Socialism on tape (1991)

From the February 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

From the above list, the following recordings are available on the SPGB website:

• Capitalism or Socialism? DEBATE between The Socialist Party (E. Hardy) and the Conservative Party (Arthur Johnston). (1983)
• 'Looking forward': The way ahead for Socialists. DEBATE between The Socialist Party (Steve Coleman) and Socialist Organiser (Simon Pottinger). (1983)
• Is Britain Worth Dying For? DEBATE between The Socialist Party and Lady Olga Maitland (Women and Families for Defence) (1984).
• After The Miners Strike — Which Way Forward For Socialists? DEBATE between The Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party (speaker Colin Tipton) (1985).
• Did Lenin Distort Marx? DEBATE between The Socialist Party and Monty Johnstone (Communist Party. Marxism Today) (1982).
• The Crisis In Capitalism — What Is The Next Step? DEBATE between The Socialist Party (speaker Clifford Slapper) and Bill Etherington (General Secretary. Durham Mechanics NUM) (1986)
• The Politics of Rosa Luxemburg, Speaker Vic Vanni (1983)
• Marxian Economics And Capitalist Textbooks. Speaker Adam Buick. (1987)
• Marx's Conception Of Socialism. Speaker E. Hardy (1987)
• The Gulf Crisis — Another War for Oil. Central London rally with panel of speakers (1990).

Education Conference on Working-Class Culture (1986):

• Folk Music and Workers' History. Speaker: Sandy Easton
• Educating the Workers. Speaker: Brian Rubin
• Soap Operas and Working-Class Life. Speaker: Gary Slapper

Education Series on Marxian Economics. Speaker: E. Hardy (1980).

• Labour Theory of Value.
• Crises and Depressions. (Part 2, Part 3.)
• Productivity.
• Rent, Interest and Profit.
• Marxist and Monetarist Theories of Inflation.
• Taxation and the Working Class.

Socialist Party Meetings (1991)

 Party News from the February 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Meetings (1988)

Party News from the October 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Interesting to see that the debate with the left-wing Labour MP, Ron Brown, is listed as being on the 2nd of November, and that the SPGB speaker was to be the late Pieter Lawrence. According to this piece in the September 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard,  which gives the details of a Special Branch report on the meeting, the debate took place on the 7th December, and the SPGB speaker was Steve Coleman. Maybe Ron Brown debated the SPGB twice in the space of a month? I doubt it. Obviously the debate needed to be rearranged, and a new SPGB speaker sought.

Not fare (1982)

From the October 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

The famous “Fares Fair" scheme, by which some Labour members of the Greater London Council tried to ease London Transport's financial worries (and win some votes), pleased some people but enraged just as many more. Some complained that reduced fares were being paid for by higher rates while businesses claimed the increase would drive them to the wall and cause even more unemployment.

In the end the scheme was thrown out by the House of Lords and LT fares were doubled in March. This decision greatly pleased those other reformers, the Tories, but it did not solve LTs financial problems — the consequence was a massive jump in fare-dodging.

This fare-dodging has been a longstanding worry for LT but just recently it has come to a head because of several articles in the London evening newspaper, the Standard. Its August 10 article Find the Fare Fiddlers was all too reminiscent of similar headlines during the last two decades.

Back in January 1971 the Socialist Standard carried an article on this subject. At that time LT claimed to be losing only £1 million yearly due to fare-dodging, but as the article in the Socialist Standard stated: "The signs are that London Transport’s figure of £1 million . . . will be shown to be hopelessly underestimated”. In 1972 LT admitted that the losses were £5 million. By 1978 the figure was £12 million and in 1982 the loss is expected to be an astonishing £30 million — or over 5 per cent of LT's total income.

In 1966 plans were made to instal automatic ticket gates to control passenger entrance and exit. This was to have cost £10 million at 1966 prices but the rapidly escalating costs of the system have resulted in its partial introduction only. As most stations have no automatic gates many passengers simply pay the collector at the other end a fraction of the real cost of the journey.

In the past you could hand over a fivepenny piece and walk through the barrier with no trouble at all. but nowadays there is a marked change in the attitude of the collectors. They arc much more zealous in their duties, not out of any new-found loyalty to LT, but because many of them realise that the more they collect in excess fares the more they can keep for themselves. LT reckon that another £10 million is being lost to staff using this method, plus a variety of ingenious variations.

Not that Underground employees gel all of this £10 million to themselves, for LT’s bus conductors also have ways of keeping part of what they collect. These include the use of Black and Decker drilling machines to wind back the counters on ticket machines and. according to the Standard newspaper article, more than 2,000 of LT’s 13.000 bus conductors have already been cautioned for fiddling fares.

This conflict between LT and its employees is actually part of the ceaseless struggle between employees and employers, whether the latter be private companies or state or municipal concerns. The main bone of contention is usually wages and conditions of work but workers will also claw back a bit of what they can't get legally. Rare indeed is the worker who never goes for a read or does a “homer” in the company's time, never uses the photocopier for his or her own purpose, never takes home the company’s stationery or arrives late or leaves early. And it’s the same with the army of fare-dodgers. True, they aren’t employees of LT (no doubt many of them think LT belongs to them!) but hard-up workers will always try to supplement their earnings with a bit of free travel if they can.

Vic Vanni

SPGB Meetings (1982)

Party News from the August 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Vodka-cola (1979)

Book Review from the November 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Co-production deals between Western enterprises and East European governments are becoming big business and attract a lot of notice in the press. These deals now represent 10 per cent of East-West trade and are rapidly growing in number and importance.

Co-production is distinct from normal East-West trade, which is handicapped by the fact that it doesn’t allow the Eastern bloc to buy all it needs. The West doesn’t want payment for exports in roubles or other Eastern currencies as these are practically worthless. Russia has been paying for much of its imports with large amounts of gold but as this tends to reduce its price then Russia’s trading position simply worsens, while other Eastern countries have little or no gold anyway.

Barter deals are hopelessly inadequate as Western exporters rarely want the commodities being offered in exchange. Even so, barter does exist. Pepsi-Cola, long reviled by communist propagandists as a “monopolist”, has built a plant in Russia capable of producing 74 million bottles a year for Russian consumption. Since Pepsi wouldn’t take roubles and Russia needed its gold for American wheat, payment is made in Vodka and Pepsi were given the monopoly for selling Russian wines in the USA.

