Comrade Colin Fox

 Let me begin by asking you about your journey and what motivated you to become a leader. I noticed that you have a genuine concern for the people, and unlike many other political leaders, you seem accessible and attentive to their needs. I recall our first meeting, where you dedicated three hours to listen to me, even though we had just met. This level of dedication is quite remarkable, and I'm curious to know more about your background and how you developed into such an exceptional leader.

That's a good question. The question in part is probably applicable to Scotland and Britain. Unlike aristocratic leaders, we believe that our leaders are always under scrutiny and accountable. The leader is at the top of the pyramid and has been elected based on their abilities and the support they receive from those below them. I think this is the nature of our system. I come from Motherwell, a town in Western Scotland famous for being a steel-working town. It is an industrial town outside Glasgow, densely populated and based on hardworking and labor-intensive industries, with mainly laboring workers and some skilled workers. My family and environment shaped my outlook, but not all people in Motherwell are interested in politics. Trade unions were strong in this town, and every worker was encouraged to join because employers couldn't be trusted. Discrimination against Catholics was a problem in Western Scotland, where the Catholic population, mostly Irish immigrants, were largely poor and laboring workers. I grew up with a social conscience, aware of the class and religious consciousness that existed. I was born into a working-class family in 1959, and I was proud of it. I believed in the values of hard work, principles, sharing, communitarianism, and an internationalist outlook, which may have been influenced by Catholicism being a worldwide religion. These beliefs and values shaped my understanding as a youngster. As I grew up, I was exposed to different walks of life, such as artists and musicians who wrote lyrics based on their sense of injustice. It was uncommon to have these values, and I didn't realize it until I went to university. I learned that children in Catholic schools didn't learn the same things as children in Protestant schools. This lack of a common history and education led me to believe that involvement in religious education should be kept separate from the teaching of science and history. My political ideas were shaped by my family, town, and awareness as an individual. Watching and reading news from different sources helped me form my political views. I believe that my experience growing up is not uncommon for working-class boys like me.

Let's talk about left politics and the current state of unity among left-wing parties. Do you think that there is a possibility for these parties to come together in the future? Fragmentation is currently a challenge for the left, but I believe that unity is essential to have a significant impact on the people. Although right-wing principles may not always be straightforward, Socialist and communist viewpoints, on the other hand, are direct and straightforward, but unfortunately, we still face fragmentation across these parties. What are your thoughts on the possibility of unity in the future?

Unity is important, but clarity is even more important. Different political parties have different ideologies and opinions, and these differences should be debated to understand each other's points of view. Lenin wrote that conflict brings clarity, and I agree. he's saying the vibrancy and the living strength is increased by divisions and splits .Unity and division are both important, as they have been for some time. The independence movement, for example, is united in wanting independence and a second referendum, but there are deep divisions within socialists and nationalists, as well as between internationalism and nationalist prejudice. because the independence movement is united about we want independence we want  a second referendum we want it to be democratic but it's divisions within that movement is overshadowed or just ignored because within the independence movement we have socialists , Marxists people who see self determination is not an end in itself . it's a means to the end and you've got the nationalists and I've got a nationalist who also want independence where they see that as the end and then they would become right wing left wing and center .The emphasis on unity in recent years has become tiresome and simplistic. The question arises: how do we become a majority? What is holding back the independence movement? It's not clear economically, politically, or in its propaganda. People from all over the world can relate to this point about unity and division, not just in Scotland. For example, in the US, there are deep divisions between the Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans value ideological purity over unity, as seen with Trump. We need to have respect for our ideals and principles, and put forward bold socialist programs to win elections. There's honor in standing for something and making it clear what we stand for, even if we lose. We need to strive for a better world that is not capitalist, where we share out the world's resources and the poorest rise to a better standard of living.

Let's continue with the questions. This one is about nationalization. In my experience, there are two aspects to consider. The first is efficiency. For example, the passport services in our country were initially slow when managed by the government. However, after involving a private party, the process became much faster. Public services, such as healthcare and basic necessities, are crucial. Even in such cases, people often argue in favor of public ownership. Now, I'd like to hear your opinion. What do you think are the solutions? In my experience, public enterprises often suffer from corruption, primarily due to the lack of incentives within the bureaucracy.

