The relevance of Red Clydeside today

History doesn't necessarily repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

I was recently engaged in a rather lopsided discussion related to political philosophies. It seemed a good idea to take it from a 1:1 but rather disconnected dialog to a post where I can infodump and add a ton of links. The main topic is disability, specifically “what to do about the disabled” in a modern society. My friend, an “American capitalist” argued that the market will either take care of the disabled or create the conditions whereby they can be taken care of. Me, a descendant of one of those ejected from Scotland during the time of Red Clydeside for activities contrary to the public good (see the Defense of the Realm Act (1914) and the Munitions of War Act (1915) for more information that underpins why so many Scottish workers found Marxism appealing), argued that if the market was going to do it, it would have been done already.

First, some background. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (link), Karl Marx (1818–1883) is often treated as a revolutionary, an activist rather than a philosopher, whose works inspired the foundation of many communist regimes in the twentieth century. It is certainly hard to find many thinkers who can be said to have had comparable influence in the creation of the modern world. However, Marx was trained as a philosopher, and although often portrayed as moving away from philosophy in his mid-twenties—perhaps towards history and the social sciences—there are many points of contact with modern philosophical debates throughout his writings.

Marx is important to the discussion as his writings form the inspiration of the Social Theory of Disability. Indeed, it’s not possible to understand Social Theory without understanding the philosophy of Marx. (an important digression, I’m not trying to convert you -- dear reader -- to the Marxist side. It should be possible to hear or read contrasting information, weigh it, consider it, and either accept it or reject it. It’s important to be dispassionate and disinterested in such pursuits as this.) Marx helps us understand the rise of capitalism and the simultaneous rise of the medicalization of disability more than the many authors on the other side. Remember, capitalism commodifies everything - including the disabled. The moneyed interests form cartels and monopolies, and these cartels leverage their might to “guide” governments to create and enforce laws that keep their monopolies in place. Think me wrong? From where do diagnoses of autism come? From the medical cartel, enabled and protected by the state and the insurance cartel.

The Clydeside workers movement was a reaction to both the growing inequalities that workers faced, but also how the Crown used it’s might to enforce and strengthen their friends in industry. The modern disability rights movement is no different.

Marx often reflected on how capitalism threatened man’s true nature. He also identified capitalism as a producer of disability as such. Thus, Das Kapital is filled with accounts that highlights how capitalism’s quest for profit had a profound impact on man ‘robbing’ the labour power ‘of its normal, moral and physical, conditions of development and function.’ The ‘antithetical character of the capitalist mode of production’, Marx noted, ‘leads it to count the squandering of the life and health of the worker, and the depression of his conditions of existence.’ For Marx, capitalism was simply a threat to man’s health in general, since it ‘produces this waste of the workers’ life and health.’ The magnitude of this threat was underlined by Marx’s use of war metaphors in which industrialism equaled an ‘industrial battle.’ New technology also demanded faster movements, as when Marx used a factory inspection report that stated that ‘fingers must be quicker and defter in their movements to take up the broken thread, for, if placed with hesitation or carelessness, they are sacrificed,” which underlines how man’s value was based on how well the body could adapt to the system it was supposed to serve.

My friend, again, an “American capitalist,” is a true believer in capitalism and America. In his mind, America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. Indeed, America’s founding featured the promise of freedom. But, it quickly went off the rails.

• Shays’ Rebellion is often ignored in American history classes. Often, a revisionist view is presented that puts Daniel Shays as the head of an insurrection, and the illustration of the need for a strong centralized government. Lost in the discussion was why Shays rebelled. Sure, Shays was protesting various taxes and policies. But, what is seldom mentioned is that Shays and his neighbours in the west of the state were often excluded from the voting that happened in the east. The politicians would call a snap vote, not giving those in the west enough time to head to the capital and present their arguments.

• At the Constitutional Convention, one of Maryland’s delegates, Luther Martin, argued that he was only given the brief by his constituents to amend the Articles of Confederation. He was vociferous in his objections to what Alexander Hamilton had done in hijacking the proceedings and steering the debate towards creating a strong federal government. His speeches and writings correctly predicted the political world we see today in the US.

These two early incidents show how the well-heeled can easily capture the levers of power and control. American history is full of such incidents. You can find a ton of references and deep dives in the book, We The Elites by Robert Ovetz.

I have to acknowledge here that those countries that have used Marxism to underpin their political system have not done a good job in following what Marx wrote and spoke about. Indeed, much like the American elites, elites around the world have quickly and tragically gone awry. For example, Leninism is state-enforced eugenics, not Marxism. Maoism, likewise, is ethno-statism, not Marxism. Both treated the disabled, dissidents, and ethnic minorities terribly.

