Throwing custard over the Crown Jewels and shoplifting at Waitrose (2026)

From the March 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last December a group called Take Back Power made news by throwing apple crumble and custard over a glass case containing the Crown Jewels in the Tower of London. Describing itself as a ‘nonviolent civil-resistance group’, Take Back Power, though talked of as a successor to Just Stop Oil which has now dissolved itself, has a new and different agenda focusing on what can broadly be called ‘economic inequality’. Its declared concerns are matters such as the cost of living and, in particular, what it describes as ‘unfair taxation’. To bring attention to such issues, its members are promising mass shopliftings of ‘high-end’ stores such as Waitrose and redistribution of the food removed to those who need it. Such activities are seen as a way of exerting pressure on the government to set up what they call ‘a permanent citizen’s assembly – a House of the People, which has the power to tax extreme wealth and fix Britain’. This echoes the words on the sign carried by those arrested at the scene of the apple crumble and custard event: ‘Democracy has crumbled – tax the rich’.

Daily Mail v Take Back Power

The group was the subject of a predictably derogatory report in the Daily Mail on the occasion of its formal launch in January of this year. One of its founders, Arthur Clifton, was reported as telling the audience at the founding event: ‘We have seen that food is locked behind skyrocketing prices. Less and less people can afford less and less food’. And then the article went on to mention that two of those involved in the ‘custard’ protest were ‘an NHS worker and a former doctor’ and pointed out that Clifton was ‘privately educated’ at ‘one of the country’s top public schools’ and came from a wealthy family. In so doing it lit the blue touch paper for its discerning readers in the comments facility on the website. Typical examples of comments were:

‘Terrorists, by another way and means. They need locking up.’

‘Start prosecuting and imprison these vandals & thieves with long sentences.’

‘Morons and jealous half-wits.’

‘Why do this lot always look like they need a good bath!!’

‘If they hate capitalism why not moving to China or Cuba? or … North Korea?’

‘Anti-capitalist group: the upper-middle class way of saying “’thieves”’.

‘Middle class privileged kids playing at politics.’

‘A few baseball bats and pickaxe handles would soon sort these goons out.’ (from Big Richard of Birmingham)

‘Live rounds, now!’ (from Shampoo Bamboo of Sheffield)

Such comments are of course to be looked upon with the contempt they deserve, but of real relevance to the venture they are commenting on are a number of points made in earlier editions of the Socialist Standard about Take Back Power’s predecessor group, Just Stop Oil.

Single-issue groups

Firstly, single-issue groups, no matter how well supported they may appear to be at a given time, tend to have limited impact, if any, in the longer term. Recent history illustrates this when we think of, for example the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Anti-Vivisection Society, Occupy, Extinction Rebellion, which either become extinct when members tire of working hard for little visible gain or soldier on even when they get overtaken by events and changing conditions make the issue they are campaigning for seem less relevant. In general, it must be said that such organisations are nothing if not commendable for their concern for human welfare and the sincerity of their intentions. And on occasion they can be judged to have had some kind of positive impact on society or on social attitudes. But this is usually because their agenda becomes aligned with the needs of the social and economic system we live in (capitalism), making what they are campaigning for useful or necessary for the continued smooth running of that system. Examples of this are the campaign for a National Health Service in Britain at the end of the second world war (basically a necessary back-to-work scheme for efficient employment), and the Civil Rights movement in the US which was at least partially successful in improving conditions for the black minority. One of its effects was to put them in a less inferior position to the white majority in the labour market and so giving employers a wider pool of workers to choose from. In the end, such ‘successes’ as there have been among single-issue campaigns form part of the list of never-ending reforms that capitalism itself always needs to facilitate its operation.

What does ‘anti-capitalist’ mean?

Secondly, though the Daily Mail article referred to Take Back Power as an ‘anti-capitalist group’ and a number of its readers’ comments picked up on that, when looked at closely the group’s aims and activities are not ‘anti-capitalist’ in any meaningful way. It envisages its ambitions as being achieved within the framework of the current system of money, wages and buying and selling. They involve either influencing existing governments or leaders or somehow having a part in government themselves. There is nothing ‘anti-capitalist’ in this. Anti-capitalism (or ‘socialism’ as we would call it) means a social system without governments or leaders based on common ownership of all goods and services and free access to all the necessities of life for all. Reforms to the current system (even a conglomeration of them) cannot provide that. Nor does anti-capitalism or socialism have anything whatever to do with China, Cuba or North Korea, as suggested by some of the Daily Mail’s keyboard warriors.

Class

Thirdly, some explanation is needed regarding ‘class’, especially given that the protestors in question are referred to in the newspaper as ‘middle-class’ (and therefore not ‘working class’). The important reality to grasp is that there are very few of us indeed who are not ‘working class’. This is in the sense that the overwhelming majority of us need to find an employer to work for in order to have a wage or salary as a means of survival. And that will certainly be the case for virtually all those who gathered on 17 January at Limehouse Town Hall in London to formally found Take Back Power. We can say with a good degree of certainty that very few of them indeed, if any, belong to that small group of people who do not have to sell their energies to an employer day by day because they own enough wealth to be able to live comfortably without doing that, ie, those who belong to the tiny minority of people who own most of the earth’s resources – those we call the capitalist class.

Who pays taxes?

Finally, while the idea that imposing higher taxation on the rich and reducing it for the poor may seem superficially attractive, it is, when examined closely, fundamentally wrong-headed. It’s true that most people have an image of the state and its government as a kind of ‘neutral’ agency standing above society, to which all must contribute. In this view state revenue is the ‘public purse’, which we all have to support through taxation. But the main burden of taxation in fact rests on the tiny minority of people who own the vast majority of the wealth (the capitalist class) and who the government extracts it from in order to maintain the whole machinery on which the system depends for its orderly functioning . And they pay it out of the profit accruing to them from their ownership of the means of production and distribution over the whole of society. If they were prevailed upon to pay even more than they already do, it would have the effect of eating into the profit which is the life blood of capitalism, cause disinvestment, economic decline and possibly worse, and make workers even poorer as wages declined and unemployment rose.

Mirages, dead ends and the real deal

So in all these terms Take Back Power’s aim of a society run by a ‘Citizens’ Assembly’ which would tax ‘extreme wealth’ is nothing more than a mirage. It is a mistaken notion that, within the framework of a society founded on buying and selling, things could be run in a notably more equitable way than at present. If, by some unimaginable quirk, such an experiment did come to be tried, it would quickly become clear that whoever or whichever body was running things, they would quickly have to bow to the dictates of profit and to a similar order of things as exist already for the vast majority (ie the workers) and effectively carry on running capitalism. While we can thoroughly agree with the statement made by Take Back Power that governments ‘serve the super rich’ and ‘do not care about working people’, their plans for somehow reducing the wealth of those they call ‘the obscenely wealthy’ could not possibly be realised within the existing framework of social organisation with its governments and monetary exchange.

The ‘guru’ of Just Stop Oil, Roger Hallam, who has recently served a prison sentence under the British state’s arsenal of repressive laws for involvement in tactics like blocking roads or gluing yourself to paintings, is on record as saying ‘If you don’t upset people, then nothing happens’. It remains to be seen whether Take Back Power will now go in for similar actions to try and attract attention to their cause. But even if they are successful in this, what they will be spreading is attention to what can only be a dead end. What is needed is a wider view of how society works than that adopted by any single-issue campaign. The working class does indeed need to ‘take back power’, but it needs to do that in a way that focuses not on social or economic reform within the framework of capitalism, but on a change from a society of production for profit to one of production for need based on common ownership of the world’s resources and free access to all goods and services.