Despite Kruschev’s boast that Russia would surpass the West economically within 15 years, she has fallen further behind and the gap is widening all the time. To catch up, Russia and her satellites need Western technology but cannot acquire enough of it for the reasons given. Also, they already owe the West such a staggering debt (at least 80 billion dollars) that they cannot count on extended credit forever.

However, steps are being taken to rescue the Eastern bloc from its predicament, for a price, by none other than Western big business —the very “multinationals” who are supposed to be the mortal enemies of “international communism”. Just how and why this is being done is explained in a new book, Vodka Cola, by Charles Levinson. (Gordon and Cremonesi, £7.90.)

In the book Levinson lays bare the reasons for the current “detente” between the West and the Eastern bloc. This has nothing to do with either side learning to love the other but is dictated by their respective economic needs. The East must modernise its industry in order to keep its population passive. After all, expectations of a better life must be met someday. For Western big business there is the glittering prospect of a potential new market of 400 million people, plus the opportunity to switch its production away from a unionised, high-wage, strike-prone labour force to one which is state regimented, low-wage and forbidden to strike.

So the last thing the multinationals want to do is disturb the status quo behind the Iron Curtain. Any growth of political freedom there would produce genuine trade unions and the inevitable inroads into profit margins. Hence their enthusiasm for detente. Levinson also points out that the agreements signed by Eastern and Western politicians are only political window dressing. It was the businessmen of both sides who made the real breakthrough and all the politicians have done is merely help smooth the way for future deals. When it comes down to it, ideological differences are demolished by economic realities.

These co-production deals enable the West to sell the East what it needs and get paid, not in dud currencies or shoddy, inferior products, but in cheap Eastern made goods manufactured to Western standards which can be sold on the world market at a fat profit.

Co-production takes a variety of forms:

LICENCING: until the early 1960s only a few licences to use Western technology were purchased in the East. Now there are several thousand. These were previously paid for in scarce hard currency but now payment is likely to be in the products being made under licence. For example, Fiat, Volkswagen and British Leyland have been paid for their licences in vehicles and parts.

BUY-BACK: this means that industrial giants like Renault of France and Montedison of Italy will supply—in this case Russia—with an entire car factory and chemical plant and be paid in cars and chemicals for sale throughout the world. The Eastern partner is also helped to market its share of production through distribution companies specially set up for the purpose. In this way much needed hard currency flows back to the East to enable it to buy more of what it requires.

LEASING: the Eastern bloc also uses equipment rented from Western companies. So far this has not happened within Russia itself, but its merchant fleet has leased thousands of cargo containers and other equipment from the West, so privately owned means of production and distribution exist in part of the Russian economy. Levinson’s view is that leasing will increase because of the advantages it offers the East, among which is the acquiring of modem technology without spending huge amounts of hard currency. He predicts that it is only a matter of time until leasing will be allowed within Russia.

The list of “monopolists” involved in co-production deals makes fascinating reading: General Motors, Exxon (Esso), Ford, Unilever, IBM, Krupp, ITT (played a leading part in setting up Pinochet’s regime in Chile), Coca-Cola, Du Pont, Westinghouse, ICI, Union Carbide, Fiat . . . Many of them are bitter opponents of trade unionism in their own plants and all of them, needless to say, collect their share of the surplus value created by the Eastern workers employed in the various projects.

Cyrus Eaton, the American multimillionaire, revealed how it is done when he explained his 40 million dollar 50/50 deal for building a tyre factory in the East in 1970. The communist state partner would own and operate the plant. Eaton’s half would be in tax-haven Switzerland and would market the tyres in the West. Eaton says

“This enabled the Eastern country to earn hard currency and because of lower labour costs the venture can sell tyres cheaper than Western countries can. The plant in the East sells the tyres to the marketing subsidiary at cost —thus leaving profits to the joint marketing subsidiary.” (p. 87.)

Nice one, Cyrus.

All of this must have its effect on Western jobs. Naturally, the co-production partners deny this and claim that the increased trade will provide the West with 2 million new jobs. But the Eastern products, because they are made by low-wage labour, consistently undercut similar Western products. Indeed Western manufacturers and trade unions are forever protesting about “dumping” on Western markets. In Britain the footwear, textile, tailoring, motor car and TV tube industries, to name a few, have been badly hit by cheap imports from many countries and thousands of jobs have been lost. So while the British Communist Party demands action to “fight unemployment” their Eastern counterparts are busily contribute: it.

Unfortunately for the Eastern bloc the present type of co-production deal cannot fully solve their problem. The technology they are buying tends to be second rate and outmoded by Western standards. The West will not hand over the latest developments because it feels it does not have sufficient safeguards as things stand. For example, equipment and know-how supplied under one deal can easily be pirated and used by the East for other projects of its own, so Western companies are increasingly demanding a 50/50 share in the ownership of the plants as well as the products and profits. Because the Russians have refused to allow this they have failed to clinch several important deals. The Russian government’s refusal stems from an unwillingness to lose face: how would it be able to explain away such a blatant example of private, as opposed to state, ownership of part of “socialist industry?

Hungary and Rumania have gone some way towards meeting this problem. Although not allowing Western-owned plants, they do permit Western companies to own a large share of the profits of the joint venture (payable of course in hard currency). Volvo of Sweden has an agreement with Hungary for the assembly of Volvo cars with 48 per cent of the profits going to Volvo shareholders. This represents legal ownership of part of Hungary’s means of production. In Poland the government has gone all the way; foreign companies can legally own the entire project and if the deal is terminated then company can take out its original investment plus its share of capital gains.

The pressure on Russia to come some sort of compromise is enormous. Russia apparently needs the latest in mini computers but IBM and other suppliers are refusing to provide them. They want to protect their technology by retaining control over its use and means joint ownership of the project where it is being used. Only in this way can the company prevent its technology being applied outside of the contract.

Levinson frequently refers to the theories of Karl Marx and seems to have understood these better than most writers. For example, he says

“The end result of co-production operations is profits for the capitalists, and this means that the socialist enterprises are involved in creating the surplus value which Marxism regards as the basis of the capitalist class’s exploitation of the worker.” (p. 261.)

If the words “Eastern state capitalist” had been substituted for “socialist” then we couldn’t have put it better. He mistakenly attributes the failure of Russian nationalisation to “Marxist ideas” but continues

“Nobody (in Russia), unfortunately, had raised the minor question, ‘Whether the business be private or nationalised, how does it profit the worker who is subjected to the same authoritarian labour methods in either case?’ ” (p. 224.)

