Life and Times: The Drinks Stop (2026)

The Life and Times column from the September 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

This column has talked previously about the perils of being your own boss. I focused on a doughnut and coffee shop that had opened in my area and the difficulty it was likely to face in surviving. What happened after that was, following the expected lull in summer trade from its largely student clientele, it closed for a break and then it never reopened. Now, just round the corner from where the doughnuts are no more, a new business has opened up. It’s a sort of general store with the name ‘Drinks Stop’ emblazoned across its front, having taken over what had been a longstanding ironmongers, a shop that was much loved by the community and whose disappearance was much lamented when its owner retired.

The furore

What it would then become was the subject of much local discussion, and that exploded recently when ‘Drinks Stop’ opened. Some on the local Facebook forum have given it approval because it at least meant that the premises were in use again. But the majority have given it a decisive and, in some cases, scathing thumbs down. Partly because much of what it’s selling simply reproduces the stock of another convenience shop barely 50 yards up the road, but mostly because of the new shop’s particular appearance. Its façade is shiny black plastic panelling with bright yellow lettering that completely covers the original corner-shop period frontage with its curved glass windows and ironwork entrance. Comments about it on social media have included ‘ugly and inappropriate’ ‘an ‘eyesore’, ‘a carbuncle’, ‘a blot on the landscape’, ‘an utter abomination’, and – even – ‘it looks like a sex shop’. A more ‘moderate’ objection has been that its appearance is just out of character with the neighbourhood’s traditional architecture, with someone observing ‘it might not be so bad if it were one of a whole stretch of shops with different facades, but, as it stands, it really is an eyesore’.

Success or failure?

Whatever the case, just like the failed doughnut shop, an enormous amount of time, energy and expense has gone into converting the original premises, both inside and out, to what it is now. Yet, if the social media furore is anything to go by and translates into people shunning it, the odds seem to be against it doing enough business to be successful. And if that happens, the family who’ve opened it will see the enormous effort they’ve made to be their own boss come to nothing and they’ll be forced back into the situation of looking for employment and trying to find someone else to be their boss. Which in fact, so the statistics show, is what happens to the vast majority of workers who seek an escape route from the job market and the tyranny of employment by setting up on their own. Even if they undertake market research first and some do – though maybe the ‘Drinks Stop’ proprietors didn’t – that doesn’t remove the risk of their venture failing. In reality, it is impossible for them to know with any kind of certainty whether their new business will ‘pay’, given the uncertainty and unpredictability of the economic system we all live under, which defies the best laid plans of humans and which even governments can do little to control.

So, as things stand, ‘The Drink Stop’ will be competing with the other store we have mentioned just up the road. It may manage to capture some of its business, but, since the clientele overall is unlikely to increase, it seems improbable that both will survive. It‘s not difficult in fact to imagine that the two stores will end up doing each other down with both eventually closing their doors – and this also in view of the additional fact that there are two other supermarkets, big-name ones (Tesco and Sainsburys), less than ten minutes walk away.

Dog-eat-dog or human connection?

Standing in the street looking at these two local shops, the thought that comes to my mind is why do we put up with (and even support, as many do) a system that has at its heart – and on a colossal scale the world over – an ethic of dog-eat-dog competition and whose inevitable outcome is waste and human frustration? After all humans are equipped for cooperation and connection to one another, even though they (we) are currently stuck in a social system that promotes competition and selfishness. Why instead don’t all of us who are forced to sell our energies to an employer for a wage or salary throughout most of our lives get together and act consciously and democratically to put an end to that dysfunctional system and opt instead for the moneyless, wageless society of free association and free access that we call socialism?

Howard Moss

The Big Issue at 35 (2026)

From the September 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

In May this year the Big Issue published its annual ‘Impact Report’, a celebration, it said, of ’35 years of action and impact’. Its CEO claimed that, over its existence, it had ‘changed Britain’s high streets’ and provided ‘innovative earning, learning and social investment opportunities’, seen as ‘the key to breaking the cycle of poverty’. It had been ‘an exciting year’, the report stated, and now the Big Issue Group was moving forward ‘to build bold new solutions to tackle poverty and the deepening crisis amongst young people’. Its 35th Anniversary Dinner, held in March, raised over £200,000 and was attended by celebrities and politicians, most notably the Big Issue founder, Lord John Bird, and Angela Rayner, Housing Secretary in the current Labour government. Rayner was quoted as saying: ‘The Big Issue provides the dignity of a hand-up. That opportunity to become economically active, build confidence, develop new skills and a sense of dignity. That’s why I got involved in politics and it’s why I’m a supporter of the Big Issue’.

