The Scottish Fat Cats

“We live in a divided Scotland where ten chief executives become millionaires every year whilst tens of thousands live on poverty wages on zero hour contracts.” Unite union leader Pat Rafferty said. He said the executive pay packets were “an insult to the poor in Scotland and a monument to greed.”

Scotland's top chief executives are pocketing pay packets worth more than 24 times the salary of the average worker, The Herald can reveal, amid claims the income gap has become a "monument to greed".

The highest paid CEO among the 39-strong cohort was Ross McEwan of Royal Bank of Scotland, who earned £3.5 million last year despite the bank posting a loss of £7 billion.

His salary is the equivalent to that banked by 152 average workers.

Over the last year the group of chief executives accepted a collective two per cent pay cut, but still amassed more than £35 million in remuneration, with half earning six-figure bonuses.

Research by The Herald has found that median pay for chief executives in their companies’ most recent financial year was £556,000, down from £596,000 the previous year, representing a cut of 5.6 per cent. However, there was a median increase in salary for two per cent of bosses among the group, with 19 business leaders receiving a salary increase, three seeing their salaries cut, and eight individuals experiencing no change. The average gross salary in Scotland is £22,918.

Rafferty insisted that best way "to reduce inequality is to build the trade union movement to secure better pay and conditions for the lowest paid”. He added: “The problem with the Tories is that they think that the rich don’t have enough money and the poor have too much.

Last year Alistair Philips-Davies of energy firm SSE was paid £2.9m, with his 72.5 per cent increase giving him the highest boost in pay from the group of Scottish executives. His pay pot was comprised of an £844,000 salary, a £910,000 annual bonus, a £644,000 performance share plan award, £502,000 in pension contributions and £25,000 in other benefits.

Next on the list are Martin Gilbert and Keith Skeoch, now joint chief executives of the recently merged financial giant Standard Life Aberdeen. In the last year before the merger, they were paid £2.8m and £2.75m respectively.

Simon Thomson from Cairn Energy was the best paid chief among Scotland’s oil and gas sector’s listed businesses, and fifth overall, with a total remuneration of just over £2m.

In total, ten chief executives were awarded seven-figure packages, with Clydesdale Bank owner CYBG’s David Duffy, Aggreko’s Chris Weston, Stagecoach’s Martin Griffiths, First Group’s Tim O’Toole and Robin Watson of Wood Group completing the list.

Celtic’s Peter Lawwell missed out on joining the seven-figure club by just £1,000, but topped the second tier of 13 chiefs, who earned more than £500,000 but less than £1m.

Only three earned less than £100,000 with the lowest paid on the table being Trevor Brown of Braveheart Investment Group, who picked up £37,417 in spite of his predecessor as chief executive, Geoffrey Thompson, being paid £234,721 the previous year. However, Mr Brown owns 29.85 per cent of the share capital in the business.

In 2015, 11 chiefs made more than £1m with Martin Gilbert’s £4.3m making him the highest paid, thanks to a £3.8m bonus.

Mr Gilbert again had this year’s highest bonus, of £2.3m. The highest salaries paid to individuals on the list was £1m, to bank bosses Ross McEwan and David Duffy.

The total bonus pot was £9.5m, representing 27 per cent of the total.

Just eight chief executives reaped the rewards of a long-term incentive plan (LTIP), with Ross McEwan’s salary-matching £1m payment being the largest.

What Future?.

From the Daily Herald evidence mounts of the multiple risks climate change poses to people and wildlife, 2017 is predicted to be another record hot year. And one of Scotland’s leading climate experts is warning that the world is facing the catastrophe of “runaway” climate change because of the impact of pollution and the damage it is doing to nature. One of the biggest fears facing scientists is that climate change has become impossible to control. Scientists say this would lead to more floods, droughts and heatwaves threatening millions around the planet.

Experts are predicting that 2017 will end up being one of the world’s hottest. “Though we only have global observations to June, it is likely that 2017 will be globally one of the warmest three years since 1850,” said Simon Tett, professor of earth system dynamics at the University of Edinburgh. According to NASA, 2016 was the world’s hottest year since records started, with the next two hottest being 2015 and 2014. Scotland’s hottest year so far was 2014, and last winter was the fourth warmest on record. “Globally 2017 looks like being even hotter than 2016, and so could be the fourth year in a row to be the hottest ever,” said Dr Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth Scotland. “Our weather is becoming more extreme and more unpredictable, all of which is bad news for people trying to get on with their lives and brings major challenges for Scotland’s wildlife.” Dr Sam Gardner, acting director of WWF Scotland, pointed out that extreme weather events had been breaking climate records around the globe. “Climate change is already having real and serious impacts on people, places and nature, both in Scotland and around the world,” he said.

