Action Replay: You can’t play here (2026)

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

Probably the best-known example of a sporting boycott was that of South Africa under apartheid, which lasted from 1964 to 1992 and involved not just cricket and rugby tours but also the Olympic Games. As other examples, the US and other countries boycotted the 1980 Olympics in Moscow after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and in 1984 the Soviet Union and others boycotted the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles.

An alternative to a complete boycott has been to allow athletes from specific countries to compete, but as ‘neutrals’ rather than representing ‘their’ country. Russian athletes have only been allowed to compete as neutrals in recent Olympics, so no national anthems if they win a gold medal. Athletes from Russia and Belarus have been barred too, but at this year’s Winter Paralympics they were permitted to compete under a national flag. This is supposedly because there is now less evidence of Paralympic sport being used to promote the invasion of Ukraine.

Suggestions of a boycott have also been raised concerning this summer’s Football World Cup. Iran has been attacked by massive US and Israeli air strikes; their football team was due to play its three qualifying group matches in different US cities, and the head of Iran’s football federation wondered if participation would be possible. Donald Trump has generously said that he doesn’t care if Iran takes part, describing it as ‘a very badly defeated country’. The Iranian Minister of Sport then stated that the country would not be able to take part.

There has also been speculation about countries such as England and Germany not participating because of US global policies, travel bans and the viciousness of ICE. However, it seems likely that there may well be contracts between FIFA and the English FA about taking part, which would mean that a boycott could break any contract and so lead to sanctions.

This year’s cricket T20 World Cup also led to controversies over who should play, and where. The tournament was co-hosted by India and Sri Lanka, and tensions among South Asian countries gave rise to many problems. The Bangladesh Cricket Board said that on safety grounds its team would not travel to India, as it was scheduled to do, and requested that its games all be moved to Sri Lanka. When they refused requests to change their stance, they were removed from the competition by the International Cricket Board.

Then the Pakistan government said its team would not play against India, though it then changed its mind and the match took place. India vs Pakistan is a huge game at any tournament, so big viewing figures and revenue were no doubt a consideration here.

You can’t help wondering if boycotts really have any impact, or whether they mainly occur to make some people feel good.

Paul Bennett

50 Years Ago: An implement for digging (2026)

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

Have you noticed the way today’s politicians are afraid to call a spade a spade and instead resort to every kind of euphemism to disguise the reality of whatever they happen to be talking about? So we have ‘social security’—the Poor Law or National Assistance by any other name—a cynical term indeed. Ask anyone who’s ever had to claim and they’ll tell you there’s little that’s social and nothing that’s secure about it. Perhaps you’ve experienced yourself the interminable form-filling and prying by clerks for a pittance that won’t feed a dog, let alone keep it warm.

We have the ‘Department of Employment’. I wonder what the one and a half million on the dole would say about that, the Industrial Reserve Army as Marx put it?

What other contenders are there? How about ‘an expanding economy’? An expression that looks a little sick in these days. How about ‘the underprivileged’: politicianese for the poor and the deprived—members of the working class in other words. But let us not forget ‘the affluent society’ (it’s been a good year for grinding the faces of the workers); ‘we have got to pay our way in the world’ (we’re going to turn the rack a few more notches); ‘nobody owes us a living’ (your tomorrow, the promised land is just over the next hill); and, to end a short selection, ‘welfare state’ (80,000 will die this year from hypothermia).

Politicians are the mouthpieces and the lackeys of the capitalist system which needs to dupe the mass of the people in order to maintain itself in power. The contrast between the humbug of political pronouncements and the struggle for survival of the working class worldwide cries out for a solution. That solution can be achieved—Socialism, which will finally make politicians redundant when it replaces capitalism across the globe.

Workers of the world unite—you have nothing to lose but your leaders.

[From the article, 'An Implement For Digging' by A. L., Socialist Standard, April 1976]

London borough council elections (2026)

Party News from the April 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party is standing candidates in three wards in Lambeth.

Want something better?

Capitalism, the system we live under, is divided into two classes: the privileged few who own the places where wealth is produced and services provided; and the rest of us who have nothing to sell except our working skills and which economic necessity compels us to sell to an employer for a wage or a salary.

In Lambeth this division is written plainly in the things you need but can’t afford, in the strain on services, and in the constant worry that is part of life under capitalism.

The other candidates say that these hardships can be remedied by new councillors, new policies or new regulations. But governments and councils exist to administer the capitalist system. So long as the places where wealth is produced remain the property of a minority, so long will production be carried on for profit and not for use, and so long will the needs of the many be sacrificed to the interests of the few.

We are standing not to manage capitalism but to make the case for replacing it with socialism: a system of society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in interests of the whole community.

Socialism means production solely for use and not for profit and free access to the wealth produced. It means the abolition of class domination and privilege and the production for profit and working for wages that goes with them. It is not state-run capitalism, but a world system of cooperative production for human need.

No leader or politicians can bring this about for you. And we are not offering to. It is something that you have to do yourselves by organising to win political control, not to run capitalism, but to end it.

If you agree with this, vote for our candidates in Brixton North, Clapham Common & Abbeville, Stockwell West & Larkhall.

In the other wards, write ‘SOCIALISM’ across your ballot paper.