Yet, together with all these optimistic words, the report also points out that, even after 35 years of the magazine, destitution still affects 3.8 million people in the UK. In so doing, it echoes the frustration expressed in a recent article by John Bird that ‘three decades of the same conversation is exhausting’. Not that anyone would want to deny the report’s other claim that Big Issue activity has helped support many individuals to live less deprived, less demeaning lives. It has given them the magazine to sell, advised them on finding employment and even assisting some in starting their own small businesses. This, however, is a drop in a very large ocean where, given the extent of poverty and homelessness in the society we live in, for every individual helped out of a dire situation, there is another (and others) waiting to be helped. The report itself provides evidence of this with its figure of 3.8 million people living in destitution, representing a rise of 148 percent since 2017.

Looked at closely, the experience of the Big Issue very much mirrors that of the older charity organisation known as Shelter. Founded in 1966, Shelter pledged to get rid of homelessness within 10 years. But, since then, the problem it set out to tackle, together with the poverty that underlies it, has remained endemic. Shelter recently announced that 120,000 children in the UK are waking up homeless every day and that many thousands more are suffering housing and living conditions that make it impossible for them to live comfortable and fulfilling lives. There is no more talk of eliminating homelessness but rather a focus on the need to provide day-to-day assistance to those without a proper roof over their heads. Shelter even runs its own weekly lottery to raise funds for this. In a similar way the Big Issue report makes no mention of bringing homelessness to an end but sees its role as ‘ensuring our impact continues for generations to come’.

None of this is to demean the dedication or good faith of those involved – many on a voluntary basis – in seeking to alleviate the hardships of those suffering the worst effects of poverty. So we should not, for example, question the sincerity of Greg Hurst of the Centre for Homeless Impact when, in a recent Big Issue article, he wrote that ‘We must hold on to the belief that homelessness can be ended and look for evidence of proven or promising approaches that could be tried or tested right now’. But those seeing things in that light would at the same time do well to ask themselves why, regardless of their best efforts, the problems they are addressing not only never seem to go away but, depending on circumstances, may even get worse with the passage of time, so at best they are running fast to stand still. If they did ask the question, they might end up agreeing that poverty and homelessness are not caused by a dearth of houses or food being in short supply, and that, with the technologically efficient production systems that exist today, we could easily house, feed and clothe everyone on the planet. They might go even further and accept that the reason this never actually happens is that, in the system we live under, goods are produced and services are provided not to satisfy human need but to make profit for the small minority of humanity who own or control the vast majority of the wealth, while the rest of us can only have access to what the money in our pockets will buy.

For some, especially in the more technologically advanced countries, the existing set-up may offer a stable existence, even if at the cost of having to work on a day-to-day basis in employment we may not like or conditions that make it unpleasant or insecure. But for others, in particular those who have the most poorly paid or insecure jobs or no employment at all, things are far worse, often a constant round of worry, instability and hopelessness. And no matter how much time and energy is put into trying to rectify this by the Big Issue, Shelter and other such well-meaning organisations, their efforts can do no more than scratch the surface of the problems they would like to solve. John Bird got it right – perhaps inadvertently – when, in a Big Issue article, he wrote that ‘ideas of ending poverty are stuck in the realm of fantasy’.

So while the Big Issue Group’s stated ambition to ‘build a future where every individual can thrive’ is nothing if not admirable and one socialists would share, in today’s system of ‘can’t pay, can’t have’ that we call capitalism, it is frankly unachievable. It can only realistically be envisioned in the society socialists campaign for, in which nothing is bought or sold, production is for use not profit and there is free access for everyone to all goods and services.

Howard Moss

Anti-fascism (2026)

Book Review from the September 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bye Bye Blackshirt. By Mark Krantz. Bookmarks. 2026. 114pp

This book is a well-researched account of the opposition to Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists (BUF) as that grouping rose to prominence in the 1930s on the back of similar movements in Italy and Germany. It offers a powerful evocation of the context and the atmosphere of the time it investigates, focusing in particular on the various ways in which, up and down the country and mainly in the years 1934-36, BUF activities were violently countered by left-wing groups and their supporters.