Howard Moss

Blogger's Note:

The following two articles from previous Socialist Standards go into more detail on Just Stop Oil:

• Dec 2022: Just stop being manipulative by Adam Buick
• May 2025: Just Stop Oil: the failure of a tactic by Adam Buick

Roger Hallam’s new plan (2026)

From the March 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Roger Hallam, the man behind the failed Just Stop Oil campaign, has emerged from prison a reformed character. He has now abandoned civil disobedience as a way of trying to change things and has embraced electoral action. He is not, however, in a position to say what he really thinks as, if he did continue to advocate breaking the law, he’d be sent straight back to prison to serve the rest of his 2025 four-year prison sentence.

In January he brought out a three-hour video and podcast called How To Start a Revolution in 2026, subtitled ‘ordinary people can run society — but only if we build the structures to let them’. The subtitle gives a clue to what he means by ‘revolution’ — a radical change in the way political decisions are made.

He proposes that elected local councillors should be answerable to and overseen by citizens’ assemblies selected by lot. It’s basically a scheme for a functioning participatory democracy. It’s not necessarily a bad proposal in itself. The trouble is that Hallam envisages it being implemented under capitalism. What he is in effect proposing is a reform of the political superstructure of capitalism while leaving its social and economic base untouched.

But it is not a lack of democracy that causes the problems that the non-owning majority face today. It’s the capitalist system of minority ownership of the means of life and production for profit. Not even the most radical democratic decision-making structure can change or overcome the basic economic law of capitalism that making profits must come before all other considerations. Given capitalism, citizens’ assemblies would be no more able to solve the problems the majority face than existing governments or local councils. His proposed new democratic and community-led political structure could only work on the basis of the common ownership of the means of life. That is the only basis on which there would be neither vested interests nor coercive economic laws standing in the way of gearing production to meeting people’s needs.

So much for the goal but what about the means to get there? Here Hallam has drawn up a detailed plan of how to mobilise people at local level to put up their own candidates and win, involving regular weekly door-knocking, postering, telephoning, targeting non-voters (over 60 percent in most local council wards), meet-ups, and fund raising. He is prepared to put his money where his mouth is and try out his plan. The chosen place is Lambeth in London, currently controlled by an unpopular Labour council. He intends to organise candidates in all 25 wards and expects, even promises, that if his plan is carried out Labour will be kicked out.

Hallam may have embraced electoral action but he hasn’t changed his view from his Extinction Rebellion days that only a minority is needed to bring about political change. He still says:

‘Mass movements don’t grow by persuading everyone. They grow by activating a specific minority — roughly five per cent of the population — who are alienated, capable, and waiting for something credible. Most people will never mobilise’.

Lenin thought much the same. The results of the elections in Lambeth in May will show how large a following Hallam’s vanguard can get. But it would only be to reform the political set-up not for a social revolution to end minority ownership of the means society needs to survive.

Adam Buick

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

Syndicalism, its cause and cure. (1912)

Book Review from the December 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Syndicalism and the General Strike – by Arthur D. Lewis. (London; T. Fisher Unwin. Price 7s 6d)

As the only party in Great Britain that has taken up a definite and consistent attitude towards Anarchism in all its forms, it is meet that we should have something to say on the latest work on Syndicalism that has been published.

We have adopted a frankly hostile policy to this latest importation for the simple reason that we are a Socialist party. The sorry plight of those so-called Socialist bodies like the B. S. P. and the I. L. P. is a natural result of their lack of principles based on a correct knowledge of the position of our class. Inside the former body there is a heated controversy, both among the “leaders” and the rank and file, as to whether Syndicalism is the road for the workers to travel. The curious position of the I. L. P. is shown by their advocacy of the General Strike at the International Labour Congress as a weapon against war!

The cause of Syndicalism lies in the history of these and similar parties. In the Blatchford section they have literally bred Syndicalism by their disgusting election tricks, so often exposed in these pages. Their former members, now Syndicalists, point to the vote-hunting, compromising campaigns of Bethnal Green and Northampton, along with others, as showing the failure and danger of political action. The Independent Labour Party, too, has so treacherously played the part of advance agents of the Liberal party that from political opportunism their supporters right-about-turn to denounce political action altogether  — not that they understand Syndicalism any more than its leading votaries, but believing it to be anti-political, they seek shelter beneath its slogans and formulas.

Our statement of the cause of Syndicalism is supporter by the Syndicalist author of the book under review, who states (p. 187) that: –

“There are practically only one or two Syndicalists in England, but discontent with the degree of success obtained through the Parliamentary Labour Party has led to a general return to trade unionism and strikes as a means of fighting the employers . . . The belief that at least one member of the party bargains with the Liberal Government with a view to his personal advantage; the moderation of its words in Parliament compared with its words on the platform; the incapacity of many members of it, who are only dolls in the hands of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald; the acceptance by certain of its members of paid posts given by the Liberals; and its love of Puritanism, have all helped to cause a feeling of disappointment and disillusionment in many who once trusted and believed in it.”

That, then, is the cause of the spread of Syndicalism. It is clearly shown by this that Syndicalism thrives on ignorance. Only mis-educated, non Socialist workers would ever trust the Labour Party, would ever expect them to look after the toilers’ interests; and when the failure of their political inaction is realised, it is not the political method itself that has been found wanting, but it is the lack of sound knowledge on the workers’ part that is demonstrated. Because the political machine has been used in a capitalist direction the Syndicalist and his dupes proclaim the failure of politics!

The present book consists chiefly of quotations from the works of the Syndicalist leaders of to-day throughout Europe, and the author ventures his opinions very little. When he does so, he shows not only that he does not understand Syndicalism, but that he understands Socialism still less. In the preface he declares Socialism to mean that “huge State monopolies are to be formed in all industries, and that these will be controlled by a few very powerful officials at Westminster”.

This is typical of the misrepresentation that the Syndicalists feed their followers on. If Mr. Lewis would consult what he calls an “orthodox” Socialist, say Frederick Engels, he would find that Socialism rises upon the ashes of the State, for when Socialism comes the day of the State has closed for ever.

Though the title of the work is Syndicalism and the General Strike, only one chapter is devoted wholly to the latter question. The chief part deals with the theory of Syndicalism and Syndicalists.

Our author tells us that “the Syndicalist likes poor unions best — riches bring caution: he likes low weekly dues and small benefits”. Rather we would say, the average Syndicalist likes no dues and many benefits. We are promised much melodrama and but little organisation and education by his statement that: “The great weapon of the workers against their masters is disorder”. And one phase is described as “sabôtage or the destruction of property, intimidation of masters, sitting in factories with folded arms so no blacklegs can take your places, leaving work at an hour earlier than the masters want, telling the truth to customers: all these are means by which the masters can be made to yield”.

What they are to be made to yield by these means we are not told. But anyone can realise that while these things may prove aggravating to the isolated employer, and make him more bitter against the music-hall revolutionists, yet if this kind of thing was general, all the employers being on the same footing, they would feel its effects very little.

