Housing Insecurity In Ontario.

When rents on two condo buildings in downtown Toronto doubled from $1,650 a month to $3,300, Ontario. Premier Kathleen Wynne was forced to take a stand. There is rent control on properties built before 1991; the trouble is these were built after. Wynne put a $31 cap on monthly increases on all rental buildings, but to those who had already received notices of rent increments.

Wynne and Housing Minister Chris Ballard also announced that $11.2 billion would be funded over eleven years to housing. This includes $3.2 billion for affordable housing initiatives and repairs to existing housing. There is also $2.1 billion for the Homeless Partnering Strategy, a program that aims to reduce homelessness. The funding doubles the present commitment and extends it from 2019 to 2022. A total of $5 billion will go toward a National Housing Fund which will help finance direct lending for new rental housing.

As impressive as all this may seem, it only concerns rental property, but for those who want to buy it's a different nightmare, especially in Toronto, which has seen double-digit percentage increases in the past year. The average home price there is $916,000 and $1.6 million is the average price of a detached house.

One can imagine the fear of not making rent or mortgage payments this will, and has, caused. Better a society without rent or mortgages. 

Steve and John.

Scottish nationalism looks much like any other nationalism

The World Socialist Movement was created in recognition of the fact that the world was not a patchwork quilt isolated national states, but a chain of interlinked nations in which events in a single country could have worldwide consequences. The capitalist class has faced up to the historical obsolescence of the nation-state by, for example, forming international trading blocs and global alliances. From an opposite class standpoint, socialists also strive to overcome national barriers as we strive towards our ultimate goal of a new world based on international socialist cooperation. We rightly reject any political ideology which preaches solidarity on the basis of race, language, culture or geography as incompatible with socialism and instead promote solidarity on the basis of class, irrespective of nationality, religion or ethnic origin. For socialists the objective is the unity of the working class across nations.  If it is not united, by definition it cannot act on behalf of its interests as a whole.  National divisions often prevent this unity. 

 For the Socialist Party, the struggle for national sovereignty can never be elevated over and above the struggle for socialism. While there has been a heightening of Scottish nationalism and a growth in support for independence, the Socialist Party has been prepared to swim against the tide of popular sentiment, declaring support for Scottish independence is essentially backward, an isolationist or xenophobic development, and it is incumbent upon us to stand against it. If the Socialist Party were to abandon the principles of class struggle, internationalism and workers' unity in favour of independence, that would amount to political surrender to the ideas of nationalism. We have, to be honest at all times and explain that it is not possible to build and sustain an oasis of socialism in the middle of a worldwide capitalist desert. Even the most industrially advanced countries in the world would be unable to survive as isolated outposts of socialism, shut off in permanent. quarantine from the rest of the world.  is vital, therefore, that the socialist movement avoids any appearance of timidity or confusion on the question of independence: our slogans and policies have to be clear, unambiguous and powerful.

Of all the nations to achieve ‘independence’ how many of the workers in these countries have had their basic needs and interests resolved by the ‘independence’ of the countries they live in? The interests of the working class, however, lie in an international unity of the class irrespective of nationality.  While those who wish to reform capitalism seek to get their hands on governmental office through operating the levers of the capitalist state, and sometimes see opportunities to achieve this more easily by making the state smaller – by having a separate Scottish state for example – this is not socialism. Solutions to unemployment and poverty; to insecurity and stress; to ignorance and powerlessness cannot be found in any nationalist programme, either left or right. They arise from the nature of the economic system not the nationality of the politicians and employers who preside over it. Class grievances are portrayed as those of a people, of Scots against ‘London’. Through nationalism, the class exploitation of workers either disappears or is rendered secondary to the more immediate demand for national ‘freedom’. At a certain stage, the true class character of nationalism becomes clearer when the new nation trumpets its cause as competitiveness with other nations in the battlefields of lower wages, lower business taxes, and willing workers.

The bigger sections of the capitalist class support the UK state, and also the European Union, because it provides the widest area within which they can advance their interests of accumulating capital with minimum obstacles to this process. While capitalism needs the state to defend its interests, and small capital might favour small capitalist states because they appear to better fit its narrower horizon (represented politically for example by the SNP or UKIP), it also seeks to internationalise its activities and have international state bodies that can support it in a way that a small nation state is less able to do. The SNP positioned themselves as the party of national interest.

The Socialist Party accepts the UK state because it is the widest area within which the working class can currently organise relatively freely without the divisions caused by national borders and the attendant nationalist politics and ideology which divides it and its organisations. Nationalism, no matter how left it is, always confuses action by the state for socialism, so it calls upon the state to redistribute wealth and take control of resources ‘for the people’, whereas socialism calls upon workers to take ownership of production itself and build the power of its own organisations so that one day these can replace the state.  Internationalism is not the solidarity of one progressive state with another but is the international action of workers – from organising in parties and unions internationally across borders, not favouring the population within certain lines on a map. Nationalism acts as a permanent brake on the aspirations of the working class. Independence will not advance the cause of socialism.

The Left-nationalists justify their support of the SNP as some way similar to the capitalist state being ‘smashed’ (the usual term used), but setting up two capitalist states where one previously existed is clearly something entirely different. It is not even that smashing the capitalist state is the primary goal of socialists.  What socialists want is not to replace one state with another, even a workers’ one.  What socialists want is a society where the state withers away and all the functions that are carried out by the State are carried out by society itself through mechanisms of workers’ and popular self-organisation.

The Socialist Party holds no interest in any nationalism and certainly not in the preservation of the Britain Ltd or the creation of Scotland Plc.

