Showing posts with label Socialism and Nationalisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialism and Nationalisation. Show all posts

Thursday, 23 January 2014

Pay me - I'm a banker! Nationalise the banks to stop the fat-cats' rip off rewards

By Matt Gordon, Bristol Socialist Party

It is a tough time for bankers. The EU has decided to cap bankers' bonuses at 100%, and so condemned those earning more than £410,000 to "only" get paid double their salary.

Luckily for the bankers, they have loyal friends in the persons of David Cameron and George Osborne, who are gallantly calling for bankers at RBS to receive 200% bonuses instead.

RBS - the loss-making, scandal-riven, incompetent giant which is 82% owned by the taxpayer - hasn't even asked the prime minister and chancellor to fight its corner, at least publicly, but they are doing it anyway.

Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, has also proven to be a good chap - he also opposes the "crude" EU bonus cap and instead thinks bankers should get paid the market rate, ie as much as they can possibly get away with.
Struggling on high pay

Have no doubt that it is a tough time to be banker, especially in the City of London. After all, they have only received a pay rise of a third in the last year -data from the European Banking Authority shows that the top 2,700 now receive an average pay packet of £1.6 million - and some lower paid bankers have confessed that they are "struggling" to live on salaries of £500,000 a year.

Cameron, Osborne and Carney are good enough to let some minor misdemeanours at RBS slide. Things such as pre-tax losses of £634 million in the third quarter of 2013 alone, revelations that the bank was forcibly driving small businesses to the wall in order to seize their property and maximise profits, technical issues that potentially affect 250,000 customers every single minute, and 30,000 job losses since 2008, all of this does not impact on the decision to support massive bonuses.

You could be forgiven for thinking that banks are intentionally doing all they can to wreck the economy and play the villain - HSBC recently announced that 3,100 staff were to be "demised" - but it seems that the Con-Dem government can see through all that, showing loyalty to the bankers through thick and thin.
The sky's the limit

After half a decade of recession, austerity and plummeting living standards, bankers' bonuses continue to increase. In 2012, 95 bankers at RBS each received a bonus of at least £1 million. These figures were dwarfed by rival banks, such as JP Morgan who paid 126 London staff £2 million each, and Goldman Sachs London who paid 115 people a whopping £2.7 million each - at least!

The new EU regulations on capping bonuses won't make any difference, with or without Cameron and Osborne opposing them. Barclays is now handing senior staff a "third payment", a pay-out classed neither as salary nor bonus and so exempt from the restrictions.

Other banks are making similar "cash allowances" or increasing share awards. For example, the new RBS CEO Ross McEwan was handed £1.5 million in shares simply for starting in his new post. That is not the sort of recruitment incentive you see at the Jobcentre!

As well as this, if the EU rules are imposed, banks will simply decrease bonuses but increase salaries. That is why Ed Miliband's support for the EU cap is so ineffectual.
Abolish bonuses

The government could make whatever decision on RBS bonuses it wanted to - instead of fighting to increase them, Osborne should scrap bonuses altogether.

Any bank, especially one that is majority owned by the British people should not be allowed to ruin small businesses, defraud customers, cut thousands of jobs or reward the bosses with bonuses.

The only way of stopping this is to take the banking system into full public ownership to be democratically run by elected and accountable committees that should include representatives of finance workers and service users. It could then be used to support struggling families and small businesses, to break the stranglehold of the super-rich minority over the economy, as part of developing a stepping stone to a democratically run planned economy in the UK and the world.

Thursday, 24 October 2013

A mass campaign can save Grangemouth

http://www.socialistpartyscotland.org.uk/trade-union/unite/528-mass-campaign-needed-to-save-grangemouth

Without a moments thought to the human cost, Ineos bosses today have announced the closure of the petrochemical plant at Grangemouth with the loss of 800 jobs. They intend to put that arm of their business into liquidation meaning workers may face losing thousands of pounds in redundancy payments. The oil refinery and the jobs of another 600 workers remain in jepordy, the result of a lockout by billionaire owner, Jim Ratcliffe. The next hours and days are vital in ensuring the building of a mass campaign to fight to save the Grangemouth plant and retain the jobs and terms and conditions of the workforce.

An urgent mass meeting of Unite members at Grangemouth should be organised. The shop stewards at Grangemouth should draw up a plan of action to put to the workers to seek to defeat this act of corporate vandalism by Ineos. Decisive action by Unite, including the occupation of an appropraite part of the site, would gain mass support and apply huge political pressure on the Scottish government to carry through the nationalisation of the plant. Unite should now demand the nationalisation of Grangemouth.

But this is a struggle that Unite members at Grangemoth can't be left to fight on their own. It's one for the entire trade union movement in Scotland and beyond. The STUC should call an immediate "council of war" of trade unions and shop stewards from across the trade movement to plan a mass solidarity campaign, including calling a Scotland-wide demonstration in the next couple of weeks.

Socialist Party Scotland trade unionists have drafted a resolution for trade union bodies in support of workers at Grangemouth (see below). Please rasie this motion in your trade union as soon as possible. Send copies to Unite Scotland at scotland@unitetheunion.org
Resolution for trade union organisations

The announcement by Ineos that they intend to pullout of the Grangemouth petrochemical site with the threatened loss of up to 800 jobs is an act of corporate vandalism. The oil refinery remains shut and the workers effectively locked out.

Ineos management and its majority owner, billionaire Jim Ratcliffe, are 100% responsible for this scandal. They have shutdown the entire Grangemouth site to force the workers to accept savage cuts in terms and conditions.

We congratulate Unite members and their shop stewards at Grangemouth for their refusal to be bullied. Around 70% of Unite members rejected the sign or be sacked ultimatum from Ineos management.

Ineos have also attempted to break the union at Grangemouth by victimising a leading shop steward and undermining the bargaining power of workers.

We believe that the struggle to defend jobs and trade union rights at Grangemouth is one for all trade unionists and is one of the most important the trade union movement has faced in years.

This union branch/organisation agrees to

• Offer our full support to workers and Unite at Grangemouth in the building of a mass campaign to retain the jobs and the terms and conditions at the site as a vital economic lifeline.

• Support workers in the action that they take, including occupation of appropriate parts of the plant, in their campaign to retain the site and jobs at Grangemouth.

• Demand that Ineos open the books to trade union inspection to show the real financial position of the company.

• Call on the Scottish government and UK governments to immediately bring Grangemouth into democratic public ownership to secure jobs and investment. To also support public ownership with majority participation by workers and the trade unions in the running of the plant.

• Call on the STUC to organise an urgent Scotland-wide demonstration in support of the workers at Grangemouth in the next couple of weeks.

• Support workers and shop stewards at Grangemouth in defending trade union rights, wages and pensions.

Sunday, 22 September 2013

Fight Royal Mail sell-off: Strike against privatisation

By a Postal Worker

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/17425/18-09-2013/fight-royal-mail-sell-off

It is no surprise that the Con-Dems are rushing the privatisation of Royal Mail through as quickly as they can. They face overwhelming opposition. 70% of people don't want to see the postal service in private hands. Price hikes to line the pockets of the super-rich - that's been the bitter lesson from the sell-off of rail, energy and water.

