Indignity of the old age pension (1965)

From the March 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

Let there be no delusions about the purpose of old age pensions. They are not designed primarily to benefit the pensioners. A case in point is the first national pension scheme ever, in this country. The motive behind that scheme, whatever nonsense the politicians talked about it, was to find a cheaper way of keeping the old geezers going than sending them to the workhouse. Since then, the pension has been increased many times, but it is still inadequate to keep an old person in any sort of comfort. Hence the fact that millions of pensioners have to resort to National Assistance.

The basic pension for a single person is £3.7.6. a week. In London a furnished room costs a minimum of about £2.10.0. a week, which leaves very little for heating, cooking, beer, tobacco, clothes and food. Perhaps economies are possible; very little heat would be needed to cook the paltry amount of food which could be bought on that budget. Yet this is what Sir Alec Douglas Home referred to as “sharing in prosperity.” Truly, someone is prosperous, but it is not the worn out workers who make up the army of old age pensioners.

But, say the defenders of the Welfare State, there is always National Assistance. The N.A.B. considers that a single person needs £3.16.0. a week for needs other than rent. It is of course difficult to find out what allowance the Board makes for a pensioner’s rent, but so far as one can judge from published correspondence, is has been about £2.10.0. for a single person and £4.10.0. for a married couple. This, obviously, is acceptable to a pensioner, but it represents something far from prosperity, or even moderate security.

The scheme is bedevilled by complications and anomalies. For example, if pensioners live in a council house or flat, they are deemed to be paying a reduced rent, and their National Assistance reduced accordingly. They are investigated by the council and by the N.A.B.—the council want their rent, the Board want to keep their payments as low as they can. However delicately the investigations are carried out, the pensioners’ dignity is bruised; many of them, indeed, refuse to apply to the N.A.B. for that reason.

After a lot of cogitation the late Tory government introduced a “graduated” pension scheme. This was supposed to be a wonderful improvement. When the fanfares died away, it was apparent that the new scheme meant that a slightly higher pension would be paid, after higher contributions from workers and employers.

One thing which came to light later on, when the Labour government were proposing to increase pensions, was that, under certain conditions, the pensioners stood to lose under the graduated scheme. When the Labour government’s Bill was being debated, the Conservatives introduced an amendment to increase the weekly payments to those who worked after they were sixty-five. Referring to the existing scales,

“Lt. Cdr. Maydon (C. Wells) former parliamentary secretary, Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, said that if a single man deferred his retirement for the full five years, the State would be better off by £1,385. The man would have to live until he was 95 years old before he broke even” (Daily Telegraph, 4.12.64).

It is, we need hardly say, not curious that the Tories did not draw attention to this point when they originally introduced the Graduated scheme.

The amendment which Lt. Cdr. Maydon was supporting was rejected by the Labour government, in their familiar pose of the Pensioners’ Friend, on the grounds that they are engaged in a general review of all social security provisions. They now propose to increase the basic pension to £4.0.0. for a single person and £6.10.0. for a married couple. These new scales will come into force at the end of March. The Assistance payments are also increased, by 12.6d. and £1.1.0. respectively.

These modest rises amount to the Labour Government’s redemption of their election promises. The postponement of the higher payments until March 19th., while the rise in MP’s pay was backdated, aroused some misgivings among Labour MP’s, but the official answer at the time was that the amount of extra clerical work involved prevented any earlier increases. Then Mr. George Brown, Minister of Economic Affairs, let one of his many cats out of one of his many bags. Speaking at the Labour Conference at Brighton, he admitted that it was the economic ministers, Mr. Callaghan and himself, who had advised against earlier payment. “We simply” he said, “in this situation, could not do more than we have done.”

At this stage, we cannot foresee what will result from the present Review. But one thing is certain. The pensioners have nothing to hope for from the Labour Party, which upheld the Means Test when they were in office in the Thirties and which kept the pensioners worse off, when they were in power after the war, than did the subsequent Conservative governments.

As long as capitalism lasts, old people are going to suffer the indignities and deprivations which are inseparable from them today. Capitalism is interested in its workers only so long as they are a source of profit when they grow old they become just another Social Problem. But somehow they must be kept, so the State levies a contribution, from both the workers and their employers, to finance the payment of pensions later on. The basic concern is to keep capitalism running. Pensions are a side issue, full of the anomalies of what were the Ten Shilling widows, the disabled hanging on to life with their feeble fingertips, the embarrassments of National Assistance.