Similar arguments against Marxism note that it’s never worked, and that it’s record is tragic. I would argue that Marxism, like capitalism, has never really been tried. America, honestly, is an oligarchy. Here, our lairds continue to solidify our status as serfs more-so each day. Instead of the Defense of the Realm Act that was used to suppress ideas at Clydeside, we now have the Patriot Act and the Big Tech oligarchs that stifle speech and debate in the name of public order.

So with all of this background in mind, what would a utopia look like in America?

Consider first that the US federal government owns about 28% of the land, or 640 million acres. The US government owns over 45% of California. Around me, there is so much empty land that is owned by the US government, land that is off-limits to everyone and remains undeveloped. It’s this unmanaged land that often burns out of control and damages / destroys the developments that abut it.

What if I wanted to create a sustainable commune for the disabled of Los Angeles county on the land just to the south of me? What could we do there to fund the enterprise?

1. There is so much biomass here. It’s just debris. This could be converted to biomass diesel to power our farm equipment. It could be done on-site, using proven technology. This biomass could also be used for heating and cooking.

2. The area is so windy that our trees grow at an angle. We’re perfect for wind energy.

3. The area is so bright, we’re perfect for solar.

4. The area sits over an abundant closed aquifer, providing more fresh water than we’d need.

5. But, wind and solar are not stable sources of electricity. So, we could also site a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) electricity generating station here. In doing so, we could not only stabilize our grid, we could help fund our community by selling surplus electricity back to the grid.

6. We’re surrounded by an abundance of building materials. We could build earthquake safe, cool, and secure housing using the Super Adobe method.

7. We’ve got the natural grazing space for herds of bison, cattle, goats, sheep, as well as ample space for pigs, chickens, whilst engaging in regenerative agricultural practices.

But, guess what? In the land of the free, I can’t do any of these things. How do I know? I’ve tried.

1. State and federal regulations prohibit my entry on to federal lands. Other regulations govern the creation and operation of a biomass diesel conversion plant that make it so cost-prohibitive that only a member of the BigOil cartel ca afford to run such an enterprise.

2. The federal government literally owns the airspace over the area. They’ve argued successfully against our attempts to put wind power in our area. They claim that such turbines would generate electromagnetic fields that would interfere with the avionics of the the military planes that regularly fly low over the area on their way to Edwards AFB, some 40 miles to the east. I didn’t realize that our sophisticated arsenal was so fragile.

3. Whilst we could put solar on our buildings, we’re limited by the state and the BigEnergy cartel as to what that would look like. We could only design it to meet up to 80% of our need, keeping us dependent upon the cartel. We couldn’t create a separate or adjacent grid, selling the surplus to the state. The local provider has a state-enforced monopoly. We could create a commercial solar installation, sell the power to the grid, then buy our electricity from the cartel … but this is unnecessarily complicated and expensive when all you want to do is have your own grid.

4. The county of Los Angeles sued the local water utility to attempt to prevent it from pumping water from the aquifer to it’s customers … all of whom sit directly on top of the land above the aquifer. I am, and was during the time of the lawsuit, the President of the Board of Directors of that water district (West Valley County Water District). The state doesn’t want any more special districts. The state has imposed pumping restrictions on all wells, public and private. Again, the aquifer is closed and abundant. Prohibiting us from pumping what is beneath our feet will do nothing for the state’s drought.

5. The argument against MSR is one of cost per unit of energy. Unfortunately, this cost includes the cost of regulation. The legal frameworks around fusion reactors have been written with light water reactors (LWR) in mind. But, consider that the federal government and most states subsidize wind and solar projects, effectively bringing their cost per unit of energy down. These are expensive technologies. Fine. I’ll grant you the win on cost per unit of energy argument. If we can’t do MSR here, the area has abundant oil and gas resources. After all, Bakersfield is just over the mountain from us. Let’s build a natural gas power plant then.

6. There’s really no counter here. Super Adobe is amazing. We have a surplus of dirt and biomass. Los Angeles county’s building and safety cartel accepts building plans that feature Super Adobe construction.

7. The use of the land would depend upon how it’s eventually zoned. Can we mix a residential community and heavy agriculture and industry? The county doesn’t like such mixed uses. It prefers to have everything in it’s place. Tejon Ranch has been trying for decades to pull this off on its own property, and has been fought every step of the way.

So, with all of this in mind, is America the land of the free? Can you do as you see fit? Can you use your property as you like?

