Issue 11 Cover

• Death Squad Britain – the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, Steve Kaczynski
• The Legacy of the Gleneagles Summit, John Wight
• Facing up to the challenge, Nick Clarke
• Obstructing a legal demonstration, John Wight
• Two Words Collide – Nationalism and Republicanism, Allan Armstrong
• When ‘raising consciousness’ ain’t enough, Mumia Abu-Jamal
• Fight the power, Alan Graham
• Iraqi Kurds – tools of imperialism, Steve Kaczynski
• Empty bombast marks the end of the IRA, John McAnulty
• In memory of Miriam Daly, James Daly
• The way forward for the Scottish Socialist Party, Donnie Nicolson,
• Forward Wales In Meltdown, Vic Allen
• Computer Game – Democracy, Alan Graham
• Armande’s Bed, Mary McGregor
• Oor Wullie? William Wallace and socialists today, Allan Armstrong
• Who were the Galloway Levellers?, Alistair Livingston

Local variations aside, what was the fate of those who were no longer required on the land that once fed them? More than Adam Smith, more than any of the other Enlightenment theorists, it was the ex-Jacobite, James Steaurt, who foresaw their fate. As Marx recognised, ‘He examined the process [of the genesis of capital] particularly in agriculture; and he rightly considers that manufacturing proper only came into being through this process of separation in agriculture. In Adam Smith’s writing’s the process of separation is assumed to be already complete’.

Steaurt predicted, in words that should have been written in fire and blood, ‘That revolution must then mark the purging of the lands of superfluous mouths, and forcing those to quit their mother earth, in order to retire to towns and villages, where they may usefully swell the number of free hands and apply to industry’

(1) Neil Davidson, The Scottish Path to Capitalist Agriculture-Part 2

Neil Davidson’s quote, that should have been written in fire and blood, comes from Sir James Steuart’s Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy, first published in 1767. Nearly 80 years earlier, Queen Mary (married to the Stuart King, James VII and II), suggested that, Scotland will never be at peace until the southern parts are made a hunting park. Queen Mary’s remark was made in the context of the ‘Killing Times’ of 1685/6 when her husband believed he faced armed insurrection by the Cameronians in southern Scotland. After the 1603 Union of the Crowns, his great-grandfather James VI and I had pacified the Borders by transporting whole ‘clans’ like the Grahams and Armstrongs to Ireland. Had her husband been able to stay in power, this old Stuart policy of ‘pacification through clearance’ may well have been applied to the Cameronian insurgents.

Queen Mary’s remarks were repeated in an anonymous letter in support of the Galloway Levellers published in June 1724. This News from Galloway, or a poor man’s plea against his Landlord, in a letter to a friend, raised the fear that Jacobite landowners in Galloway were pursuing military and political objectives under the guise of economic agrarian rationalisation – the ‘purging of the lands of superfluous mouths’. What seems to have revived the spectre of politically motivated clearance were the actions of one Basil Hamilton. He actively supported the Jacobites in 1715.

Lately the said Mr Basil Hamilton hath cast out 13 families upon the 22nd of May instant who are lying by the dykesides. Neither will he suffer them to erect any shelter or covering at the dykesides to preserve their little ones from the injury of the cold, which cruelty is very like the accomplishment of that threatening of the Jacobites at the late rebellion [1715], that they would make Galloway a hunting field, because of our public appearance for his Majesty King George at Dumfries, and our opposition to them at that time in their wicked designs (2) .

So were the Galloway Levellers simply acting against local Jacobites? Perhaps to begin with, but soon they were levelling every dyke they found, regardless of the landowners’ political affiliations. Indeed, as I explain below, the Levellers actions forced Jacobite and Covenanter landlords to work together with the Hanoverian state to suppress their uprising.

But is there a link from the Galloway Levellers uprising to Sir James Steaurt and hence to Karl Marx? Discussing the Galloway Levellers, Davidson makes the following point.

Galloway was part of the south-western heartland of the later Covenanters and, in particular, was the area from which the post-Cameronian sects which succeeded them had drawn their highest levels of support. Some of these sects, like the Hebronites and the MacMillanites, who had been active in opposition to the Treaty of Union, were still functioning and provided the insurgents with an ideological and organisational framework within which to mobilise… (3).

Following up this reference to Hebronites and MacMillanites, I found an article on The Hebronites (4) (followers of John Hepburn, minister of Urr parish) and discovered that Sir James Steuart of Goodtrees knew both Hepburn and Macmillan – or so this comment by Sir James Steaurt indicates,

Mr. Hepburn I know to be a good man but weak, but as for Macmillan—! (5)

This James Steaurt was the father of Marx’s James Steaurt, and was solicitor general of Scotland in 1724, the Year of the Galloway Levellers. But who were these Levellers? Two years ago, when asked this question, on a BBC Radio Scotland series on the Lowland Clearances, I thought I knew.

Direct and militant action

The Galloway Levellers were a thousand strong group of small tenant farmers and cottars who took direct and militant action against local landowners who wanted to clear them from the land. These landowners were taking advantage of the Union of 1707 to breed cattle for export to England in exchange for hard cash. The cattle were bred and then fattened in large enclosures, some up to two square miles in size. Everyone living on the land so enclosed was evicted.

In response, through the summer of 1724, the Levellers ‘levelled’ these new enclosures. The landlords tried to stop them, but the Levellers had been drilled by ex-soldiers like Billy Marshall, ‘king’ of the Galloway gypsies, and were armed with muskets, swords, pitchforks and scythes. The only dyke left unlevelled by Marshall and his force belonged to Robert Johnstone of Kelton. This was only saved with the support of William Falconer, the minister of Kelton, bribes of beer and bread, an agreement by Johnstone not to evict any of his tenants and the claim that his dyke was a march dyke built along the public highway.

Unable to control the revolt themselves, the landlords called for back-up from the state. Troops of dragoons were despatched and, by November 1724, the Galloway Levellers uprising was over. The ringleaders were imprisoned, fined or sent to the Plantations. No other such uprising occurred, allowing the process of ‘agricultural improvement’ in Scotland to proceed unhindered through the 1760s into the 1830s. The Galloway Leveller’s uprising was therefore only a footnote to Scotland’s history, fascinating for a local historian like myself, but of little wider importance.

But then the makers of the series, Peter Aitchison and Andrew Cassell, went on to ask Professor Chris Whately of Dundee University his views on the significance of the Galloway Levellers. He suggested that the Leveller’s uprising had an important and long lasting impact beyond Galloway. The Galloway Levellers had so ‘frightened the authorities’ that the process of agricultural improvement/lowland clearance proceeded more cautiously and slowly (6).

Chris Whately’s comments prompted me to research, via the internet, the wider significance of the Galloway Levellers. This led me to Allan Armstrong’s article, Beyond Broadswords and Bayonets in Emancipation & Liberation 5/6 – which connected the Galloway Levellers to the Cameronians – and to Neil Davidson’s book, Discovering the Scottish Revolution, which also discusses the Galloway Levellers. Subsequently, when Allan provided me with back issues of Emancipation & Liberation, I found the following in Neil Davidson’s reply to criticisms of his article.

Unless comrades are prepared to engage with primary sources and to interrogate the historical meanings of concepts which they use…there cannot be any real debate (7).

Revolutionary traditions

These words jolted me. I realised that I had accepted rather than interrogated local historical sources of information about the Galloway Levellers. Nor, until I read Allan Armstrong’s Beyond Broadswords and Bayonets (8), had I thought of the Galloway Levellers as part of Scotland’s revolutionary traditions. Challenged by the debate in Emancipation and Liberation, I have gone back to my local history sources and interrogated them. As a result, my previous understanding of who the Galloway Levellers were has been revolutionised.

What began as a short article on the Galloway Levellers for Emancipation and Liberation has so far reached 7000 words and keeps growing. With no conclusion in sight, the following summary of research will have to suffice for the present. The key text from which all subsequent historical accounts of the Galloway Levellers are drawn, including Davidson’s, is a thirty page long article by A.S. Morton (9). Most of what follows comes from following up persons, events and places mentioned in Morton’s text and cross-referencing these with other local historical sources.

The absence of commercial agriculture in Scotland meant, however, that whatever other depredations were suffered by the peasantry, clearance had not yet been one of them… The Gallwegian economy was largely geared up towards cattle rearing and in that respect was closer to the economy of the Western Highlands than to that of Aberdeenshire (10).

Yet in 1721, when Sir John Clerk of Penicuik visited his brother-in-law, the 5th earl of Galloway, James Steuart (or Stewart), he described already existing enclosures dating from 1684 in Wigtownshire which had involved clearance (11).

Although called the ‘Galloway’ Levellers, dyke levelling activities (which took place between March and September 1724) were focused on 6 ‘lowland’ parishes in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright/ east Galloway. In autumn 1724, some levelling activity spread to Wigtownshire/west Galloway, but this was met with more forcible opposition, including the death of a leveller and the rapid deployment of sufficient troops (an additional 4 troops of dragoons) to quell the revolt in October / November 1724.

The military skills of the Levellers, although attributed to the involvement of ex-soldiers with experience in Europe, is more likely related to the raising of a local ‘militia’ in response to the threat posed by the Jacobite rebellion of 1715. According to a contemporary account [Rae, 1718] those drawn from the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright numbered 2000 (out of a population of 20 000) in October 1715. In the previous months (at around 100 per parish) this militia had been armed and drilled on a weekly basis by ‘captains’ appointed by the Marquis of Annandale, as Steward of Kirkcudbright and Sheriff of Dumfries.

The one dyke left unlevelled belonged to Robert Johnstone of Kelton , who was one of these ‘captains’. Johnstone was a former (post-1689) provost of Dumfries and his lands at Kelton in theory belonged to the Maxwell earls of Nithsdale – long time Stuart supporters and active Jacobites in 1715. (Legally, the Maxwell’s only finally lost ownership of their Kelton lands in 1747.) Robert Johnstone was also an investor in the Darien Scheme.

The initial focus of levelling activities were dykes built by the Maxwells of Munches and Basil Hamilton of Baldoon’s lands, near Kirkcudbright. All had been active Jacobite supporters in 1715. Basil Hamilton (related to Dukes of Hamilton) is a key figure. His mother was daughter of David Dunbar of Baldoon in Wigtownshire. Dunbar (died 1686) was first to enclose lands for the cattle trade, circa 1640. He had been a Stuart supporter during ‘Killing Times’ of 1680s. In the 1670s, Dunbar acquired land in Stewartry of Kirkcudbright forfeited after 1660 by Lord Maclellan of Kirkcudbright for his active support in the 1640s for the Covenant cause. The situation was reversed in 1716, when it was the Dunbar estates, inherited by Hamilton, which were forfeit. They were not regained until 1732. Hamilton only avoided execution as traitor in 1716 after intervention by his cousin, the Duke of Hamilton.

Many other named landlords, initially on the side of Levellers’ Revolt, figure in Rae’s account of 1715- e.g. Thomas Gordon of Earlston and Patrick Heron of Kirroughtrie. It was Heron who advised landowners not to fight Levellers after noting their military skills. Heron was also a ‘captain’ in 1715 and so had helped train local anti-Jacobite militia of whom ex-members (I strongly suspect) supplied Levellers with their military tactics. Gordon of Earlston was another ‘captain’ from 1715 with deep family Covenanting roots.

Although the Levellers’ Revolt may have begun as a limited attack on the property of known Jacobite landlords, the participants moved on to level all the dykes. The threat posed to their interests united both Jacobite and Covenanter, as can be seen from a letter dated 2 May 1724 by the Earl of Galloway to his brother-in-law, John Clerk of Penicuick in Edinburgh [Prevost: 1967: 197] Noe doubt you have heard of Mr Hamilton’s going to Edinburgh with Earlstoune to represent the grievances of our countrie on that score. [ i.e. the activities of the Levellers; the mission being to request that troops be sent].

The physical actions taken by the Levellers were supported by printed pamphlets spelling out their grievances. Dated June 7th 1724, one of these: News from Galloway, or the Poor Man’s plea against his Landlord must have reached Edinburgh, since a twenty page long response was published there by Philadelphus on 1st July. Entitled Opinion of Sir Thomas More, Lord High Chancellor of England, concerning enclosures, in answer to a letter from Galloway, the pamphlet also quotes from a book published by Robert Powell in 1636 (a lawyer belonging to the Society of the New Inn) De-population arraigned, convicted and condemned by the laws of God and Man. This pamphlet caused considerable alarm among the authorities in Edinburgh, and the Lord Advocate went personally to the bookseller to demand the name of the author. An attempt was made to stop the sale of it, but the result was a greater demand for it than before (12).

The Lord Advocate then called for a Public Enquiry, which was held in Kirkcudbright during the summer of 1724. Basil Hamilton was infuriated, claiming that Provost Kilpatrick of Kirkcudbright, who led the Enquiry, was a Leveller sympathiser. [I am trying to track down the findings of this Public Enquiry].

Although both Neil Davidson and Allan Armstrong both agree that the Galloway Levellers had the support of, and were encouraged by, radical Covenanting elements (the Macmillanites and Hebronites) local evidence does not fully support this. Hepburn, minister of Urr, in the Stewartry, died in May 1723. Macmillan, who had illegally occupied the parish church and manse of Balmaghie since 1703 with armed Cameronian support, spent little time in Galloway after 1723. This was the year Macmillan’s second wife, sister to Thomas Gordon of Earlston, died.

The strongest ‘religious’ support for the Levellers came from Monteith of Borgue who opposed Macmillan and was firmly within the Church of Scotland. Falconer of Kelton was likewise an opponent of Macmillan, but was also suspected of being a Leveller sympathiser. Additional support may have come from Hugh Clanny, a minister at Kirkbean who had been expelled for immorality in 1702.

And finally, Morton gives us the names of some of the Galloway Levellers.

On the 27th January 1725, at a court held in the Tolbooth of Kirkcudbright in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright in Galloway, with the following justices being on the bench – Thomas Gordon of Earlston, David Lidderdale of Torrs, Colonel William Maxwell of Cardoness (presiding), John Gordon of Largmore, Robert Gordon of Garvarie, Nathaniel Gordon of Carleton, and John Maxwell, provost of Kirkcudbright – the Honourable Basil Hamilton brought a complaint at the instance of Lady Mary Hamilton of Baldoon (being his mother) and himself as her factor against,

• Thomas Moire of Beoch and Grisel Grierson his wife
• John Walker of Cotland
• Robert McMorran of Orroland
• John Shennan and William Shennan of Kirkcarswell
• John Cogan, John Bean, Thomas Millagane and Thomas Richardson of Gribty
• James Robeson of Merks
• John Donaldson and John Cultane the younger of Bombie
• John Cairns and John Martin of Lochfergus
• Alexander McClune and James Shennan of Nethermilns
• James Wilson of Greenlane croft
• Robert Herries of Auchleandmiln
• John, George and Robert Hyslop of Mullock
• John McKnaught of Meadowisles

that between the 12 and 16th days of May 1724, they did in a most riotous, tumultuous and illegal way assemble and convene themselves with some hundred other rioters, mostly all armed with guns, swords, pistols, clubs, batons, pitchforks and other offensive weapons on Bombie Muir, parish of Kirkcudbright on the Stewartry thereof and marched to the lands of Galtways, belonging to the complainer and then:

demolished 580 roods of dykes, equal to £19 6s 8d, in consequence of which the complainer was damnified of her stock of 400 black cattle kept at grassing within said inclosure, amounting to £50 by the loss of mercats; the fences being pulled down obliging the complainer to drive them to some remote place before sunset each night and watch them all night and keep them from straying which hindered them being fattened for which the sum of £50 is claimed, as also for the complainers cattle breaking away and destroying other people’s corn for which the complainer is chargeable, together with the sum of £500 sterling as damages sustained for rebuilding the said dykes (13).

My interrogation of the sources continues. However, it would appear that the actions of the Galloway Levellers began as an explicitly anti-Jacobite action, with the tacit support of some former Covenanting landlords. However, they developed in a more socially radical direction, levelling dykes without political discrimination. This is when they met the joint opposition of Covenanter and Jacobite landlords, who called in the Hanoverian state to help crush the rebellion. By this time, even the one-time, more radical, organised Covenanting factions, e.g. the Hebronites and Cameronians, had fallen into political passivity. The levellers had to fall back on their own independent Covenanting traditions and the support of various individuals, who looked with some trepidation to the consequences of the break-up of the old social order.

Alistair Livingston

References

• (1) Neil Davidson, in the Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol. 4, No.4, 2004, p. 444
• (2) An Account of the Reasons of Some People in Galloway, their Meetings anent Public Grievances through Inclosures in Morton, Transactions Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society: 1935, issue 244.
• (3) Neil Davidson, Discovering the Scottish Revolution, p. 217.
• (4) H. Reid, The Hebronites in Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society,
  (TDGNHAS) 1920.
• (5) H. Reid TDGNHAS , op. cit., p.135, quoting Wodrow Analecta III p. 244.
• (6) Peter Aitchison and Andrew Cassell, The Lowland Clearances – Scotland’s Silent Revolution, 1760-1830, p. 49, ( Tuckwell, 2003).
• (7) Neil Davidson, ‘Unionism’, Progress and the socialist tradition in Scottish history, in Emancipation & Liberation 8, p. 30.
• (8) Allan Armstrong, Beyond Broadswords and Bayonets in Emancipation & Liberation, 5/6, p. 41.
• (9) A. S. Morton, The Levellers of Galloway, TDGNHAS, Third Series, 1936, volume 19.
• (10) Neil Davidson, Discovering the Scottish Revolution, p. 216.
• (11) W.A.J. Prevost:TDGNHAS, 1962/3.
• (12) A.S. Morton, TDGNHAS, Third Series, 1936, volume 19, p. 247.
• (13) A.S. Morton, TDGNHAS, Third Series, 1936, volume 19.

