Editorial: North Paddington By-Election? (1953)

Editorial from the November 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

As we understand the sitting member is resigning we will contest North Paddington again at the By-election. Here is a grand opportunity for those who agree with us but, for one reason or another, are unable to join the Party. They can give practical effect to their sympathies in a variety of ways. We need money and help. We need immediately as much money as we can get to enable us to pay the £150 deposit, to book halls for meetings, to have an Election Special, candidate’s address, posters, handbills and leaflets printed, as well as to pay the other incidental expenses connected with propaganda at election time. We also need as much assistance as possible for addressing envelopes, distributing literature and so forth. The more money and assistance we can get the more we can do.

Will all those who are interested in using this opportunity to spread our socialist message get in touch with the Parliamentary Committee at Head Office.

We have already contested North Paddington three times and on each occasion have put in a great deal of effort. Members and sympathisers gathered together and worked with enthusiasm. We carried on the struggle with vigour making it clear that our outlook is unique. That we are solely concerned with making our socialist message as clear as we can and that we are not interested in the customary electioneering stunts, rabble-rousing or boosting. We make an appeal to the understanding and not the passions of people. Our object is to clear away the mud that has been spattered upon the socialist idea; to make plain how desirable is the world we are working for in which everything that is in and on the earth will be the common possession of all mankind; to spread our conviction that Socialism is the only practical solution to the problems that afflict the world today, that it is capable of being put into operation as soon as the mass of people understand and want it, and that it is well worth the effort needed.

It is not just the votes that matter; it is what is behind the votes, and this By-election gives us an opportunity to get our Object and Policy before a larger number of people than we can reach in normal times.

Will all members who can help in the election contact Head Office right away for information about the arrangements that are being made. Although we do not know yet the date of the By-election we are making various arrangements including the booking of the Metropolitan Theatre, Edgware Road, for an eve of the poll meeting to which we are inviting each of the other candidates to state his case or send a representative to do so.

Comrades and sympathisers let us use this opportunity once again to show the strength of our convictions and the depth of our enthusiasm for the cause we cherish.

Parliamentary Fund: North Paddington Bye-election (1953)

Party News from the November 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Late 1953 threw up a bye-election in Paddington North, West London, after its Labour MP, Bill Field, had to resign his seat following a scandal. It was the first time the SPGB had contested a parliamentary seat since the 1950 General Election, and it was the fourth time in eight years that the Party had contested the Paddington North parliamentary constituency. Bill Waters was the SPGB's candidate, and he received 242 votes (0.9%).

Elsewhere in the November 1953 Socialist Standard, there are more details of the Party's decision to contest the bye-election, and the January 1954 Socialist Standard carries various reports of the Party's activity in and around the bye-election.

Party Funds (1938)

Party News from the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Donations to General Account

          (to October 19th).

Hyde Park Symp., 2s. 6d.; E. H., 2s.; W. H., 2s. K. F., 1s.; W. M., 2s. 6d.; G. A. J., 3s.; J. C., 4s.; H. R. 2s. 6d.; W. R., 3s. 6d.; E. P., 6s. 6d.; A. C., 10s.; Manchester Branch, £1 11s.- W. T. H., £1 2s. ; C. E. B. 3s. 6d.; F., 5s.; O., 5s.; H. G. H., 10s.; C. P., 2s.; Chiswick Branch, £2 1s.; A. S., 5s.; P., 2s. 6d. ; S. W. T., 2s. D. F. S., 5s.: F. & R. T., 7s. 6d.; P. H., 1s.; J. W. S. 10s.; Chiswick Branch, £1 10s.; A. S., 5s.; L. J., 2s. ; D. H., 2s. 6d. ; J. J., 2s. 6d. ; G. S. S., 2s.; E. K., £1 H. C. G., 10s. j J. B., 7s.; Quartet, 5s.; Mrs. H., 18s. 3d. M., 2s.; Paddington Branch, 10s.

Donations to Parliamentary Fund.

The following donations to the Parliamentary Fund have been received : Previously acknowledged, .£470 6s. 4d. Donations to October 15th, 1938: Dagenham & Romford, 1s.; J. R. B., 6d.; H. B., 1s.; J. M. 12s.; B., 2s. 6d.; West Ham, 10s.; East Ham, 10s.; Eccles, 2s. 6d.; P. H., 1s.; Stepney, 8s. 9d.; 'E. C., 1s.; Birmingham, 3s.; S.W. London, 10s.; R. E. T., Tottenham, 10s.; Clifford, 1s.; Thurmud, 5s.; W. G., 2s. 9d.; S. H. & Co., 6s. 6d.; Socialist Party of New Zealand, £6 10s.; M.P. Workers, £1 11s. 8d.; Manchester, £1 3s. 6d.; Hutch, 1s. 0d.; S. H. & Co., 6s. 6d.; P. H., 1s.: W. M., 2s. 2d.; East Ham, 10s.; W. P. S.. 2s. 6d.; E. C., 1s.; J. R. B., 4s. 6d.: G. S. S., 2s. 6d. Total: £485 11s. 8d.

Party News Briefs (1951)

Party News from the November 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

The resumed Delegate Meeting was held at Holborn Hall on Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning, October 6th and 7th, when all outstanding items were dealt with. Delegates at one time numbered 34. representing 19 branches. Collections taken at the Delegate Meetings and Party meeting amounted to £30.

#    #    #    #

A Party Meeting to discuss Electoral Activity was held on Sunday afternoon, October 7th, at Holborn Hall. Some 250 members were present, many taking part in discussion. It was agreed to endorse the arrangements already in hand to concentrate propaganda in Paddington North and East Ham South during the Election.

#    #    #    #

At the time of going to Press an intensive propaganda drive is being held, particularly in Paddington and East Ham. There are 50,000 Election Manifestoes to be distributed and nearly twice our monthly quota of Socialist Standards are to be sold. Members have plenty of work on hand—and are getting on with it.

#    #    #    #

A very successful indoor meeting was held at Southend-on-Sea on Monday evening, October 15th; a London speaker addressed the meeting. The hall was filled to capacity.

#    #    #    #

Manchester Branch have had a successful summer outdoor season and are making plans to hold a series of indoor meetings during the winter.

#    #    #    #

Indoor meetings throughout the winter are being held by Bloomsbury, Dartford, Hackney and S.W. London Branches apart from the Sunday evening meetings at Head Office. For details of all these meetings see notices on another page of this issue.

#    #    #    #

Head Office Sunday evening meetings are well under way and members and sympathisers are cordially invited.

#    #    #    #

Will all readers in Nottingham please note that a Discussion Group meets at the People’s Hall, Heathcote Street, Nottingham, at 7.45 p.m. on the first and third Wednesdays in each month (i.e., November 7th and 21st). Members and sympathisers are welcome.

Quite a number of propaganda meetings have been held during the summer at Nottingham and there seems no doubt that these have greatly contributed to the formation of this Group as considerable interest in the Party case has been aroused in this area.

