The Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) now has six MSPs elected to the Scottish parliament. This important breakthrough can assist socialists to reach a new generation who are looking for an alternative to poverty, low pay, racism and war. But how is socialism to be won? In this article, Philip Stott (International Socialists, CWI Scotland) looks at the SSP’s current manifesto and statements by leading SSP members during the elections and contrast that to the kind of programme the International Socialists believe is needed to achieve socialism. CWI online.
After the Scottish elections...
How is socialism to be won?
They left after a lengthy debate about the need to build support for a Marxist organisation and programme while also building the SSP. They rejected that idea. Unfortunately the ideas put forward by many of the SSP’s leadership today represent a decisive break with Marxism and the programme of the CWI.
Both the SSP’s manifesto and statements made by SSP MSP Tommy Sheridan during the election campaign have confirmed that a significant change is taking place in the political position of the SSP’s leadership. Moreover, they are now arguing in favour of ideas that they would have vehemently opposed in the past. In responding to these ideas we do so in an effort to clarify the programme that we believe is necessary to achieve the overthrow of capitalism and establish a socialist society, in Scotland and internationally.
The SSP stood at the recent elections on a platform of five "fast track" pledges all of which the International Socialists supported. They were the scrapping of the Council tax and its replacement with a wealth tax, the introduction of free school meals for all pupils, a higher minimum wage and a shorter working week for public sector workers, the scrapping of PFI and PPP privatisation schemes. These are likely to form the main legislative bills that SSP MSP’s will put forward in the Scottish parliament.
At the same time the SSP’s manifesto outlined a further 200 demands that could be implemented under the current powers of the parliament. They covered the main areas that the Scottish Parliament is responsible for such as healths, education, transport, housing, local government, the legal system etc. Again the International Socialists supported the vast majority of these proposals.
So what are the differences between the approach of the International Socialists (CWI) and that of the SSP leadership towards the drawing up of a socialist programme for Scotland?
Tax the rich
The SSP’s election manifesto included a section entitled "For a free socialist republic". In that section the manifesto argued that countries like Norway and Denmark, while still being free market economies, nevertheless prove that: "Yes, you can tax the rich. Yes, you can have public ownership of North Sea oil and other profitable industries. Yes, you can impose higher taxes on big business. Yes, you can invest in high quality public services".
Developing this idea further Tommy Sheridan, the convenor of the SSP, explained in an interview on the BBC (20 April 2003) that: "…there are a number of countries which have a successful mix of public ownership and high taxation...like Norway and Denmark they manage to combine high levels of public ownership with high taxation for the wealthy."
These quotes, and many others of a similar vein, are a clear example of the changing position of the SSP leadership. They believe that by taxing the rich and big business, without ending capitalism, it is possible to at least significantly, and for the long term, reduce the levels of poverty and inequality in Scotland.
Of course the International Socialists supports demands of the SSP for increased corporation tax on big business and increased personal tax on the wealthy. We support, for example, the scrapping of the council tax and it’s replacement with a wealth tax that would be heavily weighted towards making the rich pay substantially more towards local government services.
These measures form part of our programme that aims to eradicate poverty and low pay permanently but only if they are linked to the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a socialist society based on workers control and management of the economy and a democratic plan of production.
The lessons of left and radical governments that have come to power but failed to bring the economy and the state under the control of the working class proves that limited action against the power and privilege of the capitalist class cannot provide a long term solution.
This was the lesson of the Socialist Party government of Francois Mitterand who won power in 1981 in France. They promised increases in employment, more money for health and education health and increased taxes on big business. Under immense pressure from the International Monetary Fund and French big business who threatened a ‘strike of capital’, they eventually ended up carrying through counter reforms against the interests of the French working and middle classes. This was a consequence of the Mitterand government’s refusal to break with capitalism. This has also been the experience of some of the radical governments that have come to power in Latin America with mass support among the population such as Chavez in Venezuela in 1998 and the Nicaraguan Sandanistas who came to power after the 1979 revolution.
Fighting for reforms
The CWI has an uncompromising record of fighting for every advance for the working class that can be wrung out of capitalism and big business governments. After all it was the Militant (the forerunner of the Socialist Party in Britain) that played a leading role in the Liverpool City Council struggle of the 1980’s. This movement, involving of tens of thousands of council workers and sections of the wider working class, took on and defeated the Tory government and won significant improvements in housing, education, nursery provision and the like.