Commemorating William Wallace, yesterday and today

This year is the 700th anniversary of the death of William Wallace. He was brutally killed at what is now Smithfield Market in London, on the orders of Edward I, the Plantagenet King of England. How is this event viewed today? Whatever the real significance of Wallace in his own time, he has been seen, since the late eighteenth century, as an international icon representing the struggle for national freedom. Robert Burns invoked the memory of Wallace in Scots Wha Hae. This became a favourite song for national democrats everywhere, rather like Bandiera Rossa did for later communists. It has even been said that Napoleon carried a copy of Jane Porter’s romantic novel of Wallace’s life, The Scottish Chief, on his campaigns. Those heroes of the 1848 Revolutions, the Italian, Garibaldi and the Hungarian, Kossuth, both subscribed to the National Wallace Monument at Stirling in 1869 (1). Internationally, Wallace was up there with William Tell and Joan of Arc.

However, it was not only national democrats who subscribed to the National Wallace Monument; so too did the thoroughly unionist aristocrats, the Duke of Montrose and the Earl of Elgin. For this was the heyday of the British Empire (2). The Scottish patriotic, anti-democratic and conservative unionist, Sir Walter Scott, had already pioneered a new vision of Scotland’s past. Scott’s Tales of a Grandfather and his historical novels celebrated Scotland’s glorious history. But all this was merely a prologue to the nation’s wider role, promoting the Union and Empire, alongside its partner, England. So following in this tradition, even conservative Scottish lords could claim Wallace as part of Scotland’s historical contribution to a later, heroic unionist, imperial venture.

As recently as the Second World War, the eminent English liberal historian, G.M. Trevelyan, author of the History of England, could also echo Scottish patriotic sentiments. Wallace, this unknown knight, had lit a fire which nothing since has ever put out. Here, in Scotland, contemporaneously with very similar doings in Switzerland, a new ideal and tradition of wonderful potency was brought into the world; it had no name then, but now we should call it democratic patriotism (3).

Today, unionists are not so confident. The British Empire has almost gone and the future of the United Kingdom is far from certain. There were no official commemorations, either in England or Scotland, on the anniversary of Wallace’s death, earlier this year. First Minister, Jack McConnell, can don his post-modern kilt for America’s new Tartan Day. Such hokum is tolerated if it helps to promote Scottish business in the USA. But commemorating William Wallace today is a much more problematic matter in a Scotland where the latest unionist settlement – devolution – is far from being the settled will of the Scottish people.

Instead, it was left to Scottish nationalists to make their unofficial commemoration on August 23rd in St. Bartholomew, the Great Priory Church, next to Smithfield. The supporters of Wallace were attired like imagined 17th or 18th century Jacobite Highlanders. Such imagery was firmly established in the public’s mind in the opening sequences of the 1995 film, Braveheart, starring Mel Gibson. Here, Wallace was portrayed in the ‘mountains and glens’ of his Renfrewshire family home. Ironically, precisely because this year’s ‘Jacobite’ commemoration of Wallace appeared so folksy, with no wider resonance outside Scotland, it could be reported, with interested bemusement, by the BBC TV (4).

Socialists and William Wallace

So, what do socialists have to say about Wallace today? Well, of course, there are plenty of socialists in Scotland, who have very little new to say. They have adopted either a Scottish-British unionist or a Scottish nationalist version of history. In the past, the ILP’s Thomas Johnston, author of a History of the Scottish Working Classes and of Scotland’s Noble Families, could invoke the commoner, Wallace, against the aristocrat, Bruce (5). This was done to underscore the treacherous role of Scotland’s aristocracy throughout history. Scottish novelist and communist sympathiser, Lewis Grassic Gibbon, also supported Wallace over Bruce, for the same reason (6).

Today, however, the unionist Left today is largely silent when it comes to Wallace. This mirrors the attitude of New Labour. The SWP’s monthly Socialist Review let the anniversary pass without a mention. Perhaps, they feel that socialists have little reason to champion long-past, non-socialist heroes and their struggles. Such a stance ignores Engels’ sympathetic portrayal of the Anabaptists in The Peasant War in Germany, or Christopher Hill’s writings on the Levellers in England, particularly his, The World Turned Upside Down. Or perhaps, they ignore Wallace because he had no declared aim of uprooting feudalism. Meanwhile, hardly aware of their own inconsistency, many of today’s sceptics champion all sorts of current campaigns to bring reforms to capitalism.

A few on the Unionist Left, such as Jack Conrad of the Weekly Worker, retreat into pure apologetics, upholding Edward I as a revolutionary centraliser, who opposed reactionary feudal localists like Wallace (7). Such people are unable to see that there would be no real resistance to the depradations of capitalist imperialism today, if it were not for the inspiring traditions and legacies provided by past resistance to oppression and exploitation. Real human beings have not been designed to sleepwalk through a passive acceptance of slavery and serfdom, only to be awoken, under capitalism, to a real consciousness of their current plight and future role by the ‘revolutionary’ Party. Throughout the history of class society, people have always believed another world is possible. Whatever, the traumas and dislocations suffered by the infant working class, under the impact of rising capitalism, they still drew on earlier traditions of resistance for their new struggles.

There are some on the nationalist Left who see Wallace in much the same way as the image shown in Mel Gibson’s Braveheart – a kilt-wearing, saltire adorned, English-hating, man of action – ‘a real Scot’. Even in Wallace’s own time, the struggles in Scotland were already intimately linked with events on a much wider canvas. However, today the exclusive adoption of sub-Jacobite (kilt) and specifically Christian (saltire) imagery can hardly contribute to the development of a multi-national Scotland, welcoming the people of many nationalities and religions who live here.

Furthermore, the ‘official’ nationalists of the SNP are increasingly making their own accommodation to the British state and the global corporations. They defend today’s Scottish regiments serving British imperialism; just as their medieval, lordly ‘ancestors’ served in Edward’s imperial army, when it was in their interests. It is hard to claim Wallace as an advocate of a ‘devolutionary road’ to independence, so he can be represented as a hothead, whom the nobles unfortunately had to marginalise, before they could attain their own ‘independent’ Scotland. The aristocratic Robert the Bruce is an altogether safer model. We ‘peasants’ today, though, can expect as little from a future SNP-run capitalist Scotland, as those peasants, who lived in Robert I’s feudal kingdom after 1314.

Thirteenth century Scotland and the ‘international’ economy

If Wallace’s struggles are to have any meaning for socialists today, this means viewing them in a wider context than feudal Scotland. In the late thirteenth century Scotland was already part of a wider ‘international’ economy which centred on Flanders. Flanders had a number of manufacturing cities, such as Ghent, Bruges and Ypres, involved in the making of woollen products
(8). High quality wool was produced in the hill country of southern Scotland and exported through Berwick and Leith, particularly to Flanders (9) England, too, was a major exporter of wool to Flanders, but its major production centres and ports, lay far to the south. The English border area was poor, the Scottish border area beyond the Tweed and Esk was rich – it was breathlessly up-to-date in its religious institutions, feudal organisation and military architecture (10). The great Borders monasteries, particularly Jedburgh, Melrose, Kelso and Dryburgh, were to the forefront of wool production for the Flemish market. The Count of Flanders gave protection to the Cistercian Abbey at Melrose to safeguard supplies (11).

The woollen industry was the ‘oil industry’ of the thirteenth century in terms of its wider economic and political impact on society. Just as crude oil producers today, unlike most other primary producers, have considerable economic clout; so could the raw wool producers in the Middle Ages. Embargoes on woollen exports from England to Flanders, imposed by Edward I in the 1270’s and 1292, (and Edward III in 1336) made their impact felt (12).

The development of woollen manufacturing centres in Flanders was such a precocious development, that the first possible signs of a new capitalism were already evident. One consequence of this was that Flanders was wracked by class conflicts. As well as the more typical feudal conflicts of the time, between an aspiring royal centraliser – in this case, Philip IV of France – and the local feudal superior – the Count of Flanders; there were also ferocious class struggles between the city merchants and the artisan weavers.

Feudal centralisers build royal power not nation-states

The events which occurred in Scotland after 1296 lay on the interface between a new, rising merchant capitalism, which was contested by feudal centralising dynasties, traditional feudal lords and by minor landholders, peasants and artisans. The two main royal feudal centralisers in north west Europe of the time were Edward I and Philip IV, kings of England and France respectively. However, French was the court language in both kingdoms and Latin the language of administration. Under these kings, both realms had extended their effective control over surrounding territories. Their newly incorporated peoples were quite distinct from the majority in the original core areas of the English and French states. The Welsh and many Irish were brought under the more effective control of Edward of England, whilst Philip of France attempted to do the same with the Provencals and Flemish.

In England though, despite some elite intermixing between Norman-French and Anglo-Saxon families, the majority of the population did not form part of a shared English nation with the king and aristocracy. They were legally enserfed and had few rights. In France, the mixing between Frankish conquerors and the conquered Romano-Gauls had taken place over a far longer period of time. Nevertheless, France was seen as the very pinnacle of the feudal order, with its king and aristocracy holding the lower orders in almost total contempt – so once again, there was no shared nation here. The kings of feudal realms made few appeals to ‘national’ history, apart from constructing dodgy documents making spurious historical claims, mainly to enlist papal support. The most ambitious had wider designs than to be limited to particular ‘nations’, even in the very limited sense these were understood at the time.

Edward I was particularly keen to hold on to the Duchy of Gascony because of its wine and salt production. This could be taxed to augment royal revenues. Technically Gascony was part of the kingdom of France, so Edward owed homage to Philip IV for this territory – something he tried to renege upon.

Neither English nor French ‘national’ claims could help him here – just good, old-fashioned feudal force. When Edward refused to acknowledge his fealty to the king of France for Gascony, Philip declared these lands to be forfeit. This provoked war between the two realms in 1296. It also led to a sharp turn in Scotland’s fortunes.

Much has been made of how Edward had inveigled himself into the position of arbiter, over the respective claims of two Norman-Scottish families, the Balliols and Bruces, to the throne of Scotland, after the death of Alexander III in 1286. At the time, though, all the major aristocratic families in Scotland accepted Edward’s ruling, made in 1292. Many such families held land in England (and indeed elsewhere too) as well as in Scotland. They wanted to hold on to this. So, an acknowledgement of Edward’s power made sense to them.

This was particularly true of the Bruce family, who loyally served Edward, whenever it appeared to advance their interests. Once John Balliol was officially recognised as King of Scotland and had accepted his subordinate position, it made little sense, except to the most out-of-favour lord, to mount any challenge. This would lead to an automatic loss of their feudal rights and commit them to opposing not only Balliol, but Edward I.

Edward exerts his feudal power over Scotland

Faced with a war with France though, over Gascony, Edward stepped up his demands on Scotland’s king and nobles in 1295 (13). He wanted an armed levy to serve with him in France. This placed many, including Balliol, in a quandary, since they also had land in France, which they held in feudal obligation to Philip. Many English lords were placed in a similar position when called upon to fight in France. Edward’s war was not popular.

Balliol, urged on by some Scottish nobles, decided to defy Edward. Edward, now also facing mounting internal opposition in England, was not pleased. He decided to take much more direct control of affairs in Scotland. This brought him into conflict with a number of the more traditional upholders of the Scottish feudal order – the Norman-Scottish and Gaelic aristocratic families. Others however, including Robert the Bruce, with greater feudal pretensions, saw their chance to replace these families, by showing their adherence to Edward.

Edward invaded Scotland in 1296. He sacked Berwick in a three day rampage which led to a great loss of life (14). This was designed both to create panic and to break Scotland’s independent trade links, particularly with Flanders. Berwick, Scotland’s premier port, at the time, had to be brought under Edward’s direct control to enforce his taxes on the rich wool trade of the Tweed Valley. The population of Berwick was replaced by incomers from England. Berwick was to form the new royal administrative centre for Scotland.

The war was quickly finished after the ill-prepared feudal resistance of some Balliol-supporting, feudal lords at the Battle of Dunbar (15). Edward was now free to exert his own dominion over all of Scotland, including the Highland north. This way, he could commandeer military support for his continental wars and finance them by collecting more taxes. This meant imposing his own men, especially sheriffs, upon the main towns. Although Edward remained very much part of the wider French-speaking aristocratic feudal culture, he was prepared to promote non-aristocratic Englishmen as his royal servants, partly to undermine other over-ambitious French-speaking lords. In this manner, individuals, such as the notorious sheriff, William Heselrig, took office in conquered Scotland.

The hybrid Norman-Gaelic kings of Scotland had also long been pursuing their own feudal centralising policy. This was done to break the power of local Gaelic and Norse-Gaelic chieftains, and even some of the Norman-Gaelic lords (who ‘had gone native’), particularly in the Highlands, the Western Isles and in Galloway. The kings of Scotland had been even more ‘ecumenical’ in their choice of royal officials and servants – including Norman-French and loyal aristocratic Gaelic families, the ‘native English’ of the Lothians, their Northumbrian English kin and also the Flemish. What was different about the new English officials in Scotland (with their military backing), though, were their onerous demands and their overbearing and arrogant demeanour, as they acted on behalf of Edward I.

William Wallace and the arrival of new social forces in a feudal world

Whilst most of the aristocracy in Scotland now fell over themselves to prove their loyalty to Edward I, in order to reaffirm or regain their feudal privileges, new social forces were to transform the situation. Although a small number of out-of-favour lords were still prepared to fight on, such as Andrew Moray in the north and William Douglas in the south, completely new names appeared – Alexander Pilche, a burgher from Inverness (who was of Flemish origin) and William Wallace, a small landholder from Elderslie near Paisley (most likely descended from a Welsh family brought north by their feudal superiors, the Stewarts.)

Wallace, initially with only a small following, began to challenge Edward’s officials. He emerges on the pages of history, when he killed Sheriff Heselrig of Lanark in May 1297 (16). Lanark was a significant centre of the wool trade. Heselrig was holding a court session, imposing penalties on those who failed to meet the new demands. Farmers would also be coming to market where they would have to pay Edward’s detested wool tax – the prest (17). Wallace was an astute strategist. He knew how to win popular support.

Although there were other centres of opposition, it is significant that Wallace, a social inferior by feudal rules, emerged as co-leader of the resistance to Edward’s regime, alongside the aristocratic Moray. There had to be a very powerful reason why jealously-guarded, feudal protocol was set aside to award Wallace such a position. Wallace’s theatre of operations was mainly in the most economically advanced part of Scotland, particularly its wool-producing areas. Furthermore, by drawing on support from townspeople and peasants, he was able to move beyond the more traditional, non-feudal, guerrilla tactics of the kindreds and outlaws. Wallace was prepared to challenge the previously near-invincible, elite ‘Panzer divisions’ of the feudal order – the mounted, armoured knights. This was revolutionary warfare. To do this Wallace resorted to the schiltron formation, based on pikemen foot-soldiers, drawn from the lower orders.

Edward’s army, led by John Warenne, the Earl of Surrey, was smashed at Stirling Bridge in June 1297, by a combination of a wild Celtic charge and the disciplined use of pikemen, with only limited aristocratic support. The pikemen sealed off the bridge over the Forth to prevent the bulk of Edward’s army joining their separated and isolated brothers-in-arms, who had already crossed the river. Amongst their body was Hugh de Cressingham, another haughty royal official – the Treasurer of Scotland, responsible for all Edward’s hated taxes. Edward had already sacked Berwick, killing thousands of its inhabitants, to make his political point. Wallace, in turn, allegedly had Cressingham skinned, after locating his dead body on the battlefield (18). This was probably done to strike fear into Edward’s placemen in Scotland.

As a result of this stunning victory, Wallace became a knight (who performed this ceremony is not known, since Balliol was by now living in exile in France) (19). Wallace also became Guardian of Scotland, something previously reserved for earls, barons or prominent churchmen (20). He must have represented new forces asserting their power for the first time. Wallace’s declared aim was to restore John Balliol as King of Scotland. This has persuaded some that he offered no real challenge to the existing feudal order. However, the problem Wallace faced was that he still needed an armoured, mounted force, to supplement his pikemen footsoldiers. They were required to ride down enemy archers and crossbowmen. The only mounted force, existing at the time, lay amongst the nobility. The one hope he had of winning some of their numbers to his side, was by playing the legitimacy card. However, there was also another useful purpose served by this appeal. Balliol was absent and in no position to give out any orders. This left Wallace with a free hand to pursue his own strategy.

One of the few historical documents dating from this period, is a letter, in the names of Wallace and Moray, dating from October 1297, appealing to the merchants in the Hanseatic port cities of Lubeck and Hamburg, to reopen trade in wool with Scotland (21). This letter underlines the importance of the economic motivation behind the struggle with Edward. It also points to the continued role of the merchants of Scotland in this war. Another possible reason for the appeal to Lubeck and Hamburg, was the further disruption to trade caused by Edward I’s presence in Flanders, as an ally of its Count. This development, following on the sacking of Berwick, and the difficulty of making sea journeys to Flanders past the hostile English coastline, perhaps forced the new regime in Scotland to concentrate on more northerly trade links. Later, Flemish merchants, who opposed the Count, conducted trade with Scotland in defiance of Edward (22).