Why the Socialist Party?

Throughout history, the rich always looked down on the poor and denigrate their so-called inferiors as a way to justify their own privilege. They found all kinds of ways to distinguish themselves from everyone else to ensure they got preferential treatment and respect. They were either intellectually or morally superior from the rest of society, and so they deserve their higher status. Those who were poor, those who were of the wrong race or nationality, were considered morally reprehensible, if not outright criminal. High society saw their social inferiors as a potential menace, to be kept in check, and the wealthy had law and order on their side to keep themselves in power. But those who were truly criminal and deplorable were the rich elite in society who abused and exploited the poor. Never before has the capitalists provided such favourable conditions for the spread of industrial education, organization and agitation.

We in the Socialist Party hold the interpretation of society which can help the people to crystallise their many scattered isolated acts of rebellion into coordinated political action for radical change. The thinking of the workers’ movement is searching for answers. We must focus on the special contribution we can make – education about why our society is in crisis, what can be done to solve it and a vision for the future. Our organisation must be a place where both our members and the movement can learn what they need to explain, persuade and prove to the people the dangers and possibilities of the situation today. With this knowledge and understanding, the Socialist Party can participate in political activities in a way that elevates the consciousness of those around them. Ideas are our main weapons in the fight for the hearts and minds of the people. Together, education and agitation, are a mighty weapon in the Socialist Party’s revolutionary arsenal. How else can thesocialist message and the lessons of struggles waged by working people be propagated worldwides? How else can class struggle be waged in the crucial arena of public opinion against the ruling class–whose ideas also are the ruling ideas in society and who spend millions and millions yearly to produce a deluge of their own indoctrination spreading confusion?

 Our Party’s journals pamphlets and websites contain important articles which present an overall picture of our society and indicate the need for a political revolution to overthrow the present order and establish socialism. Fundamentally what is hidden and covered up by capitalism are the basic laws and class character of the contradictions in society which the Socialist Party strives to expose. Our task is to lay bare the truth about today’s economic system and its exploitation. Communists have always disdained to conceal our views. It requires a clear-cut stand. Our agitation must aim to hone, sharpen and intensify basic class anger at the injustices of today’s capitalist system.

The Socialist Party is composed of men and women organised to assist the working-class movement by a dissemination of its literature, to educate the working-class Irish in the knowledge of socialist principles and to prepare them to co-operate with the workers of all other colours and nationalities in the emancipation of labour. Such is our aim. Our method is political organisation at the ballot box to secure the election of representatives of socialist principles to all the elective governing public bodies to establish the principle of common ownership. The socialist revolution will not be accomplished by the action of a minority, but by the will of the immense majority of the citizens. Whoever depends on physical force to bring about the revolution rather than of winning over the immense majority of the citizens to our ideas, gives up on any possibility of transforming the social order. Socialist education is vital in nourishing the seeds of the future in the movement of today.

Better our cuts than their cuts

The fakery of social democracy is that first, it is still democracy for the capitalist class, not the working class and that it is hidden behind nationalist ideology to do the will of the capitalist class. The Labour Party has a long history of betrayal of workers in supporting BOTH world wars and supporting the wars for oil in the Middle East. Their main goal to stave off a socialist revolution by filling the worker's minds with reformist notions.

A “social democracy” under the Labour Party will be nothing more than "reformed" capitalism -- the very system that has oppressed and exploited the working class for several hundred years, all smoke and mirrors that protects and benefits the capitalist ruling elites while throwing just enough socialised benefits to the working class to keep them docile and subservient to their capitalist masters. The very idea of being able to reform capitalism to be more humane is absolutely ludicrous.

• Capitalism serves and protects capital.
• Socialism serves and protects society.

There is no common ground. Capitalism and (real) socialism are extreme opposites. As such, they cannot co-exist.
The Socialist Party will expend its resources and energy on supporting and working towards real socialism -- not reforms to capitalism that are here today and gone tomorrow at the will of our capitalist overlords.

“The basic law of capitalism is you or I, not you and I.”  - Karl Liebknecht

Trade Deficit Surprise!

Just look at the headings in the Business section in the Toronto Star of April 5, ''Banking boss talks housing crises, ''Downsizing is packed with plenty of barriers,'' Collapse of car demand in US jeopardizes auto factory drive'', ''Canada posts surprise trade deficit'', "Province continues to deal with debt load.'' Ralph Lauren to close flagship store, cut jobs." 

Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? Maybe, but not just Denmark.

Steve and John.

Warfare And Welfare.

 I sometimes, shamefacedly enter the premises of crowd that 'ain't exactly famous for tolerance,' the Legion. My excuse, however weak, is to participate in karaoke. 

A member of it, which I am not, gave me a leaflet headed,''Advocating for Life-Long Financial Security for Canada's Ill and Injured Veterans. The 4-page document can be summed up by, ''We vets have done our bit for our country and now it proverbially urinates on us.'' It lists various demands; a typical one being, ''Increase The Earnings Loss Benefit (ELB) to provide 100% of pre-release income and provide ELB for life (not terminated at 65, as is currently the case). The projected earnings of a Canadian Forces member should determine the minimum ELB.'' Even Vets who don't suffer from PTSD are adversely affected in other ways. 

So even if one isn't politically opposed to any, or all, wars, it just isn't worth fighting. 

Steve and John.