The true extent of the threat posed to Scotland by climate change, according to the latest government assessments is that major parts of Scotland’s vital infrastructure are under threat from coastal erosion and flooding. Thousands of homes and businesses and long stretches of roads and railway lines are also at risk. So are power stations, wind farms, sewers, bridges, and farmland, as well as many other crucial facilities and even golf courses. Seabirds, fish and plants are endangered, as well as butterflies, food crops and peat bogs. Scotland can expect more rain, more droughts, more storms, more wild fires, more landslides, more pests and more diseases – and snow is disappearing from the mountains.

The study for the Scottish Government warned that the rate of coastal erosion around Scotland has doubled since the 1970s. Researchers identified 30,000 buildings, 1,300 kilometres of roads and 100 kilometres of railway lines “close to potentially erodible coasts”. According to the government conservation agency, Scottish Natural Heritage, more than 20 coastal golf courses have already acknowledged erosion problems. These include golf links in the Western Isles, Highland, Dumfries and Galloway – and Donald Trump’s resort in the sand dunes at Menie in Aberdeenshire.

Another report from the UK Committee on Climate Change highlighted the threats posed by climate change to infrastructure, farming and wildlife in Scotland. An estimated 180,000 residential properties are currently at risk of flooding, with the number predicted to rise as the climate deteriorates. The report warned of a 50 per cent increase in sewer flooding over the next few decades as the system is inundated by heavy rain. It flagged up risks to electricity generation, transport and other key networks. About 150,000 hectares of arable farmland were said to be at high risk of river flooding, and an estimated seven per cent of Scotland’s prime agricultural land was within flood risk areas.

Along with flooding and coastal erosion, climate change will also bring higher temperatures - meaning that up to half of Scotland’s prime agricultural land will be at moderate to severe risk of drought by the 2050s, particularly in Tayside and Fife, the report said, and water use is likely to be restricted. Higher temperatures could boost the spread of livestock diseases, including foot and mouth, bluetongue and liver fluke. “Serious epidemics predicted to become the norm by the 2020s, especially in the north and west of the country,” warned the report. It forecast a big increase in forest fires, as well as major impacts on migratory birds, fish and mountain plants. There was a “significant risk” for iconic species such as ptarmigan and mountain hares and “the possibility of no snow cover below 900 metres by the 2080s.” The report predicted that mean summertime temperatures in Scotland would rise by up to 4.5 degrees centigrade by the 2050s, while winter rain could increase by up to 30 per cent. The sea level around Edinburgh is expected to rise by between 20 and 40 centimetres by 2090.

 Professor James Curran, a renowned climate scientist and the former chief executive of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency thinks that nature is losing its ability to store carbon and slow global warming. He has studied data from the world’s best record of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. He looked at the annual drop in CO2 concentrations every spring and summer in the northern hemisphere to estimate how effectively trees and plants were capturing carbon. Leaves absorb CO2 as they grow and feed carbon compounds into the soil, a vital natural process that helps store pollutants that would otherwise disrupt the climate. It had been thought that additional growth triggered by carbon emissions might help reduce climate change. According to Curran, this happened until 2006 but since then natural carbon capture has been in decline. “Excessive heat, droughts, wildfires, pests and diseases, wind storms and floods can damage natural vegetation and crops to such an extent that their ability to absorb carbon begins to decline,” he said. Curran said these early warnings were "very serious and concerning", adding: "This is what may, ultimately, create runaway or uncontrollable climate change.” He concludes that the declining ability of natural vegetation to absorb carbon is responsible for 30 per cent of global emissions. He pointed out that carbon dioxide levels were rising faster than ever, despite man-made emissions flat-lining for the past three years. “It's because nature is damaged and can no longer absorb as much as it used to,” he told the Sunday Herald. “Ecosystems across the world are failing and are no longer so capable of sucking carbon out of the atmosphere. Climate change will begin to accelerate, despite our best efforts to reduce emissions, unless we urgently rebuild and reinvigorate our natural systems.”

A recent analysis by the conservation group, WWF, concluded that there had been a 58 per cent decline in world populations of fish, birds, mammals and other animals between 1970 and 2012. Another study showed that 700 species of endangered mammals and birds had already been negatively impacted by climate change.

While the strategy of the environmentalists lobbying for legislation may achieve limited success against government policies, at the end of the day they will never be able to combat the motive of profit which is the root cause of the problems they wish to ameliorate and are destined to struggle endlessly against the tide of capitalism. Before anything constructive can be done, capitalism must go and, with it, the artificial division of the world into separate, competing states. The Earth and all its natural and industrial resources must become the common heritage of all humanity. A democratic structure for making decisions at world-level as well as at local levels must come into being. Then what scientists already know should be done can be done, and humanity can begin to organise its relationship with the rest of nature in a genuinely sustainable way.

The 1797 Massacre of Tranent

The Massacre of Tranent took place on 29 August 1797. 

The Scottish Militia Act of 1797 conscripted able-bodied Scottish men between the ages of nineteen and twenty-three into military service. Ordinary people hated the Act.  It was seen as a direct attack on workers because members of the bourgeoisie could always buy their own exemption. On August 17, 1797 a large crowd gathered at Eccles in Berwickshire armed with sticks and stones.  They made clear that they were intent on stopping the authorities from implementing the Act.

