Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Tokyo's standard of living (1988)

From the June 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

The image of Japanese business methods and industry - happy workers doing their best in a paternalistic environment - has been held up to us as an example to follow if we want a "prosperous Britain" and high living standards for ourselves. The Japanese way of industrial life has been introduced here: no Union or one Union, no strike deals; works managers wearing overalls like machine operators; everyone from the managing director down eating the same food in the same canteen. Equality and prosperity for all . . .  so we are told.

Intriguing therefore to open The Times and see the headline "Tokyo wage slaves resist leisure lure". It seems that things in the Land of Blossom are not as idyllic as they would have us think.

Life, it seems, is getting harder for the indoctrinated workaholics of Tokyo. The government may be trying to persuade them to take two day week-ends, but, high prices having forced moves into the suburbs, they have longer commuting times, and fewer staff mean longer working hours under greater pressure. Tokyo's workers are beginning to realise that "their” economy may be booming but they themselves have nothing to show for their extra effort. A recent trade union survey showed that 76 per cent felt overworked and 90 per cent find it hard to make ends meet. Holidays are still the exception rather than the rule as workers fear to lose out on promotion when employers still rate hours worked above results achieved. Is it too much to hope that, after so many years of hardworking unquestioning obedience these first stirrings of awareness are signs that workers in Japan are waking up to their exploited position? Compared with workers in other developed countries their standard of living may be high, but what a standard of life!
Eva Goodman

The Secret of "High" Wages (1926)

From the April 1926 issue of the Socialist Standard

Quite a number of people appear to have discovered America, including the "Daily Mail" and Mr. Oswald Mosley. "Why is it," they ask, “that the American workman is paid at a higher rate than the Englishman, yet his employers make considerable profits?" The "Daily Mail" apparently considers the subject interesting enough to dispatch a special commission of trade unionists to investigate; while Mr. Oswald Mosley has already returned with the information that better machinery is the secret. This was pointed out in the "Socialist Standard" some fifteen or sixteen years ago by our contributor A. E. J.; in fact, an acquaintance with Marxian economics would predispose one to draw that conclusion in advance of the actual evidence.

What is not pointed out, however, by these discoverers is the fact that, in spite of his higher wages, the American worker is relatively in a worse position than his British compeer. This was illustrated by the existence of six million unemployed in the U.S.A. less than five years ago. It is illustrated by such facts as are described on page 24 of our new pamphlet on "Socialism." The mode of organisation in American bread factories is to divide the plant into two sets of machinery operated by two gangs of men who are pitted against one another in the endeavour to obtain the maximum speed. The net result is that the American workers are faced with greater insecurity as a reward for greater productivity while the master class of America enjoys the fruits of their labour on a scale which arouses the envy of their British competitors.

The facts of American production give the lie to the oft repeated claim that lower wages in Britain will bring prosperity to all; but, correctly understood, they also illustrate the futility of the propaganda of the "Daily Herald” and the Labour leaders on behalf of American methods. These gentry, of course, pretend that higher wages are the solution of the unemployed problem through the restoration of the home markets; five seconds' reflection, however, will reveal the absurdity of this argument.

The master class do not control production simply to supply the markets; they do not employ workers to produce goods merely in order to sell them again. They do these things in order to obtain a profit! Consequently, they will adopt a policy of higher wages only when they can see the possibility of more profits arising as a consequence. The "Herald” and its satellites are fond of arguing as though the American employers paid higher wages in order to avoid slumps; but, as pointed out in our pamphlet, the higher wage-rate of America is the result of the fact that capitalism there commenced with the workers occupying a more favourable social position than they did in Europe. Their ability to settle on the land as independent proprietors resulted in a scarcity of labour-power in the industrial centres. Hence the more rapid strides which the machine has made in that country.

The most important point to bear in mind, however, is that wherever capitalism exists, no matter what standard of life the workers possess, that standard tends to fall in relation to that of the master class. In other words, the share of the workers in the total product of their labour grows smaller with every advance in the powers of production, whether it be the result of improved machinery, better organisation, speeding up, technical education, or the like. According to Prof. Hansen, of Minnesota University: "From 1897 to 1915 real wages were falling in spite of an enormous increase in national production.” (American Economic Review, March, 1925.)