The delusion of independence

Nationalist intoxication won’t be able to mask the reality of class antagonisms forever. Workers need to rebuild their class strength in order to oppose the ruling class, regardless of nationality, language or ethnicity. Scottish independence would result in the creation of another minor capitalist nation and no matter what the SNP promise there will be no return to a golden age welfare state Nordic capitalism.  Left-nationalists are promoting the agenda of Scottish capitalism. Rather than painting rosy pictures of an independent capitalist Scotland. The Socialist Party irreconcilably opposes it. We give no support whatsoever to nationalism, whether it be the great power chauvinism of the oppressor countries or the nationalism of the oppressed.  We oppose Scottish nationalism and warn against illusions that an independent capitalist Scotland will shelter working people from the cuts of capitalist austerity, or that it will provide an opt-out from capitalism's wars. The nationalists’ ability to portray independence as progressive depends above all on the myriad fake-socialists, such as the Scottish Socialist Party or the Radical Independence Campaign and individuals such as Tommy Sheridan and Colin Fox. In opposition to all forms of nationalism, the Socialist Party calls on fellow-workers to join it in a world movement for the abolition of capitalism.

Socialism by definition is international and there is no such thing as socialism in one country – so why create new capitalist states to make the process of breaking out of nation states more difficult? The Socialist Party has no allegiance to any capitalist state formation and wouldn’t shed any tears if a UK state was replaced by a European one that made the political and organisational unity of British, Irish, German, French and Polish workers etc. easier. The strength of the working class internationally is primarily a function of the united organisation and political consciousness of the working class itself.  On both counts Scottish nationalism weakens it and both organisationally and ideologically weakens the internationalism on which working class politics must be built. Just as the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend so it is that the political position of the enemy does not require us to take up an equal and opposite position. 

Scottish nationalism represents an attempt not so much to turn its back on Empire as to give a layer of the capitalists direct access to the fruits of state activity, its taxation and expenditure.  To the working class the SNP promises fairness while to big business it promises a lower rate of corporation tax.  It doesn’t particularly matter what this rate is as long as it’s lower than that set in London; as the Tories lower it the SNP say lower still. The role of the Socialist Party is to warn workers about the futility of national separation. Its role is to draw out the class nature of working class exploitation and warn that nationalism has no solution to these. It would warn that a new capitalist state will not address working class needs, will not empower it but will be set up to enforce the power of the native capitalist class. The SNP does not challenge business because their whole case is that an independent Scotland would benefit it Scottish nationalists are not anti-business, nor anti-capitalist.  They are pro-capitalist and the capitalists who support the SNP and independence are generally small sized and there is nothing more progressive about small business with its more parochial political outlook and big business with its more global concerns. The last thing the SNP want are threats to business in its campaign for a business-friendly Scotland. Independence would offer no way out under capitalism and would only serve to foster divisions in the working class.  On the basis of continued capitalism in Scotland and the rest of Britain, Scottish and English workers would be placed in direct competition. This is especially true if we consider SNP plans for a more “business friendly” environment, with lower corporation tax and other incentives, in an attempt to encourage businesses to relocate from England to Scotland. The whole approach would be to drive down costs, i.e., wage to become more competitive. They would encourage a race to the bottom and pit worker against worker. Such competition between Scottish and UK businesses would result in a driving down of wages on both sides of the border. Historically the way Scotland was able to compete by exporting was to lower wages, which retarded the development of the domestic Scottish market and made the economy highly vulnerable to falls in international demand. A loss of jobs or fall in wages would also be used by the British ruling class to stoke up resentment south of the border, and vice versa.

Rather than seeking a new capitalist state as the answer, instead of falling in behind any variety of nationalism working people should set out to advance and develop their own power so that one day it is their own independent power that becomes the alternative to build socialism. Rosa Luxemburg pointed out in the early years of the 20th century, the idea of an abstract ‘right’ to national self-determination has nothing to do with socialism, because it obscures the reality that every nation is divided up into antagonistic social classes. The workers' sole future lies in the international class struggle not only across nation states but for their revolutionary destruction.  We need the unity of a British and world working class armed with a revolutionary ideas fighting fighting for sociaism.

Brexit and real sovereignty

The Brexit question that was framed in the referendum as having supreme importance (‘a once in a generation chance to set the future course of the country’) was yet again a debate about which particular version or configuration of capitalism should be selected. In this case, the specific question of whether a trans-national system of capitalism or a more traditional national organisation of capitalism, should be chosen. Only when we collectively realize that what are presented as contentious issues such as immigration, taxation, etc. are not the real defining issues of our lives, can we plan a much better society. It's only when workers across the world discard all notions that countries and national identities are a central part of the political landscape that real changes can be made to all our lives.

Capitalism cannot be reformed. If any capitalist reforms have some slight advantage to the working class it is merely an incidental by-product of a measure designed to strengthen and maintain capitalism. The advantages to the capitalist class far outweigh any to the working class. Go and read up what socialism is before you attribute it to any other capitalist experiments. Low wages or higher wages are not a solution. It is in the very existence of waged slavery at the point of production where all exploitation takes place. Governments are merely the puppets of the parasite capitalist class.

Socialists have always wanted working people to ‘take control’ of their collective destiny. That’s what socialism is all about. This is not possible under capitalism because it is a system governed by uncontrollable economic laws which impose themselves on people whatever they want or decide.

The only way to take control (‘back’ is out of place since the majority class of wage and salary workers has never had any control) is to take control of the places where we work and where wealth is produced and run them for the benefit of all. We need to abolish the wages system and establish a priceless commonly owned society with production for use. The politicians are powerless to do anything other than attempt to manage us in the interests of the global parasite class. All government is over us.

