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.

But not fighting capitalism (2026)

Book Review from the May 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fight Oligarchy: Where We Go from Here. By Bernie Sanders. Penguin £9.99.

Oligarchy, the opening sentence states, ‘is a system in which a small number of extremely wealthy individuals control the economic, political, and media life of a nation.’ Plenty of examples are given of inequality of wealth. For instance, Elon Musk is worth nearly $400 billion, more than the bottom half of US households. In Mexico, Carlos Slim is worth over $96 billion, while the Sultan of Brunei has wealth of $30 billion and owns 600 Rolls Royces.

Nor is it just a matter of individuals. Three Wall Street firms, Vanguard, BlackRock and State Street, are major shareholders in nearly all the largest American corporations, including Ford, ExxonMobil and Pfizer. Media ownership is extremely concentrated too: ‘Billionaires own and control virtually every major newspaper and radio network in the country.’ Moreover, there is massive oligarchic influence on politics, with gigantic donations and threats to run candidates against politicians who are the least bit awkward. Super PACs (Political Action Committees) can spend millions of dollars to defeat, for instance, members of Congress who oppose US aid to the Israeli government. The Democratic Party offers little resistance to Trump and the oligarchs, having supposedly ‘turned its back on the needs and suffering of America’s working class’ (but when did it ever support the interests of workers?).

At the same time, American workers are on average less well off than fifty years ago, adjusting for inflation. Eight hundred thousand people in the US are homeless, and over sixty thousand die each year because they cannot get to a doctor on time. Suicide rates have increased, especially among young people.

Sanders, an independent senator who has been involved with the Democrats, presents a vivid and harrowing picture of inequality and poverty in the US. He has been on a Fighting Oligarchy tour around various states, talking to audiences about what can and should be done to fight back. What he advocates is, however, the usual reformist fare: raise taxes on the rich and on large corporations, cut military spending, enact Medicare for all, make housing affordable, raise the minimum wage, improve pensions. But, even if made a reality (which is unlikely, given capitalism’s need for profits), this would leave the class division of society unchanged, with workers still subject to the unpredictability of markets and being exploited by their employers. A discussion of Sanders’ views in the April 2017 Socialist Standard noted that the so-called revolution he stood for then ‘leaves capitalism firmly in place’ . Clearly nothing in his views has changed since that time. The book is also quite expensive for such a slim volume.

Paul Bennett

Obituary: Harry Sowden (2026)

Obituary from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Harry Sowden first joined the Socialist Party in 1952 after listening to speakers in Hyde Park. He rejoined in 1986 and was an active member of the former Cornwall branch while it existed and the contact for the party in the area. His son, Dave, writes: Harry was a staunch and passionate socialist, being a member of the SPGB for many decades. He died of old age at 98 just before his 99th birthday. Even at 98 he still lived an independent life, and always had an engineering or construction project on the go. He always wanted to live a long life to see the overthrow of capitalism and the emancipation of humanity from the power class. I remember him saying how being born the 5th May was a privilege as it was the same birthday as Karl Marx. As well as has interest in socialism, he was a keen organic gardener and vegan and saw these various interests interconnected.

Action Replay: Downhill journey (2026)

Happier times.

The Action Replay column from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Participatory sport is about enjoyment and exercise, but the professional version is about financial achievement and the glory of winning. The other side of success is of course failure, and there has been quite a lot of, not just not succeeding, but actually failing in recent weeks.

Leicester City won football’s Premier League in 2016 and the FA Cup in 2021, but they have just been relegated to League One, the third tier of English football. Frequent changes of manager have not helped (a common occurrence in such cases), nor has the death of owner Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha in a helicopter accident two years ago. The club has been losing money, and relegation is likely to exacerbate this.

Chelsea won last year’s Club World Cup, but lost six consecutive league games and are unlikely to qualify for next season’s Champions League. Their last manager lasted just 23 matches, after being given a six-year contract. Large transfer payments and UEFA financial regulations mean they will have trouble improving their squad of players. Supporters have questioned the competence and commitment of the owners.

