When voters in Scotland abandoned the Labour Party, it looked like things could not get any worse for Scottish Labour. However, nearly 20 months after the disastrous General Election, where the party was nearly wiped out North of the Border, Labour continues to decline in Scotland.
The direction and the leadership of the party have been vocally criticised also by its most crucial financial backers, namely trade union leaders. Many trade union members are SNP voters and had previously been YES voters at the Independence Referendum, but their leaders’ criticism of the LP is a rather novel development. Len McCluskey, leader of Unite, went as far as praising the SNP and suggested that the party led by Sturgeon could be the key to getting Labour into government in Westminster. Are Scottish Trade Unions about to desert Scottish Labour and affiliate to the SNP? Will this tactic pay off? Is the SNP able to pander to the interest of both big business and trade unions?
In recent weeks, the Leadership of Scottish Labour has been criticised by some of its most important donors – trade union leaders. The General Secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, claimed that Kezia Dugdale had done a disservice to the party by openly backing Owen Smith as Labour leader during last summer’s leadership elections. Her Welsh counterpart – Carwyn Jones – had stayed neutral despite potentially having a good reason to back Owen Smith, who is a Welsh MP. McCluskey went further and claimed that the SNP could be the key to getting Labour into power after the next general election.
Gary Smith, the leader of GMB in Scotland, has been consistently critical of Kezia Dugdale. He defined Scottish Labour as a “middle class protest party” far from the issues of working class people. Earlier on this year the union, which is affiliated to Labour, did not carry out a consultation with its members in Scotland over which candidate to back in the party’s leadership contest, due to the perceived irrelevance of Scottish Labour.
These criticisms do not come out of the blue and are a consequence of a shifting Scottish landscape, where the Labour party is not able to retain the support of its most traditional backers.
The Scottish Trade Union Council (STUC) leader addressed the SNP conference in Aberdeen in 2015 . This was watershed event, in that it was the first time that the ‘leader’ of the trade union movement was invited to address the SNP conference. In turn, Nicola Sturgeon spoke at the STUC congress last year, and used her speech to stress her commitment to workers’ right and the positive influence the ‘critical friends’ in the unions had on her party’s policies.
Although the STUC is not affiliated to the Labour Party, around 10 of its constituent unions are, and these recent developments may suggest that some of the big trade unions could reaffiliate to the SNP. At the rank-and-file level, the shift has already taken place. The SNP Trade Unions Group has over 15,000 members according to the information the group itself provides. This is about the same size as the whole membership of Scottish Labour, which recent estimates place at 18,000.
Many union members voted YES in the Independence Referendum and gave their support to the SNP in the following year’s general elections. SNP Socialists, a new left-wing group within the party, was set up in 2016 and generated some interest. Although its meetings are not public, this confirms a shift in the membership of the SNP, which has been joined by many left-wing voters.
This influx of left-wing and trade union forces poses an existential question to the SNP. So far, and with far more limited powers, the SNP tried to appease to both big business and workers with their vision for a low-tax, high-earning independent Scotland. This has won them the trust of both business and working people, but anyone versed in the ideas of Marx knows this honeymoon period cannot last forever. The first cracks have started to appear. The interests of workers and capital are inherently opposed, and any party trying to champion both causes will only last in power as long as it manages to delay answering the fundamental questions of economics. The SNP has so far done brilliantly, focusing on the two constitutional questions, but they can only put off the question of austerity, privatisation and workers rights for so long.
Since the referendum, new powers have been given to Holyrood, but the executive has been very careful in using them as little as possible. Although Holyrood was given new responsibilities regarding the administration of 11 benefits, the government decided to hand the new powers back to the DWP until 2020. The Scottish Government also gained new tax powers but again used as little as possible of them, and their greatest progressive measure was that of failing to implement a Tory tax cut for the highest earners.
As long as the party leadership wants to appeal to big business, its claim to be a party for Scottish workers will necessarily remain fictitious and awaits exposure. If anything, this influx of socialists and trade unionists will expose the bourgeois nature of the SNP leadership sooner, and possibly lead to a left-right split in the party.
