Editorial: Burnham’s plan to rearrange the chairs

Editorial from the August 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

The new Prime Minister seems to have borrowed the argument for his flagship policy from the Welsh and Scots Nationalists. Their mantra is that the problems faced by workers living in their geographical area are due to political decisions being made in London rather than in Cardiff or Edinburgh. Burnham’s variation is that the way to solve the problems that workers in England face is to transfer more decision-making powers from London to regional mayors.

These proposals are based on the assumption that governments are able to control the way the capitalist economy works. All the evidence shows that this is not the case. Governments don’t, and can’t, control how capitalism works. It is, rather, the other way round. The capitalist economy generates economic laws which limit what governments can do in that the only choice they have is between giving priority to profits or provoking an economic slowdown.

If you believe that governments can control the economy you will mistakenly conclude that solving the problems facing workers is a matter of government policy and that the policy pursued by those who decide what governments do is the key factor. But, as in fact governments can’t control the way the economy works — can’t overcome its basic economic law that profits must come first — then who makes or where the decision is made to give priority to profit-making is unimportant. Whether this decision is made in London or Cardiff or Edinburgh or Manchester or Midsomer Norton is not going to make any difference. Capitalism will get its way, and as capitalism is the cause of the problems workers face, wherever they live, those problems will continue.

In any event, most decisions concerning the economy are not made by governments, national or regional, but by private enterprises whose goal is to maximise profits for their owners. None of the conventional parties challenge this. So their policies have to be ‘business friendly’ as it is private enterprises in pursuit of profits that decide what is produced.

Burnham’s claim isn’t even that devolving powers to regional mayors would directly benefit workers. It is only that it would, supposedly, benefit them by promoting ‘growth’ which would provide more jobs and extra tax revenue to improve education, the health services and public amenities (after paying more for ‘defence’). Growth, in the sense of the accumulation out of profits of more capital, is what capitalism is all about but it is not something that a government can make happen. The most that a government can do is to maintain or create favourable conditions for profit-making for whenever those in charge of private enterprises see a prospect of making a profit.

It’s not who makes decisions or where they make them but what they decide that is important, and what they decide is imposed by the economic laws of capitalism. We confidently predict that Burnham’s ‘Manchesterism’ won’t work, either to bring about capitalist growth or to solve workers’ problems. It’s no more than rearranging the chairs.

Editorial: The same difference (2026)

Editorial from the July 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

So Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, has won the Makerfield by-election and can now challenge Starmer for the leadership of the Labour Party. If he wins, he will become the new Prime Minister. So what?

Marx famously pointed out that governments are ‘a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie’. In Britain the Prime Minister is the chairperson of this committee which doesn’t have to be composed of actual capitalists. In Marx’s day most British Prime Ministers were not capitalists but landed aristocrats but this was acceptable as long as they managed things in the general interest of the capitalist class. In the course of the last century committee members and chairs came to be drawn from a pool of professional politicians who could come from any background. This, too, was acceptable and is the norm today.

All the governments there have been in Britain, whether Conservative or Labour or, earlier, Liberal, or a coalition of two or all three of them, have managed the common affairs of the owning class in the interests of that class. The first duty of any government is to guarantee and enforce the ownership rights of capitalists over the means of production. The second has been to ensure that priority is given to the making and accumulation of profits. These — class ownership and production for profit —are the basis of capitalism and no government has ever challenged them.

Governments have a free hand on narrowly political matters such as the structure of the state machine or what is a crime but, when it comes to the economy, its power is limited by the nature of the capitalist economy as one that runs on profits. If, in its taxation or trade or tariff or employment policies, it goes against this, then sooner or later it will provoke an economic downturn and the risk of the resulting popular discontent leading to it being voted out of office and a rival set of politicians taking over. This is enough to keep governments in line with the general capitalist interest. The Labour Party learned this the hard way while the Conservative and Liberals didn’t need to be taught it. The Green Party has yet to learn it.

If the government has to respect and apply the economic laws of capitalism then it is not all that important who is the chairperson of the board of directors of UK Capitalism PLC. It is true that there can a bad government from a capitalist point of view — one that doesn’t competently manage the common affairs of the capitalist class — and an incompetent chairperson, such as the over-confident Truss or the bumbling Starmer, can contribute to this. But that’s a problem for the capitalist class, not the workers.

Whether Starmer or Burnham is Prime Minister is not going to make the slightest difference to the workers’ subordinate position in society nor solve the problems this brings them.

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.

Letter: Contrasting tones about Iran (2026)

Letter to the Editors from the May 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Contrasting tones about Iran

Dear Editors

I was struck by the contrasting tones of your February and April editorials. Whereas the more recent editorial argues that the ‘attack on Iran must be understood not as an isolated moral crime, but as a predictable consequence of the global system in which all states operate’, the earlier piece is an emotionally charged condemnation of the violent suppression of protests by the ‘mad mullahs’ and their ‘army of police thugs’. The author seems to anticipate, almost gleefully, that when the leaders of the ‘regime’ finally lose their tenuous grip on power they ‘won’t expect mercy’ and ‘damn well won’t deserve any’. Perhaps recognizing the overcharged rhetoric of the editorial, the author inserts a boilerplate paragraph at the end, bemoaning the ‘slaughter’ taking place elsewhere that is attributed to the ‘competitive market system which sets humans forever against each other, just so that a tiny few can profit’. True enough, but this does not shed much light on the recent protests.

Given that the protests began over economic issues, some mention could have been made of the role of economic sanctions and the collapse of the Iranian currency (which US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent took credit for in remarks made at Davos). The reasons why the protests turned violent must also be considered on a more sophisticated level than simply saying that the police always go in ‘with guns blazing’. In light of how often violent repression of protests backfires (eg, Minneapolis 2025), such an approach, as government policy, would be as moronic as it would be mad. Were all of the blazing guns in the hands of the Iranian police? This question should at least be considered in light of the clear and longstanding US and Israeli policy of ‘regime change’ in Iran by any means.

And since the author goes all the way back to the 1979 revolution, in listing up past protests, why not also mention a few of the efforts made to topple the Iranian ‘regime’, starting from the full US backing and arming of Iraq’s 1980 invasion of Iran and the eight-year war that followed. The assassinations of Iranian political leaders and scientists, the tearing up of the JCPOA nuclear deal, the Israeli attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus, and not one but two sneak attacks during negotiations may also be relevant in assessing why the hard-liners have triumphed over the liberal wing of the Iranian ruling class. On a deeper level, it would be helpful to say a word or two about why the US and Israel have been so hell-bent on regime change in Iran.

Putting the recent protests in this historical and geopolitical context does not mean siding with the Iranian leadership, however. There is an obvious distinction between understanding the grounds for a certain behavior and justifying it. Explaining why capitalists behave the way they do did not make Marx an apologist for capitalism. Similarly, when the April editorial states that ‘the United States, Israel, and Iran each act to defend and expand their economic, political, and military power’, I do not take this as a justification for war.

