Why do we fight for workers self management

You will often here by some on the left of the labour movement that workers self management is the way to go instead of the tired worn out slogan of nationalise everything which a lot of people on the old left seem to cling to like it is the key to all troubles. “What is workers self-management? Workers self-management is a way of running a workplace without bosses or a fixed managerial hierarchy. Instead, the workplace is run democratically by its workers. By democracy, we do not mean that workers elect a manager to make decisions for them. We mean that the workers themselves decide how they will do things as a group. No one in a self-managed enterprise has control over any of the other workers - decision making power is shared equally between all workers. How does it work? Each self-managed workplace is managed by a face-to-face meeting of everyone who works there – a workers’ assembly. The workers of each enterprise collectively make all "management" decisions on a basis of one-worker-one-vote or consensus. The workers of each department form their own smaller assemblies, in which they make the decisions that affect only their department, and so on to the smallest work groups. Isn't that very time consuming? Not really. Managers will often complain about how time consuming their jobs are, but they spend most of their time doing administrative work. Relatively little time is spent making big management decisions. However, in great factories and plants there are too many workers to gather in one meeting every day. The workplace-wide assemblies might occur once a week, or once a month instead. They are the focus of major "policy" decisions - i.e. those which the workers DECIDE are most important. So how will work be coordinated on a daily basis? The workers will meet in their department assemblies and work groups to make the thousands of day to day decisions that crop up. Each department sends a delegate to a "shop committee" to coordinate their activities. Delegates are not professional managers: They are ordinary workers who have been sent by their department assemblies with special instructions (mandates); they return to these assemblies to report on the discussion and its result, and after further deliberation the same or other delegates may go up with new instructions. Once the shop committee meeting is over, they return to their everyday jobs. Any compromises reached at delegate meetings are subject to ratification by the department assemblies, and delegates can be recalled and replaced at any time. Therefore the shop committee does not tell the workers what the official policy is - the workers tell them. They are not a management board, but means of communication between the different departments. Indeed, the shop committee is not even a permanent body, since different delegates will probably be chosen for each meeting, so that everyone in the workplace gets to serve this role. Will there be managers? No. Workers’ self-management abolishes the permanent division between managers and workers. Instead, the people who do the actual productive work – making products, designing them, maintaining machinery, collecting information and so on - will collectively manage their own work. Workers self-management means that workers literally manage themselves, and therefore there are no professional managers or managerial hierarchy – just normal workers cooperating as equals. Note that rejecting a fixed managerial hierarchy does not necessarily reject leadership. If packing luggage onto an aeroplane needs a team leader, then so be it. But there is no reason why it should be the same person today as it is tomorrow. Similarly, a book may require a chief editor, but there is no reason why that person should be in charge of all the books published. Another member of his working group might edit the next book they take on. And where a team requires a leader for a specific task, she should be elected and removable by that team, and should work within the democratic decisions made by the whole team. But even if cleaners have full voting rights in plant decisions, how will they ever exert the same influence as those who develop budgets or design products? You are right. Despite equal rights, cleaners' work may not challenge their intellectual capacities or provide them with information about technological options or with skill at making decisions. One approach is to rotate jobs regularly, so that engineers do some cleaning work and so on. The most unpleasant jobs could be rotated between the whole workforce, so that no one is made to spend their whole working life doing degrading tasks. However, hierarchies of power will not be wholly undone by temporary shuffling, if the quality and empowerment of peoples’ day to day jobs differ largely. Instead of dividing workers into brain workers and manual workers, it has been suggested that each worker have a “balanced job complex”*. Each worker has a set of jobs composed of comparably fulfilling responsibilities. This does not mean everyone must do everything. But it does mean that the half dozen tasks that I regularly do must be roughly as empowering as the different half dozen tasks that you do regularly. Everyone must have a comparable balance of conceptual and rote tasks. So Instead of secretaries answering phones and taking dictation, some workers answer phones and do calculations while others take dictation and design products. We are not suggesting that everyone has completely equal abilities, although better education and less poverty would do a great deal to equalize things. We won’t all do intellectual or manual jobs equally well, but we will all do them well enough to bring our own unique experiences and insights to bear on decision making. After all, good ideas aren’t the monopoly of any individual or group. For sex or sports we don't say that only the "best" should participate - the same should be true for using one's head. But what about relationships between workplaces? Well, this depends on how people wish to do things. Self managed workplaces could compete in a market as capitalist workplaces do now, although this could still create a myriad of injustices. Others argue that workplaces should join “confederations” – free and equal associations of workplaces which replacing competition with co-operation. These would be run through conferences of delegates elected by each workplace, who come together to make decisions that effect the economy as a whole. These would be controlled from below, because delegates would be mandated and subject to instant recall by the workers who elected them. All decisions made at conferences would be subject to ratification by a vote of the workers’ assemblies in every workplace. So in fact, decisions affecting the whole economy would be made by everyone, with delegates being ambassadors rather than decision makers. In these confederations, workplaces would agree a fair price for each product, probably based on the number of hours they take to produce. Or otherwise, workplaces might make a mutual agreement to give their products away for free. * The credit for this idea must go to Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. Many of their books and essays are available online at www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm By Alejandro Vega With thanks to sam sanchez Over at http://www.libcom.org/library/workers-self-management-faq

Should workers support state intervention ?

Whenever there is a crisis and a huge number of workers are in danger of loosing their jobs such as with Grangemouth last week the thing that comes from the left is to simply nationalise the company in question but very rarely the question of workers control is raised. Simply shouting "public ownership" is the answer to all our woes is wholely inadequate in my opinion. Much like with the big 6 energy companies who are ripping us all off at present the answer from the left is to "nationalise" them everytime. Yet all this is calling for is state capitalism. But would this be benificial to us in any way ? State capitalism was the way of things after the Second World War with many industries being brought into public ownership like the Coal and water industries for example more followed with a national health care system known today as the NHS of course. But the labour government at the time saw it fit to keep the boss's in charge of these state backed companies which meant they were no more democratic or accountable than before. Ok they had huge government funding but remained with teh same boss's as they did d before. This was not socialism and was rightly called state capitalism . "However, that does not answer the question of what we do in the here and now when faced with demands that the welfare state (for the working class, not corporate welfare) and other reforms be rolled back. This attack has been on going since the 1970s, accelerating since 1980. We should be clear that claims to be minimising the state should be taken with a massive pitch of salt as the likes of Reagan were "elected to office promising to downsize government and to 'get the government off the people's back,' even though what he meant was to deregulate big business, and make them free to exploit the workers to increase profits. The state may be influenced by popular struggle but it remains an instrument of capitalist rule. It may intervene in society as a result of people power and by the necessity to keep the system as a whole going, but it is bureaucratic and influenced by the wealthy and big business. Indeed, the onslaught on the welfare state by both Thatcher and Reagan was conducted under a "democratic" mandate although, in fact, these governments took advantage of the lack of real accountability between elections. They took advantage of an aspect of the state if you substitute government ownership for private ownership, "nothing is changed but the stockholders and the management; beyond that, there is not the least difference in the position of the workers." "Privatisation of public services -- whether it is through the direct sale of utilities or through indirect methods such as PFI and PPP -- involves a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the pockets of private business interests. It negates the concept of there being such a thing as 'public service' and subjects everything to the bottom line of profit. In other words it seeks to maximise the profits of a few at the expense of wages and social obligations. Furthermore, privatisation inevitably leads to an attack on wages and working conditions - conditions which have been fought for through years of trade union agitation are done away with at the scratch of a pen." [Gregor Kerr, "Privatisation: the rip-off of public resources", pp. 14-18, Black and Red Revolution, no. 11, p. 16] is important to point out that the 'nationalise it' or 'take it into public ownership' slogan is far too often spun out by people on the left without their taking into account that there is a massive difference between state control/ownership and workers' control/ownership . . . we all know that even if the revenues . . . were still in state ownership, spending it on housing the homeless or reducing hospital waiting lists would not top the agenda of the government. "Put simply, state ownership does not equal workers' ownership . Thus an revolutionary socialist approach to this issue would be to reject both privatisation and nationalisation in favour of socialisation, i.e. placing nationalised firms under workers' self-management. In the terms of public utilities, such as water and power suppliers, they could be self-managed by their workers in association with municipal co-operatives -- based on one member, one vote -- which would be a much better alternative than privatising what is obviously a natural monopoly (which, as experience shows, simply facilitates the fleecing of the public for massive private profit). Christie and Meltzer state the obvious: "It is true that government takes over the control of certain necessary social functions. It does not follow that only the state could assume such control. The postmen are 'civil servants' only because the State makes them such. The railways were not always run by the state, They belonged to the capitalists [and do once more, at least in the UK], and could as easily have been run by the railway workers. " In the long term, of course, the real solution is to abolish capitalism "and both citizens and communities will have no need of the intervention of the State." [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 268] In a free society, social self-defence would not be statist but would be similar in nature to trade unionism, co-operatives and pressure groups -- individuals working together in voluntary associations to ensure a free and just society -- within the context of an egalitarian, decentralised and participatory system which eliminates or reduces the problems in the first place SO in conclusion its all about control and workers control at that . Putting it simply you cannot control waht you dont own. Fighting for democratic workers control from below is the only way forward in my opinion when situations like Grangemouth come up again which no doubt they will do as capitalism fails to develop itself out of a huge rutt. with quotes and extracts from http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionD1#secd15