Burnley have been relegated to the Championship after just one season in the Premier League. Loans to buy players have created further financial problems, and again the company that owns the club has become unpopular and seems to have little idea of how to turn things round.

It’s not just football. In cricket Middlesex have been embroiled in problems, including legal disputes with previous bosses and, again, several coaches in a season. They won the County Championship most recently in 2016, when they were unbeaten. They are now in the second division, and a group of former players have stated that the club is ‘drifting towards irrelevance’.

Sussex are also having difficulties. They overestimated potential income, and were deducted twelve points in this season’s Championship. With many players likely to leave at the end of the season, their future success is in doubt. Not being in the Hundred competition considerably reduces their income.

In golf, Saudi Arabia will withdraw their funding for the LIV tournaments next season, which means that LIV will be scrambling around looking for potential investors. The sizeable financial losses involved may make this hard, though. It was all sportswashing, of course, but this has not exactly worked out.

You do sometimes wonder how the capitalists that own and control big sporting organisations and so often run them into the ground have managed to make billions from other companies they own. Maybe sport is just even more unpredictable than ‘ordinary’ capitalist markets.

Paul Bennett

50 Years Ago: Bernard Levin and the SPGB (2026)

The 50 Years Ago column from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Levin wrote a criticism of the SPGB in an article entitled Credo Quia Impossible (The Observer, 18th April 1976) — and here we must add dog Latin to his many other talents. The article patronized us and what he described as the ‘glorious nonsense’ emanating from the SPGB. This attack on the Party gave the impression of an amused tolerance for a ‘sect’ based on ‘eccentricity’ (his words) and was made in a review of a book called The Monument — the story of the SPGB. Unfortunately for Levin, some of the facts and anecdotes contained in The Monument, despite its many merits, are a personal version and the Party does not accept any responsibility for its contents. (…)

He says our position is ‘Marx is right; the SPGB interpretation of Marx is right’. We do not accept that Marx was always right, and we have in the past criticized Marx. Nevertheless, we agree with the main Marxist theories of Historical Materialism and his analysis of capitalism.

Finally the SPGB has never been opposed to, or supported, reforms. Levin is confusing the political action which is necessary to get reforms with the content of the reforms. Nobody could oppose the introduction of safety working measures, of which Levin accuses us, free heating for old age pensioners, or other reforms, and we have never done so. If workers wish to sell their votes for a few crumbs of social reform that is their privilege, and equally, it is our privilege and duty to show that there is an alternative. We want them to take political action that will remove the need for reforms.

We mention these few facts in the rather forlorn hope that Levin will correct his mistaken view of the Party. We would also bring to his notice that no member was expelled or disciplined for carrying a gas-mask, nor is it true that ‘every time there was a vote on an expulsion those who had voted against it were themselves forthwith expelled’. Levin can satisfy himself on this score, as the weekly Minutes of the Executive Committee are intact from 1904 and photocopies are available.

[From the article, 'Bernard Levin and the SPGB', by Jim D'Arcy, Socialist Standard, June 1976]

Blogger's Note:

The Monument was reviewed by Harry Baldwin in the December 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Editorial: Stop blaming politicians (2026)

Editorial from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Public debate today is obsessed with personalities. Political life is reduced to a revolving cast of individuals who are either demonised as the source of society’s problems or celebrated as its saviours. Few illustrate this better than Donald Trump.

But focusing on individuals like Trump misses the central issue. He is not an anomaly, nor the cause of the problems people associate with him. He is a product of the system in which he operates.

Modern society is organised around production for profit, competition, and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a minority. At the heart of this system lies the wage relationship: the majority of people must sell their ability to work in order to live, while a minority owns and controls the means of producing wealth.

This is where exploitation occurs—not as an exception, but as a normal feature of the system. Workers produce more value than they receive back in wages, and that surplus is taken as profit. It is this process that generates wealth at one pole and insecurity at the other.

Within this framework, politics is not a neutral arena. Governments, regardless of who leads them, are compelled to maintain the conditions for profitable production. This limits what any politician can do. They may differ in style, rhetoric, or policy details, but they operate within the same economic constraints.