Fortnightly outdoor meetings are to be held at Slab Square, Nottingham, on Saturday evenings at 7.30 and Sundays 11.30 a.m. and 7.30 p.m.

Phyllis Howard

Blogger's Note:

Some background information is required with regards to the aforementioned Special Party Meeting on Electoral Activity which was held on October 7th at Holborn Hall. 

The October 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard carried a short notice that a Party Poll had been held on the subject of the Party and Electoral Activity, and there was a majority vote against putting up SPGB candidates at the forthcoming 1951 General Election. The Special Party Meeting took place during the weekend of the Party's Autumn Delegate Meeting, and the subject of the meeting was what activity the Party could do around the forthcoming Election. It was decided that Party members in and around London would concentrate their propaganda efforts in Paddington in West London and East Ham in East London, which were two areas where the Party had put up candidates at the recent 1950 General Election. Two hundred and fifty members attending the Special Meeting was impressive, and should real intent.

The following links give some more background on the Party and the 1950 and 1951 General Elections:

• Nov 1949: From The Eastern Front
• Feb 1950: How will you use your vote?
• Mar 1950: Our Two Election Campaigns 
• Apr 1950: Party News Briefs (See paragraph headed "The Parliamentary Committee")
• May 1950: To the Electors of East Ham
• Oct 1951: Why We Are Not Contesting This Election

Letter: Voting for socialism (1987)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Voting for socialism

Dear Editors.

After reading July's Socialist Standard I feel I must raise a few points. The "strategy" of the SPGB has always been to argue the case for socialism through propaganda and public meetings and debates, and win the "battle of ideas" so that the new society of socialism can be democratically voted in. This is exactly how you approached the General Election. In Islington, where the only socialist candidate stood, the battle was fought on the streets where literature was sold on stalls and at tube stations; in your manifesto and leaflets which were delivered to all households; in posters and stickers which clearly stated the socialist message; and at your election rally "ours was a battle of ideas". And you lost! The people of Islington were presented with the case for socialism and it was rejected, with your candidate polling fewer votes than the average loony candidate or fascist.

All this should lead socialists to ask the following questions:

1. Do people want socialism?
2. How do people develop a socialist consciousness?
3. Can socialism be simply voted in?

First of all. as you know, the word socialism is often incorrectly used to describe anything from the programme of the Labour Party to the dictatorship of a Leninist state. So initially people tend to have a rather negative attitude towards socialism, but when the ideas of genuine socialism are explained, the reaction is different. Usually people can be persuaded that socialism is a good thing, but they feel that “it will never happen" or "it's a good idea but it won’t work because of human nature”. This is the problem. People who have lived under capitalism and are used to being told what to do by people "in charge" find the ideas a bit of a quantum leap from reality. They see socialism as a kind of impossible Utopia and that "in the real world” the only practical choice at election time is between the parties that have a good chance of getting in.

It is not that people are necessarily against socialism. It is just that they don’t see the socialist case as being relevant to their lives; they see it as being "pie in the sky". You can’t expect people to vote for an ideology, a set of ideas; they will only vote for something concrete and attainable.

This brings me to my second question. Where does a socialist consciousness come from? Although you may argue that most of your members attained a socialist consciousness through coming into contact with socialist argument, it must be understood that most people are not "won over" to socialism by argument alone, as you discovered in your election campaign.

The cornerstone of socialism is the principle of solidarity and mutual aid — these are natural tendencies which don’t need to be taught. Without them socialism would be impossible. However capitalism (and preceding social systems) have made people relate to each other in a different kind of co-operative way. using authority/obedience and hierarchical systems. This is sometimes referred to as “the very fabric of our society" by the traditional right wing.

When workers actively participate in strikes or various community activities they break with the normal way of behaving — they are thinking for themselves and organising themselves rather than being organised by people "in charge ”. They have taken matters into their own hands. Many strikers, despite the material hardship, say they enjoyed being on strike. In a sense they got a taste of socialism by collectively organising and distributing food and helping each other out. Also, strikers soon realise whose side the police, the legal system and the media are on.

Of course I am not saying that experience of struggle alone is going to bring workers to socialism. Workers must also understand the nature of the present system and know and understand what to put in its place and how to establish it. However I don’t think that socialism can be established by a political party — it can only come about through the mass activity of the working class. Socialism can only be established by a mass working-class movement that is politically conscious of its aims and methods and democratically organised without leadership. It must be organised throughout the workplaces and communities across the land and be linked up with similar organisations across the world. This movement must educate its members, defend workers against capitalism and ultimately organise the expropriation of wealth production and distribution.

But can’t we just simply vote for socialism and avoid a struggle? Well, first of all. if we have a world view of capitalism, how can workers in dictatorships like Chile, South Africa and Russia change society? Just because their ruling class don’t allow them to vote does it mean they can’t have socialism or that first they must fight for "democratic" capitalism?

For those of us who live under political democracies. at election time we are asked to choose which party is to become the political component of the capitalist state. The party which is elected does not really run the country, although it does have an influence within certain limits. Major decisions taken by the government are largely based on the professional advice of the civil service, which is carefully selected, permanent and not subject to democratic control.

Behind parliament and the cabinet are the other state institutions. There is the monarchy to whom state power legally belongs; there is the House of Lords which retains the right to delay Acts of Parliament. There are the armed forces — an instrument of imperialism abroad and of repression at home. There is the police and the secret police who open mail, tap phones and exercise violence in pursuit of their aims. Then, of course, we have the judiciary which hands out punishment to whom the state defines as offenders. All this is backed up by the means of persuasion — the educational system and the media.

Behind the institutions of the state are the real masters — the big capitalists and their ruling-class buddies — the top brass of the civil service, military and police chiefs. They ensure that the country is run just how the capitalist system likes it.

Do you really believe that the ruling class and their State would allow a socialist party to mess things up?

Whether we vote for socialism or not, the fact remains that only the working class can build it from a grass roots level. There will also be a struggle between the socialist majority and the minority ruling class and their supporters. This, unfortunately. will be unavoidable.

Paul

Manchester

Reply:

Our correspondent raises a number of interesting points; we shall reply in turn to the three questions he asks;

1. At present the vast majority of people indeed do not want socialism. Even those who have heard and been impressed by the socialist case too often comment that "it's a good idea but. . ." We would agree that it is important to make socialism seem relevant and attainable; we try to do this by explaining how its establishment will solve the various problems of people's lives — how it will cope with destitution, housing shortages, boring work and so on. Our recent pamphlet Socialism as a Practical Alternative contains a great deal of material on the organisation of socialism, and shows that it is not just a nice set of ideas.

2. Socialist consciousness develops in two ways. First, as a result of workers' everyday experience under capitalism, including not only their exploitation and oppression but also their cooperation and experience in trade unions, tenants' organisations and so on. Second, as a result of socialist propaganda meetings, publications, election campaigns and radio phone-ins. We entirely agree that "Socialism can only be established by a mass working-class movement that is politically conscious of its aims and methods and democratically organised without leadership": the Socialist Party is a democratic, leaderless movement.