But even the April editorial, for all its truths (or truisms), is not much help to a reader trying to understand the US and Israeli war against Iran. It is remarkable that it does not contain even a single concrete example of the ‘regional and strategic interests’ of Iran or what sort of ‘influence, resources, and strategic advantage’ is being sought by the US and Israel. If the author had cut out some of the repetition in the editorial, surely there would have been space to list one or two of the ‘structural drivers of conflict’ (the author’s jargon – not mine). Doing so might have helped us understand why the Americans and Israelis are acting in ways that make the ‘mad mullahs’ look like the adults in the room

Michael Schauerte

Reply:

As with much socialist activity, editorials are shared endeavours, so the tone and style can vary. They are short topical commentaries, not in-depth articles, and perspectives can also vary. Rather than an objective and dispassionate overview, the February editorial was a more visceral response to what had only recently taken place and which was, after all, a monstrous slaughter by anyone’s reckoning. We make no apology for that response, as socialists always take the side of the oppressed against the oppressors.

Of course it’s true that economic issues, and US sanctions, played an important part in the protests, but economics isn’t everything. The point of listing every Iranian working-class protest since 1979 was to show how much workers hate the theocratic regime, and how astonishingly brave they have been in fighting it.

On the regional geopolitical situation there is of course much to say, and one can always criticise analysis for not being thorough enough. Whole books will no doubt be written on the madness of King Trump and the cynical and perfidious power-plays of the US – now a net fossil fuel exporter and thus less affected by energy consequences; Israel’s expansionism promoted as a quest for survival and its premier’s self-promoting quest for political survival in order to stay out of the courtroom; the Iranian regime’s own destabilisation programme via proxy forces in Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen; the sometimes conflicting axes of republican versus monarchist and Sunni versus Shia; the manoeuvrings of Russia and China behind the scenes; the complex web of rivalries and proxy conflicts among the Gulf states themselves, and the spectre of nuclear war that hangs over the whole region if and when Iran matches Israel and finally produces a bomb; all of this against the shifting backdrop of a global decarbonisation agenda and the consequent long-term reorientation of goals and priorities by local rentier/capitalist elites facing their own impending irrelevance and possible extinction. A couple of editorials can hardly be expected to cover everything, but there’s always room for contributors to add further illumination in future issues.— Editors.

Editorial: The Budget (1948)

Editorial from the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

At Budget time there is always a certain amount of excitement among the workers, rather like that about the result of the Oxford and Cambridge boat race—and with about as much justification. Always there is that mixture of hopes and fears—will beer and cigarettes go down? Will overtime be freed from income tax? Will purchase tax be reduced? Sir Stafford Cripps managed to please and displease nearly everyone, a bit on here, a bit off there. Beer and tobacco up a little, income tax down a little, purchase tax up on some things and down on others. The other principal features of the Budget were the capital levy which will raise about £100 millions from 140,000 of the very rich, the reiteration of the policy of freezing wages at their present level except where special factors justify an increase, and a refusal to freeze profits or to tax them more heavily. On this last point Cripps contented himself with a warning that if companies do increase their dividends to shareholders this year he will consider imposing a limit next year.

Speaking for the. Conservative opposition, Sir John Anderson, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, criticised certain features of the Budget, particularly the special levy, but otherwise be welcomed Sir Stafford Cripps’ “realistic and honest approach.” The Manchester Guardian (April 7th, 1948) praised it as “a strong, honest, and radical Budget,” and remarked of the capital levy that it is “in fact a stiff individual profits tax winch falls where it should, on the large personal capital.” That newspaper’s City Editor (April 7th, 1948) went further and showed that it is not even very stiff:–

”The levy on capital will not be severe even for those holding very large amounts of capital. Assuming an investment yield of 5 per cent. the tax would amount to 2½ per cent. on a capital of over £100.000.”

We may sum up by saying that if the workers find that the Budget makes little difference to their position so do the capitalists, and this is true of all Budgets no matter whether the Government is Conservative, or Labour. It explains why the Socialist refuses to get excited about Budget prospects.

What the working class get out of the capitalist system is the wage or salary they receive for selling their energies to the employers (including the Government and the administrative Boards which are Ihe employers in nationalised undertakings), and wages follow fairly closely the rises and falls of the cost of living. This is not an automatic process of adjustment, but takes place through the pressure and counter pressure exerted by the employing class and the workers in strikes and lockouts. When prices are falling unemployment is usually heavy enough to enable the employers to force down wages. When unemployment is at a very low point, as at present, it is easier for the workers to struggle for higher wages and thus try to maintain their standard of living in face of recently rising prices. Those who urge the workers not to take advantage of the present low unemployment to press for higher wages may discover at no very distant date that the opportunity will have passed. Unemployment will be the order of the day; or, as the City Editor of the News Chronicle puts it (April 10th, 1948), ”with the country probably over the inflationary hump and perhaps set on the, road to deflation with the help of the recent Budget.” Mr. Arthur Horner, Communist secretary of the Miners’ Union, apparently is among the short-sighted. According to the Daily Worker (April 6th, 1948) he said at Leicester, “The miners had not taken full advantage of the law of supply and demand of labour. If they had wages would have been much higher.”

When Cabinet spokesmen oppose higher wages they do so because their immediate and predominant responsibility, by virtue of being the Government, is to keep the capitalist system functioning in the only way that capitalism can function, that is by enabling the capitalists to make profits. The Labour Party grew up on the mistaken belief that under Labour Government there would be great possibilities to raise wages by cutting into profits. Rather late in the day some of them, certainly Sir Stafford Cripps, have come up against the, harsh truth that those who administer the capitalist system have very limited freedom of action—on all important issues they can depart little from the practice of their Conservative predecessors. Official figures on the proportion of the national income which goes as salaries, wages and rent and profits, etc., bring this out clearly. In 1938 wages accounted for 39 per cent., salaries for 24 per cent., and profits, rent and interest for 37 per cent. In 1947 wages accounted for 44 per cent., salaries 20 per cent., and rent, profits, etc., 36 per cent. (See Economist, April 10th, 1948, p. 596.) In each case the figures are after meeting income tax.) It will be observed that the percentage going to wages and salaries together, i.e., 63 per cent. in 1938 and 64 per cent. in 1947 has hardly changed at all, likewise the percentage to rent, profit, etc.—37 per cent. in 1938 and 36 per cent. in 1947.

This is the dilemma of all Labour Governments, but no such dilemma faces Socialists. Socialism is not a scheme for redistributing wealth and income inside capitalism, but a system of society to replace the capitalist system

Editorial: What the failure of the General Strike teaches (2026)

Editorial from the May 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

A general strike is the refusal to work by employees in many industries, and a manifestation of the class struggle between the working class and the capitalist class that arises within capitalist society. Syndicalists and others have seen it as a weapon to overthrow capitalism. They believe that because workers can stop production they could use this to ‘take and hold’ the places where they work and ‘lock out’ their capitalist employers. However, as long as the capitalists control political power (through political parties that support the system) it is they who have the upper hand, using their control of the powers of coercion and exploiting the fact that workers cannot hold out for long without money to buy what they need to survive.