In such conditions, it is hardly surprising that figures emerge who are aggressive, self-promoting, and skilled at channelling frustration. They speak to real discontent—but redirect it away from the structure of society and towards scapegoats, rivals, or personalities.

The public, meanwhile, is encouraged to focus on those personalities. Outrage is directed at individuals, elections are framed as moral contests, and political engagement becomes a matter of choosing sides. This keeps attention away from the wage system itself—the very mechanism that produces inequality, instability, and recurring dissatisfaction.

Whether it is Trump or any other political figure, the pattern remains. Different individuals come and go, but the underlying relationship between those who work for wages and those who live from profit continues unchanged.

From this perspective, attacking individual politicians is not only insufficient, it is a distraction. It creates the illusion that replacing one leader will solve problems that are rooted in how society is organised at a much deeper level.

As long as the wage system remains—where the majority must work for wages and a minority appropriates the surplus—inequality and conflict are inevitable, and the kinds of political figures people argue over will continue to emerge.

If there is to be meaningful change, the focus has to shift away from personalities and towards the structure itself. The real question is not who governs, but whether a system based on wages, profit, and class division can ever serve the interests of the majority.

Until that question is faced, the cycle will continue—and so will the conditions that produce figures like Donald Trump.

SPGB Snippets: Water balls-up (2026)

From the Socialist Party of Great Britain website

May 27, 2026

Anyone looking to cool off this summer with a swim in England’s river bathing sites had better check it hasn’t rained recently, because the river could be full of E.coli from sewage overflows. Of the 14 inland river sites tested last year by the Environment Agency, 12 are still rated poor, with advice being not to swim.

People understandably get steamed up when water companies use profits to pay shareholders instead of repairing leaky infrastructure. Meanwhile we get filthy rivers and lakes, and hosepipe bans. Many would like to see water renationalised, but cash-strapped government doesn’t want the maintenance burden – they have jets and missiles to pay for.

Water falls out of the sky for free. Trust capitalism to ruin even that.

The Salvation Army and the Working Class. (1910)

From the March 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Safety of England lies in her Sunday.”—Guizot.

A Notable Utterance.

At the time this famous bon-mot, was uttered (1848) any one who had travelled much on the Continent of Europe would naturally contrast the mental equipment of the English workers with that attained by the proletariat of other countries. To such an one the witty saying of the “great” French statesman would have been pregnant with meaning. Sunday was the “day of rest.” The tavern and its next door neighbour, the chapel, were then practically the only means of Sabbath recreation open to the worker. This being so, he would be little likely to bother his head with theories about the reorganisation, of society.

Drugged and stupid with heavy doses of “Beer and Bible” Sunday, but little inclination on his part would be evinced to rise in revolt against his masters. The bourgeois could therefore comfortably settle himself in his cosiest arm-chair, and, as he sipped his glass of after-dinner port, purr softly to himself, “God’s in his Heaven, all’s right with the world!”

Could the shade of the astute middle-class Gaul in this our present day revisit this country, we can well imagine him adding further point to his epigram in some such words as : “and in her Salvation Army.”

Two great assets the masters rely on to keep their wage-slaves in a state of subjection. The armed forces of the nation—which they are able to manipulate to suit their own ends—and secondly the lamentable state of almost hopeless ignorance in which the workers are still steeped.

Chloroforming the Workers.

In fostering and keeping alive this state of ignorance numerous charitable and philanthropic agencies play an ever-increasing and important part. The bourgeois in this our beloved country is a greater adept than his French or German confrere at the gentle art of building temporary bridges across the yawning chasm which lies between him and the proletariat. In the attempt—too often, alas, successful—to hide the running sore of working-class degradation, more time, money and effort are spent in this country than in any other under the sun. Coals, blankets, soup and the visitation of the sick are a very present help whenever it is desired to trail a red herring across the path of the deluded worker.