Author: revolutionscot
Languages and Capitalism
As the well-known saying goes “To have another language is to possess a second soul.” Language is the medium through which we express ourselves, and like it or not, it underpins our entire world-view. For example, the way we see colours completely depends on which language we speak. In Vietnamese green and blue are the same colour (xanh), while in Russian ‘blue’ is two separate colours (синий and голубой) and in the Himba language spoken in Namibia; dark blue, dark green, dark red, brown, purple, and black are all one colour (zoozu). However, it’s not just colour that language affects, but how gender and possession are expressed (in Gaelic the only way to say you own something is to say it is ‘at you’) and much more. Languages reflect the richness and diversity of human culture, and when we lose a language we also lose poetry, songs, stories, and a whole perspective on the world.
However, under capitalism profits are valued above all else, and culture is cast to the side. 2,473 languages are currently defined as endangered and recent studies have estimated from 60-90% of all currently spoken languages will be extinct by 2050.
Currently the world’s resources are concentrated in a few countries, and within them this vast wealth is concentrated in the hands of a tiny group of billionaires. English being the language of the largest imperialist countries means that it is valued above all others. Children in non-English speaking countries are told that learning English is the only way to become successful while children in English speaking countries miss out on all the benefits of bilingualism such as access to another culture, better concentration and multitasking, and even the delayed onset of dementia. Worldwide between 60-75% of people can speak two or more languages fluently, compared to only 20% in the USA and 5% in the UK. Under the capitalist system language is merely seen as a barrier to world trade and local identities as a hindrance to workers who are needed to be transient, unrooted, and able to move when the market dictates.
Closer to home, in Scotland we have our own minority language Gaelic or Gàidhlig which has around 57,000 fluent speakers, concentrated in the Highlands and Islands, but also with large communities in Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Inverness. Except for the Northern Isles it was once spoken all over Scotland, and until recently continued to be the main language of the Highlands. However, like all endangered languages it did not ‘naturally’ start to fade away, as is sometimes implied, but was brutally repressed.
The 1745 Jacobite rebellion made it clear to the ruling class at the time that the Highlands were a threat, as they were not yet integrated into the capitalist system or the British state. As a result, a series of laws were enacted aiming to destroy Highland culture, and unsurprisingly one of the main ways this was done was to make it illegal to speak Gaelic. However, the language continued to survive, and Gaelic was still the main language in Highland communities, churches, homes and schools.
A second blow came to the language in 1872 when a national education system was put into place. Under the new system all children had to be taught in English and faced severe punishments for speaking their native language. Many people alive today still remember being ruthlessly beaten in school for using Gaelic. The worthlessness of the language was ingrained from a young age and as a result confidence in the language dropped. This view that it would be better to just speak English and that Gaelic is somehow ‘worthless’ and ‘a waste of time and money’ is still around us today. Many think that Gaelic isn’t suitable for a modern society, or that it is only for ultra-nationalists who want to return to feudalism or the like. This is completely ridiculous; in fact Gaelic gives us access to a wealth of literature, poetry and culture.
Despite the pressures from the capitalist system in which English domitnates, Gaelic is still spoken by many. Gaelic education is now highly popular, as results have shown that children in these schools drastically outperform their single-language peers. However, despite some support from Holyrood, in Austerity Britain, Gaelic is not getting the support it needs to thrive.
Under socialism the way in which languages would be viewed would be completely different. Instead of the languages of the biggest imperialist countries dominating and all others being dismissed; bilingualism would be rightly valued. Sufficient resources could be allocated to minority languages like Gaelic, and without the pressures of the market all languages could flourish. Language is the key to the huge wealth of human culture, and under socialism it would no longer be stamped out.
SNP Draft Budget Hides Austerity
The presentation of the draft budget for the Scottish Government is normally not a particularly interesting event, but the draft for 2017-2018 draws attention due to the further devolution of tax and welfare powers to Scotland this year.
The ambitious use of these new powers to change Scotland for the better is not the story of finance secretary Derek Mackay’s announcement, however. Former Alex Salmond advisor, Alex Bell, derided the Scottish Government as “cowards” for the lack of wealth-redistributing reforms in the draft budget. Mackay claims that the budget will mean more money coming from taxes to local services, but he is attempting to pull the wool over our eyes.
Mackay claims an “extra” £79m is to be raised through the use of the Scottish Governments new powers. The reality of this is that with powers over income tax, he will not be raising the tax threshold on the 40p rate as the Tories have done for the rest of the UK. Not losing that £79m through a tax cut could hardly be described as “extra” revenue.