Increased production, either with high wages or without, leads to no improvement of the working-class position; on the contrary, every boom leads inevitably to the slump. In its issue of March 20th, the “Daily Herald” insults the intelligence by comparing Colonel Willey’s observations upon slumps and waste with the analysis presented in "Capital,” and expresses its gratitude for the fatuous suggestion that the elimination of waste means "less labour for the workers, more recreation and no attack on wages.” If Colonel Willey means by "less labour,” an increase in the unemployed, if by "recreation,” he means promenading the streets asking for work or maintenance, and if he means that the unemployed have no wages to be attacked, then, we may, of course, agree with him; but it cannot be too often emphasised that all economy under the existing system benefits the masters at the expense of the workers.

The "Rooster" thus demonstrates once more the fact that capitalist economics dominate its outlook. It wishes to teach our masters how to run their own system. As an agent of confusion it is a worthy rival of its Tory competitors.
Eric Boden

The Paris Commune (1926)

From the March 1926 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist attaches no mystical importance to dates. Hence he is not given overmuch to the celebration of anniversaries. There is one event, however, in the annals of the class-struggle which needs to be kept in mind for the lessons to be learnt therefrom..

In March, 1871, after enduring the vile horrors of a prolonged siege, the working class of Paris rose against their oppressors and proceeded to administer the affairs of the city. Their victory was short-lived. Before the end of May the Government troops, assisted by their late "enemies" the Germans, overthrew the Commune and carried on for several days the wholesale massacre of its supporters.

Space does not permit here a detailed account of this historic episode, but one or two salient features may usefully be dwelt upon. The curious reader may consult Lissagaray’s “History of the Commune,” and Marx’s “Civil War in France” for fuller light.

During the siege the ruling class of France had been compelled to protect their property by permitting the workers of the city to arm. As usual, they exploited the patriotic illusions and economic ignorance of their slaves. The workers paid for their arms themselves.

After the armistice the authorities, naturally apprehensive as to what an armed and discontented working class might attempt, endeavoured to disarm them. The workers resisted, for the time being successfully, and the Government fled in panic to Versailles.

Left in charge of the city, the workers administered affairs with remarkable success considering all the circumstances. They established universal suffrage and rid the city pro tem of the incubus of the bureaucracy. The Commune was itself an administrative body and not a mere talking-shop. The practical results of its administration, such as the abolition of night work for bakers, were not, indeed, revolutionary, but so far as they went, were in the interests of the working class.. The outlook of the Commune was towards the limitation of exploitation, rather than its abolition.

Improvised in an emergency, the Commune reflected both the political immaturity of its supporters and the incomplete economic development of France as a whole. On questions of major importance such as the property question and its own relationship to the Versailles Government, confusion reigned in the Commune, and vacillation, as a consequence, paralysed its hands. It left in the hands of its enemies the principal financial weapon, the Bank of France, and allowed these same enemies time to prepare their ruthless counter-stroke, while ostensibly negotiating “peace.”

Behind much of the apparent weakness of the Commune, however, lay the isolation of Paris, the lack of working class organisation throughout the country. The peasantry and the petit bourgeoisie in general proved broken reeds on which to lean for support. Hence it was only a matter of time before the Commune fell, betrayed from within and overwhelmed from without. Neither the conditions of its existence nor its own mentality made it ripe for success.

For all that it failed, the Commune, nevertheless, constitutes an encouraging example of the ability of the workers to help themselves. It had all the faults of a purely spontaneous and instinctive upheaval, but it proved the existence of the capacity for self-assertion which is indispensable to a revolutionary class. When the cynical bourgeois, secure behind the guns, or the spineless slave ignorant of how to capture them, tell us that the workers will never rise, we can point to the Commune and conclude that a class capable of such an effort will rise again. The rising we have in mind, however, is a determined, intelligently organised capture of political power by a working-class which has at last realised the underlying causes of its own movement and which will therefore know how to act when it has the power.

Hence we of the Socialist Party do not rest content with merely sentimentalising over the martyred dead, by the wall of Pere La Chaise. We incessantly insist on the necessity for our policy of no compromise with capitalism and the parties which uphold it. Class sentiment is a necessary element of class consciousness, but it is not sufficient in itself. . Knowledge of the system we desire to overthrow and of the manner in which it is upheld are equally necessary. "Solidarity"! Yes! but the condition which necessitates solidarity on the part of the working class is the class war!