The dynasties fight back

The Count of Flanders was in a similar position to the feudal leaders in Scotland. They were defying their feudal overlord, Edward of England; he was defying his, Philip of France. And, just as Edward gave his support to the Count, Philip gave his support to those resisting Edward in Scotland. Although Edward provided more support to his ally, by leading an army into Flanders, it did not fare well against the French. This, and the major setback at Stirling Bridge, led Edward to a truce with France (23). Both Edward and Philip now wanted a free hand to deal with the problems on their respective northern borders, without other distractions.

Wallace knew full well that his victory at Stirling Bridge would bring down the wrath of Edward. Therefore, as well as attempting to restore trade, he made military preparations. The first thing was to overawe and intimidate Edward’s fifth column of Scottish noble supporters (24). This meant attacking their castles. Wallace tended to rely more on minor landholders, such as Alexander Scrymgeour, to hold such garrisons (25). However, the other major task was to lay waste to the north of England. Northumberland and Cumberland were already quite poor. Edward’s army could only operate in the summer season and provisioned itself on the march. Wallace’s aim was to create maximum area of devastation possible, between Edward’s southern-raised army and the richer Scottish borderlands. He launched ferocious attacks over the winter of 1297 to achieve this aim (26).

When Edward’s hungry troops did reach Scotland in the summer of 1298, Wallace pursued a scorched earth policy of retreat to further weaken Edward’s army. Some of Edward’s Welsh troops even mutinied (27). What changed the situation in Edward’s favour was that two of his Scottish allies, the earls, Patrick of Dunbar and Umfraville of Angus, had spies in Wallace’s camp. They betrayed the position of the Scottish army at Falkirk. A second blow was delivered on the battlefield itself, when the Scottish noble cavalry, needed to defend the schiltron formations of pikemen from archers, fled the field. Although Wallace was able to escape, Falkirk was a major defeat (28).

The collapse of the Scottish aristocratic resistance to Edward

Scottish historians are divided on the role of the Scottish nobles at Falkirk. Past Scottish chroniclers, such as Fordun and Blind Harry, have been scathing about the role of Bruce and Comyn, and put it down to aristocratic jealousy, directed against Wallace. More recently, historians of a conservative bent have tried to defend Bruce in particular (29). Yet they provide no positive evidence of his role at Falkirk. The strength of feeling, directed against the Scottish aristocracy, expressed in several chronicles and ballads, comes down the ages, despite all attempts at marginalisation and suppression.

What this suggests is that a powerful feudal reaction was building up against everything Wallace represented. Wallace was forced to resign from his position of Guardian of Scotland, to be replaced by the duo of Bruce and Comyn (28). What was the threat that forced these two implacable enemies to join forces? The claims of new social forces, whether merchants, minor landholders and possibly peasants too, would not be welcomed by these nobles. The forging of a new military force, the schiltron, which could break the power of the heavily-armoured, mounted cavalry, could also threaten the nobles’ power (29).

After the battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297, it was only five years before the even more remarkable victory of the Flemish weavers (with limited aristocratic support, as well) over Philip of France’s feudal cavalry at Courtrai, in July 1302. The weavers’ leader, Pieter de Coninck, also used closely-packed pikemen to break the French armoured charge (30). In response to this development, Philip sought the active aid of his old adversary, Edward (31). New challenges from below, led to previously undreamt of alliances, the better to defend dynastic and aristocratic power.

Reaction was now growing apace. Wallace, after resigning as Guardian, had been given a diplomatic role on the continent (32). This flies in the face of his portrayal both by Edward I – who saw him as a common criminal, and Mel Gibson – who played him as a couthy man of action. What appears fairly certain, though, is that Wallace found such a role unsatisfactory. Perhaps, his encounters with Philip of France in 1299, in pursuit of a renewed Franco-Scottish alliance, undermined any lingering belief in the reliability of high-born allies. When Wallace returned to Scotland, it was as a guerrilla leader, operating from his old base in Ettrick Forest (33).

Wallace’s legacy overcomes the attempted historical obliteration

The treaty between Philip and Edward, allowed both to pursue their aim of crushing all opposition. The new Count of Flanders capitulated to Philip in 1304 (34). In the same year, Comyn, as Guardian, submitted to Edward (35). Bruce had already signed up for Edward in 1302, and had his lands attacked by Wallace as a consequence (36). Wallace no longer had any noble support. He was actively hunted down by them, using Edward’s royal warrant. After a number of successful escapes from capture, Sir John Mentieth’s forces finally arrested Wallace at Robroyston, near Glasgow, and quickly handed him over to Edward, for his final trial and execution (37).

When Edward I’s successor proved to be weak, a new opposition arose to the King of England. This time it was noble-led from the start. The war fought by Robert the Bruce was a dynastic war. To increase his support he offered lands confiscated from his enemies and new feudal privileges to his noble allies. Certainly, none of the Scottish aristocratic leaders contemplated any extension of rights to classes beneath them. When John Barbour later penned his eulogy, The Bruce, Wallace was not even mentioned.

Barbour received a gift and a pension from King Robert II for his efforts (38). However, Wallace’s memory, now safely consigned to the past, was rehabilitated by other Stewart monarchs, in their continuous battles with the kings of England. This Wallace was romanticised and celebrated primarily for his zealous, ‘anti-English’ activities; rather than his struggle against Edward’s feudal imperial regime and its English servants. In this particular struggle many of the English living in the Lothians (conquered by the King of Scotland in the tenth century) would have been Wallace’s allies.

Nevertheless, despite the aristocratic attempt to write Wallace out of history, he was remembered, particularly by the commons of Scotland. The official ‘Wars of Scottish Independence’ can hardly be claimed as a battle between the English and Scottish nations. It was essentially an intra-feudal war between mainly French aristocratic families. It also drew in Anglo-Norman, English, Welsh, Irish and Gascon troops on one side; and Scots (mainly from the Gaelic heartland of Alba), English (mainly from Lothian) and Gallwegians on the other. Both sides faced desertions.

However, into this ‘official’ war, another war intruded itself for a brief period. This war brought new forces – small landholders and city burgesses, perhaps even peasants – on to the historical stage in Scotland. And, as in Flanders, these forces went down to defeat. Wallace was the most important figure in this other war in Scotland. As a result of his undoubted heroic role, Wallace later became an international symbol of resistance against oppression, like Spartacus before and Wat Tyler after. William Wallace, as part of Scotland’s anti-aristocratic, popular tradition, is somebody who can be claimed by socialists today.

References

• (1) William Wallace – Man and Myth, Graeme Morton, p.79 (Sutton, 2001)
• (2) op. cit., p. 78.
• (3) A Shortened History of England, G.M. Trevelyan, p. 177 (Penguin, 1976)
• (4) Service remembers William Wallace
• (5) Graeme Morton, op. cit., p. 98.
• (6) Graeme Morton, op. cit., p. 111.
• (7) Jack Conrad, Unenlightened Myth in Weekly Worker, no. 265.
• (8) see Medieval Flanders, David Nicholas, (Longman, 1992)
• (9) The North of England – A History from Roman Times to the Present, Frank Musgrove, p. 91(Basil Blackwell, 1990)
• (10) Frank Musgrove, op. cit., p.91.
• (11) Frank Musgrove, op. cit., p. 93.
• (12) David Nicholas, op. cit., pp. 178, 187 and 219.
• (13) William Wallace, Andrew Fisher, p. 24 (John Donald, 1986)
• (14) op. cit., pp. 25-6.
• (15) op. cit., p. 26.
• (16) op. cit., p. 32.
• (17) Ed Archer, letter to Sunday Herald, 28.8.05.
• (18) Andrew Fisher, op. cit., p. 55.
• (19) op. cit., p. 67.
• (20) op. cit., p. 19.
• (21) Graeme Morton, op. cit., pp. 29-30.
• (22) David Nicholas, op. cit., p. 205.
• (23) David Nicholas, op. cit., pp. 189-190.
• (24) Andrew Fisher, op. cit., p. 69.
• (25) Andrew Fisher, op. cit., p. 67.
• (26) Andrew Fisher, op. cit., pp. 64-66.
• (27) Andrew Fisher, op. cit., pp. 73-77.
• (28) Andrew Fisher, op. cit., pp. 77-83.
• (29) see Geoffrey Barrow, Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland, (Edinburgh University Press, 1976)
• (30) Andrew Fisher, op. cit., pp. 90-91.
• (31) Andrew Fisher, op. cit., p. 80.
• (32) David Nicholas, op. cit., pp. 192-194.
• (33) Dating A Hero, in Wallace, 700 Years of a Scottish Legend, p. 7 (Sunday Herald supplement, 21.8.05)
• (34) Andrew Fisher, op. cit., pp. 93-98.
• (35) Andrew Fisher, op. cit., p. 107.
• (36) David Nicholas, op. cit., p. 195.
• (37) Andrew Fisher, op. cit., pp. 108-110.
• (38) Andrew Fisher, op. cit., pp. 107-108.

Armande's Bed

For me, reviewing a novel rather than writing a conventionally political article for Emancipation and Liberation was always going to be a pleasure. Even more so when it is written by Scottish Socialist Party comrade, John Aberdein.

I am a great believer in the power of the novel, not only to politicise and raise awareness, but also as a means of relating theory to practice in fictional situations. People like me who are drawn to fiction find there, not the escapism of the bourgeoisie, but the very essence of the politics as it affects humanity. We see the human condition and can marvel at its bravery, laugh with its humour and grow angry at the horror of its existence under capitalism.

Armande’s Bed is that kind of novel. In the tradition of Grassic Gibbon and Mackay Brown, we are drawn into the world of characters who are painfully familiar and who reveal the necessity for Marxist solutions by describing a reality we know to be true. The class system of Scotland in 1956 is not described but lived on a daily basis, She’d never speak to dirt from the tenementsm.

Peem, the main protagonist, brings innocence to all the events which provide great humour and insight. As Peem has education thrust upon him, it reveals the absurdity of an education system which was determined to bring about a cultural cleansing by denying the validity of anything relating to working class experience.

It is with Peem that we experience the warmth and love (completely un-sentimentalised) in many working class homes. We contrast his life with Spermy whose mother Armande is the sleepyround woman. As the widowed incomer, she struggles to look after her family and is eventually subjected to brutal electrotherapy in a mental hospital.

And, as Peem helps his father sell the Daily Worker, the betrayal of the international working class by Stalinism becomes most evident, …its nae me chuckin the Party, the Party chuckin me mair like, that’s what it comes doon till. It’s enough to gar a body greet.

It is the language of Armande’s Bed which helps to establish its authenticity. It is beautifully honed and yet Aberdein uses it as a weapon to reveal hypocrisy, injustice and defiance. The laughter we experience in reading this book is only surpassed by the constant feeling of impending disaster which is in itself the nature of life under capitalism. The hope lies in the ability of working class people to survive, unite and become conscious of their destiny. This is the type of book which shows that political education can come in a literary format and one that speaks our language in more ways than one.

• Format: PC
• Publisher: Positech
• Developer: Clif Harris (probably in his bedroom)
• Price: $19.95+VAT (Approx. £13 – £14)
• Reviewed by Alan Graham

(Bourgeois) Democracy: the game

I had heard about this game and was intrigued, so when I saw the demo on a magazine I installed it immediately. Two hours later I shelled out to download the full version from the maker’s site. Most simulation games involve running a household or a business, a civilisation warring with neighbours or realistically flying a plane. How many allow you to play around with the economy, see the likely effects of different reforms and if you’re not happy with the result: edit the data files yourself, add new dilemmas, policies and situations? Well this one does.

A computer game may appear a bizarre way to put across political ideas but most games contain some political elements whether it’s Command and Conquer’s Cold War conflict to Fallout’s post-Apocalypse world dealing with the effects of radiation. What stands out about this game is the portrayal of everyday political decisions on people: either by showing the way governments prioritise with taxation or how mild reforms cost peanuts compared to military spending but could have immediate results if the will was there to implement them from those in power. The simulation genre is targeted at a very sophisticated audience, those who like to analyse the game world and work out winning strategies.

The social model

The full game allows you to run the economy by being the leader of a host of industrialised countries including UK, Japan, Germany, USA, and Russia. It uses a sophisticated neural network to simulate the population and each decision you take reflects on their support of the government.

The population is split into various groups: poor, middle earners, wealthy, liberal and conservative, socialist and capitalist, state employed, trade unionists, the retired, motorists, smokers, environmentalists, the religious, and patriots. Each individual can of course belong to more than one group: the socialist parents who like to drink and commute to work whilst the wealthy self employed may smoke and be capitalists. Not to forget the religious organic farmer.

The game is a constant work in progress so there are problems with the fluidity between these groups but it manages to put across the concept that people are influenced, in different ways, by different policies. A socialist trade unionist who supports your efforts to increase pensions and NHS funding may be annoyed by high petrol tax.

Balance

Balance seems to be the driving force of this game: putting political ideas and concepts across in a neutral way and allowing the gamer to see the expected effects of their decisions. From a socialist perspective, the information given can be debatable.

You can block proposed laws. For example, when it comes to a countryside access law you can either block access:

Private land is private land. This is the very basis of private ownership and capitalism. If the owners wish to restrict access to their land, this is entirely up to them. This is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt as class war by disgruntled socialists.

or support it:

Its crazy to have so much open, and often entirely unused, land in private hands while our cities are so overcrowded. This law will allow all citizens to enjoy the beauty of our countryside, whilst retaining the final property rights and ownership privileges of the landowner. It’s a good compromise.

Supporting such a law pleases socialists but displeases farmers, while improving equality. However the effect is reversed if it is opposed.

Policies

The game includes 75 different policies that can be implemented, ignored or modified, including introducing free school meals and reintroducing university grants. Some policies lead to situations, some bad some good. A high rate of asthma means you need to deal with air pollution, hammering motorists means fuel protests.

I experimented as a neo-con to see the effects. Hammering the poor results in class war on the streets, to tackle it meant either spending lots of cash fighting the causes of poverty or CCTV on every corner and armed police on the beat. If you attack the poor then assassination by Communist guerrillas is on the cards, similarly, maximising income tax leads to your intelligence agencies detecting plots by the capitalist and wealthy elite to organise a military coup!

Dilemmas

Each turn you are presented with a different dilemma and have to choose, sometimes the lesser of two evils: Ban animal testing or allow it, ban a fascist march or allow it to go ahead, meet a foreign minister of a country with an appalling human rights record to try and win them over or shun them for their crimes against humanity. I’ve suggested the following: the media claims you’ve gone to war based on a lie and whether you deny or admit allows you to move forward not back on the issue or have it hurt your popularity by way of the voter cynicism in your politics level if it turns out to be true.

Measures of success

The measures of success in this game are not just measured in economics or opinion polls, there are other statistics to show how good your society, such as lifespan, literacy rate, crime rate, poverty rate, equality, air quality, car usage, and unemployment. These all show how your policies are affecting society.

Decreasing the poverty rate decreases the crime rate as less people are driven to crime, but modifications need to be made. When luxury goods are taxed and Corporations made to pay their fair share, a black market is created and tax avoidance takes place. The crime rate is not affected however! This reflects the reality of capitalist society. In Britain, government spends £millions on campaigns targeting those on the breadline claiming benefits they are not formally entitled to. At the same time, corporate crooks who hide assets in shell companies and offshore tax havens are ignored while they defraud the tax coffers of £billions.

Turn Screen

A nice addition is quotations to read whilst you wait your turn, including Lenin – Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps; and Thatcher – A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.

Customisation

The beauty of this game is the option for customisation. All the statistics, data and policy effects are included as standard spreadsheet files. Drag the files into Excel, OpenOffice or Notepad and you can modify existing policies or create your own. On the game’s message board fans can suggest their own modifications.

I was bemused by the ability to provide subsidies for cleaner fuel, rail networks and bus lanes but allowing private companies to reap the rewards, so I suggested the ability to nationalise the railways and the buses. And the customisation is what takes this game and turns it into an economic model. The opening screen changing from The Queen has asked you to form a government… can quite easily become The workers have taken over the factories… The police force can be modified to become the citizens’ militia and any other policy you can imagine can be tried and tested.

Rating

As political simulations go this one is the best there is available to date. True, the simulation is of reforms and some of these need tweaking but overall politics are presented unspun and the effects of government decisions are shown in clear terms.

For me the most important part is the underlying model and the ability to customise this however you wish. At around 12MB I would recommend anyone interested in politics to give it a try. Given the ability to modify it could even become a cheap and quick way to put across a practical demonstration of economic and political ideas.

The party’s website has been under construction for the past four months and members haven’t received a newsletter from the Wrexham HQ.

Those who quit are citing disagreements with the political direction of the party – specifically a secret deal party leader John Marek struck with the Tories to stand a spoiling candidate in marginal Cardiff North at the General Election – as well as the lack of internal democracy in the party. This has led, they say, to key decisions made at conference being ignored by Marek and a close clique that surround him.