Privatisation would only mean job losses and a worsening of working conditions for postal workers. The 125,000 postal workers in the Communication Workers Union (CWU) are expected to vote strongly in favour of strikeaction over pay and pensions in the ballot, whose result is due early in October.

Not everyone's opposed though. Big bankers, lawyers, accountants and PR firms will collect up to £20 million in fees from advising on the sale. But the public will pay higher prices and eventually lose services. Royal Mail will be at the beck and call of institutional investors wanting a return for their investment.

The £200 million Royal Mail said it could have paid out in dividends if it had been listed for a whole year, would be better spent on providing jobs and improving services.

Our union, the CWU will be supporting the NHS demo at the Tories' conference on 29 September in Manchester - this is very welcome. But the union leaders should also announce a national demo against Royal Mailprivatisation. This would give postal workers, other trade unionists and members of the public an opportunity to channel their deep anger over cuts and privatisation.

The CWU could link up with other unions considering action, such as PCS, NUT, FBU and the RMT to take strike action on the same day. The TUC must name the day for a 24-hour general strike. The collective strength of workers withholding their labour could bring this weak coalition to its knees.

CWU general secretary Billy Hayes recently said: "We want Labour to commit the next Labour government to renationalise Royal Mail if it is privatised." That would scotch the sell-off plans. But this was wishful thinking - when in government Labour failed to renationalise the rail network or repeal the anti-union laws. In fact they tried to flog off Royal Mail. This is just further evidence of the need for a new mass party of the working class.

Royal Mail workers are confident we can win this battle. We need to fight to convince every CWU member of the strike's importance and involve them in the strike.

Regular mass meetings at local, regional and national level should make the decisions about the campaign.

Victory to the Royal Mail workers!

The Socialist calls for:
  • No privatisation of Royal Mail
  • If CWU members vote to strike, this must have the support of the entire trade union movement
  • No to the use of the anti-trade union laws; scrap them!
  • Defend all jobs and no to increased workloads
  • Defend the union, defend the reps
  • For a fully nationalised and democratically run communications industry
  • Build a new mass workers' party to provide a fighting, political alternative to the pro-big business parties
  • For a 24-hour general strike to oppose all privatisation and austerity measures

Sunday, 11 August 2013

Socialist Party meetings this week - Why the pharmaceutical industry should be nationalised

Under capitalism, essential medication is privately produced and distributed for profit. In the developing world, HIV drugs are withheld from people that need them most as they are marketed first in the West, and even in the US many cannot afford the huge costs. Michael Wright explains why drug companies should be nationalised.

Tuesday 13 August: 7.45pm, Cheltenham Rd Library, Bristol BS6 5QX
Wednesday 14 August: 7.30pm Hydra Books, 34 Old Market Street, Bristol, BS2 0EZ

Find out more: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/16981

Tuesday, 19 March 2013

Cyprus: Refuse to pay the ‘debt’!


Mass demos demand to end the government’s link to the Troika and to refuse to follow its dictats.

Interview with Athina Kariati, New Internationalist Left (CWI in Cyprus)

After months of ‘calm’ the capitalist debt crisis has resurfaced over the banking meltdown in Cyprus, sending financial markets into a spin. EU ministers and the newly elected right-wing Greek Cypriot president have demanded that small savers, ie Cypriot workers, pay €billions for a banking bailout.
But angry workers in Cyprus are refusing to accept these capitalist dictats, with Cypriot CWI members helping to organise mass protests outside parliament. Already, the government is making concessions.
The Socialist, paper of the Socialist Party (CWI England & Wales), spoke with Athina Kariati about what it requires to solve the crisis in the interests of the working class.

Who is responsible for the current financial crisis?

The European financial crisis is now at its sharpest here in Cyprus. The capitalist class is responsible for this crisis.
The economy in Cyprus was in relatively good shape compared to other EU countries but over the last 18 months the crisis in the banking sector has meant that the country is now facing bankruptcy.
The main problem is that the Cypriot banks invested in Greek bonds in order to make quick profits but because of the ‘haircut’ which Greek bondholders had to take this caused a massive problem of liquidity and the small economy of Cyprus has been unable to recapitalise the banks.
It is clear that the crisis is the fault of the banks not the public sector workers or the general population.

Monday, 11 March 2013

Hugo Chavez dies, Hugo Chavez dies but the struggle continues

Millions of Venezuelan workers, the poor and youth will mourn the death of Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez

By Tony Saunois, CWI Secretary

The workers and youth in Venezuela will be joined by many around the globe who have been inspired to support Hugo Chavez’s regime as offering an alternative to imperialism, neoliberalism and capitalism.In an era when the gap between establishment politicians, who defend big business and the super-rich, and the masses seems to widen inexorably Chavez stood out. In fact in the age of austerity the measures he took to alleviate poverty stood out like a beacon.

Meanwhile the most pernicious right-wing capitalist commentators have wasted neither time nor ink in their outpourings of hatred of his regime.

The mourning of his passing and anger at these attacks must be channelled into a new stage of working class struggle for socialism in Venezuela and internationally.

Capitalist commentators’ hypocrisy


Since his death numerous articles have denounced Chavez, and his regime, as an “autocrat”, a “dictator”, a “caudillo”. Some have tried to depict his death as the end of another failed socialist regime.

The torrent of bile from these commentators was first readied in the hope he’d be defeated in the Venezuelan presidential elections in October 2012, but had to be shelved at the time. Against the expectations of the international capitalist media and its politicians Chavez romped home for a third term with 55% of the vote, on a turnout of 80%, a result any incumbent capitalist politician in Europe can only dream of.

These self-same commentators deafened us with their silence during the attempted coup in 2002 – backed by US imperialism. When these alleged champions of democracy attack Chavez they brush to one side the fact that Chavez has faced 17 elections and referendums since 1998 and won 16 of them.

They, and the capitalist politicians behind them, cannot abide the fact that a leader who spoke of “socialism” and the “socialist revolution” and who came into conflict with US imperialism and the capitalist class could win such popular support. They also fear the potential revolutionary movement of the masses which Chavez rested upon.

“Por ahora” - ”For now”


Chavez himself did not emerge as a political leader with a rounded out ideology or programme. He has empirically embraced different ideas – swept along by events as they have unfolded.

Chavez was swept to power in 1998 with overwhelming support. Initially he only spoke of a “Bolivarian revolution” and reform of the old corrupt system. Chavez, like thousands in Venezuela, including junior army officers of which he was one, was radicalised by the “Caracazo” which rocked Venezuela in 1989.

Carlos Perez had won an election opposing the neoliberalism of the IMF. However, he undertook a sharp U-turn and introduced a “shock therapy” of neoliberalism. It triggered a mass uprising of the urban poor. The army was deployed and an estimated 3,000 were slaughtered. Chavez’s right-wing opponents have little to say on these events. He was however radicalised and affected by these horrors.