But to keep this conduct up the workers would need the power, not merely to personate George Washington, but to take control of the entire means of life; not to leave at an earlier hour than the masters desire, but to leave masters altogether. The crude notions of these folk are brought forward in the idea of “sitting with folded arms” while the masters want food, clothing, etc. for their daily needs. Sabotage, like all Syndicalist methods, is born of the want of sound knowledge and strong organisation.

Despite the fact that the author declares that the General Confederation of Labour in France “contains both a reformist and a revolutionary section”, and that the latter is “the minority of a minority of a minority — only some of the members of the C. G. T. being revolutionists and the C. G. T. itself only representing a minority of the unions” — despite that, however, the Anarchists miscalled revolutionists have a governing influence in the organisation, and have made its actions both comedies and tragedies.

They don’t believe in democracy. As the leading French Syndicalist, Émile Pouget, says in the work quoted — “The Syndicalist” — “Syndicalism and democracy are the two opposite poles which exclude and neutralise each other . . . This is because democracy is a social superfluity, a parasitic and external excrescence, while Syndicalism is a logical manifestation of the growth of life”, etc. Another French leader, M. Pierrot, is quoted as saying in “Syndicalism and Revolution” : “It is better to have an active group who know how to carry the masses and turn them in the right direction by their words and actions” . “The Syndicalist”, says our author “has contempt for the vulgar idea of democracy: the inert, unconscious mass is not to be taken into account when the minority wishes to act so as to benefit it”.

That is the key note. The ‘intellectual’ few are to dominate the many. Not democracy but autocracy and dictatorship. The day of  a revolution carried out on these lines would also be the day of counter-revolution, the day of disaster, of drilled, unthinking masses being driven to the New Jerusalem. The day of revolution would but be the prelude to the long, black night of apathy and despair.

 

The Socialist Party, however, clings fast to democracy in organisation and in action. It knows that the real, reliable movement can only be built up with an alert, awakened, interested working class. That alone can bring about emancipation — not a few leaders hypnotising an ignorant rank and file.

Syndicalism means but a change of leaders. As Gaylord Wilshire’s (the wealthy Syndicalist) magazine declares (November 1912): “The new movement calls for new leaders”. And again: “The new conditions must bring forth a new type of leader, powerful, inspiring, and heroic”. Leadership, not a live membership doing their own work in their own way, that is the ideal. Mr. Lewis points out that unions with small funds are wanted, for, says he, “where funds are large the workers are made to vote for or against a strike”, thus showing that the Syndicalist objects to the will of the worker being expressed and acted upon.

“Syndicalism has an immediate programme. It would have the unions look to it that there are meeting places for working men, where there will be lectures, baths, and all that helps them to learn how to take control of production and consumption; also the officials, with professional help, should get for the workers their legal rights and place medical and legal advice at their disposal.”

So anxious are they about reforms that they even worry about legal rights. Fancy hungering after the rights conferred by lawyers and by Parliament! But it is not surprising, for above all else the Syndicalists are reformers. Without economic knowledge or political insight, what else could they be? The English Syndicalist, Mr. Tom Mann declares (“A Twofold Warning”) that poverty can be abolished under capitalism, and he also says: “I contend that reducing the working hours provides a solution for the problem of unemployment, and it matters not what system obtains”. With this rot they make converts among the ignorant, yet any tyro in economics could prove to him that the reserve army of labour is the corner-stone of capitalism, and that the shortening of hours doesn’t mean the lessening of the product of the same number of men. The Chief Inspector of Mines just reports that in spite of the Eight Hours Day Bill, and the strikes last year, over seven million tons more coal were produced than in 1912, and on the average every miner’s output increased three tons. This is typical of the whole industrial world.

Syndicalists claim great things for their strikes and sabotage. Something now! “The use of trade union labels is regarded as an instance of direct action”. The free advertisement of particular employers! Further we are told that by sabotage “bread has been made inedible but not injurious” — a kind of general “hunger strike” forced upon the working class.

But the sad story of Spanish, French and Italian strikes and sabotage has somewhat dimmed the picture. Yvetot, the chief of the C. G. T., in his ABC of Syndicalism, confesses that “the principle obstacle to a revolution is the army . . . When the Government does not use the army to replace strikers, it makes soldiers into massacrers of workmen”. What, then, is the use of the General Strike? What can it do against the army? As Yvetot says, the army massacres the strikers. In Italy, we are told (p. 104): “A general strike of railway workers was attempted in 1905 as a protest against a new attempt to introduce the (strike smashing) law; it failed and the law was passed. Men were shot down by the soldiers in 1907 and there was a renewal of a wide-spread strike. The strikers were defeated, and it was said that 20,000 men, or one third of all the men on the railways, were punished, either by imprisonment, discharge from the service, fines, or degradation of rank.”

Arturo Labriola, the leading Italian Syndicalist, shows the similarity between Syndicalism and capitalism. He says: “You can imagine that a Syndicat for a certain trade could contain all the workers in a single branch of industry, could contract on uniform conditions with all the capitalists on behalf of these workers, and would form a kind of common treasury of all the profits, to be distributed according to a rule of exalted justice to all its members  . . . This process could go further. It can be imagined that at a certain point of its development the workers’ union might hire the capital of the capitalists for a fixed return and then use it co-operatively, either working in one mass or constructing so many separate co-operative bodies each having separate and distinct accounts.”

And he goes on: “Syndicates, as organisms opposed to monopoly, and therefore open to all, would enthusiastically receive the capitalists of yesterday become the companions of to-day, and would make use of their indisputable directive and administrative ability.”

Before leaving the General Strike theory it is useful to note the words of Mr. Ben Tillett, quoted in the book. Speaking after the 1911 Transport strike was over he said (Glasgow, 11.2.12): “A  week before the strike a Cabinet Minister pleaded with me in a tearful voice to stop the strike. Of course, this pleading was unheeded until the men got what they wanted”.

Yet within six months of that speech the transport workers were fighting fir the very demands they had “won” the year before! And what a cruel comment was the suffering of that historic defeat on the “efficacy of the strike” idea!

The general strike of miners and other strikes in England bring home the lessons of the Socialist. Whilst the strike, local or industrial, may effect improvement for the time, slavery remains. Whilst the threat of a general strike may induce concessions, it cannot bring a solution. The best results of economic unity can only be effected by class-conscious toilers who recognise the need for class action, class union, for working class ends; who realise that, as the road to emancipation lies in control of political power, political action is a vital necessity.

The cure for Syndicalism is education in the Socialist principles and policy. There is no substitute for a Socialist working class seeking its salvation through the political struggle. When the toilers understand Socialism they will have no room in their minds for the sophisms and fallacies of Syndicalism.

Adolph Kohn

Change the World (2025)

Book Review from the November 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Replace the State. How to Change the World when Elections and Protests Fail. By Sasha Davis. University of Minnesota Press. 2025. 175pp.

A book with a title like Replace the State cannot but catch the eye of an organisation like the Socialist Party that advocates a stateless system of society. Appearances can be deceiving of course. So to what extent does this book live up to the promise of its title?