Credit Suisse have produced their Global Wealth Report for 2016. It notes, for instance, that 'the 33 million millionaires comprise less than 1% of the adult population, but own 46% of household wealth.' There's lots more data there.
https://www.credit-suisse.com/us/en/about-us/research/research-institute/publications.html

All wealth comes from the world's working class. The capitalist class, liberals or neo-cons, are an economic parasite class. That class is easily removable when the workers of the world aspire to a free access, democratically controlled, commonly owned world where production is for the use of everyone to satisfy all human needs, where the organising principle is, "From each according to their ability to each according to their needs".

Resisting change may indeed be a good and appropriate option for unions at a particular junction. The parasite capitalist class can run away with the loot they have amassed from the exploitation of workers, at or below the market rate. Unions can sabotage this 'quick getaway' of the industrialist to get some settlement for the workers who will be thrown onto the scrapheap. They are not the cause of any meltdown as all unions know the market rate sometimes above in good times or below in downturns is the best they can do.

The parasitic economic class income is in the millions or billions from exploiting their ownership of the means of production and distribution. In any case trade unions are a part of capitalism and its wage bargaining and nothing to do with a free access socialist society.

It is not a moral question of who are saints or sinners. Workers have no choice upon where raw materials or coffee beans or their shoes come from. It is a question of class interest. They do indeed have more in common with those overseas workers being exploited than with their home grown employers and require ot make common cause with them, to overthrow capitalism and to usher in the post-capitalist society, to end all waged slavery, whether highly or lowly paid.

The supply of cheaply consumer commodities from abroad are intrinsically linked into depressing wages here. The wage is only so much food, clothing, shelter, etc. so cheap produce, built upon waged slavery overseas is incorporated into reducing wage costs here also. Hence wages here have been successfully depressed for many years. The capitalist class can only exist through extracting surplus value from the waged working class. It is irrelevant how highly or lowly paid the worker is. All is economically relative. Nor is it a question of being envious. A much bigger and essentially global question.

It is one of ending a system of ruthless exploitation of human beings and natural resources though intense competition for the benefit of a minority parasitic class in whose interests all governments govern over us, all wars are fought for them, 'business by other means' over trade routes, raw materials and spheres of geopolitical interests even to extent of war science upon hapless civilian populations at Nagasaki and Hiroshima by the 'good guys' and all profit accrues to.

Crocodile tears for workers sufficiently distant in Africa and elsewhere, blind you to the causes of their immiseration both there and here, war by deed or proxy and poverty both absolute and relative, twin concomitants of the system you support and will have you sleep walk into the next world conflagration.

It is at the point of production you exploited your workers and creamed off surplus value. The future of your workers is not your concern, but the profit of yourself is. You may have had sleepless nights wondering how many to get rid off, to maintain your profitability, but I don't think any capitalist goes into business motivated by a desire to create a stable future for a labour force. Codswallop and bollocks to that notion. Capital accumulation is the raison d' ệtre of all capitalists.

Most capitalist revolutions have indeed been minority led ones. In the move from feudalism to capitalism the state often was used in this way forcing state capitalist development in emerging capitalist economies which were trying to leapfrog into the advanced stages of capitalist development in the absence of a large enough domestic capitalist class or sufficient capital is to industry, employing Taylorism etc.

Capital develops unevenly through concentration and centralization. And for that matter capital is still going on accumulating globally whereby one capital kills many giving rise to gigantic conglomerates. Accumulation is going through destruction and annihilation. This is reactionary. This is decadence

Productive forces have developed to the stage of both actual and potential abundance for all. But the working class consciousness and organization have remained subdued under the domination of capitalist ideas and interests – constantly and crushingly campaigned by all pervading 'right', 'left', or 'centre' chronicles and ideologies.

Now capitalism has developed the means and an educated workforce to run things, as they do now from top to bottom, we can proceed to the post-capitalist era.

We are speaking of the immense majority being self-led and using democratic means, the end of governments over people and utilisation of this political awareness to have the people themselves administer over things utilising recallable delegates when necessary. You have to make a leap from considering how things are done today, with standing armies and competing local, regional and global interests allied with anarchic production for sale market allocation for the benefit of 1-5% minority privileged owning groups with the majority in waged enslaved conditions of rationed access to the wealth they collectively produce, into commonly owned production for use cooperative global regional and local endeavours with free access and the situation is resolved into cooperative allocations and sharing of raw materials as opposed to warring competition.
The material productive forces of society have come into conflict with the existing relations of production. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations have turned into their fetters or, in other words, the productive forces have outgrown the production relation.

But nothing will stop an idea which time has come. A world without the twin concomitants of capitalism, war by deed or proxy and poverty absolute or relative, will provide its own challenges when we get there.

Wee Matt

Who are you voting for ?

Class not nation

FOR WORLD SOCIALISM

Capitalism is constructed on national lines: nation states, national languages, national education systems and national laws. We have national parliaments and therefore national political parties, national industries and therefore national unions. We are taught about our shared “national” culture and encouraged to embrace “national identity”. We support “our” country, “our” military, “our” national sporting teams. National boundaries are the product of the rise of capitalism, with its need to develop national markets and industry. Each nation was unified with a capital city, a central government authority, a single currency, a single border, and a single army.The problem with nationalism, however, is that it has the corrosive effect of undermining class solidarity and helping to bind us more closely to our own ruling class. Marx and Engels recognised that the working class is “itself national”. But they urged that “working men have no country” and must settle their affairs with their own capitalists. Our fight must be with our own rulers; and to the extent that we wrap ourselves in the same flag as them, we can never be free. Workers have an interest in adopting this spirit, rather than succumbing to nationalist arguments. Nationalism has always been deeply reactionary, racist and imperialist, and there is nothing about it that we should seek to defend.