Solidarity with Grangemouth workers

Solidarity with Grangemouth workers The dispute at the Grangemouth oil refinery started with Labour's fight with Unite in Falkirk, and shows us just how broken Britain is. Without a moment's 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 jeopardy, 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. The announcement by Ineos that they intend to pull out 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 shut down the entire Grangemouth site to force the workers to accept savage cuts in terms and conditions. We should 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. There is still much to fight for and Unites role in all this is not without its faults. In an excellent Open Democracy article published today which I’d recommend all having a read of at: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/robin-mcalpine/whats-really-happening-at-grangemouth-and-what-it-tells-us#.Umf_V-lSW5Q "It began when Ed Milliband handed a report on the claimed irregularities on candidate selection in the Falkirk bye-election to the police. Since one of the key organisers maligned – and subsequently cleared – in that action is a shop steward at Ineos, the firm decided that if Ed Milliband can cast aspersions, they can act. Ineos suspended Stevie Deans on the grounds that it was believe he may have used a work email address to carry out some Labour Party business. (God help us all if using a work email for non-work purposes can get you suspended...) I shall refrain from elaborating further for reasons of care on specific allegations; suffice to say, there was more done to provoke the union. Given what can only be described as the political suspension of Deans, what position did Unite have to play? To accept it? To leave open unchallenged the impression that any union activists is fair game with no defence to be mounted? If Ineos did not recognise that these actions – absolutely unrelated either to the subsequent claims about the plant's profitability or the terms and conditions of its employees – was bound to push the union towards some form of response then it is shockingly naïve. And that is an adjective that has never been associated with Ineos. So let us assume that this was an intentional provocation. The union balloted and threatened strike action. The response of Ineos? To close down the plant. Switching off a refinery is a big deal and it may now take more than two weeks to get the plant operating again, if Ineos ever decides to restart. Thing is, the union had called off the action. This plant was not closed down by a union; it was closed down by the owners. Immediately after that they claimed the industrial-action-that-never-was was costing them a fortune. It is at this point that suddenly we are regaled with a PR drive which suggests the company is in severe distress and that employees must take significant cuts to pay and conditions. To cut a long story short, it goes to ACAS, the union claims a deal was close but/so Ineos walked out. It imposed a new contract on workers and told them they had three days (individually, not through the union) to agree the new contract or workers would be sacked and the plant (or half of it) closed down. A majority of workers rejected the deal. So today Ineos decided it was closing the petrochemical half of the plant (the bit it claims is loss-making) and keep the refinery open – but only on condition that workers sign away their right to strike in the future. And accept the imposed contract. That's for the profitable bit of the business, and it is far from clear that the rest of the plant is really as loss-making as is claimed. Ineos is majority owned by Jim Ratcliffe. In 2008 when the company was in some financial distress (possibly the result of finance strategies) it requested a one-year delay in payment of a VAT bill. The UK Government refused, so he paid for the relocation of his entire central staff to move to Switzerland. This is not a man who likes losing. It means that Ineos's financial situation is opaque – even business analysts (no friends of the trade unions) have been raising doubts as to how confident we can be in the claims that individual bits of the business are not profitable. What is certainly the case is that if there is financial distress it's not due to wage bills which make up only 1.6 per cent of costs. Is it worth mentioning that Ineos has avoided tax in Britain since 2010? You may well have assumed that anyway. Of course, this is my interpretation of what has happened and as always it's worth noting that I am not likely to have sympathy with aggressive management techniques. However, I find it virtually impossible to believe that Ineos did not begin with the desire to provoke strike action for which they had prepared extensively (both in terms of business planning and PR strategy) and it is certainly hard to see anything in its behaviour that suggests it wanted a peaceful resolution. And so to the three lessons. First, this is a facility that provides 80 percent of Scotland's fuel – and it is in the power of one man to close it down at will. It is to the great credit of the Scottish Government that (given its limited powers) it has put pressure on the company, has looked to find a buyer if Ineos won't agree to operate the plant and has refused to rule out public ownership. While this last course of action is unlikely, it is another sign of the SNP shifting away from the free-market orthodoxy of British politics. This is not a facility (virtually a monopoly industry) about which we can afford to have no views or opinions about ownership. There is now a serious debate in Scotland about whether our key infrastructure is safe in private, often foreign, hands. The behaviour of Ineos has intensified that debate. Britain is in denial about the importance of the ownership of the economy. It is most obvious in the monopoly utility sector but the Grangemouth dispute shows that it's not just the power and phone lines that keep us moving. Should one man be able to cripple Scotland? The last time he tried to break the unions petrol stations ran dry. The energy companies have put this issue on the agenda UK-wide through their actions. In Scotland at least the questions are spreading further than this. Ownership in Britain is broken. We are one of the few countries in the world where key infrastructure is mainly owned overseas. But not as broken as industrial democracy in Britain. It's not like we're a bit bad; we're truly awful. The European Participation Index (EPI) has calculated the participation of workers in 27 EU and EEA countries by combining the aggregate scores of their plant-level participation, board-level participation, collective bargaining coverage and trade-union density. Britain scores 26th out of 27, second bottom with only Lithuania worse than us. In Denmark (for example) 65 per cent of companies with more than 500 employees have voluntarily committed to having a third of management boards made up of workers and have cooperation committees made up of half-worker, half-management and these manage day-to-day matters in the company. And here's the thing; all the countries in the EU with the best indicators of social and economic development come in the top half of the EPI league table and all the worst performers come from the bottom half. Studies have shown that like-for-like companies are 19 per cent more productive if they are unionised. Britain, of course, lags the average productivity of advanced economies by almost 20 per cent. At some point we will wake up to the fact that Britain is a basket-case when it comes to industrial democracy and our economic performance is poor as a result. Remember, we live in the second-lowest pay economy in the developed world. Finally, if you come from Scotland it is hard once again not to be shocked by the myopia of London. On Sunday when our media was absolutely dominated by a dispute that threatened to cut off 80 per cent of Scotland's fuel (and large proportions of the fuel supply to the North of England too), not a mention was made on the main BBC news bulletins. Apparently the Westminster parlour games of Nick Clegg pretending to be a little bit cross with Free Schools is of greater national significance of the possible collapse of both oil supplies and one of the last major industrial sites left in Scotland. Across the whole piece coverage has been negligible. To my shock, a new news anchor on BBC today asked the correspondent in Grangemouth “there's clearly great anger – is it directed towards the management or the union?” Even the correspondent on the ground looked shocked – it was a question that could only come through the London looking glass. Workers all reported that the manager that broke the information to workers was smirking throughout as he told them they were going to lose their jobs, their houses, their children’s' Christmas. Angry at their union? Does the BBC no longer have any understanding of working people at all? Do they all live in a Spectator-tinged alternative universe? Today at PMQs no mention was made. When there was an emergency question, David Cameron left the chamber. The Scottish Government has been all over this dispute; London appears to have done nothing other than press its 'randomised industrial dispute quote generator'. What is there left to be positive about in the British economy? People genuinely talk as if this might be the future that we may need to accept total dominance of employers with no recourse at all by workers. This is a vision of Britain where we're all like Mexican immigrants waiting at the side of the road for a truck to drive up and its driver to say 'one day of work – you, you and you'. But, as is par for the course in Britain with its far-right media and utter lack of understanding of how the world works beyond our shores, people seem to think we're normal. Yet one more time, the Grangemouth disaster shows one thing above all – Britain is not normal. Not at all. " With thanks to open democracy and their excellent article over at http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/robin-mcalpine/whats-really-happening-at-grangemouth-and-what-it-tells-us#.Umf_V-lSW5Q

The new Nuclear age in the UK

So Britain is to allow new Nuclear power plants to be built for the first time in a long time. • s The government has given the go-ahead for the UK's first new nuclear station in a generation. France's EDF Energy will lead a consortium, which includes Chinese investors, to build the Hinkley Point C plant in Somerset. Ministers say the deal will help take the UK towards low-carbon power and lower generating costs in future. Critics warn guaranteeing the group a price for electricity at twice the current level will raise bills. "For the first time, a nuclear station in this country will not have been built with money from the British taxpayer," said Secretary of State for Energy Edward Da • ce The two reactors planned for Hinkley, which will provide power for about 60 years, are a key part of the coalition's drive to shift the UK away from fossil fuels towards low-carbon power. Ministers and EDF have been in talks for more than a year about the minimum price the company will be paid for electricity produced at the site, which the government estimates will cost £16bn to build. The two sides have now agreed the "strike price" of £92.50 for every megawatt hour of energy Hinkley C generates. This is almost twice the current wholesale cost of electr Tive' This will fall to £89.50 for every megawatt hour of energy if EDF Group goes ahead with plans to develop a new nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk. Doing both would allow EDF to share costs across both projects. Mr. Davey said the deal was "competitive" with other large-scale clean energy and gas projects. David Cameron:"It kick-starts again the British nuclear industry" "While consumers won't pay anything up front, they'll share directly in any gains made from the project coming in under budget," he added. John Cridland, director-general of business lobby group the CBI, welcomed what he said was a "landmark deal". "It's important to remember this investment will help mitigate the impact of increasing costs. The fact is whatever we do, energy prices are going to have to go up to replace ageing infrastructure and meet climate change targets - unless we build new nuclear as part of a diverse energy mix." However, Dr Paul Dorfman, from the Energy Institute at University College London, said "what it equates to actually be a subsidy and the coalition said they would never subsidise nuclear". He added: "It is essentially a subsidy of between what we calculate to be £800m to £1bn a year that the UK taxpayer and energy consumer will be putting into the deep pockets of Chinese and French corporations, which are essentially their govern Vests Chinese companies China National Nuclear Corporation and China General Nuclear Power Corporation will be minority shareholders in the project. The move follows Chancellor George Osborne's announcement last week that Chinese firms would be allowed to invest in civil nuclear projects in the UK. Prime Minister David Cameron said that the new Hinkley Point plant was "an excellent deal for Britain and British cons Well we shall see about that. Little to no mention has been made on nuclear waste and what is to come of that. All this sounds very good apart from the fact that this will not bring down prices for ordinary people. Nationalisation is one thing the left will call for no doubt but nothing short of workers control will do to ensure affordable prices for all. I am not in favor of state capitalism and effectively this is what we have here all be it ownership from abroad with China and France getting in on the act it would seem. The world has a bumpy future in terms of energy if capitalism is allowed to continue to exist I confidently predict. The demand for more and more energy will force the capitalists into more and more risky acts to gain a competitive edge including the controversial practice of fracking which I’ve blogged about before too. With the first new power station being built in the UK in a generation will this signal a turn back to nuclear in the long term? All remains to be seen.