The first thing to say is that, for the author of this book, replacing the state does not mean establishing a society without a state or states. What it means is small groups taking ‘direct action’ to manage or take over ‘contested sites’ where the existing system may be oppressing local communities and causing societal or environmental damage. Many of these sites referred to in this book are ‘indigenous’, that is to say they are what remains of the local original communities there before they were taken over by governments for use as part of the state and the capitalist juggernaut. The kind of action the writer is talking about is occupation of spaces (the term he uses for this is ‘counteroccupations’) in which, for example, excluded people can be offered sanctuary, or people can demonstrate their opposition to unwanted local projects (eg military or nuclear bases) and in so doing engage in mutual aid and what he calls ‘participatory governance’ and ‘inclusive and sustainable practices’. Specific examples of this would be, in his own words, ‘worker-run cooperatives, community land trusts and farm spaces dedicated to sustainable food systems and social justice’. And examples he gives of successes in this area are the civil rights movement in the US and the stopping of military training and bombing on one of the small islands of Puerto Rico. ‘Relational governance’ is the umbrella term used here to identify this way of operating, which, the author states, ‘arises from a worldview that recognises the fundamental interconnected and interdependent nature of our societies, ecologies, economies, political systems, bodies and minds’ and ‘contrasts sharply with the view many modern states conceptualize the world and act towards it’.

In terms of ‘worldview’, there is little here we would disagree with. But, given the overwhelming planetary presence of the capitalist system and the power of the national states that exist to administer it, we would have to regard the kind of action the author advocates as a drop in the ocean. He seeks to make a clear distinction between the activities and campaigns he would like to see undertaken and those protest movements that demand social change or reforms via petitions or demonstrations or support for one party considered more ‘progressive’ than others in elections. He refers to such activities (and quite rightly in our view) as ‘chasing our tails’ since, though they may sometimes have the effect of making life a little more bearable for wage and salary earners, they cannot change the fundamental nature of the system of massive wealth inequality we all live in. But it is hard to see how the kind of activity he does recommend – carving out small spaces in the existing system where he hopes things can be run more fairly, more justly and more sustainably – can make a great deal of difference either, or how any benefits arising from it can be more than short term. The writer himself seems to recognise this at one point when he states that, though in many places activists have managed to carve out ‘spaces of self-determination’, it is a strategy that rarely works meaningfully in the long-term and rather, as he puts it, ‘frequently succeeds only for a short period of time and/or in a relatively small space’. Even so, seeming to share the playbook of Trotskyist groups, he insists that workers’ experience of such struggle and striving is essential as it will build to a point of consciousness which will lead them to revolt and to bring in wholesale changes of a radical kind. It can cause, so the author tells us, ‘alternative ways of life to be practiced, modelled, and disseminated’. Yet nothing of this, it must be said, is borne out by examples of this happening in the real world.

We would not, of course, want to seem to be pouring cold water on what are clearly genuine and long-term efforts on the part of the author to propose and encourage ways of changing the world for the better in the face of what he rightly describes as ‘the cascade of catastrophic problems coming at us from every direction’ and of seeking the achievement of what he refers to as a system of ‘equality, inclusion and environmental protection’. He shows clearly too that he recognises the class-divided nature of capitalist society (‘owner vs wage earner’) and the role the state plays in preserving it (‘The State Won’t Fix Our Problems’ is the title of one of his chapters) and sees no mileage in trying to address social ills through the institutions that have caused them. But we would have to ask him to consider whether activity to secure real, widespread – in fact global – social change which he would no doubt wish to see doesn’t rather reside elsewhere. To be precise, whether it doesn’t reside in campaigning to change the outlook of the majority who, the world over, have to work for a wage or salary to survive, and to bring them round to the self-emancipatory consciousness that impels them to vote for an equal, inclusive and environmentally sustainable society of common ownership and democratic control, a society that will genuinely ‘replace the state’ and enable all to fulfil their potential both individually and collectively.

Howard Moss

Letter: Not peas in a pod (1996)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not peas in a pod

Dear Editors,

I am very disappointed with Graham Taylor’s interpretation (August Letters) of my letter to the July issue.

Not once in my letter did I say that I supported the Newbury rallies, and I do not believe it is very comradely either to suggest that I might hold Trotskyite or SWP views.

I am a member of the Socialist Party because I sincerely believe in the abolition of the capitalist system. The other views I expressed in my letter are quite clear, that I think some Socialists appear to make a fetish out of not demonstrating or showing solidarity with other workers. Socialists are people, individuals, not so many peas out of the same pod.

Heather Ball, 

Norwich

Letter: Twyford Down (1993)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors,

Since last year, 1 have been involved in the fight to save Twyford Down. This has been presented by the media as a "green" issue with particular appeal to New Age travellers, students, environmental activists (such as Earth First!) and conservationists. The destruction of many sites of archaeological and historical interest there has scarcely been mentioned. The political aspects of the Government's roads programme are ignored. The corrupt dealings between Conservative Party members and MPs with Winchester College, the construction industry and the Department of Transport have not been exposed at all.

The Government is interested in only one thing — power. This is true of all governments, but the present one is particularly nasty and corrupt. Their overriding concern is that they and their Establishment friends (the Establishment is not just a mental construct but consists of real people who live and interact with each other in a social milieu most of us cannot even imagine) should continue to hold their positions of wealth and power at our expense.

Roads are not built for (although they are built by!) working people, despite encouragement to buy cars and use them. Their main purpose is to boost profits by offering cheap transport (roads are paid for and subsidised from taxes) for the owning class. Tory support for the roads lobby also ensures the continued payment into Party funds of huge subventions by the British Road Federation and construction industry companies, and the continued appointment of worthies to lucrative directorships.

The people who run this country, like those who benefit from the capitalist system everywhere in the world, are not interested in the well-being of ordinary people, although they pretend to be when they want us to sanction their robbery with our votes. They will spare no destruction — of our communities or the natural environment — in pursuit of power and profit.

The roads programme is an important issue not because of any intrinsic values but because the government chose to make it so. The Twyford Down struggle eventually took on the proportions of Orgreave, with the use of Group 4 Securitas as a private army, hired and equipped by the DoT to show us who was boss. Nearly 200 security men. plus construction workers and police, were sent against 25 protestors (I was one) who were camped on the Down overnight on the 9th December — to set an example, not merely to enable Mott MacDonald's vandals to destroy an irreplaceable ecosystem and scheduled ancient monument.

Despite what has happened at Twyford Down and what we are threatened with at many places around the country, people are not going to shut up and go away — to do that would be to abandon any thought of standing up to the worst excesses of this evil Government and to abandon the future of the planet as a place fit for life. It is vital that our non violent protests continue and grow. It is no use waiting for the Tories to be voted out of office, let alone for "the revolution". If direct action is not taken now there may soon be precious little left for politicians to argue about.

Katy Andrews, 

London E11

Reply:

It's all very well saying it’s no use waiting for "the revolution" (we agree: we shouldn't "wait" for it we should work for it). But unless it takes place — and the basis of society is changed to common ownership, democratic control and production solely for use. instead of private ownership, stale control and production for profit, then capitalism will go on destroying the environment, and the most that can be done will be to occasionally slow this down a little. The record shows, however, that defeats (as a Twyford Down) are more frequent than any minor victories. This is not really surprising as nothing, not even government action let alone direct action, can stop the economic laws of the profit system ensuring that profits come first. — Editors.