Militant, in Scotland and Britain, whose membership included Tommy Sheridan and Alan McCombes and others, were central to the building of the mass anti-poll tax non-payment campaign that defeated the poll tax and removed Thatcher from power.
In Ireland we led the mass campaign that defeated the water charges imposed on communities around Dublin by the right wing governments in the 1990’s.
While leading these class battles we have always sought to explain that while victories can be won and reforms gained for working class people unless, and until, capitalism is overthrown, the ruling class will return again and again to try and remove the past gains made by the working class movement. What they are forced to give up with the right hand they will attempt to take back with the left. Therefore, reforms under capitalism can turn into counter reforms. That is why we tie the struggle for immediate reforms to the idea of the socialist transformation of society.
Therefore we sought at all times, and still do seek, to build the membership of our marxist organisation because we believe that a mass party armed with a Marxist programme is essential for the overthrow of capitalism and the building of a socialist society.
Despite the victories in Liverpool in the 1980’s the issues of poverty, low pay and social deprivation have not been resolved. While the mass movement removed the poll tax from the statute books, its replacement, the council tax, has proved to be an intolerable burden on working class families.
A consistently socialist position- a Marxist programme- requires an approach that explains fighting for reforms on their own is not enough. Reforms won under capitalism still leaves the economy in the hands of the capitalist class. We have always sought to put demands such as a wealth tax in the context of advancing the need for workers control and management over the economy as a whole.
This can only be done by bringing into public ownership the multinational corporations that dominate the economy under the democratic control and management of the working class.
The capitalist class has, and will continue to, resist paying increased tax on their personal wealth and that of the businesses they own and control. They will also resort to intricate maneuvers of tax avoidance, hidden and offshore bank accounts and the like, as well as threatening the removal of funds from the economy if their interests are threatened i.e. a ‘strike of capital’ Such a tactic was even threatened against Harold Wilson’s’ Labour government (1964-1969), when they proposed relatively mild tax hikes on big business and the rich.
It is true that during the first couple of decades after the Second World War there were significant reforms won by the working class in countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark - as there was in Scotland and Britain. This was during a period of unprecedented economic upswing, the post war capitalist boom, which came to an end by the mid-1970’s.
The return of economic crisis, stagnation and recession forced a change in the policies of the ruling class. Not the Scandinavian model but the "British model" - led by Thatcher - of neo-liberal policies, the slashing of welfare spending, casualisation of work, privatisation and social cuts became the new policy of the ruling class internationally.
It is, moreover, a position which has now been adopted by the Swedish, German and other European capitalist governments. Both by parties of the Conservative and Christian Democrats, the traditional parties of the ruling class, and by the former workers’ parties for example New Labour and the German and Swedish Social Democrats.
This policy is based on the objective crisis that capitalism now faces. Falling profits and low growth necessitate an assault on the previously won gains of the working class.
Rather than the whim of one individual it is a policy of the capitalist class internationally in an attempt to undermine the gains won by the working class in a previous period.
The SSP’s manifesto argues the opposite when it states "It is not economics, but politics that dictates that big business in Scotland and across the UK makes sky-high profits while poverty runs rampant and public services disintegrate."
In reality it is the economic crisis of capitalism that ultimately drives the political policy of governments. Of course the strength and cohesion of the working class and the role of the trade unions and the political parties of the working class have a critical role to play in preventing and holding back such attacks. That’s why we campaign to build powerful trade unions with fighting policies and new mass workers parties that can defend the working class and prepare a movement to end capitalism.
However while capitalism continues to exist there can be no permanent eradication of poverty, exploitation or inequality.
By making comparison with Norway and Denmark the SSP manifesto can create illusions that higher taxes on the rich and limited public ownership could lead to a significant and long term reduction of poverty.
A high wage economy?
Interview with Tommy Sheridan, BBC, 20 April 2003
"If you create an environment for business then our environment would be better for business that the one we have right now. In our environment pensioners would have more money to spend, low paid workers would have more money to spend, average workers would have more money to spend. They would therefore be able to increase demand in relation to the supply from businesses. So we would actually create a good environment."