Although the book contains several other mistakes regarding Marx’s views, these cannot obscure the value of Levinson’s work as an aid to understanding how business, East and West, operates and what its priorities are. And we cannot help noticing that the analysis of modern society by Levinson, and many others outside our ranks, is very similar to our own. Nowadays, you don’t have to be a socialist to be struck by capitalism’s glaring contradictions and antisocial nature.

Vic Vanni

Blogger's Notes:

Charles Levinson replied to this review in the March 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard.

In connection to Levinson's book, the following might be of interest to some readers. In 1981, there was a fictional adaptation of the book entitled Beloved Enemy. Directed by Alan Clarke (who also directed Scum, The Firm and Elephant) and adapted for television by David Leland, it was transmitted on the BBC as part of the Play for Today series of dramas.

Beloved Enemy is available to watch on YouTube:

Obituary: Paula Winters (2007)

Obituary from the January 2007 issue of the Socialist Standard

Glasgow Branch regrets to report the passing of Paula Winters. Paula joined the party in March 1984 and entered into party activity with great enthusiasm. Her honest and outgoing personality together with her empathy for people made her a valuable addition to the branch. Unfortunately Paula’s health declined and this prevented her from participating in branch activities. Before her illness she had performed cop-watching duties on fly-posting excursions and was the branch’s undisputed top literature seller too. Vic Vanni had heard stories about her success at selling the Socialist Standard around the pubs and went with her to find out for himself. “Sure enough,” he said “it was all true and her sales technique really was something to behold!” Despite her many illnesses and misfortunes, Paula never lost her empathy and sympathy for her fellow workers. In fact it sometimes seemed as though she took the problems of the world upon her own shoulders and her compassion seemed to know no bounds. To know her truly was to love her and to Paula everyone in the world was her friend. We shall all miss her. Our deepest condolences go to her sister Josephine; my sister Flora, who was a close friend; and other relatives together with all of her many friends. I, who had the privilege of being her partner for twenty-six years, will find the world a much bleaker place without her. She was a magnificent woman and a true revolutionary.

John Cumming

SPGB Meetings (1974)

Party News from the February 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

• 'S. Stefen' was the pen-name/party name of Stephen Shenfield.
• Howard Weaver's obituary was posted elsewhere on the blog.
• Stephen Bodington was the author of the 1973 book, Computers and Socialism. He was associated with the Labour Left.

SPGB Meetings (2009)

Party News from the January 2009 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

• Zeitgeist Addendum was reviewed the December 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard.
• A video recording of the debate between Adam Buick and Hillel Ticktin is available on YouTube. (A warning: it's in 10 parts.)

SPGB Meetings (1983)

Party News from the October 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

There is an audio recording of Edgar Hardcastle's debate with Arthur Johnston of the Conservative Party at the following link.

There is also a write up of Howard Moss debate with Roger Scruton in the May 1984 issue of the Socialist Standard.

SPGB Meetings (1972)

Party News from the October 1972 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Meetings (1983)

Party News from the August 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Meetings (1977)

Party News from the August 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

All Coppers are Workers (1971)

From the August 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

Are the police paragons of virtue or fascist bastards? Certainly they are abused as fascists by many leftists who, with their customary lack of originality, have also seized upon the American term “pigs” which is used endlessly in their various journals such a Red Mole and International Times. At the demonstrations against the Industrial Relations Bill earlier this year, the police were denounced as enemies of the working class and many placards showing a Bobby as “your next personnel manager” were on display.

Is this attitude justified? Of course the police are not in any trade union and they are sometimes seen in conflict with strikers, besides students and other protesters; so how different are policemen from other wage earners in their general outlook?

Obviously, the nature of their job as part of the state machine ensures that the ruling class will try to ensure that the police cannot strike. Add to this the fact that throughout its history many of the force have had a background of military discipline, and the possibility of a police trade union looks bleak indeed. And yet there was such a union – The National Union of Police and Prison Officers, formed in 1913.

Earlier attempts to obtain better pay and conditions through organisation were made in London in 1872 and 1890. Both were quickly crushed by dismissing the men’s spokesmen. However, during World War One the police were no longer well paid in relation to other workers — were even worse off. Cancellation of leave-days plus many other irritations saw the rapid growth of the illegal union with constables Marston and Thiel as Chairman and Provincial Organiser respectively. When the authorities tried the usual victimisation tactics almost the whole of the Metropolitan Police Force, numbering 19,000 men, struck. During the strike pickets clashed with blacklegs and special police, just like other workers in a similar situation.

The authorities, caught unprepared, had to climb down and the men’s demands were met with on important exception — the guarantee of union recognition. Soon after the strike the union claimed it had over 40,000 paying members. In some cities the union was influential in the Police Representation Boards — in Liverpool it was able to have men promoted who had been unfairly passed over. Meantime the authorities were preparing for a showdown and in this they were helped not only by granting better pay and conditions, but by the union leadership which was far too militant for its members.

When the union was outlawed by the Police Act of 1919 a national strike was called despite the fact that less than half the police were members; also, there was no strike fund and no likelihood of support from other unions. This time in London only 1,113 came out, but in Liverpool 932 out of 1,256 struck. Riots took place there in Liverpool, Birkenhead, as looting mobs battled for days with soldiers and specials while a battleship and two destroyers steamed from Scapa Flow to the Mersey. The strike collapsed and every single striker was dismissed, never to be reinstated. For many it meant, besides unemployment, eviction from home and loss of pension. Many who had been opposed to striking nevertheless did so out of loyalty to the union or because they had given their word. Today there are still survivors of this little known episode in working class history who proudly possess a card which proclaims that they are “still on strike” [1].

Nor is the British experience unique. The same things happened in Boston, USA, in 1919 with similar results — all strikers were dismissed. [2] In 1963 the Helsinki police impressed the urgency of their case on the authorities by resigning en masse on the same day! In March this year Paris police stopped work twice on the same day for several hours and distributed leaflets outlining their grievances, amongst which was their dislike of being sent to quell campus disturbances (leftists take note!). Also, many New York police struck for several days last January.

Nowadays the police in Britain, from inspectors to constables, are organised in the Police Federation, formed in 1919. Although forbidden to strike, the Federation negotiates pay and conditions with the authorities in much the same way as a trade union. The separate Scottish Federation has been demanding the right to strike and its secretary, Dan Wilson, commented that the government in refusing this “. . .  are only burying their head in the sand if they deny the police the same rights as other workers . We are, after all , only workers” (Guardian 28/11/70).