He led a left populist military revolt in 1992 against the murderous Perez government. As the coup was defeated he proclaimed the “revolution is ended. For now”. “Por ahora” was to become ingrained in the minds of the masses.

Released from prison two years later, he built support and stormed to power in the 1998 election as the mass of the population demanded an end to neoliberalism and demanded change.

The limited but popular reforms his government introduced, paid for with the country’s oil wealth, were enough to enrage the ruling elite which attempted a coup in 2002 followed by a lockout. After 48 hours the coup collapsed and Chavez was brought back to Caracas and to power. During the coup the masses poured onto the streets to oppose the new right-wing regime and a revolt by the ranks of the army and its junior officers.
Right-wing coup in 2002

At this moment the situation erupted as the right-wing coup led by Pedro Carmona collapsed, making a decisive blow against the ruling class and capitalism. The working class and poor had the opportunity to take over the running of society. Unfortunately, at this moment Chavez opted to call for “national unity” and an agreement with sections of the capitalist class.

The lockout was broken after a 12-month struggle. On each occasion Chavez was saved by the mass movement from below.

These events enormously radicalised Chavez who by 2005 had begun to speak about the “socialist revolution”. It was in this period that he also made reference to the ideas of one of the leaders of the Russian Revolution, Leon Trotsky, as well as to Karl Marx and called for the formation of a Fifth International.

This enraged both the Venezuelan ruling class and US imperialism. Nationalisations and partial nationalisations of significant companies were carried through. The introduction of a basic but free health service and widespread education and literacy programmes enormously enhanced the popularity of the government. Significantly, in the 2006 election – following this turn to the left – Chavez won his largest electoral victory, taking over 62% of the vote!

This development has had an enormously positive effect in putting the issue of socialism back onto the agenda in Venezuela and to an extent in Latin America and internationally. The idea of the “revolution” and even “socialism” and radical reform is overwhelmingly dominant in the consciousness of a majority of Venezuelans. This is Chavez’s positive legacy. There is a clear rejection of any idea of returning to the ‘ancien régime’.

Blows to capitalism, but no decisive break

However, despite the radical phraseology, in response to the global economic crisis which began in in 2007, Chavez, and the Bolivarian government, rather than drive forward with a programme to break with capitalism, moved in the opposite direction.

Blows were struck but without defeating it the capitalist class remained in control. From within the Bolivarian a new force has also emerged – the ‘boli-bourgeoisie’, a powerful layer in society which has grown rich on the backs of the Chavez movement.

This, combined with the emergence of a powerful bureaucracy, and deteriorating economic situation, has meant that despite the popular reforms, which the CWI supports, massive social problems of poverty, unemployment, corruption violence and crime remain. These continue and arise from the failure to abolish capitalism.

Combined with a top down administrative approach from the bureaucracy and the lack of a democratic workers’ control and management in the revolutionary process, while Chavez has enjoyed massive support, it has also resulted in widespread discontent and frustration. Recent strikes by teachers and metal workers have been repressed by the state, all measures which have given a weapon to the right to beat the regime.
Transform socialist aspirations into a reality

If right-wing candidate Henrique Capriles and the right in Venezuela hope that Chavez’s death will mean an easy ride for them back to power then they are mistaken. Despite the discontent the idea of supporting the revolutionary process, of the idea of socialism and defence of the reforms is deeply ingrained in Venezuelan society.

In the short term it is most likely to mean a victory for Nicolas Maduro, the vice-president, named by Chavez as his successor, in the elections. A rallying of Chavez’s supporters and the mass of the poor to defeat the right is already developing. Capriles and the right are, like Maduro, appealing for calm, peace and unity. The right feel their weakness and are being careful not to provoke a backlash from the masses.

While the pernicious right-wing commentators have used Chavez’s death to beat their hypocritical anti-socialist drum, other sections of capitalism and imperialism have been more cautious. US president Barack Obama’s cautious statement, along with British Foreign Secretary William Hague, is aimed at opening a new era of cooperation with a future Maduro-led government. They have concluded the right-wing are unlikely electoral victors and therefore have left the door open for attempts to collaborate with a new “Chavista” government.

Maduro and the leadership will not have the same authority as Chavez and a new era will open following the elections. Divisions between the different currents within Chavismo may open following the elections. Sections of the ruling class are looking for this as a means of ultimately defeating the Chavista movement.

Such prospects underline the urgent necessity of the working class and the poor to rally to defeat the right but then to take the revolutionary process into its own hands with its own independent organisation and programme to transform the “socialist aspirations” raised by Chavez into a reality. The death of Chavez marks not the end of the struggle. A new chapter will now begin.

Wednesday, 6 March 2013

Forbes Rich List: 0.00001% get richer, the 99% continue to pay the price

By Matt Gordon, Bristol Socialist Party

The annual list of billionaires produced by Forbes Magazine has again seen records smashed by the world’s hyper-rich. There are now 1426 billionaires in the world, 210 more than 2012, with a collective wealth of $5.4 trillion, up nearly a trillion from last year.

At a time of global recession and austerity, this bunch of high-flyers seem to be beating the odds. 80% of the list saw their wealth increase during the course of 2012. Despite youth unemployment in Spain now reaching 55% with desperation leading some to suicide, Spanish billionaire and owner of Zara Amancio Ortega has seen the biggest increase of all – an extra $19 billion on his fortune!

But some are still not happy - Saudi Arabian prince Alwaleed Bin Talal has lashed out at Forbes magazine which he says has robbed him of his rightful spot in the top ten. It placed him at unimpressive 26th in the world with a wealth of only $20 billion.

In reality these figures are scandalous at a time when global poverty is on the rise and 80% of the world get by on less than $10 a day, a stark contrast to the lavish lifestyles of this tiny elite.

World capitalism has been in crisis since 2008 and increasing concentrations of wealth at the top are not just an aberration but are one of the main problems the economy is faced with. Wealth doesn’t ‘trickle-down’ as we are told, but is instead sucked up and locked away, leaving everyone else worse off.

The latest figures show that between $21 trillion and $32 trillion has been stashed in offshore tax havens around the world by the super-rich, none of it being put to productive use. This will only be fraction of the cash hoard being held back by big business as a whole.

If this money cannot be put to good use then it should be taken into public ownership and used to create jobs, homes, infrastructure and prosperity for all, the 99% not the 1%. Next time someone says that there is no money for schools, hospitals, public services or decent housing and that we all have to tighten our belts, direct them to a copy of Forbes Magazine and ask if any of that money would do.

Monday, 14 January 2013

Crisis in the SWP: Socialist Party material

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Left_and_radical/SWP

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books_pamphlets/Socialism_and_Left_Unity_-_A_critique_of_the_Socialist_Workers_Party/1

Please see the above links for Socialist Party material on the current and previous crises inside the Socialist Workers Party of Britain including critiques of popular frontism, state-capitalism, a history of their method and ideas and chapters from Peter Taaffe's 2008 booklet - Socialism and Left Unity: A critique of the Socialist Workers Party

Wednesday, 19 December 2012

Prepare to resist austerity in 2013

Editorial of the Socialist


Millionaire Tory Chancellor Osborne began his Autumn Statement speech with excuses for economic predictions reduced from 0.8% 'growth', to -0.1%, a contraction, and lower forecasts for years. Two days later the Guardian reported: "The City has put the UK on triple-dip recession alert after news that falling factory and North Sea production have sent the output of industry plunging to its lowest level in 20 years."