This, of course, also applies to Continental Europe, but there either the drug is administered in much smaller quantities, or the trick is clumsily performed. Verily, his “charitable institutions” are a tower of strength to the British “employer of labour.” This being so, we shall not have far to seek for one of the chief reasons why the English worker is as yet so unresponsive to the teaching of the Socialist. “Where ignorance is bliss, t’were folly to be wise.”

The Vicar of Hell.

Among the many agencies employed by the capitalist class to bring about this state of affairs, the Salvation Army is one of the most successful.

We have no hesitation in saying that the influence of the Salvation Army on the mind of the working class is wholly evil.

In two ways : Firstly, by its drum and trumpet performances at the street corner, coupled with the exhortations of the “captain” and the “Hallelujah lasses” to “come to Salvation,” a by no means inconsiderable section of the workers is persuaded that “conversion” is the one thing needful, and that the reformation of the individual and the building up of character must precede any attempt to better material conditions.

In this way the worker, being “well saved” “snatched from Satan” (or whatever form of expressive but inelegant cant is used), his eyes turned from his material interests (the only ones that matter) towards a heavenly throne (which doesn’t), is gradually reduced from a potential thinker to a docile, humble and obedient slave.

And that is exactly what the masters want.

The “Great Idea” Fraud.

Thus in a recent issue of a great daily paper [Daily News Dec., 4, 1909] we read the following:

“SALVATION ARMY IDEAL.

In a “foreword” to the annual report of the social work of the Salvation Army—written by Mr. Arnold White under the title of “The Great Idea”—the author expresses “the conviction that in the Salvation Army we have a strong barrier against Godless Socialism,”

“To grasp the Great Idea,” he adds, “is to understand the height and depth of the self-sacrificing devotion, the reason for the common-sense, the resource and readiness of the Booths and their officers, in seeking the rescue of the Lost Brigade. It imparts hope to the man whose failure in the battle of life is due to his own character and conduct.”

Now science knows no such thing as an individual character, apart from social surroundings.

In the second place, the worker’s mind is muddled and befogged by the “Army’s” ministrations to his creature comfort in the shape of “Soup and Shelter.”

Sentimental Slosh.

How often is the Socialist critic met with some such question-begging argument (!) as this ?—”When I was out of work the officer came round and helped my missis and the kids. Don’t say anything against the Salvation Army or I’ll, etc., etc.”

(This, of course, loses sight of the fact that our diatribes are levelled at the “Army” as an institution, not at the inoffensive and often sorely-sweated wage-slaves of that venerable fraud, the autocrat of Queen Victoria Street.)

Or again—”Whilst you fellows are spouting at the street-corner, General Booth and his men are feeding people and giving them shelter from the cold ! Why don’t you do something for the poor? ”

Saving the Rates.

The fact cannot be too strongly insisted upon that the Salvation Army provides the bourgeois with a cheap and effective form of sticking-plaster wherewith to cover up the hideous ulcer which is eating out the vitals of our class. For are we not told by Mr. F. A. McKenzie—the “Army’s” spokesman for 1908—that “it is the business of the Salvation Army to help and reform. And where I have worked out costs on both sides the Salvation Army does for £1 what costs the Guardians £3.“—”Waste Humanity,” 1908, p. XVIII. (The italics are ours.)

This is letting the cat out of the bag with a vengeance !

We are well aware that the workers in other capitalist countries enjoy the blessings of the “Army’s” efforts to please, both on the religious and the material side. Stray items of news do sometimes filter through from “foreign parts” to show that the rate-saving dodge is not confined to British soil. The following paragraph will serve as an illustration.

"COUNCIL SEEKS ARMY’S AID. 

The Helsingfors Town Council has again turned to the Army for a solution of its unemployment problem. Numbers of out-of-works had adopted a threatening attitude towards the authorities, and demanded 10,000 Finnish marks from the council for food and clothes.

In their dilemma, the authorities approached The Army and handed over the sum of £200 (half the money demanded), with the request that we should find some of them work.”—War Cry, Feb. 12, 1910.

But it is in Britain and “our” colonies that the operations of this gigantic many-sided fraud can best be observed from the point of view of working-class economics.

The “Army” and the Public.