They are also disillusioned with Marek’s poor performance in the Assembly, where he has put more emphasis on his role as deputy speaker than campaigning for his new party and winning affiliation from unions such as the RMT.

More locally, there has also been dissatisfaction with Marek’s handling of the crisis surrounding the planned redevelopment of Wrexham Football Club’s stadium, in which he has openly aligned himself with disgraced former chairman Mark Gutterman who is hated by fans.

The activists who have left are re-grouping locally in the Wrexham Socialist Forum and include a quarter of the party’s candidates in last year’s council elections.

Fewer than 100 members remain in the party throughout Wales and the number of activists has dwindled dramatically.

A picture emerges of key members quitting

One of the party’s founder members told E&L:

Forward Wales was born from an alliance of former Labourites and socialists who were united in wanting to challenge Labour’s unhealthy grip on Welsh politics. Key differences over the national question were fudged – a fatal mistake with hindsight – but it also emerged that revenge and spite was a more powerful driving force for some of the ex-Labourites than any real desire to build a radical political alternative for Wales.

Forward Wales, which was almost exclusively concentrated in Wrexham and Clwyd South, managed impressive results in those areas in the council elections – standing candidates in more than half the borough’s seats and gaining 23% of the vote. It also played a prominent role in campaigning against the sale of school playing fields and housing stock transfer, which Wrexham tenants rejected decisively.

The ex-member said:

The party was a very real threat to Labour in the north-east and had the potential to win over disillusioned Labourites throughout Wales. But the party’s dependence for its influence and finances on John Marek meant it was vulnerable to an undemocratic clique grouped around the
AM. This led to decisions on candidates being pushed through with no real debate or discussion – what Marek wanted, he got in the end.

There’s no doubt Marek was very generous with his money – he stumped up many thousands personally to pay for the Assembly and the Westminster elections. But he failed to realise that real political change is based on building parties between elections – there was never any money forthcoming for that. The national secretary couldn’t even get stamps to mail out to members at times!

A picture emerges of key members quitting and many more peripheral members drifting away disillusioned with the party’s failure to build on its early promise.

Some founder members, who saw Forward Wales as a Welsh equivalent of the
SSP, have decided to join Plaid Cymru. One former member said:

Plaid Cymru is a socialist party that’s clearly pro-independence. That’s a great step forward from Forward Wales’s fudge and muddle.

It’s possible FW will limp on to the 2007 Assembly elections, partly because Marek can afford to fund another set of candidates and partly because Ron Davies wants to return to political power. But Forward Wales as a political party is dead in the water, reliant on two fading ex-Labour politicians.

The RCN article in March’s Frontline was very welcome in that it identified and clearly described many dangers facing the SSP, and competently argued the case for a new ‘Marxist pole of attraction’ within the party.

The purpose of my article is to try to address the most fundamental, pressing question for all socialists in Scotland: how do we advance the working-class movement, and how do we organise against the dangers of parliamentarism and populism; namely; how do we take the SSP forward into a new era of dynamism and success?

As discussion and debate around this subject has gone on, it has become clear that there is significant agreement amongst comrades on what the problems are, and – crucially – what the way forward is. The RCN article explored in depth the problem of ‘Bureaucratic Populism’. This has been a creeping problem, and it didn’t come from nowhere. Had the party membership been on the ball a bit more, we could have predicted it and nipped it in the bud, but in the excitement and momentum of electoral success, it was almost unheard of to criticise the leadership.

A look at the role of the SSP sheds some light on this.

The origins of the SSP

By combining radical anti-capitalist policies with a credible political force, the SSP successfully attracted the most progressive, radical layers of workers and youth in Scotland. For the first time, the anti-capitalist left was united and going places. Climaxing in 2003, we reached an average electoral support of 7% nationally, and up to 28% in some parts of Glasgow. We were playing an ebullient leading role in the anti-war and anti-capitalist movements. SSP street stalls in communities across the country were buzzing, and our new team of MSPs stormed into Holyrood in a tour de force of anti-establishment politics.

However, once the radical workers were won over, and the socialist activists united in a single body, the party’s support hit a ceiling. What should we do next? How do we gain more support? We were faced with two options:

1. Popularise our program, and campaign on less-radical lines in order to attract less-radical workers or

2. Agitate among these workers to radicalise them.

This dichotomy faced us from May 2003, but we failed to realise it. In effect, we did neither of these things. Instead, we kept plugging away at our now-tired campaigns, while party morale slipped.

Turning Point

One turning point came in 2004, when leading ISM members were behind a move to woo Campbell Martin, a renegade SNP MSP, to our party membership, via some subtle tweaking of our bedrock worker’s wage policy. None of the justification that was given for this proposal eased the minds of many ISM activists, and we were extremely worried that if this rule was bent once, it could be broken in the future.

Myself and others could scarcely believe that comrades whom we had trusted and admired were behind such a dreadful error. But such errors are the natural consequence of over-focussing on Holyrood.

If we are going to attract Campbell Martin, why not just sign up Margo McDonald and Dennis Canavan too? We could have a left wing parliamentary dream team, and forget about party activists and all those boring meetings; let the media do our canvassing for us…

We argued that under no circumstances must the worker’s wage principle be tampered with, and in any case, recruiting MSPs from other parties is a path littered with dangers. Campbell Martin’s record in the following year has borne that out; a number of pamphlets that he has produced show him to be a non-socialist, and his voting record is poor.

Had the leadership of the party had their way, we would have sacrificed our principles for an extra MSP who would have been a liability at best. One positive to come out of this, was that the party grassroots mobilised against the EC and defeated it, and more importantly, convinced several EC members including Alan McCombes of our position.

Populism

The RCN rightly condemns the disappointing comments and actions from the party leadership – which have not helped to boost morale – including Tommy’s repeated calls for stiffer mandatory sentencing for knife carriers, and Colin’s unfortunate photocall with David McLetchie

Also alarming was Tommy’s call for convenorship elections to be on the basis of ‘one member, one vote’ in the future, saying that the omission of this in the past had been an ‘oversight’. The continued Posh n Becks -style dramatisation of Tommy’s family life in the media is as depressing as it is puerile and anti-political. This is not the way a revolutionary leader of the working class should behave.
This is not mere parliamentarism. Alongside it is a dangerous parallel of personality politics, a kind of mirror-image of the bourgeois parties.

Before Lula was elected as President of Brazil, he was canonised by left-wing activists and PT members who hung portraits of him in their houses, and identified the whole movement with him. There was not sufficient understanding in their party of the dangers of idolizing leaders, and as a result, the socialist movement in Brazil has been shattered and demoralised following Lula’s capitulation to the IMF and imperialism.

We should pay heed to such lessons. There is a way out of the stagnancy that our party suffers from, but it will require a culture change in the party, and everyone has a part to play in this. The danger is now that as the RCN article says, the party leadership bows under parliamentary pressure and tends towards populism.

But what the article didn’t say is how tentatively these actions have been criticised. The leadership of our party is rarely given thorough criticism. When the leadership is questioned or criticised at National Councils and Conferences, the only robust Marxist criticism of the party regularly comes from the CWI platform. Many party activists are suspicious of CWI politics because they tend to be linked to their own agendas, and can sound stuffy and pretentious.

We can change this by systematically highlighting and criticising every occurrence of populism or reformism in a fraternal but robust way. In this way, SSP activists can demand more control over every aspect of our party.

The task of Revolutionaries

Revolutionaries face a dual task in a party like the SSP. We must, first and foremost, promote the SSP amongst our class, and become the radical, active and dynamic face of the party. But we must also work hard inside the party, in its branches, structures and networks, to revolutionise those party members who have not yet arrived at a Marxist conclusion.

Young comrades who are attracted to the party’s radical stance have little or no access to the kind of political education which older comrades benefited from. This has to change. If party structures are not sufficiently strong to give SSY members a grounding in Marxism, then individual comrades must take it upon themselves to do so.

The RCN article also calls for day schools and educationals to take place more often; I support that call. The SSP has huge shortcomings in the subject of members’ education. But again, if the party is not organising these events, we must make more noise about it.

This ties in with the problem of trade union affiliation. Why doesn’t the party organise regional day-schools on the subject of rail privatisation, using Alan McCombes’ excellent pamphlet as reading material, and invite all local RMT members to attend?

That would be a great way of introducing them to our party and our ideas, and introducing party members to an organised radical workforce. We want rail workers to be a driving force in social change, don’t we? We should not be so slack in our attitude towards them.

The SSP is not yet at a political crisis point, but if grassroots revolutionaries continue to be complacent and disorganised, the crisis will bite us.

Internationalism

Our party must develop closer and more formal links with revolutionaries abroad. In times of crisis, an objective view can be invaluable. Why are we not developing proper links with the EACL, or parties like the DSP in Australia, and the movements in Venezuela and Bolivia?

We have many friends abroad. At a recent event held by the Fourth International in France, I was taken aback at the high regard in which young European Socialists – and the leadership of the FI – had for the SSP, and the way we built our party.

With right-wing journalists hovering like vultures, all the establishment parties ganging up on us to suspend us from Holyrood, and George Galloway prowling around Scotland, barely disguising his distaste of the SSPour party has no few enemies closer to home.

I have covered many of the points raised by the RCN in their article, and hopefully made my own position clear. Marxists should be working much more closely together on politics and direction, and in the education of SSY members.

Our party can only move forward and be successful if it is steered in a revolutionary direction, with our minimum demands more clearly linked to our overall program of changing the way society works. To do this, there must be more dialogue, more understanding and more co-operation between revolutionary comrades. Old differences must be pushed to one side; thankfully, this seems to be happening.

Revolutionary socialist politics is not an indulgence, it is a necessity. Any other brand of politics, including parliamentary ‘socialism’ is a betrayal of our own class and a compromise to our opponents. Revolution is a living, breathing movement which is sweeping across Latin America in its infancy, throwing off the reactionary US backed juntas and sparking forest fires of revolt against imperialism and war. The same movement is slowly emerging in Europe, and the SSP is a leading force in this. The future success of our party is in the hands of those who wish to take it forward.

At commemorations like this in earlier years, while the struggle continued, we could think in terms of the nobility of the cause transcending the horror of Miriam’s death, and I could quote James Connolly’s last message to his wife, Hasn’t it been a good life, Lily, and isn’t this a good end? But lately the cause for which she was tragically martyred has slithered down into slapstick comedy, farce and low buffoonery. Trimble with impunity calls Republicans dogs and pigs. War criminal Blair backs Paisley’s theocratic demand that since Republicans have sinned in public they must repent in public. That from an alumnus of Bob Jones University, whose president’s wife, Mrs Bob Jones III, asked for her opinion on something, stated Good book says wife don’t have opinions, husband head of household have opinions.

But this is not a case of harmless mud wrestling – entertaining, colourful folklore. Murderous buffoons are not confined to the six counties. George W. Bush launched his first presidential campaign from Bob Jones University. And in the six counties, to use an animal metaphor which doesn’t degrade the user, the fox has been put in charge of the chicken coop. Paisley, the master of destruction, the organiser of chaos, has got rid one by one of every previous leader of unionism, O’Neill, Chichester-Clarke, Faulkner, Molyneux and Trimble. His next target is the Parades Commission. When UDA banners are forced by the PSNI/RUC through Catholic areas like Ardoyne, murder is not far behind. Under that threat, the parades commission, if it still exists by then, could well allow the Orange Order to march down Garvaghy Road next year.

Beware of conflict resolution

This year, on the 25th anniversary of Miriam’s death I feel there is at least one thing I can do, and that is to restate an important message she never tired of repeating. It was: to beware of and shun so-called conflict resolution, the alleged academic discipline which is in fact an imperialist confidence trick.

The conflict resolution agenda requires the obliteration of the obvious truth about the nature of the struggle. This has been distorted to such an extent that the inheritors of the 1912 loyalists’ successful threat of civil war in Britain, which was supported by British imperialist finance capitalism, the inheritors of the Curragh mutiny, and of the running of the Larne guns – never decommissioned – by all of which the six county territory was secured, are universally, and without argument from Sinn Fein, accepted as the arbiters of when a decontaminated Sinn Fein can be judged to have become democratic. On John Hume’s side of the conflict the dispute is said not to be about territory but about minds and hearts. There is no such illusion on the other side. The issue of territory has been won and ceded in advance.

Some republican publications which are ostensibly in opposition to Sinn Fein show that they are in fact following a similar politics when they invite unionists to use their pages to exhort the IRA to decommission, and when they say that there is nothing wrong with the Orange Order as long as its marches are within its own areas.

The Irish people were victims ground down in the end by many years not only of the relentless use in the foreground of the stick of repression, but also of the indefatigable use in the background of the carrot of conflict resolution. The fact that the conflict resolution approach was involved is emerging into the daylight now. It resulted in the majority of the Irish people’s being not only coerced but also tricked into voting yes in a referendum giving up for nothing the principle of national liberation which had been enshrined in articles 2 and 3 of the southern constitution, and into capitulating to John Hume’s politics.

Miriam had total clarity about the imperialist use of conflict resolution in Ireland. I will try to briefly restate her message here – in my opinion, that specific part of her anti-imperialist message which brought about her death.

Unlike the aims of conflict resolution, Miriam’s aim was the Irish Republican Socialist one embodied in the demands drafted by Seamus Costello for the Broad Front document and agreed at the IRSP’s first conference. They included:

• Number 6. That the Irish anti-imperialist front rejects a federal solution and the continued existence of two separate states in the six and 26 counties as a denial of the right of the Irish people to sovereignty and recognises the only alternative as being the creation of a 32 County Democratic Republic with a secular constitution.
• Number 7. That the Irish anti-imperialist front demands the convening of an all Ireland constitutional conference representative of all shades of political opinion in Ireland for the purpose of discussing a Democratic and secular constitution which would become effective immediately following a total British military and political withdrawal from Ireland.

Seamus always stressed the presence here of two points of principle: first that the British would be excluded from such a constitutional conference; and second that the British must actually withdraw; perfidious Albion must not merely state an intention to withdraw, as they did in the declaration which John Hume later obtained – with the rider of course that they would stay as long as the unionists wanted them to; which is till kingdom come. His rejection of the two state or federal solution went with his rejection of that (Belfast) ring-road socialism which was always acceptable to practitioners of conflict resolution.

Miriam became aware as early as 1972 of what she called a plague of locusts, of people – often on first name terms with British and American ministers and officials – who appeared variously as academics, social workers, journalists etc. They were all equally anxious to divert the Irish national liberation struggle away from anti-imperialist national and class analysis, and from political demands on an all Ireland basis, and to redirect it into the management of what was described, to Miriam’s fury, as an ethnic struggle in the six counties between Irish Catholic nationalists and British Protestant unionists.

Unlike Seamus Costello’s projected constitutional conference, conflict resolution meetings must necessarily be chaired by representatives of the imperialists in the guise of honest brokers. But they cannot allow any consideration of history or of colonialism. They insist on formal neutrality (though of course there cannot be real neutrality) not only from the chair but from the participants, and they do not allow discussion of anything in terms of moral categories such as justice or oppression. Republicans must put themselves on a par with loyalist rapists and sexual mutilators, and those who throw urine over eight-year-old girls trying to go to school.

Miriam Daly: socialist and republican

The aim of conflict resolution is not justice but the ending of disturbance of the peace in the form of resistance to the status quo. Its method is cynical bargaining in relation to relative strengths and threats. Since it is accepted that the conflict is within the six counties, the alternative to submission by the nationalists would clearly be, on the part of the unionists who are stronger and more ruthless, a violence unlimited to the point of psychosis – a violence like that of the Israelis against the Palestinians, as the Israeli flags flying in loyalist areas make abundantly clear. Therefore the British must remain to placate the unionists and thus protect the nationalists.

Here today we remember Seamus’s and Miriam’s heroic attempt to prevent that outcome, and we face the tasks left to us by those who did not take their road.

Tony Blair managed to avoid saying that the hand of history was on his shoulder, but even without that there was enough overblown bombast from London, Washington and Dublin to reward the Provisional republican leadership for their 28th July announcement effectively disbanding the IRA. No-one managed to outdo Alex Reid, the Catholic priest who lubricated the Provisionals’ transition from revolutionary nationalism to co-operation with imperialism. He claimed that the statement marked the end of the centuries of Irish resistance to colonial rule!

The Provisional leadership did their bit to add to the bombast, with simultaneous announcements from the four corners of the earth and a special website where cheesy smiles from their collection of TDs, MLAs, MPs and Euro MPs subliminally suggested that the three decades of death and pain could be justified by the electoral gains of their political current. Concessions from the British tried to keep the party mood going – wanted republicans (on the run) would be allowed to return to their homes. Repressive legislation specific to the North will be disbanded – much has now been incorporated into the general framework of law in Britain itself. Prominent British military installations were dismantled. More troops will be withdrawn, leaving a still adequate garrison. The British promise to disband the Royal Irish Regiment, descendent of the infamous B Specials, if the security situation permits and Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has promised legislation to allow northern representatives to speak in the Dail on matters directly concerning them. On the streets however the mood among nationalist workers was one of indifference. The road to republican surrender involved the demobilisation and depoliticisation of the mass of their members, retreats by the organisation are telegraphed months in advance and are the subject of secret mass counselling meetings to drain out all the negative feelings of the membership.