In reality the truth is the capitalist class in Britain, as elsewhere, have no solution to the deep-going crisis of capitalism they face. We've quoted Einstein's definition of insanity before, "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results", but it is certainly apt.

Osborne later pledged that a further cut in the rate of corporation tax to 21% from April 2014 - already among the lowest of the world's main economies - would bring us growth and jobs. But there is no evidence to show that previous reductions have had that effect - the opposite has happened.

On the one hand you have Amazon, Starbucks and co, corporate tax-dodging. On the other hand you have £800 billion lying idle in the bank vaults of the big corporations as they see no easy profit in spending it.

A government serious about improving the lives of millions would make a 50% levy on that stashed cash and use it to put money where it will make a difference - in working class and middle class people's pockets, through a massive programme of socially useful public works, through wage and benefit increases and real job creation not workfare, so we can actually spend money, raising 'consumption'. But they refuse to consider tapping their super-rich big business pals. In the same vein, Osborne decided against a mansion tax.
Blame game
Disgracefully but characteristically Osborne directed us to blame our neighbours for the cuts he announced, and talked about: "being fair to the person who leaves home every morning to go out to work and sees their neighbour still asleep, living a life on benefits ... we have to have a welfare system that is fair to the working people who pay for it."

The government's big lie, that we are divided into 'shirkers' and 'workers', must be smashed. They want us to blame each other for the poverty conditions we face - but it is them and the capitalist system they defend that are to blame. This budget limits most working-age benefits to a 1% rise for three years, breaking the link with inflation and meaning misery for millions.

Look at the figures: on average there are more than five job seekers for every vacancy. And the majority of new claimants for housing benefit are working people - with an estimated six million stuck in precarious, low-paid work. The real shirkers are the millionaires and billionaires whose wealth is continuing to pile up - whether they work or not - while we are being put on rations.

Infrastructure

Again we heard about Osborne's fantasy infrastructure plans - this time £5 billion to go into roads, broadband, science, etc. We'd all like to see investment in socially useful and planned infrastructure, bringing jobs and improved travel and living standards but his inadequate measures will be paid for by fresh cuts across most government departments.

The Ernst and Young Item Club said that this amount would have "minor, almost negligible impact", and Guardian research shows that of commitments made in the 2011 Autumn Statement very few of the projects announced have progressed. This year the Chancellor pledged £1 billion for roads but the Guardian reports that of the 18 road schemes in last November's budget work has not begun on one!

That the gas strategy is to include consultation on incentives for fracking represents major threats to health and safety and to the environment.

Teachers will face the prospect of performance-related pay, a bully's charter in effect. Already the number of teachers who quit their jobs in English state schools has risen by almost a fifth in one year. See page 4 for more on this.

Education spending shows a blatant transfer of wealth and partial control from ordinary people to the rich vultures preying on our public services.

A smug Tory education minister Michael Gove will be given £1 billion, 'saved' from government departments to spend on expanding his pet academy and free school project - in effect privatising schools, eroding education workers' rights and democratic accountability and transferring land from the public to the private sector.
Fail, fail, fail

Labour MPs made speeches attempting to show that the Con-Dems are "failing, failing, failing", as Ed Balls, shadow chancellor, put it. But Labour is also failing - failing to put up any alternative to austerity.

Osborne has promised austerity into the next parliament. If Labour announced that they would cancel all these measures if they won the next election they would be enormously popular.

Local government is to have a year's 'respite' from the massacre of its budget, notwithstanding previously decided enormous cuts coming down the line in April. But the year after there will be a 2% reduction in spending. What does this mean? No let up from the Tories handing the axe down to local councillors.

If Labour councillors cannot find the courage, as the few rebel councillors in Southampton and Hull have done, to vote against this annihilation of local services, they must step aside or face a challenge from people who will - and that means trade unionists and anti-cuts campaigners standing as 'no cuts' candidates.
Action needed

The case for building a new mass workers' party that would actually oppose cuts is clear. The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, involving the RMT transport union and other leading trade unionists, is an important step in that direction.

The best way to show the mass opposition to austerity is to support the call for a 24-hour general strike. There is no question the mood is there. See the workplace reports on page 4, largely unreported elsewhere.

In Scotland Unison delegates representing union members in local government, health, education, etc, unanimously supported a motion calling for a coordinated industrial action strategy, beginning with a one-day strike across Scotland and coordination with unions across the UK for a one-day strike.

The PCS union has announced a ballot for strike action in the New Year - that will provide the basis for other unions to join the action. Such action would terrify this posh-boy government - look at the measures they take to try to weaken the unions. Strike action would also massively build the confidence of working class people that we can defeat the Con-Dems.

Socialist alternative needed


With all this comes a questioning of what kind of a society we live in that sees children malnourished, pensioners dying in the cold, and hospitals closing - while there is no shortage of wealth. It's unsurprising that, with a comparable situation in the US, a Gallup poll has found 39% of Americans now have a "positive image" of socialism, 53% among Democrat voters.

The 30% vote for a Socialist Alternative (CWI) candidate in Seattle in November's US elections is further evidence of the search for an alternative to rotten capitalism - in the belly of the beast itself. The times are changing and this is not limited to the US.

In 2013, linked to making a 24-hour general strike our rallying call, the case for democratic socialism, based on planning to meet the needs of the '99%', the overwhelming majority, as an alternative to bankrupt, rotten capitalism must be made at every opportunity.

Thursday, 15 November 2012

Che Guevara - Symbol of fashion or symbol of struggle?

By Tom Baldwin, Mayoral Candidate for Bristol, Trade Unionists & Socialists Against Cuts
Che Guevara, photo Alberto Korda
Che Guevara, photo Alberto Korda
Ernesto 'Che' Guevara is perhaps the most recognisable revolutionary icon, his image having graced countless posters and t-shirts.
For some it is just a fashion statement, but many are drawn to him as a symbol of the struggle against capitalism and the fight for a better world.
Films such as the Motorcycle Diaries and the two-part biopic 'Che' reflect his enduring popularity and give a glimpse of how his political ideas developed.
Revolutionaries do not fall ready-made from the sky, but are formed by conditions and events. In 1950 the asthmatic Guevara began his series of travels around Latin America as a 22 year old middle class medical student, seeking only youthful adventure.
But these experiences were to shape the rest of his life. On these journeys he witnessed the enormous class divide that existed between the "luxurious façade" and the real "soul" of the continent, the poor and downtrodden.
Seeing the struggles of workers and the poor everywhere he went, Guevara's attitude evolved from sympathy, through support, to active participation.
It was also on these travels that he was given the nickname Che, due to his Argentinian accent.