Letter: Opportunistic exercises (1996)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

Opportunistic exercises

Dear Editors,

I found Heather Ball's comments (Letters. June Socialist Standard) somewhat surprising.

A socialist who compromises socialist principles is a notion that makes me feel very uncomfortable.

The question of strikes and the SPGB has been discussed often enough in the party’s history. and there is general agreement on the position individual members should take.

The comment ". . . being a Socialist means being a part of the struggle but without illusions” seems to be misplaced; I would expect to see it in a Trotskyite paper.

Does Heather Ball regard the Newbury rallies or strikes as being action against capitalism? The last paragraph of her letter seems to imply that this is the case, when in fact they arc feeble, defensive measures against aspects of capitalism, and where the majority of people are supporters of capitalism.

The SPGB has always made a point of putting the socialist case at demonstrations, not taking part in them. We leave such opportunistic exercises to the SWP.

Graham C. Taylor, 

Brabrand, Denmark

Suffragette Humbug. (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not long ago the hoardings of London startled the man in the street with ugly black and white posters asserting that women were poor, that women were sweated, that women walked the streets, and that misery and vice stalked in our midst, all because women had not the vote. Those statements, issued by the Suffragettes, were and are unblushing falsehoods, unsustained and unsustainable by any shred of evidence.

The Socialist is in no quandary as to why the many are poor. It is not because propertied women have not the vote, nor even because women in general are not electors—it is because the many are robbed. And the stopping of this robbery depends not upon a mere all round increase in the number of votes, but upon the intelligence of the workers and the correct use of the vote in their hands.

Democracy is not an end in itself, but a means to an end; and for us that end is Socialism. And were the workers to understand rightly their position and their policy, the political freedom they now possess would enable them to achieve their emancipation irrespective of sex. 

It is, moreover, not a sex war that  exists in Society but a class war, but the Suffragettes endeavour to blur this class issue by screeching qualifications.

What are the facts regarding the Suffragettes? Under the pretence of sex equality they are buttressing class privilege. Under the guise of democracy they are endeavouring to strengthen the political power of property. They plausibly propose that women be admitted to the franchise on the same terms as men, and since all Socialists want sex equality this looks attractive. But wait. What does it really mean? Men vote at present under the £10 franchise. The suffrage is thus upon a property basis with plural voting for the wealthy. Therefore, according to the proposals of the women Suffragists, only those women having the necessary property qualifications are to be allowed to vote. This excludes not only all those single working women unable to qualify because of their poverty, but it also bars practically the whole of the married women of the working class who have no property qualifications apart from their husbands’. Further, it increases enormously the voting power of the well-to-do, since the head of the wealthy household can always impart the necessary qualifications to all the women of his house, while the working-man, through his poverty, is entirely unable to do so.

The limited suffrage movement is consequently only a means of providing votes for the propertied women of the middle class, and faggot votes for the wealthy; possibly tipping the balance of votes against the workers—men and women. Yet the Suffragettes pretend that this is a movement for the benefit of working women! The huge sums spent in this agitation prove that it is not a workers’ movement. It is a movement by women of the wealthy and middle class to open up for themselves more fully careers of exploitation, and to share in the flesh-pots of political office, to get sinecures, position and emoluments among the governing caste.

In their cry for “equality” do not their methods betray them? Every move on their part is an appeal not to sex equality but to sex fetishism. Their tactics rely upon and appeal to the worship of sex. They know that their sex gives them privileges before the magistrate and protects them from the usual police brutality, and that any strong measures against them would immediately raise a storm in their favour amongst the sex worshippers. Hence their peculiar tactics, which have no other explanation. Let anyone compare mentally the treatment that would be meted out to working men did they pursue a similar policy to these Suffragettes. Let them compare the way the suffragist invasions of Downing Street or the House of Commons were dealt with, with that which would follow persistent forcible entries of the Commons by bands of unemployed. Broken heads, bullets, and long terms of imprisonment—and not in the second division—would be their lot, and instead of hysteric sympathy being created for the ill-treated unemployed, horror at their audacity and a determination to repress them brutally would take its place. And the middle class examples of sex arrogance rely upon this very woman worship and sex inequality to further their demands.

The Suffragette movement is upon all counts but a bulwark of capitalism. It is directly opposed to the interests of the working class—women as well as men, and the Independent Labour Party shows its capitalistic nature when it supports that movement in strengthening the political power of the propertied against the propertyless.

Both sexes of the workers are exploited and suffer. Both are  victims of those who live by the ownership of the means of life. Therefore the salvation of working class women lies in the emancipation of their class from this wage-slavery. Their interests are identical with those of working men, and the women of the middle class do but attempt to lure them with false phrases to desert their fellows and to aid the propertied enemies of their class.

The duty of working women is to refuse to allow themselves to be used as catspaws of the wealthy, and to join with their fellows in The Socialist Party, the organisation of their class; thus working for the emancipation of the toilers as a whole, irrespective of sex. Sex-equality cannot be the fruit of the Suffragette humbug, it can only come through economic equality—and economic equality is impossible except through Socialism.

F. C. Watts

Letter: Just Stop Oil (2025)

Letter to the Editors from the July 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Just Stop Oil

Arising out of the article in our May issue on Just Stop Oil ((‘Just Stop Oil: The failure of a tactic’), we received two emails from Tony Marone, XR Public Engagement Working Group, which we have combined into one.

The subtext of the disbanding of Just Stop Oil was that their aim had been achieved. If it was misrepresented as them having achieved their aim through their own actions alone, then that of course is not correct. However, you surely have to allow for a little self-encouragement in a world that is unremittingly bleak?

The conflation of JSO and XR through the involvement of Roger Hallam in both movements is poorly judged. The actions of JSO were neither overtly supported nor overtly denounced by XR – XR is XR, JSO is JSO.

Roger Hallam left XR in 2021 when he set up Insulate Britain (which still exists) and then moved on to set up JSO. It has been 4 years since Roger Hallam has been considered anything other than a founder member of XR. He holds no position in XR now.

The 3.5 percent minority theory was something that is closely associated with Roger Hallam, but was based in empirical research done by Chenoweth and Stephan (2011) on political campaigns from 1990-2006.

Roger was a high profile advocate of this theory when he was with XR, however it does not inform our current strategy.

You can read more about it (including links to the Chenoweth and Stephan (2011) paper) here:

I personally hold the SPGB in some regard for their educational work. However I am in constant wonder and puzzlement over how all organisations of the left seem to prefer criticising Fellow Travellers to attacking the pillars of neo-liberal capitalism.

As the saying has it, “the Right looks for Converts, The Left looks for Traitors”. Isn’t it past time to abandon ideological purity?

Reply:

We never claimed that Roger Hallam was still connected with XR and can understand why XR should want to dissociate itself from him. We did, however, say that both he and XR were committed to the theory and tactic that a minority of only 3.5 percent should try to bring about system change.

We say this is mistaken and undemocratic and that a majority of the population must be in favour of socialism before it can replace capitalism.

Thanks for the link to that article about the misuse of the 3.5% rule. We note that this rule no longer informs XR’s strategy. In which case, your website need updating as it still states:

‘We have a shared vision of change: Creating a world that is fit for generations to come.

We set our mission on what is necessary: Mobilising 3.5% of the population to achieve system change – such as “momentum-driven organising” to achieve this.’