3. Socialism can be "voted in", though it should be remembered that this will not be a simple matter of workers voting for socialism and then sitting back and waiting for it. Socialist-minded workers will need to be prepared to take over the running of factories. farms and so on. Gaining control of Parliament will give the socialist majority control over the armed forces and police and prevent their being used against us. The top civil servants and phone tappers will be in no position to "mess things up" deprived of mass support and official sanction they could do nothing to frustrate the will of the immense majority.

The Editors.

Socialist Party to stand five candidates (1996)

Party News from the September 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the coming General Election the Socialist Party will be putting up five candidates, the highest number yet in a parliamentary election. Two will be standing in Scotland, two in the North East and one in London.

The seats and candidates are

Glasgow Kelvin:      Vic Vanni.

Livingston:               Matt Culbert.

Jarrow:                     John Bissett.

Easington:                Steve Colborn.

London Vauxhall:    Richard Headicar.

Around 40,000 election addresses will be distributed by the Post Office in each of the five constituencies, but this will only be during the election which must take place sometime before May next year.

In the meantime preparatory work has started, with meetings, literature stalls and leaflet distribution in the constituencies. If you want to help with this, or want further information about the socialist campaign, the contact persons for the constituencies are:

• Glasgow: Vic Vanni, Flat A, 26 Baker Street, Glasgow G41 3YE. Phone:0141-xxx xxxx.
• Livingston: Matt Culbert, 53 Falcon Brae, Ladywell, West Lothian, EH54 6UW. Phone: 01506-xxx xxx.
• Jarrow and Easington: John Bissett, 10 Scarborough Parade, Hebbum, Tyne & Wear NE31 2AL. Phone: 0191-xxx xxxx, or Harland Wear, Telephone 0191 xxx xxxx 
• London: Gareth Thomas, 185c Northcote Road, London SW11 6QF. Phone: 0171-xxx xxxx.

If you are not living in any of these areas but still want to help the Socialist election campaign one way to do so is to make a contribution to the Election Fund. The amount in the fund at the moment is £4,656, not much compared to what the pro-capitalist parties will have to spend. The more money we have the more effectively can we make the voice of socialism heard.

Cheques (made payable to “The Socialist Party of Great Britain”) should be sent to: Election Fund, 52 Clapham High Street, London SW4 7UN.

SPGB Islington Branch (1985)

Party News from the September 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Clifford Slapper's 15th September meeting, 'Is Inequality Natural?' is available as an audio file on the SPGB's website:

IS INEQUALITY NATURAL?

Speaker: Clifford Slapper

Venue: Duke of York, Islington, London

Date: 15th September 1985

Parliamentary Fund (1937)

From the October 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

East Ham Outdoor Propaganda (1937)

Party News from the October 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

'Edkins' was George Edkins, who joined the West Ham Branch of the SPGB in January 1928 and was a member of the SPGB for over fifty years. According to his obituary from the November 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard, he was known to be active at indoor and outdoor meetings during this period.

Follow my leader (2026)

From the October 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some years ago, I was being interviewed by the BBC for one of our election campaigns. The young journalist asked me what we had against having leaders. They’re undemocratic, I replied, and a big ‘does not compute’ sign appeared above her head. For her, democracy was about choosing leaders. So I followed up by explaining how, if we had a leader, the first thing the media would do would be to find where they disagreed with party policy, and ask ‘Are you in charge? Can you change the policy?’ If the leader can’t dictate the policy, the party is officially divided and unruly.

I chose that tack of argument, based on an experience, many years ago, of a university occupation I was lightly involved in: the Vice Chancellor had come out, and his first words were to ask for a spokesman (and to demand their name and department). It was clearly a way to define and control the group who had entered the Senate Chamber. The choice of spokesperson would restrict other voices from being involved and allow the VC to control the discussion.

It is for similar reasons that the British state mandates that all political parties must have a named leader to define and control them. The interview with the BBC journalist could not be used because I was a candidate who was not a party leader (the BBC’s election fairness rules mandate that only leaders can get national coverage, again, an ideological framing that is part of a whole system of propping up minority rule under the guise of participatory democracy).

This gives some context to the ongoing Zack Polanski stories. Until a few years ago, the Green Party did not have a leader, they simply had a principal speaker until 2007 but they felt that to get media attention and traction, they needed to call that voice a leader.

Certainly, having a leader allows people to short-cut the decision-making process of assessing a party’s policies by deciding if they like the leader or not: and then internal struggles simply become around whether a person supports or opposes the leader. As the Labour Party under Corbyn demonstrated, the factional disputes, however based in reality on policy, can become exclusively about the person of the leader, completely obviating the need for any discussion on facts or intentions.

If people like the leader, they can join in, and say: ‘I agree with Zack’. It’s a very quick and human way to gather followers. The problem being, precisely that they are followers, and as Eugene Debs famously said, if someone can lead you into the promised land, someone else can lead you out of it.

A bold leader can move quickly, and adopt new policies, without the slowness of waiting for a messy conference debate and vote (completely closing off party democracy). They can bamboozle interviewers with their wit, and perform well in debates: providing, in this day and age, sound bites and clips that can be readily shared on social media. In short, a leader can prosper. By the same token, though, a party can be broken by having a leader who is reviled or at the least, a distraction, as their personal life becomes the topic of debate, rather than their party or its policies.

Polanski has already had some of that, from the old stories about bosom expanding hypnosis, to the details of his living arrangements and council tax status. The latest, a spat with Nigel Farage about a shared social media post showing a guillotine in one picture out of twenty, shows the dangers of an uncontrolled social media operation.

Farage himself is the (pity him) victim of this process, as the media, which previously gave him a fair wind, suddenly started turning the fire hose of attention on him regarding his funding arrangements. This has been a factor also in the rise and downfall of several previous Prime Ministers: Boris Johnson seemed utterly invulnerable with a sizeable majority until details of Partygate destroyed him: again, personal foibles rather than policy and principles ruled the debate.

Closer to the state of the Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party was making headway using the Scottish Parliament’s proportional representation system, under its figurehead of Tommy Sheridan: until he was brought down by a combination of media attention and his own subsequent conviction for perjury in the libel trial he won against News International. In many ways, he brought his downfall on himself, but he took his party with him.

We could find many other examples, perhaps the most famous being Charles Stewart Parnell, whose marital infidelity broke the Irish Nationalist Party in the House of Commons in the late nineteenth century. The party was organised around him and was very much the old-fashioned party of parliamentarian manoeuvre, rather than being a mass movement. Indeed, the mass party was conceived as an alternative to the hugger mugger of deals in smoke-filled rooms, to replace loyalty to a man with loyalty to an idea and a programme.

