Letters: Sinead O’Connor (1993)

Letters to the Editors from the February 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sinead O’Connor

Dear Editors,

It was wonderful to see the article on Sinead O’Connor in the January Socialist Standard. I wasn’t aware just how clearly she had come out about the money system, and it is very heartening to think that this stuff is getting discussed.

I had been more conscious of her strong feelings about the abusive upbringing of children. and your article has inspired me to set out my ideas about how the two areas relate to each other. I hope I can put this fairly succinctly.

To live under capitalism is to live for some other purpose than our own fulfilment, as Erich Fromm recognises. We strive and suffer, not to grow more fully ourselves, but to amass figures on a screen somewhere. Our lives only have meaning, and our needs will only be met, if someone else can extract some value from us.To live is to be used.

Does this not echo the reality of a child whose parents simply use her to carry their hopes and fears, and do not value her for who she is? Perhaps capitalism can be seen as a big abstract parent, telling us what we can’t have, punishing us for not being good enough. In the face of this system, our deepest needs have to be set aside as we try to satisfy its endlessly changing demands.

I have great respect for the Socialist Party’s realism in facing the fact that workers choose capitalism, that we arc often resistant to ideas of liberation, no matter how rationally argued. Perhaps our acceptance of such a punitive social system is merely our replaying in a different form our punitive childhoods. The resistance to change and new ideas certainly has a very rooted quality to it. I am conscious that you may react with suspicion to these suggestions on the grounds that 1 may appear to be saying “It’s not a matter of economics, but of personal insight”. But I’m not saying that. As long as we have a money system, leaders, coercion. countries, buying and selling and all the rest of it, then humanity will be held back from realising our true potential. and poverty and violence will remain endemic. What I am saying is that this personal dimension seems to me to be a hidden obstacle on the road to a truly free and humanistic society.

I am a parent myself, and no stranger to the pain of wondering if I’m being as supportive and respectful towards my children as they need me to be. Maybe sticking with what we know is a way of avoiding the fear of looking at who we are and how we relate to other people. Maybe the struggle towards a healthy society is connected with the struggle to become healthy individuals.

In any event, best of luck to you (and best of luck to Sinead O'Connor).

Peter Rigg

Nelson, Lancs

Reply:
Rest assured, we don't regard the ideas of Erich Fromm with suspicion. Quite the contrary, in fact—Editors.


Class War again

Dear Comrades,
It was a pleasure to read your article on “The Politics of Class War”. The subject was dealt with very sympathetically and I hope that any members of the CWF who happen to read it. take up your offer to discuss their views further.

Although the article stated that the CWF attracted the attention of the tabloids down South, I had never heard of them or seen any reference to their organization in the Scottish Press—although, admittedly, I am out of touch with political affairs.

Nonetheless, their viewpoint as stated in your article seemed familiar. About fifty years ago when 1 was active in working class politics, there was a European organization—I think they called themselves “Council Communists" or Spartacists (I can’t recall which)—whose literature was sold by a Glasgow organization the "Workers Open Forum”. The “Open Forum” was just that—an open forum which provided a platform for all shades of working class opinion. Every Sunday evening workers could go to the Open Forum and hear speakers from the SPGB. the SLP, the ILP, the CPGB, the Anarchist Federation, the RCP and the Labour Party. Its committee also organized debates between the various organizations mentioned. Literature from these organizations was sold at all these meetings. As you will appreciate there was little opposition from the “Telly" in those days and the meetings were well attended.

It was at these meetings that I obtained the literature of the Council Communists and, speaking from a somewhat snaky memory, I recollect that their views were similar to the CWF. The exponents of their case that I most remember were Anton Pannekoek, a Dutch astronomer, who dealt with philosophical and scientific matters, and Paul Mattick who dealt with economics. I remember them mostly for their articles in the Western Socialist.

I further recollect that they organized a meeting, either in Paris or Amsterdam, to which the SPGB was invited as an observer. The Executive Committee of that time (some forty or so years ago) declined the invitation. At the time I thought the EC were mistaken in their attitude but I can no longer remember the arguments.

Can it be that the CWF are the modern counterparts of the Council Communists? Whether they are nor not, I hope that your invitation to a dialogue is taken up.

Bob Russell

Glasgow

Reply:
As far as we know there is no direct connexion between the Council Communist group you mention and Class War— Editors.


Dear Editors,

Reading the October issue I thought I'd outline a few political points regarding Class War and anti-fascism, and the naive line of the Socialist Party.

I feel there is a great misunderstanding of the transformatory process, and the tasks to be carried out by the revolutionary working class. A revolution will entail new forms of power being used by the working class; both externally for the political struggle against the class enemy/counter-revolutionary forces, and internally for the control of anti-social behaviour (as I do not believe it will disappear overnight).

The sorts of working class active units I have in mind are closely related to the local workers councils or general assemblies. These decision-making bodies monitor the decisions made; and continuous action from, by and for the class is run by the local working class active units. Accountability in the struggle guides effective working class action on problems faced, and methods used in the past to see if they're working properly, and to devise new tactics if necessary.

“Punishment” may include violence if the class enemy is involved, and educative measures within the working class (historically this is the case). This does depend upon the particular situation facing the class though.

Also, no-go areas are not the only revolutionary strategy Class War has. I envisage widespread strikes, demonstrations, pickets, riots etc. Imagining that "the capitalist minority will be likely to cave in peacefully” is unrealistic, lacking historical backup, missing the range of bourgeois forces lined up against the working class, and the levels that they have dropped to and will drop to again.

You also misunderstand the nature of anti-fascist violence (back page, Socialist Standard, October), violence is only fascist if it is used with fascist ideas and intentions behind it. Anti-fascist violence is done with revolutionary working class ideas behind it, being one of the elements of revolutionary working class strategy.

Gerry Gable (bigwig of Searchlight) is against giving a (bourgeois) democratic platform to fascists; he recently said “I was in Germany recently and the coverage they were receiving was disgraceful. They would show young thugs attacking refugee hostels,' which was okay—it showed them for the mindless fools they are but then they would return to the studio and some well-dressed articulate neo- nazi would go on to justify these attacks in what some people would accept as a plausible fashion”. One of the working class anti-fascist strategies is no platform for fascists, the others being education and agitation.

Finally, I suggest Socialist Standard readers read The Coercive State by Hillyard and Smith. It’s a bit liberal but it carries lots of useful information on the "State of Democracy". Since it was published, however, things have got worse—people off the electoral register because of poll tax, etc. The message to be drawn is that we will never win on their terms.