The utter ruthlessness of the revenge of the French bourgeoisie upon the Communards forms a never-to-be-forgotten warning of the criminal folly of parleying with the enemy. There can be no peace between exploiters and exploited save at the expense of the latter. When the workers realise this they will also realise the futility and danger, from their point of view, of Liberal "Labour" Parties and caricature "Communists” who rally to their support at the polls. They will realise, in fact, the necessity for the Socialist Party.
Eric Boden

Henry Dubb—and his brother (1926)

From the February 1926 issue of the Socialist Standard

Readers of the “Labour” Press are familiar with that vacant-faced individual who is supposed to typify the Tory variety of working-class ignorance. Henry's weaknesses—his fondness for a drop of beer and a bob on a horse and a certain disinclination to think for himself have all been dwelt upon ad nauseam.

The weaknesses of his brother, Jimmy, are less often dealt with. Henry is, in the main, of a cheerful disposition; in fact his "good natured” tolerance lies at the root of much of his readiness to accept things as they are. Jimmy, on the other hand, is a taciturn, unsociable cuss whose chief object in life appears to be the airing of his "superiority" to Henry and his pals and the meddling with their habits. He is possessed with an all-absorbing itch to put them “right" in matters of faith and morals. Politically he is by tradition a Liberal, though of recent years he has taken to calling himself a “Labour” man, and even professes a leaning towards Socialism. So far, however, his leaning has done nothing to support its case and a good deal to lessen Henry's disposition to consider it as a remedy for the evils of which he is dimly conscious.

Henry, in spite of his obvious slowness, is not altogether dense. He has, for instance, a somewhat cynical disbelief in Jimmy’s “idealism,” so glibly vaunted.

He distrusts his own class on the ground that a boss who has risen from the bottom makes a harder taskmaster than one who is born in that position. Hence he views with disfavour all the "ranters” and “wind-bags’’ whom he shrewdly suspects of an ambition to exploit his support.

Jimmy, on the other hand, betrays an almost imbecile tendency to place absolute confidence in each and every would-be political climber, every man or woman with the gift of the gab and a professed desire to "help” the workers. He is a fanatical believer in the "intelligent minority,” and has little use for the "drink-sodden” democracy except as voting cattle for his favourites.

Another point, rather in Henry’s favour than against him, is his lack of enthusiasm for Jimmy’s pet obsession—increased State control. Whether it relates to the "pubs” or the mines, railways, etc.. Henry can see nothing in this proposal but a greater extension of official dominance, of the petty vexations, tyranny, inextricably associated with the modern bureaucracy. Needless to say, Jimmy’s feeble plea that the State is the people, leaves him cold. He knows otherwise, from everyday experience. This, again, strengthens his conservatism. The fact that all “progressive” proposals appear to involve State action induces in him a stubborn distrust of all progress.

The Socialist, taking a scientific view of social change, can regard the wordy struggles between Henry and his brother with some amusement, tinged at times with impatience at the blindness of both sides; but he further sees the relentless economic development which cuts the ground from under the feet of both. Increased State control. for instance, of industrial and social affairs, is the outcome, not of some Utopian theory, but of the increase in the size and social character of the productive forces, and the intensified antagonism which that increase begets in social relations. State regulation is the only means possessed by capitalism to preserve itself, the only means by which it can control the internal conflicts within the capitalist class on the one hand, and the greater conflict with the workers on the other. In other words, Nationalisation, etc., will proceed in accordance with capitalist requirements irrespective alike of the opposition of Henry and the support of Jimmy.

The extent of this development may be debatable, but one thing is certain. To whatever extent it proceeds it will not solve the social problem; it will not rid society of the struggle between the workers and their exploiters. Wherever State ownership exists there exists also the necessity for Trade Union effort to maintain wages and conditions at subsistence level. The State represents, everywhere, the interests of the exploiting class against the workers. Neither Henry nor Jimmy realise this. Each of them in turn put in power one section or another of the numerous political flunkeys of that class. They do not see behind the labels of these sections or parties Liberal, Labour or Tory, all alike, recognise and uphold the legal right of the owning class to their property, no matter with what fine phrases they may disguise their intentions.

All alike accept the exploitation of the workers and are prepared to use the forces of the State to maintain the system based thereon. This is their main function; their pet schemes are merely incidental efforts to further especially the interests of the particular section of the capitalist class on whose support they rely.

