahn 10/31/19).
Secretary of the “Proletarian University” at Detroit and associate editor of The Proletarian — official organ of subject party. Keracher writes most of the articles in the organ.
When examined by the immigrant inspector, Keracher denied not only his membership in the Communist Party but also his belief in the objectionable features of the program. However, the evidence conclusively shows Keracher to have been a member of the national organization
committee, who, with Batt and others, including Alexander Stoklitsky, signed the call for the convention.
Keracher denies even his signature to this call, and the Department of Labor — contrary to the recommendation of its own inspector and in the face of a mass of conclusive evidence — believed Keracher.
Keracher has spoken in many cities on behalf of both the Communist Party (at first) and the Proletarian (later). He says his speeches are on “Socialism.”
His testimony shows him in a brazen disregard for the truth, to have entered the United States without proper inspection, and to have committed fraud upon the immigrant authorities at the time of entry."

Keracher was arrested during the so-called Palmer Raids conducted nationwide on the night of January 2/3, 1920. Although many in the Justice Department continued to believe Keracher was deportable as a resident alien holding political views which ultimately advocated "force and violence," deportation proceedings against Keracher were terminated by the Bureau of Immigration of the Department of Labor in June 1920.

Sources: 
Formation  of the Proletarian Party of America 
Role-modelling Socialist Behaviour, biography of Isaac Rab,  by Karla Doris Rab
The Head-Fixing Industry
Why Unemployment? 
Lenin article by Keracher
The Socialist Party's contemporary critique  of Keracher's anti-parliamentarianism:
Parliament or Soviet reply

Together against the bosses

It is true that socialists are not indifferent to the nature of the capitalist state and must struggle constantly to democratise that state. We count every one against us who is not with us and opposed to the capitalist class, especially those “reformers” of chicken hearts who are for everybody, especially themselves, and against nobody.

In the Independence referendum it would be folly and utterly useless to conduct any kind of a campaign other than a revolutionary socialist one. And that means a campaign the fundamental purpose of which is to teach the necessity of the destruction of the capitalist system and the substitution therefore of a socialist society. Failing that there is no conceivable justification for the participation of our party in this campaign. To distinguish ourselves fundamentally from all reformist groups by carrying on a campaign for socialism is not only theoretically correct but in this case also coincides with the demands of “common sense.” It must be clearly recognised that if we don’t conduct such a campaign there is no use having one at all. The campaign affords us an opportunity to teach thousands and tens of thousands of workers the meaning of socialism. In spite of handicaps socialists are in a position to conduct a revolutionary campaign and thereby increase the prestige and membership of the party. The activities in the Socialist Party must see in this campaign an opportunity to increase our numbers and influence.

Some of the unions have put forward all sorts of dubious ideas dreamed up by various little bands of Trotskyists in a patriotic effort to persuade the working class that Scottish independence would mark a step forward towards its own liberation, a step towards socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. With the conditions that prevail today in this country, the independence of Scotland would not mean a step forward towards socialism. it would be a step backwards. However, this is not obvious to everyone, and warrants some attention. The people who parade the banner of “independence and socialism” around, to catch the attention of Scottish workers, are hard at work perpetuating a number of falsehoods. The referendum is not about independence. If the Yes side wins, Scotland will not be independent. The Scottish capitalists, even the most nationalist among them, never held to the idea of separating from London and Brussels Wall St. The reason is quite simple: it goes against their interests. A “socialist” Scotland will still face the same enemies regardless of whether Scotland is part of the rest of the UK or not. The working class faces a powerful and aggressive enemy which is solidly united despite some contradictions within its ranks. The people are not going to win by dividing themselves. Working class unity is a must right now if effective resistance is to be mounted to the austerity measures imposed by the capitalists. Unity is necessary to stand up against all the attacks on our democratic rights. Those who dress up as socialists in order to push nationalism in the working class are the objective allies of the capitalists.

Supporting independence in the name of the light for socialism is a monumental hoax. It flows from the same kind of logic that leads others to preach the nationalization as the cure for all our ills.  It is up to the working class to show we will not be duped by  political nonsense and deceitful rhetoric.

WORKERS OF ALL LANDS UNITE

A growing number of Scots believe that too many people are entering the UK. In June 2018 found that 38 per cent of respondents believed that immigration levels were too high. In the latest survey carried out by YouGov, 45 per cent of respondents now say that the level of immigration into Britain over the last few years has been too high.