I support Class War (and class warfare) because it is the war to end all wars!

Dave Clark

East London Class War 

London E8

Reply:
The danger in the "transformatory tasks” outlined is that the revolutionaries punishing, educating and guiding the rest of the population might well take on the authoritarian attitudes of a new ruling class. The only way to avoid this is to ensure that no revolution proceeds unless and until a majority of workers understand and want it. It is Class War’s failure to see the crucial importance of conscious majority action which could lead them, like "revolutionaries” in the past, into the rut of leadership tactics.

We do not agree that only intentionally fascist violence is fascistic. We are hostile to fascists, not least for their policy of dragging working-class politics into the mire of violence, and we shall play our part in defeating their pernicious ideology, using the force of scientific reason. (See the article "What the Fascists Need” elsewhere in this issue).

We have read the book which you recommend, which does indeed offer a piercing critique of the viciousness of the modern British state. For the record, one of its authors is a member of the Socialist Party and can therefore be expected to understand what the state is all about—Editors.

Between the Lines: Letter from the BBC (1993)

The Between the Lines column from the February 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Letter from the BBC

Last May, following the total exclusion of the Socialist Party's ideas and actions from the BBC's extensive election coverage, we published in this column an Open Letter to the Director General of the BBC. We pointed out that it was a principle of democracy to allow time for the expression of minority ideas; that it is inexcusable to refuse radio or TV coverage to a small party such as ourselves on the ground that we are small, not in small part as a result of media silence as to our existence. We made what we regard as the strong case that we are confident that if we advocated bombings and street violence — and, better still, acted upon such advocacy — we would doubtlessly obtain plenty of media exposure. The BBC is penalizing our party for being democratic, rational and peaceful. The BBC failed to assist in creating a democratic electoral atmosphere, but contributed to the undemocratic carve-up of TV and radio time by and in the interest of the existing ruling parties.

On 15 December 1992 a letter of reply was received, not from the Director General, but from one Douglas Evans who is described as Chief Assistant, Political and Parliamentary Affairs. He writes as follows:

  "I think I would find it helpful to know more about the campaign which you conducted at the time of the General Election. For example, how many seats did you contest and how did you make sure that your views and policies were communicated to media organisations? Were these prominently reported by other news media?
  I am sorry that you are dissatisfied with the rules governing the allocation of Party Election Broadcasts, but I should point out that these rules are devised by the Committee on Political Broadcasting and are not the sole responsibility of the BBC."

We thank Mr Evans for his letter on behalf of the BBC and have published it because we intend to keep this correspondence open to the scrutiny of all our readers who will be free to judge whether the BBC is acting democratically or otherwise. We shall respond with some comments and some questions to Douglas Evans.

Firstly, we find it strange that the BBC, the largest news-gathering body in Britain, envied across the world for its professionalism, needs to ask the Socialist Party how many seats we contested in the last British election (a fact which was published in most quality newspapers). We contested one (Holborn and St Pancras), the main reason being that we are a small party and are restricted by the government-imposed deposit of £500 per candidate. It could be argued that a party contesting only one seat deserves to be ignored. If so, the BBC should let us know that this is their policy and tell us how many seats we should contest before they will stop ignoring us. We would remind the BBC that the Natural Law Party, with extremely rich backers and a few bizarre policies, paid to put up enough candidates to buy a Party election Broadcast. The Natural Law Party, formed in 1992 as an electoral stunt and now dissolved obtained that much BBC coverage, whereas the Socialist Party, formed in 1904 with eighty-eight years of principled and well-argued policies was worth no time.

Secondly, we can inform Mr Evans that the Socialist Party called a Press Conference, which was held in central London, within days of the election being announced. All media organizations, national and local, were invited to attend. We made it clear that if they could not attend they could contact our candidate, election agent or other speakers. They were sent copies of our official manifesto. No TV or radio station reported on these, "prominently" or otherwise. There was coverage in the local press. But our campaign was of national importance. We were the only political party standing in the 1992 election committed to the common ownership and democratic control of all social resources. We alone stood for the abolition of the money system; of the economy based upon buying and selling. We were the only leaderless party in the election, making it clear at all times that our candidate was not seeking followers and would refuse to lead anyone wishing to follow him or our party. We were the only party urging electors not to vote for us unless they agreed with what we stood for. Such policies might be rejected as absurd by controlling editors at the BBC. They are free to conclude that, but our concern is to allow the millions of people voting in the election, many of whom expressed the view that they were presented with little choice, with our revolutionary alternative. Let them judge what we say on its merits.

Thirdly, we note with disgust that the Committee on Political Broadcasting — a body appointed by and comprising those who have won previous elections — are free to determine the rules regarding media time for elections in which they intend to ensure that they will win again. In short, politicians who have deceived their way into power in the past set the rules for who may have public exposure in the future. We would be pleased to know when this Committee was elected, by whom, with whose authority and to whom it is accountable. We assume that this is not secret information.

Finally, some question. Would the BBC confirm or deny that any party, however newly-formed or lacking in policy, may have BBC exposure if it can afford to pay the £25,000 deposits entitling it to enough candidates to give it preference over the Socialist Party which has less funds? Is it the ease that an invitation to a press conference in which our party proposed to advocate acts of terrorism would have stirred more BBC interest than the total indifference which our democratic position resulted in? Is there a BBC policy to guarantee the right to be heard of minority political parties or does the BBC regard this aspect of democracy as unimportant? As the Socialist Party is refused a slot on the BBC "access" programmes on the ground that we are a political party, and we are refused electoral exposure on the ground that we are not a big enough political party, can we assume that the BBC expects us to either wind up as a political party so as to obtain half-an-hour of access TV or abandon our principles in order to be accepted as a winnable force by the BBC?

Steve Coleman

SPGB Summer School: Mental Freedom and Social Power (1993)

Party News from the February 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Summer School 

10 & 11 July 1993

Fircroft College. Selly Oak. Birmingham 

Mental Freedom and Social Power

The theme of the summer school is the liberating and empowering of people through a better understanding of the society they live in and how it shapes their lives and thinking.

Discussions will go on to explore the possibilities for directing interests and activities so as to achieve mental assurance, the ability to exert power in today's society, and the opportunity to contribute to the achievement of a better world society.

We hope to have speakers, as well as participants, from outside as well as inside the Socialist Party.