What, then, is there to choose between the Dubbs, Henry and Jimmy? Each allows himself to be duped in the interest of some section or other of the master class. Neither gains anything as a result of his political activities. As workers, they have as little to hope for in "reforming” capitalism as in "conserving” it. Its existence in any shape or form means misery and subjection for the workers. For the one, therefore, to deride the other, is merely an example of the pot calling the kettle black. The Socialist Party invites both of them to drop their mutual distrust and abuse and to study Socialism, confident that understanding will breed conviction.
Eric Boden

Who wrote the Communist Manifesto of 1847? (1926)

From the January 1926 issue of the Socialist Standard

In a series of articles contributed to the Socialist Standard in 1911 on anarchism, we referred to the “falsified” Pages of Socialist History by W. Tcherkesoff. This brochure contained an attempt by this anarchist writer to show that the Marx and Engels Communist Manifesto of 1847 was a plagiarism of Victor Considerant’sManifesto of Democracy to the 19th Century.”

The accusation against Marx of stealing other people’s ideas and writings was so often made and the charges regularly exploded that it was not surprising to find that Tcherkesoff’s allegations were groundless. Recently Tcherkesoff died and his anarchist friend Nettlau (the biographer of Bakunin) in an article in “Freedom” (December, 1925) warns the anarchists of the baselessness of Tcherkesoff’s charges against Marx.

We quote the following extract from “ Freedom’s” article by Nettlau :—
   Tcherkesoff had the misfortune to make people doubt the seriousness of his other researches when he jumped to the conclusion that the "Communist Manifesto" of 1847-48 was sheer plagiarism on a “Manifesto” by Victor Considerant, published by the Paris Fourierists in 1841 and 1847. I remember the morning when Tcherkesoff, happy as a lark, just returned from Amsterdam, placed before me copies of the “Communist Manifesto’’ and of Considerant’s “Principles of Socialism: the Manifesto of Democracy to the Nineteenth Century” (Paris, Libr. Phalanst√©rienne, 1847, 157 pp.) He had discovered the latter among Domela Nieuwenhuis’ store of old pamphlets, and recognised it as a little book which he had read in Russia over thirty years ago, which the “Communist Manifesto” always recalled to his mind, though he had not been able to trace it during all those years. He placed before me many parallels in the descriptive and critical parts referring to capitalist society, and as Considerant’s text, the revised edition of his “Bases of Positive Politics: Manifesto of the Societarian School founded by Fourier” (Paris, La Phalange, 1841, 119 pp.), was the earlier work, Tcherkesoff concluded that Marx and Engels were guilty of outrageous plagiarism, stealing ideas and even the words from Considerant.
   I was not struck by this discovery: on the contrary, I felt that Tcherkesoff made a great mistake, and I told him so from the first moment; but all was in vain. With one single exception I never met a person who believed that Tcherkesoff was right in this supposition, hut it was felt to be painful not to let him enjoy his discovery which made him so happy. So he published what he considered the proofs of this plagiarism, and later on hunted down Engels for a similar matter (Buret), overdoing this case considerably, and in general he was convinced that he had made out Marx and Engels to be literary rogues and scamps—in one word, thieves.
   He had not made out this case; he had only diminished the value put on his other criticism of Marxism which touched very weak spots of that system, but which his Marxist opponents discredited by pointing to the lack of critical judgment shown by the unproven charge of plagiarism.
   Those who had the leisure to examine the original publications of the early French, English and German Socialists need not be told that Victor Considerant was an infinitely able social critic of the 30’s and 40’s, wonderfully apt in describing the effects of capitalism after seeing it at work in that eminently capitalist period, in France and England of that Louis Philippe and early Victorian age. They also know—and can still add to their knowledge by manuscripts of Marx and early writings of Engels which have only quite recently come to light—that these two German Socialists, a decade younger than Considerant, had also since the beginning of the 40’s worked harder than most others at philosophical, political, and economic studies, leading them to the outspoken Socialist conclusions which we know. Both they and Considerant were at their best in 1847, and as thoroughly competent Socialist thinkers both parties necessarily described and criticised capitalist society in similar appropriate terms, in the standard technical language of well-informed Socialist writers of that period. What else were they to do? If to-day two Anarchist authors were to write manifestos summing up Anarchist criticism of the State, their texts would necessarily more or less agree, provided each of them refrained from indulging in too personal a style —and from this personal style both Considerant and Marx and Engels refrained in 1847, the latter writing moreover on the basis of previous material, questions, etc., which are known at present in derail, but were not yet unearthed in Tcherkesoff’s time. So our comrade’s splendid fight against Marxism was somewhat marred by the idiosyncrasy here discussed.
Thus the Anarchists themselves throw overboard one of the most stupid charges ever made against Marx. Those who care to read the pages of George Julian Harney’s “Democratic Review” of 1849 can study the articles written by Considerant for that journal and the Utopian, idealist and unscientific language will easily show the difference between Marx the materialist and Considerant the Utopian idealist.