So the police record in recognising their class position in society isn’t as bad as some people may think. They have, from time to time, shown considerable courage in the face of tremendous opposition from the authorities — and from public opinion. And their response to attempts by their employers to squeeze extra work from them is the same as that encountered in factory, mine or office. Some years ago when the Chief of Police in New York attempted to increase the men’s productivity, a police captain observed that “The Chief makes the decisions and then the locker room makes decisions.” In short, the men themselves regulate their work rate. 

That policemen regard their work in much the same way as other workers can be seen from the numbers who leave the Force for jobs offering better wages and hours. In harsher times a job in the Force was a sinecure and much sought after, and men were prepared to accept the strict discipline. With the coming of “full employment” after 1945 there was a mass exodus of police into better paid industrial work and they were joined by those police who had been in the armed forces. By 1959 almost as many trained men were leaving as recruits were joining. 25,000 joined between 1960–64 but 17,000 left in the same period. In 1964 seventeen recruits meant a net gain of two. As J.P. Martin and Gail Wilson put it – “For many the police service is no longer a lifetime commitment.” [3]

The argument is often advanced that in the event of a socialist majority attempting to establish Socialism democratically, the police will be used, along with the armed forces, to suppress that majority. This is an argument which assumes that policemen have political and moral ideas which are very different from those of society in general. Stuart Bowes, in his attack on the police [4] supports this view — “Anti-democratic sentiments, pro-fascist sympathies and racialist antipathies are commonly revealed by individual policemen.” Perhaps Bowes hasn’t noticed that the same can be said of other workers too — the dockers and market porters who marched in support of Enoch Powell in 1968 are obvious examples.

Bowes quotes many instances of police attacks on strikers and demonstrators, especially during the Depression years The sad fact is that politically ignorant workers, fearful for their jobs in hard times, will be more inclined to perform despicable acts and obey savage orders. Police brutality during the 20s and 30s can be largely attributed to this, and Bowes has to admit that police violence during the post-war strikes has been little.

Michael Banton, in his book Policeman in the Community, points out that “The policeman obtains public co-operation and enjoys public esteem, because he enforces standards accepted by the community.” In other words, if the police are “pigs” then they are only a reflection of a society of “pigs”: they simply do its bidding. The policeman lives in the community and desires to be part of it and have its respect. He needs, as a social being, the moral support of the community in doing his job and will often disregard the law if it is in conflict with what the community thinks is right. For example, in a society with a high proportion of automobile users like America, the point has been reached where the police often avoid booking for traffic offences because of the loss of respect produced by such action.

The police themselves know the situation. The Federation’s Newsletter has stated that “Without the confidence, approval and support of the public, the police machine as we know it today would become incapable of fulfilling its function . . . the history of the police force shows [that] clearly” Exactly. Imagine how the Royal Ulster Constabulary would fare if it tried to hunt out IRA men in the Republic? Or remember how hopeless was the task of the police in Cyprus and Aden when faced with hostile populations? Anyway, policemen who will draw the line at handing out a traffic ticket because of public disapproval are unlikely to be willing to try quelling a majority determined upon changing society.

Do not misunderstand us about the police: this is not whitewash job. Undoubtedly many policemen have obnoxious Political and Social ideas, and there can be no denying that some of them are prone to use violence. But if they sometimes behave brutally towards students, demonstrators, etc, think how many other workers with all their prejudices would behave towards these, if only they had the policeman’s authority and opportunity.

It is long since time for leftists and radicals to stop being hysterical about the police and to have a saner look at the subject. In the Number 6 issue of Ink, one writer, Peter Laurie, has shown just such a welcome approach when in an article describing his past and present attitudes towards the police, he concludes

“We feel that there are forces of liberation at work in our society and that they are being held up and obstructed by blocks like the police. It seems to me now that the police are no more than an organic expression of the mind of industrialised man : we will not change them until we change the way everyone thinks, until we demolish the great inhuman system that divides us and uses us all”

Could this be the light at the end of the tunnel? Our case is that policemen have much the same attitudes as other workers since they are conditioned by the same economical, social and historical forces operating in society. Eventually, the world’s workers, will respond to capitalism’s inhumanities to the extent that they understand and desire the socialist alternative – production for use and the end of exchange relationships. Then Socialist ideas will be just as prevalent in the minds of any policemen who may still be around. They will be for the revolution, not against it.

Vic Vanni

 

Notes

[1.] For a history of the police strikes of 1918 – 19 see “The Night the Police Went on Strike” by Reynolds and Judge

[2.] "Western Socialist" number 5 1965

[3.] "The Police – A study in Manpower"

[4.] "The Police and Civil Liberties"

The Disappearing Peasant: Agriculture in EEC (1973)

From the June 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard 

So you think you’ve got problems! Undoubtedly many workers are worried about Britain’s entry into the Common Market (EEC) and the effect this may have on jobs and prices, but whatever the problems may be they will be chickenfeed compared to those which the EEC capitalists and their political representatives have had to, and will continue to, grapple with.

Although the current monetary crisis and the fallout with the United States have provided the recent headlines there can be absolutely no doubt that the biggest headache for the EEC is that of agriculture. The root cause is the existence of too many farmers producing too dearly. The various governments, especially those in France and West Germany, would love to drastically reduce the number but the snag is that the farmers have votes so governments must handle the whole affair with kid gloves.

This is why the member nations are paying these farmers inflated prices. What happens is that each year prices for most agricultural products are fixed in advance, but should the market price fall below the agreed level then national agencies step in to buy the produce at a slightly lower or “fall back” price. Of course the EEC farmers haven’t been slow to take advantage of this and the effect has been to encourage increased production which they know will be taken off their hands whether it can be sold or not.

Expensive Independence

In France alone the government had to pay its farmers £390 millions for surplus products in 1969 and the other five EEC nations had to provide them with another £115 millions from the fund which The Six have set up for such a purpose. This fund is provided out of taxation and also from the duties collected from food imports from countries outside the EEC, and this second source was one of the points which the British government was haggling over during the negotiations to join. After all, Britain is a large food importer and will have to watch all that lovely duty vanishing into the pockets of continental farmers. To aggravate matters Britain’s small but highly developed agriculture industry is unlikely to qualify for very much back from the fund so what is happening is that the nations which have rationalized their agriculture are subsidizing those which have not.