Actually, we hope to start the rather full weekend of talks and discussion workshops with an evening meal on Friday. 9 July at about 6pm.

Please book early.

Details from Ron Cook. 11 Dagger Lane, West Bromwich, B71 4BT Phone 021 553 XXXX


See also this report of the Summer School from the September 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Towards one Europe? (1993)

From the February 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

If, as socialists contend, “unity is strength”, then the capitalist class would appear to be making a bid to strengthen their position in Europe. The Maastricht Treaty, signed by the twelve heads of state of the member countries of the European Community and currently undergoing the process of examination and ratification by the British House of Commons, is without doubt intended to be a declaration of European capitalist unity. Indeed, it grandly proclaims itself to be “A Treaty on European Union”.

You may not actually have read it, and if so, you are fortunate. 61,351 words of legalistically-precise, diplomatic-speak is not everyone’s idea of bedtime reading, insomniacs excepted. However, because of its clearly-stated objectives and the various claims made on its behalf by its supporters in all the main political parties, it is a document worthy of examination. This is not least because its supporters on the left of capitalism's political spectrum in particular claim that Maastricht represents a great leap forward for the European working class and provides the opportunity for a sustained European-wide peace.

Maastricht
The Treaty itself largely takes the form of a scries of amendments to the original Treaty of Rome which established the basis for the EEC in 1957. Its goals, set out in the Common Provisions in a preamble to the main text, notably include the following:

  The creation of an area without internal frontiers, through the strengthening of economic and social cohesion and through the establishment of economic and monetary union, ultimately including a single currency . . . [and] . . . the implementation of a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence.

About half of the Maastricht Treaty is taken up by the steps deemed necessary to achieve the level of economic and social cohesion vital for the achievement of these, and other goals. The economic harmonization provisions call for an “irrevocable fixing of exchange rates leading to a single currency, the ecu, and the definition and conduct of a single monetary policy and exchange rate policy".

The task of implementing such policies lies in large measure with a European System of Central Banks (ESCB), whose governors shall form a council presiding over a European Central Bank with “the exclusive right to authorize the issue of bank notes within the Community”.

The initial step towards the "irrevocable fixing of exchange rates” has, of course, been the already tarnished European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM). According to the Treaty, a European Monetary Institute will be set up in 1994 to oversee the general moves towards monetary union and sometime in 1996 a meeting of European heads of state will decide whether a majority of the member states fulfil the necessary conditions for it. The British government, though committed to the rest of the Treaty, has secured an opt-out clause on the final stage of monetary union and also on the agreement on social policy (the Social Chapter)—which simply means that the government will have less to renege on when it continues the time-honoured practice of governments everywhere of trampling on the working class whenever the capitalists deem it imperative.

There are sound reasons why some capitalists and politicians in Europe wish to proceed along the lines of political and economic union. The failure of governments across the world to successfully tackle the many problems which have beset the capitalist economy since its inception have led many to the conclusion that action to reform and mould capitalism cannot be successfully undertaken within the borders of any one single nation state. The growing inter-connectedness of the capitalist economy has been seen—with a degree of justification—as a force which no longer gives automatic recognition to the individual nation.This was recognized by Marx in the nineteenth century and is a process which has accelerated rapidly in the latter half of the twentieth:

  The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. (Manifesto of the Communist Party).

Black Wednesday
Capital is now a truly world force, and its rapid movements make the nation state seem like an economically powerless institution. It is here that occurs one of capitalism’s many contradictions—one which is in no small part responsible for the recent difficulties encountered by the European nation states set on Union. This is the contradiction between the inter-connectedness of capital on the one hand, and the firmly national and imperialist basis on which the capitalist class organizes itself on the other.

The competitive drive to accumulate capital which pervades capitalist production and exchange ensures that sections of the capitalist class with divergent economic and strategic interests are forever in antagonism with one another over trading arrangements. sources of raw materials and spheres of influence.

At one level such antagonisms were clearly demonstrated last September with the departure of Britain from the ERM on “Black Wednesday" and the devaluations of the Italian and Spanish currencies. Though the ERM ensured relatively cheap and stable import prices it was opposed by a significant section of the British capitalists who contended that an exchange rate pegged at around £1:2.95DM made British exports uncompetitive and necessitated high interest rates to support the pound at what was an otherwise unsustainable level.They considered that the ERM produced unfavourable trading conditions and are now lobbying the government never to return to it in its old form.

European unity among the capitalist class is made even more unlikely because national antagonisms over trading conditions and the like are exacerbated by divergent economic performances between nation states. This is part of the explanation for the slide of the pound against the deutschmark. Britain’s economy was weaker and entered into slump much earlier than Germany’s, and the monetary conditions required in Britain were rather different from those appertaining in Germany, producing further antagonisms.

If by some miracle a single currency, with one central bank and one minimum lending rate, was established in Europe, it could not end these antagonisms. A single interest rate, for instance, would have to reflect the market conditions affecting money capital throughout Europe. In order for it to work effectively all of Europe would have to be at the same stage of the trade cycle at more or less the same time. Interest rates tend to be highest at the end of a boom and then at the onset of economic crisis and slump. If one country entered recession before the others—as is normally the case—it would even more quickly than normally drag the other countries down with it by pushing interest rates up in those countries where rates would otherwise still be falling.

It is highly unlikely, however, that it will come to this. For it is not only at the purely economic level that nation states tend to march to a different tune. The more longterm political, military and strategic concerns of Europe's nation states invariably lead them to pull in different directions. The interests of Britain and Germany are, for example, hugely at odds. Britain's position is largely determined by its relatively privileged status with regard to the world’s largest capitalist power, the United States.

While the US initially used its considerable influence in Western Europe to try and bind the various nation states closer together as a strong buffer to the former state capitalist Eastern bloc, its main priority since the collapse of the USSR has been to prevent Germany emerging at the head of a strong new imperialist bloc. In this it is being ably assisted by Britain. Germany, determined to challenge US hegemony, has been able to rely on support against the US from France, but future French support will only be forthcoming to the extent that France itself can ensure German military and strategic containment across the European continent.

In the light of the collapse of the Eastern bloc and with German re-unification, the inherent imperialistic tensions between the European nation states are, if anything, intensifying. This was recently acknowledged by Iain Vallance, chairman of British Telecom:

  In Western Europe the Community is less stable than it has been for more than 40 years. There is a risk that we could return to . . . the pointless struggle for political dominance by individual states or rival groups. (Sunday Times 11 October)

The sharp disagreements over the latest GATT "settlement” are just one example of why Mr Vallance’s worries are well-founded. The history of capitalist Europe has periodically been one of imperialist adventurism, invasion and annexation.