A great deal of effort goes into turning us from being active participants in democracy and instead into passive observers or members of a fan club. This is why we refuse to have truck with having a leader, and why we put our efforts first and foremost into political education. In part, that explains our longevity, despite having made so little headway over the years. Our members do not join because they like that nice Mr Smeet, but because they understand what socialism is, what building it will mean and are agreed on the way forward. Where we disagree, we debate, and vote and abide by the decision of the majority of members.

One of our greatest achievements is showing democracy can work, and how it is precisely not playing follow-my-leader once every five years. It is natural for humans to think in terms of personal relations, but equally natural to create processes to prevent domination.

Pik Smeet

‘In office Labour made cuts – in opposition they oppose them’ (2026)

From the Brixton Buzz website

LAMBETH COUNCIL / NEWS

‘In office Labour made cuts – in opposition they oppose them’: SPGB takes aim at Labour and Greens ahead of Myatt’s Fields by-election

Sun 4th October, 2026 - by Phil Ross 

The Socialist Party of Great Britain’s Anya Krycek is standing in the Myatt’s Fields by-election on 8th October – not to win office, but to platform the case for socialism and challenge what the party calls the shared failure of Labour and the Greens to offer an alternative to austerity.

In an election statement, the SPGB argues that neither party can deliver on promises to reverse cuts because “austerity is not a political choice – it’s an economic necessity under the profit-driven capitalist system.”

[Socialist Party of Great Britain office, Clapham, 31.08.26]

 

The party, the world’s oldest socialist party, founded in 1904 and based on Clapham High Street, calls for common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, arguing that “it makes no real difference whether the Greens or Labour win” because “both will manage capitalism in Lambeth, and capitalism means cuts.”

 

Krycek, who also stood in the Clapham Park by-election in July, is hosting drop-in sessions at the SPGB headquarters every Tuesday and Thursday until polling day.

Anya Krycek’s full election statement is reproduced below.

More Info

• Myatt’s Fields by-election: Thursday 8th October 2026
• Socialist Party of Great Britain: 52 Clapham High Street, SW4 7UN

The Candidates

• Sonia Winifred – Green Party. Former Knight’s Hill Labour councillor who crossed to the Greens after being suspended for refusing to vote against a ceasefire motion on Gaza. A former librarian who served as Lambeth’s Cabinet Member for Equalities and Culture.
• Chris French – Liberal Democrats. A local resident who stood in Oval in May and previously as a parliamentary candidate in Vauxhall.
• Molly Hartill – Labour and Co-operative. Hartill stood in Myatt’s Fields in May, finishing fourth with 1,108 votes. Hartill is Head of Office for Dartford MP Jim Dickson, the former long-serving Lambeth Labour councillor for Herne Hill.
• John Hindson – Conservative and Unionist Party
• Yemi Awolola – Christian Peoples Alliance

Anya Krycek’s Full Statement

The Greens and Labour can’t reverse austerity. The only hope is socialism

In the elections in May the Green Party said they wanted to ‘reverse austerity’. They didn’t say how but this promise brought them enough votes to take control of Lambeth council.

It was an empty promise. No local council has the power to do this, neither legally nor economically. Once in office, the promise became just ‘to campaign to restore funding from central government and reverse austerity.’ Not the same.

Anybody can say they ‘stand against’ austerity. And that they will lobby for more money from the government (all councils and the parties running them are doing this). But austerity is not a political choice that can be reversed.

It’s an economic necessity under the profit-driven capitalist system. Governments have no choice but to limit their spending so as not to cut into profits or worsen the conditions for profit-making. Campaigning to change this has no chance of success. The Green Party campaign will fail.

The Labour Party is no different. Labour ran Lambeth council for years and did the same thing. In opposition, Labour councillors voted against cuts and protested against them. In office, they made the cuts.

They had no choice — a council, like a government, has to balance its books within capitalism, and under capitalism that means squeezing spending on services that don’t make a profit. Labour’s answer today is no more realistic than the Greens’: tax the corporations and the rich, spend more, grow the economy.

But the profits of the corporations are the economy, as far as capitalism is concerned. Tax them heavily and investment dries up, jobs disappear, and the money to spend on public services disappears with it. Labour knows this, which is why in office it always rows back. Every Labour government and every Labour council ends up administering capitalism on capitalism’s terms — that means austerity too.

So it makes no real difference whether the Greens or Labour win the Myatts Field by-election on 8 October. Both will manage capitalism in Lambeth, and capitalism means cuts.

Making ends meet is a permanent problem for those who work for wages. That’s because the wages system itself is the problem. Workers are paid less than the value of what we produce — that difference is surplus value, the source of profit. Whether wages go up or down, whether benefits are generous or mean, the working class as a whole can never get more out of capitalism than what it takes to keep us producing for the employers.

Meanwhile technology that could lighten everyone’s load is instead used to shed jobs and speed up those who remain. Overproduction sits side by side with unmet needs — food is destroyed while people go hungry, houses stand empty while people sleep on the streets — because production is geared not to meeting human needs but to making profit and accumulating capital.

Crises, unemployment, war, poverty and environmental destruction are not accidents or bad management. They are the inevitable outcomes of a system where the means of living are owned by a minority and used to serve their interests.

What is socialism? Socialism is not nationalisation, state control, higher taxes on the rich, or what the Labour Party or the Greens call ‘socialism’. It is something fundamentally different: a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production — the land, factories, offices, transport, and all the resources used to produce and distribute wealth.

With no owners, employers or profit, there would be no wages, no money and no buying and selling. Instead, people would freely contribute according to their ability and take from the common store according to their needs.

Production would be organised democratically, by all of us, to directly meet human needs and to live in balance with the planet — not to feed the never-ending drive for profit and growth.

Such a society cannot be handed down from above, and it cannot be voted in by one party alone while the majority still accepts capitalism. It requires a majority of workers worldwide understanding socialism and organising democratically to take over the means of production. That is why the Socialist Party of Great Britain is contesting the Myatts Field by-election — not to manage capitalism, but to use the opportunity to argue the socialist case.

If you agree, don’t waste your vote on parties promising to patch up a system that can’t be patched. Vote Anya Krycek of the Socialist Party of Great Britain on 8 October, and join us in the movement to replace capitalism with a world of free access, democratic control and production for use, not profit.

Promoted by Adam Buick on behalf of Anya Krycek, at the Socialist Party, 52 Clapham High St., London SW4 7UN. Printed by same.

A word to the electors of Clapham Park (2026)

Party News from the July 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our manifesto for a local council by-election in Lambeth on 9 July.

You are being asked to vote in yet another election. The other parties will come to you with lists of promises: more housing, safer streets, better parks, protection for LGBTQ+ people. They will tell you that if you elect them to the council, they will manage capitalism a little more humanely.

We say: we have all heard these promises before. Labour, Lib Dem, Green, they have all sat in the council chamber. The housing crisis has deepened. Rents have soared. Our parks have been fenced off for private profit. And still they ask for your vote on the promise that this time it will be different.