The British general strike of 4–12 May 1926 was provoked by the mine-owners who, faced with an adverse market for coal, demanded a cut in wages and an increase in working hours from the mineworkers. The Miners’ Federation, led by A.J. Cook and others, asked the TUC to bring out all the major industries, in line with a resolution supporting the miners carried at the 1925 Congress. The Conservative government, with Stanley Baldwin as Prime Minister, had prepared for the strike by recruiting special constables and setting up the strikebreaking Organisation for the Maintenance of Supplies. During the strike millions of workers came out in support of the miners. The government monopolised the means of propaganda, however, and the BBC suppressed news that might have embarrassed the government.

After nine days the General Council of the TUC called off the general strike, betraying every resolution upon which the strike call was issued and without a single concession being gained. The miners were left alone to fight the mine-owners backed by the government with the tacit approval of the TUC and the Parliamentary Labour Party led by Ramsay MacDonald. The miners stayed out until August before being forced by starvation to accept the mine-owners’ terms of reduced wages (below 1914 level) and an increase in the working day by one hour. In other words, it was a failure even from a trade-union, let alone a socialist, point of view.

A general strike cannot be used to overthrow capitalism. At most, under favourable conditions, it can achieve some trade union or democratic political aim. To get socialism requires a class-conscious working class democratically capturing state power to prevent that power being used against them.

In 1926, the very facts that the government was firmly in control of political power, that less than two years before at the general election millions of workers had supported them and other capitalist political parties (including the Labour Party), showed that socialism was not on the political agenda.

Workers who do not vote for socialism will not strike for it. Workers who want socialism do not need to strike for it but can use their votes to deprive the capitalist class of political control. That — the need to win political control first — is the lesson of 1926.

Editorial: Two budgets (1952)

Editorial from the April 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Budgets are the concern of the capitalists, not of the working class, though it suits the Labour Party, like the other reformist parties, to pretend otherwise. The workers are not poor because of the Budget, but because the capitalist class own society’s means of production and distribution. It was admitted by the Economist (25th December, 1943) that:—

"1,800,000 persons, who are 7 per cent. of the adult persons in the country, own 85 per cent. of the private property and draw 28 per cent. of the individual incomes of the country."

The Economist said that their readers would be surprised to team this. Why they should be surprised was not explained; this inequality has been a feature of social life in Britain and the rest of the world throughout the capitalist era, and is equally true now despite all the talk of redistribution.

The capitalist State has to meet the cost of its civil service, armed forces and re-armament programmes and all the rest of the organisation necessary to the capitalist system. It does this through taxation the burden of which falls on the shoulders of those who alone can bear it, the propertied class. The wealth the workers produce belongs to the capitalist class and what the workers receive as wages and salaries is far below the value of what they, the workers, produce. That is how the workers are legally robbed and why they are poor. Rises or falls of prices, rises or falls of taxation and changes from one form to another, do not affect the fundamental position of the working class—at most they have temporary effects. White capitalism continues, the only sound policy for the working class is to struggle at all times to the fullest extent that conditions permit, to raise their wages and resist downward pressure.

During and since the war, under the abnormal conditions then existing, and with unemployment at a very low level, successive governments used the system of food subsidies in order to discourage the trade unions from pressing for higher wages. It was linked with high taxation on drink and tobacco, and, from 1946, the grant of children’s allowances to level the condition of the workers. The whole scheme was a device to lessen the movement for a general rise of wages and to divide the married workers against the unmarried. With it went the incessant demand of the Labour Government that the workers should refrain from "unreasonable” wage claims. Now that the fierce struggle against foreign competitors is hotting up again in the markets of the world, the policy is being modified because it has served its purpose. It was merely a wartime interlude in the running of capitalism, which is now getting back to normal pre-war conditions.

Against this background it will be seen how nonsensical is the Labour Party case against the Butler budget. They call is a “rich man’s budget,” as if any budget could be anything else. Mr. Douglas Jay, Labour M.P., speaking in the House of Commons on 17th March, accused Mr. Butler of "robbing the poor to pay the rich”—as if the details of any particular budget were of any importance by comparison with the ceaseless exploitation of the working class \\hich went on unchanged during six years of Labour government.

They charge the Tories with raising the cost of living, forgetting that while they were in power it went up about 40 per cent. They say that he is against wage increases, as of course he is, but forgetting the years in which they also preached "wage-restraint.” They denounce him for reducing food subsidies, but forget that it was Sir Stafford Cripps who decided not to permit any increase in the subsidies even though that meant a rise of the cost of living; a flat departure from the statement of his predecessor, Mr. Dalton, who in 1945 said:—

“I have decided to hold the present cost of living steady until further notice, even if this means an increase in the necessary Exchequer subsidies." (Hansard, 23rd October, 1945. Col. 1877.)

It was on that occasion that Mr. Dalton admitted the purpose of the subsidies as being "to restrain any disproportionate increase in wage rates,” and paid tribute to the "steadiness and good sense which the trade unions and their leaders have shown during the war in this regard.”

In April, 1951, when Mr. Gaitskell, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, repeated the decision not to increase the food subsidies, he admitted that this decision would mean a further rise of food prices and indeed the official food index figure rose from 131 in April, 1951, to 143 in October.

Other Labour Party critics charge the Tories with tenderness towards high profits, and one misguided Labour journal Forward, in its issue for 23rd February, 1952, chides the Tories on the ground that company profits repented during January, 1952, were up by £10,000,000. What it overlooked was that the company reports issued in January, 1952, related to profits made under the Labour Government in 1951!

Now that the Labour Party is in Opposition it will wage the sham fight about the details of running the capitalist system, but there was every justification for the jibe of the Liberal leader, Mr. Clement Davies, that if Mr. Gaitskell had been in Mr. Butler's place his Budget would have been "much of a muchness.” All budgets, no matter who introduces them, are designed to promote capitalism, not to undermine or abolish it.

Mr. Butler’s budget of 11th March had been preceded on 6th March by the budget report of the Russian Finance Minister, Mr. Zverev. They differed by five days, and little more.

The Russian Budget

The Russian Finance Minister’s budget report was reproduced in full in Soviet News (12th March, 1952) published by the Russian Embassy in London. It makes interesting reading particularly as evidence of the similarity of capitalism's problems and their treatment in the two countries.

They both have their re-armament problems; naturally both offered as instruments of “ defence,” not of "aggression.”

In 1952 the Russian Government plans to spend "for the defence of the country” 113,800 million roubles (£10,346,000,000 at the Russian official rate of exchange of 11 roubles to the £).

The amount of money to be raised from State loans in 1952 is set at £3,864 millions, and the estimated expenditure on the lottery prizes and interest to bondholders (“to pay out winnings to the population and interest on loans”) is estimated at £800 million. This latter figure relates, of course, to the interest, etc., on the total amount of loans outstanding, not merely to the additional loans to be raised during the year; at the average rate of 4 per cent. it implies that the total amount of bonds outstanding in 1952 will be about £20,000 million.

Turnover Tax (similar to the British purchase tax) brought into Budget revenues in 1951 the amount of £22,500 millions, an increase of 4.9 per cent. over 1950. It is to be increased this year by another 4.9 per cent. 

Mr Butler stepped up the taxes on profits by means of the Excess Profits Levy. His opposite number in Russia, Mr. Zverev, is going to do the same.