No political rewards

However there are no real political rewards for their surrender. All the structures and trappings, the comic-opera Stormont assembly and ministerial positions lie in ruins. The Provos surrender because they must, because Tony Blair, following the May elections and the Paisleyite victory, had torn up the Good Friday Agreement and announced to the Westminster Parliament that he was considering a new strategy that would exclude Sinn Fein from power. London, Washington and Dublin now insisted on surrender and had started to apply the whip to force a response. Rita O’Hare, who travelled to Washington to announce the glad tidings, had recently been barred as a warning that the US welcome was beginning to wear thin.

Dublin minister Michael McDowell had led a sustained attack on behalf of the Irish government, outing Adams and others as members of the army council and indicating that IRA activity would permanently bar Sinn Fein from a junior role in coalition with Irish capital. Sean Kelly was imprisoned to remind the IRA that most of their members were prisoners out on licence and that they could all be imprisoned at the whim of the British. Kelly was released when the British were informed that that the surrender statement was on its way. In a similar way the fate of three republicans arrested in Colombia and charged with training FARC guerrillas has ebbed and flowed with Sinn Fein’s approval rating in Washington. The surrender statement was quickly followed by their appearance, free in Ireland.

The political reward for surrender, to use the word reward loosely, is that Sinn Fein can rejoin the capitalist alliance that designed the Good Friday Agreement – London, Dublin and Washington, and work with them on plan B – persuading Unionism and Loyalism to install Ian Paisley as Prime Minister and agree to include Sinn Fein in the coalition government.

The fact that this crazy project is taken seriously, despite being denounced by Paisley at every turn, is a sign of imperialism’s desperation to cobble together a settlement and of the collapse of political understanding in Ireland. The project contains a number of implicit assumptions that, once stated, stretch the bounds of credulity.

A rational Unionism

The first assumption is that the aim of Unionism is to reach a stable political accommodation with nationalism and that it is a rational organisation able to agree and operate such an accommodation.
This is false. Unionism does not operate as a political philosophy but as a conspiracy to enforce sectarian division and political and economic power. The old Stormont regime applied across-the-board discrimination against Catholics and used pogroms and all-out state repression to prevent revolt. When that revolt eventually arrived it began to debate a strategy of making concessions to retain power. In over three decades, starting with Terence O’Neill, every leader who suggested concession was overthrown from the right. The British built the Good Friday Agreement around the concept of a moderate unionism willing to do a deal with Irish capitalism and thus ensure the indefinite survival of their sectarian statelet. They got the unlikely figure of Trimble and then his slow fall under pressure from forces to the right of him and now they have the full-blown bigotry of Ian Paisley with Empey, the assassin of Trimble, in supporting role.

Now the British have built the present plan around the ghost of moderate unionism. There may not be any moderates about, but there is a widespread recognition that the sheer size of the nationalist minority requires a modification of sectarian rule and some accommodation with Irish capital. Reg Empey made a point of recognising this in his acceptance speech. Behind the scenes Nigel Dodds and Peter Robinson have made similar noises. The idea is that if unionism is placated they will eventually produce some compromise that the republicans can sign up to.

However the last 30 years carries eloquent evidence of the inability of unionism to advance any compromise, no matter how clearly this would defend their long-term interests. The present leadership of both the DUP and UUP are the outcome of generations of selection where the road to power lay in toppling the leader who showed the slightest ambiguity in their defence of sectarianism.

‘No selfish, strategic or economic interest’

Behind the false assumption of unionist accommodation is another false assumption – the keystone of the present process – the statement by Britain that it has no selfish, strategic or economic interest in Ireland. It follows that its intention in the present process is to withdraw from Ireland, that it will not tolerate Unionist obstruction and that, if Unionists refuse an accommodation, the British will punish them.

This again is false.

The British fought a 30-year war which cost billions and have now spent another decade of intense political activity trying to get their ramshackle deal to work. It is worth this amount of effort because the northern economy is essentially part of the British economy and, however much it costs the state, levels of profit at the level of individual firms are very healthy, because the British retain a very significant stake in the core elements of the Southern economy, because a stable capitalist Ireland is a central concern of the British state and because Britain, as the former colonial power, is looked to by the other powers to guarantee order in this part of the world.

The mechanism by which Britain meets its political objectives is the occupation of part of the Island and that in turn depends on the active support on a mass unionist base that legitimises the occupation. This in turn means that, in every situation where a unionist leader suggests any level of accommodation with nationalism, the British conciliate the right wing. They tried to save Trimble by bending the Good Friday agreement to the right. Each concession merely emboldened the ultra-bigots and left Paisley and Empey as the leadership of the DUP and OUP respectively. Are we to ask which one of these is the moderate?

This has very direct implications for the coming political negotiations in September and January. They are not in any sense a matter of laying down the law to Unionism, of forcing them to accept reform or of punishing them. What is planned is that the British will create an environment where the Unionists will feel able to agree to some form of coalition government. This in turn will involve moving further from the Good Friday model and towards the preferred unionist models of either an assembly without government, where the sectarian groups lobby the British, or a giant county council with a majority unionist leadership and nationalists in committee chairs.

Provo duplicity

This British strategy is based around a further assumption, one that they don’t believe themselves. That is that it is duplicity and intransigence by the Provos that have caused the difficulty in the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. This again is false. For example, the British routinely talk of the £26 million Northern bank heist as having brought down the last attempt to form a local government. In fact the heist occurred after Ian Paisley had exploded the agreement. The same mechanism has occurred at each of the numerous crises that finally demolished the Good Friday Agreement. The unionists refused to implement the deal and the British, using the ‘Independent Monitoring Committee’ set up by themselves, provided cover by seizing on some, often quite routine, elements of IRA activity as post facto justification for unionist intransigence. However this British assertion is key in understanding how the mechanism of normalisation will proceed.

Political negotiations will be held to construct a local assembly in the North of Ireland with the aim of placing the arch-bigot Paisley, or his nominee, in the post of first minister. The foundation of these talks will be the surrender of the IRA. However the British have already indicated that the words of the declaration will be meaningless on their own. The future of the negotiations will depend on the actions of the IRA in disarming, winding up military structures and activities and ceasing money-laundering activities. The final word on these issues will lie with the British, through the mechanism of the IMC. Given that the IRA will depend on British cover on a number of issues – the armed section retained to provide protection for the leadership, the army structures needed to ensure the loyalty of volunteers and the financial activities that will need time to be legitimised – it should be self-evident that the British will be in total control of the negotiations and their outcome.

Their immediate aim, already expressed, is to explore what is meant by ‘democratic means’. The IRA are too deeply penetrated to represent a significant military threat. The importance of the surrender statement is its unconditional recognition of the democratic credentials of the British colony. At the moment this is a passive recognition. The next step is active support of the state forces, membership of the police and of the policing boards. Police chief Hugh Orde issued this call immediately after the IRA statement, somewhat indiscreetly confirming that Sinn Fein are already secretly in contact and co-operating with the police at every level.

Orange marches: sectarian provocations

Republican police

The fact is the republicans have already begun to fulfil a number of policing roles. No sooner were the elections over than both unionist parties indicated that the ‘right’ to sectarian provocation with Orange marches was a precondition to further talks. Immediately local committees in Derry reached an ‘historic agreement’ accepting an Orange march in the town. The republicans policed the violent reaction of nationalist youth, as they now routinely do in Ardoyne.

There are difficulties for a republican police. A feud amongst loyalist groups over control of drugs in which three people have died throws into sharp relief the unremitting sectarianism of the northern state and the continuing sectarian privilege of the loyalist groups.

The rationale for official indifference is that there is no question of these groups being in government, but this ignores the fact that the British pump millions of pounds into their coffers to buy them off and provide a whole network of ‘community’ structures to give them political influence.
In the ongoing feud a group of loyalists were able to take over a Belfast estate and force families out while the police looked on. The fact that the Garnerville estate is beside the police headquarters underlines the immunity the state extends to loyalism.

The call from police, unionists and the British is for conciliation – that is that criminal gangs should divide up drug zones by negotiation while the state stands aside.

A permanent atmosphere of sectarian intimidation permeates the North. Political unionism bedecks the local councils with Union Jacks. The loyalist groups repeat the exercise on the streets and follow it up with low-level ethnic cleansing.

Just how little northern society has changed was shown by the proposal to hold a republican march in Ballymena, a key Paisleyite base. The proposal was followed by a series of bomb attacks on local Catholic businesses and sectarian graffiti at local churches. The British, through the Parades Commission, having supported thousands of coat-trailing Orange marches, directed that the march stay within the confines of the only nationalist estate.

Sinn Fein’s willingness to conciliate unionism in the interests of the bigger picture and the embryonic police structures they have set up in nationalist areas indicates that they will increasingly find themselves in conflict with their own working class base.

Reform?

The fourth assumption within the normalisation process, the one the republican leadership believe themselves, is that it is a process of reform. They understand that they have agreed to support the sectarian colony in the North but believe that it is to be a reformed colony, where a share of sectarian rights for nationalists will, over time, translate into a united Ireland. If this were the case then the promise to disband the Royal Irish Regiment would be of great significance. The removal of what is essentially a Protestant militia within the British army would significantly weaken the Northern state. But this is not the experience provided by the Good Friday Agreement. The promise that the police will in the far future be 50% Catholic still stands but has been eroded around the edges, with the pledge to disband the RUC reserve abandoned and the civilian workers within the police excluded from the deal.

More significantly the police still fulfil their traditional role, with the standard sectarian reflex to Orange marches and loyalist intimidation. Hugh Orde recently announced that Orangemen have the right to walk and nationalists the right to ineffective protest – word for word the policy of the Orange Order. Police policy is that intimidation involving loyalist flags fixed at the victim’s doorway is not a policing matter but ‘community relations’. Moreover, if you remove the flag you are committing theft and must return the flags to the sectarian aggressors!

With this background it is likely that the disbandment announcement is a ploy by the British – in one stroke convincing republicans that real gains are on offer and on the other hand sending a wakeup call to Paisley that loyalism needs to be represented at the September talks.

You only surrender once. Only for one day do your former enemies clap you on the back and congratulate you on your statesmanship and far-sightedness. Within a few days it is business as usual. The future looks grim for the Provisional leadership. The British have them by the throat in the negotiations, able, through the IMC, to indicate at any time the status of the IRA ceasefire and to reward or punish Sinn Fein accordingly. Irish justice minister Michael McDowell has already indicated that there will be no letup in the massive financial investigation into IRA affairs in the 26 counties. Most significantly of all Taoiseach Bertie Ahern issued a statement reiterating his view that their would be no united Ireland in his lifetime. Ahern is not making a prediction or stating an opinion. He is enunciating the policy of southern capital, now determined to remove a united Ireland from the agenda and to underline for Sinn Fein exactly what they are signing up for in their subservient relationship to Dublin, London and Washington.

The Iraqi Kurds are the only ethnic group that is considered 100% loyal to the US-UK imperialist occupation of Iraq. So much so that when the US-backed Governing Council tried to introduce a new flag for Iraq, it included a yellow line across the flag that was meant to represent the Kurds. No other ethnic group in Iraq was represented in symbolic form in the flag, though outrage at the flag’s similarity to the Israeli one caused it to be rejected by most Iraqis.

The Kurds have a special position in Iraq under the occupation. This is expressed by a letter that KDP leader Massoud Barzani and PUK leader Jalal Talabani wrote jointly to President Bush on June 1, 2004:

America has no better friend than the people of Iraqi Kurdistan, it began, stressing how safe US occupation troops are in the Kurdish north, as opposed to the abodes of those nasty Arabs.

How has it come about that Iraqi Kurds are the only truly reliable collaborators in Iraq?

Kurds are found straddling the international borders of Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria. Kurdish tribesmen were bombed from the air by the RAF in the 1920s following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. However, Kurds have more recently been locked in conflict with Iraq’s Arab-dominated central government. They also have a history of colluding with foreign rivals of Arab governments in Baghdad. The KDP was founded by Barzani’s father and rebelled against Iraqi leader Abdul Karim Kassem in 1961. Kassem had led the overthrow of the Western-backed Iraqi king in 1958, and it is almost certain that Iraqi Kurdish rebelliousness was encouraged by the West. However, after Kassem’s death in 1963 at the hands of the Ba’athists, the KDP continued its conflict with Iraqi central government, with support from Iran. The withdrawal of support by the Shah’s Iran in the 1970s forced the KDP to surrender to the Iraqi authorities.

When the Shah was overthrown in Iran, war with Iraq broke out in 1980 and Khomeini’s Iran began supporting Kurdish rebels in Iraq. By this time the KDP had spawned a large splinter group, the PUK. Its differences with the KDP seem to be more tribal than ideological.

Saddam Hussein’s government cracked down viciously on the Kurdish insurgents, amongst other things using chemical weapons against the Kurdish town of Halabja. Large numbers of Kurds fled as refugees to Turkey, especially during the upheaval following the first Gulf War in 1991.

Kurdish autonomy under a Western air umbrella developed in the 1990s, but the KDP-PUK conflict turned violent in 1994. There is a saying in Turkey, Use a Kurd to kill a Kurd, and Iraqi Kurds have been encouraged by foreign powers to rebel against Arab rule but also to turn on each other. The tribal nature of Kurdish society helps bring this about.

A truce between Barzani and Talabani was brokered by the British government and they prepared for a bright future of collaboration with the USA and Britain as they prepared to invade Iraq. Kurdish pesh merga militias took quite a few casualties as they attacked Saddam’s forces in support of the Americans near Mosul and Kirkuk. The pesh mergas collaborate with the Americans to this day in northern Iraq.

What this brief account shows is that Iraqi Kurds have long worked in unison with foreign powers against the Arabs in Baghdad. Sometimes this has come in handy for them, but sometimes it has left them exposed when their sponsors’ policy changed. Numbering only 20% of Iraq’s population, they could yet come to regret their close alliance with Washington.

A parallel with another minority springs to mind. In East Pakistan before 1971, a minority called the Biharis tended to support the West Pakistan army when it cracked down viciously on Bengali nationalists. When the latter triumphed with Indian support and founded Bangladesh, the Biharis were treated as traitors. This could be the eventual fate of Iraqi Kurds.

Looking back on the Make Poverty History march and the events surrounding it, it is hard to ignore the effect music had on the event. But how did it compare to other political/music events, and how political was the music? I will look at various bands and collaborations and the variety of ways they tried to spread their political message.

A small disclaimer: this is not a definitive list of bands or events. There are hundreds of artists, from a vast range of genres who could have been included here, but I will just touch on a few artists that I am most familiar with. Neither is it an endorsement of the politics of each of these artists. As there is a percentage of people in society who consider themselves socialists, so there are artists who consider themselves socialists. Some of these may not make politicised music. This article will merely look at the ways of using music to spread a political message, or as will hopefully become more clear, political messages.

System of a Down

System of a Down are a band made up of the descendants of refugees who fled from the Turkish genocide in Armenia. They put a couple of songs with strong political messages on each album as well as peppering political messages in songs as one-liners. An example of a political song would be P.L.U.C.K. about the genocide in Armenia. Other notable songs include Prison Song focusing on exposing the prison industrial complex and the role of the CIA in the Iran Contra affair.

• Drug money is used to rig elections,
• And train brutal corporate sponsored,
• Dictators around the world

The other stand out track is Boom!, the video of which was directed by Michael Moore which tied together globalisation and the 4000 children who die every day from poverty in comparison with the billions spent on bombs to kill people… Creating death showers.

Their latest album, which came out after the start of the war in Iraq, begins by criticising the system which sends economic conscripts to die in wars … Why don’t presidents fight the war? Why do we always send the poor? They always send the poor.

Rage Against the Machine

One of the biggest and most widely recognised political bands of the 1990’s was without doubt Rage Against the Machine. Unlike System of A Down who spoke of politics in some songs, Rage discussed politics in almost every song they released.

As the various band-members described themselves as anarchists, communists or simply left wing, they provided not only criticisms of the existing capitalist system but also were deeply involved in campaigns to change the system – from Anti Nazi League benefit gigs in London, supporting sweatshop workers, campaign to free Mumia-Abu-Jamal and support for the Zapatistas.

They have taken part in everything from tokenistic protest, such as hanging the US flag upside down, to direct action, such as filming a video outside the New York Stock Exchange. This caused mayhem as fans turned up to an illegal public performance, resulting in the Stock Exchange being closed down for the rest of the day and the band members and Michael Moore, who directed, being arrested. You can see the arrest as part of the video.

Needless to say their outspoken left-wing views and ability and willingness to link up differing campaigns whilst pointing out the capitalist system as the problem led to defamation and attacks by the right wing media. For example, they were dubbed anti-Semites and terrorist supporters for supporting the struggle of the Palestinians.

Peace Not War

The two volumes of the Peace Not War compilations were organised by the Stop the War coalition around the Iraq war.

The first compilation, produced in the build up to the war, comprised of artists from throughout the world opposed to it. The songs were not just narrowly about the war, but linked various issues to it: imperialism, nuclear weaponry, US support for Bin Laden and the plight of asylum seekers in Britain are all featured.

The second compilation has a more angry feel than the first, probably due to artists outraged that the war had actually happened, even though millions had mobilised against it. Most of the artists here are from UK, USA and Australia, whether this was deliberate or whether artists in the countries whose leaders were the most supportive of the war were most moved to write anti-war songs is unexplained, but unimportant.