So far, capitalism has shown itself to be incapable of overcoming the national divisions that it has engendered over two centuries and more. Maastricht will not change this. It is a capitalist utopia, already—and not surprisingly—coming apart at the seams.

Dave Perrin

Why did the US invade Somalia? (1993)

Illustration by George Meddemmen.

From the February 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

The current crisis in Somalia is, in the first instance, a cold war hangover—a headache caused by the old conflict between Western market capitalism and Russian state capitalism. That the United States should see itself as the remedy to the problem is little more than the hair-of-the-dog philosophy. For it was the United States and, to a lesser extent, the old Soviet Union that created the crisis in the first place.

For well on 30 years superpower aid was essential to the existence of the dictatorships in the Horn of Africa which had few means of keeping control other than by military coercion, made possible by US and Soviet aid.

For over 30 years the US and the Soviet Union poured weaponry into the Horn— Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan. In the ten years before Ethiopia declared itself a “Marxist” state, the US gave Haile Selassie more military assistance than the rest of Africa combined (Africa consists of over 40 countries). The cache included 1,400 tanks, 1,000 heavy guns and 140 fighter bombers. In all, Ethiopia received $8bn worth of aid.

In Somalia, where 10 percent of the- GNP went on weapons, the statistics were not much different. During Said Barre’s reign, of all international assistance received, 93 percent of it came from the US. Almost 50 percent of this aid was in arms imports. In the decade 1979-89, the US gave Barre S500m in arms.

War

Said Barre, who took power following a military coup in Somalia in October 1969, soon realized the advantage of his country’s geographical position and the possibility of attracting superpower aid.

Barre, who claimed to have embarked on the path to “Scientific Socialism”, saw his country stricken with famine by 1972. Because of the links he had forged with Moscow, he was able to secure the use of Soviet planes to airlift 140,000 starving Somalis to more stable areas. This is arguably the sole redeeming act he will be remembered for, in spite of the fact that it set a precedent for large-scale superpower assistance.

The assistance Barre had received from the Soviet Union heralded his regime’s increased reliance on Moscow. Development of the northern port of Berbera as a Soviet naval base, the import of thousands of tons of weapons and the arrival of 6,000 military advisers were soon to follow.

Meanwhile, Lt. Col. Mengistu Haile Mariam was seizing power in neighbouring Ethiopia. Soviet influence became prevalent here when Mengistu announced plans to initiate strict “Marxist” ideology and expelled Ethiopia's previous backer, the US.

The Ogaden region of Ethiopia, which had been kindly ceded to Ethiopia when Britain had an influence in Somalia in 1954, and in which many Somalis continue to live today, became one of Barre’s chief goals.

In July 1977, Barres forces took advantage of internal disorder in Ethiopia and invaded the Ogaden, with the full co-operation of Soviet military advisers. Without warning, in an extraordinary act of tergiversation, the Soviets began airlifting $2bn worth of arms to Ethiopia. Military advisers who had co-ordinated the Somali assault on the Ogaden were flown overnight from Mogadishu to Addis Ababa to direct the counter-offensive.

Securing Saudi promises of financial assistance with which to continue the Ogaden campaign, and accepting a condition where Somalia would rekindle its friendship with the West, Barre kicked out the remaining Soviet personnel in the hope of receiving aid from the United States.

Barre was offering his country on a plate and the US almost snatched his hand off. Somalia was even prepared to forget its territorial claim to Northern Kenya for admission into the Western bloc. Barre was, however, disappointed that his new backer would not support Somalia over its Ogaden campaign, the US not wishing to contemplate the dilemma of being on the losing side. A more harmonious relationship between Kenya and Somalia meant that the region could be more readily incorporated into the Pentagon’s Persian Gulf strategy—a useful base for the Rapid Deployment Force that would balance out the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

By late 1980, the US had secured a defence pact with Somalia which gave US forces access to air and naval bases including the Soviet-built port of Berbera. US aid was pouring in by now and by 1987 Somalia was stockpiling weapons. Barre, though, felt that US aid was not coming fast enough and struck up loyalties with the Soviet Union again in 1988, the same year he clinched a deal for massive arms supplies from Colonel Gadaffi.

Strategic position

“Scientific Socialism” this certainly was not. When Barre took power Somalia was self-sufficient in food. By the mid-eighties Somalia was amongst the most food-dependent nations in Africa. Somalia was a state capitalist dictatorship under Barre, when it was easier to arm a man than to feed him. It mattered little to the superpowers that the Horn countries lived under constant threat of drought and famine, the well-being of the peoples of the Horn was of secondary importance to the actual geographical location of the region.

Peace was never going to be a long-term luxury here. Regional conflict and internal strife were made all the more likely because any gain by one side was soon going to be cancelled out by increased superpower aid to the other—a similar situation had existed during Iraq’s war with Iran.

Somalia under Barre slipped into chaos, with the US doing their all to assist, supporting him all the way and making little or no attempt to think that things could be otherwise. As the cold war came to an end and the threat of “communism" evaporated, the US pulled out, dropping Somalia in the proverbial shit.

When the US abandoned Barre for good in January 1991, Somalia was already in the early stages of turmoil. Clan leaders and warlords began their struggle for power and the crisis in Somalia deepened when famine hit. Barre soon realized he could not hold power much longer and fled the country.

Invasion

The deployment of 30,000 US marines in Somalia is the second time in as many years the US has invaded a Moslem country— “invaded” because this time the US were not invited. All that was missing from the beaches of Mogadishu when US troops came ashore on the morning of 8 December was Audie Murphy and a clapperboard. The whole operation looked carefully prepared for the worlds media—an advertisement for a failing capitalist superpower that can only assert itself on the international stage by ostentatious militarism.

As one UN observer noted:

The operation stinks of arrogance. All this bullshit about 80 percent of food being looted and all that—it's all very well stage-managed by the US. The whole operation is a test case for future conflict resolution. It's as if the US had a new vaccine they wanted to test. Now they have found an animal to test it on. (Guardian, 9 December 1992).