Capitalism is based on competition – between capitalists in pursuit of profits, between workers as we compete for jobs, university places and so on, and between the states seeking to extend the reach and power of the “national” capitalist class. Workers around the world today more than ever share similar conditions of life: tempos of work, patterns of consumption, forms of recreation and so on, increasingly cut across the old national barriers. Class struggles between workers and bosses in one country often propel and combine with struggles in other countries. if we want to overcome the real divisions between rich and poor, we also need to break down the invented divisions between peoples across the globe. We need to raise Marx and Engels’ call to arms: “Workers of all countries unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!”

  Both Scottish and British forms of nationalism are reactionary but the overt anti-immigrant xenophobia stoked by UKIP makes the latter doubly so. With most people worse off than they were in terms of jobs, real wages, and access to health and education services, and yet still accepting a capitalist framework, they will understandably focus their anger on scapegoats and vulnerable targets. Asians and other migrants end up being blamed for health waiting lists, deteriorating education services, lack of housing and so on. Immigration controls are racist, anti-working class measures. They are designed to keep workers divided along national lines and to identify with their own capitalists against foreigners. Immigration controls, by discriminating over who can and cannot work and live in this country, legitimise discrimination against migrants once they are here. Marx used to argue that until British workers learned to solidarise with Irish republicans against the British ruling class, they would never develop the political consciousness necessary to take on that ruling class. British workers would remain tied to their own rulers’ apron-strings on the key political questions. For exactly the same reasons, open borders is a key demand to be fought for by people serious about social change. Workers and leftists who side with nationalism against people from other countries are basically lining up with their own exploiters; they will never be able to mount a serious challenge to the ruling class until they break with them on the question of nationalism and all the issues. In defending immigrants we can make no distinction between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ immigrants. The ‘illegals’ are, indeed, the people in the worst position and most desperately in need of support. There should be no restrictions on entry and work in this country, and full rights should be accorded to all, whether born here or migrant. Defending migrants means declaring war on all immigration controls and on nationalism which has been as much a staple part of the diet of the left-wing as it has of the traditional right in this country. Workers across the world have many things in common. We need to organise together, to help each other .

Nationalism is a ruse to lure workers into supporting the rights of business to make profits at their expense. The ruling class is prepared to allow a certain level of democracy, such as the right to vote and some political freedoms, as long as their right to make profits is not restricted in any way. Universal suffrage has never been a threat to profit-making because big corporations control all the key sectors of the economy, including the media, and they fund the political parties so that they are conducive to policies that make ever larger profits. The increasing nationalism and the rise of right-wing racist groups play on people’s fears about the lack of jobs, affordable housing and diminishing access to public services. They also reflect peoples feelings of powerlessness and anger at the rising cost of living. Nationalism cannot resolve the root causes of the economic and social problems faced by working class people. The capitalist system operates to enrich a tiny, wealthy elite by exploiting ordinary people and creating divisions using nationalism and racism. The idea that native workers are being ‘dispossessed’ by greedy, queue-jumping, newcomers is false, but powerful. By creating an enemy out of tmigrants, and a hero out of the perpetrators - the bosses, people aim their fear and anger over diminishing standards of living at the wrong target.

 The growth of Scottish nationalism has seen more of the Left falling in behind it. The Socialist Party, however, exposes their reformist arguments that independence will better the lives of workers and takes an implacably hostile stance toward the SNP, using every opportunity to expose its cynical tactics to win workers’ votes. Scottish nationalism means its workers are turning away from class unity and joint struggle with their brothers and sisters south of the border, and strengthening reformist illusions that hope lies in a new constitution and a sovereign parliament, one with “their own” SNP politicians and “their own” bosses.

As socialists, we recognise that we have more common interest with the ordinary people of other countries than with our own ruling class. The alternative to nationalism is class solidarity. 

Understanding Capitalism

The basis of capitalism rests on the relationship between the capitalist and the worker. The worker must sell his or her labour in order to live. The capitalist needs that labour to produce things to sell. So a capitalist will buy and own the raw materials, tools etc. necessary for production and will then hire workers to work with the tools and the raw materials to produce what the capitalist tells the workers to produce. The workers will then use the tools to turn the raw materials into something the capitalist then sells.

Let’s look more closely at the relationship and how it benefits the capitalist. Let’s say the capitalist owns a factory that makes wooden tables. This means he needs to buy an amount of wood and the tools to make the tables (hammers, nails, glue etc). He also needs workers to come and use the tools to turn the wood into tables he then sells. Let’s say he spends $10 on the raw materials for one table and when it’s finished the table is worth $20. The worker who comes in to turn the raw materials into a table uses his or her skills and energy, takes the raw materials and adds value to them in the form of a finished table. The capitalist then pays the worker. The table immediately belongs to the capitalist and the capitalist sells the table for $20.

The capitalist has spent money on tools and raw materials and on a worker to build the table. The worker has used brain power and muscle power to turn the raw materials into a table (which immediately belongs to the capitalist and not to the worker), adding $10 units to the raw materials in the form of labour. The capitalist then sells the table. But something is missing. What did the capitalist pay the worker?

If the capitalist paid the worker the value of his or her labour, this adds up to $10. The capitalist has spent $10 on the raw materials and tools, and $10 on the labour to use these up and produce a table worth 20. The capitalist then sells the table for $20. What’s in this for the capitalist? He’s spent $20, and at the end of the process he’s received $20. So what was the point? The capitalist hasn’t got anything out of this arrangement.