“Total profits in the branches of the national economy will amount to 88,100 million roubles in the current year as against 74,700 million roubles in 1951. The rise in profits makes it possible to leave a substantial part of them at the disposal of enterprises and Ministries for expanding production. At the same time, the profits tax paid into the State Budget will be increased and the share of this tax in the State Budget revenue will rise from 10.2 per cent. in 1951 to 12.2 per cent. in 1952.”

“The profits tax paid by State enterprises will be increased by 14,000 million roubles, or 29.2 per cent. more than last year. . ."

Conservative and Labour Party speakers are always urging the workers to produce more and lower the cost of production. Mr. Zverev’s report contained numerous remarks of the same kind. He reported that in 1951 “the labour productivity of workers in industry rose, by 10 per cent. compared with 1950.” But he was not satisfied with this and asked for more. His report also contained many complaints about industries which had failed to keep down their wages bill and operate sufficiently profitably:—

"It should be said that certain Ministries, enterprises and economic organisations are for from making full use of available potentialities for the further reduction of production costs, cutting trade outlays and making the work of economic organisations more profitable.”

“One of the main requisites for the further reduction of production costs is also the improvement of the organisation of labour at enterprises and the frugal expenditure of wage funds. Not all enterprises, however, live up to those requirements.”

For example, he complained that the Ministry of Paper and Woodworking Industry “permitted the mills to cover the over-expenditure of the wage fund,” and the Leningrad engineering plant of the Central Textile Machinery Administration of the Ministry of Machine and Instrument-making Industry “did not fulfil its production plans last year and overspent 13,500,000 roubles on wages.”

Time and time again he came back to this theme of not spending too much on wages, improving the control of “labour per unit of output,” and watching over “the expenditure of wage funds” and of “the timely and complete receipt of payments into the Budget.” Numerous branches of industry were named as being among those which illegally “overdraw the wage funds.” Others were charged with allowing expensive machinery “to stand idle a great deal,” thus adding to production costs, and many State farms were criticised because they “do not yet have a sufficiently high productivity of labour.”

We are told by Communists that in Russia the trade unions have control over the fixing of wages. What they do have (a very different matter) is the right to discuss the way the “wages fund” is allocated to different grades of workers; but of course the real control resides with those who fix the total amount of the wage fund for each enterprise, that is the Government and its agencies. How true this is can be seen from the Finance Minister’s report. Not once does he even mention as a possibility that the workers or the unions might have pressed for a bigger expenditure on wages. In each of the dozen cases that he refers to he tells the managements firmly that once the Government has fixed the wage fund they have got to stick to it and devote their energies to cutting down production costs and increasing the workers’ output.

British capitalism’s financial wizards and productivity experts would feel very much at home if transplanted to Mr. Zverev’s department.

It is only necessary to add that the Budget Report was unanimously approved. The session ended as follows, according to the Soviet News account:—

“Stormy, prolonged applause. All rise. A prolonged ovation in honour of Comrade J. V. Stalin resounds in the Kremlin Palace.”

It seems to have been like the Tory cheers for Mr. Butler.

The Socialist comment on British and Russian budgets is simplicity itself. The aim of the working class should be to end private and State capitalism and bring the means of production and distribution into ownership by the whole community as the basis of Socialism. While the workers continue to neglect this real issue and devote their attention instead to capitalism’s budgets and taxation they will remain a poverty-stricken exploited class and the exploiters will continue to be safe in the enjoyment of the privileged position that capitalism bestows on them.

Editorial: Our 28th Annual Conference. (1932)

Editorial from the April 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Annual Conferences of the S.P.G.B. are not at all like the conferences of other political parties. Nothing ever happens at them that a press representative would regard as “news.” Nobody makes passionate speeches about the suffering’s of mankind, or the wickedness of political opponents. We have no window dressing. No resolutions are passed calling upon governments, over whom we have no control whatever, to do this that or the other thing because we say so—as is the practice of the so-called Labour organisations. Delegates do not call each other rogues or anti-Socialists. Most amazing of all to our opponents we have no faction fight between left, right, and centre wings. We have no wings, for we are all Socialists, all agreed about the end and the means. What then is there for our conference to do? We meet to review the work of the past year, to revise rules where necessary, to exchange views on methods of propaganda and possible improvements, and in general to make our party a more effective instrument.

This year the delegates met in a happy frame of mind. In each of the past 3 or 4 years some part of the load of difficulty under which the Party works has been lifted from our shoulders. More new members have come in, funds have been more adequate to our needs, our removal to larger, premises has justified itself, and all because the tide is slowly and almost imperceptibly turning in our direction. The year 1931 was, in regard to membership and in other respects, a record year, and the confidence of the delegates reflected this. Our propaganda was on a larger scale, the sales of the Socialist Standard and of pamphlets increased, and in one way or another the Party is becoming known to a larger circle here and abroad. From several countries we have encouraging reports of the headway made by our companion parties.

This does not mean that the Conference was self-satisfied. On the contrary there was a noticeable anxiety, particularly among provincial delegates, lest our immersion in the tedious and back-breaking work of past years should have made us slow to appreciate the changing conditions around us. So the Conference pressed for more new pamphlets without delay, and special consideration of the task of training new members, and views were expressed on the possibility of increasing the size of the Socialist Standard, a matter that will be fully gone into in the near future. Steps will also by taken to extend the advertising campaign through which we have gained many new supporters during 1931.

There is every reason to expect that the coming propaganda season during the summer months is going to be the best we have ever had, and that our Conference in 1933 will be a milestone in our history.

Editorial: The Myth of Planning (1957)

Editorial from the February 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the world has taken the great forward step of establishing Socialism production will, of course, be planned so that there will at all times be enough basic materials, finished products, and transport and other services, etc., to meet the requirements of the population. The chief aim will be to have enough to satisfy all needs after making allowance for growing population and for all possible wastage and destruction through storm, fire, and other eventualities. But it will not matter greatly if too much is produced because nobody will be dependent on paid employment for his living and therefore nobody will lose anything by finding that the articles he works to produce have been produced in too great abundance. Men and women will be be rather complacent about producing too much and only worried if they should err by producing too little.

Too Much or Too Little

Notice how this differs from the kind of planning that goes on in the world of manufacture today. Now the business man would be quite unruffled if he had planned the output of his factory so that it turned out to be rather less than demand, but he would be very worried indeed if his output was too large for the market for that would mean falling prices and smaller profits.

Planning versus Forecasting

We are, however, dealing with two different operations, for the kind of planning of production that will be possible under Socialism is quite unlike the market forecasting that goes on now. The one is concerned with determining how much you need and then getting things organised so that you will have that amount produced in good time. But present day forecasting of demand starts at the other end and is really much nearer to guesswork.

It requires that the manufacturer shall form an opinion about what kind of product will be a saleable one, two, five or ten years ahead and how much of it will in fact be sold and at what price. Of course the length of time varies according to the nature of the product. Christmas Cards are designed and planned something more than a year ahead and women’s dresses and hats something less than a year. Planning and sinking coal mines may take several years, as also does the planning and construction of an oil refinery. In all these instances market conditions at the end of the period may be quite different from those the planner thought they would be. He may find his anticipated sales of summer dresses and hats ruined by an English “summer,” or that the market for coal or oil has suddenly grown or suddenly shrunk.