Articles and paragraphs criticising the Salvation Army have from time to time appeared in various magazines and newspapers. We nevertheless believe that no detailed attempt has yet been made to approach the subject from the Socialist point of view. Even Mr. John Manson’s monumental work on the subject [“The Salvation Army and the Public,” by John Manson. Routledge, 4½d] (to which we have gone for many of the facts and figures to be herein quoted, and which should be read by all Socialists) deals mostly with the “Army” from the public’s (i.e., the capitalist public) standpoint. We are emboldened to quote, when necessary, from Mr. Manson’s work for two reasons.

First, it is almost impossible for anyone who does not possess an inexhaustible stock of time and patience to gain direct and straight forward information from the Queen Victoria Street authorities themselves. Secondly, although the work above referred to was first published in July 1906—a subsequent and cheaper edition being issued in 1908—General Booth and his assistants have never yet thought fit to make any reply to the charges brought against them, although repeatedly urged to do so by their journalistic supporters in the capitalist Press. The vague and airy nothings of the “General” on this subject can be at once eliminated—e.g.: “These attacks are too silly to need refutation” [General Booth, 1906.] (although a few months previously an interviewer was informed at “Headquarters” that the book was officially admitted to contain “a good deal of truth.”)

(Here let us state that, in accordance with our custom, the columns of the SOCIALIST STANDARD are at all times open to apologists for the “Army,” official or otherwise.)

With the manipulation and management or mismanagement of the Salvation Army’s funds the Socialist is not directly concerned. The money collected is subscribed out of surplus-value, the donations of the workers being, we believe, in proportion to the whole a negligible quantity.

As Socialists our business is first and foremost with the effect the “Army’s” schemes have upon the economic position of the working class. Our enquiry will naturally fall into two divisions.

A. The results of the purely “tradesman” or “shop-keeping” operations of the “Army.”

B. The inception, growth, and present position of the “Darkest England” scheme with its manifold ramifications, viz., Elevators, Farm Colonies, Emigration, etc.

With the first of these divisions: “The ‘Army’s’ Trading Schemes,” we shall at once proceed to deal.

“Fritz”

(To be continued.)

The Salvation Army and the Working Class II. (1910)

From the April 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

The “Army” in Trade.

“The army of friars should be absolute mendicants, keeping themselves sternly apart from all worldly entanglements . . . Within thirty years of Francis I death in 1226, the Franciscans had become one of the most powerful, wealthy and worldly corporations in Christendom, with their fingers in every sink of political and social corruption, if so be profit for the order could be fished out of it. . . . Who is to say that the Salvation Army in the year 1930 shall not be the replica of what the Franciscan order had become in the year 1640” —T .H. Huxley, “Social Diseases and Worse Remedies.”

A Prophecy Fulfilled.

In its haste get rich quick “for God,” the Salvation Army has literally fallen over itself, thereby justifying Huxley’s forecast with ten years to spare.

It must be borne in mind that the Booth trading concerns are a religious growth, carefully to be distinguished from those undertakings to which the “Social” Scheme has given birth.

“Each territory or country,” we are told, “has its own trade department, but that connected with International headquarters . . . buys and manufactures largely for oversea territories.” In the early days of the “Army” a penny song-book and monthly magazine were published. The latter afterwards became the “War Cry.” Later on “certain articles of uniform were required by our officers. These being difficult to procure elsewhere, we had them prepared and sold them ourselves. From these modest efforts the present trade operations—in their large and ever-increasing proportions—sprang.” (Salvation Army Year Book, 1907)

We are further assured that “trading is now a Salvation Army necessity,” and that “the ‘Army’ must buy and sell.”

Wage-Slavery for God.

After this authoritative pronouncement, if any doubting Thomas yet remains, he is passified by being told that “the entire profits are devoted to the extension of the spiritual work. Sovereigns mean souls. The trading is done for God, and the aim of the ‘Army’ is that strict truth and righteousness actuate every transaction. Every Salvationist ought, therefore, to buy all he needs or can from the Trade department.”

Let us glance at what is being done “for God.”