Taking their cue from Hitler’s Nazi party, Mosley and his BUF were virulently anti-semitic, portraying Jews as a malignant force in society – the enemy-in-chief. In a period of severe economic depression, they found a significant number of recruits among frustrated workers looking for ‘others’ to blame for their plight and sense of hopelessness. In London and up and down the country (for example Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow, Gateshead, Leeds, Swansea, Plymouth, Gillingham), the BUF organised large-scale meetings, both indoors and outdoors, often with Mosley at the helm and sometimes bringing along several thousand supporters dressed in black shirts who paraded slogans like ‘Perish the Jews’ and were primed to deal violently with protestors. At one of their rallies in 1934, Mosley announced that ‘Jews more than any single factor are undermining the prosperity of the British people today’.

The anti-BUF protests that took place were organised mainly by the Communist Party and the Independent Labour Party who themselves encouraged violent means to prevent meetings taking place or speakers being heard. Their tactic was what the author calls ‘direct confrontation and disruption’. So at a meeting in Gillingham in 1934, when Mosley appeared outside the meeting hall, we are told that ‘he was spat upon and missiles were thrown, including bottles’, and likewise, in Liverpool, he was ‘knocked unconscious by stones thrown at his head’.

Police were present at these events in numbers with a brief to facilitate the marches and meetings on ‘free speech’ grounds and thereby effectively siding with the Fascists in trying to prevent or ward off protests. The result was that protestors themselves were often dealt with violently by the police and arrested and charged with public disorder, in some cases leading to prison sentences.

At the most well-known of these events, ‘The Battle of Cable Street’ in October 1936, Mosley and his followers set out on a provocative march through what was known as the Jewish quarter of the East End of London. But the thousands of police seeking to ensure the BUF’s passage found themselves outnumbered by larger numbers of political opponents and locals who had put up barricades, mainly consisting of furniture, to block the procession. They charged to clear the way but were met, the author tells us, ‘with milk bottles, stones and marbles’ and ‘a brick went clean through the window’ of Mosley’s car’. The police gave it up as a bad job and Mosley and his followers had to turn back. The book describes the Battle of Cable Street, perhaps a little over-excitedly, as ‘the apex of the mass anti-fascist protests that stopped the advance of fascism in Britain’. And it is certainly true that, following this, support for the BUF began to wane and, by the time war broke out three years later, it had gone down dramatically, especially as it was seen by the British state as a potential ally to the Nazi enemy.

The book’s key argument is that the reason why the threat of a fascist takeover in Britain was never realised was the vigorous physical opposition it faced from left-wing forces and those who joined them. And this must indeed have had an effect. But it must be open to question whether, even it had not happened, any attempt at a violent takeover of the state by Mosley and his deluded followers could have had the same kind of success as Mussolini’s forces had had in Italy in the previous decade. Though the BUF presented itself as a threatening force, those workers willing to follow Mosley constituted a very small percentage of the population and would probably not have been capable of overturning the well-established system of capitalist democracy that existed in Britain, nor of setting up a repressive right-wing dictatorship as in Italy and Germany.

The writer also draws comparisons between Mosley’s movement in the ’30s and the current right-wing populism in Britain stirred up by such loathsome individuals as Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson. Will these be any more successful than Mosley in fomenting division and hatred among workers? It remains to be seen. But it has to be observed that the alarmism about this that Bye Bye Blackshirt evinces is typical of the longstanding Trotskyist belief in impending catastrophe and the hope that fear of this will cause workers to rally to the leadership of a vanguard party of the left to rescue them from the crisis and assert its own control. Such is the Trotskyist concept of ‘revolution from below’, which is entirely at odds with the need for a conscious spread of socialist understanding leading to democratic political action to establish a true socialist society of common ownership and free access – the real ‘revolution from below’.

Howard Moss

Italy: The sour smell of success (1971)

From the September 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Economic miracle turns sour” was the headline of a recent Financial Times survey on Italy. Italian industry has come down with a bump from the “boom” of the last ten years.