Aberdeen, Dalry, Galston, Strathaven, Freuchie, and Kirkintilloch all saw rioting as a result, and the government responded by sending in troops. 

When the army rode into East Lothian on 28 August 1797 to pick up the conscriptees, they found the roads lined with women and children from the local villages who marched behind a drum shouting "No Militia" and at a mass meeting in  Prestonpans where a series of resolutions were then passed denouncing the Act.  The demonstrators then returned to Tranent.  Once in the village itself, the troops tried to proceed to the assigned meeting point, but there was a crowd gathering with sticks and a drum. a proclamation was drawn up by local people to object to the conscription of Scots into the British Militia, to be used either for controlling their own people or for deployment elsewhere. The proclamation comprised four clauses:-

1. We declare that we unanimously disapprove of the late Act of Parliament for raising 6000 militiamen in Scotland.
2. We declare that we will assist each other in endeavouring to repeal the said Act.
3. We declare that we are peaceably disposed; and should you, in endeavouring to execute the said Act, urge us to adopt coercive measures, we must look upon you to be the aggressors, and as responsible to the nation for all the consequences that may follow.
4. Although we may be overpowered in effecting the said resolution, and dragged from our parents, friends, and employment, to be made soldiers of, you can infer from this what trust can be reposed in us if ever we are called upon to disperse our fellow-countrymen, or to oppose a foreign foe. 

On 29 August, the proclamation was handed to Major Wight, the commanding officer of the recruitment squad; it was initially ignored. Later, a contingent from the local colliery communities, led by 'Jackie' (Joan) Crookston challenged the troops and the response was swift and bloody.  There was a protest, and soldiers who had been confined to the John Glens public house in Tranent broke out of the back door, many of them the worse for drink,  and adopted a "shoot to kill" policy against the local populace. Several of the protesters, including Crookston, were shot dead out of hand. The dragoons rampaged through the streets driving the protesters into the fields where the  cavalry would be more effective. The protesters fled from the centre of the small town into the countryside, pursued by the Cinque Port Light Dragoons and the Pembrokeshire Cavalry who cut down people indiscriminately, caring little whether they were involved in the protest or not. Casualty estimates range from around a dozen to twenty or more men, women and children dead, with many more injured. After the slaughter the troopers carried out rapes and pillage in the small town.

 The Lord Advocate of the time, Robert Dundas, decided not to indict the soldiers for shooting unarmed civilians because "such a dangerous mob as deserved more properly the name of an insurrection."

Conservative Glasgow

THE MYTH AND THE REALITY 

A brief search of the Socialist Courier archives would reveal that it has been critical of the traditional depictions of Red Clydeside's "revolutionary" image. Unfortunately, it has made us bed-fellows of the Conservative historian, Michael Fry.

Glasgow's radical histoy has been exaggerated, he argues, in his latest work, 'Glasgow: A History of the City.'

“There has been a lot of attention to the working class history of Glasgow. I don’t accept that these interpretations work. Before the 20th century there weren’t all that many strikes and there wasn't that much industrial unrest. The main aim of the working class in the 19th century was respectability. They wanted to work their way up in society: learn a trade, establish a secure family and home. These people were often regular churchgoers. There were rigid demarcations against the great unwashed – it took an apprenticeship of several years to be accepted into the craft. It was all an industrial and social structure that established respectability.”

Indeed contemporary photographs of the "militant" engineers show well-dressed bowler-hatted skilled engineers rather than being clad in caps and overalls. 

 Fry says “The working class Tory vote lasted in Glasgow until the 1950s, a sign of that older tradition. Govan had a Tory MP in 1955.”

He describes Glasgow as a “ very puritanical city."

It Is Socialist Economics!

Delusions about the Labour Party still linger, through all the realities of Labour governments opposing strikers, or imposing cuts on workers' living standards. When it suits them—and particularly at election time—they pretend to operate under deeply held, inviolable principles. For winning—getting into power—is what capitalist politics are all about. All the parties which compete for our votes—as distinct from promoting a wider understanding of society—are hoping for some measure of control over the affairs of British capitalism. All the Keynesian Labourites and other supporters of capitalism still believe that capitalism can be made to work in the interests of all.