It is probable that US forces have been shipped to Somalia under the cover of a humanitarian mission to be ready again as a Rapid Deployment Force. Possibly the biggest threat to US interests, now that the former Soviet Union is out of the scene, is Islamic fundamentalism, which sees the US as the “Great Satan". North African states are already viewing the US operation as something of a check on Khartoum for its backing of Islamic fundamentalist groups in North Africa and the Arab world. 

Recent IMF austerity programmes initiated in the Horn have not helped the current crisis. During the great famine of 1985, Eastern Sudan was producing 800,000 tons of grain—not for home consumption, but for export to pay off IMF loans. At the same time. “Marxist" Ethiopia was exporting thousands of tons of green beans to Britain.

The New Internationalist (December 1992) was right to speak of starvation as being the "result of unequal power in the market”. In the modern world, profit is the name of the game and all players must abide by the rules. There is nothing altruistic about the IMF or the World Bank:

The World Bank and the IMF have pressured Horn governments to adopt market-oriented strategies based on agriculture exports. Their main priority is to get the regional economy in a good enough state to meet its debt obligation and compete on the international market.

Capitalists could easily add a footnote to this: the sooner the US troops stabilize Somalia, the sooner Somalia can finish paying these debts.

John Bissett

Obituary: Sid Catt (1993)

Obituary from the February 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Comrade Sid Catt died on 26 November after a long (three years) and painful bout with cancer.

Sid joined the Palmers Green Branch of the SPGB in 1939 and was an active member, organizing Sunday morning canvasses in Ealing. speaking at Jolly Butcher's Hill in Wood Green and serving on the EC for a period.

After emigrating to Canada in 1957 he helped organise the Toronto Local of the SPC which was a very active branch for a time. After the local folded he retained his membership of the SPC and at every opportunity expounded the case for socialism, always showing pride in being a member of the World Socialist Movement and debating and discussing with all workers with whom he came into contact. He will be missed by these local contacts as well as by his friends and his daughter and her family.

50 Years Ago: 1943—The War and the Workers (1993)

The 50 Years Ago column in the February 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

The press of this country publishes reports of the wholesale extermination of Jews in Poland. We are not able to say to what extent these reports are true. The atrocity story played its propaganda part in the last war. and it is no doubt doing a similar duty in this. But bearing the record of Nazism in mind lends substance to some of these reports. The persecution of Jews as well as other minorities is inevitable in lesser or greater degree under class society. The prejudices of race, nationality, or religion is the outcome of ignorance, exploited by rulers and fanned into flames of persecution to suit their ends. In registering protests against the persecution of minorities, no ruling class can do so with clean hands. It will be a world-wide Socialist movement that will finally put an end to all persecution, including the persecution of class by class. 

From an article by "S. R.", Socialist Standard, February 1943.

Wrong questions (1993)

Editorial from the February 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Throughout the media and in everyday discussion questions are being asked about mass unemployment. Where will we find the “green shoots” of economic recovery? When will we see the end of the slump?

These questions are not new. They have been asked many times before and as in the past no one knows the answers. There are political promises and no shortage of economic forecasts but the record of both only tells us how useless they are.

The questions might just as well be shouted into a void in the hope that an echo might suggest what is going to happen next. An appeal to gods would be just as good. Indeed, the world of economics has become one of mystery to be interpreted by gurus, a priestly caste of so-called experts with little to offer more than a hope or a prayer.

It is asked when will people begin to spend again? Where can we find the money for better health services? How can we invest more in housing? Where can we drum up the resources to help those in desperate need?

In all such questions the word “resources” has come to mean money for investment as if pounds and dollars have their own powers of production. It is assumed we cannot produce without money and therefore, if there is no money we are helpless to deal with problems. In attributing powers of production to money it becomes a fetish before which we abandon our real human powers. Instead of control we have chaos. Instead of sound prediction we are beset by uncertainty and anxiety. Instead of decision-making and action we are deadlocked into failure.

This alienation from our powers to solve problems has created a deeply sick society in which the language of economics articulates the preoccupations of a world gone mad. Inflation, deflation, interest rates, exchange rates, balance of payments, deficit budgeting, unit labour costs, etc, etc, these are the features of a destructive system which has little connection with the world of real human needs.

The trouble is people have been asking the wrong questions. So, what are the right ones?

Socialists ask, why are 400,000 workers in the construction industry idle and why are millions of bricks being stockpiled whilst families have to suffer the miseries of homelessness? Why is food destroyed and why is land taken out of production whilst millions of people are starving and whilst even in the so-called developed countries some families have to go without food? Above all we ask, why is it that the great majority of people, the producers of goods and services in industry, energy supply, manufacture, farming, transport, health, education and other useful services, why is it that we have to suffer the worst problems whilst the obscenely rich continue to enjoy their privileges?

These are the right questions and the answers need not be shrouded in mystery. The answers are plain from everyday experience.

Workers are thrown out of jobs because they cannot be exploited for profit. Similarly, building materials remain stockpiled, food is destroyed and land is taken out of production because under capitalism profit must come before needs.

At the root of this is the fact that the planet and all its resources are monopolised by a small minority of economic predators—the capitalist class. One reason why the vast majority are powerless is because we have no control over the means of life, which is our labour and natural resources.

The first step to gaining that control is to work for a world of common ownership, democratic control, co-operation and production directly for the needs of all people. These are the only means by which we can end the economic nightmare of capitalism.

Sting in the Tail: Tory Think Tankers (1993)

The Sting in the Tail column from the February 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Tory Think Tankers

Run for cover, folks, there’s some mean-lookin' hombres in town and they're a-gunnin’ for one another!

A scene from High Noon or Gunfight at the OK Corral? No, merely that

Opposing Tory think tanks are set to wage a battle for the soul of the Conservative Party in the coming year. Party right-wingers led by the No Turning Back group are to demand fresh Thatcherite reforms, and the left-leaning Social Market Foundation will seek Keynesian intervention to end the recession.

The Guardian (28 December 1992) 

We know who the Thatcherites are but who are the Social Market Foundation? Remember David Owen and his "social market" guff? Well, the SMF are mainly ex-members of the Social Democrats who have joined the Tory Party.

So no blood will be spilled, only lots and lots of ink, but what a bunch of think tankers all these Tories are when the best they can come up with to save British capitalism are the failed ideas of Thatcher and Keynes with the arch-failure Owen thrown in for good measure!

The Dismal System

You would think that Sainsbury's plan to make its "biggest and best ever” cuts in food prices in January would have been widely welcomed, wouldn't you? No chance. Instead of Sainsbury's competitors accepting this challenge gladly, they all denounced it.