The SOCIALIST PARTY does not make promises we cannot keep. We do not ask you to vote for us in order to administer capitalism more efficiently. We ask you to use your vote as a weapon of class consciousness, to register that you understand the root cause of every problem facing Clapham Park, and that the solution lies not in the council chamber but in the abolition of the wages system itself.

HOUSING: AGAINST PRIVATISATION, FOR THE COMMONS

Lambeth Council has spent decades selling off, demolishing, and privatising the housing stock that working people in Clapham Park depend upon. Council homes have been transferred to housing associations. Estates have been handed to developers under ‘regeneration’ schemes that mean demolition for tenants and luxury flats for investors. The Clapham Park Estate itself has seen the slow erosion of social housing, replaced by ‘mixed tenure’ developments where the ‘mix’ means that those with money and those without are segregated within the same postcode.

The other parties will tell you they will build more ‘affordable’ homes. But ‘affordable’ to whom? To the buy-to-let landlord? To the overseas investor with an empty flat? To the young professional on a six-figure salary? Affordable housing is a contradiction in terms under a system where land and property are commodities to be speculated upon.

The SOCIALIST PARTY has always maintained that housing problems cannot be solved by reform. Every reform, council housing, rent control, ‘right to buy’, has been absorbed, undermined or reversed by the logic of capital. As we argued in the Socialist Standard over a century ago, and as history has proven again and again: what is given by reformist legislation is taken back by economic necessity.

From a socialist perspective, we do not seek to ‘improve’ social housing as a transition to socialism. We recognise that the very form of the commodity, whether a council flat or a private apartment, must be abolished. Housing must cease to be an asset class and become a commons, a space for social engagement, collectively controlled and freely accessible. The ‘communalisation of housework’ demanded by feminist commons theorists is inseparable from the communalisation of housing itself.

Housing under capitalism means rent, mortgage debt, eviction, and ‘regeneration’ that regenerates profit for developers while displacing tenants. Council housing, housing associations, ‘affordable’ rents — all are attempts to manage this contradiction, and all have failed because they leave the wages system intact

Socialism means the common ownership of land and buildings. No rent. No landlords. No ‘property ladder.’ Shelter produced and distributed according to need, not according to ability to pay. This is not a policy to be voted through a council chamber. It is a necessary part of working-class revolution.

BROCKWELL PARK: ECOLOGY AGAINST ‘PARKSPLOITATION’

Brockwell Park is being destroyed before our eyes. Not by neglect, but by commercialisation. Lambeth Council has handed our park to Brockwell Live, a festival operator owned by the private equity firm KKR, managers of approximately £600 billion in assets, with average returns of 18-23 percent. KKR is accountable only to its shareholders. It has no interest in our park, our ecology, or our community.

The result? Up to 32 days of fenced-off, ticketed events. The ‘Great Wall’ erected across public land. Ancient trees damaged. Grasslands turned to mud. And for what? So that profits can be extracted from what was once free space for all, then funnelled through a Luxembourg holding company while Lambeth claims it needs the revenue to ‘subsidise’ the very community events it has now cancelled.

This is not mismanagement. This is capitalism functioning exactly as designed: the enclosure of the commons, the selling-off of things we all use, the subordination of our natural and social landscape to the imperative of profit.

The Green Party will tell you to vote for them to ‘protect’ the park. But ‘protection’ within capitalism means regulation, consultation, planning permission, a slower form of the same enclosure. The Labour Council, meanwhile, has been found by the High Court to have acted unlawfully and irrationally in its handling of these events. Yet they press on.

From a socialist standpoint, we reject the framework that says Brockwell Park must ‘pay for itself.’ Public space is not a revenue stream. Ecology is not a balance sheet. The SOCIALIST PARTY has long argued that capitalism treats the environment as a ‘free good’ to be exploited at no cost to capital. We say: the park belongs to the people who use it, not to the council that administers it, and certainly not to a private equity firm.

Brockwell Park under capitalism is being enclosed by KKR because every space is subject to the logic of the profit system. Labour has managed the park’s enclosure. The Greens would regulate it. Neither questions the system that requires it.

Only socialism can de-commodify public space. Only when production is for use, not profit, can a park be simply a park — trees, grass, birdsong, and the free association of human beings without ticket barriers, security fences, or ‘events strategies.’

LGBTQ SAFETY ON CLAPHAM HIGH STREET

Clapham High Street should be a space where LGBTQ people can move freely and safely. The recent history of violence, harassment, and hate crime in the area is real and must be addressed. But how it is addressed matters.

The other parties will tell you the answer is more police. More CCTV. More ‘hate crime’ legislation. More reporting mechanisms that funnel vulnerable people into the arms of the same criminal justice system that disproportionately arrests, harasses, and imprisons LGBTQ people especially trans people, and sex workers.

The SOCIALIST PARTY has always maintained that the police are not a neutral force. They are, as we have argued since 1904, part of the coercive wing of the capitalist state. Their function is not to protect the vulnerable but to protect property and the social order that produces vulnerability. The modern police force emerged to discipline the working class, break strikes, and enforce the property relations that create the conditions for violence in the first place. As we have consistently pointed out, the police do not prevent crime; they manage its distribution, channelling it away from the wealthy and toward the poor.

The ‘community policing’ advocated by some reformists is no solution. It merely extends the reach of surveillance and control into our neighbourhoods under a friendlier face. The abolition of state policing does not mean its replacement by ‘community policing;’ it means the abolition of the conditions that make policing ‘necessary.’

From a socialist perspective, safety is not produced by force but by different social relations. When housing is secure, when work is voluntary, when gender is not a source of economic precarity, when the ‘family’ is not the enforced unit of social reproduction, then the violence that policing claims to address withers away. The work of collectives like Cradle Community, developing transformative responses to harm that do not rely on coercive institutions, shows us what is possible. But these experiments remain trapped within capitalism, unable to address the structural roots of the violence they respond to.

Policing under capitalism is not a neutral service but the defence of property relations. The police do not prevent violence against LGBTQ people; they manage its distribution, channelling it toward the poor and the marginalised. ‘Community policing’ fulfils the same role, but with a friendlier face.

The socialist alternative is not a different kind of policing but the abolition of the conditions that make policing ‘necessary.’ This is not reform. This is revolution.

WHY WE STAND

THE SOCIALIST PARTY is often called ‘impossibilist.’ We accept the term. We were given it by reformists who thought socialism could be achieved piece by piece, reform by reform, compromise by compromise. Over 120 years, we have watched every such attempt fail or become diluted. The welfare state was built then partially dismantled. Council housing was built and sold off. The ‘right to work’ became the obligation to work for a pittance.

We do not stand for allegedly ‘possible’ improvements within capitalism. We stand for the so-called impossible: a world without wages, without landlords, without police, without states; a world where production is for use, not profit; where the means of life are held in common; where human need, not the accumulation of capital, governs society.

