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.

Silly Rivalry. (1932)

From the June 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

On May Day some demonstrators marched on the Japanese Embassy and were bludgeoned by the police. The Communists said that it was their stunt, and the l.L.P. journal, Forward, told the Communists how silly it was.

“The whole case against Communism might be summed up in the final feature of the day. This was the march against the Japanese Embassy….. The forces of police, foot and mounted, were overwhelming, and all that happened was a disgraceful scrimmage, cruel batonings, broken heads and several arrests.” (Forward, May 7th.)

Now read what the New Leader, the other l.L.P. organ, says :—

“The United Column…..was well over 1½ miles in length and very impressive. (This) is a piquant comment on the efforts of the Communist Party speakers to represent themselves the bold and true leaders as distinguished from the faint-hearted l.L.P. The small group which, after the police charges finally did break through to the offices of the Japanese Embassy, consisted almost exclusively of I.L.Pers and was led by one of the most prominent of the Divisional I.L.P. Propagandists.”

The I.L.P., like boastful schoolboys, thus present themselves to the Communists with the challenge : “We dare you to think of a stunt so damned silly that we won’t do it, too.”

The Socialist Forum: Parliament and the Bankers. (1932)

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

A Belfast reader asks the following questions : —

(1) Do the bankers or Parliament rule, and is Parliament a tool of the former?

Do the bankers dictate the economic, financial and, for the most part, the political programme Parliament must carry out?

(2) Did the bankers engineer the “crisis” during the autumn of 1931 and compel England to abandon the gold standard and also order a general election to take place?

(3) Could you point out some of Capitalism’s contradictions ?

Reply

(1) The Government is dependent for its existence on having the support of a majority in the House of Commons. The M.P.’s are elected by the voters, the great majority of whom are workers. The bankers, like any other section of the population, can only get their interests protected if they can get Parliament to approve.

The property rights and profits of the bankers are protected by law, just as are the property rights and profits of other sections of the capitalist class. Sometimes Governments lean towards one section of the capitalists (e.g., the bankers) and sometimes towards other sections (e.g., industrial capitalists). This they do either because of some urgent problem requiring treatment for the safety of the capitalist system, or in response to pressure from the M.P.’s and the political parties. The last Conservative Government by its rating reforms helped some industrial capitalists at the expense of other capitalists. The present Government has introduced tariffs with the same object. The return to the gold standard in 1925 was of benefit to bankers and to other sections of the capitalists.

That the bankers are able to secure protection by law and by the Government, is due to the fact that the electors approve. At the last election the “National” parties proclaimed that they were protecting the banks against supposed danger which would threaten if the Labour Party gained office. This did not prevent the majority of the workers from voting for the “National” candidates.

The bankers and other sections of the capitalists, of course, do not state openly that they are seeking protection for their own particular interests. They argue that what they seek is in the interest of the nation as a whole, and especially of the workers. While the workers lack knowledge of Socialism they will continue to accept this plea and vote into power people and parties favourable to the retention of capitalism in general and more favourable to the particular interests of bankers at one time and industrial capitalists, etc., at another.

Our correspondent should notice what happened at the recent by-election in St. Marylebone. There were two rival Conservative candidates in the field. One of them, Sir Basil Blackett, is a director of the Bank of England and had the backing of most of the Conservative leaders and the party machine. Yet he was beaten by the opposing Conservative candidate who had the backing of the rank and file of the local Conservative Party. The electors decided the issue.

(2) With regard to the question as to whether the bankers engineered the “crisis” of last autumn, we can only say that it is for those who hold that view to bring forward evidence in support. On the face of it the suggestion appears improbable, since the abandonment of the gold standard is hardly likely to have been sought by the bankers who favoured the return to gold in 1925. Our correspondent is referred to the articles published in several issues of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD from September onwards, dealing with various aspects of the “crisis.”

(3) The following are some of the contradictions of capitalism.

The existence of great wealth and great poverty side by side.

The existence of unemployment among workers needing the products of industry and willing to produce them, while at the same time the raw materials are lying unused and the factories idle.