But what happens if the capitalist pays $10 for the raw materials and tools, but only pays the worker $8 for his or her labour? The capitalist sells the table for $20, but it only cost $18 to produce. The $2 left over is the capitalist’s profit.

So the key is in the nature of the relationship between the worker and the capitalist. One capitalist isn’t likely to sell wood or tools to another capitalist for less than what they’re worth. So where does a capitalist find a reason to be in production in the first place? The reason is profit, and that profit is found by the capitalist paying the workers less than the value of their work.

To make this a little bit clearer, consider that the capitalist rarely pays a worker based on the number of finished items they produce. The capitalist pays the worker to come to work and work as hard as they possibly can for a set amount of time. This obscures the real relationship between worker and capitalist somewhat and leads to the situation where the worker works half the day to meet his or her own immediate needs, and the rest of the day works to create wealth just for the capitalist.

It is this relationship between the worker and the capitalist that is central to how the capitalist system functions. It is in work done by the worker above and beyond that needed to meet his or her own immediate needs that the capitalist finds a reason to be in business. This relationship is the basis of profit. We can see it most clearly, and it begins to explain the situation, where labour is cheap and where it produces expensive commodities, places where the weekly wage of a person stitching trainers isn’t enough to buy a single pair of them.

In essence we as workers have been reduced, by the capitalist class and the politicians who support them, to tools of work; a cog in a machine; essentially born to work for them, and have our work make them money. If we're going to be truly free, we need to have the freedom to pursue our goals where and when and how we see fit. Wage labour is fundamentally incompatible with this.

What is needed is a fundamental shift in attitudes towards work and the relations that make work necessary. People feel undervalued and underpaid because they are. People can see the inequity in their relationship with their bosses. What isn't seen so well is the fact that we're literally selling our ability to work and a good third of our lives, giving up our freedom in the process, in order to live. But people weren't born simply to work. We instinctively know this and we value our lives more than this because none of us really likes work, but this is balanced against the necessity of work for the vast majority. If we don't do it, we can't really live at all. These are conditions imposed on us by capitalism. We need to continue the task of attempting to reconstruct society.

Nationalising a business or service or industry isn't going to help deliver economic democracy either. The people who work there, and workers generally, would have no more control over how the business is run or what happens to the product of their labour than they would if the business was in private hands. Nationalisation doesn’t address the relationship between employer and employee. It is simply a case of swapping one group of expropriators and facilitators for another. The trade union movement is concerned with higher wages, sometimes with shorter hours (or at least limiting increases in hours), protecting jobs, but these days never, it seems, with the way production and distribution is organized. Such concerns are pushed to the fringes. However, labour movement doesn't go anything like far enough in addressing the real economic problem facing workers and society at large: the problem of how we should organise production and distribution of what workers produce. In fact, trade unions  makes no attempt to address this problem at all. We need to make economic democracy a cornerstone of radical thought again. We have to present workers with a vision of the future where they decide democratically, and in collaboration with the community at large, what to produce, how to produce it and then how to distribute it. To really change capitalism, we need to change its core: the relationship of workers to the production, appropriation and distribution of the surplus they create. Workers need more radical solutions. The ultimate aim must be not to prop up capitalism but to destroy it. To overturn the relationship between employer and employee. To abolish the root cause of our economic misery – the employer, the rentier and the banker – and to take control of our own working lives by whatever means necessary. This should begin with a fight to control the ground on which this battle is being fought but the focus overwhelmingly seems to be on fighting for a few extra crumbs from the table. What is needed is not concessions to capitalists and politicians but a vision of workers taking control of the production process themselves so we can free ourselves from the misery of wage slavery.

Adapted from here
http://libcom.org/blog/universal-basic-income-freedom-workers-13122016

The tragedy of the homeless

One homeless person dies every week in Glasgow according to Glasgow City Council. The council admitted that the number of deaths released in the FOI may not be entirely accurate as it may not include all the homeless deaths in the city or rough sleepers who are not from Glasgow or currently engaged with the Council.

Graeme Brown, the Glasgow Director of Shelter Scotland said: “Each one of these cases represents a human life lost too soon. “We know that homeless people, in particular those who sleep rough, have worse health than the general population and are far more likely to die young. It is simply shameful that this is happening in 21st century Scotland. Sadly, we know that homelessness is still far from fixed in Glasgow and across Scotland today."

According to Shelter Scotland estimate up to 5,000 people sleep rough in Scotland every year, with thousands more using temporary accommodation. Glasgow City Council receives each year roughly 6000 formal homelessness applications with further applications for temporary accomodation.

Fact of the Day

More than 30% of children in Glasgow East are ranked as being in poverty, living in families in receipt of out-of-work, means-tested benefits, according to the latest HMRC data. The UK average is 20%. 

One in five people aged between 16 and 64 are on out-of-work benefits, compared with the national average of fewer than one in 10. 

Anarchism in Glasgow (part 2)

Anarchism in Glasgow : Charlie Baird Snr, Mollie Baird, John Taylor Caldwell, Babs Raeside, Jimmy Raeside, etc.;

14/8/87

Q : How did people come in contact with the movement and how did the movement strike them at the time ?

JR : Well, the clothes have changed a bit ! And the venue - the anarchist movement would have had to grow quite a bit to get a room like this.

MB : Yes... The "Hangman’s Rest" : when there was a lull in the questions the rats used to come out !!