In order to keep the workers acquiescing in the system of lunacy that is capitalism, its supporters continually have to invent scapegoats and to point to them as the cause of the hardship experienced by the working class. Naturally, no defenders of capitalism are going to tell the workers the real reason for this current recession, even if they did know it themselves. So, by means of a well-conducted campaign in the media, every so often scapegoats are offered as causes of social problems and the misery of the working class. Migrants, refugees, benefit claimants or trade unionists. One by one these groups are singled out by the hack journalists and blamed for the present social malaise. The supporters of capitalism, regardless of whatever political party they adhere to, ask us to believe that this country is becoming overcrowded with migrants and that they are aggravating unemployment. Perhaps those who believe that immigration is in some way connected with high levels of unemployment, bad housing and poor social services, would care to explain why all these conditions existed in the 1930s and yet there were much fewer immigrants as a whole living in Britain. If immigrants really do provide the real cause of unemployment, why is it that in the areas worst affected by high levels of unemployment, such as Northern Ireland, Clydeside and Tyneside, the immigrant population is at relatively low-levels? Few people will appreciate the vicious campaign of ignorant distortions directed by the tabloid press and reality TV shows against those on benefit. Many of those out of work are slandered by being called lazy and unwilling to look for work. As any worker should know, employment as such is usually a miserable prospect anyway. But apart from that, the fact is that over the past few years reports have repeatedly shown that for every ten people registered as unemployed, only one job vacancy has been reported to the Job Centre Of course, those who believe that unemployment is largely due to laziness and unwillingness to work, never bother to explain to us why in the 1950s and early 60s relatively few people were “lazy” (unemployed), while in the 1930s and today many more have suddenly become so. Most workers are but a couple of wage packets away from joining the numbers of the official poor.  For many, it will be their first taste of idleness after years of steady work.

The truth is that social problems, such as unemployment, the housing crisis in large cities, homelessness, waiting lists at hospitals, overcrowded class-rooms and bad social services, are not caused by immigrants to this country or by any supposed reluctance of the unemployed to find work. When people complain about these social problems they are really protesting about the inevitable consequences of the capitalist system. Under capitalism profits for the owners of industry and the increased wealth of a small minority of the population are of prime importance. Social questions and the human need of the immense majority are pushed into the background time and time again, as is the case today. Cuts are made in education, medical services and transport, etc., and workers are thrown onto the dole queue. All of this is part of a vain attempt to solve capitalism’s insoluble problems. Poverty is not restricted to those who are officially classified as such, it is the condition that workers, in general, are familiar with. Rarely mentioned are the people who not only never need go near a Job Centre, but never need to worry about getting a job. The rich are not irrelevant to the question of poverty. The existence of one is the condition of the existence of the other. The wealth going to the rich of this world comes from the work of the poor. The rich own the means of production, the poor do not. The poor produce more than is required to maintain them as workers and this surplus keeps the rich. Be they old, lame, part of a single parent family, the rich need no supplementary benefits, least of all need they seek employment. There will be rich and poor as long as capitalism lasts.

What is the difference between capitalist economics and socialist economics?”  The difference is the Labour Theory of Value. This law of capitalism, discovered by Marx, explains the operation of capitalist production and the exploitation of the worker.

The Labour Theory of Value states that the value of commodities is fixed by the amount of labour they contain. But not any old labour. “Socially necessary” labour, the labour required by society to produce an article. The determination of Value by the labour in an article was well known to the famous classical economists before Marx: William Petty, David Ricardo, Adam Smith and Ben Franklin the American; whom Marx quotes approvingly in Volume I of Capital (page 59, Kerr edition). "The value of all things . . . is most justly measured by labour"

The difficulty they found themselves in was this

1. Value is determined by labour.
2. What then determines the value of the labour?

They then went round in circles until Karl Marx cut the Gordian Knot by proving that Labour Power, as a commodity, is also subject to the Labour Theory of Value—that is, the amount of labour to produce and maintain a Labourer. Since those days capitalist "economics” has become a joke; starting with Marshall’s absurd "Marginal Utility” and finishing with J. M. Keynes’ disastrous inflation theories. Meantime the colleges teem with pompous wise-acres solemnly expatiating on "status” and "honours”, "power and conflict”, “blue-collar and white-collar workers” “the reward hierarchy” and associated trivialities.

Once you reject the Labour Theory of Value, you become an apologist—for capitalism.

The Labour Theory of Value also explains why, after 50 years of reformist legislation, Labour Parties have had no effect whatever. While they are trying to tart up capitalism with a few spraying jobs, an endless stream of profits pours into the laps of the capitalists, behind their backs.

A clear grasp of the Labour Theory of Value is a MUST for a socialist.

Independence is still not the way

SOCIALISTS FOR WORLD SOCIALISM

In 2014  the Scottish Independence Referendum failed by a slim margin. Nothing has been resolved, the Scottish sovereigntists and they say that they'll keep trying for a second referendum. Everywhere, it seems, people want 'their own’ sovereign country.

There are two ways to look at Scotland's independence.The first is an emotional, irrational approach that considers ideas of power as opposed to the reality of power, and uses claims (long proved false) of how the economy functions.

The other is to consider what will really change if Scotland, some day, decides in favour of sovereignty.

Both sides, YES and NO, chose the emotional and irrational approach.

The Yes side argues that the Scottish people will be inherently better off in a nation governed by Scots. They have not shown any real benefits to the Scottish working class. Nor has the history of "independence” around the world been supportive of the Yes claim.

The No side predicts the direst results for Scotland, ignoring the fact that the UK would suffer if it did not trade with a sovereign Scotland. The No side lined up an impressive list of company owners, directors and such. Some nationalists responded, without justification, that if the rich oppose “independence" then "independence" must be good for those who aren’t rich.