This is not a distant utopia to be achieved after a ‘transition period.’ It is not a programme to be implemented by a party or a state. It is the practical activity of working people abolishing for themselves the divisive and exploitative categories of wage, commodity, property, gender and race.

We do not ask you to vote for us in order to ‘represent’ you in the council chamber. We ask you to vote for us in order to register your rejection of the entire framework of capitalist politics. Every vote for the SOCIALIST PARTY is a vote for the common ownership of the means of life. It is a declaration that you understand that Clapham Park’s problems over housing, ecology, safety, dignity cannot be solved by better management of the same system that produces them.

THE ONLY WAY FORWARD

The other candidates will tell you they can make Lambeth ‘better.’ We tell you the truth: Lambeth cannot be made better while capitalism remains. The council, whatever its political colour, is an administrative body of a class state. It manages the affairs of capital in our locality. It cannot abolish the profit motive. It cannot communalise housing. It cannot de-commodify our parks. It cannot produce safety without force.

Only the conscious, organised working class can do these things. Only when the majority of people understand their interest in the abolition of capitalism and act upon that understanding can we move beyond the endless cycle of reform and reaction.

Your vote for Anya Krycek is not a vote for a councillor. It is a vote for socialism. It is a declaration that you refuse to be bought off with promises of ‘affordable’ rents and ‘community’ policing. It is a recognition that the problems of Clapham Park are the problems of the world system and that their solution requires the revolutionary transformation of that system.

Letter: Some Questions about Socialist Policy. (1932)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

1. In the event of the Socialist Party attaining a majority in Parliament, would they endeavour to pass legislation in the “House” for the purpose of obtaining the means of production and distribution for the working class?

2. If so, how would the Socialist Party act in the event of the Capitalists impeding the passing of the legislation, by force or otherwise?

3. I take it, that the Socialist Party is against cuts, including the biggest cut of all (the exploitation and robbery of the working class through the appropriation of the surplus value created bv the workers). How would they organise the workers against the attacks which are now taking place—unemployment, Means Test, wage-cuts, extension of hours, etc. Would they combat this by mass action, demonstrations, strikes, or what is the Socialist Party’s method of immediate policy, if any ?

4. Does the Socialist Party believe in running candidates for the immediate local and Parliamentary elections?

Thorne, Nr. Doncaster. “SEEKER”

Reply

(1) The working class need to obtain control of the political machinery before they can institute socialism. Having obtained control of Parliament and the machinery of local government, the workers would enact the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and distribution.

(2) Given a majority of the population determined to achieve socialism and politically organised for that purpose, they could obtain control of the political machinery by the vote unless the capitalists then in power decided to suspend democratic elections. In either event it would have been shown that the majority wanted socialism. If Socialists had obtained control of the political machinery, including the armed forces, the capitalists would not be able seriously to impede the passing of legislation. They would not have at their disposal the means of resisting by force.

If, on the other hand, the capitalists were in power and had suspended democratic elections in order to prevent the Socialist majority from obtaining control of the political machinery, steps would have to be taken to make the position of the usurping minority impossible. In view of the fact that the organised majority would be hostile to the Government and able to interfere with the smooth running of industry, the Government would find it in the long run impossible to make capitalism function in a way satisfactory even to the capitalists. The political position of the Government would be weakened owing to its undemocratic basis and the state machine would be unable to function on account of the conflicting views among civil and military employees.

When it is recalled that capitalists have in the past had to institute democratic elections in order to make capitalism stable and efficient, even with the population overwhelmingly in favour of capitalism, it will be perceived how hopeless would be their position if they tried to go back on democratic methods in face of a united Socialist majority. Any attempt on their part to carry on without a mandate from the electorate would be bound to break down in time. Even the capitalists themselves would be forced to see the necessity of choosing socialism in preference to chaos.

(3) The S.P.G.B. is against all attempts to reduce the workers’ standard of living, and in favour of actions which will raise, it, above all, the act which alone will end exploitation, i.e., the institution of socialism. It is only possible to organise the workers to resist “cuts” if the workers wish to resist and believe it to be possible to resist. Similarly, it is only possible to organise the workers for the purpose of achieving socialism when the workers want socialism and believe it possible to achieve it. Neither the S.P.G.B. nor any other body can, at present, induce the working class to organise for the resistance to cuts or for the achievement of socialism, because the majority do not believe either to be possible. As our correspondent will have observed at the last election (if, indeed, such evidence were needed), the overwhelming majority voted for capitalism, and the majority were also prepared to accept cuts because they believed them to be necessary for the maintenance of the social system. Having voted power into the hands of the capitalists, the workers must act in accordance with the situation they have produced. They cannot act as if the situation did not exist. If they attempt to take “mass action” they will be bludgeoned into subjection by the weapon which they placed in the hands of the capitalists last October. Within the limits set by the fact that the capitalists have political power, the workers can demonstrate or strike in order to resist as far as possible further attempts to reduce their standard of living, or in order to raise it. Any sound action on these lines would be supported by the S.P.G.B. in the future as in the past. The actual control and organisation of such action must, however, be a matter for the workers themselves, since only a small minority are in the S.P.G.B. It is the policy of the S.P.G.B. to point out what such action can achieve and also to point out its limits, i.e., that it is dealing only with the effects of capitalism, and cannot lead to socialism.

(4) The S.P.G.B. is a political party, and therefore, in line with its principles, recognises the necessity of running candidates for local and Parliamentary elections. The question of doing so immediately is one to be decided in the light of many factors outside our control. There is no constituency in which there is more than a small minority of socialists, and, therefore, participating in elections at the moment would be only a propaganda effort. It has to be considered in relation to its cost in money and effort, and in relation to alternative and less costly forms of propaganda. This applies particularly to Parliamentary elections in which a deposit of £150 is required and is forfeited if the candidate polls less than one-eighth of the votes. With a growth in the number of socialists the arguments in favour of contesting elections will be stronger and the means will become available.—Ed. Comm.

Party News: Local Election results (2026)

Party News from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Here are the results in the wards of the London Borough of Lambeth which we contested:

Brixton North: Labour: 1415, 1365, 1189; Green: 1388, 1304, 1169; Independent (Shake It Up): 372; Conservative: 261, 252, 167; LibDem: 215, 200, 186; Reform: 189; SPGB: 77; TUSC: 53.

Clapham Common & Abbeville: LibDems: 1331, 1195; Labour: 1116, 789; Green: 441, 423; Conservative: 347, 331; Reform: 194, 173; SPGB: 14.

Stockwell West & Larkhall: Labour: 1438, 1301, 1244; Green: 1234, 1211, 1098; Conservative: 420, 358, 265; LibDems: 377, 348, 273; Reform: 374; Independent (Shake It Up): 351; TUSC: 72; SPGB: 68.

The Greens replaced Labour as the largest party and are likely to be running the council for the next four years. They are making ambitious promises. Here is the new leader of the Green group on the council:

‘We will put power in the hands of residents, workers and the community. Things can, and will, get better.’