Yet the pensioners have a hope. They cannot, like their younger fellow workers, strike to improve their conditions. But there are six million of them and that is an awful lot of votes. That is why they are wooed and promised the Earth, by Labour and Tory Parties alike. At the moment, young and old are deceived by the promises. But they could use their vote, in unity, to set up the world of freedom and dignity, for human beings throughout their lives.

RAMO

Correspondence: Committee of 100 (1965)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor,

With reference to News in Review (December 1964). Some of your criticisms of the apolitical attitude of the Committee of 100 are probably justified. But by their courage they have had more success in a couple of years in getting ideas through to the general public than the SPGB has had in a lifetime.

As you say, the Committee is tackling subjects only remotely connected with the Bomb, perhaps (with a little encouragement—not abuse) the next development will be Direct Action for Peace and Socialism.

Bill Evett, 

Secretary West Ham YCND.

Reply:

There is really no great problem in “getting ideas through to the public “, provided we are not particular about what sort of ideas they are.

The SPGB is small, not because we have not worked hard to propagate our ideas, but because the working class does not support Socialism.

The progress of the Socialist movement depends upon the growth of political consciousness among the working, class. The Committee of 100, like the other organisations which stand for capitalist reform, have not helped in this. They have only spread continued their own confusion among the working class at large.

In our December issue, we drew attention to an example of this. The anti-nuclear movement once said that the only issue worth concentrating on was nuclear disarmament; now they are chasing up and down the old, well trodden blind alleyways of reform. And still their original object is as far away as ever.

A movement like that could never stand for Socialism. Mr. Evett, for example, adds his own little bit of confusion to the rest by referring to “Direct Action for Peace and Socialism”.

The only hope lies in a party which remains steadfast in its Socialist principles, and does its best to convince people like Mr. Evett of the futility of demonstrating for capitalist reform instead of working for the system’s overthrow.

Editorial Committee

50 Years Ago: Did the Socialist Movement fail in 1914 (1965)

The 50 Years Ago column from the March 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard 

We are now at the root of the whole matter of the failure of the “European Socialist Movement” to take up and maintain the Socialist position in the recent crisis. These gigantic political organisations which disposed of so many millions of votes were not Socialist organisations. They were not founded upon the principle of the class struggle. They had not done the work of politically educating their supporters. They had not built up their strength upon an electorate understanding the working-class position and desiring revolution. These millions of so-called Socialist voters did not understand the class division in society, and did not, therefore, realise the unity of interest of the workers the world over, and the clash between the interests of the working class and the master class, at every point, nationally and internationally. Their votes had been attracted by all manner of nostrums and side-issues, and simply expressed opinions thereon, and not on the vital matter of working-class emancipation.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain calls the attention of the workers of this and other lands to the fact that, founded as a political organisation upon Socialist principles, it has maintained the true working-class position in relation to the war without difficulty. We cannot boast of the support of millions of voters at the polls, but no one can point to a single word or deed of ours, in this time of crisis, which has been a betrayal of the cause of the proletariat. Well for Socialism, well for the stricken workers, well for the great cause of humanity, if, when the present riot of anarchy is over, and those who have to pay for it in blood and tears come to count the cost and apportion the blame, they realise that the political party of Socialism, weak though it was in numbers, was strong enough to denounce the war on all sides, strong enough to expose the misleaders of Labour and their purchased “patriotism”, strong enough to avow and maintain, in the face of a frenzy of insane nationalism, the unity of interest of the workers of all countries, strong enough to remain Socialists and keep the flag of Socialism flying.

[From the editorial,  'A Blow for Socialism', Socialist Standard, March 1915.]

New Zealand letter (1965)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

I recently read a press report on the new BMA booklet Doctors’ Orders.

We in New Zealand have been getting this sort of thing thrown at us for about two or three years. The BMA are only handing these books out in order to get the workers to keep themselves fit for more intensive exploitation.

Think how the military authorities must groan in despair at the number of men who are not in fighting condition at commencement of training! The expense involved in bringing them up to a peak of fitness required for cannon fodder!

The BMA’s little booklet should enable the workers to do their own P.T. at less cost to the master class. Our experience in Australasia has been that as soon as the masters knew they had a good reserve of healthy labour, they increased the pressure on the workers.

Also there has been a coincidental rise in drug trafficking, and, even in Australia, the discovery of several acres of narcotics growing wild on the banks of a big river.