Low cost-structures, the result of large-scale State takeover of industries, exploitation of previously untapped natural resources and plentiful supplies of cheap and unmilitant labour, allowed Italy to compete very favourably on international markets in the ’50s and ’60s. She benefited particularly from the Common Market removal of tariff barriers. However, rising costs and the appearance of cheaper competitors like Japan and South Korea have slowed down considerably her rate of economic growth, and brought other problems in their wake.

True Italy is no longer placed, as she was in the first years after the second World War, alongside Spain, Greece and Portugal as one of Western Europe’s backward countries. She is the tenth manufacturing nation in the world. But as an advanced capitalist country, Italy now suffers from all the same internal contradictions as her older, capitalist neighbours.

In industry short-time and redundancies are already becoming commonplace. Even during the boom period unemployment never fell below half a million. Now, together with prices, it is rising steeply. Rapid industrial advance, first without the Common Market and then inside it has clearly done nothing to solve working-class problems. Capitalist expansion is not a working-class issue. The benefits of it go largely to the ruling class. Decisions taken on such matters as nationalisation or the Common Market depend on ruling class interests. Their effects for good or bad on the working-class are quite marginal and quite incidental.

In Italy the worst signs of the anarchy of production for profit can be seen in the fields of housing, public transport, health and education. There has been no development in social services to match the rapid changeover since the war from a largely agricultural to a highly industrialised economy. When people flocked from the land into the industrial centres of Northern Italy to become wage workers, they found themselves the victims of uncontrolled building speculation, insufficient transport facilities, a primitive health structure and a hopelessly outdated and inefficient education system. Immigrants from the South (who formed the majority of the new wage slaves) were the worst hit. They were the least able to defend themselves from the conditions they found. Job rivalry with native northerners caused widespread discrimination of an almost racial character. Furthermore as the North prospered, the mainly agricultural South tended to decline relatively. Despite piecemeal attempts at establishing industry in the South, it is generally recognised that the gap in living standards between North and South is still actually on the increase.

Another point worth mentioning is the unlimited sacrifice of environmental to economic interests during the last twenty years. Rapid industrialisation has made Italy an ecological horror story. Eighty-five per cent of its coastline is at pollution danger level and the smog in Milan and Turin (caused largely by the massive increase in car population) is as bad as in Tokyo. The possible decline of the very lucrative tourist industry is just one small indication of the unplannability of capitalism.

Social protest lay dormant in the first part of Italy’s period of high economic growth. In the last five years, however, accumulated working-class grievances have come home to roost. The trade unions have not only concerned themselves with wage bargaining, but have also backed social reforms. Demands supported by strike action have been made for better and lower cost housing (there is a large “surplus” of accommodation on lease at £50 a month and over) and for improvements in the health services. Archaic educational structures have caused tremendous upheavals in Italy’s schools and universities. Furthermore spontaneous riots, especially in the impoverished South, have been touched off by the unemployment situation and by administrative inertia over local reforms.

The Italian Communist Party (PCI), opportunist as all so-called “communist” parties anywhere and here far stronger than elsewhere in Western Europe, has become the reforming party par excellence — while out of power that is. It is a past master at using working-class grievances and demands for reform to attract support. Kept out of “centre-right” and “centre-left” coalitions since 1947, the PCI, with up to 29 per cent of the national vote, would dearly love to have a respectable place in the Italian government. It points to the inefficiency and stop-gap nature of present and previous administrations, but fails to say how its own inclusion would lead to greater stability.

It is, in fact, quite true to say that Italian coalition governments, the caretakers of the Italian capitalist class, have spent most of their time in power since the war bickering and squabbling amongst themselves. They have proved most inefficient administrators of capitalism. The heavy strains and stresses which go hand in hand with commercial society everywhere have been vastly increased by the wheeling and dealing of the “political gangsters” at Rome. It will come as no surprise if in the near future the PCI, already in control of certain regions under Italy’s recent decentralisation programme, realises its dream of having a share in a Western capitalist government. A powerful weapon on its side is the Italian Social Movement (MSI); the strongest avowedly Fascist party in advanced Western Europe.