JR : Or street corners...

JTC : The movement started in Glasgow in a way that’s buried in a certain amount of mystery because they haven’t been able to research it properly, but after the Paris Commune a number of Frenchmen came to Britain and one of these settled in Glasgow and became the companion of a woman called MacDonald who lived in Crown St. She had anarchist views and they organised the first anarchism movement in Glasgow working from Crown St. and meeting in the space outside Glasgow Green which is called Jostling Sq or Jail Sq. People gathered there every Sunday. Afterwards there was a lull until we have the Social Democratic Federation (Hyndman’s crowd) building up a group in Glasgow ; the next stage on the road to anarchism was when the disaffected formed the Socialist League under William Morris. They wanted to be anti-parliamentary but not anarchist. There was such an influx of anarchists in Glasgow and eventually in 1895 it broke up and the anarchist movement of Glasgow was formed. It had 50 members and met in a place in Holland St. It had a number of speakers : Willie MacDougal was one - and the movement developed from that.

From 1900 it was able to invite Kropotkin and Voltairine deClerke to speak in Glasgow and was quite a force up to the start of the 1st World War when it broke up because of the persecutions it had to endure because of its anti-war position.

MB : I knew that Guy (Aldred) had a group in little rooms in Clarenden St...

JTC : Guy Aldred came to Glasgow in 1912... The anarchist movement in London had three elements : one was Stepniak, one was Kropotkin, the other was Bakunin. Stepniak had shot a policeman in St.Petersburg and fled to London - he belonged to the old Russian Narodniks, who believed in propaganda by deed, in shooting officials and they believed that the State has a social contract with the people and when it fails to fulfil that contract, the common people are in a state of nature and can declare war. That was the beginning of the theory of propaganda by deed in Russia. The other stream was Kropotkin who believed that we are dominated by the State and he gave a historical analysis of the State and that we should get back to a pre-state condition of a society run by communes. But the third person was Bakunin who from a philosophical point of view came through Hegel and he believed that we had to destroy authority. Guy developed that point of view in the Freedom Press, but then felt that they were too theoretical, Sunday afternoon anarchists, so he and another founded a paper called the "Voice of Labour", to carry the fight into the factories. After 3 or 4 months Guy realised that it you do that it runs along trade-union and amelioration lines ; what we need is education - so he formed the Communist Propaganda Groups - these were to educate, the other to agitate. Now the CPGs were anti-parliamentary. You have to remember the context : the Labour Party was something new, it had been formed to represent trade unions and wasn’t sure whether it was going to be a left or liberal party or be an industrial syndicalist organisation as identified with Tom Mann or Daniel deLeon in America. There was a careerist element and Guy fought against payment of members, and this took on the form of an anti-parliamentary faction.

Guy was invited to speak in Glasgow in 1912 by a splendid organisation called the Clarion Scouts. It had all kinds of things to interest young people - camera clubs, bicycle clubs, etc. Youngsters used to get on their bikes and cycle through the villages and they had a secret sign when they passed each other (one said "hoops", the other said "spurs"). They formed their first organisation in Glasgow in 1898, I think, and would help any left-wing organisation - they helped the ILP, they helped the anarchists - they were not sectarian. They invited Guy Aldred to speak in the Pavilion Theatre in 1912. There were no microphones in those days and the theatre was filled, but he was such a success that he came back again and again, and in the end made Glasgow his native city and formed his own Communist Propaganda Group. He was running "The Spur" which had a good circulation and was well known in the movement.

When the war came Guy went off to jail but his paper was carried on by Rose Witcop, his free-love companion. When he came back after the war, his CPG had folded, because he was really the centrepiece of it.

The Glasgow Anarchists (those who’d formed a group at the time of William Morris) were carrying on : Willie MacDougall was one of them - he’d been jailed too, taken down to Dartmoor. He simply escaped from Dartmoor - he jumped on a bike and cycled home and nobody stopped him. (Only a few years ago, at 86, he was still carrying on his propaganda)

click read more to continue

Anarchism in Glasgow (part 1)

=========

1) Charlie Baird Sr. : An Interview

6th June 1977

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shaw was called up, but he’d made up his mind that he wasn’t going into prison. So his case went to the High Court of Appeal in Edinburgh. Even the "Evening Citizen" gave him a big front-page write-up "Glasgow Anarchist Wins Case in High Court". He defended himself. Incidentally, he was briefed by Guy Aldred - Guy prepared the case, but he handled it himself. You can have the best case in the world, but you’ve got to face the three highest judges in the land. The "Evening Citizen" said he handled the case with force. That would be around 1944-45. I was with him when he went to Edinburgh ; it must have been about May or June.

His case was very simple. He went through the usual process of being called-up. They took you into custody when you were registered as a conscript, the next you’d hear from them was when you had to go to court. If you’re political you’ve no chance. Shaw went to the Sheriff Court for sentence. You’re called into court twice, the first time there was a CID man who was instructed to take you down to Dumbarton Rd and the Army Doctor ; you’ d refuse to go through the medical and they’d bring you back to court a month after that. The CID man had been told to take him down at 2pm, but he didn’t take him down until 4pm - and this was Shaw’s case. When he got back to court, the judge sentenced him to one year and Shaw said "I’m asking for a stated case". The judge said "On what basis ? You’ve no basis for a stated case". Shaw said "You instructed the CID man to take me before the doctor at 2pm but I didn’t get to the doctor until 4pm."