Like Compilation 1, this album also links campaigns and struggles throughout the world, as well as sampling speeches by Tariq Ali and Bill Hicks and using songs from demonstrations.

Some noteworthy examples are:

• Faithless’ excellent Mass Destruction… Racism is a Weapon of Mass Destruction, Greed is a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
• Son of a Nuns Fight Back: We’re on a mission to widen the schisms of capitalism and replace it with a system that’s for the people, by the people, of the people, not the evil.

The CDs can be ordered and tracks download for free from Peace Not War , their next release will be Peace Not War Japan.

Rock Against Bush

Another movement using music as the focus of political activities has been Rock Against Bush, in association with Punkvoter, a movement which through stalls at concerts throughout the USA managed to get 2 million, mostly young people, registered to vote for the first time. Their two volumes comprise of a CD and a DVD with documentaries and music videos as well as political comedy sketches.

Public Enemy

Although the examples so far have been mainly rock artists, unsurprisingly hip hop has a number of political acts. Public Enemy were ground breaking in both the size and breadth of popularity. They suffered massive state and media attacks including an FBI report to congress Rap Music and Its Effects on National Security. One member, Professor Griff, caused controversy and was eventually ejected from the band after comparing the acknowledged Holocaust with the largely ignored slaughter during slavery. He also attacked Zionism leading to claims of anti-Semitism, some of which appear to be without merit but others not, leaving his position in the group untenable.

On stage they had a group of minders called S1W (Security of the First World) which were a throwback to the Black Panthers defence militias. Attempts to link up with past struggles was a main feature of the group. Around the time of the first war against Iraq they released a track called Black Steel in the Hour of Chaos, echoing the sentiments of many economic conscripts their view was clear:

• I got a letter from the government the other day
• I opened and read it
• It said they were suckers
• They wanted me for their army or whatever
• Picture me giving a damn – I said never

After speaking out for the poor in Africa for years, a visit there had a profound effect on Chuck D (the main rapper and songwriter). In his autobiography, Fight the Power, he describes the shock they received as they toured. One positive outcome was their realisation that not many people had access to electricity, to which they organised the donation of hundreds of thousands of clockwork radios and tapes allowing thousands to have access to radio for the first time, and to spread their powerful lyrics to new audiences.

One of the most moving sections of the autobiography is the description of visiting the Castle of Elmina where slaves were kept before transportation. The description of the conditions in this dungeon, as well as the 2 foot of hardened bone and flesh which covered the whole floor, helped to inspire the 1994 song Hitler Day which was hugely controversial.

This song started:

• 500 years ago one man claimed to have discovered a new world
• five centuries later we the people are forced to celebrate a black holocaust
• how can you call a takeover a discovery?

Not surprisingly the song caused the American media to hit out. Chuck D defended the song claiming that there would be outrage if someone wanted to celebrate a Hitler Day for what he did for Germany. As Hitler represented death, torture and destruction, so Chuck D felt that is what Columbus Day represented to Native Americans and African Americans. Its other inspiration was that, at that time, the US state of Arizona still did not recognise Martin Luther King day.

Although they have not been working on music much lately, Chuck D has been active in promoting the use of file sharing and fighting copyright to encourage not only free downloading of music but the freedom for artists to sample sounds and other music for their own work.

Tupac Shakur

This year, 9 years after his murder, Tupac had another number one single in the UK – Ghetto Gospel: a song about poverty in American ghettos. The majority of his work, over the years, has dealt with this subject – from single mothers and his own life story, to trying to understand and confront the dead end outlets taken by many young black males – drug abuse and gang warfare.

Of all the artists using their work to discuss politics, he stands out as one of the greatest. However flawed his analysis, he portrays the system which created the poverty he lived in and despised so much.To understand why his music was so popular and why some of his analysis was wrong it is essential to put his music into context. Tupac’s mother, Afeni Shakur, had been a Black Panther, a member of the Panther 21 group. While she was pregnant with Tupac, she was on remand for allegedly planning terrorist attacks against the state. His aunt Assata had escaped from prison and found exile in Cuba and his godfather, Geronimo Pratt, was a leading Panther and a political prisoner. Tupac campaigned for his freedom, both in his music and at grass roots level. Pratt was only released from prison after Tupac’s death.

Tupac claimed to have been followed and harassed by FBI agents from the age of 9, due to his politically active family and friends. At 17, he already had ideas of changes to the school system which would actually benefit the poor in America, and would also expose and question the nature of society:

There should be a class on drugs, there should be a class of sex education, a real sex education class, not just pictures and diagrams and illogical terms…There should be a class on scams. There should be a class on religious cults. There should be a class on police brutality. There should be a class on apartheid. There should be a class on racism in America. There should be a class on why people are hungry.

On his first release 2Pacalypse Now, the track Words of Wisdom was by far the most political, the majority of it comprising of a tirade against capitalism and the American state, but also promoted militancy:

• Pledge allegiance to a flag that neglects us
• Honour a man that refuses to respect us …
• I charge you with robbery for robbing me of my history
• I charge you with false imprisonment for keeping me
• trapped in the projects
• And the jury finds you guilty on all counts

Tupac: social commentator

On the angst-titled I Don’t Give a Fuck, he, like Chuck D, is angry about the Iraq war, And now they [are] trying to ship me off to Kuwait, Gimme a break the song ends in a vitriolic rant against the San Francisco and Marin County Police Departments, the FBI, the CIA, George Bush and AmeriKKKa a phrase which was so used by other artists and protesters it has become cliché.

The album also contained his landmark social commentary songs – Brenda’s Got a Baby – about a young girl who is the victim of sexual abuse who ends up turning to prostitution and crack cocaine abuse, and Trapped about the prison system and its effects on society. Topics most artists dare not cover, and this was a 19 year old’s début album.

Even from this time, he was interested in doing more than releasing songs about poverty, he wanted to change society. One naïve attempt was the creation of the Code of the Thug Life which tried to reduce gang warfare.

Less naively, once he had become famous he wanted to use his influence and respect from other rap artists to sponsor community centres in every ghetto.

Unsurprisingly his youthful enthusiasm, promotion of militant activism and ability to formulate ideas to give immediate improvements to the lives of the poorest workers in American quickly gained the attention of the state and he had a number of run-ins with police. In 1993, after the Rodney King beating, Shakur came across two off-duty police officers who were harassing a black motorist on the side of the road in Atlanta. Shakur got into a fight with them and shot both officers (one in the leg, one in the buttocks). He faced serious charges until it was discovered that both officers were intoxicated and were using stolen weapons. The charges against Shakur were dismissed. What followed was systematic harassment against him. This included arrest for jaywalking and a 4.5 year prison sentence for sexual assault, which he consistently denied.

Whilst in prison he studied politics and history. When released these run-ins with the law inspired him to take an even more militant stance in his view of the police, state and media as well as engage in grass roots activity like rallies to free all political prisoners as well as campaigns to encourage poor African Americans to register to vote.

Although the only album released between his release and his murder was his least political, his vast archive of posthumously released tracks contained many other songs about poverty and politics.

He also fought against some of the more reactionary claims in hip hop, that the vast majority of blacks are impoverished because of white men. In White Man’s World he parodies this view and ending: It ain’t them that’s killing us, it’s us that’s killing us.

In interviews of this period, he spoke of his new vision to improve society. As well as community centres in every ghetto, he promoted baseball teams sponsored by rappers. This served a duel purpose, firstly to encourage poor kids from the ghetto to get involved in sport as a way to stop them being involved in gangs and drug abuse. Secondly to heal the wound from the media invented ‘Rap War’, which, in reality, was a verbal polemic between a small number of artists, glamorised and exaggerated by the media as a way to attack and denigrate people who were role models to some of the most impoverished teens in America. Focusing on these battle tracks also diverted attention away from the positive initiatives some of these artists were involved in, as well as the songs dealing with subject matter the media ignored.

Sorting out Africa and global poverty!

Live 8 in comparison

This is a long introduction for a rather short analysis of the musical events surrounding the anti-G8 protests but hopefully it has given a flavour of the mix of politics and music. The biggest factor to consider is the ability of these artists to speak, not only of politics and dissect society, but more importantly to link these struggles up with others:

Rage Against the Machine on Spanish imperialism, the Zapatistas and Globalisation; Public Enemy on slavery and intellectual property; Tupac speaking about political prisoners, drug abuse and prostitution.

This is what separates these political activists from the dirge of Live 8. The majority of the artists participating in Live 8 (U2 and Green Day being the main exceptions) had no history of political activism. What they had in common was they were famous and popular – therefore people would watch them rather than listen to speeches by political activists. This also attracted media attention. Where there was any political discussion to be had by artists at Live 8, it consisted of sloganeering – 250,000 people here – fantastic, great; more aid, fairer trade, buy a white band and that will stop the G8!

Geldof had the dubious honour to be appointed to Blair’s Commission for Africa. It is staffed with New Labour puppets who then lobbied the New Labour government for minor reforms, got some of them and could then claim the G8 had got 8/10 and 10/10. While the government lobbied itself for change, the media’s attention was on scaremongering over anarchist plots. Although it seemed to be the police planning all the trouble – harassing and lying to those travelling to Gleneagles, keeping them trapped for hours to frustrate them and re-routing the march to allow a massive target of a tiny fence between the protesters and the Hotel.

The solution presented by Geldof and his cohorts was for the G8 in their almighty benevolence to cancel some aid and allow an increase in the move towards globalisation of capitalism through the opening up of markets. And if Blair didn’t listen to your voice then you should just withhold your vote from him in 4 years time! This is assuming the majority of the 250,000 who were over 18 and were so concerned with poverty in Africa would have actually given a lying war criminal, partly responsible for this suffering, their vote in the first place.

The widest chasm between the political activism of the artists mentioned earlier and Live 8 was the complete lack of any link to other movements or issues. Anti war speakers were banned from the main stage and the Stop the War Coalition had to set up a separate stage to allow that issue to be heard at the Make Poverty History demonstration in Edinburgh. What chance would a speaker from Palestine or Iraq have had, never mind those fighting against privatisation schemes here, whilst government-funded, right wing think tanks are trying to force these schemes on the poorest in Africa.

For me, the Live 8 event was politically vacuous and a striking example of what happens when celebrities with media and state support jump onto a movement and take over the agenda and stifle any other relevant issues. When I first got interested in the G8 protests there were grass roots mobilisations against it.The office bearers were publicly known and accountable. Make Poverty History grew out of this, but was less accountable. Then came Live 8 who, out of nowhere, arrived a month before the events and organised a series of concerts which completely dominated and diverted media attention and focus of the anti-G8 protests, undermining the real agenda.

Alan Graham

References

Dyson, Michael Eric, 2001, Holler if you hear me

Hoye, Jacob, 2003, Tupac: Resurrection 1971-1996.

The images of voracious famine leaking out of the steamy deserts of the Northwest African nation of Niger, cuts to the soul’s quick.

Babies barely able to grasp a breath.

Mothers with breasts as flat, and milkless as boys.

Men and women, dizzy with hunger, laid low in the barren dust, awaiting whatever release that either death or food may bring.

Fathers weeping because there is a relentless drought, and there is nothing — nothing — to feed one’s wife, one’s children, one’s aged mother.

This is Niger, 2005, and according to broadcast reports, it will take about 4 weeks, or perhaps more, for any food relief to reach the nation.

It is a telling reflection of the lives we live that here, in the heart of the Empire, there are millions of people who have so much to eat, that the fastest growing health threat is morbid obesity, and it’s equally serious cousin, diabetes. Billions of dollars are spent annually on the latest fad diet, carbo diets, Atkins diets, grapefruit diets, and, if I’m not mistaken, a donut diet (OK — I’m joking about the last one).

But just barely.

What’s wrong with this picture?

How the world is organized, and how the world’s economic business is done, is what’s wrong.

Clearly, some people have too much; others have nothing.

One also couldn’t look face-on at these pictures, without thinking, almost immediately, of the recent worldwide music concerts which were designed to raise consciousness — not money! — about the starving millions in Africa.

As I looked at these famished people, babies so weak and drawn by hunger that they could no longer eat, as one girl’s tender mouth was a nest of parasites eating her tiny body alive, and wondered about the concerts that were designed to raise consciousness about the plight of the starving.

It reminded me that we live in an age when TV becomes, not merely an image, but a fact.

Millionaire musicians stage concerts around the globe, pulling in billions to the international media conglomerates, showing how nice and progressive and caring these stations are, while perhaps 600,000 people, in one country, will starve to death by week’s end.

Madness. Media madness. Corporate madness. Capitalist madness.

With perhaps one-hundredth of one percent of the monies used to stage the broadcast blockbuster event, virtually all of these people could’ve been fed, and saved, to live, at least through the rainy season. No doubt, those heart-rending pictures of human suffering will yet raise billions for organizations, NGOs, and charity agencies, and will continue to do so, long after these specific men, women and children, will have ceased living on this earth. Briefly consider the state of the world’s wealth and poverty:

• 1. 1.3 billion people lack access to clean water; 1.2 billion live on less than a dollar a day; 840 million are malnourished.
• 2. More than 20,000 people die each day from hunger-related diseases.
• 3. The richest three people in the world have assets greater than the combined output of the 48 poorest countries.

[Excerpts from: Seabrook, Jeremy, The No-Nonsense Guide to Class, Caste, & Hierarchies (Oxford/London: New Internationalist/Verso, 2002), p. 11.]

We live in a world where madness passes for normalcy, where the raging logic of the marketplace leaves tens, and hundreds of millions of people, in dire peril.

And the gap between the rich and poor grows exponentially, daily.

Yet, like little Neros, we play musical accompaniments to massacres of hunger, which can be prevented with virtual ease.

But, this is Africa; Niger, poor people, agricultural people. These are expendable people. These are but flickering images on a screen.

Copyright 2005 Mumia Abu-Jamal

Two Worlds Collide

Earlier this year, Scotland hosted a series of activities in response to the G8 Summit held in Gleneagles. The key events were the official ‘Make Poverty History’ march in Edinburgh, held on July 2nd, and the G8 Alternatives ‘Stop the G8’ protest at Auchterarder, held on July 6th.

For a few days, the responsibility for organising the specifically anti-capitalist, pro-international socialist forces, drawn from Scotland, England, Wales, Ireland, the rest of Europe and the world, fell upon the SSP. Alan McCombes has written the official SSP response to this challenge – Two Worlds Collide – power, plunder and resistance in a divided planet. This pamphlet is popular in style, easy to read and has an attractive cover. By means of striking facts, statistics, quotes and analogies it makes a powerful case, both against the neoliberal policies pursued by the global corporations and against the G8 politicians at their beck and call, particularly Bush and his sidekick, Blair.

One good example of analogy:-

The reason the rich have grown richer over the past 30 years is that they have perfected the art of exploitation. They can now move their factories like chess pieces across the map of the world, pitting country against country, continent against continent.

It works on the same principle as a reality TV game show, where the contestants humiliate themselves to win the prize, perhaps by eating a live rat or pulling out their own teeth. Except that, in the global marketplace for cheap labour, it’s not individuals but national states which degrade themselves by offering the lowest wages, the most draconian anti-union laws, and the most minimal health, safety and environmental standards (p. 18-9).

After his recent visit to China, you can just see Blair relishing the prospect of telling workers over here, that we (not him, of course) will have to compete with conditions over there to survive in the new global market.

A good example of Alan’s use of quotes is that taken from Guardian journalist, Oliver Burkeman:-

When I was visiting the Ivory Coast I discovered that since they’d introduced fees for high school education, more and more young girls were turning to occasional prostitution… this caused the AIDS rate to skyrocket in the principal towns of the country (p. 30).

This cuts right through Blair’s and Brown’s favoured method for ‘solving’ Africa’s ‘debt problem’ – aid tied to the IMF’s Structural Adjustment Programmes. These decimate a country’s public services whilst handing over its assets to the greedy global corporations.

Written in a hurry

Alan’s pamphlet was written in a hurry to meet an immediate need and to be as up-to-date as possible at the time of publication. This has allowed a few errors to creep in, including the claim that the Hudson’s Bay Company controlled an area covering one third of the earth’s surface (big, yes, but not quite that big) (p. 20); that the Chinese Empire stretched from the Pacific to the Mediterranean (possibly, the short-lived Mongol Empire was intended here) (p. 20); whilst the
USA apparently only had 31 thousand people in 1865 (surely 31 million) (p. 59).

However surprisingly, given Alan’s penchant for bold analogies, there are a number of cases where he understates his case. Writing of the Gleneagles Summit, he claims, Outside of Peterhead Prison, it’s not often that so many high ranking criminals can be found gathered together under one roof (p. 27). How about, Inside or outside of Peterhead Prison…!

Alan also calls the current US Republican Party membership of the Project for a New American Century the Genghis Khans of the 21st century (p. 9). Now old Genghis may have been brutal, but at least he offered the leaders of an enemy city the chance to surrender, as an alternative to being attacked and sacked. This option was not given to Iraq. Saddam was told to destroy weapons of mass destruction he did not have, to ensure that ‘Shock and Awe’ could take place anyhow!

And Alan almost has us shedding a tear for the corporate executives and directors, who like football managers, if they fail to deliver, then come the end of the financial season, they’re thrown onto the scrap heap (p. 38). Well not quite – usually they get massive pre-arranged pay-offs, even if they have failed. Then they often re-emerge to head another company!