I notice in the BMA’s booklet that people who have to stand up at work are advised to take a few paces every few minutes. The medical reason for this is quite sound, but the trouble is that so many people are unable to put it into effect because of the very nature of their work. Also, where workers do make the effort, other workers who are more fortunately placed, and have healthier jobs, spare nothing in their efforts to ridicule them.

The object, of course, is to get the other bloke to quit or to “keep him down”. This is often encouraged in New Zealand by foremen who find it a convenient way of dealing with workers who “know too much” and are a threat to their own job security.

If you go to a “vocational guidance expert” and tell him your troubles (that you cannot adjust to this sort of thing) he will have the unconscionable gall to tell you that it is in your own attitude to society and life that the trouble lies, and that where there is “competition” of this sort you must simply learn to fight against it and “stick up for yourself.”

This, incidentally, is a favourite one with our psychiatrists, prison psychologists and Bible-bangers at the present time. In the meantime, those worthies are enjoying the best of privileges handed out to them by a grateful capitalist class who find it very convenient to have a large number of trained sophisticates taking care the workers do not get out of hand.

In spite of all the perennial rot they say about us having free speech, if a worker really gets up and has a go at them he is going to get slapped down pretty hard.

Only the Communists can get away with this “free speaking”; they are adept at saying nothing in several sentences and are in any case supporting the system.

I have not yet read the BMA’s little book and I am not especially anxious to do so. When I hear that they have written a book describing the social conditions which give rise to, and help perpetuate, the majority of mental and bodily disorders, and suggesting the means whereby those conditions can be eradicated, then I will be eager to get my copy.

E.W.H., 

Christchurch, NZ.

Blogger's Note:

I'll go out on a limb and say that 'E.W.H.' was Ernie Higdon.

SPGB Spring School (1965)

Party News from the March 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Meetings (1965)

Party News from the March 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialist Sonnet No. 225: Collateral Damage (2026)

    From the Socialism or Your Money Back blog

Collateral Damage

The primary target has been destroyed,

By a surgical strike designed to leave

Blasted and charred ruins for those who grieve

To pick through, for all who couldn’t avoid

Being reduced to statistics, a body count

On the evening news. Strategy is clear,

It’s the brutal diplomacy of fear,

Leaving far too few remains to amount

To complete human beings. There is concern,

International stock markets are falling,

With speculation, futures are stalling:

How many losses before fortunes turn?

The enemy is easily identified,

Being those barbarians on the other side.

 

D. A.

Tiny Tips (2026)

The Tiny Tips column from the March 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

A youth panel at the conference examined how Germany’s political establishment is pressuring young people into the armed forces not only through direct reforms, but also through policies that attack livelihoods. The situation imposed onto young workers and students today amounts to ‘economic blackmail’ for those without wealthy families to support them, argued Max Radtke of the trade union ver.di…The reintroduction of conscription should be understood as a question of class interests, added David Christner of Junge Linke (Young Left). He emphasized the need for a sharper analysis of ‘who is being sent to kill and die, and for whose interests’, saying that the political imperative at this point is to develop a ‘practical alternative to repression and militarization’. 

[peoples dispatch]

How Does Yoga Alleviate Child Poverty in India? Yoga classes can offer several benefits, particularly for children living in poverty. They: 1. Provide mindfulness and resilience. These sessions provide a break from daily life, where minds are taken off of hardship outside. Students gradually develop inner strength and willpower that they can take home with them. 2. Build a community. Children feel safe making friends and coming out of their shells. They will feel less alone and it makes the day-to-day that little bit easier. 3. Improve physical health. By building physical strength, students are less likely to contract illnesses and injuries, thereby increasing attendance at school and reducing stress on health care systems. 

[The Borgen Project]

Wide-scale desertions and 2 million draft-dodgers are among a raft of challenges facing Ukraine’s military. 

[AP]

People are now openly confronting the authorities, with a few lucky ones escaping conscription. Sadly, other videos show men being forced into vehicles by recruiters or beaten to death. This past summer, József Sebestyén, a Hungarian from Transcarpathia, died during his forced conscription. The Ukrainian authorities tried by all means to cover up his case. In the video, recorded in Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine, a crowd of civilians surrounds a police car in which a man has been placed. In the recording, people can be heard protesting, standing in front of the car, and preventing the vehicle from leaving the scene. Ukrainians are fed up with war and even more fed up with having to see their loved ones die for it. They are now openly speaking out against family members, friends, and neighbors being dragged away.