That was the case. It took them over an hour to settle it. Lord Thomson presided and, what do you call him ? they called him the Bloody Judge at the time... Anyway there were the three of them. After Shaw had stated his case "Are you going to allow CID men to flout the law ; you’re going to end up like Germany or Italy, where the people have no rights, you know..." Lord Thomson said "Look Mr Shaw, you know you’ve no intention of going to the army" and Shaw said "That’s right, but it’s the facts of the case, not whether I’ll go to the army". A precedent had been set, perhaps during the First World War, and it was Guy Aldred who’d dug this one up. He’d told Shaw, if you have any trouble ask for access to the court library and you’ll be able to get the chapter and page. They were about to dismiss him when he did this and the three judges hummed and hawed, and Lord Thomson said "All right then". The court clerk went down and then handed it on to Thomson. Thomson just looked at it with a look of disgust on his face and passed it on and said nothing. So the appeal was upheld with expenses and the CID man was called into the dock and given a dressing-down. When Shaw had mentioned the basis of the case I’d said "Ach, no chance".

You’d people in the services who were anti-war and at the same time were unattached. There was a common danger during the war which was the common ground for people with political views like my own. We must admit this - we’d huge meetings, particularly in Glasgow and Edinburgh, but I think t his was due to the fact that there was always the danger of someone being arrested, something violent happening, something sensational. It was a very precarious position to take during the war, especially in public when you’d troops, etc. You can imagine the atmosphere. What did matter was that you recruited members at these meetings, and, if not members, at least sympathisers who took papers into the factories.

Judging by the attention that you got from the troops, apart from a few hotheads, particularly the Americans and Canadians, the other lads used to come and buy the paper and discuss it. We’d contacts with them too, mainly the Air Force, I don’t know why the Air Force. There was no war fever as such during the war, even among the troops and their families. My own experience with the public was "Aye, that’s right, but what can you do about it ? The war’s there and Hitler’s there, and you have to face up to him". The usual answer to that one was "You can’t beat fascism by greater military force ; fascism is inherent in the capitalist system". It was the Empire, not the fact that Hitler was killing the Jews or Poland - they sold Poland.

"War Commentary" was the paper at that time. It had tremendous sales in Glasgow. And we’d all the Freedom Press literature - the pamphlets, the books. We’d a bookshop in George St. (originally, I believe, with the Marxist Study Group, but that was all over by the time I’d come out of prison). Shaw and Leech had broken away, and later linked up with the other groups in England and contacts in Scotland. The Anarchist Federation of Britain was formed just after that.

The relations with Guy Aldred were very strained. I think one of the main reasons was that Guy was a loner : he was a movement in himself. There’s no question about the man’s integrity. He’d built up his movement, made his international contacts. I suppose Guy was afraid that someone could infiltrate and take over the movement by a process of building up support and them getting a vote. His relationship to the Anarchist Federation wasn’t very good. In spite of Guy’s help, Shaw often attacked him, especially on the question of the ballot box. We knew that Guy had no intention of going to parliament, but, in my opinion it was stupid, you know, there was nothing to gain. He’d built up such a reputation of integrity and consistency that I thought it was awful foolish that he should sacrifice all this.

One of Guy’s old members was a man by the name of Frank Leech, a peculiar character. He was bourgeois through-and-through. He’d a good-going business, a general store. He was very friendly with the Freedom Press and used to make contact with Freedom Press in a private capacity. I was the Secretary of the AFB at that time and all correspondence was supposed to go through me, but Leech would never accept this. Personally, it didn’t matter to me - as long as the movement was there and was working. You’d never get a group where that wouldn’t happen, but it all depends on the extent to which it goes on.

We were a great source of income to Freedom Press, but they didn’t seem to put any account on that at all. We thought they had a function, they thought we had a function, and that was just to distribute the literature and send the proceeds down. This didn’t go down at all with most of the members.

When the split took place it wasn’t at a business meeting or a conference. It’s difficult even now to understand how it happened the way it did and why it happened. It was just suddenly that a section didn’t turn up at a business meeting - that was Leech, Shaw, Raeside and some followers. That would be around November 1944. The reason was a general disillusionment with the way the group was being run. Leech was the source of all this and Shaw supported him - he was somewhat dependent on Leech. The big fellow had a lot of money and Shaw was taking time of work to do meetings up and down the country. Raeside had got married and bought a horse-drawn caravan and travelled up and down the country. Shaw and Raeside decided to go abroad. Shaw had boys of 13 and 15 and for the boys sake he was clearing out, of course you’d have conscription in Canada anyway. And Raeside went to Australia.

Anyway we carried on, me and the wife and some other lads, we carried on for a year. This must have been shortly after the war. We held meetings at the corner of Wellington St. It took a toll on me, the outdoor speaking, it’s a hell of a strain physically. Mentally it didn’t bother me, in fact latterly I began to enjoy it. Then one of the other speakers, a lad called Bill Gollan, fell into bad health and died in Knightswood Hospital of tuberculosis. When the war ended the common danger ended too. And finally the wife and I were left... By this time the breakaway group were about finished too. They held meetings in Maxwell St. Leech died suddenly. He was a big heavy man, he’d heart trouble, and Shaw and Raeside went to Canada and that was the end of that.

===========

In August 1987 the Raesides, who had been living in Australia for many years, returned to Glasgow for a visit. This provided a rare opportunity to bring together some surviving members of anarchist groups in Glasgow during the 1940s for a public discussion on the history of that movement and the lessons which can be learned.

Transcribed in November 1993 from a not-always-clear cassette tape. A formerly inaudible section has now been transcribed with help from Charlie Baird Jnr.

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