26 July Movement

It was in Mexico in 1955 that Che first met Fidel Castro and joined his 26 July movement. At the time Cuba was under the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, who had come to power through a military coup.
Its economy was completely dominated by US big business and wealthy Americans frequented the many Havana brothels and casinos.
Castro wanted a modern capitalist state in Cuba with some reforms for the poor. He envisaged a guerrilla struggle to overthrow only the dictatorship, not capitalism.
Even after returning to Cuba he told a journalist: "we have no animosity towards the United States... we are fighting for a democratic Cuba and an end to dictatorship".
Che himself was, by this point, an avowed socialist but joined the movement as a way to get active in the struggle.
He had previously criticised the Stalinist 'popular front' policy, promoted by the Cuban Communist Party.
This was the idea that in Latin American countries the working class was not ready to take power and establish a socialist society and instead had to make alliances with the 'progressive' sections of the national capitalist class in order to defeat imperialism.
He had seen first-hand how these so-called progressive capitalists were prepared to use bloody repression against the workers to defend their own interests.
However, while correctly criticising this approach, Che did not propose an alternative. He had not absorbed the lessons of the Russian Revolution nor the writings of its leaders, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, particularly on the role of the revolutionary party and Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution.

Trotsky's theory

Trotsky explained that the capitalist class in countries with developing capitalist economies such as Cuba was dominated by imperialism and unable to play the independent role that it had in the capitalist revolutions such as in Britain.
It was therefore incapable of carrying out its historical role and the tasks of land reform, establishing capitalist democracy and creating an independent nation state.
Trotsky argued that these steps could only be achieved through socialist revolution: nationalising industry, taking its ownership and control out of the hands of the capitalists and establishing a planned economy under democratic workers' control.
Trotsky said that the working class, even when in a minority, must lead the struggle against capitalism.
The decisive role of the working class arises from its role in production and the collective consciousness which develops in the workplace and lays the basis for the collective democratic control and management of society.
Because of isolation in rural areas and an individualistic outlook, the peasantry cannot lead such a transformation, but can still play in important role in the struggle.
This theory was borne out in the course of the 1917 Russian Revolution when the working class, in the period immediately after 1917, established the most democratic state in history.
But Che was not an active member of any organisation that understood the lessons of 1917. He instead saw the peasantry as the most revolutionary class and the methods of guerrilla struggle as the most effective.
He was influenced by many factors, including his own class background, the abandonment of an independent working class approach by communist parties and the victory of Mao's peasant army in the Chinese revolution.

Cuban revolution

It was December 1956 when a small band of fighters, Che and Castro among them, landed in Cuba. The landing was plagued with errors and accidents and two days later, when the scattered guerrillas managed to regroup, they were reduced in number from 82 to just 20. But just over two years later they had forced Batista to flee the island.
Che thought the guerrilla struggle would ignite a revolutionary movement, especially among the peasantry.
But while the guerrillas drew support, the mass of the population - especially the urban working class - were not active participants in the struggle.
Che gained a reputation as a courageous fighter and leader. He also organised political discussions among those under him and argued for socialist ideas within the 26 July Movement.
The guerrilla forces grew as they were seen as the only force consistently opposing the Batista dictatorship.
In marked contrast to the brutal treatment they received at the hands of the regime, the guerrillas did not execute the soldiers they captured.
Instead they discussed politics with them and let them go, winning an increasing number of defectors from the army.
On 1 January 1959, with his regime crumbling and the guerrillas approaching the cities, Batista fled the country.
The only successful general strike since Che's arrival on the island was called for the following day, which greeted the guerrillas as they marched into the major cities.
Despite Che arguing for it, Castro's intention had never been the overthrow of capitalism. It was over a year later when he first described the revolution in Cuba as 'socialist'.
He was pushed to take measures of nationalisation by the pressure of the masses combined with the reaction of American imperialism.
As the US recoiled, Cuba developed greater trade and political links with the Soviet Union. The 26 July movement merged with the Communist Party and became the organ of one party rule.

Capitalism overthrown

The Cuban revolution broadly bears out the theory of the permanent revolution. Castro's vision of an independent, democratic, capitalist Cuba was impossible; the Cuban revolution overthrew capitalism.
But workers did not play an active role in the revolution, so their role in the subsequent running of society was also passive.
From the outset the planned economy in Cuba was controlled not by workers' democracy, but by a bureaucratic elite, reflecting Stalinism in the USSR.
Despite this, the revolution still brought huge improvements to the lives of ordinary Cubans. Illiteracy was eradicated in just two years and by the late 1970s life expectancy was 74, comparable to Britain and much higher than other Latin American countries, Bolivia's was just 45.
Showing the same spirit of self-sacrifice that had marked him out as a fighter, Che rejected completely the privileges of the bureaucracy.
For this he must be saluted and it is one of the reasons he's still so admired today. Despite his growing disillusionment and revulsion at the bureaucracy, unlike Leon Trotsky he did not propose nor fight consistently for an alternative.
Instead he left Cuba in order to try and spread revolution abroad. This devotion to internationalism was another of Che's best characteristics.
The methods of guerrilla struggle, which succeeded in the specific conditions of Cuba, did not have the same effect elsewhere.
In 1965, Che left for the Congo but his efforts were unsuccessful and he had to make a clandestine return to Cuba.
In 1967 he appeared with a band of guerrillas in Bolivia. Sadly the failure to ignite revolution and resulting defeat of that struggle were to prove fatal to Che.
Che was captured and executed by the Bolivian army, backed by the CIA, at the age of just 39. Throughout his life, the injustices that Che saw motivated him to continue struggling for a better world.
At the same time, the development of his political ideas never stopped. Works by Trotsky were found on him when he was captured.
Che Guevara's position as an icon of struggle is completely justified. But we would not be doing his life justice if we did not examine it 'warts and all'.
His life is an inspiration for all those seeking to fight oppression and change society.

Monday, 5 November 2012

Report from Socialism 2012

Socialism 2012 Rally - photo by Senan


Socialism 2012 An inspirational weekend of socialist rallies, discussion and debate took place in London over the weekend 3-4 November, organised by the Socialist Party. Despite the fact that Socialist Party members and supporters were out in force just two weeks before for the national TUC 20th October anti-austerity demonstration, Socialism 2012 was very well attended. Rally at Socialism 2012, 3-4 November , photo Paul Mattsson (Click to enlarge) Two large rallies took place in Friends Meeting House, Euston, on the Saturday evening and Sunday afternoon and there were three sets of smaller sessions giving an opportunity for everyone present to discuss and express points of view. Bob Crow speaking during the Socialism 2012 Saturday rally, photo by Senan (Click to enlarge) The first rally welcomed transport union RMT general secretary Bob Crow onto the platform, who opened the event with a rousing speech against the Con-Dem government and in favour of a one-day general strike against its attacks. He was followed by excellent speeches from: Assistant general secretary of the Prison Officers Association Joe Simpson; Socialist Students organiser Claire Laker-Mansfield; Participant in the recent South African miners' strike movement in South Africa Alec Thraves; and General secretary of the Socialist Party Peter Taaffe. Socialism 2012 rally, photo Paul Mattsson (Click to enlarge) Addressing the second rally, were: General secretary of the Fire Brigades Union Matt Wrack; Assistant general secretary of the RMT Steve Hedley; Chair of the National Shop Stewards Network Rob Williams; President of the DWP group in the Public and Commercial Services union Fran Heathcote; and Deputy general secretary of the Socialist Party Hannah Sell. Over £17,000 was raised in the financial appeal made by Alec Thraves during the Saturday rally. If you weren't present, you can still add your donation to this important appeal; see www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/15611/ and click on 'donate' below. A fuller report of the weekend will be posted soon.