What about the City of London? After all, everyone has to eat, but the City feared that a supermarket price-war would reduce profits so the share-prices of Sainsbury, Tesco, Kwik Save and Argyll all tumbled. Capital doesn’t hunger for food, only profit.

True, consumers were happy at first but came January and "instead of massive savings, the much- anticipated price cuts brought disappointment to shoppers" (The Guardian 4 January). Capitalism may provide events which bring widespread pleasure but not very many.

Not Our Scene

All those who become Involved in the running of any social system based on private property will inevitably find themselves doing nasty things to people.

This particularly applies to capitalism: the holocaust, the bombing of cities and the cynical poisoning of the environment are obvious examples, but there are less dramatic crimes committed by governments every day.

Look at the Israeli expulsion of the 400 Palestinians or the Tories' callous pit-closure programme, but this readiness to inflict misery cuts right across party lines. Labour's record in office is a grim one and we have seen what Lenin, Trotsky and other "communists”all over the world have been prepared to do in defence of their power and privilege.

The truth is that all humans, even if they start with the best of intentions, are capable of such cruelty if they put themselves in the position of having to defend private property. And socialists are no different: it's just that we know better than to get ourselves into that position.

Appeal of Socialism

The whole thing about nationalism is its stupid delight in some accident of language, accent or local behaviour. The whole horror of nationalism is its resolve to hunt, maim and kill any creature in its way if such a creature doesn't share its particular language, accent or local behaviour.

Of course, every human being on earth today enjoys community. We all love to sing together. We all love to dance together. We are human.

This doesn’t mean that we kill those who are different. We enjoy differences. That makes us human. Politicians, generals and other functionaries of capitalism are without community. They exploit our fears to make themselves great. Our brothers and sisters in Iraq, India or anywhere else have our best wishes and hopes.

We are without nationalism, religion or racialism. We are socialists. We are in the process of becoming truly human. That is the appeal of socialism.

Accidents and Cost

As the people of the Shetland Islands count the cost of the oil spill It is worth recalling that like all "accidents" of this nature inside capitalism, cost was the major factor.

The ship was old because It is cheaper to buy an old ship - the ship needed repairs because it is cheaper to skimp on repairs - the route was through an area that could have easily been avoided but it was a cheaper route and of course the crew were ill-trained because that’s the cheapest way to run a ship.

Accidents will occur in socialism but they won't be accidents like the Shetland oil spill which wasn't really an accident at all. It was the logical outcome of trying to operate transport the cheapest and most profitable way.

Twice Bankrupt

We are indebted to a Scandinavian reader for drawing our attention to the following item that appeared in a Norwegian newspaper:

The Finnish communist party went bankrupt yesterday after having lost millions on the stock exchange . . . The economic trouble of the communist party is due to unsuccessful speculation on the stock exchange - capitalism's stronghold - with many hazardous investments. Among the more exotic investment objects was a fashion shop in Helsinki and a stable of racehorses called "The Hot Trotters"

Aftenposten (16 November 1992) 

This financial bankruptcy is of course matched by the complete Intellectual bankruptcy of all the Leninist parties.

The Dying Game

Socialists spend a great deal of their time pointing out how awful the buying and selling system of capitalism really is. But surely even the most dyed in the wool defender of capitalism must be concerned at the following information that appeared in The Independent (12 January):

Life assurers are paying out 10 times more on suicide than they were 12 years ago, raising fears that the way policies are written may be encouraging people to kill themselves to ease their dependants' financial worries.
According to a report published today in Money Week, the payouts on suicide-related claims, increased from £4.3m in 1979 to £44.6m In 1991.

The desperation that leads workers to committing suicide can only be guessed at. The crass ignorance that leads workers to support this crazy system can only be wondered at.

The rise of Jean-Marie Le Pen (1993)

From the February 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

If the majority of the world's people are to solve their basic problems of poverty, insecurity and general alienation, and achieve a society of equality, they will have to join together democratically, irrespective of nationality and so-called race, to bring it about.

One of their main tasks must he the elimination of national, ethnic and racial prejudices and hatreds. They will have to recognize their identity of interests.

Such recognition is not—and has never been—easy. Xenophobia, in varying degrees, has always existed within capitalist society. And racism, an ideology or system of beliefs which claims that one so-called race or ethnic group is inherently superior to another, has been a feature of our society for a very long time.

No-one needs reminding of the horrors of Nazism during the 1930s and 1940s, for example.

Unfortunately, however, in recent times, particularly with the onset of economic recession and ever-increasing unemployment. ethnic and national hatreds have once again increased in many countries, often breaking out into bitter and bloody conflicts and civil wars. And in many countries. immigrant workers and. quite often, the children and even grandchildren of immigrants. have become scapegoats for economic ills, and have been erroneously blamed for causing unemployment or taking jobs and housing away from indigenous workers.

The flames of such conflicts and hatreds have, more often than not, been fanned by overtly Fascist and racist groups and parties; but also at times of economic recession and political crises, by mainstream, reformist parties of both left and right. 

France is a case in point.

Immigration

By the beginning of 1969. there were about three million immigrants in France, of whom two million were salaried workers. There were 700,000 Spaniards, 685,000 Italians and 300,000 Portuguese. Over the following ten years or so, most of these workers merged into the general working-class environment. And like the French, the majority are at least nominally Catholic. The situation with regard to the North Africans from Algeria. Morocco and Tunisia, has been, and still is, much different, as most are Moslems.

In the sixties, the governments of France, as in other Western European countries, together with many French employers, encouraged immigration. Indeed, immigrant labour was considered indispensable for the maintenance and development of activity in certain sectors of the economy, which at the time was booming. In April 1967, a report by the Office d'Immigration stated that:

immigration has contributed to getting our economy going and expanding. Jobs which no longer attract French people, or for which there were no applicants, have been taken up by foreigners without any difficulty arising among national workers.

Immigrant workers undertook the hardest, worst-paid, jobs, particularly in the car and building construction industries. As elsewhere, immigrants had to find, or accept, cheap apartments and houses near their places of work, which tended to become ghettoes, which in turn, placed a heavy burden on municipal schooling and some welfare facilities. This was considered acceptable at the time, though many French workers began to move out into the suburbs of the cities.

By 1975 the situation began to change. As in Britain and elsewhere, unemployment began, slowly at first, to increase. And French workers had to accept jobs they had hitherto refused. Often, they complained that immigrants had taken "their" jobs, as though the jobs were theirs by right. They also accused immigrant workers of taking their apartments—most of which were appalling slums, and didn't belong to the workers anyway.

