Letters Page

 

 
PIECRUST PROMISES
 

It was a sad spectacle which unfolded at the beginning of February when Cadbury, a successful and thriving company, was taken over by Kraft Inc of Illinois using debt to finance the deal. With the aid of a bridging loan of £630 million from the Royal Bank of Scotland, 84% of which is publicly owned, Kraft didn't take long to persuade greedy shareholders to sell out the historic confectioner.

The union Unite immediately expressed fears that Kraft would cut costs because of their level of indebtedness which would result in workers losing their jobs .These suggestions were dismissed by Irene Rosenfeld, the chairman and chief executive of Kraft who said in January "We have great respect for Cadbury's brands, heritage and people . We believe they will thrive as part of Kraft foods." Kraft Inc also gave assurances that British workers would not lose their jobs and plants would not be closed. Well what a surprise, today [Feb 10th] it was announced that the factory in Bristol is to be shut and production moved to Poland. Although Cadbury had had plans to do the same thing prior to the takeover, representatives of Kraft had reassured the Cadbury board and workers that they would keep the plant open.

This would come as no surprise to the former employees of Terry's chocolate company whose firm were bought out by Kraft in 1993 with guarantees of no job losses .Their factory was closed two years later and production transferred abroad.

Gordon Brown stated shortly after the takeover that the Government would act to ensure that Cadbury's UK employees were not sacrificed as Kraft sought a return on it's investment and said "We are determined that the levels of investment that take place in Cadbury in the United Kingdom are maintained and we are determined that, at a time when people are worried about their jobs, that jobs in Cadbury can be secure."

Well that’s alright then.

Even better our tough talking , unelected business secretary Peter Mandelson must have had them quaking when he said "If you think you can come here and make a fast buck you will find that you face huge opposition from the local population…and from the British government. "It is my job ,"he said ,yesterday ,"to watch out for the long term interests of Cadbury and to do everything I can to keep Kraft to the undertakings they have given"

Kraft, however, are unlikely to have any qualms about reneging on their piecrust promises.
A report drawn up by the US based International Labor Rights Forum names Kraft in a "Working For Scrooge. Worst Companies of 2009 for the Right to Associate" report. The forum said, "The report includes a list of the four worst multinational corporations for union organizing.The US based companies on the list use intimidation and even violence to violate their workers' internationally recognised right to organise...The companies on this list include Dole , Kohls ,Kraft and Nestle.”

Cadbury's workers, Unite and the ordinary Joe in the street are right to be concerned at the threat companies like Kraft pose. Moreover at a time when British businesses are struggling to access credit it beggars belief that state owned RBS is using taxpayers money to put British people out of work.

What can be done to stop hostile takeovers by foreign firms? I'm no financial wizard but here are a couple of suggestions.

In a protracted struggle to take over a firm many investors sell their shares high in order to make a quick buck. These are bought by hedge funds which are happy to sell the company off because they're only interested in profit not in the future of the company or it's workers.

At present the victory margin for a takeover is 50% plus one share. This could be raised to 60% and anyone who bought shares during the offer period should have their voting rights frozen until the battle for the company had ended, thereby heading the profiteers off at the pass

In addition workers should control a statutory percentage of shares in the company ensuring that the rights of the labour force are given priority over a quick profit for shareholders.
                                                                                                      

Liz Walker
Alness
Easter Ross


 
 
 

Opportunity Missed

 

 

I am a regular reader of DGS online magazine and agree wholeheartedly with political principles the DGS subscribes to. In the founding statement of the DGS you write:

We offer a critical voice to political extremism whether it is of the left or the right. We must not forget that the experience of what used to be called ‘actually existing socialism’ was authoritarian and incompatible with genuine freedom and democracy.

So I was surprised that in your special issue published in the fall of 2009 to find one apologist after another line up to defend Marxist-Leninism. To read contributions ‘lamenting the passing of the Soviet Union’ written by apologists for totalitarianism, was incredible for a magazine which apparently believes that ‘actually existing socialism was incompatible with genuine freedom and democracy’.

With the exception of one or two articles every other piece was written by members of Marxist-Leninist organisations who let’s face it belong to political traditions with blood on their hands.

Where was the article about Gorbachev and Perestroika and the genuine attempts made to democratise the totalitarian system. Where was the article about the Gulag and the millions who perished in Siberia under Bolshevik rule? Where was the article about Lenin abolishing the Constituent Assemblies, or the article about Trotsky using the Red Army to crush the Kronstadt revolt?

Instead we have arrogant Leninists, like Luke Ivory yelling that he has found the one true faith that offers ‘a fully rounded out analysis rather than a naïve and confused understanding’. This type of religiosity will do the DGS no favours.

These apologists for totalitarianism are incapable of critically engaging with their own authoritarian history. Surely it is true that those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. Yet it is the very refusal by Marxist-Leninists to learn from history, which makes vanguard groups political extremists. Just look at what they stand for: the abolition of parliamentary democracy and the seizure of state power through violent revolution. These people have learned nothing.

 

Jerome Harvie

Please send your letters by e-mail to democraticgreensocialist@talktalk.net
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The Left and The General Election

Whilst the bookies and the chattering classes speculate on who will win the next General Election it is already clear who the losers will be. Pensioners, the sick, the unemployed, the poor and working class communities the length and breadth of the country will find themselves under increasing attack as the political consensus of the main parties scapegoats them for the financial crisis.

Many of those on the left are currently arguing over the degrees of how bad these attacks will be. Would a Labour Government be the lesser of two evils? Probably…but an evil nonetheless. Yet to many the argument to try and stop the Tories is a compelling one. The polarisation that will occur come May 6th will see a squeeze on parties of the left, and here in Scotland the SNP, as voters hold their nose and back Labour in an attempt to prevent a Conservative victory.