Compulsory idleness among unemployed and enforced overwork among the employed workers.

The utilisation of labour-saving machinery not for the benefit of the users of them, but for the benefit of the capitalists, often accompanied by still greater strain on the workers.

The glorification of the leisured class and the simultaneous denunciation of idleness among the workers.

The prohibition of theft by Governments which use armed forces for wholesale robbery from other nations.

Ed. Comm.

Socialist Forum: The S.P.G.B., Trade Unions and Unemployed Organisations. (1932)

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

A correspondent (T. W. C., Clapham) asks the following questions :—

(1) Am I right in assuming that it would be consistent with the principles of the S.P.G.B. for a member to be outside of a Trade Union?

(2) Can Local Unemployed organisations (not necessarily the N.U.W.M., which is under the influence of the Communist Party) be of some assistance to the unemployed; i.e., in informing members and non-members the correct procedure in obtaining relief, or by deputations in persuading the Local Guardians to grant extra relief. (I know there is a maximum amount which is laid down by the Ministry of Health) or to grant relief to those who have been refused.

(3) Could an unemployed member of the S.P.G.B. be a member of such an organisation?

Reply

(1) Membership of the S.P.G.B. is not conditional on membership of a trade union, but, of course, membership is denied to those who we know are guilty of anti-working-class action. Many persons who are not trade unionists have sound reasons for their position.

(2) An organisation of unemployed may be of some assistance in the ways mentioned by our correspondent.

(3) Members of the S.P.G.B. are permitted to belong to certain of the organisations of unemployed.

Ed. Comm.

Socialist Forum: A Question about Zionism. (1932)

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

March 7th, 1932.

The Editorial Committee,

Socialist Standard.

Dear Comrades,

As a young Jewish worker, I accept the general principles of the S.P.G.B. But, as I am Jewish I have to bear a double load; both the load of exploitation and the load of anti-semitism. Not only do I have to work and sell my labour-power, but I am forced to have many disadvantages which non-Jewish comrades do not experience. What are the Jews to do? Persecuted as they are, and with the prospect of Socialism being very remote, is it not wise of Jewry all over the world to set up a “National Home” in Palestine.

True it is that I will be exploited in Palestine just as well as in England. But in Palestine I could escape anti-Jewish persecution. The German Jews, now threatened by Hitler, would have nothing to fear from him. The Jew-baiting in Polish Universities would cease. Thus, in my opinion, it is essential for the Jews to have a National Home, under Capitalism.

I trust that you will answer my statements in the next issue of the SOCIALIST STANDARD, as this is a serious problem. Perhaps you could explain the causes of anti-semitism.

Yours fraternally,

“JEWISH WORKER.”

Reply

Our correspondent says that he accepts the general principles of the S.P.G.B., but his letter shows that this is not correct. The argument, “Socialism being very remote, therefore let us work for something else,” is the excuse used by every reformist opponent of Socialism and is a repudiation of S.P.G.B. principles. Socialism will only cease to be remote to the extent that the workers strive for Socialism instead of supporting Zionism and other movements which leave capitalism intact.

A basic principle of the S.P.G.B. is that the abolition of capitalism is the only means of solving the social problem that is common to all workers. Acceptance of our principles carries with it a willingness to concentrate on the basic cause and to push into the background the minor and sectional problems.

The hostility shown by some non-Jews towards some Jews is one of many such minor and sectional problems. It is a continuation of traditional hostility based mainly upon economic causes. Non-Jewish traders found themselves in competition with Jews often more successful than themselves. Christians were for long prevented by the Church from practising usury. Consequently their antagonism towards Jewish traders and moneylenders tended to take the form of antagonism towards Jewish people in general. In some countries, especially where non-Jewish peasants still find themselves forced to incur debts to moneylenders, some of whom are Jewish, this antagonism still continues. It is sometimes deliberately fostered by interested parties in order to cloud the main issue.

But, speaking generally, it is not true that Jews, as such, are subject to any material disability. Can it be said in any real sense that the Readings, Monds, Rothschilds and others of their social position need a “National Home” in Palestine? So little is that the case, that they take good care not to go there.