Forecasting for 1960-1970

Information was given in a Financial Times supplement on the Motor Industry, about the problems of forecasting future sales of motor cars (15 October, 1956, p. 7). The head of the Sales Analysis Department of the Ford Motor Company, Mr. K. D. Bull, explained that companies in the motor industry undertake two types of forecasting:

“The first covers the short-term period up to and including the next 12 months and is used for production planning. The second covers a longer period and is used for much wider purposes. This latter type of study is undertaken not as an interesting academic exercise, but as a necessary concomitant of future planning; The time taken for the installation of new facilities, and in the processing of new models from conception to production, means that the investment involved can only be justified in terms of the sales to be expected over the period of their employment, which may be some years ahead.”

Mr. Bull went on to explain that this second type of forecasting deals with the period which “does not start for two or three years hence and covers generally the ensuing ten years. In using this forecast we pay little attention to the results for individual years, accepting only that these give a reasonably accurate measure of the market in the average.’’

This period of three to ten years means that in 1957 they would be trying to figure out what average conditions will be between 1960 to 1970 and it is not at all surprising therefore that they do not attempt to forecast what is likely to be the state of the market in individual years within the 10 year period.

Mr. Bull says too that past efforts to forecast the long term demand for motor cars have all underestimated the size of the demand that actually came.

Where Labour Party Planners Go Wrong

The Labour Party (and the Communists), are believers in what they call planning, but the trouble with it is that it is out of its time. They are trying to apply planning of production to Capitalism, but what Capitalism requires is not the planning of production but the forecasting of demand in the market—a very different thing. So far as this near-guesswork about sales is possible at all, the manufacturers can do it as well (or as ill) as anyone else; certainly better than a Labour Party Committee, or a Labour Cabinet. The real planning of production is not. required under Capitalism and will only be possible under Socialism.

Editorial: Why war? (2026)

Editorial from the April 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editorial: The Printers’ Strike. (1911)

Editorial from the March 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the past few weeks the equanimity of London Printingdom has been disturbed by a strike of some magnitude on the question of hours. The men have taken action in support of a demand for a 48 hour week, and though at the time of writing the strike is not at an end, it looks very much as if the employees will succeed in obtaining the demand they put forward as a compromise: 50 hours immediately, and a future consideration of the 48 hours question.

Now the attitude of the orthodox Press toward this strike is full of significance. Silence can be more eloquent than speech, and their silence carries an important testimony as to the reality of the class struggle to those that have ears to hear. But of more significance than this, and of infinitely greater importance, is the attitude taken up by the men’s leaders, and reflected in the organ of the movement, the Daily Herald.

We have said that silence can be more eloquent than speech. This paper which the printers have founded to be their mouthpiece in the struggle, no less than the silence of the men’s leaders, is further evidence of that.

The dumb capitalist Press by its very silence proclaims in thunder tones the class struggle, while the quiet tongues of the strike leaders, and the still columns of their organ are vehement charges of treachery and cowardice against those who do know the true position, and a pathetic index of the ignorance of those who do not.

In every quarrel between masters and men, we take up the position that, as between masters and men, the latter can never be wrong. But in the matter of their conduct of the fight, we have seldom found a British trade union in the right—and the present strike affords no welcome exception.

Granted, in the first place, that workingmen must, however little it may affect their class position, struggle continuously to secure the best price and conditions for their labour-power, granted also that at the moment trade unions may be the most effective means to that end, still the vital thing has not been said.

After all, where does trade union effort land the workers ? After each “famous victory,” after the most famous victory that any trade unionist, as such, and under the affliction of the most violent form of palpitation of that imagination, ever dared dream of, where do the victors stand ? They may have held their own ; they may have recovered a little of what was their own. “Simply that, and nothing more.”

This much is confessed by the men’s leaders when they admit that they have been driven to the present action by the great increase of unemployment consequent upon the advance of machinery and the general speeding-up that has taken place in all branches of the printing trade. For if that is so, it is an admission that all they can hope for from victory is the regaining of some of the ground lost of recent years.

Of course, as far as the men’s action goes it is sound enough. Everyone who has anything to sell must fight for the best terms—that is a presupposed condition of the competitive market—and those who have only their labour-power to sell are no exception. But if after each battle the workers have only regained something of what they have lost, or let us even say all that they have lost; if each succeeding conflict is to find and leave them in the same state of mental torpor, with, the same paralyzing faith in the union and the strike as their economic salvation, and no outlook beyond a stronger position as sellers of labour-power, then indeed Hope may sit down by the wayside and turn her eyes backward over the way we have come—for there is nothing to gladden them in the way we are going.

For, think ! These men demanded a reduction of 4½ hours per week, and the limitations of their union are shown by their compromising, in the midst of a “winning fight,” for a 2½ hours reduction. That is less than 5 per cent. of the week’s hours. Those who know anything of the printing trade do not need to be told that this 5 per cent. reduction does not anything like counterbalance the increased output per head which has taken place in the decade or so that has slipped away since the last reduction of hours. The speeding-up and the development of, machinery in all departments have been astounding, and new processes are discovered almost daily.

In the composing department there are the Linotype and other machines, for which it is claimed that the output per man is six times that of the hand compositor. In the machine room speed has been enormously increased, and in addition mechanical contrivances are pushing the workers aside. In the case of cylinder machines, first the “flyers” got rid of the taker-off, now automatic feeders make the layer-on a superfluity. With regard to platen machines the same tale is to tell—first self-delivery, now self-feed. In newspaper production, you give the Hoe Double Octuple press half a ton of ink and a few miles of paper, and it will deliver to you 192,000 8-page papers, folded, per hour.

Magazines and the like are trimmed on all three sides simultaneously at a fearsome rate ; in the stereoing department equal strides have been made ; the process block has banished the old pictorial wood engraver so that not one of his kind now practises in this country. Even the artist and designer, who was wont to comport himself with a leisurely dignity, as one whom mechanical contrivances could not touch, has been brought to a chastened frame of mind by the camera, and may be seen plying the air-brash like a man in a mighty hurry.

In face of all this who will dare to assert that trade unionism, in winning a 5 percent. reduction in a decade, has maintained the workers’ position ? At the very moment of the strike there enters the market a new composing machine of improved form at £200 less cost ! Meanwhile the older machine develops new capabilities which enable it to eat its way into the jobbing offices. And one City firm has in position on one of its printing machines, at present under cover, lock, and key, an American automatic feeder that is going to strike consternation into the hearts of the men.

In the past this development has cheapened production and increased demand. It has given us the halfpenny morning paper—which we all read nowadays—and extended the use of advertising matter. Else had the effect of machinery been even more severely felt. But there are limits in this direction, for few of us can read two papers at once, and it is not wise to count on the abnormal increase of the cross-eyed, even to keep trade unionists in work.

And it must not be lost sight of that it is the machine the workers have to compete with. Machinery is adopted because it is cheaper; hence the very fact that this shortening of hours raises the cost of labour-power must give a fillip to the development of machinery. There is a circle of profitableness to every grade of machinery. On the fringe of that circle stand the doubters, who hesitate to adopt it. But raise the cost of labour-power and they are decided—the circle takes on a larger circumference, and the advance of machinery tumbles men out into the streets to starve.