Another piece of creative accounting includes boasting “additional spending power” (note a very careful choice of words) for local government by ending the SNP’s council tax freeze. So Mackay counts a 3% increase in Council Tax towards a total of £241m for “local government services”. Even though the final decision to actually increase council tax is not down to him, but local councils themselves.
The independent Scottish Parliament Information Centre finds Mr Mackay’s most dodgy budgetary trick to be the double-counting of funding for social care, which is included in the totals for both the Health and Local Government budgets, appearing to enlarge both! This did not go unmentioned by the opposition parties at Holyrood.
Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale attacked the draft budget by highlighting the real cuts to local services the SNP is implementing. Unfortunately for her, Scottish Labour’s criticisms sound like hypocrisy, as it is very difficult to imagine them doing anything different. For all their talk of using the Scottish Government’s new powers to prevent cuts, we know they’d swindle us just as much.
Local government definitely is a loser in this draft budget, however. In exchange for the Scottish Government allowing councils to raise Council Tax by 3%, there are cuts of £327m to local government grants. This sort of financial relationship – whereby the lower unit of government is hamstrung by cuts from above and given insufficient powers to make up the shortfall – is exactly what the SNP leadership complains about concerning the tax powers devolved to Holyrood and austerity cuts to the block grant from HM Treasury. In reality the only solution in either case is by defying austerity budgets and the bourgois law that defends them. Any idea such as this, as we’ve explained previously, could gain much resonance amongst the SNP’s membership and support. However the leadership are far from willing to carry out such a thing.
The SNP tops will always argue, of course, that only with the powers of an independent country can the Scottish Government truly run Scotland in “Scotland’s interests”. But whose interests are those, really? With more power comes more responsibility, and with the new devolved powers coming in April 2017 and beyond, the Scottish Government will be more responsible for the management of the Scottish economy and its budget will reflect that. For so long as the SNP are wedded to capitalism, they will have to implement the agenda of Scottish capital when in Government.
In these times of great uncertainty following the Brexit vote and ever-declining predictions for economic growth, the austerity agenda of capitalism has become somewhat more cautious. We saw this with the new Chancellor Phillip Hammond’s Autumn Statement. The UK Government will adopt a slightly more Keynesian policy due to the instability of the British and European economic outlook, financed by the swelling national debt. This is the only area where the SNP are using Holyrood’s new powers to the maximum: borrowing money.
Currently the majority of the Scottish working class trusts the SNP to defend their interests. Where they want influence now is in the other half of their cross-class alliance for independence: the capitalist class. This draft budget which implements austerity cuts while trying to hide them behind misleading statistics and crumbs-from-the-table reforms shows this cautious new attitude.
The SNP will continue to speak up for “Scotland’s interests”, covering up the contradictory class interests at the heart of Scottish society and the SNP. Nicola Sturgeon has quickly become a stalwart defender of Scottish and British capitalist interests in the EU by using this deceptive slogan. She may still mention fighting the Tories from time-to-time, but on whose behalf? However the SNP have a problem in that their support comes from a healthy attitude of wanting to fight the Tories along with austerity, trident, warmongering and the rotten Westminster clique. I.e. an opposition to the some of the most unjust but inherent traits of capitalism. Even though Sturgeon et al are wedded to capitalism the mood and expectations created during the referendum and the SNPs rise are something which they will not be able to control forever.
The class contradictions of the SNP in time will lead to huge splits and formations of radical left wing currents where the ideas of revolutionary socialism will gain huge resonance. It is important now more than ever that we do not keep our criticisms of the SNP leadership to ourselves. If the working class does not fight for its interests – if we do not fight for socialism – nobody will. It’s not going to be handed to us by Parliaments or passed via referendum. 2017 will be a more turbulent year than 2016 as the crisis of capitalism and infighting among the ruling class intensifies. This is a precondition to revolutionary moments, but they will only come if we get organised, educated and take the offensive. Make Revolution your New Year’s Resolution!