In passing, your vision of ‘a world that is fit for generations to come’ is a bit vague. So vague in fact that everybody – and every organisation – will share it. Who wouldn’t want that? ‘System change’ is a bit vague too; from what system to what other system?

There may be a case for the multitude of reformist organisations to get together instead of criticising each other. That’s up to them. But there is no case for us, as an organisation that campaigns for socialism and nothing else, to join them or not to point out their inadequacies. 

Editors.

Just Stop Oil: the failure of a tactic (2025)

From the May 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Just Stop Oil was set up at the beginning of 2022 as an offshoot of Extinction Rebellion (XR) which had been launched four years earlier. The disagreement was over tactics not strategy. Both were committed to the strategy of getting 3.5 percent of the population to engage in non-violent, disruptive civil disobedience, the minority considered sufficient to spark off a popular movement to topple a government and impose a new policy. This figure was based on calculations by Erica Chenoweth, an American academic.

XR say on their website that they are committed to:‘mobilising 3.5% of the population to achieve system change – using ideas such as “momentum-driven organising” to achieve this’.

At one time they had added: ‘The change needed is huge and yet achievable. No regime in the 20th century managed to stand against an uprising which had the active participation of up to 3.5% of the population (for Erica Chenoweth’s research, see bit.ly/3Gn0NoV)’.

Roger Hallam, the driving force behind JSO, has put it this way: ‘You can basically save the next generation with 2 per cent of the American population mobilised, engaged in an intense intra-relationship between high-level disruption and intense mobilisation’ (Times, 24 October 2022).

And in his book Common Sense in the 21st Century (subtitled Only Nonviolent Rebellion Can Now Stop Climate Breakdown And Social Collapse) he writes:

‘We should not make the mistake of thinking “the people have to rise” in the sense of the majority of the population. We need a few to rise up and most of the rest of the population to be willing to “give it a go”.’

‘Momentum-driven organising’

The formal aim of XR was a non-violent rebellion to get a government that would adopt measures to achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2025. Hallam, one of XR’s founders but more hard-headed and a more experienced agitator than the others, considered this too remote an aim to mobilise the 3.5 percent minority. In his view, the aim needed to be more concrete, but also one that was more immediately achievable. Initially, he chose ‘Insulate Britain’, to get the government to insulate every home in the country, as the immediate mobilising aim. Then at the beginning of 2022 he switched to stopping further drilling for oil in the North Sea.

His thinking was the opposite of the Trotskyists. They put forward demands that they know can’t be achieved under capitalism in the expectation that those they get to support the demand will, when the campaign fails, turn to them for leadership to overthrow the capitalist state. Hallam’s view was to put forward a demand that could be achieved and that, when it was, could be presented as a victory for the movement, giving it self-confidence to carry on struggling for more, and more ambitious, objectives, eventually the toppling of the government and its replacement by one seriously committed to reaching zero net carbon in a few years.

We don’t have to judge whose tactic — Hallam’s ‘momentum-driven organising’ or the Trotskyists’ ‘transitional demands’— is the less realistic since we reject the basic assumption of both self-appointed vanguards of a leadership manipulating followers. If there is going to be successful and lasting system change a majority must want and understand what it involves and actively take part in bringing it about.

Self-delusion

At the end of March Just Stop Oil announced that it was disbanding. The formal reason given for this was that its goal had been achieved. Oil had been Stopped. The current government had suspended giving further licences to drill for oil in the North Sea. Their website proclaims that ‘we have kept 4.4 billions of oil in the ground’ and that this was ‘one of the world’s most effective climate campaigns’ (juststopoil.org). This is just bombast and self-delusion.

The suspension of licences to drill in the North Sea had nothing to do with their campaign of disruptive civil disobedience. If anything, that was counter-productive as the stunts they pulled inconvenienced and annoyed people. It was in fact brought about through the ballot box when a new government, committed to suspending new drilling, was elected. That said, should the ‘economic headwinds’ prove too strong the government could easily reverse its position and may well.

In any event, JSO’s self-proclaimed ‘victory’ did not give the movement the momentum anticipated and so, from their own point of view, they failed. Their only achievement has been 15 of their members in prison under legislation brought in by the government to counter their actions. That includes Hallam himself who is serving four years, though he probably thinks that having martyrs is part of ‘momentum-driven organising’. That will prove to be a delusion too.

Their disbanding statement does, however, say that ‘nothing short of a revolution is going to protect us from the coming storms’. This is a change from previous statements whose language suggested that they would be satisfied with a change of government or of governance or even just of government policy. But what kind of revolution — minority-led or majority — and with what aim — a change in the basis of society from class ownership to common ownership or something less?

Adam Buick

Smash! (1974)

From the March 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

A New Election Programme?

The most hilarious buffoonery of the election was the International Marxist Group’s putting up three candidates. At a press conference their representative was reported saying hopefully: “In an atmosphere of confrontation a few hundred votes can turn into tens of thousands” (Times, 13th Feb.). A different view from the one in their leaflet distributed on 1st May last year: May Day — End or New Beginning.

Shorn of all its flowery phrases (like “Mass Action”. “Mobilization”, “Confrontation”, “Counter-offensive” and all the boring old stuff about the failure of the wicked trade-union leaders who won’t “mobilize a united struggle to smash through Phase 2”), what this leaflet does is advise strikers to fight the police. It actually says this explicitly. We quote:

To do this [defend the picket lines] the local Trades Councils have to centralize our resources for fighting the police.

The absurdity of the entire content of this ridiculous document is apparent, for instance, in the first paragraph :

A large majority of the working class are striking work together and coming out onto the streets.

In paragraph 2, however:

Millions of workers feel that this stoppage will have no immediate effect on the Government policies. In this they are correct.

We also would say that the millions of workers are quite right. Not only did the General Council of the TUC know this very well, as they showed by deferring their strike-call date till after the Government had passed the Phase 2 Bill; but we now know that the TUC leaders were having secret meetings with Prime Minister Heath one day before the May-day marches, to be followed by the open meeting to fix a deal.

What concerns us here is the dangerous folly of the baloney being peddled by the IMG. Why on earth they have the insufferable impudence to call themselves “Marxist” only they can know. Everything in this nonsensical and pernicious propaganda is utterly foreign and contrary to all of Marx’s teachings, and especially to his actions in the International Workingmen’s Association, of which he was a founder member and author of its address, or policy statement.

We would highly commend to the IMG the statement by Marx in that address which they would do well to deeply and quietly ponder:

One clement of success they [the workers] possess, that of numbers, but numbers weigh only in the balance if united by combination and led by knowledge.

Is there the slightest sign that, amidst all the hysterical outpourings about “smashing Tory governments” and “treacherous trade-union leaders”, the IMG have given one moment’s serious thought to the meaning of what they are spreading?

Read through their leaflet! The workers must centralize their forces to “develop a General Strike to get rid of the Government itself”. The central task in holding the line is to “prepare the counter-offensive in the autumn" because the Government “presented the leaders with a clear choice, either accept pay restraint, or mobilize a united struggle which would smash Phase 2, bring down the Government and so raise the hopes of the working population that the social order itself would be threatened”.