But even France’s own pay-out of £390 millions came out of taxation and since this derives mostly from industry which could be doing with the money itself for modernization to make it more competitive with, say, America and Japan, then there is a big impetus to cut this burden by getting rid of surplus farmers and their produce.

In Britain the rural population was decimated by the land enclosure of the 14th, 16th, and 18th centuries while the period of free-trade in the 19th century completed the rout by enabling cheap foreign food imports to all but ruin British agriculture. In Europe enclosures didn’t happen to anywhere near the same extent and there was no similar era of free-trade so the rural population remained extremely large. In Britain the percentage of the working population engaged in 1970 was only 3 per cent.

The situation is worsened by the tradition of inheritance. In Britain the system of primogeniture (eldest takes all) was long the rule but in France and West Germany the tendency was for the land to be divided up among all the sons. This has created smaller, more numerous farms which simply aren’t economic. In Britain the average farm in 1970 comprised 91.3 acres while in France it was 51.9, 28.9 in West Germany and only 19 in Italy, so the drive is on to consolidate the smaller farms into fewer, enlarged farms to make use of modem methods and machinery. As France’s premier, Chaban Delmas, said in 1969, “agriculture should be run competitively like an industry”.

Naturally the smaller farmers don’t like this since it will mean many of them losing their independence as owners of their own means of life. The alternative for them is to become wage-slaves and they aren’t exactly keen to sample factory life so they cling stubbornly to the land.

Even so, there is a significant decline in the numbers who live by agriculture. In 1958 about 22 per cent, of the working population of The Six lived this way but by 1970 this figure had dwindled to around 13 per cent. So the land is being cleared. This is being accomplished partly by bribing some farmers into early retirement and through a natural drift to the towns caused by the fact that despite guaranteed prices, hard work and long hours, farm incomes lag far behind those of industry.

Liquidate the Rest

But even this is not enough if farming is to cease being a drain on the pockets of the industrial capitalists of the EEC. Dr. Mansholt, recently resigned president of the EEC Commision, who recently rocked the boat by claiming in a speech at Hampton Court that the EEC had failed to improve conditions generally for the great mass of its population, produced a plan to have one in every three farmers off the land by 1980. Just how this was going to improve the conditions of the redundant one-third Dr. Mansholt didn’t say, but Professor Vedel of France proposes something even more drastic. He insists that five out of every six French farmers must retire or find other jobs. Mansholt’s plan also calls for the withdrawal of 12½ million acres from production while Vedel suggests 26 million acres be withdrawn. And yet there are still some people around who tell us that the world cannot produce enough food to feed us all!

These modern clearances are only a continuation of the process described by Marx in The Communist Manifesto when he demolished the argument that socialists wished to abolish the private property of the small peasants:

There is no need to abolish that, the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it and is still destroying it daily.

And although Engels in 1894 was trying to win the support of the small peasants for the reforming French and German Social Democrats he nevertheless warned them that they were “hopelessly doomed” and that capitalist production would sweep them away “as a railway train would sweep over a push cart”.

Now that capitalism in the EEC has made up its mind to bring agriculture into line with its needs (the right food in the right quantity and at the right cost) then the remnants of small peasantry whose productivity falls far short of what industrialized farming can provide will be progressively driven from the land into the ranks of wage-slavery. This is the only possible ending to the story.

Vic Vanni

Obituary: Harry Morrison “Harmo” 1912-2004 (2004)

Obituary from the June 2004 issue of the World Socialist newsletter

Born in 1912, Harry Morrison became convinced of the case for socialism as a young man, having been influenced by an older brother who had heard the case for socialism in Toronto, Ontario. Morrison first visited Boston around 1937 but soon traveled west to California.

He returned to Boston in 1939 where he met his future wife Sally Kligman at the Boston Local Headquarters. The couple married in the fall of 1939 and lived in Boston for a couple of years. In 1941 they moved to Los Angeles and made contact with the comrades there. They had a daughter, Anita, in 1942. The family moved back to Boston in 1947, and both Harry and Sally were active members of Boston Local from then on.

Morrison wrote voluminously for the organization, sometimes anonymously but usually under the pen name ‘Harmo.’ He was a very frequent contributor to The Western Socialist, and, as a member of the WS’s Editorial Committee, he also edited many articles submitted by others. He had a real gift for articulating the socialist analysis.

He enjoyed debating, and was a frequent member of the WSP group who engaged in debates with various local university debaters. He was a fine outdoor speaker as well. He was a soap box orator on Boston Common during the 1940s and 50s, and even after the WSP stopped soap boxing as an organization, Morrison continued to speak less formally to small groups along the paths near the Tremont Street side of the Common; he continued this into the 1960s, putting the case for socialism tirelessly and articulately.

For about 10 years during the 1960s and 70s, the WSP had a radio program on WCRB Boston. Morrison was among the comrades who wrote scripts for this program, He also was one of the on air readers. When the Party decided, in 1974, to publish a pamphlet in commemoration of the 300th consecutive issue of The Western Socialist, thirty or so of Morrison’s radio essays became The Perspective for World Socialism — a pamphlet which is still being distributed today. Also during this period he was a guest on another AM radio show hosted by the late Haywood Vincent and on the Adam Burak show on an FM station as well. Morrison served for many years on the NAC, as well as on the Editorial Committee. It would be hard to overestimate his contribution to the socialist movement.

Harry Morrison developed heart problems when he was in late middle age, and, at the suggestion of his doctor, ‘retired’ from active work in the WSP. After this, he used his time to write three books, The Socialism of Bernard Shaw (published by McFarland & Co. in 1989 and which we still distribute), and two others for which he was unable to find a publisher, one about Jack London and the other about the Soviet Union. Sally Morrison died in 1987. Harry continued to live in his apartment but no longer participated in Party activities during this period, concentrating, instead, on research for his books and on enjoying his family which now included two grandchildren. He would always accept an invitation to a social gathering, however, and liked to visit with comrades visiting the area, most recently with SPGB Comrades Vic Vanni and Tony McNeil who spent some time in Boston in 2002.

All quiet in Glasgow (1965)

From the June 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

Certain historical facts have ensured that racialism has never been prominent in Glasgow. For instance, anti-Semitism rarely shows itself, except in the odd golf club, and even during the ’Thirties Mosley’s sole appearance in the City ended in complete fiasco.

The late arrival of the Jews (mid-19th century) was a help, for this meant that the ancient antagonism so typical on the Continent is absent here. Later on, the importation of Irish religious influences provided other means whereby the frustrations of wage-slavery could be worked off without the presence of any other “races”. The roles of “them” and “us” were adequately filled by the Orange and Catholic elements who have been hating one another ever since.

