October's "Done & Dusted"

A half decent month for finished Socialist Standards. I could have done better. I could always do better. I'll try and knock it out the park for November and December.

Usual schtick . . . click on the months for the full issues.

October's "Done & Dusted"

October 1908

October 1915

October 1916

October 1933

October 1938

October 1948

October 1952

October 1956

October 1964

October 1966

October 1977

October 1982

October 1986

October 1993 

October 2008

October 2025

Cooking the Books: No such thing as free buses (2025)

The Cooking the Books column from the November 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

In his successful campaign to win the primary election to become the Democratic Party’s candidate for the 4 November election for the Mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, the left-winger, ran on a promise ‘to lower the cost of living for working class New Yorkers’ (zohranfornyc.com). He is a member of a group of reformist Social Democrats calling themselves the ‘Democratic Socialists of America’ who have chosen to bore from within the Democrat Party and among his proposals was ‘fast, fare-free buses’.

It is not a new idea. It’s been put into practice in some places. In fact, in itself it’s a good idea. Fares do restrict people’s freedom to travel and fare-collecting, even via plastic cards and ticket-machines, is a waste of resources. More people travelling by public transport and less by car will help reduce air pollution and carbon emissions.

Free transport in a socialist society would be run for people to use as and when they want it. But a distinction needs to be drawn between free transport as a reform within capitalism and free transport as part of socialist society where all goods and services will be free.

Under capitalism, where there is no such thing as a free anything, the question arises of how free transport would be funded. Mamdani’s supporters, like Matt Bruenig, say that his plan will be paid for by increased local taxes. Bruenig explained:

‘Most people seem to realize that if we shifted to a fee-funded school system, we’d need to roll back property and other taxes in order to make sure people had the money to pay the fees).’ (jacobin.com/2025/06/zohran-mamdani-free-bus-proposal).

By the same token, he argued, introducing free buses would have the opposite effect. It would mean people would save money from which to pay the increase in taxes to fund it. This makes some sense but it rather undermines Mamdani’s claim that free buses would lower the cost of living (whatever other merits it might have).

There is in fact a link via the cost of living between free services and wages. Fares are an important item in the cost of living and it is the cost of living which largely determines the level of wages and salaries. Whatever reduces the cost of living will tend also to reduce wages. Anything provided free by someone else relieves employers of having to pay their employees to cover this, as would be the case if fares were abolished. It would be a subsidy to employers, whatever its other merits might be.

Before everybody can benefit from free transport, the whole wages system needs to be abolished. The means of production must be converted from the class property of a privileged few into the common property of the whole community. This would also create the framework within which the problem of the motor car and its pollution and destruction can be rationally tackled.

Once the means of production are the common heritage of all and are under democratic control, then the profit motive and the price system can be abolished. Wealth can be produced solely for people to use. People can have free access not only to travel facilities but to all the other things they need to live and enjoy life. Goods will not be priced, but will be available for all to take freely according to their needs.

50 Years Ago: Ireland seven years on (2025)

The 50 Years Ago column from the November 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is seven years ago this month (October) since the television screens throughout the world flashed their dramatic pictures of that historic confrontation between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Civil Rights marchers on Derry’s Craigavon Bridge.

Seven years! Arson, murder and mass intimidation have prospered in the years between and the vaunted ‘reforms’ and ‘freedoms’ that gave courage to the protesters and demonstrators have all fallen victim to the gunmen, military and para-military.

And what was it all about in those heady days of sixty-eight? Well, the various species of loyalist politicians will tell you that it was a devious criminal conspiracy organized by the Irish Republican Army with the ultimate aim of destroying the Ulster State.

That the Civil Rights Association was, in part, the brain-child of the IRA is unquestionably true, but it is equally true that the Provisional IRA who were undeniably the people who ‘brought down’ the Stormont Government, had not then been invented. In fact it was the political and social posturings of the then IRA that fertilized the egg of discontent within the movement, and it was the subsequent military rapacity of the British Army that played midwife to the Provos as a serious guerrilla force when they attempted a military solution of the ‘no-go area’ problem in July 1970. (…)

Whatever the future may hold for us, whether the Unionists get full parliamentary control again or share their ministerial salaries with the SDLP; whether the Province becomes ‘independent’ or part of an all-Ireland federation, one thing we can confidently predict. The great majority of the people, Catholic and Protestant, will remain ‘second-class citizens’ with ‘a reasonable standard of life’ only a pipe-dream for themselves and their children.