So, by 1975, the French government, realizing that the "good times” of capitalist expansion were, at least for the foreseeable future, over, halted immigration. Shortly after, the government even offered the equivalent of £1,000 to any immigrant who volunteered to return to his or her country of origin. But there were few takers. Unemployment, particularly in Algeria, was (and still is) endemic. Even life in a Paris slum was preferable to an Algerian village or a worse slum in Algiers.

By the late 1970s. however, many immigrants began to be subjected to harassment. and worse. Surprisingly—or, perhaps, not—the first really nasty assault on immigrant workers was not organized by a far-right Fascist group, but by members and officials of the Parti Communiste Français, the French Communist Party. It was on Christmas Eve, 1980.

A hostel for 300 African workers from Mali had just been renovated in the Paris suburb of Vitry. an area with a Communist administration. The Communist mayor led a gang of PC heavies with a bulldozer and proceeded to smash the place up. making it uninhabitable. The doorways were blocked with earth, and the iron railings were torn up by the bulldozer. Gas, electricity and the central heating were cut off. The Communists had no intention of being outdone by the Fascists in pandering to the nationalist and racist prejudices of local French workers. Nor did the mayor intend to lose his job.

Far right

Following the upheavals of 1968 in France a number of small far-right groups began to emerge, such as the Nouvelle Droite of Alain de Benoist and later the violent, hardline Nazi Fédération d'Action Nationale Européene (FANE), led by Marc Frederikson which has continued to exist under various names.

In Britain, the National Front was formed in 1967; in France, the Front National (FN) was not formed until 1972. Like the British NF, the French FN began life as an unholy mixture of hard-line Fascists, anti-immigrant racists and far-right conservatives, although unlike some of the pre-war far-right such as I'Action Française, the FN accepts the Republic and is not monarchist. It also attracted the support of many pieds noirs as former colonists from Algeria are known. The FN denies that it is a Fascist party, but it does display many of the trappings, symbols and attitudes of the pre-war Parti Populaire Français of Jacques Doriot. Its undisputed leader is Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Jean-Marie Le Pen was born in a fisherman's cottage in the Brittany village of La Trinité-sur-Mer in 1928. His father was killed in the war, when his boat hit a German mine. As a student in Paris, in the 1950s, Le Pen was already a right-winger, leading gangs of students on demonstrations in the Latin Quarter against “commies” and “lefties”. After his student days, he briefly became a paratrooper, in the Foreign Legion, in Indo-China. Back in France, he became a supporter of Pierre Poujade's right-wing movement and, at 27, was elected to the Chamber of Deputies as one of the movement's most turbulent deputies. He soon quarrelled with Poujade, however, and. tiring of parliament, enlisted in the French Army, and was sent to Algeria, where according to a police report he supervised the electric shock torture of at least one Algerian nationalist prisoner—which he denies (if Lieutenant Jean-Marie Le Pen didn't torture any Algerians, he must have been an exception to the rule!).

On his return to France, Le Pen again became involved in various small right-wing fringe groups, and subsequently lost an eye in a street brawl following a rally. For a number of years, he was regularly seen wearing a black eye patch, looking like a Hollywood pirate. After a while, he started up a small publishing business, but was later prosecuted, and fined, for “glorifying war crimes'' by selling a record album of Nazi songs. Jean-Marie Le Pen did, however, learn one lesson: he tried to keep within the law, and he tended to use innuendo rather than direct racist remarks. He was re-elected to parliament in 1958, as an independent, but lost his seat in 1962.

Soon after the formation of the Front National in 1972, the organization was rent by a number of violent internal feuds, and some of the hardline neo-Nazi elements broke way to form groups like FANE, leaving Le Pen in control. But he. his family, and his party were broke, and living on loans. Then, in 1976, fate was kind to Le Pen. Almost overnight he became a rich man.

On 25 September 1976, Hubert Lambert. a 42-year-old alcoholic and tranquillizer addict, who dreamed of becoming a Minister in a Front National government, died from cirrhosis of the liver. Le Pen eventually inherited a half of his £3 million fortune; and with his wife and his three daughters moved into the late millionaire's luxury villa in Saint Cloud. Le Pen dispensed with his black eye patch, and bought himself a brand new glass eye and some expensive suits. He also dyed his thinning, dark brown but greying, hair blond; and he acquired two black Dobermans.

Life for French, as well as Frances immigrant. workers was less satisfactory. And was to get worse. By 1980, ethnic tensions had increased considerably.

It was not until 1983 that FN electoral support began to take off, when a municipal by-election in Dreux. a town west of Paris where immigrants made up a quarter of the population, gave them four elected councillors with almost 27 percent of the vote. They had campaigned on a purely racist platform. In December Le Pen stood in a parliamentary by-election in the Brittany constituency of Morbihan. Although he received 50 percent of the vote in his home village of Trinité-sur-Mer, his overall vote was only 12 percent. Unlike in Dreux, he was not able to play the anti-immigrant card in Brittany.

In the 1984 elections to the European Parliament, the FN took 11 percent of the national vote and, as seats were allocated under a system of proportional representation, got 10 seats.

In the local, cantonal elections in March 1985, in which half the French electorate was eligible to vote, the Front National vote was only 8.7 percent nationally, although they increased their vote in the south of the country (to as much as 30.4 percent in Nice) and in some of the Paris suburbs. Nevertheless, in the first round the Front received one million votes. During and after the elections, there were a number of attacks on immigrants in both the south of the country, and in the Paris region. And throughout the year, racist and FN slogans could be seen all over Paris and the suburbs. Front slickers, “Votez Le Pen", were everywhere—and can still be seen in many places. Front National membership was almost 70,000. And increasing.

Le Pen now had a solid base for the General Election the following March. In the main, the Front's policies were, even by the usual standards of capitalist and reformist politics, vague yet populist. Except on immigration where, if anything, they had hardened, Front National policies had not changed much since 1978.

As a throwback to Poujadism, the FN called for “la liberté d’entreprendre” and opposition to the technocrats ”de la gauche". As an even farther throwback, to the wartime régime of Vichy, they called for measures to develop the family as the basic cell of French society. Resistance to "Marxism in our schools" was also high on the Front’s agenda. And another slogan during the election was: "Yes to work for young French people means No to immigration!". Always the main Front National slogan has been: "Lutter contre 1‘immigration”.