[ZeroHedge]

. . . one of Beckert’s more arresting contentions is that for most human beings, through most of history, the idea of working full-time, not for their own provisions but for cash, was utterly alien: the proletariat almost always had to be forced into being. Sometimes this involved slavery or indentured labour, but just as often it was accomplished by undermining the traditional basis for subsistence production. By enclosing, for example, common lands in Georgian England, or indeed through more recent restrictions on access to the plains of Ethiopia or the forests of Indonesia. 

[Prospect]

(These links are provided for information and don’t necessarily represent our point of view.)

Halo Halo (2026)

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

In the sixth century Pope Gregory the First sent monks to Britain to convert the pagans. The pagans worshipped nature and believed that animals, plants, trees and other things in nature had souls and a protective god. The pagans were not so readily seduced by snake-oil salesmen. Greg, not wanting to miss out on the corporate opportunities offered by expanding the business and potential for increasing cash flow through tithes, land ownership and so forth, sent another vanguard across the channel a little while later.

This time, through guile, the pesky pagans were placated with the promise that pagan festivals would basically remain but under the new ownership of Christianity. Over a few hundred years the takeover was complete and Christianity was now top dog.

The Venerable Bede, Anglo-Saxon monk and historian, wrote in the eighth century, De Temporum Ratione, of Eostre, pagan goddess of Spring, fertility and renewal, and noted that feasts were held in Eostur-monath which was the equivalent of April. Eggs and hares were associated with her.

With Eostur-monath on the horizon the question is, what does it mean to people in the UK anymore? For a child brought up in a strictly non-religious household it offered a break away from school, hot cross buns, and lots of sugar-addictive chocolate. The Easter Bunny didn’t put in an appearance at all, or it would have found itself in the cooking pot in no time. Neither was time wasted having to hunt for eggs.

Fast forward to adulthood and the realisation that features of Easter, were, like many other Christian festivals, knock-offs from the previous various faiths which had been… expropriated. And the recognition that despite the ‘goodies’ associated with that ‘celebration’ there were various elements that should have been withheld from children for a very, very long time.

Learning that hot cross buns symbolised crucifixion and embalming fluids, the spices and dried fruit occasioned a distaste for that food which has long lasted. If you’re okay with Catholic communion and transubstantiation, the belief that bread and wine is transformed into the actual body and blood of JC, then nothing probably strikes you as distasteful.

Leopold von Sacher-Masoch’s writings were the basis for Krafft-Ebing coining the word masochism. Might not even Leopold have found the actions of modern-day penitents in places like the Philippines, southern Italy, Mexico and Spain who engage in self-flagellation and ritual crucifixion, a case of going a bit too far?

In the internet market place there are thousands of children’s religious books for sale. These cover a multitude of faiths. Grab a bundle, such as a child’s first bible, something about Noah’s Ark and JC’s disciples. A wide taste is catered for, including colouring books, sticker books, and Easter story books. But at what age is the ‘cuddly’ stuff ditched in favour of learning of punishments imposed by the Romans and what a cross really represents?

One wonders whether the works of Donatien Alphonse François, aka the Marquis de Sade, wouldn’t be less harmful?

DC

The SWP reforms (2026)

From the March 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the article in our January issue on Your Party we pointed to the SWP’s hypocritical position in demanding that YP should have democratic internal elections while its own Central Committee was not chosen democratically. Members only had the choice of voting for or against a slate hand-picked by the outgoing committee. It has now been reported that at its conference in January the SWP has changed this to allow other candidates than those selected and recommended by the outgoing committee (tinyurl.com/yh4wcyms). Not quite so undemocratic but still not democratic as those on the outgoing committee’s slate will still have an advantage

Beyond the state (2026)

Book Review from the March 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Radical abundance: how to win a green democratic future. By Kai Heron, Keir Milburn and Bertie Russell. Pluto Press, 2025. ISBN 9780745351353

This is an interesting attempt to consider the transition to a society of common ownership in a concrete and practical fashion. The authors identify what they call the two invariant aspects of transition: ‘popular protagonism’ and ‘contested reproduction’, and these are necessary to overcoming the ‘metabolic control of capital’. That is, changes to formal ownership and state control are insufficient means for dealing with what they call the dialectic of ‘bullshit abundance’ (ie the abundance of pollution, authoritarianism, inequality, etc.) and artificial scarcity (the failure to meet real human needs) of commodity society.