And one of his deputy co-leaders:

‘Again and again, residents told us the same story – a political elite, locally and nationally, is prioritising the needs of developers, big business and themselves over the needs of people and planet. We will do things differently’.

Power in the hands of workers; not giving priority to the profits of big business. They sound like Labour politicians in the olden days before they learned the hard way that under capitalism priority has to be given to profits and not to making things better for workers.

"National liberation is a trap" (2026)

Blogger's Note:

The following text is from the SPGB discussion forum, and is in connection to the SPGB contesting the local elections in Lambeth.

"The campaign group, Vote Palestine 2026 "asked candidates if they would sign a pledge, the first point of which was to: “Uphold the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.”  [The BrixtonBuzz website has published a list of those who agreed to sign the whole pledge.] 

Our candidate added a published comment explaining why he couldn’t:

“I did request a better wording of the pledge at the campaign launch but those running the campaign didn’t take my advice so this, regrettably, must be my answer.

I can’t help but feel those who have a vested interest in passing off national liberation wars as somehow socialist had a hand in this."

“I did request a better wording of the pledge at the campaign launch but those running the campaign didn’t take my advice so this, regrettably, must be my answer.

I can’t help but feel those who have a vested interest in passing off national liberation wars as somehow socialist had a hand in this.

Reply from Anya Krycek

Dear Vote Palestine 2026,

Thank you for your email. I must respectfully decline to sign.

As an anti Zionist Jew and socialist standing in Brixton North, I share your horror at the suffering in Gaza and the West Bank. But I cannot endorse a pledge framed around national self determination.

The nation state, whether Israeli or Palestinian, is a prison house of nationalities. It tells workers to wave flags and forget they have no motherland to defend. Israeli and Palestinian workers alike are exploited by the same global system of wage labour and capital.

National liberation is a trap. A new state means new masters under a new flag, while wage labour, property rights, and class rule stay intact. Council divestment treats symptoms, not the disease.

My goal is not another state but the abolition of the state itself: a classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless world community where people cooperate freely. Real self determination means workers recognising their shared enemy across all borders.

I stand with working people everywhere. I cannot sign a pledge that reinforces the nationalism keeping them divided.

Yours sincerely,

Anya Krycek

Socialist Party Candidate for Brixton North, Lambeth”

Another candidate, Eduardo Salgado, who is standing for Shake it Up in the same ward, also commented, expressing a “Marxist-Leninist” (Maoist) point of view:

“I think historically, things happen in stages. According to Marxism-Leninism (ML), national liberation often must precede, or be strategically aligned with, workers’ liberation because imperialism makes national independence a necessary first step to create the conditions for a successful socialist revolution. Lenin viewed the national struggle in colonized or oppressed countries as a key component of the overall world socialist revolution. The core reasoning is that national liberation acts as a necessary step to “clear the decks” for direct class struggle, as it removes the foreign oppressor and allows the working class to battle its local bourgeoisie. Lenin says on this issue:

* Support the national liberation struggle against imperialism unconditionally.

* Maintain independent working-class organization and leadership within that movement.

* Use the liberation struggle to raise demands for socialist transformation (land reform, workers’ rights).”

There is also a Trotskyist candidate standing in Brixton North but he has not intervened yet.

Here is our candidate’s reply to Eduardo Salgado:

The stageist model, national liberation as a necessary prelude to socialist transformation, is not merely strategically mistaken but theoretically incompatible with the abolition of capitalism. The historical record of national liberation movements demonstrates a consistent pattern: the “stage” of national liberation does not clear the decks for proletarian revolution it institutionalizes a new form of capitalist state. The foreign colonizer is replaced by a national bourgeoisie that maintains wage labour, commodity production, and extraction. The nation is not a proto political reality waiting to be liberated, but a category produced by capital itself a way of organising populations into manageable units. To prioritise national liberation is to reinforce the very abstractions; nation, citizenship, the state that capital requires to function.

“The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got.” The Communist Manifesto (1848)

The Socialist Party (GB) position is that the proletariat has no stake in which bourgeoisie administers its exploitation. Anti-imperialism that stops at the nation state leaves exploitation intact. The state form itself prevents the direct social relations that would constitute a break with capital. Socialism cannot proceed through stages it must begin immediately in the content of struggle, as the practical activity of breaking with wage labour, money, and the state. National liberation changes the flag and people in government, it does not interrupt the reproduction of capital. To make it a “necessary step” is to permanently defer the only act that could end exploitation: the immediate social transformation of society by and for the working class. We don’t seek the people’s commodity production we seek abolition of the proletariat.

Anya Brixton North SPGB candidate

What happened at the Brixton Hustings at St Mathews Community Centre – Mon 27th April (2026)

Blogger's Note:

Another piece from Brixton Buzz website, in connection to the SPGB contesting the local election in Lambeth. This light-hearted 'sketch' of a local hustings actually dates from the 28th April.

LAMBETH COUNCIL / NEWS

What happened at the Brixton Hustings at St Mathews Community Centre – Mon 27th April

Tue 28th April, 2026 - by Contributor - 6 Comments.

Yesterday, a Brixton Hustings was held at St Mathews Community Centre, and local writer The Back Row sent Brixton Buzz his report:

“No-one there from Lib Dems (surprisingly – they’ve got a load of ‘real’ candidates in the Brixton wards), Conservatives or Reform. Loads of current Labour councillors from across the wards in the audience.

Some dispute over there being 2 independents under the ‘shake it up’ alliance on the panel. “We’re not a party, but we’re working together”.

Didn’t really make it a lot clearer. (Issue for me is they don’t have any policies – you literally don’t know what you’re voting for. What they support will come down to their assemblies on every issue, but how are they going to run those? )

The Socialist woman was great value. Under the socialists housing will be free for all, you’ll be able to shoplift food again, and we’ll solve deaths on the roads by scrapping salaried jobs so eliminating commute traffic.

She absolutely passed the ‘would you go for few pints with this candidate’ test. A few drinks would turn into an all nighter in no time.

The Trade Union & Socialist candidate was straight out of central casting. 1980s Liverpool will be the model for Lambeth apparently (he disputed the shout from the audience that “they’re all in prison”).

Of all the topics discussed the Christian Alliance guy got most animated denying there was a genocide in Gaza and espousing just how pro-Israel he was (to the extent of getting into some back and forth with the (Kiwi/Jewish) Socialist candidate who was rightly pointing out that you could be proudly jewish without being Zionist).

Unsurprisingly the CA view was not especially popular with the audience. He’d also scrap all the LTNs and decision making would be led by the churches.

Other than incumbent Labour Councillor David Bridson they were all weak on the questions about specific local issues – the stuff that they’d actually be dealing with and have some influence over. Which was disappointing.

Green candidate (ex Labour, Corbynite) was a dramatic speaker but tried to ‘both sides’ questions on both LTNs/Road safety (whereas Green policy is pretty clear) and Brockwell Park Festivals which doesn’t really work whichever side you stand on these issues.