SNP conference: Implications for class struggle in Scotland
by Ross Walker
Ross Walker of the Edinburgh Marxists discusses the events of the recent SNP annual party conference, where leader Nicola Sturgeon announced plans for a second referendum on Scottish independence. Beneath the apparent party unity surrounding independence, however, it is clear that strong class contradictions are developing within the SNP. Continue reading SNP conference: Implications for class struggle in Scotland
Class Contradictions of The SNP Revealed in Depute Leadership Race
By Ross Walker
The SNP is still riding a huge wave of popularity likely to continue for a wee while at least. Continue reading Class Contradictions of The SNP Revealed in Depute Leadership Race
Scotland, The UK and The Fight for Socialism After Brexit
By Amy DeanThe summer of 2016 has proved to be the most turbulent in memory in British politics. Over the past 3 months the electorate have voted to leave the EU, David Cameron has resigned as Prime Minister with Theresa May taking over, right-wingers have plunged the Labour Party into an internal crisis and leadership election, and the question of a second Scottish independence referendum is most certainly back on the table. Continue reading Scotland, The UK and The Fight for Socialism After Brexit
|
Dialectical Materialism
Conner Gettings
Dialectical materialism is often described as one of the three main pillars of Marxism, along with historical materialism and Marxist economics. These three complement each other in forming an excellent way of describing society and the physical world, as well as how they relate to one another. While historical materialism analyses history from a materialistic perspective and Marxist economics obviously deals with the economy, dialectical materialism is the philosophical and scientific outlook which underpins Marxism. It is the language and method that Marxists use to analyse the world and as such, it can be applied to virtually any area of thought or research; be it the historical development of society or a specialised area of science. This makes dialectical materialism a very powerful tool which can be used to understand current events, from how they arose to how they might be resolved. So to a Marxist a proficient understanding of the philosophy of dialectical materialism and how it should be applied in different situations is critical.
The ideas of dialectical materialism, based on the best traditions of philosophical thought, are not a fixed dogma but rather a system of tools and general principles for analysing the world materialistically and scientifically. Words like materialism and materialistically are used a lot, and in a Marxist context materialism means that it is generally the material world and current physical conditions that influence both the actions and ideas of individuals and groups as a whole, rather than the other way about. The roots of dialectical materialism can ultimately be traced to the ancient Greek natural philosophy of atomism of Epicurus and Democritus and can be derived from that fact that everything that exists is material and is derived from matter, and that all matter is interconnected and interdependent.
There are many ways and viewpoints in which dialectical materialism can be understood, as befits a dialectical understanding of the world, but the main principle behind it is that nothing is static. Everything is in a constant state of change and flux no matter how stable or motionless it may seem, and over an infinite amount of time everything will, and must, transform or degrade. So according to this mode of thought, the idea that something is constant and will remain unchanged permanently is unmaterialistic and ultimately impossible. This can be seen in the realm of astronomy, a field where the tenets of dialectical materialism seem to be constantly verified. Objects such as stars, which were once thought to be infinite in time, were eventually shown to have lifetimes and are indeed not infinite.
Within a more terrestrial scope, this idea of constant flux can be applied to societies and regions around the globe. There is no country in the world where the working class is not in a continuous state of variation. In a single country at times it may be strong and proactive and at other times it may appear dormant and almost invisible on the surface; but in all periods there are ebbs and flows in the working class movement which will be influenced by certain events and the material conditions at certain times, such as an economic recession. The state of the working class may then go on to affect the conditions which affect its current state through actions such as mass strikes and so on; the processes and interactions between both can continue to influence each other. This is the essence of the dialectic nature of society and this also connects with historical materialism.
Dialectical materialism when viewed as a form of logic is always opposed to the more widely used and accepted mode of thought of formal logic that is prevalent among the bourgeoisie and general academia. Formal logic itself can ultimately be related to Aristotle of ancient Greece and this dogmatic way of thinking, in its rigidness, is a product of the time of its creation and its development in capitalist society. In formal logic an object A will always equal A. Whereas with dialectical materialism A will only equal A in the limit of abstraction, which we often enter into for the sake of functionality and simplicity in areas such as mathematics and physics. In dialectical materialism, however, we realise that despite this simplification, in reality A never equals A no matter how narrow you make the time interval between observations of it. This comes back to the idea of constant flux, where everything is in constant motion and as such is always changing, even if this change is almost undetectable. So in reality A equals A and at the same time it does not equal A, as A is constantly in the process of becoming something other than A, and it is this idea which formal logic in its stubbornness finds almost impossible to understand and implement in analysis. As such, when using formal logic one will always come up against contradictions in reality that cannot be easily solved and when these contradictions are finally overcome, they inevitably lead to even greater contradictions. When, however, using dialectical materialism the contradictions are not so much of a problem, rather they are expected due to the dialectical nature of the material world in which we live. This is a main reason why dialectical materialism is superior to formal logic when being used to understand the processes that are occurring all around us.