As suggested by the title, this book is partly a rebuttal to the ‘Abundance’ deregulation theme that has emerged in the United States (as exemplified by the book of that name by Klein and Thompson, which we reviewed in our November 2025 issue). What they propose though, is something they call ‘Public Common Partnerships’. This is a riff on public private partnerships, or what they identify as the process of the state de-risking capital investment as a means of promoting economic growth. In their version, assets and enterprises that are otherwise unprofitable for capitalists can be taken over by tripartite bodies, made up of representatives of the workforce, representatives of the public authorities and a community trust. The last of these has a responsibility for distributing any surplus generated by the enterprise: either as a return to workers, further investment, or support for other such partnerships. As such, these bodies bring in those more broadly concerned with the reproduction of society, eg those engaged in child rearing or caring, rather than those directly employed. The surplus is in the hands of the community.

They argue that these bodies would enable ‘contested reproduction’ and ‘popular protagonism’ fulfilling community needs while also being an educational tool for increased popular participation in the economy. The authors are clear they do not consider this a magic bullet, but rather a practical tool for spreading de-commodified practice and an educational experience. They pose it, rather, as a political wager, that might move things in the right direction. As they note, they are not calling for the abandonment of other forms of struggle, but adding this into the mix.

They do, in one chapter, though, speculatively examine how a network of these PCPs could plan food production across an entire country. They look to leveraging ‘Council Farms’ which, despite decline, cover thousands of hectares in the UK. They look to movements in Brazil, Venezuela and Kerala as examples to follow.

The authors themselves work on such structures as practitioners, and they point to a number of examples of where such models have been implemented: including a take-over of an in-door market in Tottenham and a pharmaceuticals plant in France.

This does come close, though, to the islands of socialism suggestion that is frequently put to us: the idea that socialism can be created in bits, rather than as a hard change-over from capitalism, which can simply ‘outcompete’ capitalist methods.

The issue is that their examples come from taking on peripheral parts of the capitalist system, bits that it no longer finds productive, which means that these PCPs mostly survive precisely because they are not a threat to the metabolic control of capital. Should they ever become so, the state would be called in to intervene. As the authors note, by the 1970s, in the UK, around a third of housing was council housing: Margaret Thatcher disposed of that with the stroke of a pen, and there is no reason to suppose that a ‘self-expanding commons’ of PCPs could not meet the same fate.

While the authors might well in fact relish such a contest as an opportunity to expand the contestation of reproduction, it seems likely that the result would be the same as the outcome of the Thatcher era: state power would prevail.

Particularly, as the authors claim it doesn’t require political organisation to set up PCPs, but rather public agitation (although how political/governmental bodies come to be involved other than through sympathetic politicians getting involved seems to be a question). If political organisation becomes required, then why go the roundabout way of challenging capital through these bodies, rather than striking at the legal and political structures that sustain it?

This then brings us back to the problem of using PCPs as some sort of educational tool. The working class already manage capitalism from top to bottom, we just do not do so in our own interest. There is no reason to suppose that those, like the Tottenham traders, who engage in a PCP to save their local market or bottle plant, or whatever, will have a desire or interest in challenging the ‘metabolic control of capitalism’. As with any reform-minded movement, the majority of those attracted will be for the immediate goal itself, and they would balk at going further, or even be actively opposed.

This leads us to suggest that there may be a third invariant aspect of transition: consciousness. Unless there is a conscious desire to do away with capitalism, and at least some idea of what is supposed to replace it, there cannot be meaningful popular protagonism, much less contested reproduction.

This book raises important issues around the way in which transition to a non-commodity society can be achieved. The proposed PCPs are at worst harmless, and at best could form a part of the way that the working class can defend its own interests within capitalism (or, maybe, even organise society post-capitalism).

The authors are correct that a wider network of activity is required beyond the state, but for us that is the conscious mass movement for socialism that must include taking political control of the state as a minimum to stop it being used to prevent the spread of a self-managed and co-operative way of organising society from emerging.