In addition to religious publications and uniforms, the official list of articles sold includes among others too numerous to mention :

Women’s dresses.

Men’s and children’s suits.

Drapery.

Hosiery.

Boots and shoes.

China and glass.

Earthenware.

Cutlery.

Pianos and organs (hire system).

Flannelette and “Non-Flam.”

Sewing machines.

Furniture of all kinds

Bicycles and mailcarts.

Printing, bookbinding and stationery.

Books.

Watches and clocks.

Bags and portmanteaus.

Underwear.

Bread—families waited on daily.

Tea, coffee and cocoa.

Etc., etc.

The Heavenly Whiteley.

Here we have (in this extract from an official trade department catalogue) proof positive that the ‘Army’ thinks it is justified in competing with the ordinary tradesman in the supply of almost everything, by taking advantage of its peculiar position, reputation and influence.

Moreover it is not only to “members” that the goods in which it deals are supplied. The circulation of the “War Cry” and “Social Gazette” is mainly amongst a class of folk who, whilst perhaps in sympathy with the Salvation Army, are not actually members of that body. Specious advertisements in both the journals referred to, constantly invite the reader to apply for this or that particular trade list or catalogue. In these advertisements all the well-known catchpenny devices for attracting “business” are employed. The following is an example—one out of many. It speaks for itself (“Social Gazette,” Dec. 4. 1909).

OUR CHRISTMAS GIFT TO YOU.

Christmas is the season for giving. The custom has suggested our doing something for our friends which may add a drop to the cup of gladness which we hope will come full to the brim to all our customers this Christmas time. To make a direct gift would be impossible, however great the desire to do so. We propose to do something, however, that will, we hope, be regarded as almost, if not quite, as acceptable to those able to participate. 

FIVE USEFUL AND SERVICEABLE ARTICLES AT HALF-PRICE.

A. A pair of Trousers, usual price 11s, for 5s. 6d.

or B. A Woman’s Honeycomb, Jersey Blouse, usual price 5s. 6d., for 2s. 9d.

or C. A pair of Men’s ‘Fortress’ Boots, usual price 9s. 11d., for 4s. 11½d.

or D. A pair of Women’s ‘Favourite’ Boots, usual price 8s. 11d., for 4s. 5½ d.

or E. A Girl’s Winter Coat, usual price 7s. 6d., for 3s. 9d.

HOW IT IS DONE.

1. One of the Half-Price Articles supplied with every order not less than £1 in amount, not counting the half-price article, cash for which must be sent in addition. Customers may send as many £1 orders as they wish. For every such order is given the option to purchase one of the half-price articles. 

2. The goods to be selected from our Uniform and Outfit Catalogue, or from our Christmas Sheet of USEFUL PRESENTS which will be sent FREE ON APPLICATION.

Under the cloak of religion then the strongest possible appeal is made to the prospective customer’s love of—not God, but—a good bargain.

How it is done.

It is moreover the duty of the “field-officer” (wage-slave commanding a religious corps) to take a lively interest in the trade, push it and try to increase it as much as possible. He must announce the visits of Trade Headquarters’ representatives . . . and afford every facility . . . for getting into touch with his soldiers and friends. These poor wretches are so badly paid (18s. a week if unmarried and 27s. a week if married) that they are forced to push the sale of goods. (Orders and regulations for Field officers. 1904)

For this they receive commission. And mind you, the wages are only paid after all the local expenses of the corps have been met. In case the unfortunate officer, for some reason or other, is unable to meet the weekly expenses, he gets practically no wages at all. A pretty picture, forsooth. Enough to make one’s blood boil. The harassed victim of the malpractices of Booth & Co., forced to undersell and cut the price of commodities which have themselves been produced by sweated labour. And this in good “Salvationese” is called “earning a sovereign for the Kingdom of God” !

Booth and Boots.

Apropos of underselling, a quotation from the “Army’s” boot and shoe catalogue makes interesting reading :

“The following argues in favour of the low price of our boots :

The representative of a manufacturing firm remarked recently that we were selling a certain class of their boots 1s. 9d. per pair less than they were to be obtained at several shops mentioned by him. We were ignorant of the prices of any of the goods sold by the retailers mentioned . . . Any idea of “cutting” the price was, therefore, quite out of the question, showing that either we buy better or are content with smaller profits.”