Our correspondent does not say what are the “many disadvantages” from which Jews suffer and from which non-Jewish workers are free. The illusions of Zionists on the one side are balanced on the other by the fixed belief held by many non-Jewish workers that the world is in pawn to the Jews. The complaints of some Jews that they are at a disadvantage compared with non-Jews are echoed by the Arabs in Palestine, but in their eyes it is the Jew who is the privileged and favoured interloper, and the Arab is the bearer of the “double burden.” Similar complaints are heard about the favour shown to Freemasons, to members of various Christian sects, and to adherents of certain political parties. Then there are the complaints of the national minorities—the Austrians in Italy, the Germans in Poland and Belgium, the Flemish in Belgium, the negroes in U.S.A., and the Scots and Welsh in Great Britain..

There is a certain amount of substance in all such grievances voiced by individuals and groups of workers, but they pale into insignificance by comparison with the subject position of the working class in their relationship with the capitalist class.

While all of these groups fight each other and work for their separate minor aims, the capitalist system will remain secure.

There are many weaknesses in the Zionist case. It is an impossibility for all the Jews of the world to settle in Palestine even if they wish to do so. The existence of the Jewish State raises another grievance which takes a racial and religious form—that of the Arabs and Palestine Christians.

The reference to the persecution of Jews by the German Hitlerites shows up another flaw in the argument, for the Hitler movement has developed since the setting up of the Jewish State in Palestine.

Ed. Comm.

S.P.G.B. Propaganda Meetings. (1932)

Party News from the June 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialist Sonnet No. 235: Reformation (2026)

 From the Socialism or Your Money Back blog

Reformation

Maintaining ‘Socialism’ as watchword

Can seem unlikely, when realpolitik

Is succumbing to the three card trick

Of the slight of hand dealer in absurd

Demagogy, when the popular vote

Is placed on populist blandishments,

Falsified promises; reason relents

Its influence. Without considered thought

Reform, however tempting it appears,

Remains a mistaken gamble to make,

Especially with the future as the stake:

Gamblers regret can last for years and years.

There’s none as asleep as the mistaken,

Being so, so difficult to awaken.

D. A.

SPGB Snippets: Looking forward to retirement? (2026)

From the Socialist Party of Great Britain website

June 3, 2026

Workers toil not just to live, eat and raise a family, but also to prepare for retirement by building a pension pot. However, recent reports from the Pensions Commission have argued that fifteen million people in the UK are not saving nearly enough to have a secure retirement, even by the miserly standards of capitalism.

Nearly half of working-age adults are not saving into a pension at all, with just 4% of ‘self-employed’ workers doing so. Future retirees may well be worse off than today’s.

Not only does capitalism dominate people’s working lives, the pressures of daily life also make it much harder to get ready to live comfortably after their days of toil and exploitation are over.

Material World: Malawi after capitalism — chaos or common ownership? (2026)

The Material World column from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received the following interesting communication.

Comrades, friends, fellow workers of across the world.

To begin, I shall explain why the Socialist League of Malawi exists today. Although LESOMA was first formed in 1974 to oppose Banda’s dictatorship, the objective of our founding fathers led by late Dr Attati Mpakati who was assassinated in 23 March 1983, was never simply to replace one government with another. LESOMA objectives then, as now, is the establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole society.

The current situation in Malawi: A crisis of the market, not of nationality

Sixty-two years after formal independence, the working class of Malawi remains trapped in the wages system. Successive governments — MCP, UDF, DPP, PP, have all administered capitalism. The results are before us:

1. Economic: Malawi remains a supplier of raw tobacco, tea, sugar, and uranium for the world market. 70 percent of us live on less than $2.15 a day. Yet warehouses are full of maize that cannot be sold at a ‘profitable’ price. Hospitals lack drugs that sit unused in private pharmacies because patients lack money. The kwacha collapses, debt rises, and the IMF dictates our budget. This is not ‘underdevelopment’. This is capitalism working normally.

2. Political: We have multi-party elections, but every party stands for the same thing: managing the market, attracting foreign investors, and maintaining the state. Corruption scandals from Fieldyork and Cashgate to fertilizer subsidies are not abuses of the system, they are the system. The state exists to protect property and profit, not people.