Interview with Tommy Sheridan, The Herald, 30 April 2003
"What we’re saying is that in a future independent, socialist Scotland, we want to work on training, on skills. We want to offer a very high-skilled economy, a motivated workforce for big business. If that can work in places like Germany and France, where they have higher wages, better standards, and produce better products, why can’t that work here in Scotland?"
The idea of a consistent high wage capitalist economy is a myth in today’s economic conditions. The Gerhard Schroeder government in Germany has launched a vicious assault on German workers. This policy is dictated by the low growth and profits crisis in German capitalism and Schroeder’s determination to make the working class pay for the crisis. Tommy Sheridan’s idea that high wages benefit big business by allowing more money to be spent in the economy is turning Marxism on its head.
Capitalist profits are the unpaid labour of the working class. Workers’ wages represent only part of the value that the working class produces. The working class never receives the full value in wages of the commodities that they make. Therefore they cannot collectively buy back the goods they do produce. The capitalists overcome this contradiction, for a period, by investing a portion of the profits in re-tooling and developing new technology, but eventually the demand dries up and the economy goes into a recession. This is one of the factors that leads to a profits crisis and the capitalists closing factories and workplaces, as they cannot sell the goods they manufacture.
Neo-liberal policies are being used to cut the collective social wage of the working class in an attempt to salvage the falling profits of the capitalists. A high wage economy, high quality public services, and low poverty rates and the existence capitalism are today mutually exclusive.
Multinational capitalism will always seek to maximize its profits by undermining workers wages and conditions. Capitalist globalisation has increased the ability of companies to move to low wage economies. Scotland is seeing a similar experience in regards to the call centre sector where thousands of jobs could be moving to the Indian subcontinent where wages and much lower.
The chances of these companies operating in a "high wage" Scotland at a time of falling profitability and economic crisis are unlikely to say the least. The experience of Silicon Glen over the last three years shows that the electronics sector has been decimated by the slump in that industry. Every job gained is temporary and is under threat as a result of the economic crisis that is inherent in capitalism. Only by bringing these corporations into public ownership under democratic working class control and management could high wages and decent conditions be guaranteed. At the same time that does not prevent workers from fighting for increased wages and improved working conditions against the wishes of the bosses. However, until the profit system is abolished there is no job or wage rise that will not be under threat.
A mixed economy
Interview with Tommy Sheridan, The Herald, 30 April 2003
Alf Young, The Herald: Isn’t there an ultimate condition that you’re seeking to reach, one where the market has no role to play, that the state can do everything?
Tommy Sheridan: No. We very much believe in a mixed economy
AY: It doesn’t sound like it, Tommy.
TS: Well, our mix is different from New Labour’s mix. Labour would like to add a wee drop of whisky to the Atlantic ocean and say that’s a mixed economy. We think that’s wrong. We think there’s a larger role for the public sector to play.
The idea of a mixed economy i.e. public ownership of some sectors of the economy existing alongside a "regulated" big business sector is not new. It is just another variant of capitalism. These ideas have existed in the working class and socialist movement since its inception. They are reformist in that they seek to reform capitalism or achieve socialism through the gradual changes in the operation of capitalism.
Marxism has consistently defended an alternative position. What you don’t own, you don’t control. To limit your demands to the democratic public ownership of a limited part of the economy is to leave most of it in the hands of the capitalists. For example, if an SSP government came to power and decided to nationalise 20% of the economy, but left 80% in private hands it would be the 80% that would dictate terms to the 20% not the other way around. Marxists struggle to build a party and a movement armed with a clear socialist programme. This programme stands for the public ownership of the decisive sections of the economy under democratic working class control.
Interview with Tommy Sheridan, The Herald, 30 April 2003
Alf Young, Herald: Would you nationalise Tesco?
TS: I don’t think there’s a need to nationalise Tesco right now. What I think there’s a need for is to impose on Tesco proper wages and employment conditions. What we would be doing is regulating business. You don’t have to own it, you just regulate it.
Tesco is a multi-million pound, supermarket chain. It made profits of over Â£1 billion last year. How would it be possible to stop the massive mark-up on food bought by consumers; prevent the rip-off of small farmers and other small food producers who are being driven to ruin by the supermarket chains that dominate the food industry; guarantee decent wages for Tesco workers unless Tesco and the other food giants are brought into public ownership?