From: 
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/15625/05-11-2012/socialism-2012

Thursday, 4 October 2012

Labour Party conference: Can Labour give a lead in the fight against austerity?

Lead article from this weeks The Socialist, by Peter Taaffe, Socialist Party general secretary


Owen Jones will debate these questions with Clive Heemskerk, deputy editor of Socialism Today, at:Socialism 2012, a weekend of discussion and debate.

The Labour Party conference takes place at a crucial time. Working people are crying out for a lead in a mass movement which can force elections and topple the hated Con-Dem government.

The TUC has responded, under the pressure of left trade unions and radical fighting forces such as the National Shop Stewards Network, by passing a motion calling for a 24-hour general strike.

The battle is on to make sure that, in the run-up to the 20 October TUC demonstration and afterwards, the General Council names the date for a one-day general strike.

No such bold initiative can be expected at the Labour Party conference. On the contrary, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls make it quite clear that they are opposed to strikes.

Yet the right to strike is the ultimate weapon, the last resort which working people possess to confront the bosses and their government.

And these rights are already severely restricted through Thatcher's anti-union laws. Laws, which New Labour in power, both under Blair and Brown, did nothing to repeal.

'Wait for Labour'

The Eds' mantra is 'wait for the Labour government'. It is also the real policy of right-wing trade union leaders who are incapable or afraid of mounting effective resistance which can mobilise the full potential of the labour movement to defeat the anti-working class measures of the government.

But what will such a government look like if it is successful in being elected? Ed Balls spelt this out in the most explicit terms at the TUC Congress.

Delegates were outraged to hear a possible future Labour chancellor openly admitting that if New Labour was in power now it too would be carrying through cuts and holding down wages.

This at a time when a UNCTAD report has pointed out that the share of GDP taken by wages declined from 70% in 1970 to less than 63% in 2010!

In other words, the only policy the New Labour leadership has is continued impoverishment of the working class.

Ah, but these would be different to Tory cuts! It would be like the ill-fated 'social contract' of the Labour government of 1974-79, which was supposed to be a trade-off for limited wage rises in order to create jobs.

The social contract collapsed when the trade union movement concluded that it was a device for holding down wages while prices increased, resulting in deteriorating living standards and little benefit in terms of new jobs.
Economic crisis

It didn't work then nor will it work today, particularly when capitalism demands unprecedented cuts in living standards as the price for maintaining the system.

There is not the slightest perception among the New Labour tops of the grave, deep-going crisis, which will hold any government in an economic vice, severely restrict its room for manoeuvre and remorselessly force it to bend the knee to capital unless it has a programme to break the stranglehold of capitalism.

Witness the retreats already, within months of being elected, of French president Francois Hollande. Forced by the pressure of the 'market', he has promised that his already weak and ineffective wealth tax will last no more than two years and even that timescale could be in doubt.

Moreover, he has proposed a €30 billion cuts package in state expenditure. The consequence of this is a plummeting in his standing in the polls and, incredibly, a rise in the standing of the recently ousted right-wing Sarkozy.

The Bank of International Settlements shows that on the basis of capitalism, the scenario for the working people of Britain and Europe is dire.

The Financial Times commented on its findings: "In most advanced economies, the fiscal budget excluding interest payments would need 20 consecutive years of surpluses exceeding 2% of gross domestic product just to bring the debt-to-GDP ratio back to its pre-crisis levels." [22 August.] The British capitalist economy has no chance of achieving a 'surplus'.

In fact, despite all the pain associated with cuts, the budget deficit will not be eliminated by the next election.

Capitalism is going through its biggest crisis since the 1930s. The failure of this system is there for all to see in the more than 200 million unemployed worldwide, including 100 million young people, and the colossal growth of inequality and poverty.

Europe is convulsed - particularly southern Europe - by mass movements protesting against the dead end of capitalism, which offers nothing for the future but endless austerity.

Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland are experiencing a soul-destroying depression. The level of unemployment in Greece for instance is the same - 24% - as afflicted the US in the deepest days of the 1930s Great Depression.

The youth with no future have scattered to the four corners of Europe and the world, or are returning to the villages from which their families came, in a desperate but largely fruitless search for a job, any job, even one paying slave wages. The wheel of history is being turned back before our eyes!

And Britain, facing the onslaught of decayed British capitalism and its brutal agents, Cameron, Osborne and Clegg, is not far behind; it is Greece in slow motion! Unless the present economic decline is arrested and a massive programme of growth, generating millions of jobs, is put in place, the conditions of southern Europe will surely come to Britain.

There are already elements of Greece present in the social decay of Britain flowing from economic decline, revealed already in the growing ranks of youth unemployment and the 'solution' of overseer Boris Johnson for them of work with no pay.

Even the knights of capitalism - professional economists - desperately casting around for an alternative have turned to Marx's ideas, according to the BBC economics editor Stephanie Flanders.

She has produced a TV programme in which capitalist economists praise Marx and his ideas.

For instance, George Magnus is a senior economic adviser to the Swiss bank UBS and a frequent guest on Newsnight who "decided that Marx's warnings about the internal contradictions of capitalism were becoming more and more relevant."

It's reported that Magnus wrote an article headlined 'Give Marx a chance to save the world economy'. He received more emails in response to this than anything else he had written: "Some of the emails were pretty vicious"! The capitalist economist Nouriel Roubini simply stated in the Wall Street Journal: "Karl Marx had it right."

Miliband

Yet Ed Miliband chooses this moment, just before the Labour Party conference, when capitalism is coming apart at the seams and the props of the system are enormously weakened, to ride to the defence of capitalism.

An interview with Miliband by Charles Moore, the former editor of the right-wing Daily Telegraph, in that paper has the headline: "I want to save the capitalism my father hated." [15 September].

His father, Ralph, was a well-known Marxist opposed to the system and its apologists on the right wing of the Labour Party.

The son, however, "wants to save capitalism from itself". When Charles Moore questioned his support for "responsible capitalism", which Moore correctly says is a "contradiction in terms", he doesn't even deny this! He just falls back on the moth-eaten arguments of Winston Churchill, famous for his hatred of the labour movement, socialism and particularly Marxism: "Yes! But I believe capitalism is the least-worst system we've got. I believe in the creativity of BlackBerry (picking up his)."