As was pointed out explicitly in a recent Socialist Standard (and even that was re-quoted from 1919 and has been confirmed by history ever since), in every strike, above all the 1926 General Strike:

The masters are in a far stronger position than the workers on the economic field and will beat them, at will, any time they wish.

This is why Marx wrote in the Inaugural Address of the International Workingmen’s Association that

To conquer political power has become the great duty of the working class.

(Selected Works of Karl Marx, Moscow, p. 440)

As for all the other rubbish about smashing (these idiots are obsessed by the word SMASH; it recurs repeatedly in their manifestoes) Tory or Labour governments, this cannot be done by strike action alone. If a government feels that it has lost popular support, as shown in Italy or Denmark, and estimates that it may lose the next election, it may well resign, go into opposition, and laugh its head off at the troubles of the new government trying to grapple with the problems. So far from being “smashed” by resignation, there is every sign that they positively enjoy it.

As for “threatening the social order”, this probably is the stupidest nonsense of the lot. Trades unions are organized on a job basis: the vast majority of trade- unionists are not Socialists and have no desire whatever to threaten the social order — they uphold it. Neither would “threatening the social order” mean any real progress in changing it in orderly fashion. It could merely lead to chaos.

As for all the other tripe about the naughty, wicked trade-union leaders, we have pointed out repeatedly that they operate by the approval and consent of the members.

Let all strikes be called at the most favourable moment — when the bosses are doing allright-thankyou and don’t want them. Let them be short and sharp; if they are not won quickly they won’t be won at all. Let the members decide by democratic vote and, if things go wrong, democratically decide to retreat back to work in an orderly united fashion.

Above all, ignore and reject the dangerous, meddlesome folly of these academic hot-heads and professional hooligans who run about “smashing” everything and call on trade-unionists to “fight the police”. This plays straight into the hands of the authorities and is in fact all they need to crush strike action. On the industrial field the workers’ strength is in the withdrawal of labour. This may get them a rise in wages; but only political action can control the police (and the army) and establish Socialism.

Horatio.

News in Review: Birmingham, Alabama (1963)

The News in Review column from the June 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

Birmingham, Alabama

Alabama had to have its turn, sooner or later. Now that it has come, ignorance and violence seem to be taking command.

Ignorance because the ugly scenes in Birmingham have been caused by the assertion of the simple fact that differing skin colours is no reason why people should not share buses, restaurants, schools, and so on.

Violence because we live in a violent world, in which an indefensible idea can often be asserted by the breaking of heads—and worse.

And, as far as racial theories go, Alabama is the very pit of ignorance. That is the one state to have held out completely against the federally decreed desegregation of schools. That is the state where they still salute the Confederate flag, where they wish that the Civil War was being fought all over again. That is the state described by Attorney-General Robert Kennedy as like a foreign country.

It is no surprise that the Negroes have developed their own counterpart of Southern repression. The Black Muslims talk in the same terms as the most extreme segregationists, except that their policy is for black people to discriminate against white. Once again, the inevitable result of ignorance and violence has been to breed yet more of its kind. 

Is there no glimmer of hope? As American industry expands into Dixieland, it takes with it no nonsense about segregation. It wants to exploit them all, white and black.

This development is likely to give the Negroes the weapon they lack at the moment—the vote. When they have that (as President Kennedy acknowledged so blatantly in his 1960 campaign) they will be a political factor to reckon with. We shall probably see a lot of Southern Congressmen hurriedly changing their tune.

That still seems a long way off. At the moment the South presents a doleful picture, especially for Socialists, who know that the future of the world depends upon how long it takes the international working class to throw off its manifold ignorances and to unite for the establishment of a sane, humane society.

Spies for peace

It is in the nature of the misuse of words which characterises capitalist organisations that the Spies for Peace were not spying and that they were doing nothing for peace.

The existence of the Regional Seats of Government was a very loosely kept secret, one which was divulged to plenty of everyday Civil Defence volunteers. In any case, anyone who was not actually in the know need not have been a Sherlock Holmes to have deduced that such places existed. The capitalist class will obviously make their preparations to re-establish the government of property society after a nuclear holocaust.

What will the Spies for Peace achieve? They are unlikely to get hold of any secrets which really matter to British capitalism. If they do, it will hardly safeguard peace to reveal them to other capitalist powers, who will doubtless use them to bolster their own military machines.

All that the Spies can do for themselves is to fall foul of the law (which they all, by implication, support) and to stir up the irritation of the masses of workers who so ardently defend their masters' interests.

And when we have said that we are only just beginning.

What is so wearying about the Spies for Peace—and about the Committee of 100, and the March Must Decide brigade, and the CND itself—is that they are yet another group who steadfastly ignore the obvious.

Wars, and their weapons, are part of capitalist society. The only way to abolish all of them is to get rid of capitalism. Some unilateralists, in fact, would say that they agree with this.

Nevertheless, they continue with their antics and as each of the stunts fails to have any effect upon the build up of the world’s nuclear arsenals they carry on to other, sometimes sillier, escapades.

Anything, in fact, rather than work for Socialism.

As we said, it is very wearying.

Hunger and profit

We are now, in case you have not had a collecting box stuck under your nose, or have missed the big spread adverts, in the middle of another campaign, the Freedom from Hunger Campaign.

Hunger is certainly a massive, depressing problem. The third World Food Survey, published last April by the F.A.O., reported that between ten and fifteen per cent. of the world’s population is undernourished and up to one-half suffer from hunger or malnutrition. There are plenty of other eminently quotable statistics which all add up to the fact that a large chunk of the people on the earth simply do not get enough to eat.

Some people regard this as a problem of overpopulation, of the world’s resources being outstripped by human breeding powers. Others think that it is a problem of getting enough money to send a tractor here, or a shipload of fertiliser there. In fact, this is only playing with the problem.

Capitalism is the barrier between man and the solution of hunger. The physical difficulties of society will never be tackled sensibly as long as capitalism lasts. Take, for example, the case of the Dutch milk. Reported The Sunday Telegraph on May 12th last:

A plan to fine farmers who produce too much milk is being considered in Holland by Mr. V. G. M. Marynen, Minister of Agriculture.

The object is to cut production by four per cent. The scheme has been agreed with provisionally by the farmers and workers unions.

Mr. B. Van Dam, director of the Netherlands Milk Marketing Board, said: “ The time has come to set a new course for our milk producers. It is no use going on increasing production in view of the present state of the market.”

It is typical of the enduring stupidities of property society that millions of people starve in one part of the world while in another people are penalised for producing food. For capitalism, human suffering does not matter; the "state of the market” is what brings in the dividend cheques, and so that is what counts.

The Freedom from Hunger Campaign has recruited a great many sincere helpers. This sort of campaign usually does. The deeper their sincerity, the greater the tragedy that their efforts are always so wide of the mark.

The Labour Party itching for power

The Labour Party, itching for power, is like a man listening to the last few football results with seven draws on his pools coupon.

They suffer. They perspire. They are fearful lest a wrong word should shatter their glorious dream.

That was why the Labour Party was so worried about the railway strike which never got started. Perhaps the strike was something of a forlorn hope. But, after all, strikes are the only weapon workers have in their disputes with their employers.

The Labour Party, let it be recorded, did not oppose the strike for any reason connected with the welfare of the railway workers. They opposed it because they judged that it may have damaged their chance of winning the next election; it might have upset their Treble Chance. For Labour, as for other capitalist parties, votes are tremendously important.