Comments on the state

The state as a Marxist understanding is a group of armed individuals being that of the police or the army this is something which looks to be the guard for one class over another. As we stand capitalism is protected by the state and by the police and the army they will come to protect capitalism and its rule no matter what. State ownership is not communist or not even socialist when you think about it. Looking for the state to run things on our behalf is like handing the keys to your new boss not your old boss. The fact is they are still your boss. I oppose state capitalism in all forms it cannot and will not be our friend in any shape or form. Many revolutionary parties are it the SWp or the socialist party call for the public ownership of the commanding heights of the economy which is in affect calling for the capitalist state to take over and run these organisations on our behalf while keeping the boss’s in place. This is not good enough in my opinion as a boss is a boss wheatear they are claiming to be socialist or not. For over a century now all sorts of social democrats, Stalinists and Trotskyists have espoused the view that the state can be used to bring about a communist society through reforms and/or seizing the state on behalf of the workers. This has often been dubbed by libertarian communists as “state socialism”. One of the staple demands of this statistic strategy is the nationalisation of banks and other industries, bringing them under the direction of the state. This is usually disguised in leftist terms like “public” or “social” ownership, offering the illusion of a “worker’s state”. However, state ownership of industry is in no way a communist measure – by communism we mean a society free of state direction and based on direct democracy, common ownership and production for need, not want. Nationalisation takes control out of the workers’ hands and into those of the state, which bolsters the rule of class over class. In the Soviet Union, as in the West, there was still a small boss class who gained profit from the labour of the mass of the population. Nationalisation is not only the preserve of the left. Other “state capitalist” ideologies exist which use nationalisation as a tactic. These include those on the right (such as the Nazis) and so-called “democratic” governments (such as Roosevelt’s with the “New Deal” and the Labour party prior to 1997). Often, nationalisation has been a tactic for large scale industrial restructuring. It was used in 19th century Europe to develop infrastructure. A classic example is the railways, built at a time when it was believed that market forces would reward the good and useful and eliminate the bad or socially useless. However, it was necessary, as early as 1840, for the government to regulate and supervise them, simply to protect the public. In Russia, after the revolution of 1917, the Bolshevik regime used state ownership to develop Russian industry defending it as socialist by saying that fully fledged capitalism was required for socialism to be achieved. In post-war Europe nationalisation was used to restructure devastated economies. Attlee’s Labour government, elected in 1945, brought the Bank of England, coal mining, steel, electricity, gas, telephones and inland transport under state direction. It also developed the “cradle to grave” welfare state. However, in the past 30 years, nationalisation was thought to have dropped off the mainstream political agenda. The rise of neo-liberalism, the fall of the Soviet Union and the Labour Party’s dropping of its commitment to state ownership before its 1997 landslide, were, for many, the final nails in the coffin. Too many people’s surprise though, nationalisation has made a comeback. Facing the worst downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s, the near collapse of the banking sector has forced the state to once again openly intervene in the economy. With workers’ militancy at a low ebb, leading to a low wage economy, the growth in credit provided the money to keep consumers spending. This was coupled with the UK economy’s reliance on banking and “mortgage derivatives”. So when the housing bubble burst credit dried up, banks teetered on the verge of collapse and the economy went into recession. This was most spectacular in the case of Northern Rock with the first run on a bank in over a century and its eventual nationalisation. Since then, the state has also rescued Bradford & Bindley and the Royal Bank of Scotland, while the Anglo-Irish Bank was bailed out by the Irish government. The car industry has also been hit with renewed calls from some on the left for its nationalisation. However, governments do not nationalise industries because ministers heed the calls of small leftist groups. They do so because of a need to prevent a banking collapse and its inevitable consequences – economic disaster, falling profits and the danger of social unrest. This use of state intervention by so-called free marketeers like Brown and Bush isn’t new. Accord-in to one expert, Ronald Reagan, great that defender of the individualistic free market, “presided over the greatest swing towards protectionism since the 1930s”. In essence, American workers bore the brunt of “free market discipline” whilst the rich benefited from the actions of the state. Laissez faire principles didn’t apply to the working class in that they had no freedom in opposing their exploitation. In Britain, after 17 years of Thatcherism economic gospel, public spending was still the same, 42.25% of GDP, as it had been when she took over. Meanwhile sustained attacks on the working class continued which saw the breaking of militancy and chronic levels of poverty. Unsur-prisingly, finance and industry did very well for themselves. In this recession conditions for ordinary working people are coming under further attack. Redundancies, unemployment, wage cuts, cuts in public services and home repossessions are all on the rise. Benefits are also being targeted with the unemployed, single mothers and recipients of incapacity benefit, among others, in the firing line. At JCB workers voted for a £50 a week pay cut to avoid redundancies only for the company to make workers redundant anyway. With repossessions hitting record levels the government has even had to ask banks to go easy on mortgage defaulters. So, yet again, we see attacks on working people as a small minority of fat cats get billions in state aid. We would thank anyone to point out to us what function, if any, the state can have in an economic organisation, where private property has been abolished and in which parasitism and special privilege have no place. The suppression of the state cannot be a languid affair; it must be the task of the revolution to finish with the state. Either the revolution gives social wealth to the producers in which case the producers organise themselves for due collective distribution and the state has nothing to do; or the revolution does not give social wealth to the producers, in which case the revolution has been a lie and the state would continue. Diego Abad de Santillan So, with all this state intervention, why are we no closer to a glorious socialist future? Why are we actually seeing peoples’ lives devastated by homelessness and unemployment? Simply put, nationalisation is not, and cannot be, a tool for achieving a communist society. Nationalisation by state socialist regimes has never eliminated capitalism. In the Soviet bloc there were superficial differences with the West. Most capital was owned by the state; there was no free >>> market in labour; the poor had the “right to work”. Fundamentally though, the conditions of life for the working class were the same as in the West. Capitalism still existed, because workers sold their labour power and consequently were dispossessed of the means to freely create the conditions of life. As in the West, there was a ruling class which lived off the surplus produced by the workers – this class consisted of a central Party elite which owned the state. Peter Kropotkin argued that: Everywhere the State has been, and still is, the main pillar and the creator, direct and indirect, of Capitalism and its powers over the masses. Nowhere, since States have grown up, have the masses had the freedom of resisting the oppression by capitalists. . . The state has always interfered in the economic life in favour of the capitalist exploiter. It has always granted him protection in robbery, given aid and support for further enrichment. And it could not be otherwise. To do so was one of the functions – the chief mission – of the State. So when left wing groups today call for the nationalisation of the banks and other industries (as the Socialist Party of England and Wales and their local councillors do) they are not arguing for socialism. After all, state intervention Has historically been a way to save capitalism from itself as it expands and dominates. After a decade of the Labour Party claiming there was no alternative to the free market, an alternative was soon found once the capitalism system faced the threat of collapse. Thus we argue for the socialisation of the economy, not its nationalisation. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