In reality capitalism’s deficiencies are to be explained by reference not to political incompetence but to the basic conflict of interests that exists in capitalism between employer and employee. The employer is all the time pushed by competitive market forces to produce as cheaply as possible. If he is to stay in business therefore, he must keep his costs down, which means getting as much work as possible out of his employee for the lowest possible wages. The worker, on the other hand, strives, as he must, to keep up his living standards and better his working conditions as much as he is able.

In Italy, as elsewhere, the mass of workers have never yet actually questioned the right of their employers to exploit them for wages. They limit themselves to bargaining for higher wages, using the threat or the weapon of strike action. Moreover, in recent years not only the traditional sectors have used these tactics to defend their interests. Doctors, civil servants and teachers now engage in traditionally working-class actions. The high peak of unrest was the end of 1969, when long-term collective contracts for six million workers were due for renewal. Prolonged strikes were followed by wage increases and improved fringe benefits. But this was not, as indeed it could not be, the end of the story. Since that time strikes have been endemic in Italian society. They will continue to be so. They are an unpleasant necessity of capitalism, but of course no lasting answer to basic working-class problems.

Street politics is the domain of rival groups of thugs calling themselves Maoists (or even “Socialists”) and Fascists. Pitched street battles between left, right and forces of “law and order” are what often faces the inhabitants of the big Italian cities. Apart from the political confusion this spreads among the working-class, it helps to create an atmosphere of fear and tension in which the majority of people would welcome undemocratic government action to outlaw political groups considered “extremist”. Too late then to cry wolf and fascism from the rooftops.

It is truly tragic that the many young people in these groups look no further than eastern state capitalist dictatorships for a solution to the problems of life under western capitalism. However, they do realise that the society in which they live is not run in working-class interests. That in itself is a step forward. We in the Socialist Party of Great Britain point to the fallacy of their ‘solution’, restate the immediate and pressing need for a world of free access and look forward to the day when a genuine Socialist Party is set up in Italy with the same aims and principles as the Companion Parties of Socialism.

Howard Moss

SPGB Meetings (1971)

Party News from the September 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB September Events (2026)

Party News from the September 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our general discussion meetings are held on Zoom. To connect to a meeting, enter https://zoom.us/wc/join/7421974305 in your browser. Then follow instructions on screen and wait to be admitted to the meeting.

Life and Times: Hoarding – a disorder of our time (2026)

The Life and Times column from the August 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many years ago, when I was a youngster, we were often visited at home by Harry, a relative who had had a difficult upbringing, lived on his own and showed signs of self-neglect. He started to give increasing cause for concern and my parents wondered what could be done. So my father and older brother went to his house to check on how he was managing. On their return I remember my brother saying ‘It’s a rubbish dump with a roof on’. Not long after this Harry was admitted to a psychiatric hospital.

How hoarders feel

All this came back to me on reading a recent Big Issue article on hoarding and what causes anyone to adopt a practice so manifestly detrimental to their own wellbeing. It talked about how, though hoarding is generally associated with physical mess, the mess is also in the mind and is likely to have psychological drivers such as trauma, fear of scarcity, or loneliness. It went on to say that, in turn, the consequences of being known to live a hoarder’s life can be shame, fear or reinforced feelings of isolation, but that the intense anxiety felt by hoarders about discarding possessions, regardless of their value, is linked to how ‘objects often carry deep emotional meaning or represent security against loss’.

Hoarding and homelessness

Given its appearance in the Big Issue, the article’s main focus was, perhaps understandably, on how hoarding can lead to eviction or homelessness for those affected and how they suffer a much higher rate of it than for the general population. And it explained that this was the case even though hoarding disorder had been officially recognised as a distinct psychiatric condition and only recently – in May of this year – there was, though little noticed, a National Hoarding Awareness Week. But while drawing attention to the not negligible suffering of people who hoard and to the potential of this condition to lead to even worse consequences, what the Big Issue did not attempt to do was to delve into the reasons why people become hoarders in the first place.

Tendencies triggered

The first obvious thing to consider is that, just as no one is born a thief or a tyrant or a miser, no one is born a hoarder either. It’s generally accepted that human beings are eminently flexible creatures whose behaviour is highly dependent on the society they live in and the conditions in which they grow up. Individuals do of course have differing potential tendencies, capacities and talents, which may or may not be realised depending on the events and circumstances of their lives. For example, therefore, would my relative, Harry, have become a hoarder if the early difficult life circumstances he had experienced had not triggered in him the potential for it? Hard to be sure, and it might be said that many of us have a tendency to accumulate objects of a certain kind, often somewhat irrationally. That’s certainly the case with me personally when it comes to books which I sometimes feel the need to stock my shelves with even if I know at bottom that I won’t read them all. And the same is the case with other people I know when it comes to clothes.