Aside from the ideas of everything having a materialistic basis and being derived from matter, that all matter is interconnected and interdependent, and that there is a continual flux of processes that at all times influence each other where necessary, there are three basic assertions that dialectical materialism makes that in many ways sum up these ideas and allow them to be applied to the physical world.
This first of these is: The Law of the Unity and Conflict of Opposites. In a very literal sense this law describes a situation seen in many dialectical processes of two or more opposing ideas or physical objects. Examples of this idea could be opposing class interests within society, such as those of the proletariat and bourgeoisie which will naturally be forced against one another. Or in the field of physics it could be used to describe the phenomena of electromagnetism, where there are positive and negatively charged particles which will attract oppositely charged particles and repel similarly charged particles which then leads to the creation of an electric current in closed circuits. The unity part of this law denotes the view that the opposites from various situations, once certain material conditions are met, can effectively remove or annihilate one another. Such as in society, following a successful revolution of the working class and the creation of the dictatorship of the proletariat (a commonly misunderstood phrase which means the working class democratically controlling society); with the eventual withering away of the state, the opposing class interests would also wither away due to the end of class society itself. In the case of physics, with the removal of any physical or potential energy barriers, equally and oppositely charged particles will collide to create a new particle or annihilate each other alongside the creation of energy. This effectively removes the influence of the opposite charges. This principle can also be applied in the opposite direction, in the creation of opposites in different situations and again with the correct material conditions.
The second assertion of dialectical materialism is: The Law of the Passage of Quantitative Changes into Qualitative Changes and Vice Versa. As this law states, quantitative changes can result in qualitative changes and in turn, qualitative changes can result in quantitative changes. A good example of this in practice is the process of boiling water. When boiling a body of water the temperature of the water must be raised to 100°C, or 373.15K, at the barometric pressure at sea level if you want to be specific. This is a quantitative change in the properties of the water. Once this temperature is reached the water undergoes a phase transition from a liquid to a gas. This can be considered a qualitative change in the properties of the water, and so this completes a cycle of this law.
The third law of dialectical materialism is: The Law of the Negation of the Negation. This statement neatly contains the idea of the constant change and flux of objects and processes mentioned previously. The negation of an object or property, usually caused by the said object’s or property’s antithesis, can in turn be negated itself so that the whole system can move on to a completely new state. This occurs due to the ever changing and dialectical nature of the world and events. The effects of certain incidents, such as an economic boom in capitalism, can cause living conditions of the working class to improve due to the more relaxed nature of the bourgeoisie towards reforms that the working class demands. So the working class will in itself become more relaxed and layers could possibly become less class conscious. If, however, the antithesis of an economic boom, an economic depression, causes the material conditions of capitalism to be almost reversed such that the bourgeoisie are forced to take away any reforms granted to the working class, then the living conditions of the working class will deteriorate accordingly and as such layers of the working class will become more radicalised and class conscious, and so on. This process will then continue according to the changing materialistic conditions of society and the confrontation of class interests, which will in turn influence each other.
These three laws of dialectical materialism and their associated concepts and applications form the backbone of the Marxist way of thinking. In the modern period, we as Marxists would say that formal logic is no longer able to progress science, or philosophy any further, as the contradictions that it has built up due to its very nature are becoming greater and greater. In a very similar way to the fact that Capitalism can no longer progress society forward as a whole due to its inherent failures. A good example of this is in the realm of cosmology. In cosmology, and in the physics community as a whole, the idea of the big bang dominates the general consensus of what created the Universe as we know it. While the idea of a massive explosion resulting in the Universe we see today is consistent with nearly all the observational evidence we have, formal logic breaks down when we try to explain what happened before the big bang. The idea that all the mass and energy in the Universe came from nothing more than the big bang, with nothing causing the big bang itself doesn’t feel like a satisfying answer. That’s because it isn’t materialistic at all. From our everyday experience we know we can’t get something from nothing and so as Marxists we would argue that obviously something must have existed before the big bang.