Learning the lessons from the other September 11th

While many around the world were paying their respects to the victims of 9/11 the attacks on the twin towers and the terrorist attacks in America in 2001. Many working class people were also paying tribute to the other September the 11th. The 11th of September in 1973 when in Chile in South America a brutal suppression lead to tragedy after a popular socialist government was defeated. IN SEPTEMBER 1970, Salvador Allende was elected President of Chile. His Popular Unity (UP) government - made up of large workers' parties (Socialists, Communists) and smaller middle-class parties - defeated the conservative Christian Democrats (CDs). Hopes were raised of a 'parliamentary road to socialism', tackling capitalism through peaceful, constitutional means. Three years later, these dreams lay in ashes. Militant reported in the issue of 14 September 1973: "After three turbulent years of social crisis and economic chaos, the Popular Unity government ... has been snuffed out under the iron heel of the military. "All the hopes, all the sacrifices of the Chilean workers and poor peasants during this period, have come to nothing. The armed forces have seized power in Chile by a military coup. The capitalists have used their military power to destroy the reforms instituted by the 'Popular Unity' government." These reforms included efforts to raise the living standards of the poorest, to ensure full employment to the workers and land to the peasants. Why were the Chilean people's hopes dashed? For three years, articles in Militant explained how, even in a country known as the "England of Latin America", the ruling capitalist class would not take such attacks on their privileges lightly. Since 1920, Chile's 'constitutional' army had organised nine coups! In February 1972 we warned: "Chilean society teeters on the brink of crisis. The question is posed: will the workers and peasants succeed in guaranteeing the gains of Allende's government, by pressing forward to socialist revolution, or will the reaction strike with ferocious vengeance...?" The Allende government nationalised the huge US-owned copper industry with little compensation to the owners. However large parts of the economy were left untouched, so were the judicial system, the media and vitally, the armed forces. Allende was allowed to take office only if the UP promised to leave the armed forces as they were, with the officer caste left in control and all the privileges of the army tops left intact. Rank and file members of the armed forces were even forbidden the right to join a trade union and freedom of political association. Revolutionary programme CHILE'S RULING class did not move to crush Allende early in his rule. Both they and US imperialism feared an explosive reaction from workers and youth both in Chile and in the rest of Latin America and even in a USA traumatised by Vietnam. But Allende held the masses back from defending their revolution with phrases warning against 'provoking reaction'. "Allende thinks", said Militant in February 1972, that "he can 'neutralise' the generals - the faithful servants of the capitalists, by flattering them and praising their 'Chilean respect for democracy'." Militant stressed that a peaceful transition could only be guaranteed by "a bold revolutionary programme" including setting up "peasant committees to take over the land... A decree on land nationalisation would legalise the accomplished revolutionary fact. "Workers' control of industry... to prevent factory closures. Industry should be nationalised with minimum compensation on the basis of need. Action committees... should be set up by the trade unions to force landlords and traders to reduce prices and rents." Finally, we wrote "A workers' militia, based on the unions, should be set up to defend the workers' gains... Allende should appeal to the army rank and file - the workers in uniform - to set up soldiers' committees. Faced with a powerful movement in the army, the generals would be suspended in mid-air." Militant explained how Chile's ruling class "could not be overwhelmed by using its own state", that "It was necessary to raise the workers' organisations, most developed in the form of Soviets (workers' and peasants' committees) to state power, completely paralysing and dismantling the old state in the process." The ruling class used their economic control to sabotage the economy and build opposition amongst small businesses such as the private lorry owners. Then, Militant said: "after a sufficient period of 'anarchy' the generals will be able to step forward as the 'saviours' of the country". We argued that "only the working class, fighting on a clear socialist programme, can really defend the interests of the small proprietors... grant cheap credit to the small farmers, the shopkeepers... to develop their businesses until voluntarily they would agree to form co-operative enterprises, eventually merging with state industry when they could see this path would lead to a better standard of life for them." Sowing illusions BY JUNE 1973 the armed forces were disarming workers, searching for arms in the workers' districts and factories and taking action against sailors affected by revolutionary propaganda. That month the counter-revolution attempted a premature coup. Militant reported: "The Chilean bosses and their blood-brothers in the army general staff understand fully that premature attempts at a coup would, without doubt, provoke a mass uprising which would endanger the whole system..." As an article in The Guardian said "If so far the Chilean army has held back, the explanation is... not any peculiar national tradition, but the formidable strength now acquired by the labour movement". Militant commented: "This is the explanation for the abject failure of the coup attempt... on 29 June. It was suppressed by 'loyal units' of the army within two and a half hours - just in time. For as news of the coup spread, thousands of workers struck, occupied their factories and, leaving armed pickets on the gates, marched on the Presidential Palace. "Here was a movement which could have put an end once and for all to the threat of reactionary tyranny. But Allende appealed for a return to work and riot police were sent in to break up the milling crowds. Only this cowardice, this treachery, this total lack of perspective, enabled the bosses to gasp for breath once more. "Only the blocking of the movement of the masses as a result of this betrayal emboldened the road hauliers enough to raise their heads in defiance of the UP! "Even then, the magnificent Chilean workers called a 24-hour general strike on 9 August to ... support the UP against the "road hauliers' blackmail". There is no shortage of courage or willingness to fight. What is lacking is leadership." Appeal Militant finished this article with an appeal to the "left wing, especially the Socialist youth" to "fight for committees of action for the defence of the rights of the workers and the defence of the revolution to be set up in every factory, workers' district, and armed forces." These forces, we said, should "be linked locally, in the districts and nationally together with all workers' organisations to provide the necessary framework for pushing forward the revolution and defeating the counter-revolutionary plots of reaction." We ended by demanding: "Arm the workers! Expel the capitalist ministers, civilian and military, from the UP government. For a socialist Chile!" However the UP leaders' response to this coup threat was to bring three military chiefs and the commander of the Federal Police into the Cabinet. Just weeks later, the generals and commanders were using their state forces to crush Allende's government and end the reforms. On 9 September 1973, just two days before the coup, half a million workers marched past Allende on the balcony of the presidential palace - most of them were demanding arms to defend the gains of 1970-73. But tragically, as Militant said after the coup, Allende and his government "failed to organise workers' councils of action and to arm the workers and appeal to the rank and file soldiers, sailors and airmen to set up committees." They gave "support to the reactionary officers, Generals and Admirals of the armed forces. "Allende sowed illusions in the 'neutrality' of the army caste and the acceptance by the capitalists of the Chilean constitution. This was the fatal error of policy for which the workers and peasants of Chile are paying in blood and suffering." The coup led by General Pinochet saved capitalism in Chile by plunging the workers, peasantry and middle class into 17 years of dictatorship, murdering at least 5,000 political opponents and torturing hundreds of thousands more. Future generations of working-class revolutionaries must learn the lessons of Chile 1970-73. With extracts taken from the Militant and the socialist.

13 trillion in tax evaded each year by super rich, time for socialist change ?

Below i re publish a excellent article bpunblished on the CWI website www.socialistworld.net £13 trillion hidden from tax by super-richwww.socialistworld.net, 04/08/2012 website of the committee for a workers' international, CWI Take the wealth off the 1%! Naomi Byron, Socialist Party (CWI England & Wales), first published in the Socialist A sum of money the size of the US and Japanese Gross Domestic Product (GDP) together is being held in offshore tax havens. This enormous hoard could immediately pay off most of the deficits and debt that are being used to justify austerity, and create millions of jobs. Instead it sits in places like the Cayman Islands, making the tax dodgers that put it there even richer. The report by James Henry for the Tax Justice Network, shows that between £13 trillion and £20 trillion has been looted from national economies so that the super-rich can avoid paying tax. It’s no exaggeration to say that we are ruled by the very people that are dodging tax. In Britain ’Lord’ Ashcroft, who was treasurer of the Tory party for years and has donated more than £10 million to its coffers, has most of his wealth offshore so he won’t pay UK tax. The fortune David Cameron inherited comes partly from his father’s use of tax havens. One rule for us... Trust me, I’m a banker - Youth Fight for Jobs Austerity Games, July 2012, photo Paul Mattsson Far from too much money being spent on public services, it is the banksters, speculators, profiteers and tax dodgers who are the cause of the massive debt burden being used to enforce austerity on the 99%. But when Barclays and Bob Diamond are caught fiddling millions, or HSBC seems to be using their massive finances to help gun-running, money laundering and terrorism, they hardly receive a rap over the knuckles. Henry points out that with the sums looted from sub-Saharan Africa, many of the countries there could have paid off their debts entirely. However in this respect the report misses the point - most "highly indebted poor countries" have already paid off their "debts" many times over. But because of the economic power of imperialism and the legalised robbery of the finance industry, the interest alone has now ballooned to sums that would make a loan shark proud. Not a penny more should go to pay for these fake debts. We have always been told that capitalism may be unfair, but it is the best system available because it creates jobs and wealth. This report exposes the big lie that private profits will be ploughed into creating more wealth. The money sitting in tax havens dwarfs even figures like the £750 billion currently sitting un-invested in the banks of big business in the UK. Capitalism is not only creating misery for billions, it is a bankrupt system, incapable of maintaining current living standards let alone taking society forwards. As long as the banking and finance industries remain under the control of the looters, we have no chance of even enforcing the existing puny laws on the super-rich. Public ownership The banks must be taken into public ownership, and run under democratic workers’ control, in the interests of the 99%. Free personal banking, with cheap loans for small businesses and cheap mortgages. The banking system, like health and education, should be run in the benefits of society as a whole, not a minority of super-rich speculators.

PFI = Profit from Illness, drive profiteering out of our NHS!

Private finance initiative has been crippling our NHS for decades now. With many hospitals now a certain hospital trust in south London facing difficulties it’s time to end this profit mad system and re nationalize the NHS and kick out the profiteers from our health care once and for all.


The South London Healthcare NHS Trust has already lost £150m

The trust runs three hospitals and has run up deficits of more than £150m over the past three years. It is thought to be on course to lose between £150m and £375m by 2017.
Our staff has worked hard for patients and in spite of significant financial issues we are extremely proud we now have among the lowest mortality and infection rates in the country

Its chief executive was informed on Monday night that the trust is likely to be put into the "unsustainable providers regime", which was introduced by the last Labor government but never before used.

The administrator will take over the board and recommend measures to the Health Secretary to put the trust's finances on a sustainable basis. Which to me means nothing but cuts and a contraction of services offered and a round of redundancies for the staff.

Hospitals run by the trust include Queen Mary's in Sidcup, the Queen Elizabeth in Woolwich and the Princess Royal in Bromley.