The ‘shake it up’ independents just want to have a citizens assembly on every issue.

Which is both expensive to do properly (DB pointed out Lambeth have done a Climate Assembly) and is going to make any sort of decision making incredibly slow. It’s also not going to lead to ‘consensus’ – you get a view but it’s not one that everyone is going to agree with (the councils current climate/transport/etc policies came out of that assembly).

There was a question about councillors being kicked out for racist/otherwise unacceptable behaviour/statements where most of the candidates were saying they should be kicked out as councillors not just their party.

(Scarlet O’Hara pointed out from audience that there was no way of legally doing that – would require a national change in law but that didn’t stop most on the panel just repeating the same point).

Someone turned up to be shouty and angry about LTNs. That she came from Streatham rather than any of the Brixton wards is probably a strong sign that the anti LTN crew really are shouting into the void now.

And her idea that it’s not safe to walk home from the bus stop without rat running traffic has never made any sense and is counter to all evidence.

The Chair did a good job of keeping people in line, to time, and staying neutral.”

Additional blogger's note:

A link to this report of the hustings was posted on the SPGB's discussion forum with the additional comments by 'ALB':

"We went to the hustings yesterday evening organised by the Brixton Neighbourhood Forum for parties standing candidates in Brixton. Represented were us, the Greens, Labour, Christian People’s Alliance, TUSC and Shake It Up (two — they pulled a fast one as both are technically “Independents”). The Tories, Reform and the LibDems sent no one (the last perhaps because of some deal with the Greens not to try hard in this part of the borough in return for the Greens not trying in another).

There were about 120 present.

The debate was organised fairly which each candidate being given exactly the same opportunity and time to answer questions. From a conventional party political point of view the main contest here is between Labour (representing by an outgoing councillor seeking reelection in Brixton Acre Ward) and one of the Greens standing in the same ward — Michael Chessum, leftwing journalist and activist, who switched from Corbyn to the Green Party. He claims to be a socialist (and confided to our candidate, who was sitting next to him, that he was a “Marxist”). Here is his arguments as to why “revolutionaries” should join the Green Party . . . "

Meet the Candidates: Socialist Party of Great Britain – abolishing capitalism since 1904 (2026)

Blogger's Note:

The Socialist Party is contesting three seats in Lambeth, South London, in the 2026 Local Elections. The following article appeared on the Brixton Buzz website, which is "Brixton’s biggest and most comprehensive news, features and listings site."

LAMBETH COUNCIL / NEWS

Meet the Candidates: Socialist Party of Great Britain – abolishing capitalism since 1904

Wed 6th May, 2026 - by Phil Ross

Founded in 1904, the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) is one of Britain’s oldest socialist parties, and one of its most uncompromising. Unlike Labour or the Greens, the party does not seek to reform capitalism – it seeks to abolish it, along with the state and money itself.

The SPGB is standing three candidates in Lambeth’s 7 May council elections – Anya Krycek in Brixton North, Jacqueline Shodeke in Clapham Common & Abbeville, and Cesar Sotillo in Stockwell West & Larkhall.

Brixton Buzz put four questions to the candidates, and in keeping with the party’s non-hierarchical principles, they answered collectively:

What does the SPGB offer a resident of your ward right now, today?

We do not offer false promises that Lambeth Council can abolish poverty, solve the housing crisis, or fix underfunded public services under capitalism.

Other parties will tell you that with the right policies, the right leadership, or the right ‘progressive coalition,’ things can be made tolerable. We say: capitalism cannot be reformed into a humane system. It is a system of production for profit, and profit will always come before human need.

What we offer immediately is a vote for socialist consciousness.

Every Socialist Party (GB) vote is a declaration that you recognise the present system has failed and must be replaced. It is a signal to other workers that they are not alone in wanting something fundamentally different.

We do not promise to manage capitalism better than Labour. We promise to use any position gained to expose its limits and advocate for revolutionary change.

That said, if elected, we would vote for any measure that genuinely improves working class conditions – since we are not opposed to reforms as such.

[Jacqueline Shodeke]

The SPGB vision is a moneyless, stateless society of common ownership.

Brixton has a thriving culture of independent businesses, market traders and community enterprises.

In that world, what happens to them?

They become part of the common ownership of the means of production. Not state-owned, there will be no state. Not privately owned, there will be no money, no buying and selling.

But democratically controlled by the community of producers and consumers.

Market traders are workers. Independent business owners are typically small scale exploiters of their own labour, often struggling under the same pressures as wage workers.

In socialism, they would contribute their skills and labour directly to meeting social needs, without the constraint of profitability, rent, or competition.

Brixton Market would not disappear, it would transition to a place of free distribution, where the produce of collective labour is available to all without exchange.

The ‘thriving culture’ that people value is not dependent on capitalism and in fact is stifled by both alienation and homogenisation.

Capital constantly undermines through gentrification, rising rents, and the displacement of working-class residents. Socialism would preserve and extend that culture by removing the economic pressures that destroy it.

[Cesar Sortillo]

Where does the SPGB fit in a broader left coalition?

Nowhere. We do not join coalitions with reformist parties, including the Greens or any ‘progressive’ alliance.

Our position is not sectarianism for its own sake, it is a recognition that these organisations operate on fundamentally different principles.

The Greens, like Labour, seek to administer capitalism more humanely. They believe that with better regulation, greener technology, and more ethical consumption, the system can be made sustainable. We disagree.

Capitalism is inherently destructive, of the environment, of human wellbeing, and of any possibility of a rational society. No amount of green washing changes its basic drive for accumulation.

As for ‘working alongside’ others on specific local issues: we support any group of workers in struggle, regardless of political affiliation, for immediate defensive gains.

But we do not enter electoral pacts, shared platforms, or coalitions that imply common political objectives. Our objective is the abolition of capitalism. Theirs is its reform. These are incompatible.

[Anya Krycek]

What is your assessment of Labour’s record in Lambeth, and what would genuinely left representation look like in its place?

Labour has administered capitalism in Lambeth for decades, and the results are visible: gentrification, displacement, privatisation of housing, underfunded services, and a council that acts as a local manager for central government austerity.

They are not a failed alternative to the Tories. They are a reliable partner in managing the same system. ‘Genuinely left representation’ would not mean a more radical Labour council.

It would mean representatives who use their position to tell the truth: that local government under capitalism has no real power to change the fundamental conditions of working class life.

It would be refusing to implement cuts, refusing to collaborate with property developers, and using every platform to argue for the common ownership of the means of production.

That is what Socialist Party (GB) representation would look like.

Not better management of decline, but a clear voice for revolutionary change, starting with the recognition that the working class must organise politically, democratically, and consciously for socialism.

Anya Krycek, Brixton North Jacqueline Shodeke, Clapham Common & Abbeville Cesar Sotillo, Stockwell West & Larkhall

More Info

Socialist Party of Great Britain