A total of 37 per cent of those polled said they thought the level has been “about right”, with 6% saying they thought the level was too low, whilst 11% said they did not know whether the level was right or not.

Research suggests that 45 per cent of people who voted Yes in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum believe that immigration is too high.

A total of 77 per cent of Leave voters in the Brexit referendum said they thought the level is too high, whilst Conservative voters are most likely to be opposed to more immigration, with 65 per cent stating that view.

The Scottish Government has repeatedly warned that a more restrictive migration system could send Scotland’s recent population growth into reverse, with birth rates north of the Border falling to historic lows. Last week, latest figures revealed Scotland’s population hit 5.44 million. Migration was the main reason for the increase with 20,900 more people coming than leaving, from both overseas and the rest of the UK, over the year to mid-2018. Although Scotland’s population increased by 0.2 per cent over the year, the rate of population growth has slowed for the second year running. This is due to a reduction in overall net migration.

People do worry about the deterioration of their lives and many blame newcomers for the reason. The Socialist Party has never been afraid to take a minority position that is correct merely because it is unpopular with the working class at present. It has never pandered to the prejudices of the working class. Many politicians have indulged in attacks on immigrants over the years as it is necessary for them to have a scapegoat to blame for the ills of the political system that we live under and the immigrant has always served as such a scapegoat. You will not find a Socialist Party member in that number.

We hear it only too frequently; ‘I’m no racist but  I’m in favour of some sort of immigration control. Why give them houses  when we haven’t enough houses for our own people?Why spend money on schooling for them, when the class-sizes are too big for our own children.?’ ‘Why let them use our hospitals when the waiting times are already long enough...’ How often we hear this?

Even some on the Left demand tighter border controls to prevent ‘our jobs’ being stolen by foreigners at a cost to the disadvantaged unemployed.

We know that the politicians who blame the immigrants for the shortages in our society are exactly the same people who are responsible for those shortages. We know that in capitalist society the numbers of people coming into any country will be regulated by the number of jobs available in that country, and we know that overcrowding in that country – bad housing, hospital conditions and the like – are caused not by the numbers of workers in that country but by a system of society which plans its priorities and makes its decisions in the interests of profit and a minority who benefit from that profit. So we know that immigration controls cannot possibly assist the workers already in that country. We also know that immigration controls create all kinds of hardship for workers and their families who want to come here.

As soon as someone says ‘Keep them out’, as soon as he or she talks about ‘Our own people’, they have committed discrimination between one set of workers and another. Our people, cannot be defined by their place of birth, the place where they live, the language they talk or the colour of their skin. Our people are the plundered and the dispossessed all over the world who speak a multitude of languages and have many different coloured skins. The common factor of their exploitation binds them together far closer than the trivial differences of skin colour or language. It is the system of capitalist production that produces unemployment, homelessness, destitution and crumbling health services, not workers, be they 'indigenous' or 'foreign'.

WORLD SOCIALISM

What we say to IndyRef2

 

The SNP is promising a referendum in 2023. What an irrelevant waste of time and energy that would be, but it’s their alibi. As the regional government of Scotland their excuse for not delivering (as capitalism won’t let them) has been that their hands are tied and that their promises can only be able to be honoured after separation. Basically, the SNP is just another reformist party angling for support on a programme of reforms and even styles itself on the Scandinavian social democrats. Should Scottish sovereignty eventually be established the nationalists will discover that they cannot legislate away the problems of capitalism. No country in the world, no matter how independent or rich in resources, has yet succeeded in eliminating poverty, unemployment, insecurity, etc. Separatists and unionists share the complete acceptance of capitalism and hold a blind belief, despite all the evidence, in their ability to tame it. Capitalism's problems are the result of non-social ownership of the means of life in the field of social production: more diversity of government or of ownership cannot alter this fact. Nor can the national identity or location of the legislature have much effect on our standard of living.

Scotland, whether independent or united with England, is divided into classes, as is society elsewhere. It is this division which accounts for the existence of the evils from which the Scottish workers suffer. English rule did not account for the fact that the depopulation of the Scottish Highlands led to the congestion in its industrial slums. The Scottish chieftains themselves turned out their own clansmen in order to make way, first for sheep and later for deer, in order to fill their own pockets. The notorious Duchess of Sutherland, for example, had 15,000 people hunted out in the six years 1814-20, and called in British soldiers to enforce the eviction. The political union merely facilitated the development of capitalist robbery with violence.