Pik Smeet

The Socialist Party's 2026 Summer School: Populism

Party News from the March 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

If ‘populism’ is taken to mean politics popular with the majority pitched against an élite minority, should socialists aim to make socialism ‘populist’? Certainly socialists work to make socialism popular globally with the majority, but without pandering to notions that would negate its revolutionary goal. This means being opposed to ideas that might attract wide support in the short term while actively undermining the socialist case. Because ‘populism’ remains ill-defined, it gets applied to a right wing group such as Reform UK, or a left wing organisation like Your Party. In the USA, Donald Trump’s Republican Party can be termed ‘populist’ as might Bernie Sanders’ variety of leftism, and similar examples are found in Europe and elsewhere. Is ‘populism’ simply st reformism repackaged for the 21 century?

The Socialist Party’s weekend of talks and discussion will explore how the concept of ‘populism’ has developed, why it attracts support and what this tells us about capitalist society.

Our venue is the University of Worcester, St John's Campus, Henwick Grove, St John's, Worcester, WR2 6AJ.

Full residential cost (including accommodation and meals Friday evening to Sunday afternoon) is £150; the concessionary rate is £80. Book online at spgb.net/ summer-school-2026 or send a cheque (payable to the Socialist Party of Great Britain) with your contact details to Summer School, The Socialist Party, 52 Clapham High Street, London, SW4 7UN. Day visitors are welcome, but please e-mail for details in advance. E-mail enquiries to spgbschool@yahoo.co.uk.

Cooking The Books: What Epstein reveals (2026)

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

Epstein was not just a pimp for the more dissolute members of the global elite. As Gerard Baker wrote in his column in the Times (6 February), headed ‘Epstein saga is a fable of modern capitalism’, ‘sexual scandal aside, the attraction of the financier was that he ran a global network of the rich and powerful’.

Epstein’s email contacts, Baker suggested, would be a representative sample of those in top positions in government, finance, law, media, academia and big tech, ‘the most advantaged individuals [who] moved around a borderless world’ and ‘who have wielded the controlling influence over our lives, our culture, our jobs and much else for most of the last quarter century’:

‘Thanks to Epstein’s crimes, we have been given a glimpse into the way the liberal capitalist global order has worked. And in the process, perhaps, we can see even more clearly why so many people want to sweep it away.’

There is a temptation, amongst those who want this, to see a network like Epstein’s as part of some set-up whereby some global elite make decisions about what happens in the world. Some have not resisted this temptation and have concluded that the world actually is run by a global elite who plan what to do at their meetings in Davos or at the Bilderberg group or on Epstein’s island. Baker adds some credence to this when he wrote of them ‘wielding the controlling influence over our lives’.

In reality, they are not fundamentally in control of what happens under capitalism. They don’t plan booms and slumps or wars or revolutions. Some of them, in their role as the government of a state, do secretly organise — conspire, if you like — to bring about political changes in other countries in the interest of their particular state or group of states. Stock exchange speculators conspire to influence share prices. But nobody controls, or could control, the way the capitalist economic system works; that depends on impersonal market forces which impose themselves, even on the members of the global elite. That’s ‘the controlling influence over our lives’.

Baker corrected himself when he went to write that ‘Epstein enticed them into his web not with his harem of adolescent girls but … the chance for a few words in the ear of someone who could make you even richer, even more powerful; a little inside info, a potential deal…’ That is the limit of what goes on, not some grand conspiracy.

To some extent the situation resembles that described by Marx on the eve of the overthrow of French monarchy in 1848 when under the dominance of the ‘finance aristocracy’:

‘the same prostitution, the same blatant swindling, the same mania for self-enrichment – not from production but by sleight-of-hand with other people’s wealth – was to be found in all spheres of society, from the Court to the Café Borgne. The same unbridled assertion of unhealthy and vicious appetites broke forth, appetites which were in permanent conflict with the bourgeois law itself, and which were to be found particularly in the upper reaches of society, appetites in which the wealth created by financial gambles seeks its natural fulfilment, in which pleasure becomes debauched, in which money, filth and blood commingle. In the way it acquires wealth and enjoys it the financial aristocracy is nothing but the lumpenproletariat reborn at the pinnacle of bourgeois society’ (The Class Struggles in France: 1848 to 1850).

But even if people like them were swept away (as they were in 1848) there would still be capitalism, the real problem and controlling influence.

50 Years Ago: Bert Ramelson buries Lenin (2026)

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

What happened when the BBC’s ‘Newsday’ interviewed the industrial organiser of the Communist Party would have been more suitable for the Goon Show, or Monty Python. Bert Ramelson, keeping a perfectly straight face, point-blank denied everything that the Communist Party was founded on and peddled for over thirty years!