The same goes for every other sector of the economy. Whether it’s banking and finance, electronics, manufacturing, construction, oil, land, service industries, pharmaceutical companies etc the "commanding heights" of the economy must be owned and controlled by society as a whole through a socialist plan of production.
Interview with Tommy Sheridan, The Herald, 30 April 2003
"It’s worth remembering that 99.9% of the Scottish economy is small business."
The logic of this argument is that 99.9% of the economy would remain in private hands under an SSP government. Yet the Scottish economy is dominated by big business both indigenous to Scotland and foreign owned corporations. For example Scotland’s publicly traded companies reached a market value of Â£101.2 billion at the end of April. These included the Royal Bank of Scotland - up by 15% since March, adding Â£6 billion to its value. Once you add on the non-publicly traded companies and foreign owned multinationals a thousand threads tie the Scottish economy to big international capitalism. The small business sector is totally reliant on big business for markets to sell their goods.
The national question
Underpinning the SSP’s leadership political shift towards reformist ideas is their view that the struggle for socialism in Scotland will be taking place isolated from the rest of the world. The manifesto states, "We repudiate the fictional claim that in the new globalised economy an independent Scotland would be powerless to tax the rich, wipe out poverty." Firstly, we have never accepted that an independent Scotland would be capable of "wiping out poverty" unless capitalism was ended and a socialist Scotland established. We have argued for an independent socialist Scotland that would link up, in a voluntary socialist confederation, with other socialist states.
Secondly, in order to stand up to the globalised economy i.e. a hostile international capitalist class that would seek to crush a socialist society wherever it existed, it is essential to view that struggle from an international standpoint. That is to appeal to the working class internationally, starting in the rest of Britain and Ireland for support and for the overthrow of capitalism in other countries.
Tommy Sheridan’s statement about not nationalising Tesco flows from the idea that it is not possible to deal with multinational companies in a Scottish context, other than to "regulate" them. It is a recognition that within the limits of an isolated Scotland there would be limits on what could be achieved. But it is wrong to view it in that way. If the socialist transformation of society were to take place in Scotland first, and that is by no means certain, the long-term survival of a socialist Scotland would depend on the spreading of a socialist revolution internationally.
Globalisation has further accelerated the concentration of capitalist wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. This process has unfolded for over 150 years. There are approximately 150 corporations that dominate the British economy. Around 500 transnational corporations control 90% of world trade. We are fighting to build a mass movement that would bring those economic colossi into the hands of the world’s workers and poor masses. This would release the resources to transform the lives of billions of people. This can only be done by ending capitalism internationally.
A socialist society would plan production, rather than the environmentally damaging and destructive anarchy of capitalism, through the setting up of democratically elected committees involving the workers in those industries and across the country.
Through these bodies organized on a local, regional and national and international basis it would be possible to work out a plan for the economy, based on need, where production for profit would be ended. A socialist plan of production would consist of working out an overall plan of what goods and resources society required. This would involve an agreement on what was needed for investment in health, education, housing and other public services. On that basis it would be possible to end the enormous waste and duplication that is endemic under the capitalist mode of production. A socialist society would harness the wealth and productive potential that does exist to eradicate poverty and hunger both in Scotland and internationally.
Socialist nationalisation therefore has nothing in common with nationalisation of, for example, the Norwegian oil industry. That is a capitalist state run industry, and like nationalisation in Britain in the past, the railways, the mining industry etc, is not under the control of the working class, nor are its profits used primarily to improve the lives of the trade unionists, young people or pensioners.
By fighting for a socialist plan of production both in Scotland and internationally which would utilise the wealth and productive potential of society the world could be transformed.
Capitalism with all its advances in science and technology and the massive accumulation of wealth has created the means to abolish hunger and poverty and disease for all of humankind. A new Scotland and a new world are possible. It has to be a socialist one.
- Re-nationalise the privatised railways, gas, electricity, telecoms etc.
- For the public ownership of the major monopolies that dominate the Scottish economy under democratic working class control and management.
- Seize the assets of multinational companies that pull out of Scotland.
- For a socialist plan of production that would link Scotland with England, Wales and Ireland as part of a socialist plan internationally.