How do we know that it is "the least worst system"? A real democratic socialist plan of production has not been tried, at least in an advanced industrial country, up to today.

Miliband seems to equate "inventiveness" - his BlackBerry - to capitalism and the market. Yet it remains a fact that all the big innovations, from space travel and its spin-offs, health research, the worldwide web and aerospace were not developed by private capitalism for profit but were initiatives reliant on state backing.

Imagine the colossal advantages if instead of the isolated islands of innovation in the state sector this was translated to a national and international scale.

Capitalism is an enormous brake not just on the productive forces, but on inventiveness, imagination and talent.

'Good capitalism'

Miliband has also served up 'pre-distribution' as a winning idea. This has been described by an academic from Yale as "to focus on market reforms that encourage a more equal distribution of economic power and rewards even before government collects taxes or pays out benefits".

In other words, it is an extension of Miliband's "good capitalism" (markets). "Equal" and "market" are diametrically opposed to each other.

The system demands the highest possible profit - and the easiest and best way for the capitalists to achieve this is by cutting wages and slashing services.

There is nothing 'modern' in Miliband's arguments. In fact, they predate the formation of the Labour Party itself, a return to the ideas of liberal capitalism, of a programme of limited reforms within the framework of the system.

There was at least an objective basis for such ideas in the 19th century when capitalism was a relatively progressive system.

Despite the horrors of the Industrial Revolution, the slave trade, etc, capitalism was at least able to develop the productive forces, science, technique and the organisation of labour, thus furnishing the possibility on the basis of socialism to abolish want and privation for the first time in history.

However, this system broke down at the end of the 19th century, accentuated in the first decades of the 20th century, when capitalism was no longer capable of providing reforms, through the Liberal Party in particular, to the working class.

This in turn laid the basis for the rejection of the Liberals and the rise of the Labour Party, which adopted a specifically socialist clause in 1918 - the famous Clause IV Part 4 of the Labour Party constitution.

When the labour movement embraced the aim of socialism it was because capitalism had palpably demonstrated, as it does today, its inability to take society forward.

In the former Soviet Union a bureaucratic caste betrayed the ideals of the Russian revolution. Although the planned economy was still maintained - and therefore the system which remained was still relatively progressive compared to capitalism - a one-party totalitarian regime was gradually established.

Socialist opposition

But today, it would not be Stalinism but democratic socialism based upon workers' democracy which would be the model in Britain.

The check and control of all leaders and representatives at every level through workers' control and management of the economy and society would ensure this. This could open up a future of undreamed of plenty.

The other perspective, chosen by Ed Miliband, is of a Labour government operating within the framework of a diseased system of capitalism, with the capitalists threatening blackmail at every step and defeat whenever even a slightly radical measure is proposed.

Even Miliband perhaps has an inkling of this history when he says: "While there's capitalism, there'll be socialism, because there is always a response to injustice." Precisely! Capitalism will always provoke opposition from the suffering working class and, ultimately, also big sections of the middle class.

It will engender a mood of looking for an alternative which will lead to a rediscovery of socialism.

Why not then return to some of the roots of the Labour Party of the past which at least rested on the working class and the labour movement, although the right-wing Labour leadership always had one foot in the camp of capitalism? Miliband will not do this and is therefore preparing disaster for his party and the working class in the event of coming to power.

Some on the left who remain within New Labour, including some left trade union leaders, vainly hope that they can 'reclaim' the party for the working class.

Some, like the left-wing celebrity and writer, Owen Jones, together with trade union leaders like Len McCluskey of Unite, have set up a think tank, the Centre for Labour and Social Studies (Class) to further this aim.

Yet some of the panel members of this new organisation cannot be remotely described as 'left'.

It includes, for instance, Polly Toynbee of the Guardian - in the past, a champion of the right-wing Social Democratic Party split from Labour.

She is, at best, a liberal critic of the present government. Jack Dromey, a former right-wing trade union leader and another stalwart of Class, was a hammer for Neil Kinnock and the right wing in the Labour Party against the immortal Liverpool councillors in the 1980s who confronted and defeated Thatcher.

Moreover, this campaign has set itself very limited aims: to "transform the debate within the Labour Party".

When pressed if and when this project fails, under what circumstances will Class's supporters conclude that the task of transforming New Labour is redundant? Owen Jones has argued: "When the trade union leaders have come to that conclusion."

This worshipper of accomplished facts only proposes to change history when he is guaranteed overwhelming support supplied by the trade union leadership.

With this approach, the Labour Party itself would never been founded in the first place.

It was the heroic minority, those like Keir Hardie, as well as the advanced trade unions, which fought for the project of a new party, which through struggle and events eventually found a majority.

The same task is being fulfilled today by those left trade unions such as the RMT transport union and the left within the PCS and the FBU, as well as the Socialist Party, who are fighting for the same project in modern conditions: a new mass workers' party.

In the teeth of New Labour-dominated councils inflicting savage cuts across the board, such as Knowsley near Liverpool or in Southampton, where two Labour councillors have been suspended for fighting against the closure of a swimming pool and other cuts, what do Owen Jones and his allies on the left do in practice to counter them? Hold out the prospect that, in the mists of time, somehow New Labour will be transformed. This will have as much effect as a drop of water on a hot stove.

But if a mass workers' party, even a small one at the beginning, was in existence then right-wing Labour councillors - more like a privileged caste today rather than genuine representatives of the working class - will be looking over their shoulders at an electoral challenge from such a party.

This would at least hold out the chance of staying their hand and preventing the cuts.

New Labour's party conference, we can be sure, will be long on flowery rhetoric but short on a practical fighting programme to defeat the Con-Dem government.

It is to the idea of a new mass workers' party, with a fighting socialist programme, that increasing numbers of workers will turn in the stormy period opening up in Britain.

Friday, 21 September 2012

We can beat Con-Dems' austerity: March on 20 October TUC demo

Please come along on the 20th October TUC demonstration. Local travel details can be found here: http://falseeconomy.org.uk/travel/south-west/BS/t1

John McInally, the national vice-president of the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) spoke in favour of the resolution calling for general strike action against austerity at the recent TUC Congress. The motion was moved by Steve Gillan, general secretary of the POA prison officers' union, seconded by Bob Crow, leader of the RMT transport union and received overwhelming support. This is John's speech:


The motion calls for coordinated action and 'far-reaching' campaigns, including considering the practicalities of a general strike against the government's austerity programme.

Austerity is a sanitised expression for what is an unremitting class war on our people.

The aim is to achieve, on the basis of the cuts and privatisation programme, the biggest transfer of wealth and power in many generations.

At its core is a 'race to the bottom' that is ripping the heart out of our communities.

It means the driving down of wage levels, massive job cuts, the destruction of the welfare state and the NHS and the public services that provide the basis of a civilised existence for working people.

This unprecedented assault can only proceed because of the poisonous political consensus that exists among the major parties - shamefully including Labour - that says there is no alternative to the market and the barbaric proposition that the acquisition of obscene wealth and profit by a tiny unaccountable elite comes before the needs of millions.