"Two things you this year question: one is about efficiency, and one is about corruption. Exactly how do you define corruption? You know, the tradition that I belong to always thought that the way they deal should be to democratize it. So it's efficiency first. I've never liked things because, like you have a background in finance and accountancy, I've never had any sympathy with inefficiency. The left seemsto be often short, yeah, you know. We shouldn't see profit and loss accounts as a tightness, isn't efficiency spent from this direction and at the bottom income this expenditure list. I've always appealed to me. I like control, I like the idea of everything in its place and a place for everything. If you look at the Soviet Union, China, elsewhere, they had five-year plans, ten-year plans. Planning is very important for socialists and planning production. I don't know, I could explain why the Soviet Union went from beingone of the poorest countries in the world untilthe 1950s to putting the first man in space without having a plan. Planning and efficiency are supremely important. The left historically, certainly in Britain, hasa very cavalier attitude towards it, spending too much moneyon things that they shouldn't, etc. The consequence is that the right gains the upper hand and the perception of the public is thatthe right is more efficient. That's not true, but the perception is widely held. Referring to Motherwell, the townI grew upin, itwas a nationalized town, in effect. The steel industry was run very inefficiently, making massive losses. It was castas an inefficient lame-duck industry. 

Lots of people working there didn't do anything, they just got paid for being at work without doing anything. I think a lot of thatwas legend. We have to deal with people's perceptions, and for me, socialism means seeing things run efficiently. In recent years, the perception that the private sector is efficient and the public sector is not has been challenged. In the 2008 financial crash, the private sector showed its inefficiency and corruption. The private sector could not have kept the world alive without massive government intervention. Efficiency and corruption are closely related. Corruption leads to inefficiency, money being spent where it shouldn't be. The profits should be applied to the areasof greatest need: healthcare, housing, education, and food. Democratic public ownership is important, where the people who receive the service arethe monitors of its quality. In Britain, we have never had true democratic public ownership. Nationalization is not the same as democratic public ownership. We need accountability and immediate remedies for inefficiency and corruption.  

State capitalism exists in many countries, including China. But what you're suggesting is much better, where people are held accountable for their actions. Corruption itself is an inefficiency that needs to be corrected. Nationalized industries can also be described as state capitalism. After the Second World War, the government intervened to save capitalism. Thatcher later privatized it, but it's still capitalism.“

What are your thoughts on the current cost of living crisis in Britain? It appears that the central banks and government systems may be considering raising rates, potentially leading to a recession and causing people to spend less and suffer from unemployment. In this situation, what do you think is a solution? Would it be more effective to address the demand side rather than the supply side in order to protect and strengthen the economy?

The cost of living crisis in Britain is part of a longer-term trend where the proportion of wealth going to labor has been decreasing while capital's share has been increasing. This trend is a result of neoliberal policies that have been in place for several decades. The current crisis is exceptional because the economy experienced a significant slowdown due to the lack of economic activity during the pandemic. As the economy gradually reopens, there is uneven demand for goods and services, leading to inflationary pressures on specific commodities like energy and food.

The living crisis primarily affects ordinary people who were already facing squeezed income shares. Inflation exacerbates the situation, further squeezing their purchasing power. This has resulted in industrial disputes and strikes, which have been uncommon in Britain for the past 30 years. The trade unions, facing a weak bargaining position, have had difficulties negotiating fair deals for their members. Meanwhile, inflationary pressures continue, while wage increases are insufficient to keep up with rising costs.

It is important to recognize that the current situation is not a permanent state but rather a phase that will eventually settle down. It is not uncommon to see inflation during periods of economic recovery, although the extent and duration can vary. There may be a false picture being portrayed, and it is crucial to maintain a broader understanding of the underlying systemic issues.

One of the fundamental crises of capitalism is the contradiction between the desire to create a consumer base that drives economic growth and the inability to provide people with sufficient income to afford the products being produced. This contradiction highlights the ongoing exploitation inherent in capitalism.

It is important to approach the current period with a clear analysis and avoid drawing misleading political conclusions. While the cost of living crisis is significant, it is not an exceptional or permanent state. Drawing the wrong analysis may lead to incorrect political responses or perceptions of mass suffering, potentially fueling misinterpretations or extremism. It is crucial to consider the illusions of capitalism and work towards addressing the systemic issues at hand.

What is your opinion on climate change and the conventions where governments come together to address it? It seems like there is a shift in resource allocation, moving away from fossil fuel industries towards alternative sources like solar energy. I would like to hear your thoughts on the Socialist Party's viewpoint regarding climate change and their proposed solutions to these challenges. 

 We, as scientific socialists, acknowledge the scientific evidence that climate change is a real problem with significant consequences for our planet. Our standpoint is not to deny or downplay climate change but to address it based on scientific analysis. Regarding COP26 in Glasgow, it drew significant attention to climate change due to its location. However, our focus is on advocating for solutions to climate change that improve the lives of the global population, rather than making them more difficult. We believe that successful climate change solutions must consider the well-being of the 9 billion people on the planet. For instance, we support the idea of free public transport, including trains, buses, railways, trams, and shipping, as a means to reduce car usage and provide better alternatives. We understand the challenges of expensive public transport in Scotland and aim to promote integrated and accessible public transport systems. Our approach emphasizes progressive improvements and addressing global issues such as clean water, energy provision, and proper food security alongside climate change.