While this in no way lessens the fact that the workers (it applies to all trades) must continually struggle against the encroachments of the masters, it shows them that the struggle is a hopeless one, and that they must look elsewhere for the true remedy for their troubles. There are among their leaders men who know this—why do they not say so ? There are among those producing their daily newspaper, men who are well aware that Socialism alone is the only hope—why, then, is no mention of the fact made ?

One reason is this—the constituencies are not ripe yet to return Socialists to Parliament, and should enlightened trade unionists demand that their officials run as Socialists, they would surely lose place and pelf.

Printers, when you have won your strike your advantage will immediately begin to slip from your hands. Socialism is the only remedy for working-class ills. We earnestly invitc you, therefore, to study Socialism.

Editorial: Manpower and the Crisis (1947)

Editorial from the March 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Remedy the Labour Government Cannot Use

Capitalism breeds war, waste and want as a jungle swamp breeds pestilence. Practically every minister in the Labour Government has acknowledged the truth of this some time or other and has pointed the obvious moral that if you want to remove the pestilential effects you must remove the capitalist cause, and introduce Socialism in the place of Capitalism. They said this, but did any of them understand what they were saying? Probably not. If by chance some of them did then by taking office in the Labour Government they were acting a deliberate lie for they were promising something it was not in their power to do. There can be no Socialism until there are a majority of convinced Socialists in the electorate and even the most deluded of Labour leaders would surely not claim that the 12 million Labour voters were Socialists. A government cannot impose Socialism on an unwilling electorate. This should be obvious, but it took the recent crisis to jolt the “Daily Herald” into even a partial recognition of the facts. The “Herald’s” admission, a veritable masterpiece of understatement, was framed as a warning to Ministers not to entertain the “treacherous delusion” that would “regard the whole electorate as enthusiastic converts to Socialism” (February 8th, 1947). The same Editorial goes on to claim that “a peaceful revolution is being wrought in this land which will bring solid benefits within our lifetime, and will confer blessings untold on posterity.” We can leave posterity to speak for itself and content ourselves with foretelling a time when the electorate will count it an immediate blessing to be rid of the Labour Government.

The reader is of course entitled to ask us why we are sure that Labourism cannot succeed. The answer is to be found in the opening paragraph of this article. Capitalism we know; Socialism the workers can have when they are ready to grasp it; and there is no other choice. The root fallacy of Labourism is the belief that a Labour Government can administer capitalism in a non-capitalist way. With all the good intentions in the world it cannot be done” Labour Ministers may make election promises with perfect sincerity, but in office they learn day by day what it really means to keep this exploiting, profit-making system .going, in competition with the rest of the capitalist Powers. It means resisting wage claims so that the capitalists can go on making profit. It means perpetuating the vast gulf between rich and poor. It means maintaining the armed forces and struggling with rival Powers for trade, raw materials and colonies.

It is hardly necessary to say that it also involves swallowing past declarations of what ought to be done, such, for example, as Sir Stafford Cripps’ complete reversal of his views on trade rivalry. Now he is chief director of the export drive. Five years ago he declared, “If, after the coming of peace, we were to start once again the vicious circle of international trade competition, we should be lost, and in a few years would be confronting another war” (interview with a Brazilian newspaper—”Sunday Express” November 8th, 1942).

The recent crisis, forerunner of others, took on the appearance of a problem of fuel and manpower, brought to an acute phase by an “Act of God,” the British weather. It was, however, not a crisis of coal or of cold, but of capitalism. Let us examine this and see how capitalism, which caused the problem, prevents the Labour Government from solving it. The second World War (itself a product of capitalism) destroyed vast amounts of wealth and left a legacy of shortages of housing, food, fuel, clothing, transport, etc. Not that want was a new experience for the working class, but the war aggravated the problem by the immensity of the destruction it wrought all over-Europe and Asia. What would a sanely organised human society have done about this, assuming that such a form of society had to tackle the problem? It would have stopped all waste of labour and materials, halted the production of armaments, and of luxuries for the rich, and would have concentrated on producing the necessities of life in the quantities urgently needed by the population of the world. How did the Labour Government (and all the governments in all the countries) tackle it? They spoke the right words, but proceeded to apply fiddling half-measures. The British Labour Government said they needed man-power in production, but they found that British capitalism had a still more pressing need to keep 1,500,000 men in the armed forces and other hundreds of thousands supplying the needs of the forces and preparing for future wars. They said they needed more workers producing coal, food, houses, etc., for the millions who lacked bare necessities, but they left intact the class structure of capitalism, with its hundreds of thousands. of wealthy idlers consuming without producing, and its hundreds of thousands of workers engaged in banking, financial and other operations that only arise because of capitalism. There are over 700,000 non-industrial civil servants, about 350,000 of whom are Post Office workers. The great bulk of the remaining 350,000 are doing work rendered necessary only by capitalism, as is also much of the work of the Post Office. We are told that many civil servants are employed on insurance and similar work which the Labour Government regards as socially useful; but it is only the mind habituated to capitalism that cannot see what this work really is. Staffs handling unemployed and health. insurance are not there to see that the needy (needy because of capitalism) receive enough to satisfy their needs, but to protect capitalism against the needy receiving more than the niggardly amount allotted to keep them quiet.

The same contradiction between proclaimed aims and practical activities can be found in every sphere. The luxury needs of the wealthy have not been sacrificed to speed up the provision of necessities. On the contrary, the Government has encouraged the planning of luxury liners, luxury air travel, and luxury goods for export. These schemes are defended with the plea that luxury exports make it possible to import necessities unobtainable in other ways. The curious thing is that the governments of other war-damaged countries (France, for example) are doing the same and on the same plea, so that some luxury goods are being imported by all the countries which declare their inability to supply enough necessities for their populations. What it shows is that, despite Labour Party talk about a “new world,” the British and other Labour Governments are basing their plans for the future on the continuance of the same old capitalism, with its extremes of wealth and poverty. They are all catering for the needs of the wealthy.

Here then is the simple problem and the simple solution. On a conservative estimate the production of useful goods could easily be doubled in short time if the armed forces and propertied idlers and the workers doing work necessitated only by capitalism, were brought into production. Why doesn’t the Labour Government even attempt to do it? They don’t do it because even if they wanted to they dare not. They were put into power by an electorate that does not understand or want Socialism and which therefore gave the Labour Government nothing more than a man¬ date to go on administering capitalism.