The necessities of life

Most sane people are more worried about the necessities of life: putting food on the table, a roof over their head, and other such mundane—and ultimately far more important—considerations, than the name of the state they happen to live in.

History has shown, without doubt, that the Yes or No choice is a choice of which politicians get to sit next to the steering wheel as the ship of state careers back and forth in the winds of economic reality.

“Independence" is a word used to stir up emotions. An "independent" Scotland will be no more independent than it is today. It will still have to conform to global economic pressures which govern how much food will be on the table of the average person. The current economic system doesn’t play favourites based on national, ethnic, or cultural sovereignty.

Capital investment and migration are based upon the likelihood of making better profits, not upon which of the largely irrelevant politicians form the government.

Nationalist, quasi-racist "issues" such as Scottish "independence" are not the issues that will solve the problems that working class people in Scotland, the UK and the rest of the world face every day. The fundamental differences are far greater between rich Scots and working class Scots than between working class Britons and working class Scots or any member of the working class anywhere. The working class will never be served by nationalism or its bed-mate, patriotism.

It is no surprise that the SWP or SPEW voiced support for Scottish "independence" just as they support most such inherently racist "independence” movements while claiming to oppose racism.

If Scotland, in the future, decides to separate, Scottish workers should not expect it to improve their lives. Capitalist economics has a very forceful way of ensuring that the world remains class-divided and that the working class is at the bottom of that division. Scots and the rest of the world's working class don’t need a change in politicians. we need an end to class division. 

Put not your trust in leaders

It is not theory but reality that is the test of truth. Confusion is becoming worse confounded as a result of changing names, whilst allowing the substance of things to remain the same. By giving things names that denote their real meaning we quicken the understanding of our fellow-workers. We explain the situation as it really is and do not get entangled in ruling class verbiage. Our appeal is to the working class, the propertyless class. They comprehend best when we express ourselves in terms similar to those they use when on the job. The be-all and end-all of propaganda is to translate into everyday language the economics of the present system and the necessity for socialism. Socialists tries to get his or her colleagues to perceive that until the means of wealth production are made common property and a system of production solely for use is established, their lot in life will be that of wage-slaves.

The source of all surplus value is living labour. The capitalist instinctively realises this. The worker is the goose that lays the golden eggs. The capitalist class use the means of wealth production, the land, factories, railways, mines, etc. us a means of constraining the real thing—the slave. The slave is the only form of property that brings to the owner a revenue—something for nothing. When the ruling class quarrel amongst themselves, the wage slaves are torn from productive industry and made to engage in war, the industry of destruction. The workers in different camps are pitted against one another. They re-echo their masters’ slogans of democracy and liberty, but no matter what the result of the conflict may be, the rulers will never sacrifice their right to appropriate unto themselves all the worker produces over and above what is necessary to sustain him. What the capitalist means by liberty and democracy is the full and free opportunity to exploit labour for profit, and those who stand for less than the abolition of the wages system are on the side of labour’s enemies, though they may know it not.

The reforms of the reformers never deal with the source of the trouble: the wealth of the ruling class has not been made less as a result of the activities of those who believe in the inevitability of gradualness, neither has the relative position of master and slave changed. The wealth of the ruling class in normal times steadily increases, and that of the worker becomes relatively less.

The Socialist Party calls upon the workers themselves to put an end to the present deplorable state of things. Instead of relying upon others, we all must tackle the job together. There is nothing to prevent the working class democratically getting hold of the political machinery through the vote. Against the united advance of the working class the capitalist class are absolutely helpless. The interests of the working class are identical on tho class field—the political field. The issue between the wage slaves and their masters is one of ownership.

Until the means of life are made common property, no power ou earth can take labour power out of the category of commodities: there it is fixed by the economic laws of capitalism, therefore the worker must establish socialism or perish in capitalist slavery.
The serious conservatism from which the workers suffer is their habit of clinging to capitalism when Socialism is within their reach if they would have it.  There will be many self-styled saviours of the working class seeking votes and support, shouting urgently for speedy action while they are climbing up the career ladder and then, when they have arrived, imploring the workers to go slow and be content with capitalism. These men are the successors of a long line stretching back to the earliest days of the reformist movement. No matter what their good intentions may be, they will not and cannot do anything for the emancipation of the working class.