It is clear to me to save the NHS PFI must be rejected out of hand and all services brought back into proper democratic public ownership. With a trade union lead campaign with local communities and the mass of the working class behind a campaign to save the NHS we can save it only if we act now. Each day a further piece of our NHS is lost if we don’t act now it’ll be gone in a few years time. A distant memory.

PFI was begun in the early 1990s by the then Tory government. It was attacked by Labour when in opposition, but then massively accelerated under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's governments. Today there are hundreds of PFI projects covering hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, police stations and prisons.
Instead of a public body building a new facility using public money, albeit through a contract with a private builder or developer, PFI involves a private sector developer or consortium doing the whole job. It borrows the money (often at higher rates of interest than the government would), builds the project and then charges a fee for 25 to 40 years for maintaining the buildings and usually also providing various services.
Labour spokespersons such as Patricia Hewitt and Alan Milburn condemned such PFI projects as 'backdoor privatization' when in opposition. In government, however, as health secretaries, they claimed it was the 'only game in town'. And curiously, after government, they (and many other Labour ex-ministers) got lucrative private sector jobs and consultancies, many in the same areas where they had been ministers.
The Financial Times estimated in 2007 that, after ten years of New Labour, the total capital value of PFI contracts across the UK was £68 billion - but that the total which would be given to the private companies involved in those contracts, by the time they were finished, would be £215 billion!
Three years later, in November 2010, the total payment obligation for PFI contracts in the UK had rocketed to £267 billion. And in the first year of the Tory/Lib Dem coalition a further 61 PFI schemes, with a capital value of £7 billion were approved. PFI has become a 'milch cow' for big business in the public sector.

BBC’s panorama exposes rife capitalist tax evasion

As socialists we have known for sometime the way capitalists evade tax and make billions a year but tonight BBC panorama exposed some of the shadiest of dealings that goes on with the likes of Vodafone and Glaxo Smith Klein.

A special nod has to go to the PCS union who have been tirelessly campaigning against tax evasion for years now. Only now is it becoming a big big issue that polititians can no longer pretend doesn’t exist if nothing else they are forced to pay lip service to trying to tackle tax evasion by rich corporations.

The Tory party and even new labour would never seriously go after rich tax evaders as their interests lie with them they are and have been governments for the 1% the very wealthiest in society.

The BBC panorama episode if you can catch it is fascinating and is a real eye opener to the way the super rich capitalists work and get around their own influenced laws. As we all know the law is not neutral it is heavily stacked against workers and ordinary people if you tried to evade a bit of tax the tax man will come down on you like a tonne of bricks but if your Vodafone or Glaxo’s or the like different story entirely …

This programme showed that if these tax loop holes were properly closed and all the evaded tax properly collected there would be no need for any cuts at all to public services. But as we know this wont happen and we will be instead made to pay for a crisis in capitalism that is not of our making as ordinary working people.

An estimated 120 billion goes evaded every year by big rich corporations that would more than cover the entire deficit for this year and a little bit more. But who is putting this case forward? Only left unions with fighting traditions like the PCS and the RMT for as far as I can tell. The labour party which has no leg to stand on on this allowed this to go on on its watch too so they cannot be trusted to put forward a programme of nationalisation to bring these big corporations into public democratic ownership to prevent them evading tax and stashing millions and billions in offshore tax havens such as Luxembourg which was shown on tonight’s episode.

A true workers government would be looking to nationalise the commanding heights of the economy and gradually look to plan the economy by using the profits from these big multi nationals which will mean other nations having to follow a similar idea to close of loop holes which means capital can be controlled going in and out of the country.

These sorts of measures which would be transitional measures in the transition to a socialist planned economy with a society based on everybody’s needs not just the needs of a few very very rich people who can employ the best accountants to get around any laws that may or may not stand in their way.

So next time you are told the cuts are nessesary just ask them to take a watch of tonights episode of panorama and tell them there is the money out there if it was taxed and collected properly.

The need for a second Egyptian revolution to hand workers power

There has been some brutal scenes over the weekend of riot police violently clamping down on protests rising up in the squares of the city from the people who helped over throw their previous dictator Hosni Mubarak

From the BBC:

Clashes are continuing between demonstrators and security forces in the Egyptian capital as protests enter a fourth day.

At least 13 people died and hundreds were injured over the weekend as troops launched a major assault to clear Cairo's Tahrir Square of protesters.

Efforts to clear the square appeared to continue on Monday, with tear gas canisters being thrown at protesters.

The unrest casts a shadow over elections due to start next week.

It is the longest continuous protest since President Hosni Mubarak was ousted in February.

Demonstrators say they fear Egypt's governing Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is trying to retain its grip on power.

The council, led by Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi, is charged with overseeing the country's transition to democracy after three decades of autocratic rule under Mr Mubarak.

Calls for his resignation could be heard during th
Parts taken from www.socialistworld.net CWI committee for workers international.

Eight months after the overthrow of Mubarak, workers and youth still face poverty, unemployment, corruption and repression

The court trial of Mubarak continues, together with his sons, Gamal and Alaa, and some of their cronies. Ahmed Ezz owns 70% of Egypt’s iron and steel production (bought cheaply when state-owned industries were privatised) and 50% of ceramics. He was a leading member of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party, senior member of the National Assembly and friend of Gamal Mubarak. On 14 September, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison and a fine of LE660million ($111m = £70m) for corruption. For a man reported to own $1.5billion in 2008, the fine is small change. All privatised industries should be renationalised, without compensation to the owners, who made fortunes while paying low wages.

It is estimated that corruption - including bribery, tax evasion, theft, nepotism and extortion – may have cost the economy as much as $57 billion in 2000-2008, or an annual average of $6.4 billion. That’s about $800 a year for every man, woman and child while 40% live on less than a dollar a day.

Unemployment rising
The economy has been hard hit by the fall in tourism, one of Egypt’s largest employers. Revenues are down $1billion a month. Egypt Air is losing 56% of its passenger traffic. This is partly because of fears of insecurity following the violent attempt of the old regime to hang on to power, but also because of the global financial crisis, with falling living standards in many countries.

Withdrawal of foreign capital in the six months after the revolution totalled about $16 billion. A 7% fall in GDP during the first quarter of the year was the equivalent of a $30 billion loss to the economy. These factors have resulted in unemployment, already high, growing to anything between 10-20%. Rising prices also make life a growing struggle.

An opinion poll, last April, found that 63% felt unemployment was the biggest issue facing society. Eighty percent expected their household’s financial situation to get better in the next year. Seventy five percent were confident that the new government was able to address the main issues facing the country. Of those who participated in protests during the eighteen days that overthrew Mubarak (one quarter of respondents), 64% said unemployment and low living standards were their main reasons for doing so, compared to 19% who said lack of democracy and political reform.



Now that it is becoming clearer to working and middle class people that the economic situation is getting worse, and that the government is unable to improve living conditions, growing numbers of workers are taking strike action. They are realising that it is only by their own action that conditions are going to improve and that they cannot rely on the government to change their lives for the better.



Many are angry at the slowness of change and how the military rule are hanging on to power an d the democracy they were promised is simply not happening as far as they can see.
Some weariness after eight months of weekly demonstrations, many of them enormous, is to be expected. But there is also a growing realization that demonstrations are insufficient by themselves to change the situation. Working class solidarity and struggle by striking, and in some cases occupying workplaces, is growing and has the power to force concessions from government and employers. Momentum towards a national general strike needs to be built, to draw all sections of workers and youth together to win real democratic, workplace and social gains. This entails rank and file, democratic control of mass action and creating mass committees of action in the workplaces, communities and colleges that are linked up at local, regional and national levels.

Democratic socialist programme
But wage rises will not last long while prices continue to rise, and do not directly benefit the unemployed, poor farm workers and other sections of the poor. The capitalist system will always try to take back whatever it is forced to concede, while ever it remains in place. The task of active trade unionists, youth and socialists is to raise the idea of a government of workers and the poor to complete the revolution started on January 25th.

The strike wave raises the need for workers in different industries, both public and private sector, to organise their own mass workers’ party. Activists from different struggles need to join together. Youth and students, those fighting for democratic rights and other social and community campaigns also need to join with organised workers.

A democratic socialist programme would include a decent minimum wage of at least LE 1200 linked to rising prices, decent education and healthcare systems, a massive house-building programme and a shorter working week to provide jobs for the unemployed. These must be linked to nationalisation under democratic workers’ control and management of all big companies, large estates and banks. The economy could then be planned to meet the needs of the majority instead of the profits of a tiny minority.



It is time the Egyptian people were given what they demanded in the first place. Freedom, real freedom. Freedom from capitalism and repression .

Nationalise Bombardier to save jobs

Train manufacturer Bombardier has announced the loss of 1,400 jobs following the government decision to award the Thameslink rail project to German company, Siemens.

These cuts will devastate the area; for every job at Bombardier there are four in the supply chain. The existence of the last train manufacturer in Britain, employing 3,000 people in Derby, is under threat.

Around 10,000 marched against job cuts on Saturday 23 July in the biggest demonstration in Derby for decades. It was a protest of the working class, with Bombardier workers marching alongside supporters from all over Derby and beyond.


Large numbers of trade union banners from across both the public and private sectors mingled with homemade ones such as "Save my granddad's job". Workers came from far and wide to show solidarity, but it was Derby people who made up the bulk of the march.

