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.