The people within and around the Red Clydeside movement, like my great grandfather, were protesting against the combined power of the Crown and the business cartels that made their lives increasingly desperate. The basics, food and housing, were under constant threat. Is this any different for modern disabled people? Has the market provided solutions to our food and housing insecurity? Hardly. Thus, can you at least see where the philosophy that underpinned Red Clydeside’s protestors - Marxism - would be attractive to marginalized (Clydeside’s workers) / colonized (Scottish) groups?

I know this has been a large infodump. I thank you for getting this far. I invite you to comment below. Let me know what you think? Would you want to live in such a community as I’ve described if it could sustain your basic needs and provide a platform for you to thrive outside of the capitalist 9-5 model?

— February 2025 Update —

When I wrote the original piece a few years ago, I couldn’t have imagined how much worse things would get—or how Red Clydeside’s fight against the Crown and capitalist cartels would feel even more relevant today. In the time since, we’ve witnessed a consolidation of power that has left marginalised communities, especially disabled people, in even more precarious positions.

Donald Trump and his faction of the ruling class have now consolidated their grip on American political life. The 2024 election marked not just the re-entrenchment of reactionary politics but also a renewed assault on unions, collectivism, and any vision of solidarity that might challenge corporate power. Trump’s open hatred of unions and his thinly veiled threats against organised labour reflect a broader strategy: to crush any form of collective resistance to the capitalist system that continues to commodify every aspect of our lives, including disability itself.

The Corporate Takeover of Housing

One of the most alarming developments has been the near-complete corporate takeover of the residential housing market. Large investment firms now own the majority of homes in many urban and suburban areas, including here in Los Angeles County. For disabled people, this has meant skyrocketing rents, inaccessible housing stock, and the near impossibility of securing stable, affordable accommodation. The market, which my “American capitalist” friend so ardently believes in, has shown its true colours: housing is not a right, but a commodity to be hoarded, flipped, and traded by the wealthy.

In Los Angeles, the recent fires have laid bare the failures of this system. Thousands of homes were destroyed, yet the conversation isn’t about how to rebuild for the people who lived there. Instead, it’s about how to capitalise on the disaster. Developers and investors are circling like vultures, pushing to rezone burned-out neighbourhoods for high-end developments whilst displaced families—including many disabled and low-income residents—are left without options. The parallels to Red Clydeside are stark: just as workers’ housing and livelihoods were sacrificed for industrial profits, today’s housing market sacrifices communities for the benefit of corporate landlords.

Climate, Capitalism, and Disability

The fires also underscore how capitalism has exacerbated both climate change and its impacts on disabled people. The regulations that prevent sustainable practices—like biomass conversion or community-based renewable energy—remain firmly in place. Meanwhile, the federal government continues to prioritise military interests over civilian well-being, as seen in their blocking of wind energy projects due to supposed interference with avionics. It’s a cruel irony that the same government that restricts sustainable energy development here in LA County has no problem spending billions on weapons contracts and fossil fuel subsidies.

For disabled people, these crises intersect in devastating ways. From inaccessible evacuation routes during wildfires to the lack of stable housing, healthcare, and community support, it’s clear that the system is not designed to protect us. Instead, it commodifies our needs, turning even basic survival into a profit-making opportunity for the insurance, healthcare, and housing cartels.

Red Clydeside’s Relevance Today

This brings me back to Red Clydeside. The workers who stood up to the Crown and its industrial allies knew that solidarity was their only weapon against a system designed to exploit and discard them. Their fight for housing, fair wages, and basic dignity resonates deeply today. Just as they faced repression under the Defence of the Realm Act, we now face similar threats under the Patriot Act and other tools of state control. Trump’s faction has made it clear that dissent will not be tolerated, whether it comes from unions, activists, or marginalised communities.

Yet, Red Clydeside also offers a vision of hope. It reminds us that collective action is not just possible but necessary. The workers of Clydeside didn’t wait for the market to fix their problems—they organised, protested, and built alternative systems of support. Disabled people, workers, and other marginalised groups today must do the same. We cannot rely on the system that created these crises to solve them.

What Comes Next?

The utopian vision I outlined in the original piece—of a self-sustaining community that values people over profits—feels even more urgent now. The barriers I described still exist, and the political climate has made them even more entrenched. But that doesn’t mean we should abandon the dream. If anything, the worsening conditions make it clear that incremental change within the capitalist system is insufficient. We need bold, collective action to reclaim our land, our labour, and our lives.

To those who may read this update: would you join such a community? Would you fight for a future where housing, energy, and basic needs are treated as rights, not commodities? The spirit of Red Clydeside lives on in every act of defiance against the forces of greed and exploitation. Let us honour that spirit by building the world we deserve.