Thus the history of Scotland, while differing in detail from that of England, followed the same general course. By their divorce from the soil, a nation of peasant cultivators were converted into wage-slaves, exploited by a class ready to convert the world into one gigantic market. The forces of competition thus let loose may be held in check to some degree by national legislatures, but no final solution for the havoc they create can be found along such lines. The problem is essentially an international one, and must be internationally solved. That, however, calls not for nationalist parties, but for parties in all countries which clearly recognise the common interest of the workers of the world, namely, to achieve their emancipation as a class.

What it all boils down to, is that the SNP just don’t understand the world around them. It is time to reject the notion that there are "Scottish problems” which apply exclusively to Scottish workers and which can be solved by an independent parliament of their own. The Socialist Party echo Robert Burns desire for the day 'That man to man the world o’er shall brothers be for a' that”. This will be a fact when the world's wealth, owned in common, can be utilised for the satisfaction of all mankind. 

The Socialist Party does not want nor care about Scottish independence (any more than we care or support a “United Kingdom” or an “independent Britain” during Brexit) so it’s not our business to advise those who really want this how to best go about getting it. But we do want world socialism and do know that the way to further this cause is to advocate it and it alone and not seek support on any ‘minimum’ programme of reforms. That way, support for a socialist political party will be support for socialism and not for something less. When a majority for this has evolved, socialists would have no fear of a referendum on the single question of “Capitalism or Socialism?”  

The Socialist Party’s aim is to abolish masters of every nationality and to organise the production of wealth for their common good.

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.

The Bosses Game

In all capitalist societies, a tiny class of people owns the means of production and profits by exploiting the workers’ labour. United, the overwhelming tendency of the working class would be to fight for a decent life for all, which is incompatible with capitalism. Powerful united struggles of the working class would inevitably demonstrate the need to overthrow capitalism altogether. If a party does not want to abolish capitalist exploitation, it can only serve capitalism. Since the working class is the only class with the power to overturn capitalism, the capitalists use every possible divide-and-conquer tactic to prevent this development. Racism and nationalism has been major tools of the ruling class. Capitalism is the source of national oppression and only socialist revolution can put an end to this oppression and to all forms of oppression.  The Scottish  ‘nation’ is by no means homogeneous. It is made up of classes. The present referendum rivalry between the sections of the ruling class does nothing but divide working people and turn them away from their objective, the socialist revolution. As masters of production and of the economy, the bosses control the state and the mass media. All the big newspapers, radio and television defend the outlook of those who invest in them, and they try to turn the people away from the true problems. For there is more to be done than merely reducing the gas or electric bill of Scottish homes.

Left nationalists pretend to be revolutionaries. There are no shortcuts to the socialist revolution, and those who enter the nationalist paths divert the coming of a socialist movement by chasing illusions. They want to rally the working class behind the nationalist cause. But nationalism disarms the workers. Shall we fight only to have a Scots-born bosses instead of English one? Shall we unite with these small Scottish homeland  exploiters in order to defend “their” nation against the bad, bad English? That is pure folly.  Nationalism is a vain attempt to rally the working class behind the cause of our home-grown capitalists seeking a better place in the sun. Nationalism does not oppose capitalism. The social revolution is an immense task and Left nationalists are intent upon making it more difficult. Independence (now) and socialism (oh, we’ll see, perhaps sometime later...). The socialist revolution is clearly not a task on the Left nationalists’ agenda. No one is going to hand workers socialism on a silver platter...least of all nationalists.

All of us to get rid of capitalism we need to unite in a single organisation. What’s the result of the referendum? Give the bosses the chance they never miss;  turn us against each other, all the better to rake in the PROFITS. We need unity and nationalism leads us into isolation.

 Nationalism is used to divide the workers among themselves so they can ignore their real enemy. The working men and women of the world have but on common enemy — the capitalist class of the world. It is better to be a traitor to your country than a traitor to your class! The history of Scotland is full of heinous acts whose only purpose was to increase the power of a handful of capitalists. In contrast to the Scots Nats and Left Nationalists, the Socialist Party says that workers all across Scotland can be united against their common enemy; that a real party of the working class can be built to  build a new system for workers – socialism.

Socialism is not a complicated doctrine.