The recent crisis arose because the capitalist state needs to have millions of people taken from production for the armed forces and other non-productive activities and therefore cannot take simple straightforward measures to make good the destruction of war. It led to great suffering and to the increase of unemployed to about 2,500,000 at the peak. In due course another and more usual type of capitalist crisis will blow up. Goods will be produced in excess of what can be sold at a profit, then unemployment will soar again. Then the Labour Government will be looking for other excuses than the cold weather to explain the failure of its plans. The “New Statesman,” which shared all of the foolish Labour Party beliefs in the possibility of applying so-called Socialist policies to capitalism, has in anticipation already coined the appropriate face-saving formula for the next crisis: “… the Government is confronted with the certainty, now that the illusions about a liberalisation of America’s trade policy have finally been dispelled, that a Socialist experiment confined only to this country is bound to fail” (February 8th, 1947). So the “New Statesman,” shedding one illusion, grasps at another equally absurd. It proposes that Britain cut adrift from trade and financial ties with U.S.A. and collaborate instead “with other countries which are experimenting with planned economies.” If it is a fallacy, as it certainly is, that a Labour Government can apply Socialist plans to capitalism, common sense should make it clear that you do not escape from the dilemma by linking up with other countries in which similar governments are trying to perform the same impossible feat. Capitalist crises know no frontiers, and Labour Governments here and elsewhere will no more escape the next crisis than they did the “economic blizzard” that blew down the British Labour Government in 1931 and simultaneously toppled over the Labour Government in Australia.

For the world’s workers there is no escape from the problems and crises caused by capitalism except by introducing Socialism.

Editorial: A more dangerous place (2026)

Editorial from the March 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Now that the world has become a yet more dangerous place with states with nuclear weapons throwing their weight about, bullying weaker non-nuclear states and preparing for war with each other, some are suggesting reviving a campaign for nuclear disarmament so that at least the next world war won’t threaten the future of humanity.

We are all in favour of making the world working class aware of the dangers of nuclear war, but it is futile to expect capitalist states which possess nuclear weapons to agree to give them up, and so it also is futile to support a campaign to demand that they do. To campaign for this impossible demand would divert time and energy from campaigning for world socialism, the only framework within which disarmament, non-nuclear as well as nuclear, will ever be achieved.

Wars are built into capitalism. Preparations for war, the threat of war and actual wars will remain one of capitalism’s features as long as it lasts. Wars are fought between capitalist states over sources of raw materials, trade routes, markets, investment outlets, and strategic points and places to acquire and protect these. Initially, such disputes are dealt with through diplomacy.

However, in such diplomatic negotiations, the military strength of the sides plays an important part in the outcome. In international relations between states, ‘might is right’ and always was even before Trump openly admitted this to be the case. All states, therefore, have an interest in equipping themselves with the most up-to-date and most destructive weapons that they can afford, including nuclear.

As long as capitalism continues, it can be expected that more and more states will seek to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Some will succeed despite the efforts of the current nuclear-armed states to try to prevent this, in their own interest to deprive weaker rivals of the added bargaining strength that possessing such weapons would give them.

Even if nuclear weapons were to be outlawed (which they won’t be), wars would still continue and cause the immense destruction and mass killing that they always do, as can be seen from the current non-nuclear wars going on in Ukraine and Gaza.

The only way to get rid of nuclear weapons and the threat of a nuclear war and its consequences for the future of humanity is to get rid of capitalism. This means that the efforts of socialists should be aimed at persuading workers to take political action to end capitalism and bring in its place a world society without frontiers in which the natural and industrial resources of the planet will be the common heritage of all. In short, worldwide socialism.

Then, and only then, will the threat of war, non-nuclear as well as nuclear, be removed and humanity be in a position to set about re-orienting production away from seeking profits and accumulating capital to solely and directly meeting human needs on the basis of ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs’.

Editorial: The Strike in Belgium (1961)

Editorial from the February 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Belgian strike is an attempt on the part of some of the Belgian workers to force the Government to resign or change its method of dealing with the economic crisis. The Government, a coalition of Christian Democrats and Liberals, has precipitated this situation by its austerity measures. These consist of cuts in the social services such as the Belgian equivalent of the National Health Service, in the education programme, in unemployment pay, and in coal subsidies, along with the introduction of a Means Test and what is called “additional temporary taxation.” The Belgian local authorities are also to be empowered to impose additional income taxes of their own. The Belgian opposition party which calls itself “Socialist” claims that workers will suffer a loss of £21 to £28 a year.

The popular reason given for these austerity measures is the need to meet the trade and finance deficit caused by the loss of the Congo. But to accept this one has to accept the view that the Belgian capitalist class subsidised its workers out of the proceeds of exploitation of the Congolese: and that wealth which might have bought continued support for Belgian rule in the Congo was diverted to Belgian working class pay packets out of sheer generosity on the part of the Belgian capitalists.

A correspondent in The Guardian (28/12/60) gives a more reasoned view of the situation:

“Even before the Congo crisis, plans were being made to face the unpleasant fact that Belgium’s period of peak prosperity is over, and that her industrial production is growing very slowly in comparison with that of her Common Market partners. By economies in state spending, by increased taxation and by attracting foreign capital, M. Eyskens’ austerity programme was designed to achieve a vast investment drive to modernise Belgian industry and make Belgian products competitive in world markets. The most uneconomic of Belgian products is her coal, a chronic problem since the thirties. In recent months Belgium has launched on a serious programme of reform of uneconomic mines including a number of closures. Closure of mines, however, means social disruption; alternative jobs for discharged mineworkers are not yet available in mining areas and the Socialist Party has seized On the consequent unemployment and unrest to find support for its present frontal attacks on the austerity programme and the present Government.”

Socialists feel deep sympathy for the Belgian workers on strike. But they realise that their action is futile as a means to achieve anything but temporary respite from the encroachments of their masters on their standard of living, and that they are jeopardising their chances of achieving even that by using the strike weapon against the State, instead of using it to back up wage demands with which to offset the effect of the Government’s policy.

The lessons of this situation should be taken to heart. The strike weapon has a very limited usefulness and at its best can only deal with effects and not causes. To use this weapon against the might of the State is to invite disaster. If at election times the workers give their votes to the parties of capitalism, it ensures that the present type of situation will occur again.

The “Socialist” Party in Belgium is similar to the Labour Party in this country. It is these so-called “Socialists” who foist such wage-pruning schemes as National Health services, unemployment pay, family allowances, and so on, on to politically ignorant workers as bits of Socialism. And it is the same political charlatans who seek to make capital from the present situation by using the strike as a means to achieve government office themselves.

Governments do not develop reforms or pruning schemes because their attitude to the working class is necessarily either sympathetic or antagonistic. Governments administer the affairs of a capitalist economy in the interests of the national capitalist class. The Belgian workers would be well advised to consider this fact in relation to the present situation, recognising that a change of government is merely a change of label.

A more fundamental change is needed. Austerity, in a world of potential plenty, is always the lot of the working class under capitalism. It is not enough to demonstrate against one type of capitalist government. The workers must organise consciously to abolish the present economic system and establish in its place their own system of society—Socialism.

Editorial: Iran’s cry of the oppressed (2026)

Editorial from the February 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

People, shot by live ammunition, too terrified to go to hospital for fear of being arrested. Body bags spilling out of mortuaries onto the street. ‘Security’ forces extorting the equivalent of 6 years labourer’s annual wage to return the dead to their families. 18,000 protesters arrested, some facing summary execution. A total communications blackout, forcing some to walk hundreds of miles to border areas to get information out.

As this goes to press the Iranian government, undaunted by Donald Trump’s bluster, says it has killed around 2,500 protesters, but if they’re admitting to that figure, the real toll might well be far higher.