Those millions are crying out for an alternative.

They watch in fear and disgust as one outrage follows another:
The Libor fixing rate affecting millions of workers
Banks laundering drug money
Government-instigated hate campaigns against the disabled and unemployed

30 November [public sector strike] demonstrated the massive strength and potential of our movement.

But rather than building on that tremendous display of class solidarity the abject surrender [by right-wing tradeunion leaders] that followed sent out a message of division, despair and defeatism.

We now have an opportunity to send out a message of hope - loud and clear - that we intend to harness the full strength of our movement and class to stop the austerity programme in its tracks.

The 20 October [TUC demonstration] must be more than another protest march - it must be the platform on which we build coordinated action on the widest possible front across both the public and private sector.

Every union here has a legitimate dispute on pay, pensions, jobs, privatisation or a related issue.

So, let's hear no nonsense about the difficulties or legalities of organising coordinated action.

Let's not fixate about the 'scary words', general strike.

Let us rather sit down together and agree a date for joint action and wider campaigning across the trade union movement as soon as practicably possible after 20 October.

A 24-hour strike as a start to an effective programme of coordinated industrial action and wider campaigning would irrevocably shift the balance of forces in our favour.

How many times must it be said - campaigning works and action gets results.

We have recently won thousands of jobs in the civil service by organising action.

The attacks are increasing, not abating. Millions are waiting for a lead to fight back. Let's provide that lead.

Tuesday, 31 July 2012

Report from second day of strike action at Remploy Bristol

Bristol Socialist Party sends solidarity to the Bristol Remploy Workers after their second day of strike action last Thursday. Please sign the Unite/ GMB petition here.

Report by Tom Baldwin

Once again the strike at Remploy in Bristol was 100% solid with all the workers out and most on the picket line.

The sun was shining and the pickets were in a good mood but there was no dent in their determination to fight the attacks on Remploy.

The people we spoke to wanted to talk about politics and clearly saw their struggle in the context of the economic crisis, high unemployment and the cuts.

There was support for linking up with other workers under attack and for the National Shop Stewards Network lobby of the TUC on 9th September, which is calling for a one-day general strike against austerity.

I spoke to Mark Cambridge, a Unite member in Remploy and asked him why he was out:

"We're on strike to speak up and stand up for our rights. In Remploy Bristol in particular we are concerned about the effects of possibly being TUPE'd over to a private company and our years of service not being recognised.

Basically we're standing up for our futures and for future generations of disabled people. We're showing we're no longer the little people who can be easily rolled over. We must fight to get the support we need, especially in this economic crisis."

I also asked him what he thought the next step was for Remploy workers:

"We need to coordinate with other groups of workers and raise national awareness. There are still a lot of people that don't know what Remploy is or what's being done to us.

"That's our key aim. We want to build support and be in a stronger position to take on the government when parliament meets again in six weeks."

Sunday, 24 June 2012

'What's Socialism Got to Do With It?' Socialist Party public meeting tomorrow



There is an Alternative
‘What’s Socialism Got To Do With It?

Monday 25th June 7:30pm
St. George’s Library, Church Road,
St. George, Bristol, BS5 8AL

Matt Gordon will look at why the capitalist system is in crisis and explain there is an alternative to ordinary people paying the costs through cuts and job losses

Friday, 13 April 2012

PCS says 'shocking' tax avoidance shows cuts are unnecessary

Commenting on reports chancellor George Osborne was "shocked" by levels of tax avoidance by millionaires, Public and Commercial Services union general secretary Mark Serwotka said:

"The only shocking thing is that someone who was shadow chancellor for five years before becoming chancellor apparently did not realise that our public finances are deprived of tens of billions of pounds every year through tax avoidance and evasion by the super-rich.

"Mr Osborne should spend less time courting the very wealthy and agreeing to cut their taxes even further and more time talking to his own staff in HM Revenue and Customs who have been warning about this for years.

"But now he has seen the light, he must accept his government's cuts are not only damaging they are entirely unnecessary."

From PCS press release, 9.4.12

Friday, 6 April 2012

Remploy - Not for sale!


Since 1946 Remploy has supported thousands of disabled people return to work, from ex-service personnel to people born with complex disabilities.

On 7 March 2012 the coalition government announced plans to close 36 of the 54 remaining Remploy sites with compulsory redundancies for 1,752 people. This decision comes just a few days after the government passed the welfare bill, which is to help people in to work. Instead of a commitment to help the most vulnerable people in society, the government is making life worse for them.

Remploy provides real jobs for many hundreds of disabled workers, giving them the confidence and dignity to be active and contributing citizens. Closing the factories will cause real hardship and push many to the back of the dole queue.

The government wants to sell off its Remploy factories. Join Unite in saying save our Remploy.

Sign our petition now to save Remploy factories

National Demonstration – Friday 20 April 2012

Lobby the DWP in Sheffield - The campaign to save Remploy factories continues
Assemble 12.30 for a 1pm start outside the Department of Work and Pensions office in Sheffield (Steel City House) at the junction of West Street, Church Street and Tripit Lane.

Rally and March to the Town Hall

Speakers to be announced

All Welcome bring your banners

Wednesday, 29 February 2012

PCS says Barclays tax could fund proper jobs for youth

From PCS Press Release


The £500 million in avoided tax that Barclays bank will now have to pay could fund full-time jobs above the living wage for all the young people who have been working for free under the government 'work experience' scheme.


Divided between the 34,000 16 to 24-year-olds who have been put onto the programme, the money could pay salaries of £14,706 a year, or £8.08 an hour for a 35-hour week.


A tax loophole that allowed Barclays to avoid paying £500 million in corporation tax has been closed by HM Revenue and Customs.


PCS points out that this is a "drop in the ocean" compared to more than £120 billion in tax revenue that is avoided, evaded or uncollected every year.

Thursday, 23 February 2012

Bristol Socialist Party Public Meeting: Could There Be A 'Compassionate Capitalism'?

Bristol Socialist Party Public Meeting
Tuesday 28th February 2012
7.30pm
Cheltenham Road Library, Cheltenham Road, BS6 5QX

Could There Be A 'Compassionate Capitalism'?

Capitalism is in crisis all over the world. From New York to Athens, from Moscow to Cairo, inequality and poverty are being challenged by millions of people, the 99% are fighting back.
Tories Cameron and Osbourne tell us not to blame capitalism, but only the wrong sort of 'crony capitalism'. Vince Cable and the Liberals lash out at bankers, speculators and other 'nasty' capitalists. Ed Miliband and the rest of New Labour go so far as to plead for a 'responsible, compassionate capitalism'.
But who are they pleading to? Can capitalism share out the wealth from the 1% to 99% as easily as it shares out the pain? Or is capitalism itself at the root of the problem? Do we need a complete system change. These and other questions will be discussed at this open meeting of the Bristol Socialist Party. 

Newcomers are always welcome. If you would like more information email ma_gordon@hotmail.co.uk or call 07936712962

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=51.468274,-2.5926&spn=0.02374,0.054846&t=h&z=14