The capitalists are using the present economic crisis to increase their power of exploitation and oppression. At this crucial moment we must struggle for the abolition of capitalism. With the present crisis, a growing number of workers are realizing that the capitalist system has nothing to offer them. While their living and working conditions get worse, a handful of rich men are raking in billions in profits. Workers are looking for a solution, and the Socialist Party offers an alternative: socialism, a system where exploitation  is abolished.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain differs from other political parties in  that it wants to completely change society’s economical organisation for the social emancipation of the working class. The main reason for the imperfections of to-day’s society, is the capitalistic way of production.  The Socialist Party seeks  the political organisation of the working class so that it may take possession of the public power and  transform to common property all the means of production — the means of transportation, the forests, the mines, the mills, the machines, the factories, the earth. The interests of the working class are the same in every country with capitalist way of production. The working class stands alone in the struggle for its emancipation.

We live in a world dominated by capitalism. The only viable way forward is to achieve a classless and stateless society on a world scale where people do not oppress and exploit each other.

We  make it quite clear as to our exact aim and object. We are socialists, and by socialism we mean, the common ownership of all the agencies of wealth production, and this involves the complete supercession of the capitalist system.  Socialism proclaims that no change beneficial to the workers of the shop floor, the fields or the offices can be carried out as long as the political and administrative leadership  are monopolised by the capitalist class, and as long as the producers, organized in a class party, have not taken control of public powers. Socialism maintains that there is only one solution: it’s that all the centralized labor instruments, such as the railroads, factories, textile works, mines, large farming properties, be given over to the associated workers, who will operate them not for the profit of a few capitalists. Capitalism has only known how to cause humanity war and misery; socialism will establish peace and happiness for mankind.

Feasible socialism

There is no effective world socialist movement in the foreseeable future despite our own aspirations in the World Socialist Movement and therefore there is little hope of salvation for humanity. We advocate a decision-making process that must be resolutely democratised by interlocking networks of the councils and communes on a local, regional and world scale. We understand the utopian and unrealisable character of the idea of building of socialism in one country and understand the integrated worldwide character of economics, politics, and social contradictions in our epoch. We maintain that the class struggle is the motor of human history. The aim of socialism is to achieve total control over social forces which humanity itself has generated. Socialism, according to Marx, involves the creation of a society in which “socialised humanity, the associated producers, regulate their interchange with nature rationally, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power”. Private and state property has to be transformed into social property by reorganising social life as a whole so that the producers have a real say not only in the production of social wealth but also its disposal. Humanity can never attain real freedom until a society has been built where no person has the freedom to exploit another person. The all-round development of the individual and the creation of opportunities for every person to express his or her talents to the full can only find ultimate expression in a society which dedicates itself to people rather than profit. Mankind’s resources will never be used for the good of humanity until they are in common ownership and under democratic control.

Let us describe workers, self-management and what possibly its main mechanisms and institutions could function. Let us assume for the sake of simplicity a global workers’ councils would determine the needs and how it should be divided starting from possibilities previously debated by all in the process of electing delegates for that congress. The choices and the main foreseeable consequences of each option –would be clearly spelt out: average workload (length of the working week); priority needs to be satisfied for all through guaranteed allocation of resources (‘free’ distribution); volume of resources devoted to future ‘growth’ (reserve stocks) The global framework of the economic plan would thereby be established on the basis of conscious choices by a majority of those affected by it. Starting from these choices, a coherent general plan would then be drawn up, utilising input-output tables and material balances, indicating the resources available for each separate branch of production (industrial sectors, transportation, agriculture and distribution) and social life (education, health, communications, etc). The congress would not go beyond these general instructions and would not lay out specifications for each branch or production unit or region. Self-managing bodies – for example, congresses of workers’ councils in the shoe, food, electronic equipment, steel or energy industries – would then divide up the work-load flowing from the general plan among the existing producer units and/or project the creation of additional producing units for the next period, if the implementation of output goals made that necessary under the given work-load. They would work out the technological average (gradually leading up to the technical optimum on the basis of existing knowledge) – that is, the average productivity of labour, or average ‘production costs’ – of the goods to be produced, but without suppressing the least productive units as long as total output elsewhere does not cover total needs, and as long as new jobs for the producers concerned are not guaranteed in conditions considered satisfactory by them.