And unless a few pedlars and seamen, could be counted, Afro-Asians were an unusual sight in the City until the early ’Sixties when, it seemed to the Citizens, a flood of “Paki’s” suddenly descended in their midst. This impression was helped by the newcomers finding employment almost exclusively on the Municipal Transport, thereby assuring themselves of a constant place in the public eye, while their habit of taking up group residence gave the impression of whole areas being taken over.

In fact Glaswegians might be surprised to know that compared to Birmingham, which has a similar population, of just over a million, Glasgow's immigrants are rather thin on the ground—about 7,000 against Birmingham’s 70,000.

The reasons for the low numbers are obvious. Glasgow’s unemployed rarely falls below 20,000 while the light industries which can absorb the unskilled immigrant are practically non-existent here. Clydeside is synonymous with heavy engineering and shipbuilding so the demand is for skilled men only and what light industry there is can, in an area where wages are well below the national average, find an abundance of married women to fill any available vacancies.

Anyway, the big problem in Scotland is not immigration but emigration. Around 11.000 left here for overseas in each of the six years between 1958-63 while another 87.000 found work elsewhere in the U.K. during the 1950’s. So concerned with this state of affairs are the local Nationalists and Labourites that they don’t even have a policy on immigration at all, devoting themselves solely to preventing the mass escape of wage-slaves to other parts!

The Trade Unions have discussed the matter and at the 1962 Conference of the Scottish T.U.C. the Association of Scientific Workers, appropriately enough, moved an anti-racialist resolution which concluded ”. . . no barriers on grounds of race, creed or colour should be erected against those who wish to live and work in this country”. The motion was unanimously adopted. Another resolution condemning Apartheid is due to come before the 1965 Conference and doubtless it, too, will carry the day. All of this hardly reflects the attitude of the average union member. As the seconder of the 1962 resolution admitted “. . . we had to be honest. . . there were still some of our own people who had prejudice against a person’s race, religion or colour”.

So even if Glasgow’s record is comparatively clean it must be remembered that the conditions for real prejudice seldom crop up. The immigrants live almost as a separate community and follow their own cultural activities. They aim simply to stick it out for a few years, save enough money, and return home to open a small business. Few intend to stay.

Nor have they added to the local housing or unemployment problems. The ten year residential qualification rules them out for a Council so they live mainly in tenements which were slums years ago, and the jobs they find are usually those which do not, at present, attract local men anyway.

When the necessary conditions have arisen, in isolated instances Glaswegians have shown the same lack of class consciousness as workers elsewhere. Only recently, when some immigrants moved into a once posh street in the City, their neighbours raised the usual howl about the adverse effect this would have on the value of their property. Last Autumn a racial strike occurred at the Gavinsbum Bus Dept, just outside Glasgow, when the strikers claimed too many Pakistanis were getting jobs in an area of high unemployment. Nor should we forget how—earlier immigrants—Italian Cafe owners—had their shops smashed up by patriotic mobs when Italy entered the war in 1940.

The coming of the Immigration Act, plus the existing state of industry, make any immediate influx of immigrants unlikely. It does not follow, however, that the present peacefulness must continue. Capitalism has shown that no great change is required in its socio-economic climate to produce, here, the outbreaks of intolerance so common in other parts of the country.

Vic Vanni (Glasgow)

Branch News (1964)

Party News from the May 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

Conference this year was satisfactory as far as business was concerned, all items on the Agenda were dealt with and discussion by the delegates was interesting and most useful. It is regretted that all branches were not represented, but despite this the delegation was enthusiastic and lively. A report from the Central Organiser on the finance of the Social on Saturday evening stated that there was a balance in hand of £8 5s. 9d. after all expenses, including the cost of one or two of the raffle prizes. Several prizes were donated by Comrades.

The Central Organiser is surprised that the number attending the dance and social was not very great, he points out that Easter Saturday night gives an excellent opportunity for Comrades and friends to relax and chat, particularly as many provincial members are present who don't often have an opportunity to meet London comrades. He reminds us that it is not essential to dance—dancing is only part of the social evening and it is hoped that next year’s Conference Social will prove him wrong and that many more comrades will gather at the Annual Social and Dance. Three collections were taken up during the business time of Conference and Comrades responded very generously, in all over £13 was collected.

The Canteen Committee did wonderful work, as they so often do, and were providing food and drinks (tea and coffee!) throughout the Conference and Social. Their work adds to the success of every conference, and in addition to feeding everybody, made a credit balance, handed to the Treasurer of £12 5s. 3d. The Canteen Committee wish to thank members for their contributions, support and assistance.

The Sunday evening meeting was good and Comrade Vanni from Glasgow was on the platform to address the meeting. Following the Conference, on Easter Monday, Paddington Branch organised, with the Propaganda Committee and Literature Sales Committee, an all-out literature drive at the CND Rally in Trafalgar Square. General literature sales realised £6 10s. 8d. and individual Comrades who took their own branch literature sold £1 11s. worth. A donation of 6s. 4d. was collected. The grand total of literature sold was £8 3s. 2d. This included 232 copies of the Socialist Standard. All this despite miserable rainy weather. The Central Organiser wishes to thank everybody who "did their stint".

At the Labour Party Rally at the Albert Hall on the Sunday, the Literature Sales committee assisted by other comrades sold four dozen Socialist Standards. An excellent result, but it was felt that had more comrades been available, much more literature would have been sold. Such occasions are well worth the attendance of many, many comrades to sell literature as this is a way in which the Socialist message is propagated and also the more Socialist Standards that are sold, the cheaper the production cost and this is a very important factor. The Literature Sales Committee will be pleased to advise Comrades when such rallies are being attended—it is a really worth while job—selling Socialist literature.

A debate was held at the Co-op Hall, Ilkeston on Sunday, February 23rd. Comrade Cook from Birmingham was the Party representative and he debated with a member of the Liberal Party. The audience numbered 20 and of this number 10 were Party members. No serious opposition was offered by our opponent who apparently found it difficult to make her third contribution. Comrade Cook decided in the circumstances to forego his final speech and questions and discussion followed instead. This was to the Party’s advantage since the great majority of questions were directed to Comrade Cook. The meeting was advertised in the local press. 10s. of literature was sold then a collection of £1 was taken up.

Many meetings and Party activity are advertised in this issue, support for meetings by as many comrades as possible is essential to make these activities successful.