Formal logic in its rigidness finds it very difficult to link our current knowledge of physics with any new possible theories to explain the physical laws that could have existed before the big bang. This isn’t implying that dialectical materialism would allow us to answer these big questions easily, of course not, but it does allow a much easier theoretical link to be made due to its emphasis on change and its more flexible nature compared to formal logic. From a purely scientific point of view that’s where the strength of dialectical materialism lies; it allows the connection of seemingly disparate theories and ideas in a deeply profound and material basis.
One of the best demonstrations of the applicability of dialectical materialism and of the powerful insights it can give into physical processes is in the field of general relativity and gravitation. This area of science has been in the news a lot recently due to the first observational evidence of gravitational waves that was announced on Thursday 11th February.
The person who came up with our current understanding of general relativity and the force of gravity itself was Einstein. Einstein was able to do this through several factors. One of course was the material conditions into which he was born: a fairly wealthy middle class family that could afford to give him a good education. Another was the fact he possibly had a natural aptitude in science. This, however, is beside the point. The main factor was the analysis he employed when considering his thought experiments on gravity. Being a theoretical physicist he relied on theory more than observation and so having a good analysis of his ideas was vital. Of course he used dialectical materialism. Einstein wasn’t a Marxist but he did have many Socialist views and he did speak out against capitalism and the free market, so it’s no surprise he employed dialectical materialism in his work.
In general relativity, what Einstein brilliantly deduced in his field equations, that are a part of a larger set of partial differential equations, was that the force of gravity is paired with the energy and momentum of both matter and radiation; and it should be noted that the pairs of energy and momentum as well as matter and radiation and also interconnected and interdependent. The theory of general relativity states that gravity is paired with energy and momentum in that in the presence of matter or radiation, the curvature of spacetime is bent. If we can imagine such a thing as an empty universe, which of course dialectical materialism tells us is impossible, then spacetime would be perfectly flat and time and motion would move and change everywhere uniformly. Of course this isn’t the case and so every piece of mass and radiation in the universe is bending the curvature of spacetime. So that gravity is changing in our presence and as a result of this, the movement of matter and radiation is changing as well. Of course you need massive amounts of mass, like that of stars or black holes to see these effects easily but nonetheless it’s still occurring all the time.
Even more remarkable is that, as the name spacetime would suggest, even something as fundamental as time is affected by this process, as a consequence of the finite and unalterable speed of light in a vacuum in our Universe. So as mass or radiation moves, which both constantly do as a necessity of their existence, they not only change the gravitational field in their vicinity but also the passage of time for themselves relative to their surroundings. Another consequence of this is, is that as a mass moves it appears contracted and hence shorter relative to a stationary observer, and equivalently radiation appears gravitationally redshifted or blueshifted depending on the situation. Again this is happening to us all the time but we would need to be moving very close to the speed of light to noticeably see these effects, but they do happen and in the decades since Einstein first proved these effects theoretically, they have since been proven experimentally.
So we can see very clearly here that the most fundamental physical aspects of the Universe such as mass, radiation, the force of gravity; as well as other forces, energy, momentum and time are all interconnected and interdependent as dialectical materialism suggests. It is also thought now that the four fundamental forces in the Universe, which are, in order from weakest to strongest: gravity, the weak nuclear, the electromagnetic, and strong nuclear forces; are all different aspects of one singular force and are tied together in the hypothetical and aptly named Theory of Everything. These connections are things that dialectical materialism pointed towards long before formal logic acknowledged them.
Dialectical materialism is the language that Marxists use to communicate their ideas and utilise them to analysing the world and the material universe. Its universal applicability and flexibility make it an incredibly powerful tool and ultimately it is necessary for bringing about an international socialist revolution and an end to capitalism.
Brexit, Independence and The Battle for Socialism
By Ross Walker
On Friday the 24th of June, the results for the EU referendum were declared and the establishment was sent into a state of disarray. The value of the pound fell dramatically, Cameron was forced to resign and both Britain’s major political parties were pushed into civil wars. Since then events have continued to move very fast. Continue reading Brexit, Independence and The Battle for Socialism
The Instability of The SNP
Despite the Holyrood election results falling short of an overall majority, it is clear that the SNP is still the dominating party in Scotland. However, despite leadership claims to the contrary, it would be a mistake to think that this overwhelming popularity is the sign of a unified party. In fact differences on various issues including NATO, the monarchy, currency post-independence, the single police force and privatisation of CALMAC are very present and are subject to passionate discussion at many branches.