Shoppers applauded the march through the city centre; workers came out of factories en route to signal support. The anger against the Con-Dem government is palpable.

They are blamed for awarding the contract on a basis that did not take into account of the costs of throwing up to 15,000 people in the Derby area out of work: lost tax, extra benefits to pay out and the knock on effect on the local economy.

At the closing rally a range of speakers including Bob Crow, RMT general secretary called for a reversal of the government decision to give 'preferred bidder status' to Siemens rather than Bombardier.

Various politicians were also keen to identify with the workers, including Labour MPs and even the Tory Council leader (although he is making hundreds of job cuts at the council himself!)

Thousands of leaflets were handed out by Socialist Party members and supporters of the National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN) calling for the re-nationalisation of Bombardier and the rail network in order to expand public transport and create a long term future for rail jobs.

On the Friday, the Derby Telegraph had a piece on the NSSN's call for nationalisation of Bombardier quoting Dave Gorton, Midlands co-ordinator: "In the 1970s, the then Conservative government nationalised Rolls Royce to save it.

"They can do the same again with Bombardier. In fact, the whole rail industry should be renationalised immediately".

That nationalisation call has gained an echo in Derby, where Rolls Royce established its first factory. Hundreds of copies of the Socialist were sold and our petitions calling for nationalisation were popular.

One example of how broad the support for that call is was the nun who offered to take some of the Socialist Party petitions back to her convent to get signed!

"I'm buzzing, I feel as though something can change"
Following the demo 100 people went straight to a meeting called by the NSSN on how the fight to defend jobs could go on.

Darren Barber, vice chair of the Bombardier trade union shop stewards committee, got proceedings off to a lively start with an enthusiastic and well received contribution, "I'm buzzing, I feel as though something can change because everyone has got together.

"The mood was dead when the announcement first came, but when the unions start getting involved we started to get some belief. It makes me proud to be a rep."

Alex Gordon, RMT president, in an excellent speech, spelt out his union's position on nationalisation and public ownership and that workers' jobs would never be safe while in the hands of private companies.

His remarks were welcome, coming only an hour after the chairman of Bombardier UK had been invited to speak at the main rally!

Alex congratulated the NSSN and went on to attack the government's economic policies: "The job the Shop Stewards Committee has done to turn round the mood, working with the unions, has turned this into a massive campaign, It couldn't have happened with just a newspaper editor or a couple of sympathetic local MPs who might be worried about how the blame is going to go in the next election.

"The existence of a shop stewards system of organisation is proving its worth."

"[Tory chancellor] Osborne says the 750,000 jobs going in the public sector will be replaced in private industry. What has happened over Bombardier gives the lie to the government's policies. Bombardier was cheaper on the design and build.

"Siemens was cheaper because they don't require credit as the German government has given them a massive loan. The other reason is that Siemens 30-year contact for maintenance of their nine maintenance depots in this country does not recognise a union, one of the worst employers in the train maintenance industry. It is about driving down pay and conditions.

"This contract decision needs to be reversed. But only when it returns to public ownership, benefiting all the people of this country will we be able to solve these problems."

Rob Williams, chair of the NSSN, said: "We fully support the Bombardier workers. It is in all workers interests, whether in the public or private sectors, for Bombardier workers to win. It is important we join up these battles.

"We stand for international solidarity, but that is no contradiction to defending the jobs in Derby. How can any government force a company to invest when it isn't owned by the government?

"Why can't the government nationalise Bombardier just like the banks? It was a Tory government that nationalised Rolls Royce in 1971 overnight to save that company - there is a precedent.

"Except that this time it should be with democratic workers' control and management."

Rob urged all in attendance to plan for the lobby of the TUC in September where we can urge the trade union leaders to call united action in defence of pensions and jobs across the public and private sectors.

Rob concluded: "This is a weak government. We are lobbying the TUC for a 24-hour public sector general strike in the autumn over the issues of pensions and job cuts in public services.

If we win on that will it make it easier or harder to win at Bombardier? We have to say no more 'heroic defeats', let's unite private and public sector workers and win a famous victory here in Derby."

Chief executive pay to FTSE 100 companies shoots up in last decade, time for nationalisation ?

The pay of FTSE100 Chief Executive's has risen by 343% in the last decade. it is revealed today. This shocking statistic is sign that despite the poor and the working class being hit with harsher and harsher cuts to their standards of living with the rich capitalists trying to regain the money they used to bail out their banks which failed they are increasing their wealth even still.

It is a disgrace that pay to the rich goes up while pay to the working class is being cut. Where is the fairness in that ?

It isnt that's why. It is capitalism which enables this to happen. The system that is designed so the wealth of a few is concentrated at the top while the workers suffer through exploitation and austerity measures.

Well enough is enough really under a socialist society the top 150 top monopolies many are in the FTSE 100 will be brought under nationalised democratic workers control to be used for the benifit of society not the few rich fat cats at the very top.

This would include the banks where this is rife and allow the workers to control the finances of the country for the betterment of the mass's. Funding schooling, health care, transport and decent affordable housing for all. There is clearly more than enough money going around in this country for us all to live a decent standard of life. We are not asking for the earth as socialists but a fair life for fair pay and a end to discrimination and exploitation.

Is a better capitalism possible ?

This was said this weekend:

We need a different kind of economy, fairer to the lowest paid and demanding greater responsibility from the higher paid; broader-based, less reliant on financial services. A better capitalism.


THis was said this weekend at the Progress, the moderate labour right thinktank conference this weekend. The speech was by.... Ed Miliband. The labour leader.

Would you believe it. This new leader not even in the job a year and already we know what he is about. Although some may say we dont know nearly enough i think we can work out what kind of Britain he is after.

Lets be honest you cannot make capitalism fairer. yes you may be able to grant concessions to the working class all you like but there will always be greater wealth at the top of the economy than the bottom.

Ed Miliband ought to remember this. Gordon Brown said he had eliminated boom and bust whilst forgetting that it is in capitalisms nature for a unstable peaks and troughs of a economy. The fact that it is built on many contradictions according to Karl Marx suggests that periods of upturns and downturns are going to be repeated and repeated.

For the left to hold any illusions in this new labour leader that he will take this party in a left ward direction are sadly kidding themselves. Miliband has already spelled out that he and his party would have to make cuts all be it at a slightly less fast or as deep . But cuts all the same.

As a socialist i am against all cuts as i do not beleive they are at all nessesary. The ruling class beleives they are but they would. They want to make the working class pay for the mistakes of the bankers and the failiures of another capitalist break down.

But for a labour leader who could possibly lead our country in 2015 it is rather concerning that he still believes you can make capitalism better and fairer for the poor. This is incorrect as i previously said you can grant concessions to the working class but never provide the fruit of their labour as they will still not own it.

Only a taking over of the commanding heights of the economy where workers democratically control the economy including the banking sector nationalising all of the banks properly. Not a semi-nationalisation like Northern Rock but for real true workers ownership. Included in this the commanding heights of the economy including the wealthiest 150 or so monopolies will be brought under public workers control. All run democratically of course.

Only this way will the working class be able to fullfill their wishes and be able to afford a decent living for themselves. Miliband has been shown to not understand the way capitalism works. Perhaps he could read some of Marx's Das capital to read how the system works. As quite frankly he is lacking judgement if he and other labour members believe it can be made fairer.

Super rich increase their wealth by 18% whilst the poor suffer

The UK's wealthiest people have rebounded from the recession increasing their worth by 18% in the past year, the Sunday Times Rich List says.

The economic crisis wiped £155bn from collective wealth of the 1,000 richest people in 2009, but they are now worth £395.8bn, according to the survey.

The number of billionaires in the UK now stands at 73 - up from 53.

It includes its first self-made woman billionaire, Specsavers' Dame Mary Perkins.

The 67-year-old is worth - along with husband Douglas and their family - £1.15bn, a 42% increase from last year.

There are now 108 women among the 1,000 richest - the first time the proportion has surpassed 10%.


"Music has had a really, really good year. Sir Paul McCartney is still the richest performing musician in Britain - he has an extra £20m this year, up to £495m," Tristan Davies, executive editor of the Sunday Times told the BBC.

"All the other golden oldies that you'd expect - Elton John, [Mick] Jagger, Sting and Keith Richards - have also done well," he added.

A fortune of at least £70m is needed to get into the 2011 list, compared to £63m in 2010 and £55m in 2008.


Steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal continues to top the list, but his fortune has fallen by nearly £5bn (22%) in the past year, now standing at £17.5bn.

The drop in share price of his business AcelorMittal made him the highest faller in the list in terms of total wealth.

The biggest increase in wealth was seen by another steel magnate, Alisher Usmanov, moving up six places to number two after adding £7.7bn to his fortune.

The Duke of Westminster has increased his wealth by £250m but falls out of the top three for the first time since 1999.

Another new billionaire is Tory peer Lord Kirkham, 66, with his family, after selling sofa business DFS to private equity group Advent International. The Kirkham family's wealth stands at £1bn, up from £430m last year.

There are 40 British-born billionaires including Charles Dunstone, 46, the chairman of Carphone Warehouse and Talk Talk.

His fortune has risen by £396m to £1bn in a year, after the demerger of Carphone Warehouse, which he co-founded in 1989, and Talk Talk.

The highest new entry among the 100 women is Xiuli Hawken, 48, worth £1.066bn.