 Workers poor are poor because the means of production and distribution are owned and controlled by the capitalist class instead of by the whole community, and consequently so is the wealth produced by the workers. This is the starting point from which the working class should view all schemes for improving capitalism. It is naturally not the starting point for the defenders of capitalism who take private ownership for granted and leave out any possibility of ending it. As a result, their attempts to find out why poverty exist, and how to end it are sterile and fruitless. The workers are poor because over and above the period of their work in which they are producing the equivalent of their wages they are working further to produce surplus value (rent, interest and profit) for the propertied class. They suffer unemployment because the capitalists, in the limitless search for profits and accumulation of capital which the system imposes on each of them if they are to survive in the competitive struggle, are always seeking new management methods and new technology which will save labour and cheapen the product the capitalist owns and must sell. Every wage increase the workers are able to obtain when conditions favour their struggle gives the employers a new incentive to install labour-displacing machinery, add to the army of the unemployed, and thus create conditions in which the existence of large unemployment tends again to depress wages.  Capitalism, except in war, can never guarantee continued full production. Periodically the flood of goods on the market will come up against the problem of finding buyers who can pay the price necessary to provide the profit which alone is the aim of capitalist production. While we are not in a position to prophecy exactly when the next slump and trade crisis will come, come it will despite all the plans and conferences of capitalist governments and Labour Parties. The only remedy for the poverty and crises of capitalism is to abolish capitalism.

The Docker's Problems (1944)

From the February 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Having witnessed the spectacle of millions of their fellows chasing the will o* the wisp of steady employment in the long years before the present war, to-day in 1944 the workers are performing miracles of constant, unremitting toil. Their numbers reduced by the calls of the armed forces, they are feeding the mammoth war machine of Britain and simultaneously providing the civilian population with at least that minimum of creature comforts necessary. Intriguing speculations are rife in the world of the industrial workers, contrasting tho pre-war scene with the present one. One vivid contrast is that which prevails in the great ports.

Before the war, in “normal” shipping circumstances, there was invariably enacted at the northern ports scenes of struggle for four to eight hours' work that had to be seen to be believed. The docker was then ironically termed a “casual” worker, and the fight for bread often became an actual physical reality. Unfortunate foremen, whose unenviable task it was to select the recipients of four hours' work were often injured, their hands bitten and their clothing torn in the wolfish scramble that took place. Favouritism and nepotism were the order of the day, and violent was the experience often of any who presumed to change the status quo. To-day “things” are changed. The Government, in the beginning of 1941, perceiving the vital need of a trained supply of dock labour, introduced various schemes that have in effect decasualised dock labour. A minority of the men, recognising dangerous anomalies in the official proposals, resisted the innovation. Albeit, the Ministry of War Transport had its way, and to-day in all great ports the Government directs the ebb and flow of labour. Viewed superficially, the weekly guarantee of sums ranging from 55s. to 82s. 6d. to dockers is an immense improvement on previous conditions. For months past, in the columns of the Glasgow dailies, officious magistrates and others have dilated oracularly on the “enormous" wages of the Glasgow dockers. Their effusions have been productive of acid comment among the men concerned. The docker's wage rate has remained unchanged since early in 1940, since when prices generally have risen. The docker to-day, in order to earn a wage that will provide him and his dependants with a working-class standard of comfort has to work many hours of overtime. And that, at a task unquestionably enervating and exhausting. The dockers imagine that most Labour magistrates—who are especially prone to criticism of the men—would quail at the prospect of one hour's work wrestling with bales and cases or pushing trucks, let alone 70 or 80 hours! For years deprived of steady employment, to-day subjected to disciplinary measures for absenting themselves from work.

For years, accustomed to scrambling for work, to-day. in some instances, scrambling in the opposite direction. Their natural industrial combativeness gelded by a combination of patriotism and bureaucratic efficiency, they have in a situation favourable to them as sellers of their commodity, labour-power, allowed their wage-rate to remain static since the first year of war. The Government selected as local administrators prominent members of the dockers' unions, some of them Communists and I.L.P.ers. As is usual, these individuals have “out-Heroded Herod”! The dockers to-day are afflicted with misgivings regarding post-war conditions. Under the plea of a "quick turn round ” of ships to expedite the war effort, they have seen the insidious "whittling away” of much of their T.U. rights and conditions. Conditions that were won after years of unceasing bloody struggle. They see, also, mechanisation taking place, speed-ups that will remain, that will displace large numbers of men in the years to come.

Mr. Bevin, with others, has reassured dockers of the continued existence of guaranteed wages in peace-time, but— they are sceptical. Like the vast majority of workers, the promises made by official spokesmen of projected changes in the post-war industrial set-up, leave dockers cold.

They have been lavishly praised for their fortitude during the period of the blitz, and mention has been made of the fact that their dockside homes have been the target of many bombs. Despite all this, they are profoundly aware of the odds against them in their day-to-day struggle. The end of hostilities will find dockers denuded of many defensive conditions, essential to them to—at best—maintain their conditions of existence. The confident prediction that can be made of general post-war industrial upheaval can be made emphatically of dock-land. Unemployment has driven men to the docks of a higher intellectual level than the old-time docker, and this factor will be felt. The remedy for the docker, like all others possessing nothing but the ability to work, is clear. Jealously guarding their existing T.U. privileges, recognising the essential limitations of their efforts to withstand the attacks of their masters, they must perceive that the private ownership of the machinery of producing wealth, including shipping, is the basic cause of their perpetual poverty and consequent struggle for miserable employment. The S.P.G.B. do not, as our opponents impugn, idly wait on the working class. The lie must be bludgeoned—that S.P.G.B.ers are dilletantes, and the efforts of the members in the actual arena of the industrial workshops is the irrefutable proof. The clerks, labourers, dockers, railwaymen, seamen, taxicabmen, waitresses, etc., that form the membership of the S.P.G.B., call upon their mates, wherever they may be, to examine our case carefully. Having done so, we are sure of their ultimate verdict. We have a great historical responsibility to carry, and we need the help of the working class of the world.