But we can maybe call these minor quirks which may or may not have their origin in some kind of innate tendency in particular individuals but, in any case, are unlikely to have a profound impact on their lives. The same cannot be said of the kind of extreme examples of hoarding that we see depicted in those semi-exploitative TV series on the subject. These are largely the consequence of highly negative situations into which the hoarders have fallen and it seems fair to think that, had circumstances been different for them, their potential for that behaviour may well have remained dormant.

Insecurity

What kind of circumstances are we talking about? Well the Big Issue article talks about ‘trauma, fear and loneliness’ with possessions functioning as ‘emotional anchors’ and representing ‘memories, identity or a sense of security in an unpredictable world’. Of course the majority of us, whose lives are based on the need to work for a wage or salary in order to survive, manage, flexible beings that humans are, to negotiate that ‘unpredictable world’ without falling into some kind of addiction or psychosis. In other words, most of us stay sane despite the uncertainty and insecurity visited upon us by capitalism, where the ups and downs of the market and the needs of the profit system can quickly change the complexion of our lives.

But some of us are more fragile and need something to cling to, something that seems to offer a sense of safety – illusory as that may be – in an uncertain, divisive world. This may be drink, drugs, worship of sports or entertainment heroes, or even, in the case of the hoarding habit, something as seemingly banal as filling your life and space with possessions that serve no apparent purpose.

A cure?

So, is there a ‘cure’ for hoarding? Well, in the alienating, crisis-prone system we live under, probably not, other than a switch to some alternative obsession or addiction. Could there be a cure in a different kind of system, one without the pressure of wages and salaries, one where we have free access to all goods and services and the space to develop our talents and capacities both for our own satisfaction and for the common good? We would have to say yes, definitely. But for this to happen, we first need majority consciousness by wage and salary earners of their plight and then democratic political action to sweep away the profit system and establish the society of togetherness and community that we call socialism – a society based on the principle of from each according to ability to each according to need.

Howard Moss

The Parkrun – an Inkling of socialism? (2026)

From the August 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

On 13 June this year, the 13 runners and 5 volunteers who set up the first parkrun ever in 2004 at Bushy Park, London, celebrated one million parkruns worldwide since then. On that day runs were taking place in 2,800 places across 23 countries. In an interview with the i newspaper, one of the original parkrun organisers, Paul Sinton-Hewitt, said that the success of the event was ‘clearly down to the simplicity … the fact it is for everybody, inclusivity, the nature of that, the fact that it’s free’. Another of the founders, Andrew Lane, said he’d originally predicted that, if the event got going, participation would peak at 200 runners per time, otherwise the course would be too crowded. But at the 1,000th Bushy Park run in 2024, there were over 6,000 participants.

Clearly people didn’t mind being crowded together with others and, since they weren’t competing with one another as in a conventional race, getting a clear unimpeded run wasn’t a priority for most. At best if people were there to compete, it was against themselves, ie, trying to improve their personal best time. Lane went on to say that he’d also predicted, wrongly again, that there would be a lack of volunteers coming forward to do the organising and this would hold growth back. But, as he put it, ‘I failed to realise … how much volunteering would become a great pleasure and destination in itself’.

Interesting words

There are some interesting words here: ‘inclusivity’, ‘free’, ‘volunteering’, ‘pleasure’, for example. Interesting because they describe a voluntary, cooperative, communal kind of activity enjoyed by large numbers of people and going directly contrary to the ethic of a society, the one we live in, based on me-first competition, beggar thy neighbour and the gaining of personal wealth and status. A society too in which we often hear of how people have become alienated, disconnected from one another (‘atomised’ is the word often used) and bereft of any clear sense of purpose. In the parkrun, however, we have an activity that is entirely cooperative and purposeful, where money doesn’t enter into any part of the equation and which is pursued by increasingly large numbers of people, whether as run participants or organisers. And clearly the ‘non-runners’ too experience a sense of community as well as a perception that they’re doing something useful, as well, no doubt, as enjoying the approbation, spoken or otherwise, of the people around them.