3. Social: 4.4 million Malawians face food insecurity in 2026 despite good rains. Our youth flee to South Africa for piece-work because there are no wages here. Women carry water 5km while bottled water is exported. Cyclones Freddy and Ana showed that climate breakdown hits workers first, because safety is unprofitable.

LESOMA’s position: There is no Malawian road to socialism

Since our reconstitution, LESOMA has set out its objectives clearly in our Constitution and Declaration of Principles. We do not seek to ‘develop’ Malawi inside capitalism. We do not call for a ‘national democratic revolution’ or alliances with employers. Capitalism is a world system and can only be replaced by world socialism.

What does that mean for Malawi?

1. Common ownership: The land, the tea and tobacco estates, the uranium at Kayelekera in Karonga District, the lake, the factories — all held in common, not by the state, not by foreign companies, not by ‘patriotic’ businessmen. Democratic control by the whole community.

2. Free access: Food, housing, healthcare, education, transport provided for use, not for sale.

3. No state, no borders: The armed forces, police, and prisons exist to protect property. Without property, their function disappears. Administration of things replaces government over people. There will be no ‘Malawian’ socialism, because socialism cannot exist in one country.

This is now a practical option. Workers in Malawi and worldwide have developed productive capacity to meet everyone’s needs. The barrier is not technical. It is the market. We produce for profit, not for use. That is why fertilizer is locked in warehouses while farmers need it. That is why nurses are unemployed while clinics are understaffed.

The international socialist stand in 2026

LESOMA seeks partnership with your party and all serious socialist movements worldwide. Our position is unchanged since 1974:

1. We reject all war. Competition for oil, lithium, trade routes, and markets caused the wars in Congo, Sudan, and Ukraine. Even now it is the cause of the war between Iran and Israel and the United States of America. Only common ownership ends the economic basis of war and environmental destruction.

2. We reject reformism. Trade unions, minimum wage laws, and aid projects cannot abolish the wages system. They can only negotiate terms of exploitation. We do not oppose workers struggling for better conditions, but LESOMA’s sole objective is socialism, not better-managed capitalism.

3. We reject self imposed leadership. Socialism cannot be brought by a vanguard, a coup, or a guerrilla army. It requires the democratic action of the majority. Our task is education and organization, not to lead workers but to make socialists.

Our immediate work in Malawi

Once we get registered and have enough funds, LESOMA intends to:

1. Educate: Spread the case for a world of common ownership in Malawian languages like Chichewa, Tumbuka, including English which is the current official language in Malawi. We will explain to the masses why fertilizer subsidies, ‘youth empowerment funds’, and foreign investment cannot solve poverty.

2. Organise: Build a political party hostile to all other parties — because all other parties stand for capitalism. We will contest elections, not to run capitalism, but to win a mandate to abolish it.

3. Internationalism: Work with workers in Zambia, Mozambique, South Africa, and worldwide. The problems of a miner in Karonga Malawi and a call-center worker in London are the same: no access without money.

We will not call for armed struggle. Violence is the method of capitalists.

Chaos or common ownership?

Malawi today faces rising debt, climate shocks, and political disillusion. The danger is not only poverty, but that workers turn to ethnic parties, religious sects, or military strongmen out of despair. That is chaos.

The alternative is not regime change. It is change in economic system. Given free access to the means of life, the energy and creativity of Malawi’s workers could end hunger in months, not 40 years.

Comrades, there is no ‘Malawian solution’. There is a world solution, and Malawi’s working class is part of it. The time has come for workers to stop electing new managers of our poverty, and instead to organise for a world of free access. When the majority wants socialism, we can have it.

For world socialism,

Patrick Nthakomwa, President, Socialist League of Malawi (LESOMA)

The smokescreen of prices (2026)

From the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

The prices shown for delivery on online platforms do not tell the full story of the goods and services we buy. The amount we pay for delivery does not tell the tale of low pay for drivers, fragmented work, and daily risks on the road. The visible cost is only the surface: a simple figure that hides the real human and material costs.