Tony Mulheron
(Mulheron was a dock worker in Glasgow.)

For a socialist future of abundance

Socialists have always faced the question of how to bring our ideas of how we will successfully transform society to the attention of our fellow-workers.  The profit motive of capitalism is fundamentally at odds with the interests of humanity and our task is to convince people of that fact. The Socialist Party asks some basic questions of us all, such as what does it mean to be a human being and how do we organise the world in ways that foster mutual aid, caring and cooperation so to live in harmony with one another and with the natural world. We must persuade men and women to alter their social relations. The Socialist Party declares that socialism is the only alternative social system which will truly emancipate human beings.  We won't achieve social change simply by taking to the streets in protests and demonstrations. These may challenge the authority of the state, but they have not succeeded in usurping it. Those who engage only in protest politics on the margins of society must understand that there will be the power of the State to overturn.  Radical change won't occur by voting for the candidates who promise us various reforms such as a $15 minimum wage, free healthcare and education. We will never achieve the socialist change we so desperately need simply by going to the ballot box and voting for the lesser of evils.

The working class is comprised of people who are selling their ability to work for a wage or salary. The vast majority of people are in the working class despite being quite diverse in appearance. Things are very different today compared to the time Marx was writing Capital but not everything has changed. There still exists the fundamental similarities which formed the basis of his analysis. There is an interaction of the thinking and ideas of people who are responding to their experience under capitalist conditions and from which arises class consciousness.

Many workers hold have an anti-socialist perspective, even if they may understand what socialism means, they just don't believe it is a feasible alternative or a viable vision enough to work towards. How do you win them over is the task of a socialist party. Literature and public meetings may influence but these alone are no guarantee of success. Workers have to largely discover for themselves the socialist solutions to their many problems, through much of their own experience, and then discussions with existing socialists will resonate more deeply. The idea of socialism has to make sense and reflect a person's own experience under capitalism. If capitalism is in crisis as it is right now then that may in some way assist in communicating the case for socialism and connecting that to the idea of socialism and to the need for socialism with the realities and miseries of capitalist daily struggles. Socialists will receive a more receptive hearing when we talk and share ideas. This is how we will build a socialist consciousness and a socialist movement.  If we are to create a new rational society, we must fearlessly build a world socialist movement.

For sure, the Socialist Party does not possess a model of socialism because there has never been a socialist society in the way that it defines socialism. There have been countries that claimed to be socialist, but these were not genuinely socialist. Marx didn't draw any blueprints of what the future society should look like. He recognised that the future society is something that needs to be worked out by the people of that society -- those are going to shape the socialist system in practice. It is impossible to know when and where the revolution is going to happen and what the actual conditions are going to be. So, a blueprint might not be relevant to the actualities of that situation, although Marx did refer to certain guiding general principles that would apply to a socialist society, such as the necessity of democratic administration even if he did not lay out any specific structure of decision-making. He and Engels did refer to the short-lived Paris Commune as an example of what they sought to establish, a democracy where representatives were elected to help oversee things but controlled by the people so that you didn't have a government over the people. Socialism, likewise will require some kind of democracy that is delegated to people who we elect and control where freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of organisation, and freedom to put forward alternatives to the existing policies prevail. There will be checks and balances. The new socialist cooperative commonwealth will facilitate an array of organisations community, city and factory-wide, as well as regional and global entities that are elected and controlled by the people. You cannot have a socialist economy in a single country because what you have is a worldwide capitalist network. For socialism to work there needs to be socialist revolutions in other countries as well.

We cannot have socialism based on poverty and scarcity, because then regardless of what is supposed to happen, people will be competing for scarce resources. Those that will get a little bit more power will be able to get more resources and push others down.

As Sylvia Pankhurst said:

“Socialism means plenty for all. We do not preach a gospel of want and scarcity, but of abundance. Our desire is not to make poor those who to-day are rich, in order to put the poor in the place where the rich now are. Our desire is not to pull down the present rulers to put other rulers in their places. We wish to abolish poverty and to provide abundance for all. We do not call for limitation of births, for penurious thrift, and self-denial. We call for a great production that will supply all, and more than all the people can consume. Such a great production is already possible, with the knowledge already possessed by mankind.”

She explained:

“ ...Socialism entails the total abolition of money, buying and selling, and the wages system. It means the community must set itself the task of providing rather more than the people can use of all the things that the people need and desire, and of supplying these when and as the people require them.”