Alan’s brief excursion through capitalist history, in Chapter 2, Footloose and Free, emphasises the importance of Marx and Engels’ contribution to the analysis of global capitalism in The Communist Manifesto (recognised even by famous billionaire currency speculator, George Soros) and their role in founding the first ever global anti-capitalist organisation, the First International (p. 23). If Alan underplays (but does not ignore) the brutality of capitalism’s early phase of primitive accumulation, particularly in the Americas with their Native American genocides, and Africa with its slave trade; then he does not hesitate to ‘call a spade a spade’, or the current globalisation project – imperialism (p. 24).

Alan also correctly locates the origins of the current phase of anti-imperialist resistance in the Zapatista Revolt in Mexico of 1994; however significant the later anti-globalisation protest in the imperialist heartland of Seattle (home to Microsoft, Boeing, Amazon.com and Starbucks) in 1999. Alan does not see Scotland, nor even Europe, as the epicentre of anti-capitalist resistance, but highlights the role of revolts in Cuba, Chiapas and Venezuela (p. 49). This is important when it comes to building the SSP on a Scottish internationalist and not a Scottish nationalist basis.

However, there remains a weakness in Alan’s analysis, which could still feed into a more nationalist strategy for the SSP. It is significant that Alan writes about an Anglo-British state (p. 47) and Anglo-American imperialism (p. 55). There is an element of denial going on here over Scotland’s contribution to the creation of the British state – particularly in Ulster. Scotland also shared in the promotion of British imperialism, in the form of major companies – James Finlay, Coats Paton, Jardine Mathieson – and by providing colonial governors, military leaders, missionaries and yes, slavers too.

Ironically, elsewhere Alan acknowledges the historic role played by Scotland in the imperial conquest and subjugation of millions on behalf of the British ruling classes (p. 51). Alan goes on to emphasise Scotland’s military role. In the 21st century, young Scottish soldiers from Scotland’s most impoverished communities are once again killing and dying in foreign lands (p. 51). Here, the positive effect of the current international anti-war movement pushes Alan towards a better understanding. However, some further examples of Scotland’s multi-facetted role in helping to build and maintain the British Empire would have highlighted just who our domestic enemies are; and the untenability of denying a Scottish component to Britishness, the UK state or the British Empire.

Taking this unpleasant reality on board would only give succour to British unionists (Scottish as well as English!) if you adopt a narrow nationalist perspective:- Scotland = all good; England = all bad. Socialists, particularly those taking inspiration from Marx and Lenin, highlight the class-divided nature of all nations, leading to fundamentally opposed political legacies. In Scotland we have had both the British monarchist, unionist (whether Jacobite or Hanoverian) and imperial tradition on the one hand; and the Scottish republican, anti-imperial tradition of the radical wing of the Covenanters, the United Scotsmen, the Land Leagues and John Maclean, on the other.

However, this is not just an issue of past history. Whatever some (increasingly marginalised) members of the SNP may think, their party is no opponent of globalisation, nor even of British imperialism. The SNP looks forward to Scotland winning its place in the ‘new world order’ as a tax-haven for the global corporations. The SNP campaigns vigorously for the retention of Scottish regiments which have served British imperialism well from Culloden to Crossmaglen and from Bombay to Basra.

In recent years there have been increasing demands that the SNP drop their opposition to Scotland’s membership of NATO. Alex Salmond can still (just) keep this off their Annual Conference order paper. This is because of the threat to the SNP’s left flank represented by the SSP. However, if significant US corporate forces were to give their backing to Scottish independence, in return for special favoured status here, then the SNP leadership would ditch its anti-NATO policy, as quickly as Bertie Ahern has ditched Ireland’s traditional neutrality policy.

Where were the SNP MSP’s when our 4 SSP MSP’s protested in the Scottish Parliament on June 30th over Bush and Blair usurping its previously agreed policy to uphold the right to peaceful protest at Gleneagles? They fell over themselves to vote for the punitive measures rushed through by the New Labour/Lib-Dem Executive. This spineless body was having its strings pulled by the White House and Downing Street and by the CIA/Pentagon and New Scotland Yard! Any illusions Alan may have of a gradual step-by-step approach to an ‘independent socialist Scotland’, first as junior partner to the SNP – increased devolutionary powers, followed by ‘independence under the Crown’, opening the way to the socialist republic – should hopefully be dispelled after their dismal performance in defending Scotland’s limited autonomy on that day.

Neither has Alan got to grips with US/UK imperialism’s, nor the global corporations’ wider plans involving Scotland. He points out that

big business… is fanatically pro-union. At the time of the devolution referendum, the
CBI polled the directors of the top industrial companies operating in Scotland. Of these, 80% were opposed to any measure of devolution. Over 90% were opposed to tax-varying powers. Almost all were opposed to independence (p. 55).

Alan uses this evidence to argue that being pro-devolution or pro-independence is an obviously left wing, and hence a socialist stance. Now, if company directors were polled on their attitude towards trade unions, the findings would probably be just as negative. But company directors have learned to live with trade unions too and to devise methods to bend them to their will in ‘social partnership’ deals. Similarly, most have the intelligence to see that devolution was a necessary step to preserve the Union, in the political circumstances of the time.

SSP MSP's: Defending the right to demonstrate

The majority of the ruling class (and its press) clearly gave its backing to Tony Blair and New Labour in 1997, knowing full well that the party was committed to a ‘devolution-all-round’ settlement for these islands. Devolution, like federalism and ‘independence’ under the Crown, is just another Unionist policy option. Those ultra-Unionist Tories, who launched their ‘Just Think Twice’, ‘Vote No’ campaign, were completely outgunned and out-financed by New Labour’s ‘Scotland Forward’, ‘Vote Yes’ campaign – something that would not have happened if the British ruling class really opposed devolution.

New Labour’s ‘devolution-all-round’ policy – for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales – represents the culmination of a developing New Unionist strategy. It was devised by the British ruling class to deal with the challenge of national democratic movements in the UK. This strategy was initially forged, on a more limited front, by the Tories, with their Downing Street Agreement. Quite clearly, after decades of resistance, first from the Civil Rights Movement and later, from the Republican Movement, Northern Ireland could no longer be run as an old-style Ulster Unionist sectarian fiefdom. Neither, after the rise in national democratic sentiment, following the Tories’ imposition of the poll-tax, could Scotland be run solely by administrative devolution.

New Labour appreciated the need for a comprehensive policy to bring about a wider political stability covering the whole of these islands. Through a ‘devolution-all-round’ political settlement New Unionism hopes to provide the economic environment for the global corporations to maximise their profits, particularly through the policies of deregulation and privatisation. Furthermore, New Unionism seeks to incorporate the Irish government as a junior partner in its plans. It also seeks the cooperation of trade union leaders in ‘social partnerships’ – a policy pioneered by an Irish Fianna Fail government.

This New Unionist strategy is also fully backed by the US government, both under Clinton and Bush. The UK state has been awarded the US and global corporate license for the North East Atlantic region. British imperialism is seen as a wholly reliable junior partner for US imperialism. US and UK imperialism have an agreed military policy too. George Robertson, former Labour War Minister, now heads NATO. The New Labour/Lib-Dem Scottish Executive happily give their consent to the use of Faslane, Kinloss and Leuchars for imperialism’s continued wars – although the British state is careful to ensure that the Scottish Executive has no real jurisdiction over such matters. These are reserved under the Crown Powers.

Meanwhile, the Irish government quietly sanctions US use of Shannon Airport for imperial use; just as any future SNP-led Scottish Executive or ‘independent’ Scotland would surely accept NATO use of military bases here.

A full appreciation of US/UK imperialism’s wider political plans for these islands would have widened the appeal of Alan’s pamphlet. For, if the ruling class has a unified New Unionist strategy for these islands, then we too must look to an ‘internationalism from below’ strategy, which unites socialists in Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland to counter their plans. When Alan argues that Scottish independence {and} the break-up of the British state would deliver a body blow to Anglo-American imperialism, he fails to recognise that US/UK imperialism can further develop its strategy to encompass formal Scottish independence – even if reluctantly, as they did over devolution. The UK state would, however, want to retain the Crown Powers to safeguard British imperialism’s vital interests – and there is every indication that the SNP would be happy to accommodate this.

This is why the SSP must launch a republican and internationalist campaign which opposes the Union and its Crown Powers and which seeks allies elsewhere in these islands. Has New Unionism brought peace and prosperity to Northern Ireland? No – it has brought the deeply reactionary Paisley to the fore, entrenched sectarian divisions and led to stepped-up loyalist attacks on nationalists and ethnic minorities. Has the Celtic Tiger economy brought prosperity to the 26 Counties?- well, not if you are a worker or small farmer. Meanwhile, the ‘Rossport Five’ have been jailed by the Irish courts with the full backing of the Irish government, for opposing Shell’s plans to build a new oil pipeline through Mayo.

The Rossport 5: Taking on Shell & the Irish government

There is no shortage of potential allies for an ‘internationalism-from-below’ strategy. We need this to oppose their New Unionist alliance – New Labour, Fianna Fail, the trade union leaders – and, pulling the strings behind the scenes, such global corporations as Shell. Our political answer to their ‘devolution-all-round’ now, or their ‘independence under the Crown’ in the future, is the break-up of the UK state through the setting up of democratic republics in Scotland, Wales, England and a united Ireland.

Alan wants the SSP to claim the legacy of the legendary Clydeside socialist, John Maclean (p.54). It is worth remembering that when Maclean eventually arrived at a strategy to break up both the British state and empire, he adopted the Workers’ Republicanism of that legendary, Edinburgh-born socialist, James Connolly. Connolly had to oppose the milk-and-water nationalists of his day – the Irish Parliamentary Party – the political equivalent of today’s SNP. They capitulated before British imperialism in the First World War. The SNP court global corporations now, and will bow before NATO before too long. Here two words collide – nationalism and republicanism. There should be no confusion in the mind of the SSP over which side we take. Alan’s pamphlet takes us boldly on the first steps along the anti-capitalist road, but provides no clear signposts when we meet this political forking of the ways.

An hour or so into the filling of the buses the police appeared in strength, led by officers from Lothian and Borders but comprising mostly officers from the London Met and Greater Manchester. They advised us that the march had been cancelled due to trouble up in Auchterarder with anarchists, whom, they claimed, were attacking buses taking protesters to the march. Upon calling comrades who were already up in Auchterarder we found out that this was false and that the police were trying to block and obstruct the demonstration from taking place.

Upon receiving this information we advised the police that they were trying to obstruct a legal demonstration and insisted that we continue filling buses for the demo in Gleneagles. They agreed that they had no legal right to stop us from doing so, but insisted that they go on to the buses to advise protesters not to go up to Gleneagles on the grounds of public safety. As they were doing this, we announced to the crowd still waiting to board buses that the police were trying to stop the demonstration. We exhorted them not to be intimidated or put off, that we were either going to march in Gleneagles or march through Princes Street. They responded with a wall of noise in support.

The police completed their attempt to put protesters, already on buses, off and three double deckers were ready to depart. Just as the first was about to pull away from the kerb, a police van pulled out and blocked it in. Seeking out the officer from Lothian and Borders whom we’d been dealing with, it quickly became obvious that she had deliberately disappeared, with her place being taken by officers from London Met. Our immediate response was to get the waiting crowd to blockade Waterloo Place, where we began chanting ‘Let them Go! Let them Go! and The People united will never be defeated!

By now both Donnie Nicholson SSP and SSY and Nick Eardley SSP and SSY were involved on the frontline, and again a special tribute should be paid to the contribution made by them from here on in.

A Superintendent from Lothian and Borders appeared and we demanded that he allow the buses to leave otherwise we were staying put. The crowd involved was roughly around 600 people and the Superintendent ordered the police van to move back to allow the buses to depart. When the buses left a massive roar went up both from those on the buses and those on the street.

We cleared the crowd back on to the pavement with the assurances of the police that there would be no further attempt to obstruct the demonstration. However, again, this proved to be a lie. For while talking the language of co-operation and conciliation the police were actively doing their utmost to stop more buses arriving to pick up protesters, doing so by calling the bus companies directly and advising them not to send buses.

Our response was to get the crowd back onto Waterloo Place, get everyone to link arms, and march down towards the police cordon that had quickly formed to try and block us from getting on to Princes Street. The superintendent re-appeared and we accused him of acting in bad faith, demanding now that we march through Princes Street. The crowd was by now behind us all the way and off we marched, chanting and singing as we went.

The police tried to steer us up the Mound but we insisted on going straight along Princes Street. They tried to block this with a line of police vans parked across Princes Street, but we succeeded in breaking through and continuing on. We reached the end of Princes Street, where some of us were of a mind to march up Lothian Road and into the Meadows for a rally. However, it became apparent that most of the crowd wanted to stay on Princes Street, so that’s what we did, marching back the way we came.

This time, policing the front of the march, were officers of the London Met. They were more aggressive than Lothian and Borders and some of them had removed the numbers from their shoulder lapels.

Regardless, we continued marching. Another Police Superintendent from Lothian and Borders then appeared to negotiate with us. He assured us that the four buses that they’d previously blocked had now arrived and were parked at the bottom of the Mound. However, he advised that they were already full of protesters (due to the actions, it has to be said, of an organiser arriving on the scene and splitting the march).

We demanded that we be allowed to verify that those buses were full before they were allowed to leave. The Superintendent agreed, but asked for our reassurance that afterwards we disperse the crowd. We gave him no assurance on that, it being obvious that he was trying to use us to do his bidding.

Denying democratic rights

A delegation, comprising myself, Nick Eardley, Kevin Connor and Vanessa Fuertes, all SSP members, left the march to check the buses. Waiting for us was Edinburgh City Councillor, Donald Anderson, whom the police had brought in to negotiate with us. We approached him, refusing to shake his hand when offered, and immediately demanded that he provide buses to take everyone up to Gleneagles. Not only that, we also took the opportunity of making a strenuous complaint at the presence of London Metropolitan Police on the streets of Edinburgh.

He promised to see what he could do to get us buses and went off, presumably to make a few phone calls to that effect. We then continued on towards the buses. Suddenly, the command, take them! was given and we were jumped on by the police and arrested.

The action lasted three hours or thereabouts, during which time we succeeded in shutting down Princes Street completely, a great success considering the role that retail corporations such as Marks and Spencer play in supporting the occupation of Palestine and exploitation in the developing world.

The SSP can be proud of the role its members played throughout, but a special mention should be made of Nick Eardley from the SSY. At just 17 years of age he demonstrated a courage and resolve way beyond his years. SSP National Convener, Colin Fox, sent in a message of solidarity and support to Nick whilst we were banged up in Livingston police station, which we all thought a magnificent gesture.

Over a year ago, comrades from the anti-capitalist movement, Globalise Resistance and the Scottish Socialist Party came together to create G8 Alternatives. G8 Alternatives immediately started organising, agitating, and campaigning to make sure that, when the world’s leading imperialists turned up at Gleneagles in July, they were met by an organised, militant, international opposition, in the tradition of Seattle, Genoa and Evian. A programme of events was planned; the G8 Alternative summit, demonstrations at Faslane Nuclear base and at Dungavel Asylum seeker detention centre. The centre piece was to be the Wednesday protest at the Gleneagles Hotel to make sure the G8 leaders heard our opposition. This last event then became the subject of lengthy, Kafkaesque negotiations between G8 Alternatives, Perth and Kinross council and the police – but more of that later.

In December 2004, the Make Poverty History campaign was launched – white wrist bands and a demonstration in Edinburgh on Saturday 2nd July were announced. Dozens of NGO’s and charities joined under the MPH banner. This was followed at the end of May 2005, by Bob Geldof and Midge Ure announcing the Live 8 concerts. By strange coincidence, the one in Edinburgh was due to take place on the same day as the Gleneagles demo.

The challenge to the left, including the SSP, was how to respond to these two belated initiatives. Of the MPH event: Following its launch, numerous celebrities publicly came out in support, including many with a genuine concern for the issues, a record of campaigning, but with a naïve perspective as to the solution. MPH caught a mood and this together with the media coverage that the organisers were able to drum up meant that this event was going to be huge. A glimpse of this was seen by the number of coaches that were being booked by all kinds of organisations, from all over the UK. It wasn’t just the usual suspects.

Hijacked by the right

The SSP’s response, to campaign and mobilise for an intervention on July 2nd around the slogan Make Capitalism History, was correct. As July 2nd approached, we saw the campaign being hijacked from the right. Following the unprecedented anti-war demonstrations on 15th February 2003, the Labour government had developed new tactics in how to intervene with such mass movements. Government ministers were now insisting on joining the MPH event and speaking from the platform. And the organisers welcomed them – Gordon Brown, Jack McConnell and Hilary Benn all took to the streets.

At the same time as welcoming these representatives of British imperialism, the MPH officials were trying to marginalise the left and the less ‘compromising’ opponents of poverty and global capitalism. They attempted to deny the SSP and other progressive organisations the right to set up stalls in The Meadows – the assembly point for the march. The attempted sanitisation of this event was highlighted by the official call for everyone to wear white – was this a sign of surrender or counter-revolution?