We stand for the many

We want to send a message to the establishment: Lambeth is one of the most unequal boroughs in London. High rents, insecure work, and overstretched services exist alongside great wealth and profits. This division is not caused by poor local management. It’s exactly how a system based on profit is supposed to operate.

The career politicians of other parties offer slightly different ways of running the same system but we seek real change.

We stand for SOCIALISM: ‘The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community’. That is no private landlords, no wages system, and no buying and selling.

Our candidates do not seek power or privilege. If elected, they will act as mandated delegates, using their position to oppose policies that harm your interests and to argue openly for socialism.

If you want more than cosmetic change, Vote Socialist.

Housing for use, not for profit

Lambeth’s housing crisis is not the result of poor council management or the wrong policies, but of a system that treats homes as commodities. Rents and house prices are far beyond what most workers can afford, tens of thousands are on housing waiting lists, and thousands of families are stuck in temporary accommodation. Developers, landlords, and housing providers profit from scarcity, while workers are forced to compete with one another for somewhere to live.

Schemes labelled ‘affordable housing’ do not solve this crisis. Rents set at a percentage of the market are still unaffordable, and shared ownership and housing association homes tie people to lifelong debt. Poor conditions, overcrowding, and insecurity persist because housing under capitalism is built, allocated, and maintained according to cost and profit, not human need. Local councils, including Lambeth, operate within these limits and cannot abolish rents, mortgages, or homelessness.

The Socialist Party stands for a different solution: the abolition of the market in housing altogether. We argue for common ownership of land and housing, production for use not profit, and free access to homes based on need. In a socialist society there would be no landlords, no rent, no housing registers, and no homelessness.

Socialism: freedom, equality, solidarity

Socialists are against authoritarianism, privilege and division. We are for freedom, equality, and solidarity. These can only be achieved in a society based on common ownership and democratic control by the whole people.

Freedom means genuine freedom of thought and expression as well as freedom from having to work for wages. We are fully committed to defending open debate and independent thinking. No government or corporation should silence the voices of working people or control how people think and live.

Equality means that every human being is of equal worth regardless of ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. We stand for a society of social coexistence based on mutual respect.

Solidarity is the shared commitment to live together with respect, cooperation, and collective responsibility. We stand with working people, defending unity over division and cooperation over conflict.

Capitalism works against these principles. We oppose this economic system that concentrates wealth and power in the hands of a few whilst exploiting the vast majority and that puts profits before people. We oppose the wars it inevitably generates over markets and resources.

We are not standing to manage capitalism locally. If elected, we will be an uncompromising voice for workers in every decision that affects them, making the case for a social revolution to replace capitalism with a society based on common ownership, democratic control, and production directly to meet people’s needs not profits.

Editorial: Why war? (2026)

Editorial from the April 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

The war involving the United States, Israel, and Iran marks another dangerous moment in world politics. Airstrikes, retaliation, and rising regional tensions are being presented through the language of security, defence, and national interest. Yet beneath these justifications lies a familiar reality: ordinary people are once again being killed and maimed and their homes destroyed in a conflict that they neither chose nor control. As socialists we utterly condemn this latest manifestation of capitalist barbarity.

Governments frame wars as necessary responses to threats, but history repeatedly shows that modern wars are struggles between competing states pursuing strategic influence, military advantage, and economic power. Workers, families, and civilians — regardless of nationality — bear the real consequences through loss of life, instability, inflation, displacement, and fear.

The attack on Iran must be understood not as an isolated moral crime, but as a predictable consequence of the global system in which all states operate. The United States, Israel, and Iran each act to defend and expand their economic, political, and military power. Modern wars are not struggles between good and evil; they are structural conflicts between states competing for influence, resources, and strategic advantage. Ordinary people, who have no control over these decisions, are the ones who suffer the consequences.

Framing the conflict as the wrongdoing of one government alone is misleading. Iran is itself a capitalist state with its own regional and strategic interests. Selective anti-imperialism, which opposes Western interventions but excuses rival states, risks replacing one bloc with another and fails to address the structural causes of war.

External interventions and regime-change campaigns show that foreign powers rarely act to promote democracy or peace. Instead, they reshape governments to serve strategic and economic interests. Similarly, targeting Iran’s leadership today is less about morality or security and more about shifting the balance of power in the region. Military escalation, sanctions, and proxy conflicts are predictable outcomes of a system built on competition and profit, not justice or human rights.

The global scale of the problem is clear. Worldwide military spending exceeds two trillion dollars annually. Alliances shift according to economic and strategic advantage, not ethical principles. Civilians bear the cost of sanctions, arms races, and proxy wars. The structural drivers of conflict are embedded in the organisation of capitalist states; until these are challenged, wars will continue, regardless of who occupies leadership positions.

The socialist perspective rejects nationalism, moral alignment with any government, and the illusion that stopping one war solves the problem. True change requires international working-class awareness, solidarity across borders, and a fundamental transformation of society to remove the systemic causes of war. Only by confronting the structures that produce recurring conflict can humanity hope to prevent the next war, rather than simply reacting to its latest outbreak.

Peace is inseparable from the end of a system that profits from division, conflict, and exploitation. The working class, not governments, must become the agent of real change. Until then, each ‘crisis’ will be merely another chapter in the same predictable story of power and suffering.