The official apologist does not tell us which of these two factors—the ‘Army’s’ ability to buy better or its being contented with smaller profits—determines the price of boots.

Possibly a jocular remark made by “General” Booth when about to leave for America (Sept. 1907) may throw a little light on the subject.

“If you are not willing to be sweated,” said he, “don’t have anything to do with the Salvation Army.”

The pious old jester referred to the “field-officers” in the religious work, but inasmuch as we are told that “the trading is done for God” it is quite likely—if the truth were known—(not so easy to come at, that same truth) that the workers and distributors in the “Army’s” trade departments are not paid such handsome salaries as obtain in shops and stores, where profit is the primary consideration and “God” has to be content with a back seat (or shelf) for six days in the week. These factors will probably be found to have some bearing, not only on the price of the “Army’s” boots, but upon its successful competition with the ordinary labour market.

And at this point we are brought face to face with the crux of the whole matter.

The Cheap-Jacks of Religion.

Is the Salvation Army able to create a new or increased demand for the commodities it supplies through the agency of its huge religious staff ? If it is not, then the effect of its participation in the production and distribution of such commodities must necessarily diminish the demand for goods which are produced under the ordinary conditions of the labour market.

In proportion as the “Army” increases its production of those commodities more workers will be employed (by the “Army”) under especially bad economic conditions, and fewer will be the number of those employed (by the ordinary capitalist) at ordinary wages.

The following is taken from the cover of a juvenile clothing catalogue issued by the “Army,” and will serve to give some slight idea as to whether the “Army” is creating a new demand or merely competing with and underselling the ordinary market:

“I am a representative of the Salvation Army Outfit department … I am glad that I belong to the Salvation Army, as people will not only listen to what I say, but will know they can believe what I tell them. I am devoted to the selling of children’s clothing. Every moment of my life, night and day, is given up to it. I am in every way up-to date, although it is myself that says it … I am not afraid of the keenest competition. Compare my prices with those of other sellers of juvenile clothing. I shall like it, and have no doubt about my coming out on top.”

With the “Army’s” launching out into the wholesale and retail tea and coffee business—its incursion into many other departments of trade—we have, unfortunately, no space to deal. For fuller details of this interesting subject we must commend on readers to Mr. Manson’s work.

The “Flannel” Fraud.

But as a final illustration of the lengths to which this hydra-headed monstrous fraud is prepared to go in its desire to “sell,” the story of the “flannelette” is too good to be passed over. We accordingly rescue it from an undeserved oblivion, leaving it to our readers for judgment.

On September 22, 1906, a column advertisement appeared in the “Social Gazette.” This took the form of an “Open letter to Parents” signed by Lieut.-Col. Simpson (the “Army’s” trade Secretary). Big black capitals were splashed all over the page directing urgent attention to the dangers incurred by little children from the use of ordinary flannelette— “1,500 children burned to death in 1905—Save the little ones,” etc., etc.

“Your duty then is plain,” said the worthy Colonel, “send for the Army’s ‘Non-Flam,’ an excellent safety flannelette . . . Your duty is plain . . . Not to use for the precious little ones the dangerous fabric, which has been the cause of so much suffering and death.”

Now the colonel’s own department had been selling ordinary flannelette for years before the date on which this advertisement appeared. It is, to say the least, remarkable that his department continued to advertise it even after the discovery and adoption of “Non-Flam.” Six months later we find a drapery catalogue advertising—yes—”Non-Flam,” but giving precedence and nearly three times the space to—flannelettes at 2¾ d to 8½d. per yard !

None of these were described as non-inflammable. People were even urged to write for patterns of these dangerous materials as being “of exceptional value”—”cheaper than many leading drapers,” etc.

Apparently Colonel Simpson’s principles were his own and could, therefore, be sacrificed. The remainder of the flannelette was Booth & Co’s. and could not !

Fritz.

(To be continued)