The Case for Socialism

The Socialists Party’s position on parliamentary action is that it must be the revolutionary act as the capture of political power by a class conscious majority of the working class. Although economic organisation of the workers is very necessary in order that they sell their labour-power to the best advantage, unions have many limitations and weaknesses. Unions must depend upon numbers rather than on understanding. They cannot, in the long run, alter the downward trend of working-class conditions. They are concerned primarily with wages and hours problems rather than with overthrowing capitalism. The only way the workers can permanently improve their lot is the establishment of socialism.  A socialist working class does not smash the state. Marx in no place advocated the smashing of the state but on the contrary, he advocated its capture so that the workers could, “lop off its repressive features and transform it into an agent of emancipation.”

 Some consider reforms and government public-ownership (nationalisation) as gradual stepping stones to socialism. Some thought state-capitalism (often called state-socialism) was actually a form of socialism, if not socialism itself. These efforts to administer and reform capitalism led to erroneous concepts, such as identifying certain capitalist relationships as being socialist ones. It has become the custom of intellectuals and progressives to dismiss as dogmatic and sectarian those who understood that socialist activities must not be disassociated and divorced from the socialist objective. Particularly damaging to socialist understanding has been the stress on nationalism which is foreign to the very spirit of socialism, which is a world-wide society. Hosts of workers are bewildered by the deceptions and disappointments of the so-called “socialist” or “communist” “victories.” We are left to wonder how far the socialist movement could have advanced without these vast diversions and had the same efforts being devoted to socialist activities.

The case for socialism is not too difficult to grasp. There are three phases of socialism, an unfolding process.

(1) Socialism arose out of the material conditions of the earlier portion of the 19th Century. It recognises that everything in existence is interrelated and in a constant process of change. Socialism indicates the general outlines and the process of social evolution and, more particularly, the nature of capitalism. It explains how the seed of the forthcoming society is fertilised within the womb of an old society.
(2) Then, socialism becomes a movement. It is not alone sufficient to understand the world. the task is to change it and to arouse the working class to become the agents of change so that the vast majority becomes conscious of its interests, and proceeds to institute socialism. The socialist revolution cannot be rammed down the throats of “followers.” The socialist revolution is majority, conscious and political. It is and can only be democratic by its very inherent nature. It is not a new ruling class coming to power with a subject class having to submit.
(3) Finally, in the course of its evolution, capitalism has laid the groundwork for socialism, a class-free, money-free, wage-free society. Socialism is “a society from which exploitation has been banished and in which the unfolding of each individual would be the condition for the freedom of all.”

A socialist is someone who realises that capitalism can no longer be reformed or administered in the interest of either the working class or society; that capitalism is incapable of eliminating its inherent problems of poverty, wars, crises, etc.; and that socialism offers the solutions for the social problems besetting mankind since the material conditions and developments—with the single exception of an aroused socialist majority—are now ripe for a socialist society. If anyone supports the continuation of capital-wage labour relationships by advocating or organizing to administer the status quo instead of coming out for the socialist revolution then, he or she is NOT a socialist.

The Socialist Party emphasises the need for educating, agitating and organising to keep the issues clear.  It is not that more planning is needed but that outmoded social relations of the capitalist economic system must be abandoned. 

The Contradictions of China’s Capitalism

 The spectacle of a so called 'communist' regime trying to jack up a casino-like capitalist market is just one of the many contradictions that have been accumulating in almost every corner of China’s economy and politics.

 And now, their weight is perhaps becoming too heavy for the Party hierarchy to bear.   Indeed, the composition of the CCP is itself a contradiction. The 'revolutionary' party of peasants and workers is now dominated by businessmen, college students, and professionals. One-third of the people listed in the Hurun Report, the Shanghai-based monitor of China’s wealthiest people, are Party members.

 The average wealth of the richest 70 members of the National People’s Congress, China’s parliament, far exceeds $1 billion. (The richest 70 members of India’s parliament or even the US Congress, both now controlled by right-wing political parties, are substantially less wealthy.)

But, unlike in other capitalist economies, money is not the only tool at the authorities’ disposal. If your brokers in China advise you to sell shares, they must be careful not to appear to be rumormongers, subject to official punishment. And there are reports that sales of large holdings may trigger investigations by the authorities. Causing public disorder or financial instability can be a serious offense in China, where conspiracy theories about foreigners’ efforts to undermine the economy abound.

 What Chinese officials desire is a capitalist stock market without the possibility of large losses that can shake confidence in the CCP’s credibility and control. But that is a market that no one has yet invented.

As Socialists who have always held, like Marx, that socialism and democracy are inseparable and who denounced Lenin's distortion of Marxism right from 1917, we vehemently denied that it is socialism that failed in Eastern Europe. What has failed there is totalitarian state capitalism falsely masquerading as socialism.

Similarly but with more success apparently, the Chinese state capitalist dictatorship has developed capitalism on top of a backwards, feudal economy.

Socialism, as a worldwide society based on common ownership and democratic control of productive resources and the abolition of the wages system and the market with goods and services being produced and distributed to meet needs, has yet to be tried and more than ever remains the only way forward for humanity.