Nor is this limited to delivery. More generally, the market price of a good or service rarely includes all the costs of producing it. A significant part is shifted elsewhere: onto the environment, workers, society, or the future.

Many low-cost products depend on production chains that use natural resources with no attention to environmental impact. Deforestation for non-essential goods, intensive use of energy and water, and pollution generated in production have no direct impact on the selling price. The same is true of working conditions – low wages, insecurity, and limited safety – which remain outside the cost on the market.

Another layer of this smokescreen lies in product design. Planned obsolescence and poor reparability, especially in electronic devices, shift costs onto consumers over time and increase waste. The initial price may seem low, but the overall cost—economic and environmental—is much higher.

There are also less immediate effects: impacts on health, as with ultra-processed food; the growing burden of waste that is hard to recycle; and the degradation of ecosystems. These costs are largely borne by society, often through public spending or a loss in quality of life.

This does not result from a single actor deliberately hiding costs. It is a feature of a system in which firms compete to lower prices and raise margins, while many indirect costs—so-called externalities—are not properly accounted for.

The result is a distortion: what is cheap in the market can be costly for society as a whole. Price acts as a smokescreen, simplifying and concealing, and making it harder to judge the real consequences of our choices.

A more radical approach is to question the system itself. If market prices tend to exclude social, environmental, and human costs, then the issue is not only how to correct the system, but whether it should be replaced.

In a system oriented to human needs rather than profit, production will not be driven by returns to investors but by social usefulness and sustainability. This will require forms of planning—more or less decentralised—able to take real costs into account from the start: decent working conditions, environmental limits, durability and reparability, and health factors.

In such a context, price will be abolished as a means of access to goods and services, making them freely available. This would not mean a lack of coordination, but a different kind of coordination. Production and distribution will be organised through planning, shared priorities, and participatory decision-making, giving the ability to deal with both potential abundance and real scarcity. The production of unnecessary or harmful goods will be reduced – not because it is unprofitable, but because it is recognised as socially and environmentally unsustainable.

This raises important questions. How can complex systems of production be coordinated without prices? How can inefficiency, concentration of power, or rigid bureaucracy be avoided? How can innovation and flexibility be maintained? These are not trivial issues. But the tools and knowledge to make costs visible—and to organise production differently—already exist. The issue is not technical, but political and collective. It requires not only awareness, but a conscious and collective decision to reorganise society on a fundamentally different basis. The sooner we begin to take this seriously, the sooner we can stop treating as inevitable what today may appear ‘natural’ but is simply an expression of the way society is organised at this particular point in time.

Gian Maria

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.

SPGB June Events (2026)

Party News from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

Blogger's Note:

Justin Fairchild's book, Unchained. Living Without Money, was reviewed in the September 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Halo Halo (2026)

The Halo Halo Column from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

J Gordon Melton, executive director of the Institute for the Study of American Religions at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told The New York Times that 40 to 45 new religious movements emerge each year in the United States’ (Wiki NRM).

One of the more notable, newer ones is Ahmadi, Religion of Peace and Light (AROPL), birthed in 1999 (which has no connection to another, older breakaway Muslim sect, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, also known as Ahmadis)

The new kid on the block lays out what it thinks is its unique selling point:

‘The movement’s literature states that it is the new religion foretold by the Holy Household of the Prophet Muhammad to emerge in end times, that it is the one true universal religion and that its members are God’s chosen people’.

End times – tick, only true religion – tick, chosen people – tick. Not so unique, straight out of the playbook used in the USA, the only difference being the holy household.

As you do when meeting by accident a divine being or angel or the Twelfth Imam, you start a new religion. But the equivalent to the People’s Front of Judaea was split by the Judaean People’s Front which became the AROPL. Fast forward, the AROPL’s current leader, according to the Religion Media Centre (RMC), is an Egyptian-American who claims some sort of lineage back to Muhammad.