After Engels death there was discovered the original manuscript of his independent draft of the Communist Manifesto. This was published in Germany under the title of “The Principles of Communism." It has now been translated into English and published in Chicago.

This draft was made by Engels originally for a programme read to the Paris section of the League of Communists in 1847, and was used later as Engels' individual draft submitted to the London meeting in 1847.

One is struck when reading it with the remarkable agreement in the statement of their ideas by Marx and Engels. A study of Engels' pamphlet shows how ridiculous Tcherkesoff’s allegations were.

Apart from Engels’ draft, the magazine and polemical writings of both Marx and Engels prior to 1847 shows every student that the later writings were an application of ideas, outlined and suggested in their earlier work.
Adolph Kohn

The euro, an unimportant issue (2003)

Editorial from the July 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard
Enormous publicity has been given recently to the question of whether Britain should join those countries in the European union which have decided to accept one single currency – the euro. No less than eighteen volumes were produced by the Treasury, containing many hundreds of jargon-laden pages for the cabinet members to digest. But it is all pointless from the point of view of the working class. What we should be striving for is a moneyless society. It is immaterial whether the coinage is called sterling or European, pound or euro. You are never going to be allowed to have enough of it, whatever you call it. Money is simply a device to separate the workers from what they produce. The workers must aim to abolish it, not change its name.
There could finally be a referendum, so the voters can state their preference – pound or euro? But such a vote would be almost meaningless. It may be that some groups of workers would find their position slightly improved with currency union; some groups might think their position would be slightly worsened; but the over-riding fact is that, whether the money the workers are short of is called the pound or the euro, they will remain with no stake in the great wealth-producing agencies of what the papers call “their” country. A referendum would be like an assassin giving his victim the choice of being strangled or drowned.
All the media – the newspapers, television, radio, and so on – are getting intensely excited about the sterling/euro question. But like all the other political questions we are told to worry about, all this noise merely reflects disagreements among the owning class. It may be that larger companies think there will be more chances of profit with the euro, resulting from a closer engagement with the markets across Europe. It may be that smaller companies think that their lesser resources won't let them compete if the big conglomerations are cleaning up all the profits – if the bigger predators are doing better, perhaps they will do worse. And that would certainly explain why Tony Blair and his Labour government are getting friendlier towards the euro. Tony has always liked being on the side of the big battalions, at home or abroad.
In due course it will be obvious that all this ferment has nothing to do with the basic propertyless position of workers in society. Eighty years ago, after the First World War of 1914-18 had slaughtered millions of workers who were fighting for the interests of their masters, and had plunged many of the survivors not even into a dull job and a weekly pay-packet, but into unemployment, a Socialist Party speaker on a London street-corner was addressing a crowd of workers, many of them ragged and ill-shod. He explained the class-divided nature of society, and how only Socialism could offer them any future worth having. At the end of this clear and careful exposition, one of his audience raised his hand. All he had heard sounded very good, he admitted, but he wanted to hear more about the important day-to-day issues confronting the working class. What could the speaker say about the most urgent topic then before the public? “What is the position of the Socialist Party on the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in Wales?”
Most of the people reading this probably never knew there was an Anglican Church in Wales, established or disestablished. (For the record, after a tremendous public debate, equal to the present commotion over the euro, the Church in Wales was disestablished in 1919.) It makes you wonder if the questioner at that Socialist Party meeting ever realized that it made no difference to him.
All this furore, the endless discussions in press, pub and Parliament, will make no more difference to the mass of propertyless people than the disestablishment of the Welsh Church. If the workers could devote a tenth of the effort to their own interests that they spend debating the interests of the various sections of the master class, we would have Socialism in double-quick time.