Backfired

This backfired, as it gave socialists the perfect opportunity to make a recognisable intervention by wearing red – making a distinct socialist section of the demonstration highly visible. The SSP rightly seized that opportunity and we attracted many to our contingent from throughout Britain and internationally. Unfortunately the attitude of the SWP and the CWI meant that the size of the socialist section was not at the maximum.

The CWI adopted a sectarian position, refusing to join up with the SSP contingent. Instead of having a CWI section on the socialist contingent, they chose to march on their own – but at least they wore red! The SWP, on the other hand, appeared to submerge themselves into the white-banded, white-shirted morass. Although some of their platform members marched with the SSP contingent, the official SWP position was not to prioritise the building of the largest, coordinated, united socialist intervention.

Then we had Live 8. According to the official website: An estimated 3 BILLION PEOPLE watched LIVE 8 the greatest, greatest show on Earth. What was that about bread and circuses? How does 3 billion glued to a TV screen eradicate poverty? How does it pressurise the decision makers? Deliberately or not, the Live 8 initiative took attention away from the mass protests that were to take place. On July 2 and 3, the media was dominated with images and column inches of coverage of the concerts. TV and the print media treated us to photos and comments of the super-rich of the music business – Why were they here? What did they think of poverty? When’s their next album out? Then, following inane answers they tucked into the free, luxury buffet, as well as the complementary bar! Oh, and by the way, 250,000+ travelled to Edinburgh to take part in the largest demonstration in Scottish history.

MPH: mission accomplished?

So the message from Live 8 was leave it to those who know what they are doing; the masses should just sit back and enjoy the music – Sir Bob and Bono will change the nature of imperialism! Added to this was the decision taken by Bono, Bob and Midge to have the Edinburgh leg of Live 8 on the same day as the controversial Gleneagles demo! I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but… Was this a deliberate attempt to redirect protestors away from Gleneagles, as well as to divert the media from the state’s attacks on civil liberties – Ronan Keating was so marvellous, who cares about the right to march and the right to freedom of movement around Scotland?

Despite, the attempts of Live 8, Perth and Kinross council and various arms of the UK state, (with the US security services lurking behind the scenes) a successful, well attended demonstration did take place on July 6. Those taking part were remarkably patient and self-controlled despite the constant provocations of the authorities. In the lead up to the Gleneagles demonstration, the authorities had continually been obstructive to G8 Alternatives representatives who had tried to get the route and march details agreed with the police and local council. In March, SSP MSPs in the Scottish parliament had got that body to agree that the right to protest at Gleneagles should be upheld. As the G8 summit approached, Jack McConnell, Scotland’s First Minister, failed repeatedly to give assurances to that right.

Absolutely unrepentant

In response, all 4 SSP MSPs in the parliament that day stood up and in silent protest held up placards behind McConnell demanding he defend democracy and uphold the previous decision of the parliament. Reasonable enough you would think. However, by the end of the day, Parliament had imposed some of the most draconian sanctions against protesting parliamentarians in post war Europe. The 4 MSPs have been suspended for the month of September, their wages and allowances stopped for a month, as well as the wages of their researchers. All of this was imposed without them given a hearing. They were tried and sentenced in their absence, without any right of appeal. Frances Curran, one of those suspended, says she is absolutely unrepentant. Quite right.

We must be unequivocal in our support – both financially and morally. Although the August meeting of the SSP’s National Council voted almost unanimously to fully endorse the actions of the four MSPss, there are some in the SSP who have been critical of the MSPs’ action. The role of socialists in such a parliament must be different, to the run-of-the-mill careerists from the bourgeois parties. We are not a parliamentary party that believes that change and socialism will come through a vote in a parliamentary committee or First Minister’s Questions. It comes through the actions of those outside parliament.

If the SSP 4 had not protested about the suspension of our human rights to demonstrate against the world’s top 8 gangsters coming to Scotland, then when are we going to be different? They were articulating, not just the rights of people in Scotland, but of all those internationally that wanted to come and make their opposition seen and heard by those closeted away in the Scottish countryside.

Some critics say that the demonstration had already been given the go-ahead before the parliamentary protest. However the SSP 4’s actions were further vindicated by events on the day of the demonstration. Despite an agreement with the police at the eleventh hour for the protest to go ahead, on the day the police were determined to sabotage the event. It was only through the persistence and ingenuity of demonstrators that so many got to Gleneagles.

Rumours of cancellation, police road blocks and intimidation were all used to prevent us exercising our democratic right. In Edinburgh, many were denied the right to join the march and people were arrested when they organised a march along Princes Street to protest against police actions. (See separate article) However, the actions of the SSP MSPs, the draconian penalties and the media reaction meant that many more people were made aware of the Wednesday protest and the way the authorities from the Scottish parliament to Perth and Kinross council to the police tried to prevent the event taking place.

Although the G8 Alternatives slogan was ‘Stop the G8’, this was rhetorical, not a call to disrupt the official proceedings at Gleneagles. Some groups in the anarchist tradition tried to do just that. However, it was clear that the tactics of the combined security and police forces were able to handle all such attempts. Chillingly, it was only the actions of the suicide bombers in London, which brought a temporary halt to proceedings, as Blair was forced to leave the Summit. The ‘please don’t mention the war’ item, missing from the official G8 agenda, was rudely thrust forward. Not that the G8 leaders responded by recognising the enormity of their actions in Iraq (and elsewhere); the bombings just provided them with the excuse needed to ratchet up their attack on civil rights.

Although the Left’s successful defiance of the attempts by the state to obstruct the Wednesday protest was a definite victory; this too was soon swamped by the media attention devoted to the bombings. Internationally, particularly in many ‘Third World’ countries, where democratic rights hardly exist and imperialist violence is a daily reality, it won’t be the Left’s protests that have made an impact. The Left, particularly with its longstanding British constitutionalist tradition, has some way to go before it can make slogans, such as ‘Stop the G8’ a reality.

Nevertheless, unlike many well-intentioned, but politically naive, supporters of MPH, we at least knew the limitations of the G8 leaders. Is it not ironic that the two specially chosen official agenda items – African poverty and climatic change – should so soon explode in the G8 leaders’ faces? Within days of the Summit’s conclusion, Niger was revealed to be suffering abject famine conditions, with little being done officially to bring immediate aid. Within weeks, a hurricane struck New Orleans, revealing that ‘Third World’ conditions exist in the imperialist heartland of the USA, and the nagging worry that capitalist-induced climate change may be responsible. The need to ‘Make Capitalism History’ should now be clearer to many more people, who attended the massive protests in July. The SSP must match its wider political work with the policies, strategy and tactics, which can reach out to these people and make this slogan a reality.

• (i) the failure to come up with anything to alleviate unremitting poverty in Africa other than a pledge to raise aid by a paltry 15 billion dollars by 2010.
• (ii) a set of announcements on climate change which amount to the final and complete death of Kyoto and with it the assured continued degradation of the environment.
• (iii) co-ordinated bomb attacks in central London which came undoubtedly as a consequence of British involvement in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

This lack of substantive progress, any progress at all in actual fact, came despite an unprecedented ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign spearheaded by Oxfam. Designed to put massive public pressure on the leaders of the G8 to cancel the debt and come up with a package of measures on trade and the environment, it culminated in a huge march in Edinburgh in advance of the summit on Saturday, July 2nd, a march which attracted upwards of 300,000 people from across Europe and the UK. In addition, held in conjunction were live rock concerts in London, Berlin, Philadelphia, Tokyo and Edinburgh organised by those sycophants to the political elite, Bob Geldof and Bono. A veritable who’s who of multimillionaire pop and rock stars turned out for this ego spectacular, along with the odd Hollywood celebrity or two, all of whom it is to be hoped shared the same private jet to save on aviation fuel.

Ultimately this latest exercise in bread and circus political campaigning achieved nothing – nothing at all.

That it did achieve nothing would have come as no surprise to anyone in possession of an analysis which penetrates beyond the symptoms of economic policies and an economic system predicated on ever-increasing profits no matter the human, social or environmental cost. Indeed, the very idea that these eight men, leaders of the wealthiest and most powerful countries in the world, would come to Scotland, stay in the obscene luxury of the Gleneagles Hotel and, there, in between champagne receptions and rounds of golf, get to grips with the mayhem, misery and wars resulting from their policies and their economic system, was simply ludicrous from the word go.

This then brings us to that phenomenon otherwise known as the Global Justice Movement.

Arriving on the international stage with a bang at the WTO in Seattle back in 1999, this heterogeneous movement encompassing groups and people of all political stripe has grown bigger and more coherent with each passing year. And taking stock of this movement’s progress in such a short space of time, it does provide a measure of hope where previously there was none. Prior to 1999 institutions like the WTO, FTAA, and the G8, were able to meet in almost complete anonymity anywhere they liked. And at those meetings they went about their business unmolested and totally unchallenged. Well, not anymore they don’t. Now whenever and wherever they meet it’s under a state of siege.

An example of this came at this year’s summit in the shape of the biggest and most expensive security operation ever mounted in British history. A five mile perimeter fence, complete with watchtowers, was erected around the grounds of the Gleneagles Hotel and manned by thousands of police officers. Chinook helicopters were used to ferry riot police from location to location and above them fighter jets flew regular patrols. Out at sea, in coastal waters, a US aircraft carrier was in position with 2000 US Marines on board ready to be deployed at a moment’s notice. All of this stands as a testament to the effectiveness and growth of the Global Justice Movement. Perhaps this movement’s most significant achievement in the six short years of its existence is in exposing the savagery and barbarity hidden behind the benign words and terms employed by the masters of the world to describe their economic policies. Words and terms such as globalization, neo-liberalism, free market, structural adjustment, etc., have all taken on a negative connotation in the public consciousness thanks largely to their efforts.

Working class movement

Various people, no doubt buoyed by the successes just mentioned, have referred to the Global Justice Movement, a movement which also encompasses the antiwar movement, as the New Left. It is here where the problem arises. For to label it New Left suggests that there was an Old Left which now no longer exists, or which has been abandoned for whatever reason. Well, this Old Left does still exist – it comprises the working class – and it remains the only force, or class, capable of taking on this juggernaut of imperialism and free market fundamentalism as it moves around the planet destroying both human and natural resources at an enormous rate.

The goal of the Global Justice Movement must now be to engage with the working class and draw it into the movement. Because, as effective and welcome as mass protests and demonstrations are, they can never be a substitute for mass industrial action. For it is only a general strike, in the UK but especially in the US, that can stop this juggernaut in its tracks, only the meaningful intervention of workers around the world that is truly capable of ushering into being the world without war and exploitation which all people of conscience and consciousness aspire to.

The mobilisation leading up to this year’s summit was organised largely by G8 Alternatives – a loose coalition made up of socialists, peace activists, environmentalists, academics, MSPs, and concerned citizens. In a week of protest marches, rallies and vigils, the event that stood out was the Alternative Summit held at various venues throughout Edinburgh on Sunday, July 3rd. 5,000 people attended plenary sessions and workshops on a wide variety of topics and struggles. Imperialism; aid, trade and debt; the politics of oil; and WMDs were just a few of the major issues analysed and discussed. Anti-imperialist struggles represented included those taking place in Palestine, Iraq, Latin America, and Ireland. Speakers and delegates included people like Susan George, Mark Curtis, Scott Ritter, George Galloway, Bianca Jagger, Trevor Ngwane, Dennis Brutus, Tommy Sheridan, and Eamonn McCann.

Thousands protested

Heavy-handed tactics

Three hundred and fifty protesters were arrested during and around this year’s G8, a direct result of the heavy-handed tactics of thousands of police specially drafted in from various parts of the UK. Their collective mindset was that of an army of occupation. Rather than prevent trouble and facilitate peaceful protest, they went out of their way to intimidate, confront and obstruct anyone who dared try to exercise their democratic rights to free speech and assembly.

Sadly, however, the most significant statistic was the 59 dead and 700 injured as a result of the four bombs which exploded in the London underground during the morning rush hour on Thursday, July 7th. Pictures of Tony Blair in the aftermath pontificating yet again about the need to face terrorism and the terrorists wherever they may be were every bit as nauseating as they’ve always been.

The irony is that the 350 protesters arrested were doing just that when they went up to Gleneagles. For, make no mistake, Bush, Blair & Co. are the most dangerous men on the planet, men collectively responsible for 100,000 and counting dead Iraqi men women and children; for the lives of those soldiers sent to Iraq who won’t be coming back; for the 30,000 children who die each day in sub-Saharan Africa due to hunger and preventable disease; and now for those 59 Londoners, many of whom would have been against the war and were killed on their way to work.

It is simple but true – the only way to prevent terrorism is to stop being a terrorist. These eight men, plutocrats all, their role and function that of representatives of the international ruling class, are terrorists of the most heinous kind. One day, if there is any justice in this world, the perimeter fence erected to protect them in their bubble of luxury at Gleneagles will be a permanent one erected to keep them incarcerated in the high security prison where they truly belong.

On July 7 and July 21, bombs exploded in London. On July 22, a 27-year-old Brazilian electrician named Jean Charles de Menezes left his flat. He was followed by anti-terrorist police and in Stockwell underground station , he was shot a number of times – eight in all, according to what was stated later, and three more bullets missed him.

Jean Charles de Menezes: executed by the state

Initially, de Menezes was assumed to be involved in the July 21 explosions. However, before long the police admitted that he had nothing to do with the bombings.

The events are fairly well-known, if controversial in many places, but it is worth recapping briefly.
De Menezes was observed leaving a block of flats in Tulse Hill, South London. The flats were under surveillance because one or more of the suspects in the failed July 21 bombings were thought to be connected to them. According to what was claimed later, de Menezes was thought to match the description of Omar Hassain, a July 21 suspect.

De Menezes climbed on a bus and the surveillance continued. Officers of SO19, Scotland Yard’s specialist firearms branch, headed for Stockwell underground station.

Three SO19 officers, codenamed hospitably Hotel 1, Hotel 3 and Hotel 9, approached de Menezes and shot him a number of times, apparently while his body was in a standing position. The Brazilian had seven gunshot wounds to the head, and one to the shoulder.

According to witnesses, the shots – eleven in all – were fired at more or less regular intervals. Which does not suggest the police or whoever shot de Menezes were panicking and in fear of their lives, as might be expected of those in the vicinity of an alleged suicide bomber. A rather calm and clinical killing.

Attempts were made to explain police fears of a suicide bomber by saying de Menezes was wearing unseasonably bulky clothing which might have concealed an explosive vest. But footage of his dead body revealed that he was wearing a denim jacket – not an unusually heavy garment for the time of year.

Stockwell Tube Station

That the killing of de Menezes was unhurried and casual, and not a split-second reaction by people in fear of their lives is the view of a number of people in a position to know. One, a security service source, told the Sunday Herald (August 21) that the shooting was not the way the police usually do things, not even firearms-trained police, and posited an involvement by special forces.

Professor of Defence Studies Michael Clarke of King’s College, London expressed a similar view, and The Guardian stated on August 4 that the newly-formed Special Reconnaissance Regiment was involved in the operation. This unit is special forces by any definition.

However, the official version is that SO19 officers shot de Menezes. It may be that special forces killed the Brazilian, but it is also possible that their shoot to kill ethos has permeated police with firearms training, especially in the heightened circumstances following the July 7 bombing in London.Confirmation of this is provided by remarks made by Roy Ramm. Ramm, a former commander of special operations for the Metropolitan Police, said rules had been changed to permit shoot to kill of a potential suicide bomber.

The death of de Menezes has caused a good deal of shock, and it may well be the first time somebody has been mown down like that on the streets of London for allegedly being a terrorist.

However, a little research suffices to show that gunning down the defenceless is not quite terra incognita for the British police.

As far back as 1983, Stephen Waldorf was shot and wounded in error by the Metropolitan Police. Fortunately for him, he lived to tell the tale.

In 1999, Harry Stanley was not so lucky. He was shot and killed while carrying a table leg, which apparently was mistaken for a firearm.

Nor is this kind of thing confined to London. In 1998, James Ashley was shot dead by Sussex Police on a drugs raid. Ashley was naked and unarmed.

And, of course, there are shootings connected with the north of Ireland. In 1988, it was decided that 11 RUC officers were not to be prosecuted over numerous shoot to kill episodes in the province. This legal decision led to international criticism.

That same year, the Gibraltar shootings took place. A court decision found that the three Irish Republicans shot dead could have been arrested and not simply gunned down in the way they were.

All in all, Republicans, communists and socialists ought to show the least surprise of all that the British state carries out such summary executions.

In the aftermath of the de Menezes killing, criticism from his home country was parried by justified comments that death squads are not unknown in Brazil.

Indeed, such killings by police and state paramilitary forces are widespread in Latin America and many other parts of the world.

Turkey’s police, for example, think nothing of walking into cafes where there are terrorist suspects and slaughtering everyone in a hail of bullets, on the kill everyone and let God sort it out principle of law enforcement.

The killing of de Menezes – actually, the murder of de Menezes – is thus not such a new departure for the forces of bourgeois “law and order”. What it does show is that, when the chips are down and the time is out of joint, Britain’s authorities let their masks fall. They rest on naked violence and state terrorism as surely as the police patrolling the favelas of Rio de Janeiro, as certainly as special police teams prowling the shantytowns of Istanbul.

Our enemy is educating us as to his true nature. We should take full note of the lesson.

See Wikipedia for a valuable source of information on this subject.