It has, of course, its ‘sacred book’ published in 2022. The RMC says that one of the beliefs held is that currency is a scam and when the Divine Just State happens people will ‘contribute what they can and have their needs met by the community’. RMC says also that AROPL ‘believes that 99 per cent of every religion is wrong’. It has some David Icke-type beliefs and a relaxed attitude towards some positions the fourteen hundred year-old parent considers inviolable. This makes Ahmadi heretical in some states.

AROPL would have passed under our radar completely until it found itself the subject of some unsavoury reporting in the media. The concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ isn’t always adhered to in media generally and social media in particular. The Guardian and other media, at the tail end of April, correctly used ‘allegedly’ and we note the story headline without making any judgmental comments on the incident reported: ‘Crewe religious group raided by police investigating allegations of serious sexual offences’.

The allegations follow a familiar but sad pattern found many times before in large and small religious sects. Or should we say cults? The Guardian writes that the raid on the Cheshire headquarters carried out by five hundred police occurred because of a complaint by a woman, previously a member, of rape and sexual abuse. Arrests took place on suspicion of trafficking, sexual offences, forced marriage and slavery.

If legal proceedings follow, then whatever the outcome, the sense of persecution this will engender will only serve, sadly, to reinforce the adherents’ loyalty towards something that lures with false rhetoric. It cannot ever make their lives better.

DC

Blog update

As you might have noticed, posts on the blog have dried up in recent weeks. Apologies for that, but it couldn't he helped. A combination of a creaky old laptop and problems with the scanning in software that I use has meant that the blog's been paralysed . . . so to speak. Sadly, the timing is especially awful as the Socialism or Your Money Back blog has been temporarily taken down whilst some 'housekeeping' needs to be done. Hopefully, it will be back online in the fullness of time.

In the meantime - as a stop-gap - I've taken the opportunity to build up the activity of promoting the Socialist Standard elsewhere on social media. At the moment, primarily on Facebook but occasionally I've been dipping my toes into Twitter and Reddit. 

Posted blow is a partial list of the articles and reviews posted on Facebook in recent months. The purpose in posting the list is twofold: Firstly, it's a good opportunity to revisit old articles and reviews from the Socialist press that deserve a second, third and fourth airing. We should never be shy in dipping into our extensive archive. And, secondly, if any readers of the blog have suggestions for other old articles and reviews that deserve to be rediscovered, then please contact me at imposs1916@gmail.com with links, etc.

Facebook Socialist articles and reviews

Socialist Standard

Dec 1908: Why the Unemployed are Necessary under Capitalism by A. E. Jacomb

Dec 1920: Editorial - The Latest Humbug

May 1930: Tolstoy On Work

Jul 1938: Our Practical Policy by Harry Waite

Sep 1938: Why I Joined the SPGB by Sid Rubin

Sep 1940: Dictatorship and Democracy in the Ancient World  by Gilmac

Oct 1940: Dictatorship and Democracy in the Ancient World - Part 2  by Gilmac

Jun 1945: So You Want To Be A Capitalist? by Samuel Leight

Jun 1950: Book Review - Richard Crossman's 'The God That Failed' (Reviewed by Ted Wimott)

Apr 1953: From Lenin to Stalin by Ted Wilmott

Jun 1958: May Day and the Class Struggle by Ted Wilmott

Sep 1964: Labour theory of value by Ivan

Nov 1965: Confusion on the left  by Ivan

Jul 1966: Film Review - Peter Watkins' 'The War Game'  (Reviewed by Harry Baldwin)

Jun 1974: 70 Years for Socialism by Robert Barltrop

Feb 1975: Book Review - Walter Greenwood's 'Love on the Dole' (Reviewed by Alf Atkinson)

Apr 1978: Rosa Luxemburg and the National Question by Adam Buick

Jun 1978: Down Coronation Street by Steve Coleman

Dec 1980: Book Review - Anton Pannokoek's 'Socialism is the enemy of Nationalism' (Reviewed by Adam Buick)

Aug 1982: Marx and the workers’ movement by Adam Buick

Oct 1982: Film Review - Pink Floyd’s The Wall (Reviewed by LEVAR)