The Availability Heuristic (2016)

From the May 2016 issue of the Socialist Standard
Logical thinking, and how to do it
"What we’re facing in Iraq now with Isis is a greater and deeper threat to our security than we have known before." - David Cameron, 29 August 2014
A common cognitive bias is the availability heuristic - this is the tendency to create a picture of the world using the elements that most easily come to mind. When assessing risk we will most likely give much more attention to sensational dramatic events than to more commonplace, but less spectacular, happenings. Striking and emotive stories stick more in our mind causing us to ignore, forget or downplay the larger, but more abstract, picture presented by statistical evidence. Repeated media reports of violence will lead to people thinking that the world is much more dangerous than it actually is, since violent acts leave a vivid and quickly recallable picture in the mind, this being one of the reasons that acts of terror are committed in the first place. To avoid falling foul of this heuristic we need to remember that events do not happen more often just because we can think of them more readily, we should be prepared to question any initial conclusions that come to mind.
So, whilst media coverage and public perception of terrorist threat appears to be on the rise, is the UK really facing a greater terrorist threat than it ever has known before? According to the Conflict Archive on the Internet, a website that documents 'the troubles' in Northern Ireland, since the late sixties there have been 36,000 shooting incidents and over 10,000 bomb explosions, with more than 3,500 people killed, 1,707 of them by the IRA. So whilst it is true there has been a recent upsurge in Islamist inspired terrorism, this has yet to reach levels anything like those previously experienced, the total death count from Islamist inspired terrorism in the UK is currently less than 60.
Yet there has been an area in recent years that has seen a rise in deaths, but as it is largely hidden from view its presence weighs little on the public mind. Excess winter deaths (the amount of deaths occurring in winter months compared to the average amount of deaths in non-winter months) are at a 15 year high. Between December 2014 and March 2015 there were almost 44,000 of these excess deaths – the largest annual rise in almost five decades. Part of the reason for the increase has been put down to the flu vaccine being not as effective as in previous years but the background story is one of poor housing, poverty and pensioners who can't afford to pay for heating.
So rather than being at risk from an unprecedented threat of Jihadi terrorism, it is the more mundane features of society, such as inadequate provisioning for the elderly that are the real killers. But as these victims die silently and in private, and because of the availability heuristic, they are unlikely to come to mind when thinking about threats to life.
DJP

Ray Hill (1988)

Book Review from the May 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Other Face of Terror: Inside Europe's Neo-Nazi Network. Ray Hill with Andrew Bell. (Grafton Books. London. 1988)

This is the story of Ray Hill, the nazi activist turned "mole", who successfully infiltrated both the British Movement and British National Party while working for the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight. Having become involved in far right politics during the 1960s, Hill emigrated to South Africa in search of a standard of living denied him in Britain. It was there that he came to reject the racist policies that he had embraced for some years earlier. The turning point came when he was confronted on a roadside by a homeless Indian family - they had been evicted as a direct result of a campaign organised by the South African National Front, of which he was then a leading member.

Hill returned to England at a time when the British extreme right was in turmoil after the NF"s debacle in the May 1979 General Election. Under the direction of Searchlight journalist Gerry Gable he re-established many of his old links in the British nazi movement. During the next four years he was able to gather evidence of the British far right s growing involvement with European terrorist groups and was largely responsible for the prevention of a major bomb attack on the 1981 Notting Hill Carnival.

In this book Ray Hill lays claim to being the primary reason for the demise of the British Movement in 1983. He argues that by promoting himself as a rival leader to Mike McLaughlin he was able to orchestrate a split from which the British Movement never recovered. Although the British Movement has now ceased to exist as an organisation, the ideas that it held have persisted. Many of its members - like Hill himself - joined John Tyndall's British National Party. Indeed, Ray Hill's attempts to damage extreme right groups structurally has done little or nothing to stop the spread of the racist ideas he now abhors. An illustration of this is the situation at present in the National Front Despite the fact that it is split into two warring factions it has increased its membership and support considerably.

As Hill partially realises, the only lasting challenge to fascistic and racist ideas must come through political education. Groups like the NF. BNP and British Movement are the organised expression of an ignorance and prejudice which stems from the material basis of capitalist society. As such they can only be defeated when the working class understands capitalism and decides to reject it in favour of socialism.
Dave Perrin