Phyllis Howard

Scots Nationalism - Part 2 (1975)

From the April 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

Last month we traced the development of modern nationalism in Scotland up till the founding of the National Party of Scotland in 1928.

The incredible hotchpotch of ideas contained in the new organisation soon became a cause for alarm among the more sensible members and drove one, Lewis Spence, to complain that the party was

“… a maelstrom boiling and bubbling with the cross-currents of rival and frequently fantastic theories, schemes and. notions we have people who wanted all Scotland to speak the Gaelic…. some hark back to the hope of a sixteenth-century Scotland regained … still others a Jacobite restoration. A certain group sees in the expulsion of all the English and Irish in Scotland the country’s only chance of survival . All is hubbub, outcry, chaos. There is no plan,. Nothing approaching a serious, practical Scotsman-like policy in -either art or politics. (H. J. Hanham, Scottish Nationalism. p. 154)

Poor Spence, but he should have known. With the loss of interest in Home Rule of the Scottish ruling class and their political sidekicks, the nationalist cause had fallen into the hands of all sorts of cranks, literary and otherwise, who were more concerned with “culture” than economics or social matters. Certainly they had little idea of the history of the toilers’ conditions as could be seen by their constant harking back to a mythical time when “our people were prosperous and contented” before the Union.

Anyway, the party was established and membership was open to all. Tories and Liberals as well as Labourites flocked in and even Lord Beaverbrook showed interest. Inevitably, some of the more opportunist leaders wished to “broaden the base of the party” and after an internal battle the party merged with a Tory splinter group to become the Scottish National Party (SNP) in 1934. From then until the 1950s the party endured the usual Right versus Left squabbling and several splits occurred, the largest of which was the setting up of a rival organisation, the Scottish Convention, in the 1940s.

Today the SNP seems to have left the lunatic fringe behind and appears as a modern, mass political party using the techniques of public relations and advertising industries to give it a new slick image, and the Executive Suit has replaced the kilt as standard dress for the party candidates. Not only does the party have a large and youthful membership of 120,000 but they carry out their propaganda with a style and enthusiasm which leaves the older reformist parties gasping. At the October general election they all but demolished the Liberals, hammered the Tories, and promise it will be Labour’s turn next time.

So the SNP may be poised for victory within the foreseeable future. How have they produced this rags-to-riches transformation? Obviously, their case is an economic one. They have taken advantage of working class discontent over insecurity, unemployment, low living standards, low expectations, and all the other problems which capitalism brings to workers the world over in one degree or another. They were also helped by widespread disillusion with the two major parties and Labour and Tory supporters have deserted to the nationalists in their tens of thousands.

Basically, the SNP is just another reformist party angling for support on a programme of reforms and even styles itself on the Scandinavian social democrats. After their first breakthrough in l968 the party went into a serious decline which lasted until 1970. Then came the discovery of vast quantities of North Sea oil. Now they can outbid all the others by proposing that the wealth from this oil be divided among five million people only, instead of fifty million, and paint a picture of how, given self-government, oil revenues will provide a paradise in Scotland.

Predictably the nationalists claim that their first priority is to launch a “war on poverty” and the party’s manifesto, Scotland’s Future, gives some idea of how they intend to do this.

For example, pensionable couples are told their combined pension will amount to the national minimum wage which, at today’s level, will be £25, with a single pensioner getting £15. So after a lifetime of producing fortunes for the parasite class worn-out wage slaves are to be “rewarded” with this ! Other dramatic SNP proposals include spending an extra 10 per cent on education and on health services, and just what significant difference this will make to working class life is a mystery to us. The important thing to note is that these are merely promises, and politicians have always found these far easier to make than fulfil.

The writings and utterances of SNP spokesmen present a bewildering display of confusion and contradiction and it is difficult to say whether they are more naïve than dishonest. William Wolfe, the party Chairman, claims the class-struggle can be avoided by passing legislation which outlaws “undue concentration of wealth in a few hands”. We wonder if they mentioned this to the capitalist Sir Hugh Fraser when he joined their ranks last year?

The party repeats the hoary old lie “that it is a lack of communications between management and workers that causes industrial strife”. It could not, of course, have anything to do with a fundamental clash of interests like, for example, the workers wanting better wages and conditions and the management, on behalf of the owners, not willing to grant these.

Despite the SNP’s indignant denials the idea somehow persists in some minds that the party is “socialist”. William Wolfe in his book, Scotland Lives, writes that he wants to give

“….the Scottish people opportunities for their own enterprise and capital to be used in giving their fellow Scots employment.” (p. 43)

Obviously, by “the Scottish people” he means owners of capital like Sir Hugh Fraser. Perhaps the latter joined the SNP on reading this passage in Wolfe’s book?

Another leading member, Mrs. Margo MacDonald, was asked in an interview how she reacted to the suggestion that there’s no advantage in replacing English or American capitalists with Scottish capitalists. She replied

“Well there is, actually. In the strict material sense there is. The Scottish capitalists, while still making lots of money, will be creating jobs in Scotland. They will realise that there is a quicker return to be made by, for instance, refining all of the oil in Scotland. So we would be slightly better off. Of course I agree exploitation by Scots is just as immoral in the long run. (Glasgow News, 12th March 1974)

So there it is. For the Scottish capitalist, “lots of money” and a “quicker return”. For the worker, the promise that he will be “slightly better off”.

The nationalists have shown they are fast learners when it comes to political cynicism. They pretend to the workers that should independence come then all the oil revenues will automatically go into the Scottish exchequer and be used mainly for the benefit of the workers. They must know that the United Kingdom would get some of the revenue as part of any deal made over the granting of independence, and that the capitalist class in Scotland would insist that oil revenues be used to reduce the burden of taxation which rests on them.

Will the Labour government’s proposed Scottish Assembly, but still under Westminster, outflank the SNP? This is possible since it is doubtful if the electorate in Scotland want complete independence as various opinion polls have shown. However, as the Assembly will have no more success in abolishing capitalism’s problems than the SNP’s claim that only full independence can succeed, it will probably gain more support.

Should self-government eventually be established the SNP will discover that they cannot will or legislate away those problems of capitalism. No country in the world, no matter how independent or rich in resources, has yet succeeded in eliminating poverty, unemployment, insecurity, etc. For the working class there will be wages while they are working and pensions when they are too old or disabled. An ominous glimpse of what leading SNP members regard as “prosperity” can be gained from their repeated claim that “Scotland was the wealthiest nation in the world” (Wolfe p. 12) up till the end of the 1914-18 war. How the working class lived in those days does not seem to have even occurred to them.

