Petrol profiteers

More than 150 years ago, Karl Marx identified the general tendency of companies under capitalism to monopolise their markets. A contemporary example, whereby the dominant companies are the market price setters, is on the supermarket forecourts. Why? Because Marx’s long-standing foresight is mis-matched by the petrol-price regulator’s “concern about weak competition in the sector and the impact on pump prices” (‘The Times’ 29/11/24).

The fact that the regulatory body is based on a false premise is espoused in its title – ‘Competition and Markets Authority’ (CMA) – whose description under states this profiteering as “retail spread: the price drivers pay at the pump compared with the price paid by the retailers”. The CMA reports these ‘retail spreads’ have remained above long-term averages since 2020.

During the Covid pandemic there was necessarily widespread working from home, which led to a general fall in drivers’ demand for petrol. However, those who had to go to their workplaces, ‘key workers’, were forced to pay inflated prices. Since, this profiteering has been allowed to continue such that “drivers were overcharged by £1.6 billion in 2023”.

What was the toothless regulator’s response? A compulsory scheme whereby fuel retailers shared their price information with motorists. The Tories refused, but the Labour government has committed itself to introduce a fuel-finder scheme by the end of… 2025!

Compare this ‘benign neglect’ by governments with their anti-trade union legislation which attempts to deny workers obtaining pay rises to afford this ongoing cost-of-living crisis. Thanks to Marx and Engels, Marxists understand the exploitative nature of capitalism and the consequent need to support workers in their struggles to replace it with socialism.

John Merrell, Leicester

Farmer tax

I’d like to add to the article in issue 1300 by Dave Reid, ‘Farmers’ protest exposes capitalist crisis in agriculture’ (see socialistparty.org.uk).

I have a connection to farming, as my wife grew up on a farm and coincidentally my son also married a farmer’s daughter. My daughter-in-law and her sister inherited the family farm when their father passed away, and the farm has been valued at over £1 million. So, does that mean they are well off? Well not exactly, no.

Along with the farm, they inherited £600,000 of debt. If the inheritance tax had been in place at the time, the debt would have risen to £800,000 plus. I’m not sure they would have been able to service that debt and keep the farm going.

As it is, the two sisters only employ one worker (my son) and the business can only afford to employ him part-time. When you see the land, with the buildings and farm equipment etc, it looks like a lot, but the income they derive from it is very modest. My son also works part-time for DVLA to make ends meet.

I’ve certainly got no objection to taxing the rich, but make no mistake, this measure by the Labour government will hit people whose standard of living is no better than that of the working class.

Dave Warren, Swansea and West Wales

Who are you?

Josh Asker, Editor of the Socialist

The Socialist has received a letter from Adrian Rimmington from Chesterfield, highlighting the number of unnamed articles in a recent issue of the Socialist, asking: “What are these people afraid of?”

The Socialist takes great pride in being written by working-class activists and young people engaging in daily struggles in workplaces, colleges and communities. As much as possible we aim to name the contributors. But there are a number of reasons why this might not be done.

For example, one author Adrian mentions is “Socialist Party members in Unison”. The article published under this name had been discussed and agreed collectively by Socialist Party activists in Unison, and was attributed to reflect this.

Other examples are “UCU member” and “Public Health Worker”. In these instances, the authors have requested to be made anonymous. With the proliferation of precarious employment, zero-hour and fixed-term contracts, workers can be anxious to avoid doing anything that might single them out to an existing or future employer. 

Unfortunately, socialists and fighting trade unionists can be subject to victimisation by bosses. Some employers even include spurious, often ambiguous, clauses into employment contracts aimed at intimidating workers from speaking out politically. 

Trade union organisation is key to challenging all of this, and for giving workers confidence to exercise their right to campaign politically.

On occasion, trade unionists have reported on meetings they have attended online from inside a broom cupboard, unable to have secured their bosses’ permission to attend. In an instance like this, the author’s anonymity is a tactical decision to protect them from potential disciplinary action. 

In the Socialist Party’s history, its members have also disgracefully been subject to victimisation by sections of the right wing of the trade union movement. Where there is a risk of this, there is also a tactical decision to be made, weighing up the pros and cons of an activist publishing an article in their own name.

In general, the editors of the Socialist share Adrian’s desire for articles to have named authors. For workers with anxieties about being named, we tend to encourage them and give them confidence to do so. 

But above all, our objective is to strengthen the workers’ movement, and the socialist voice within it. Key to that is a healthy workers’ press – read, written and sold by workers and young people engaged in the struggle for socialist change.