Alternatively, of course, there is Socialism and the prospect of a world-wide society of production for use; a society in which people will use their skills and energies to produce an abundance of all the things they require to guarantee every member of society the material basis for a full and happy life and where every human being will have free and equal access to his or her needs. In Socialism there will be no need for gunmen or bombers, of either the state or free-lance variety, for there will be no material basis of conflict and the skills of violence will be as irrelevant as those of bankers, salesmen or lawyers.

[From the article, Ireland seven years on, by Richard Montague, Socialist Standard, November 1975.]

SPGB November Events (2025)

Party News from the November 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our general discussion meetings are held on Zoom. To connect to a meeting, enter https://zoom.us/wc/join/7421974305 in your browser. Then follow instructions on screen and wait to be admitted to the meeting.

Action Replay: Ads and roses (2025)

The Action Replay column from the November 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

In September the Red Roses won the World Cup. More fully, England won the Women’s Rugby Union World Cup. The tournament was held in England, and England were the favourites, so the result wasn’t a great surprise. Nevertheless, it did lead to a great deal of celebration and excitement at the victory, but also at what it showed about the growing interest in women’s spectator sport. The final was the most-watched rugby match on TV this year. There has been a lot of fuss about the likely ‘legacy’ of the success, with more people watching and, in particular, more women and girls playing rugby at the grassroots level.

For a variety of reasons: lacking confidence, having fewer opportunities at school, or spending more time on family responsibilities, for example, women and girls are on the whole less involved in sport and physical activity than men and boys are, hence Sport England’s This Girl Can campaign.

The most obvious example of the increased interest is football, where England’s national team, known as the Lionesses, have twice won the European Championship, and most professional clubs now have women’s teams too. London City Lionesses aren’t linked to another club, but formed as a breakaway from Millwall Lionesses.

There has, of course, long been a media interest in women’s sports, but this has been primarily in individual events such as athletics, gymnastics, swimming and tennis. For whatever reason, team sports have lagged behind, with the possible exception of hockey and netball. Only in the last couple of decades have team sports attracted more attention.

Twelve years ago no women’s national cricket team had professional contracts, and England players had to fly economy class to major tournaments. This year the fifty-over Women’s World Cup was played in India, with a total prize money of nearly $14m (which was more than that for the most recent corresponding men’s World Cup).

A specific indicator of the growing interest in women’s sport is in advertising, where many brands have begun to focus more on sports adverts that deal with products aimed at women, from perfume and jewellery to shampoo. And women athletes now appear more often in the adverts, something that sportsmen, especially athletes and footballers, have been doing for some time. Last year’s Paris Olympics was a good example of more woman-focused advertising. Nike, for instance, has increased its spending on marketing in order to compete with ‘upstart’ rivals. And it’s not just advertising, as broadcasting rights for women’s sports have become more valuable too.

It’s good to see more people, whatever their age and gender, participating actively in sport but, as so often, there are other interests at stake too.

Paul Bennett

Editorial: Socialism defined (2025)

Editorial from the November 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month we recorded that two MPs who had said they were socialists had not replied to a request to say what they meant by socialism. In the meantime, one has replied indirectly while Jeremy Corbyn himself has had a stab at it.

Addressing a Your Party rally in Liverpool on 9 October Zarah Sultana declared:

‘We’re not here for lowering a few bills here and there, and the sprinkling of a wealth tax. We are here for a fundamental transformation of society, the means of production controlled by workers. And another very simple idea, the working class controlling the wealth that they produce. It’s called socialism.’

While Corbyn wrote in an article in the Guardian (13 October):

“Undemocratic parties produce undemocratic societies, where a small section of society owns the resources we all need to survive. Democratic parties produce democratic societies; where wealth and resources are owned by us all”.

Both definitions – while not completely wide of the mark – have their weakness. Sultana’s because she only talks of ‘control’ and not ownership; which could leave her words open to being interpreted as ‘workers control’ of nationalised industry. Also, even if ownership is meant as well as control, socialism is not ownership just by ‘workers’, but ownership by all members of society including those who for one reason or another are not working. They too will have a say on what is produced and how it is distributed.

Besides the nonsense of what parties of a different type produce, Corbyn’s is open to the objection that he doesn’t make it clear that socialism means that all the means of production would belong to all of us, leaving open the interpretation that he is talking about the so-called ‘public’ ownership of just some industries or services; which in fact is how he did mean it to be interpreted.

However, combining the strengths of both we can reach a reasonably good definition of socialism:

‘A fundamental transformation of society where the resources we all need to survive — the means of production — will be owned and controlled by all of us’.

However, we have to express our serious doubts that the new party will adopt this as its aim and that, even if it did, this would be nothing more than rhetoric for ceremonial occasions, its practice being the pursuit of sprinklings such as a wealth tax and other reforms.