I VERY much enjoyed Kevin McKenna’s excellent article (Carillion, BHS and tax scandals prove there’s evil at the heart of capitalism, The National, January 17).
Before capitalism as we now know it (big business, conglomerates, private ownership, working for profit for the owners/shareholders) haven’t we always had some form of “capitalism”? The minute someone decided he was in charge, a leader, chief, ruler, king (and for most of so-called civilisation, it has been “he”) the majority of us seemed to be working for the greater benefit of others before ourselves.
The king in his castle, the lord in his manner all had to be maintained, with cheap – or better still, free – labour backed up with “taxes”. I am not denying there were individuals who “owned” even early on (Who owned the mill that ground the corn? Who owned a few sheep? Who was that tavern keeper? ) but hierarchy of oppression by its nature has always been top-down.
The worth of the person, and our very place within society, then and now, appears to be dependent on how much is owned. We seem to have a society fixated on money, what it can “buy”, what “capital” the individual can demonstrate (“My car is bigger than your car. Have I told you about my third holiday this year?”) And let’s not forget inherited capital, which seems to have even greater cache; some form of additional, historical worth, irrespective of how it was achieved. In all of this, the I’m-all-right-Jack attitude seems to have overtaken “what about you, how are you doing?”
But returning to Kevin McKenna’s article, and his examples of the lexicon of right-wing politicians, perhaps it’s time to think of some of our own. Maybe “doing a Green” – take you pick, BHS Green or the other Green at Carillion – to be used in a derogatory setting of your own choice! 62 per cent of Scottish voters voted to remain in the EU; we’re the majority. Perhaps then we need to challenge the lexicon more often.
Surely though the question is: what is the alternative to capitalism? Is it socialism? I would hope so, because it certainly isn’t any form of communism as experienced so far. If it were to mean that everyone within Scotland contributes to the growth and wellbeing of the nation, with the knowledge that everyone would benefit equally in the outcomes, then I’m all for it.
Will an independent Scotland be like that? Again, I hope so. But to be honest, I don’t see the imminent death of capitalism. What I would like to see is an independent Scotland working within modern-day confines of capitalism that challenges its weaknesses and downright aberrations whilst setting up our own infrastructures – social, economic and cultural – that will benefit all of us. Yes, there is the need for the individual, our worth and what we can contribute, but not the greed that sees asset stripping, pension raiding and the bonus cultures alongside food banks, poverty and exploitation.
Selma Rahman
KEVIN McKenna writes an interesting article regarding the merits of socialism over capitalism. There are certain services which the government should provide as they are key to the economic development of a country. However there is an alternative in the form of cooperatives.
Since the days of the Rochdale Pioneers, cooperative companies have endured the tough economic cycles. Whether it is credit unions replacing banks or communities generating their own energy, cooperatives can provide an alternative to the capitalist model. By having employees and communities taking a share in an enterprise, the benefits to society are there for all to see. The cooperative model is growing all across the world as people see the benefits of democratically owned enterprises.
We only need to look at our Nordic neighbours to see how this model can be a success. Scotland was home to one of the first forms of cooperatives when Robert Owen set up New Lanark. We should look to continue the progress by developing and promoting more. When given a level playing field cooperatives can be a successful alternative to capitalist enterprises.
Robin Hall
TASMINA Ahmed-Sheikh suggests Corbyn may be admired for never changing his principles (History will not be kind to the leaders of the Labour party, The National January 17). Where were his socialist principles when Ian Murray declared in July 2015 that Labour couldn’t oppose Tory austerity because it was Labour party policies stolen by the Tories?
Imagine if Nicola Sturgeon announced at conference that the SNP were now in favour of Trident renewal. She would end up speaking to an empty hall because people with principles would have left the party.
On Trident, Corbyn – a member of CND for 40 years – now supports renewal. Corbyn also supports independence for just about every country in the world except Scotland, because apparently we would need a different law system to England.
I never know if I’m listening to Karl Marx or Groucho Marx. At least Groucho was being funny when he said: “I’m a man of principles and if you don’t like them, I have others”.
Will Corbyn now apologise to the miners for the lack of support from the Labour party and trades unions during their heroic struggle against Thatcher, and should he become prime minister will he pardon every wrongly convicted miner?
Joe Wallace
Penicuik
MORE gritter names: The Saltyre (as long as it doesn’t start to flag); Sprinkle Sprinkle Little Star; Gritterball.
Alan Lawson
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here