The Housing Crisis IS The Capitalist Crisis
It is now over 35 years since Margaret Thatcher’s government implemented the Housing Act of 1980 and its Scottish equivalent, the ‘Tenants’ Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980’, which introduced the now infamous ‘right-to-buy’ scheme in Britain. The notorious policy has led to one third of ex-council homes being bought up by wealthy landlords, resulting in massive rent increases. Homes which were meant to provide comfort for working people are now being bought and sold at ridiculous prices in order to make a profit for the wealthy minority.
In Scotland in particular, the ‘right-to-buy’ policy has become associated with the selfish mentality of the current Conservative leaders, who have again been given rule over Scotland, despite only receiving 10% of Scottish votes in the recent general election. The ‘right-to-buy’ policy ensured a shortage of housing for those on low incomes by creating a property bubble that made many once working-class houses unaffordable. By pushing the working class out of urban residential areas and putting them into vast housing schemes, the Conservative party have found an effective way of keeping the working-class in their place.
Not only this, but the ideology encouraged by the right-to-buy scheme has led to a destruction of working class consciousness, with many workers associating home ownership with social stability and comfort, while associating housing schemes with ‘benefit scroungers’ and criminals.
The right-to-buy policy of the Tory party is still one of the biggest enemies of social equality today. George Osborne is determined to carry on Thatcher’s legacy of privatisation in every possible place, claiming it is all part of his mysterious ‘Long-term economic plan.’ Osborne clearly has no motive other than to increase the powers of Capitalism and create an immense divide between the rich and poor of Britain. Osborne’s ideas are completely alien to the working people of Scotland, who find it increasingly hard to survive in a world dominated by big businesses.
In the recent Queen’s speech the Tories put forward their plans to sell off housing association stock. Combined with their plans to cap the housing benefit this will undoubtedly lead to many poorer families losing their homes. In Scotland 277,000 homes are rented from housing associations. 2,911 new dwellings were built by housing associations in Scotland between 2013-14, a fair chunk less than the 3244 built the year before, but perhaps that is because 774 tenants were evicted from housing association properties the same year because they were unable to pay rent. With increased Tory austerity throughout Britain, it is unlikely the housing associations will receive enough public funding to be properly effective in providing homes for poorer people.
And what of public housing in Scotland? Well in 2013-14 1,140 new dwellings were built by local authorities in Scotland, a slight increase on the 963 built the year before, but considering 29,326 households in Scotland were assessed by local authorities to be homeless or potentially homeless in the same year, it hardly seems an adequate amount. The average rent of these houses in 2013-14 was £61.20, a 49% increase of the £40.94 of ten years previously. So not only is there not enough houses being built by local authorities, but the ones being built are unaffordable to many poor Scottish people. Over the past ten years over 53,000 Scottish public homes have been lost to private ownership thanks to the right-to-buy, a sad reflection of both Labour and the Conservative’s lack of interest in preserving public housing.
The vast majority of Scottish homes are either privately owned and occupied by the owner or privately owned and rented to tenants. For young workers and students in major Scottish cities like Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen who wish to live practically and comfortably, often the only option is to privately rent. Landlords understand this better than anyone, owning an attractive properties is easy money. For the student tenants, the only reality is one where they always owe money to the owner, and they are told that when they graduate they will have to get their own foot in the property ladder if they wish to be successful in any way.
Of course, in owning a property the young person puts themselves right back into the position they occupied as a tenant. Because mortgages are a reality to almost everyone in society wishing to buy a property, the situation of having to pay someone else in order to have a home continues. Only for the top layer in society is it possible to avoid paying these debts, and it is only the top layer of society that these debts benefit.
It is well known that there is currently a housing crisis in Britain. Not enough homes are being built to properly house the population. The transformation of public houses into private properties does nothing to help create the homes we need. In fact it is more likely to destroy perfectly decent homes by allowing developers to make them into luxury apartments. Two or three affordable and comfortable flats are suddenly turned into one luxury apartment, good news for the developer who will know plenty of clients with the means to buy such places, but terrible news for struggling families looking for somewhere affordable to live.