Some protesters were apparently hoping for the return of the monarchy under Reza Pahlavi, son of the hated former shah, who had been energetically trying to stir up Iranian public opinion from his safe home in Washington DC. That was seen by most media pundits as an unlikely, even farcical proposition, and one too monstrous for anyone who remembers the brutal repression of the shah, before the advent of the mad mullahs. But the alternatives, civil war or else a military coup, didn’t look attractive either.

The Iranian people only want what anyone wants, to be free to live decent lives. In pursuit of that modest aspiration they have repeatedly shown a level of personal bravery that commands a heartrending respect. ‘Sometimes parents go to the protests and don’t come back,’ explained one mother to her two young children, shortly before she too was killed by police gunfire. ‘My blood, and yours, is no more precious than anyone else’s’.

They have never stopped fighting the theocracy, and they probably never will. Within just two weeks of the 1979 revolution, women were out on the street protesting against the new mandatory hijab, which followed ‘a ban on alcohol; the separation of men and women in universities, schools, pools and beaches; and limitations on broadcasting music from radio and television.’ More protests came in 1992, ’94 and ’95, then a massive one in 1999 following closure of a liberal newspaper, then in 2007 because of petrol rationing, and again in 2009-10 due to what many saw as a rigged election. More protests followed in 2011 in solidarity with Arab Spring uprisings elsewhere, and later in 2017 over the cost of living, and 2018 over water shortages. Most recently in 2022, months of protest followed the alleged judicial murder of Mahsa Amini, arrested by the ‘morality’ police (as if they knew the meaning of the word) for failing to wear a headscarf. In all these protests, the police went in with guns blazing. Hundreds were killed, thousands arrested, and many executed, including by hanging from cranes in public places ‘to deter others’.

The regime may cling on for now, and the more it crumbles, the more viciously it will oppress its own people. Its leaders – and its army of police thugs – know what will happen to them if they finally lose control. They won’t expect mercy, and they damn well won’t deserve any.

Slaughter in Gaza, slaughter in Ukraine, slaughter in Sudan, in Myanmar, and now in Iran. Dozens of armed conflicts elsewhere. When does it ever stop, in capitalism? The tragedy is that it never will, until we bring an end to the competitive market system which sets humans forever against each other, just so that a tiny few can profit.

Editorial: Principles or Expediency (1939)

Editorial from the January 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

From its formation the S.P.G.B. took a firm stand for “principle” against “expediency,” and, unlike other organisations which also professed attachment to principle, the members of the S.P.G.B. really meant what they said and acted up to it. The controversy was not one of personalities but of a fundamentally different view of things. Yet it could truthfully be said of the advocates of expediency that most of them were not very clear about the implications of their attitude. They would say that they realised the necessity of remaining loyal to Socialist principles, such as opposing all capitalist parties, but when it came to applying the principle they would constantly find some urgent and special, but only “temporary,” reason for suspending the principle. In practice this meant that temporary became permanent, and the principle was forgotten.

The issue would arise then in just the same manner as it does to-day. There would be a Tory Government in office, and the alleged Socialists in the I.L.P. or Labour Party would say, “In principle we are as much opposed to Liberals as we are to Tories, but it would be a good thing if we were to promise to help the Liberal opposition if in return they will promise some social reform legislation.” To the superficial short view it looked good business, but the price that had to be paid far outweighed the immediate advantage. In order to help secure the victory of the Liberal Party the other parties to the bargain had to drop all pretence of Socialist propaganda and devote their efforts to convincing the electorate that Liberal social reforms were the thing that really mattered. The first duty of the Socialist Party is to make Socialists, and the policy of expediency meant the almost total suppression of Socialist propaganda.

Needless to say, when a Liberal Government was in office the expediency-mongers often transferred their allegiance to the Tory Party.

The Socialist Party condemned expediency and showed how it confused, demoralised and divided the workers. Men and women, just beginning to learn that capitalism is the enemy, would suddenly be told that it was urgently necessary to support one section of the capitalists against another. They learned to suspect their leaders, often wondering whether their chief allegiance was to their own party or to the Liberal or Tory Party. Expediency also divides the workers among themselves. It was all very well to support “Free Trade” when helping the Liberal Party, but workers in industries directly affected by foreign competition thought they had just as good a case for supporting tariffs, and the Tory Party, which advocated them. And how could the worker who was told to vote for a capitalist party and its programme of reforms go on believing that “Socialism is the only hope of the workers”?

Helping Capitalists to Power

Socialists, taking their stand on Socialist principles, went on pointing out the harm of sacrificing the substance for the shadow, the achievement of Socialism for the momentary petty concession from the capitalist class. They showed from past and present history how that policy produced only disappointment and betrayal, and prevented the growth of the Socialist movement. Above all, Socialists insisted on the hard truth that all capitalist agents who are elected to Parliament use their power to protect and preserve the capitalist system against the interest of the working class. Elect a Liberal reformer to-day on the strength of his promises and you will find him to-morrow using the armed forces to defeat a strike.

It is just the same in foreign affairs. Every capitalist and Labour politician swears his love of peace, but it only needs a realisation on the part of the capitalists that their interests are threatened to see the peace-loving politician declaring war. Liberal and Labour Party leaders, prior to 1914, were the peace-lovers; but war found them in coalition with their erstwhile Tory enemies, waging capitalist war, enforcing conscription, and so on. Only a brief while before President Wilson launched America into the War he had been elected—with the support of alleged Socialists—on an explicit promise to keep the country out of war. Chamberlain, the “peace-maker” of Munich, may be wanting war at no distant date, and if he does his way will be made easier by his reputation as a peace-lover. His present opponents in the Liberal and Labour Parties will be found helping him to win over the population to a policy of war. Expediency will again ha’ve helped the capitalist class to their task of hoodwinking the workers. Yet expediency has its surface attraction. The alleged Socialist who hails Chamberlain for preserving peace has apparently a substantial claim, just as has the opponent of Chamberlain, who urges unity with other capitalist groups, to “defend democracy.” But whichever group has its way the workers will be divided, will be deceived into entrusting control of the political machinery in capitalist hands, and will have their attention taken away from the basic fact that it is capitalism which produces wars, capitalism which stands in the way of Socialism.

Once Socialists give up principle for expediency they lose their way and get entangled in the intricate maze of capitalist political intrigue. Worst of all, they become divided, attaching themselves to different and rival sections of capitalist movements. Wars about capitalist interests masquerading as wars for democracy or nationalism are the most tragic example. Expediency in the last War naturally led to so-called Socialists fighting on the Allied side for “democracy” or “self-determination” and on the German side for “culture against Russian barbarism.”

The Czechs, who in the last War declared that they were being loyal to Socialism by fighting to dismember Austria and gain Czech independence, have their counterpart to-day in the Ukrainian “Socialists,” who are prepared to back Hitler-Germany in order to secure Ukrainian independence from Poland. One of them told a News Chronicle correspondent (News Chronicle, December 9th, 1938): “Better an alliance with the devil than continued Polish oppression.” Very short-sighted, of course, and incompatible with Socialist principle, but so is all expediency.