Married to a London teacher, she made her property fortune converting air raid shelters in China into underground shopping malls.

The list, compiled by Philip Beresford, is based on identifiable wealth, such as land, property, other assets such as art and racehorses, or significant shares in publicly quoted companies, and excludes bank accounts.


I think this explains where our wealth has been going. Alot of the wealth these people make could be brought back into the country via tighter tax laws and tightening up these offshore banking storages.

It is a disgrace that apparently we are in times of austerity yet news like this does nothing to convince people we are all in this together. We anything but all in this together.

This furthers our point even more that the top 150 or so monopolies in this country - the heights of the economy need to be brought into public ownership and their profits brought back to the national purse.

It is not on that people can be getting richer whilst the poor suffer having benifits taking off t hem and jobs cut which in reality will have little difference for clearing our debt. If anything it'll only add to it as redundancy paymentsa nd benifits will need to be paid to the unemployed.

But it also doesnt surprise me that on that list published there is a conservative lord. The party who supposably knows what it is like for us all and they know how tough things are. But these decisions to cut back public spending are nessesary they tell us. Well howcomes the rich are getting richer still if those with the broadest shoulders are shouldering the burden. Fact is they are not and we have been sold a lie. A big lie from the ruling class.

It is time for socialist ideas to flow through peoples minds and people to say enough is enough. We will not bail out your broken corrupt system of gambling and ruthless money making at the expense of humanity and the environment.

Only a socialist planned economy lead by the workers leading the economy can provide for everyone and not just the super rich in society.

latest GDP figures make bleak reading for the government

The UK economy returned to modest growth in the first three months of 2011, official figures revealed today, following a shock decline at the end of last year.


Gross domestic product (GDP) - a broad measure for the total economy - grew by 0.5% in the first quarter of the year, following an unexpected drop of 0.5% in the final weather-hit quarter of 2010, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.


All this makes bleak reading for George OSbourne as he looks to re balance the economy. I think these figures clearly show a failiure to bring in growth for the UK. These figures include figures since VAT went up in January to 20% but dont account for teh oncoming savage spending cuts by the government. THe next quarters figures will be very interesting indeed.

In the figures we can see that construction took a big hit no doubt as a result of loosing many contracts for building schools projects and a stagnation in house building market.

All this confirms mine and many others thoughts that cutting our way out of a recession is never the way to go. George Osbourne and his tory pals have not learnt the lessons of history. Although this 0.5% shows growth it is only returning to what it was in the third quarter of last year. This is in affect a 6 month stagnation . Whatever spin these political types and media who do a good job of spinning them for them too there is no way these figures show the tories plans are working.

Labour of course have no reply on this whatever they say they would have only cut 2 billion pounds less this year and had no ideas for real growth either.

Time after time i remind people that capitalism is broken and you cannot reform the system. Only a over throw of the system to bring the heights of the economy into public ownership will fill the public purse with funds to reinvest in the services we so badly need.

Removing the economic power of the rich and redistributing wealth to the many would by my idea of making society a fairer society.

2011 with spending cuts ahead looks to be anotehr bumpy year for the British economy. With growing fears in the global market of the likes of Greece and Spain defaulting on its debts the fear of a crisis in the capitalist society is bound to spread.

The vast influence of Tesco in todays society

As many of you will be aware one of our biggest supermarkets if not our biggest in the UK Tesco dominate the high street in many towns and cities. We now have a case where we get what are called "tesco towns" where the influenceand the role a Tesco has is unrivaled in a town.

I found this set of facts about Tesco from the excellent Tescopoly website which you can check out here
http://www.tescopoly.org.uk/

1) 1 in every 7 pounds spent in the UK in 2007 was spent in Tesco

2) Tesco use their monopoly power to squeeze farmers hard. A Competition Commission investigation revealed that Tesco consistently pay suppliers nearly 4% below the average price paid by other retailers. There isn’t much evidence they pass these savings to consumers – they just pocket the profits.

3) Research by ActionAid found workers in Costa Rica producing bananas for export to all major UK supermarkets earning 33p an hour. This wage is so low that they cannot afford to take an hour off when dangerous pesticides are being sprayed on the crops.

4) Unite the Union have a long running campaign against Tesco over the terrible treatment of workers in their meat supply chain.

5) The New Economics Foundation have shown that fresh fruit and veg is, on average, 30% cheaper at a street market than it is in a supermarket. However, through short term aggressive pricing when they first move into an area, Tesco often shuts down these markets, reducing access to fresh fruit and veg for the poorest.

6) Tesco offer their best deals in out of town shopping centres rather than their city centre stores. This not only encourages driving, but also excludes those without cars – mostly, poorer people.

7) In the 5 years to 2002, an average of 50 local food shops were lost in the UK every week, largely due to the Tesco takeover.

8 ) Tesco is Europe’s biggest property company. In 2007 they were sitting on property assets worth £28bn.

9) Tesco are not a net creator of jobs. Because they aggressively force local shops out of business, and then provide the minimal possible service to customers, on average, every time a large supermarket opens, 276 jobs are lost.

10) Between 2003 and 2007 the Labour Party accepted donations of £54,194 from Tesco.


Unions have raised serious concerns about conditions for workers employed along supermarket supply chains in the UK. Pay and working conditions can be negatively affected as supermarkets squeeze suppliers for goods at lower prices or relocate in search of cheaper products. The major food retailers can exert undue pressure on suppliers causing job losses in food processing companies that simply cannot produce goods at the prices Tesco and their competitors wish to pay.

Unite has been campaigning in Supermarket supply chains such as the Red and White Meat Sectors since December 2007. This began by publicising the harsh conditions many workers in the UK experience when employed by companies supplying meat to some of the major Supermarkets. Unite then undertook a campaign against Tesco’s abuse of power over the Meat supply chains through the ‘Tesco: Every Workers Counts’ campaign. Unite works towards its ultimate goal of ensuring the highest ethical standards in the treatment of customers and to insist upon the highest ethical standards for workers employed by companies throughout the supply chain. For more
Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) meat sector inquiry
In March 2010 the EHRC released its findings from its "Inquiry into recruitment and employment in the meat and poultry processing sector". The report reveals evidence of the widespread mistreatment and exploitation of migrant and agency workers in the sector, and makes recommendations including supermarkets improving their auditing of suppliers; processing firms and agencies improving recruitment practices, working environments and the ability of workers to raise issues of concern; and for the government to provide sufficient resources for the Gangmasters’ Licensing Agency to help safeguard the welfare and interests of workers.

The Commission will review action taken over the next 12 months by supermarkets, processing firms and recruitment agencies, and will consider taking enforcement action if necessary.

The Commission launched its first ever Inquiry into a key sector of the economy in October 2008, focusing on the UK's multi-billion pound meat industry for evidence of employment abuse and discrimination. The meat sector is a significant industry employing some 40,000 workers across Britain engaged in processing and packaging meat for sale in supermarkets and retailers.

Tesco's profits are in very stark contrast with the suppliers who have been squeezed. In 2006 the T&G announced it was forming a national co-ordinating committee to bring together its shop stewards across the Tesco empire. The initiative was the first step on the road to fighting for jobs and decent pay, terms and conditions in the country's top supermarket. Shop stewards report pressures to make efficiency savings as well as demands to give up hard won pay and working conditions in order to be admitted into the Tesco pension schemes. According to Ron Webb, T&G national secretary for transport, "Unbelievable though it may be, Tesco is actually looking to make job cuts on the day it claims to be the consumers' friend. We do not accept these cuts are either necessary or ethical. How can a multi-billion pound outfit attack the pay, terms and conditions of those people it relies on to get its goods to the stores?"


The major supermarket chains have announced numerous environmental initiatives. Tesco announced a Community Plan including an Environment Fund of £100 million in a speech by Terry Leahy in May 2006, and have continued to announce further plans since then, including carbon labelling of their products.

Despite the many benefits of these initiatives, it remains the case that Tesco's size and growth, its numerous unsustainable products, and its impact on independent retailers stop it from being a truly green company. The same is true of the other large chains. With larger numbers of car-based hypermarkets and food being sourced from around the world, and trucked around the UK, these companies continue to damage the environment.

and press release on the environment fund and waste. George Monbiot in his book "Turn up the Heat" suggests that the increasing trend of individuals and companies showing their green credentials, is often green-wash hiding real environmental costs.

Some of supermarkets' environmental costs include:


• The food industry is responsible for a third of greenhouse gas emissions and therefore has a massive part to play in tackling climate change. The bulk of these emissions come from food production. Tesco and the other supermarkets must do more to make sure that their production lines are sustainable - this needs to be prioritised above paying farmers the lowest possible prices. Research by Friends of the Earth has shown that low prices have reduced farmers' ability to produce food in environmentally friendly ways. This needs to stop.

•Fewer local farmers and shops mean both customers and goods need to be transported further. This means more pollution from cars, as people drive further to shop, and more pollution from aircraft and lorries, as food is transported from around the world. Indeed Tesco's business could be seen as one of the drivers behind the rise in UK CO2 emissions. More needs to be done to support local, seasonal produce - something that independent shops and supermarkets are well suited to. On the other hand, a 2005 Friends of the Earth survey found that Tesco came lowest out of the supermarket chains for sourcing British apples.