In such circumstances it is important for the left to be realistic. Results are likely to be poor in the constituencies where we choose to stand. Yet it is important that the socialist banner is raised across the country in order to keep the politics of equality, justice, fairness and a vision of a better world, a socialist world, on the political agenda.

No one in Solidarity needs any reminding that the barriers to future left unity in Scotland remain formidable. It is unlikely that there will be any formal reconciliation anytime soon. Yet in such trying and difficult political conditions it is surely vital that the left seeks, where possible, to avoid making things even harder by ensuring that we don’t stand against each other and dilute our impact further.

Solidarity is currently involved in talks with the Scottish Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (STUSC). The coalition has been initiated to offer a left alternative to the parties of big business in the forthcoming General Election. It was also established in the hope of avoiding competing left parties on the ballot paper. In Scotland and the rest of the UK the coalition will see leading trade unionists and the largest socialist formations co-operating to provide an alternative vision for voters.

An all members meeting in early March will decide Solidarity’s final election strategy, but our involvement in STUSC is part of a process that started at our December 2008 National Steering Committee. At that meeting we agreed that the party should seek left unity in elections or at least, where possible, to look for the parties of the left to achieve a left agreement not to stand against one another. This approach was ratified at a January 2009 All Members Meeting where comrades discussed a report of the RMT organised conference on “The Crisis in Working Class Representation.”

It was on this basis that Solidarity entered into the NO2EU-Yes to Democracy Coalition that fought the June 2009 European Election. Although many comrades had issue with some aspects of the coalition, the party became involved in a project, led by a National Trade Union (The RMT), that tried to provide a left alternative to New Labour. The decision to participate in No2EU was entirely consistent with our position on left unity/agreement.

We also attempted to make sure that a left unity candidate could be sought for the recent Glasgow North East by-election. In the wake of the economic crisis and the fact that working class communities the length and breadth of the country were paying the price of the bankers bail out, we wrote to The Scottish Socialist Party and contacted senior left trade unionists in Scotland in an attempt to avoid the situation of a number of left parties competing for the vote. Unfortunately we were unsuccessful in those attempts and reluctantly we stood as one of three left parties in that election. Solidarity emerged with a vote several times larger than those other parties put together but yet another opportunity for a single socialist alternative was lost.

Following on the June European Election, the coalition partners of No2EU met again to discuss prospects for a General Election coalition of socialists and trade unionists. As a constituent part of No2EU, Solidarity was involved in these original steering group discussions. I attended one such meeting in London in September where the issue of left unity and in particular left unity in Scotland formed part of the discussion. Amongst the coalition partners at the time were The Communist Party of Britain (CPB) who expressed concern that Solidarity’s (and only Solidarity’s) continued involvement in the process nationally could be seen as a barrier to left unity in Scotland.

In order to remove this barrier I proposed that Solidarity withdraw from the national negotiations and instead invitations be sent to the different left organisations in Scotland on an equal basis. This was entirely in line with our party policy and my decision was ratified by the September NSC of Solidarity.

It has therefore been disappointing to learn that the CPB had subsequently withdrawn from TUSC and that the SSP and the SLP have indicated they will not be participating in the coalition.

It is surely to be hoped that despite the fact no formal electoral coalition involving the different parties on the left in Scotland could be established that we can at least work together to avoid potential clashes. This will require some patience, compromise and negotiation rather than lists of candidates being presented as fait accompli.The left cannot afford to spend time and valuable resources fighting itself at a time when the main parties are united in their attempts to make the working class pay the price for capitalisms failures.

 

Graeme McIverNational SecretarySolidarity, Scotland’s Socialist Movement


The men that no one wants

The recent announcement by a group claiming to be the Scottish Defence League to march in Edinburgh has caused uproar on the left. Now it seems that Unite Against Fascism are organising a "counter-demo" to defeat the "Nazis".

Yet these skin headed men, and they are exclusively men, are not "Nazis or "fascists". In a previous life they were hammering lumps out of one another at football matches. Indeed many innocent passers by at the demo and counter demo will simply presume that the "Edinburgh derby must be on today".

Neither do they look like "Nazis" to be honest. Look closely and you will see that they look rather lost and confused. They are a generation cast aside as the old saying goes.

No one wants these these men any more.

The football clubs, keen to win over a middle class audience don't want them as they are bad for business.

Women don't want or need them either. Feminism has nurtured a generation of women who will just not put up with the shite their mothers put up with.

Fathers for Justice anyone? But even the children don't want them. When a family breaks up most kids will want to stay with "mummy".

And neither does the economy need them. These thugs used to be called "factory fodder". But the factory's are long gone and won’t be coming back.

So, we are left with a bunch of angry men who no one wants looking for someone to blame. Muslims are an easy target. Next month it will be gays or Poles or whatever.

Most sensible and balanced people would give the SDL a wide berth. But not the left.

Intoxicated by its own language and wild imagination the UAF are getting ready to "mobilise" its forces to "reclaim the streets" from the "Nazis".

What arrant childish nonsense.

Unite Against Fascism should change its name to Unite Against Angry Working Class Men that No one Wants.

Maybe instead of shouting "Nazis" or "fascists", the UAF should really get to grips with the problem and hand out anger management leaflets or the addresses of some really good Cognitive Behavioural Therapists. Mood stabilizing drugs would even help in the short term. For deep down these men's problems are psychological not political.

Politics is just a symptom of their disease. Let's not encourage them. They need help.

Bob Robertson.  Penrith.