The Front entered the election with confidence. They considered the newly-introduced proportional representation to be in their favour. In the event, the FN received 2,705,838 votes, just on 10 percent of the votes cast. This gave them 34 members in the National Assembly (plus one sympathizer). And what a weird bunch many of the FN members of the National Assembly were! There was Edouard Dupont, aged 83, who had been an official in the collaborationist Vichy wartime government: there was former Captain Pierre Sergent. aged 60, who had led the OAS secret army in France, and had been condemned to death while on the run, but subsequently amnestied; there was Roland Gaucher, who had been a pro-Nazi youth leader during the German occupation. Another oddity was Pierre Ceyrac who, besides being a member of the Front National, was also a member of the Rev Moon's Unification Church. Ten other members had opposed Algerian independence. Six of them were lawyers, and one was a big landowner. All of them, however, pressed the new government of Jacques Chirac to set up a ministry to oversee the control, and deportation, of two million North African and black immigrants (this, presumably, included the children and even grandchildren of immigrants).

Meanwhile, racist gangs, including known FN members, as well as the police, continued to harass and physically attack immigrants or anyone with a “coloured” skin. At railway stations, and in suburban streets, police presence became ever more pervasive. Foreigners were sometimes held for days on end at police discretion and then secretly expelled from the country.

To be concluded. 

Peter E. Newell

What the Fascists Need (1993)

From the February 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is too easy to hate fascists. The sight of chanting skinheads, half Stormtrooper of the Year 1932, half late adolescent tantrum, fills us with memories of a genocidal past and fears that the jackboots are being polished up again. Ridiculous screwballs stand in East End markets with swastika tattoos, boots for brains and snarling detestation for the world in which they are impotent merchants of mean-spirited outrage.

What are we to say to them-think of them? "Drive the Racists of the Streets!" says the wallposter from the people who brought us "The Socialist Motherland". But who would be left on the streets except for rival sects of Leninist paper sellers arguing over whose central committee will make the most effective job of dictating over the proletariat? There are hundreds of thousands of racists on the streets. There are one or two in most of our houses. Are we supposed to give them all a good doing? And what good is a sore head to a racist-racism thrives on battered minds.

It is all too simple to paint caricatures of the monstrous jackbooted swine. TV pictures show us them in Germany, spewing hate before them, like primitive fertiliser spreaders. Not just murderous thoughts, but now they burn and kill and rejoice at the suffering of their enemies. Just like British workers did when bombs fell on Iraqi cities and who knows how many burned to death or were crushed in an underground medical centre. And when the conscripts met their death as the Belgrano sailed away from the Falklands exclusion zone, were not we told by the Mad Priestess that we should rejoice at the victory. Rejoice as men drown and babies are buried under rubble and bombs unknown to the non-professional terrorists explode with priestly sanction. Where does war stop and monstrous atrocity start?

The fascist moron follows his leader. The comical sight of fancy-dress Nazis doing their Mosley impressions to a few dozen Bash Street Kids from Povertyville is almost worth a smile. Of course, nobody will be smiling when the petty-fuhrer's words have been heard and another black family gets a petrol bomb or kicking on the way home. But there is an amateurish hooliganism about such viciousness: not an army but a venomous gang of no-hopers.

The military moron follows his leader and is paid well for it. The barking, and often barking mad, fuhrer is given medals and "our boys" are allowed to play with more than home-made bangers. The pseudo-militarism of the neo-Nazi boneheads, drilling in Hackney Marshes for the day when Enoch gives the word to get the Asians, is all rather ridiculous. Not so the official military training camps where violence is taught as a respectable art.

Fascists breed on false divisions. They seek to turn us against each other, as if life is not hard enough having to share the misery as one unhappy family. But what is new about the propaganda of Divide and Rule? it is the basis of all nationalism. "He's one of our lot; he was born under their flag. He is our enemy". Fascists might be the ultimate flag-fetishists, grasping on to their little Union Jack rag on the end of its pointy stick as if it is their lifeline to lunacy, but they did not invent them. The flags, and all the other emblems of nationalist idiocy, were here long before boys with muscles and not many brain cells decided to call street violence a political philosophy.

Let's rock against racism, by all means, but let's do a bit of rocking against nationalism while we're at it. How often is it the case that the right-on lefties who want to smash all racists find no difficulty in supporting the narrow bigotry of trendy nationalism?

So, why fascists? What horrible moment in history set in motion such movements of undiluted venom? The dung-like soil in which fascists are bred is fear. Because behind those hard-as-rock, we're gonna-get-you looks of enmity to the world, what we are seeing are a load of frightened people who are confused, threatened and deeply alienated from their social selves. The fascist is the human who aspires to be antihuman. The social nature which allows us to co-operate allows them to seek refuge in artificially constructed groups based on skin colour, flag colours, football team colours-colour-blind fascists often have a hard time with their pseudo-identities. The unique ability to use language is adapted by the fascists into a snarling, animalistic rage of incoherence. Rational discourse is swapped willingly for brute feeling. That is what the fascist wants life to be. Everything else seems to have failed.

It is a miserable, frustrating and disempowering alienation which is the lot of many under the profit-system-and so many more than those who are foolish enough to go down the fascist path-which is at the root of the fascist mentality. Alienation from a society where life as a conscious being seems unimportant and negligible leads some perhaps many-to seek comfort in the false security of national, racial and vanguardist loyalty. As the squeeze gets tighter, with a deepening world recession and the collapse of the elementary security offered by the welfare net, is it any surprise that new size twelves are slipping into new jackboots in the futile search for an honourable place within capitalist history?

The psychology of despair is one of the main symptoms of a society which converts the vivacity of the individual into purchasable chunks of labour power to be bought as cheaply as possible-and often left on the shelf to rot. The fascist mentality is part of the rot. And just as you don't blame the woodworm for the damp and dingy wall in which it thrives, it is futile to blame the rotten fascist for the stupidity of his position.

Fascism is a celebration of irrationality. The National Front should be called the Irrational Front. The confused wage slave is capitalism's very best friend. And confused, irrational, unscientific thinking will not be cured by socialists learning to fight better than the fascists. When it comes to brutality we are willing to come last. What the fascist needs is to be hit in those cerebral parts least used and most in need of life support. What the fascist needs, in fact, is to be educated by those who him not as a despicable fascist, but as a bloody stupid worker.

Steve Coleman