•Tesco's store sizes means they are some of the most energy-inefficient buildings in the retail sector. A Sheffield Hallam University study found that despite the new stock, large superstores are the most energy inefficient buildings in the sector. It would take more than 60 corner shops and greengrocers to match the carbon dioxide emissions from one average sized superstore. Although they are taking steps to increase efficiency, their commitment to building yet more stores means that these savings will be cancelled out.


•Tesco also encourages shoppers to travel by car. One in 10 car journeys in the UK are now to buy food. Work for DEFRA suggests that car use for food shopping results in costs to society of more than £3.5 billion per year from traffic emissions, noise, accidents and congestion. Tesco has been massively expanding into "Extra" format hypermarkets, which are particularly geared towards car-based shopping. The proportion of Tesco's floorspace taken up by hypermarkets is three times what it was 6 years ago.

•Tesco boasts about its progress on reducing waste and how it is following a market trend to introduce degradable plastic bags. But grocery packaging still makes up roughly a quarter of household waste, and the UK's biggest supermarkets distribute billions of plastic bags, which end up in landfill. Even degradable bags do not help, as they will still predominantly go to landfill sites where the lack of sunlight and oxygen will hinder rapid breakdown. To make a real difference the supermarkets need to stop handing out free bags altogether.

•A large amount of food is being wasted. Tesco was among the supermarkets found to be rejecting apples purely on cosmetic grounds by a 2002 Friends of the Earth survey of fruit growers.

•Biofuels - Tesco is a major shareholder in and customer of Greenergy Biofuels Limited, a UK company promising customers climate-friendly, sustainable biofuels from UK rapeseed oil. The organisation BiofuelWatch has, however, undertaken research which reveals that Greenergy's biofuels contain increasing amounts of palm oil, soy and sugar cane. All three are crops linked to large-scale rainforest destruction, massive greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and peat and forest fires, and in some instances to human rights abuses.

SO Tesco who was the focus of a recent squatter protest in Stokes Croft last week as some of you who follow the news will have read and this is a sign of people saying enough is enough with more and more of these stores opening up every year.

Critics said they did not want the area to lose its local character and feared smaller shops would find their businesses threatened.

But Tesco said evidence showed that opening such a store could bring shoppers back to an area and help local traders.

Robin Markwell from BBC Radio Bristol, who spent several hours outside the building, said campaigners in the street had been shouting support to the squatters on the roof.

There had been one or two minor scuffles involving protesters and police outside. The atmosphere was "relatively calm", he said.

Bristol City Council has approved the change of use for the building.

A protest took place at the site in February.

Claire Milne, who represents the group No Tesco in Stokes Croft, told the BBC last month that the area was "a melting pot of independent traders" who may have to close if they are unable to compete with the multi-national company.


Bushra Randhawa, a postmaster and resident for 24 years, said last month: "It's taken a huge effort from local groups, traders and the community to regenerate this area.

"Only now does it feel like a real community spirit is developing.

"This move will take us two steps backwards when we need to take two steps forward."

As the eviction got under way, a Tesco spokesman said: "We're keen to invest in the area. Many local people we've spoken to tell us they are eager to see a Tesco Express at this site.

"Our store will create approximately 20 new jobs and provide shopping facilities for hundreds of local residents.

"The squatters, who were illegally occupying the building, were asked to leave but refused.

"High Court enforcement officers are removing them from the premises with the support of the police


So i go back to one of my points i've made before that this sort of protest and anger at such a plan by Tesco is down to the brutal nature of capitalism where their drive for profit and bigger dividends for their directors is paramount. If we were to see the top 300 monopolies including the likes of Tesco nationalised by a socialist government and brought in to public ownership under workers control the rich's of these companies would cease going striaght to the top but instead be reinvested in the workers paying them a good living wage for the area they live in. Allowing trade union involvement at a advanced scale to work alongside the workers who will run these monopolies for the many not just the few who cream off the profits year in year out.

Only this way will the power and greed of companies just like Tesco be controlled more equally for the benifit of all of society not just their directors who are dam right greedy.

No to nuclear power - nationalise the environment-unfriendly energy giants

I've just been reading this excellent article below from our weekly paper the socialist which you can read more articles like this online at www.socialistparty.org.uk


After the tsunami hit on the reactors at Fukushima power plant, the Japanese government is raising the nuclear alert level to seven, on a par with the horrors of Chernobyl a quarter of a century ago. Before that, in scenes reminiscent of BP's desperate attempts to stem last year's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, emergency workers took emergency measures.

They resorted to pouring sawdust, absorbent polymers and newspapers into a pit connected to the damaged nuclear reactor in a desperate attempt to stop leaking radioactive water pouring into the ocean.

Tragically the bodies of two workers have been recovered from the site, yet as workers from towns in the shadow of the plant face lack of food, water and shelter and the invisible threat of radiation, the world has been split on the issue of nuclear power.

In Germany mass protests have led chancellor Merkel to close seven of the country's oldest reactors and announce a freeze on the development of future power stations. But in the UK the Con-Dems' energy bill is due to underwrite nuclear power stations with yet more public money. And liberal environmentalist George Monbiot has said: "As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology."

Monbiot believes that renewable energy is not a realistic alternative under capitalism. Coal, Monbiot argues, is "100 times worse" for the environment and industrial health than nuclear power.

If the world's energy is left to the anarchy of the profit-driven free market, then Monbiot may be right. Profits from carbon and nuclear fuels mean there has been relatively minimal investment in renewable energy. Yet why should the issue of energy, fundamental to modern society yet potentially disastrous for the environment, be entrusted to a system which puts millionaires' profits before the needs of the millions

Consider Tepco, the Tokyo Electric Power Company that owns Fukushima nuclear plant. It holds the monopoly over power to Tokyo and eight of Japan's prefectures. Tepco, the world's fourth largest power company, has a deplorable record of placing short term profits before safety.

In 2002 it was revealed that Tepco had forged safety inspection reports for its nuclear plants while, claims CNN, the seismologist Yukinobu Okamura warned Tepco safety executives that the ageing Fukushima plant was vulnerable to damage from a tsunami.

The solution is to reject the free market in favour of a socialist plan for energy as part of a wider, democratically planned economy. The nationalisation of the energy giants, under democratic workers' control, would allow for a massive investment in renewable energy.

We should reject the technology which has threatened and failed communities from Chernobyl to Three Mile Island. We should also reject the mismanagement of our energy supply, inherent under capitalism, in favour of a socialist alternative which fulfils the needs of both our society and the environment.

Nationalise Tepco and the giant energy corporations under democratic workers' control and management.

For huge investment in renewable energy, based on needs not profit.

For a socialist plan for energy as part of a wider democratically planned economy.

How we can raise socialist transitional demands in todays society

I've been reading several marxist and trotskyist pieces one of them that interests me greatly is the one of Leon Trotsky wrote on the transitional program which helps us understand and bridge the route between capitalism and socialism and how we can go about getting there. It is a great pice that is well worth reading if you can.

The Transitional Programme by Leon Trotsky is, essentially, a handbook on how to build socialist consciousness, how to go about getting support not just for individual campaigns against issues that make us all angry, but how to link that with the bigger fight.

It's not gospel, and, being written in 1938, a lot of what Trotsky writes about is dated. But what Trotsky offers us in The Transitional Programme is an indispensable tool kit. This is why today, after the second world war, after the fall of Stalinism, in a world that seems very different to the one that Trotsky was writing in, The Transitional Programme is still vital reading.

THE ROOT cause of many problems we face are the result of capitalism, of a society run to create obscene profits for a minority at the top, not in the interests of the billions of ordinary people across the planet.

Low pay, attacks on public services, undermining of our pension rights, war and racism all stem, fundamentally, from the economic base of capitalist society. That's why, as socialists, it's not enough to just campaign on these individual issues.

As well as fighting against the bosses' attacks and for as many reforms as we can claw from them, we need to link this to the need to change society as a whole.

Trotsky shows the use of 'transitional demands', staging posts in consciousness firmly grounded in the day-to-day struggles of the working class, but pointing a way forward and demonstrating the need for socialist change.

By their very nature, these demands are inextricably linked to the period they come from. Some demands that Trotsky puts forward are not practical now, either because workers have won what is demanded or because of a change in the general political consciousness.

But it's not the specific demands that are important about this text; it's the method. Trotsky lays out clearly the method that Marxists have used from the time of Marx himself right through to the Socialist Party and CWI today.

We are currently involved, for example, in campaigns across the country to defend the NHS, one of the greatest victories won by the British working class through major struggle in the period after World war Two.

But Cameron, Clegg and Lansley and their cronies are hell-bent on stripping away these reforms through privatisation and major job cuts. The Socialist Party doesn't just campaign to end job cuts and privatisation.

We demand a reversal of the privatisation already brought in through the back door, but also we demand the nationalisation of the major pharmaceutical industries that make gross profits from people's sickness. These demands lead on to the idea of removing capitalism from society all together.

The Transitional Programme shows how with the correct approach, workers can be won over to socialist ideas by starting with today's solutions and pointing to a future where society is run by working-class people to meet the needs of all.

The direct relevance and practicality of Trotsky's theory makes The Transitional Programme important today. I would urge all socialists and trade unionists, to read this relatively short work, just don't look at it as a set of commandments, but as a method and approach.


I will come back to look at these demands and the transitional program individually in time no doubt but if you wish you can have a read of the full text that Trotsky wrote in 1938 which is very interesting here from the marxist internet archive .
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/index.htm