In production units making equipment, the technical coefficients flowing from the previous steps would largely determine the product mix. In factories manufacturing consumer goods, the product mix would flow from a previous consultation between the workers’ councils and consumers’ conferences democratically elected by the mass of the citizens. Various models – for example, different fashions in shoes – would be submitted to them, which the consumers could test and criticise and replace by others. Showrooms and publicity sheets would be the main instruments of that testing. The latter could play the role of a ‘referendum’ – consumer research, having the right to receive six pairs of footwear a year, would cross six samples in a sheet containing a hundred or two hundred options. The model mix would then be determined by the outcome of such a referendum, with post-production corrective mechanisms reflecting subsequent consumer criticisms. Compared with the market mechanism, the great advantage of such a system would be the far greater consumer influence on the product mix and the suppression of over-production – the balancing out of consumer preference and actual production essentially occurring before production and not after sales, with a buffer stock of social reserves additionally produced – empirically (statistically) optimized after a few years. Factory workers’ councils would then be free to translate these branch decisions at the level of the producing unit as they liked – organising the production and labour process to realise all the economy of labour-times they could achieve. If they could reach the output target by working twenty instead of thirty hours a week after submitting their goods to a quality test, they would enjoy a reduction in work-load without any reduction of social consumption. It should be stressed at the outset that democratic self-management does not mean that everybody decides about everything. If one was to assume that, the conclusion would be obvious: socialism is not possible. Four billion human beings could not find the life-span to settle even the tiniest fraction of each other’s affairs, in that sense. But it is not necessary. Certain decisions can be best taken at work-shop level, others at the factory level, others again at neighbourhood, local, regional, national, continental and finally at world level. Decisions could – and should – be taken on a world scale.  Three spheres immediately present themselves. The first would be all those decisions necessitating a global redistribution of human and material resources to ensure the rapid disappearance of the social and cultural ills of underdevelopment – hunger, infant mortality, disease and illiteracy in the developing world. The second would cover priority allocation of genuinely scarce natural resources – those which could be depleted absolutely, and of which no minority of the human race has the right to dispossess the next generations; only the living population of the world in its totality has the right to decide here. The third would include everything affecting the natural environment and climate of the planet as a whole; all those processes which can pollute or disrupt oceans, poles or atmosphere, or destroy such world-wide bases of ecological balance as the Amazon Forest.

From these global determinations would flow constraints on regional or local resources available for planning and need-satisfaction, which would themselves be decided in each region or district. Thus, for example, once the total tonnage of steel that could be used in North America, Europe or Asia was set, the producers and consumers of these areas would be free to allocate it as they decided. If in spite of every environmental argument, they wanted to maintain the dominance of the private motor car and to continue polluting their cities, that would be their right. Changes in long-standing consumer orientations are generally slow – there can be few who believe that workers in the United States would abandon their attachment to the automobile the day after a socialist revolution. The notion of forcing people to change their consumption habits is far worse than that of another few decades of smog in Los Angeles. The emancipation of the working class – today, contrary to every received notion, for the first time in history the absolute majority of the earth’s population – can only be achieved by the workers themselves, as they are: not people out of another world, but human beings with their weaknesses like all of us.

Such an allocation of resources, of democratic planning and self-management, would be much more efficient than either a capitalist market economy or a state- capitalist command economy. For it would have a powerful built-in self-correcting mechanism, which both of the existing alternatives lack. We do not believe that the ‘majority is always right’, any more than we believe that the Pope is infallible. Everybody does make mistakes. This will certainly also be true of the majority of the citizens, of the majority of the producers, and of the majority of the consumers alike. But there will be one basic difference between them and their predecessors. In any system of unequal power – be it economic inequality, political monopoly or a combination of the two – those who make the wrong decisions about the allocation of resources are rarely those who pay the price for the consequences of their mistakes, and never those who pay the heaviest price. We witnessed that with the Great Recession of 2007 when the CEOs of the corporations were reduced to the unemployment lines. It was the workers who they laid off, and their communities, which suffered although they are completely innocent of the cause of the financial crisis. Likewise, members of Congress did not pay the price for their error in repealing banking regulations.

Provided there exist real democracy, real choice and information, it is hard to believe that the majority of people  would then prefer to see their forests die, their housing stock dwindling, or their hospitals understaffed, rather than rapidly to correct their mistaken allocation. Nor will there be uniformity. People will receive the equipment and tools to produce whatever they wanted for their own satisfaction or that of their families, friends or neighbours, in their leisure-time to put their imagination to work. The scope for practical do-it-yourself initiatives will be enormously enlarged.

Shall we remain chained to “market laws” or do we seize the potential to shape its own destiny. Do we break our shackles or do we allow self-emancipation for all to be forever an unfulfilled dream?