Dec 1983: Proud to be British? by Steve Coleman

May 1987: Leo Tolstoy: author and anarchist by Carl Pinel

Aug 1993: But Flies Are Not Human  by Steve Coleman

Jun 1995: The Three Pillars of Marxism by John Bissett

Nov 1997: Theatre Review - Arnold Wesker's 'Chips With Everything' (Reviewed by Michael Gill)

Apr 2001: Book Review - Howard Zinn's 'Marx in Soho' (Reviewed by by John Bissett)

Jun 2003: How We Live and How We Could Live by Adam Buick

Apr 2005: What Socialism Means by Pieter Lawrence

Nov 2005: Editorial - Forget, forget the 5th of November – and Trafalgar Day

Dec 2005: Cooking the Books: Who needs the rich?

Dec 2006: Co-operation Not Competition by Paul Bennett

Nov 2008: Material World - The War Business: Why do capitalist states prepare for and wage war?  by Stefan

Mar 2009: The Real Dirty Work by Paul Bennett

Aug 2010: Material World: Waste and Want: Grapes of Wrath revisited by Stefan

Sep 2012: Material World: Greenland – A New Field for Capitalist Exploitation by Stefan

Jul 2013: Iain M Banks and The Culture by Rob Stafford

Feb 2014: The Throwaway System by Alan Johnstone

May 2015: Cooking the Books: Cashless is Not Moneyless

Oct 2015: Peter Watkins: A Revolutionary Film-Maker (part 1) by Mike Foster

Nov 2015: Peter Watkins: A Revolutionary Film-Maker (part 2) by Mike Foster

Mar 2017: Who’s to Blame for Capitalism? by Binay Sarkar

April 2017: Cooking the Books: Never Been Tried

Feb 2018: Bitcoin: What Would Marx Think? by Cesco

Aug 2018: Angelica Balabanoff: To Bolshevism and back by Cesco

Dec 2018: Cooking the Books: Fukuyama goes reformist

Feb 2019: Material World: Trump – Not Happy with his Lot as World Policeman? by Alan Johnstone

Sep 2020: Cooking the Books: What is poverty?

Dec 2020: Book Review - Fabian Scheidler's 'The End of the Megamachine. A Brief History Of A Failing Civilization' (Reviewed by Janet Surman)

Apr 2021: Socialism, Free Speech and ‘Cancel Culture’ by S. H.

Jan 2022: Cooking the Books: Marx and the City

Jan 2023: Book Review - Matthew Holten's 'Moneyless Society' (Reviewed by Howard Moss)

Oct 2023: Cooking the Books: AI in perspective

Aug 2024: Material World: The politics of envy by Robin Cox

Sep 2024: Cooking the Books: Trumponomics

Dec 2024: Book Review - Jack Margolin's 'The Wagner Group: Inside Russia’s Mercenary Army' (Reviewed by Paul Bennett)

Jan 2025: Material World – Will capitalism implode? by Robin Cox

Jan 2025: What is socialism? by South Wales Branch

Mar 2025: Book Review - Aidan Beatty's 'The Party is Always Right' (Reviewed by DAP)

May 2025: Book Review - Kohei Saito's 'Slow Down: How Degrowth Communism Can Save the Earth' (Reviewed by Paul Bennett)

Jun 2025: Editorial: Starmer goes nativist

Jun 2025: Proper Gander: Looking into Black Mirror by Mike Foster

Jul 2025: Farage — opportunist supreme by Howard Moss

Aug 2025: Book Review Ash Sarkar's 'Minority Rule. Adventures in the Culture War' (Reviewed by Howard Moss)

Sep 2025: Editorial: None of the above

Sep 2025: Letter - Capitalism is mental by Pablo Wilcox

Sep 2025: Pathfinders: A wealth of hallucinations by Paddy Shannon

Sep 2025: Cooking the Books: Corbyn’s crumbs of comfort

Oct 2025: Away with all national flags! by Robin Cox

Oct 2025: Book Review - Walter Kendall's 'The Revolutionary Movement in Britain 1900–21. The Origins of British Communism' (Reviewed by Adam Buick)

Oct 2025: Cooking the Books: Has Trump gone state-capitalist?