The amount of affordable social housing in Scotland is running low, and of the ones we have, 43% fall below the Scottish Housing Quality Standard. ‘Scheme’ has now become something of a dirty word in Scotland, partially thanks to the controversial 2011 TV series ‘The Scheme,’ which certainly did give some insight into the lives of the lower class in Kilmarnock, but ultimately painted the inhabitants of schemes as hopeless and uncaring. Similar ‘poverty porn’ TV programmes as well as reactionary papers like the Daily Mail have taken the same approach, looking at the lower classes with sympathy, but ultimately concluding that they are doing nothing to help themselves. ‘Benefits’ as a word has also become associated with inhabitants of social housing, who are seen as un-ambitious and unwilling to work. Benefits are simply a reality of living in Capitalist society and a lot of the people who rely on housing benefits are university graduates and part-time workers.
One of the most dangerous policies of today’s Tory party is the Bedroom Tax. If you are of working age and inhabit a home with at least one ‘spare’ bedroom, you are deemed unfit to claim full housing benefit. 14% of your housing benefits will be taken away if you have one spare room, 25% if you have two or more. This means many people living in rented homes will have to make up the difference with money from their own pockets, which is difficult on a low paid job with other essential costs like food and heating to consider.
A ‘spare’ room can be any room that is not already occupied by a tenant or used as a facility (e.g. a kitchen, bathroom etc.) The Tories consider it the responsibility of the inhabitants of the property to find another renter to occupy the ‘spare’ room, a renter who can not only save money for all the other inhabitants, but also provide a much greater overall profit for the property owner. Clearly the aim of this policy is to encourage a money-motivated Capitalist tendency amongst working people, and the Tories know that the Bedroom Tax is a key ingredient in creating a fully privatised economy.
It is clear that a Capitalist system can never properly deal with the crises of British housing efficiently. Building the amount of homes needed would simply be un-profitable and therefore unthinkable for the arch Capitalists who dictate the property market. In a country that is headed increasingly to pure privatisation under the current Tory government, it is very unlikely that council homes will represent any sort of solution to the crises. The new homes that are being developed serve only as commodities for the Capitalist economy and can in no way be seen as practical or affordable for the many struggling families looking for somewhere to live.
The SNP, who have promised to yank much of the Conservatives power over Scotland away in the next few years, have stated abolishing the Bedroom Tax as one of their main policies in their recent manifesto. Their manifesto also states:
“The Scottish Government is on track to meet the commitment to 30,000 new affordable homes by 2016, but more needs to be done. We will back investment in an annual house building target across the UK of 100,000 affordable homes a year.”
This certainly sounds nice, and seems to be a genuine attempt by the SNP to directly tackle the problem of housing in Scotland. However these reforms will by no means change the fundamental problems that have led to the property bubble and housing crises in recent years. Building new homes is helpful, but how long those homes remain ‘affordable’ is unsure to say the least under a Capitalist system. Abolishing the bedroom tax would save working people great amounts of money, but the Tories will always find some other way to wreak their terrible austerity on workers.
As long as the SNP preserve the same Capitalist economic system as the rest of Britain, there is never going to be a proper breakdown of the class system in Scotland. Under Capitalism, the rich will always find a way to thrive, and they will cunningly dodge all the economic reforms thrown at them. Until a fundamental change in the class system occurs, the less well-off will always find themselves in either inadequate housing, great debt or homelessness.
What we need is for the working class to take control over their own affairs. With working people living in unaffordable homes, exploitative Capitalists know they have complete control. As long as workers are in debt or paying rent, the Bourgeoisie can effectively keep them in the place they want, unable to escape from their hand-to-mouth existence. In our current heavily privatised housing situation, the vast majority will always be under the thumbs of the Bourgeoisie. Reforms can be put foreword to try and prevent this, but the Bourgeoisie will always be able to find another way of maintaining their domination as long as a Capitalist system is preserved.
In order to establish an equal and fair society, where everyone can live in a decent and comfortable home, we must establish a Socialist system in which people earn what they really deserve and the means of production are publicly owned. Such a system would prevent the rich from buying up vast amounts of land and properties and will allow for families to live safely in a place they can call home. Unfortunately achieving such a society is impossible in the current political system, where the few dictate the lives of the many. Full representation of working people will not be achieved through parliament, the workers must take power for themselves through revolution. Only through revolution can effective and practical housing be achieved for the people of Scotland.