Mr. Wilson is doing his best to gather as many of them as he can. He celebrated May Day, for example, by propounding a plan to “. . . make a reality of the Commonwealth . . .” (although there was nothing very new in what he said—just some more mucking about with Imperial Preferences).

He also threw in his now customary make weight about the Labour Party not being prepared to see Britain as a second rate power.

Now all this may have been palatable to retired colonels in Bournemouth and to the floating, drifting voters whom the Labour Party has wooed so coyly for so long. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the Socialism which Mr. Wilson protests he stands for, nor with the working class interests he professes to defend.

There must still be some members of the Labour Party who can remember the days when strikers were people to support and when patriotism was something of a dirty word. What do they think of their party, as they watch it take its inevitable path to the status of a fully fledged party of capitalism, with power as the one and only object of its miserable life?

Who cares about spies (1963)

From the June 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why all this fuss about spies and traitors? The commercial press, of course, likes a sensational treason trial. It helps them stir up national hatred. Spies are held up as objects of public scorn. They are, we are told, greedy men and women led to betray their country for thirty pieces of silver. Now come the Spies for Peace. The Spies for Peace have in fact done us a good turn by telling us some of the minor preparations the government has made for its safety in any war. The press, the Labour Party, the churches and other capitalist henchmen, naturally feel differently. They want the “traitors” arrested and punished. They are concerned about Mr. Krushchev getting hold of the pamphlet. But no-one bothers to ask the more basic questions. Why are there state secrets? What is their significance? Does it matter what Mr. Krushchev knows? That he knows there are plans for Regional Seats of Government at Warren Row and the other places where they’re supposed to be?

Consider the matter a little more closely. Today there are two kinds of people around. Those who are rich and wealthy and own all the means of living and the rest of us who own practically nothing. This means we have to work for these owners in order to live. In other words we are slaves. There is no other word for it. The workers are dependent on the owning class—just as the slaves of the past were dependent on their masters. Its the same all over the world. In America, in Russia, in France, in Germany. The working class, we are always told, no longer exists. But how stupid can you get! Of course, the working class exists. Its us—those who work and make everything but own nothing. Everywhere the working class is a slave class with the rich owners as their masters. So what’s all this nonsense about nations? The slaves in Athens didn’t count as Athenians. And we don’t really count as Britons, Germans, Poles, or any other of the names in use. Our political nationality is a fraud. “The Nation” is the owning class. The “national interest” is their interest. So all this talk about bombs and armies being kept to protect us is so much nonsense. They exist to protect our masters. To protect their property. To protect their ruling position. To protect their markets. Ask yourself: what have I to sell save my ability to work? Nothing! Then why worry about whether factory owners can sell their steel, their cars, their machines? But its for these people that wars are fought. To get markets for them. To help their trade. War gives us nothing. In no war is there anything at stake worth dying for. Just our masters’ markets and trade interests.

Everybody wants peace these days. Everybody is against war. But how do you get rid of it? Peace marches, perhaps, or conferences? No, neither. If the set-up didn’t mean that one class lives by selling what the other makes there would be no war. For capitalism has a built-in drive toward war. That’s why its stupid to hope for disarmament under capitalism. Armed forces are not kept for the fun of it. They can’t be disbanded at will. They exist to protect the interests of the capitalist class at home and abroad. A capitalist must sell or die. If he doesn’t sell he gets no profit. If he gets no profit he can’t accumulate capital. If he doesn’t accumulate he can’t modernise his equipment to meet competition. Which means he will be driven to the wall by more efficient-competitors. This is the basic cause of modern war.

The capitalists in various areas join to keep a national state to look after their interests and carry out their wishes. Hence the so-called nation. Every “nation,” or rather every capitalist gang, competes against every other. In this struggle might is right. This is why armed forces exist. Today America and Russia and their allies are at cold war with each other. They are struggling for world domination because they must. Neither of these groups of powers can afford to let the other get ahead militarily. So the arms race and the H bomb. In this race to keep ahead military secrets are important. Important, that is, to the capitalist class and the state they keep to protect their interests. This is why in every country the worst crime is treason, worse even than murder.

But where do we come in? Should we worry about cases of treason? Should we look upon those who give away secrets as traitors? The short answer to questions such as these is that workers have "no country. And it’s not? as if the state and its secrets exist for our benefit. They are only traitors from the capitalist viewpoint because they have committed the worst crime m the book. They have helped a rival capitalist gang. Each secret betrayed to a foreign power weakens the military machine. This is why state secrets are so important to the capitalist class. This is why those who give them away arc labelled traitors and punished harshly. For us it’s different. We don’t need to worry about security and defence matters. They’re not our concern. The war machine is not there to protect us. It’s there to protect our masters’ interests at home and abroad. And more. The armed forces are used to keep the masters masters, and us slaves. They are part of the government machine. And it is through this machine that the capitalist class rules. At home the government machine is used to keep ’’law and order,” to keep the set-up whereby the capitalist class live off our unpaid labour.

We have nothing to gain from war, nor from war or defence preparations. It is for the capitalist class to worry about British “security” services or about whether Mr. Krushchev knows “our” secrets.

Adam Buick

Editorial: The Passing of De Leon. (1914)

Editorial from the June 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

The death of Daniel De Leon in America recalls the controversy over so-called Direct Action by the working class. Joining the S.L.P. when it was nominally, as well as actually, a reform party, De Leon also affiliated with the corrupt Knights of Labour, and as a result of the secession of some elements the Socialist Trades and Labour Alliance was formed to act in co-operation with the S.L.P. But a union of opposing elements could not succeed. In spite of the claim that by economic unity political unity would also be established, a split soon took place, and the Socialist (!) Party of America was formed.

In 1905 “Industrial Unity” was again the cry, and once more it was urged that by uniting economically, political harmony would be secured.

De Leon, Debs and other political enemies came together in the I.W.W., which taught that Industrial Unionism would establish Socialism. Politics was but a reflex or an afterthought, so to speak. Anarchists as well as “Socialists”, reformers as well as others, came together in the Industrial Workers of the World. Some of them believed in politics, while others did not.

Such fictitious unity could not last, and soon it was found that, instead of uniting, it made those it embraced more divided than ever. It was not long before Debs and his “Socialist” Party friends were outside the I.W.W. Soon arose the question of what Industrial Unionism meant, some contending that politics were unnecessary and others that they might be useful, and so on.

The arrival of Wm. Haywood from jail soon caused a split among the unity-hunters of the I.W.W., and we were faced with two I.W.W.’s – one forced to give some vague recognition of the value of political action, and the other, embracing Haywood, Bohn, Ettor and Giovannitti, yearning for sabotage, physical force, and such moonshine.

The closing years of De Leon’s life were practically a sea of troubles on this “industrial action” question. One after another his lieutenants went over to the so-called Socialist party, or to the rival I.W.W. Frank Bohn, James Connolly, Trautmann (who has now come home to the I.W.W. fold), and even his own son, Solon De Leon, making tracks for that ark of confusion, the S.P. of A.

Verily the Industrialist rubbish spelt Nemesis for the S.L.P.

There is a lesson for the workers on this side of the Atlantic to leave the suicidal policy of Industrial Unionism severely alone.