Oct 2025: Letter - Conditions for Socialism by Pablo Wilcox

Oct 2025: Book Review Thomas Piketty’s 'Equality. What It Means and Why It Matters' (Reviewed by Howard Moss)

Nov 2025: Cooking the Books: No such thing as free buses 

Dec 2025: Cooking the Books: Capitalism – an irrational system 

Dec 2025: Material World: Life without money by Adam Buick

Jan 2026: Material World: Paycheck to pay check by Howard Moss

Jan 2026: Cooking the Books: Capitalist musings on money 

Feb 2026: Editorial: Iran’s cry of the oppressed 

Mar 2026: Letter: A View from the Hospital Basement by Pablo Wilcox

Mar 2026: Material World: Right, left and fake communism by Juan Morel Perez

Apr 2026: Cooking the Books: AI, profits and Engels

May 2026: Proper Gander: Theroux the keyhole by Mike Foster

May 2026: Cooking the Books: Who does capitalism work for? 

May 2026: The General Strike by Pik Smeet

May 2026: Pathfinders: Moon madness by Paddy Shannon

May 2026: Book Review - Rutger Bregman's 'Moral Ambition. Stop Wasting Your Talent and Start Making a Difference' (Reviewed by Howard Moss)

Letter From Europe page

World Socialist Journal

World Socialist No. 4: D. H. Lawrence and the abolition of money (1985-6)

Cooking the Books: All workers’ parties now? (2026)

The Cooking The Books column from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘We’re now the workers’ party’ proclaimed the headline of an article by Nigel Farage in the Times (10 May) following his party’s gains in the local council elections. A week or so earlier on May Day, Zack Polanski had declared that ‘the Greens are the new workers’ party’.

So, who are ‘the workers’? Capitalist society is divided into two basic classes: a class that owns the resources needed to produce what the members of society need to survive, and a class, without such ownership, whose members are obliged to try to sell their working skills to obtain money to buy what they need to survive. The vast majority of the population are members of this working class, irrespective of what job they do or whether they work in an office or an industrial unit.

Farage wrote about ‘guys wearing orange jackets working for local councils, paid-up trade union members, or the self-employed’, which suggests he is thinking more of manual and industrial workers. That is certainly a common usage of the term ‘working class’, defined by occupation rather than exclusion from ownership of productive resources. There is evidence that many such workers who traditionally supported Labour have switched to Reform.

But if a party is to be judged a workers’ party because of the number of workers who vote for it, any party which has substantial support would be a ‘workers party’ as the vast majority of voters are workers. The Tories, the Liberals and the Scots and Welsh Nats would be workers’ parties too.

Polanski’s claim that the Greens are now the workers’ party is based on promising measures to benefit workers in the workplace. He sounds like a Labour politician of yesteryear:

‘The reforms introduced by Margaret Thatcher nearly half a century ago began the long march downwards in the balance of power and wealth in our country — from those who produce and do the work to those who profit from it …. We will address the massive imbalance in our workplaces and give control back to workers’.

His claim that the Greens are the new workers’ party is in effect a claim that Greens are the new ‘Labour’ party. But why does he think that the Green Party would be any more successful in shifting the balance of power and wealth in favour of those who produce the wealth? Why does he think that the Labour Party failed to do this? And, incidentally, when did workers ever control their places of work?

The Labour Party started off as a trade union pressure group to get legislation passed that would benefit workers. At best it could be seen as a party that aimed to improve the position of workers within capitalism but, although some reforms can do and have done this, capitalism can never be made to run in the interest of the working class, because it is a profit-making system and profits come from the unpaid labour of those ‘who produce and do the work’. It is an anti-worker system and no government can change that.

Farage’s claim that his party is a workers’ party is laughable in view of its openly pro-capitalist policies. Polanski’s claim can be dismissed as vote-catching rhetoric by an opposition party that has no chance of being called to honour its promise — and, if ever it was in that position, it would fail just as the Labour Party has done and for the same reason. Capitalism simply cannot be made to work for the workers.

A real workers’ party is one that advocates political action to bring about the immediate common ownership and democratic control of productive resources.