True it is, as he said in the interview, that he only joined the CP in 1936; whereas some of us knew it intimately since 1920. However, that should not prevent him (or anybody else) knowing the facts. The interviewer did not know a great deal about the subject, and questioned from a prepared brief.

But even the political department of the BBC had heard that the Communist Parties were founded on ‘Leninism’. That is, seizure of power by an intrepid, resolute minority of ‘professional revolutionists’, leading the working class — who would then lead the ‘toiling masses’ (meaning peasants) to socialist victory. For thirty years a vast mass of pamphlets, books and newspapers flogged the Leninist dogma of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, meaning minority action.

Many able writers waded patiently through Marx’s work to show that, from The Communist Manifesto onward, Marx never used this then-popular French slogan to mean anything else than majority democratic methods. For instance, Lucien Laurat, who in Marxism and Democracy quotes The Communist Manifesto:

‘The first stage in the working class revolution is the constitution of the proletariats as the ruling class, the conquest of democracy.’

No use! For thirty years CP writers and speakers denounced democracy and exhorted the workers to follow ‘Marx’s best disciple’ Nikolai Lenin. Parliament was a useless ‘gasworks’, elections a waste of time (although they regularly took part in them, but ‘only for propaganda, comrade’). The state would be smashed and ‘bourgeois’ parliaments replaced by Soviets, ‘the workers’ democracy’ (…)

Understandably, the interviewer politely raised the question of the CP’s present policy, and its past. ‘Was it not the case that the CP had advocated ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ in the past?’

‘Not any more’, replied Bert. Not any more! And do you know why, dear reader? Let Bert tell you. Because there has been ‘so much misunderstanding of what Marx really meant’. He actually said this. ‘Marx meant the action of the vast overwhelming majority’, said Bert; the CP has not used the phrase in any document since 1950, to avoid any more misunderstanding.

[From article by Horatio, Socialist Standard, March 1976]

 

 

Blogger's Note: 

Regular readers of the blog will know that 'Horatio' was the pen name of the late Harry Young. Harry Young was especially placed to comment on the early history of the CPGB as he was a founder of member of that organisation, serving for a period on its Executive Committee as a representative of the Young Communist League.  In an article in the February 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard, entitled 'Why I joined the SPGB', he goes into greater detail. It's worth a read.

Action Replay: Icy conditions (2026)

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

The 2014 Winter Olympics took place in the Russian city of Sochi (see Action Replay for December 2013 and April 2014). There was plenty of controversy attached to them, with environmental problems prominent and up to a third of the cost of staging the Games lost in corruption and embezzlement. Many cities are now reluctant to bid for the Games, because of the costs involved.

This year’s Games were held last month in Milano Cortina, meaning Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo (which, according to Wikipedia, is ‘an upscale summer and winter sport resort’). Again, there were problems with corruption (Guardian 31 January): in October three men were arrested and charged with controlling the distribution of drugs in Cortina, controlling some of the nightclubs and forcing the local council into awarding Games-related construction contracts (the bill for the Games will be well over £4bn). The methods of intimidation allegedly used included threats and beating people up.

The Open Olympics 26 report managed to get the Games’ organisers to publish their financial dealings online (see PDF – tinyurl.com/nczd45hp). This has shown that much of the money being spent will be on road projects which won’t be completed until after the Games are over.

And it’s not just in Cortina. A new ice hockey venue in Milan was still unfinished at the end of January, with the hospitality boxes and press area far from ready. There had also been complaints that the rink was too small and the ice was unsafe. Demonstrations took place in the city over the environmental impact of the Games, to which the police responded with tear gas and water cannons, and there were reports of sabotage of railway lines.

Another controversy has been over the role that the thuggish US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will play. Let’s ignore jokes to the effect that Trump misunderstood the kind of ice needed at the Games. Describing them as ‘a militia that kills’, the mayor of Milan said they would not be welcome in the city. It appears that in fact a separate ICE department, Homeland Security Investigations, will provide intelligence and so on, as it has done at previous large sporting events, but will not conduct any kind of enforcement operations (officially, anyway).

As at some previous Olympics, there will be a new sport at this one, ski mountaineering (skimo), a combination of skiing and mountain climbing. At least it’s more clearly a sport than breakdancing, introduced at the 2024 Summer Olympics.

Paul Bennett