Social animals

Should we be surprised? Well probably not, because regardless of the way current society is organised with its massive economic inequality, its ever-present wars, the stresses and frustrations of its employment system, human beings are fundamentally social animals who, given even small opportunities, are ready and willing to work together to carry out activities and achieve ends they consider worthwhile. Apart from our common everyday experience where, in a whole host of situations and pursuits, humans display cooperation and empathy with one another, a plethora of studies, sociological and anthropological, many of which have been discussed in the pages of the Socialist Standard  continue to illustrate and confirm this.

This year’s World Happiness Report by Gallup, which rates countries according to the level of ‘happiness’ of their citizens, concludes unequivocally that what makes individuals feel most happy is ‘being generous and volunteering’, since it gives ‘a feeling of belonging and sociality’. A recent discussion on the Gallup report on BBC radio reiterated this, with the broadcaster Evan Davis, one of whose specialities is business and economics, stating that ‘money matters to a certain extent for the agency and control it gives you’, but that ‘the main individual thing is to be generous to other people and to volunteer [and] you will make yourself happier’.

Another recent study carried out by a team of scientists from American and Australian universities entitled ‘Altruistic, not reputational concerns, drive human prosociality, values and aspirations across the world’, studied anonymous survey responses from almost 1 million individuals spread over more than 100 countries, taking into account different cultural contexts, age ranges, socioeconomic levels, and time periods. The researchers found that the vast majority of people reported performing acts of altruism because they were interested in the well-being of others, not because these acts benefitted them directly. They concluded that people are more likely to want to be remembered for making a difference, helping others, and improving the world, and to value things like caring over status or personal gains. The way a review of this study put it was ‘people really want to be good’ .

Cooperation or ego?

Another new piece of research, this time from the fields of archaeology and anthropology and published in the Journal of Archaeological Science, provides evidence that it has been humans’ ability to empathize and relate to one another that has allowed our species to thrive and build complex cultures over the whole planet. It points to how the archaeological record illustrates the capacity of early humans to make long-term commitments to one another’s well-being, to tolerate frustration, to plan collectively, to make sacrifices, and to trust others. In many instances, for example, archaeologists have unearthed remains of disabled and elderly humans who could not possibly have survived alone.

A review of this study on the IFL Science website concludes that yet again we have evidence that ‘one of humanity’s greatest strengths was never just ego or ruthlessness, but profound emotions and our extraordinary ability to turn those feelings into cooperation’. Of course we see ‘ego’ and ‘ruthlessness’ around us too, we see displays of non-cooperation and lack of sympathy and understanding for others. But, perhaps contrary to appearances, we see this much less frequently than the opposite. But precisely because it is less common, it attracts greater attention and becomes more ‘newsworthy’.

Purpose and enjoyment

What has all this got to do with socialism? Put quite simply, socialism – the moneyless, wageless society of common ownership and voluntary work with free access to all goods and services which we campaign to see established – can only work if human beings are able to cooperate freely and willingly to produce and distribute everything that is needed to provide a comfortable, purposeful life for all. And what we learn from the kinds of research mentioned above, from everyday experience and from voluntary on-the-ground activity such as the parkrun is that we are geared, we have the capacity, to organise ourselves and our society in that way.

We learn too that the dog-eat-dog mentality that we also see around us and can set people against one another, often in ugly and irrational ways, arises not from any ‘natural’ human inclination but from the conditions of life in the society we live in, from the very nature of the competitive, profit-driven system we call capitalism – a system effectively described by one commentator as ‘a scramble to sell our energies under conditions of duress and unfreedom’. We draw from all the evidence that such behaviour and such conditions can be overcome if we are willing to take the bull by the horns and decide, via collective and democratic political action, to establish and organise a society in which volunteering and cooperative, communal activity is the norm in every facet of life. Of course, despite the constraints of capitalism, a vast amount of such activity already takes place, not only in parkruns but across a whole range of endeavours. But socialism will provide the opportunity for us to fulfil our potential for cooperation not just in our spare time but as a way of organising the whole of society efficiently and effectively and giving us all lives that are enjoyable, meaningful and fulfilling and satisfy our deep-seated need for social interaction.