The SNP see themselves as visionaries but they cannot see beyond the narrow confines of the nation-state, conceived in pre-medieval times and as outmoded as the clan system it replaced. It is the Socialist Party of Great Britain who are the true men and women of vision, who look forward to and struggle for a new world of common ownership and democratic control of society’s resources, and uncluttered with the frontiers and class divisions which go hand-in-hand with “the nation”.

Vic Vanni

Scots Nationalism (1975)

From the March 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

The First of Two Articles

Nationalists believe that all classes in society should hold allegiance to “The Nation”. Socialists do not and point out how nations have always been the creation of a ruling group having nothing to do with working-class interests.

What is a nation? It is simply the people and the territory which have been appropriated by a class of robbers at some point in history. It has less to do with a common language, religion, race, culture, and all the other things which nationalists imagine or pretend are essential ingredients in the making of nations.

This is certainly true of Scotland and far from having a common history or anything else the population there are mainly the descendants of native Picts, invaders from Ireland (the original Scots), Western Europe and Scandinavia. After centuries of what were really tribal wars the whole land came under one king by the middle of the ninth century and the nation was born–by the coercion of the people and in the interests of a class of bandit chieftains.

Right up until the union of the Scottish and English parliaments in 1707 there were really two distinct nations in Scotland. The Highlanders  spoke Gaelic and had a culture (way of life) very different from that of the dialect-English speaking Lowlanders. Indeed

“In rural districts, the Scottish dialect or dialects was barely intelligible even to a Scot of another district” (James G. Kellas. Modern Scotland–the Nation Since 1870. p. 7)

So the nationalist idea of a once united Scotland is just a myth. Yet no one can deny that despite over two hundred years of Scotland’s incorporation within the United Kingdom most Scots feel themselves to be part of a separate nation. This can be explained by the fact that the Act of Union allowed Scotland to retain its own law, religion, and education system thus ensuring the continuation of national identity.

Why, then, has nationalism never been a strong political force until recently? The answer is that after 1707 the Scottish bourgeoisie, the only ones who could have provided a nationalist impetus, were far too busy building their fortunes through the Empire trade which had hitherto been denied them by the English Navigation Acts. Later on there was the industrial revolution and even greater opportunity to find wealth and contentment within the Union.

Even so, there were some malcontents and by the middle of the nineteenth century we find some bourgeois complaining

“that England was getting very much more out of the Union than was Scotland . . . that during the last few years public expenditure had been largely for the benefit of England . . . Naval expenditure was almost exclusively allocated to English dockyards, shipyards and arsenals. (H. J. Hanham. Scottish Nationalism, p. 76).

This discontent resulted in the founding of the National Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights in 1853 and it was composed of Tory and Liberal notables plus some aristocrats. Although the Crimean war soon killed off the Association this didn’t prevent some Scottish propertied interests (the Tory Marquess of Bute among them) returning again and again to the theme that not enough time was devoted to Scottish business in the House of Commons, that public money (their taxes) was being spent unfairly, etc.

And as if to emphasize the propertied interests represented by nationalist ideas the Scottish Home Rule Association was formed in 1886, again comprising Tory and Liberal bigwigs but this time with a sprinkling of Labourites. Basically the SHRA represented those sections of the Scottish owning class who wanted more time spent on and more control over their affairs in a separate parliament in Scotland but still within the United Kingdom. The movement took its inspiration from the Irish bourgeoisie who were struggling to obtain Home Rule for themselves, and Gladstone’s support for this fanned the flames in Scotland.

Of course Home Rule met with opposition from other sections of the owning class who had different interests. Liberal business men who had trade links with Ireland feared any kind of Home Rule, Scottish or Irish, while Liberal MPs representing seats in west and central Scotland had to make sure they didn’t antagonize the Orange vote. The result was a split in the Liberal Party and the emergence of a group of Liberal-Unionists who allied themselves with the Tories against Home Rule.

Tories generally opposed Home Rule for the same reasons as did Liberals. Also the landowning section opposed it because they were outraged at Liberal plans for land reform, while the ambitious politicians were worried about how their career prospects would be affected since there wouldn’t be the same opportunity of landing plum jobs in “the government of Empire” if Scotland were to have its own parliament.

So although support for and opposition to Home Rule cut across party lines the growing band of nationalists usually supported the Liberals who had created the post of Secretary for Scotland and because the party in Scotland was committed to Home Rule. Various Bills for a Scottish parliament were submitted to Westminster until in 1913 one actually looked like succeeding but was cynically dropped by the Liberal government because of political complications over Ulster.

The emergence of independent Labour politics at the turn of the century meant that much working class support was drained from the Home Rule party, the Liberals. By the end of world war one the Liberals were completely shattered so Home Rule looked a lost cause to any Scottish capitalists who had been interested. In any case, as the division between the Liberals and Tories became more and more blurred the owning class had gradually been turning to the Tory Party, which had strong working class support, as the guardian of their class interests.

Nationalist now had to look elsewhere for support and they found it in the growing Labour Party and Trade Union movement in Scotland. John MacLean, plus James Maxton, Tom Johnston, and other prominent Labourites were ardent Home Rulers and they followed in Keir Hardie’s footsteps by pandering to nationalist sentiment in their writings and speeches. Indeed Scotland is currently plastered with a Scottish National Party poster which quotes one of Maxton’s contributions:

“I am convinced we can do more in five years in a self-governing Scotland than could have been done with 25 or 30 years of heart-breaking struggle in the British House of Commons.”

Today the Labour and Communist Parties, along with various “revolutionary” groups continue the reactionary work of spreading nationalist ideas among the working class.

However, the honeymoon with Labour was soon over and eventually it dawned on the nationalists that they could hope for nothing from the three major parties, none of which had even included Home Rule in their 1924 general election manifestos, so the warring groups swept their differences under the carpet and merged in 1928 to become the National Party of Scotland.

The presence of political nationalist ideas is an indication that some groups in society feel its real material interests are being frustrated by forces outside or even inside the nation. Of course the desire to achieve their aims is never expressed in terms of their own needs only. In order to enlist the necessary working class support such arguments as “justice”, “freedom”, and “the nation” are used to justify the real bone of contention and to give it an aura of sanctity. Next month we will continue to show why the workers in Scotland should oppose nationalism.

Vic Vanni

(concluded next month)