Howard Moss

Trouble at ‘t mill (2026)

From the August 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘Trouble at ‘t mill’ has become a kind of cliché to refer to problems individuals or groups of workers may be having in their place of work. Workplaces are not mills today of course, but the basic ruler-ruled relationship between employer and employee that existed at the time of the mills still applies today. And the same ‘trouble’ still continues to arise, more often than not associated with money and working conditions.

University cuts

And it’s happening currently in what many people might consider an improbable place – institutions of higher education – i.e., universities. Traditionally, work in universities, whether as a teacher, researcher, administrator or anything else, has been considered a relatively secure form of employment. Until 1988 in fact academics had what was known as ‘tenure’ whereby, barring some form of gross misconduct, they could not legally be sacked from their jobs. And even after this, the likelihood of university lecturers losing their jobs remained relatively small for a long time, at least compared with most other areas of employment. But more recently all this has changed. What university employees are now finding is that, as for most other fields of work, they are at significant risk of being declared redundant as their institutions struggle to stay solvent and look to make savings.

In the last couple of years in particular, a whole swathe of universities, from those lower down the pecking order that were once called polytechnics to historic and well-established institutions higher up the scale, have begun declaring deficits – referred to sometimes as ‘black holes’. They are forced, they say, to drastically reduce regular expenditure in what they see as the only effective way – by shedding staff. The term they often use to describe this is ‘reducing the head count’, clearly an attempt to mask the personal impact on the individuals whose lives are suddenly turned upside-down. The main pressure on universities to do this has been the downturn in the number of young people entering into higher education as well as the shortfall of overseas students coming to study in the UK, so denying universities the necessary level of tuition fees to keep them solvent. Examples of institutions currently engaged in making staff cuts and declaring people redundant are Teesside University, Sheffield Hallam, Swansea, Leicester, Nottingham, Edinburgh and Birmingham.

Strike action?

Some universities have done U-turns on declaring redundancies due to the threat of strike action by the lecturers’ union (the UCU – University and College Union), but others have ignored such threats and have gone ahead with dismissing staff despite industrial action. Clearly they view their financial situation as so dire that cutting their long-term wage bill seems more important than the consequences for their reputation of students complaining about not being taught or not receiving their degrees on time. And, at times, universities have openly declared that failing to lower their costs will threaten their very existence. A good example here of how trade unions can sometimes succeed in taming to some extent the imperatives of the financial compete-or-die system all workers (and their employers) live under, but also of the limits of trade union action with the employer simply holding out in the expectation (often realised) that workers are only likely to stay out on strike for as long as they are able to hold out financially themselves.

In the same boat

It also offers a prime example of how the system we live under inevitably threatens with insecurity all those obliged to sell their energies to an employer for a wage or salary – so the vast majority of any population. Such is the case whichever rung of the salary scale a worker happens to be on. The current crisis in universities provides a suitable microcosm of this. Whether someone works as a porter, a secretary, a technician, an ordinary lecturer or a professor, all are equally likely to find themselves out of a job and having to scramble around to find alternative employment. And for academics in particular finding such employment at the moment is unlikely given the current job market in higher education. As a volunteer union representative in my own institution, I have recently seen a science professor of 22 years standing and international reputation break down in tears and state that his life is destroyed. He had been subjected to a humiliating process of ‘pooling’ and then being informed that, after comparing him with his colleagues, it had been decided that his role was to be ‘deleted’. I have been assisting another colleague who, fearing redundancy and having applied for a job in another institution, received a stock response informing her that they had received over 500 applications to their job advert and that she might hear nothing further regarding her application. She did not.

Legal action?

A common reaction from staff hearing that their employment is to be terminated is to talk about taking legal action via an employment tribunal on grounds of unfair dismissal. But if they go to their trade union for assistance in this, they are likely to be told that, if the employer has taken the necessary steps laid down in law – and they usually have – then their dismissal is unlikely to be considered ‘unfair’. The reality, of course, is that, regardless of any tweaks made to employment regulations by governments (something that is happening currently), the system will continue to be weighted in favour of the employer and to give them the upper hand, as it must in the wage-slave society we live in. So unless the employer makes a mess of things by not going through the right motions, then any legal appeal against redundancy is likely to fail. And even if such an appeal is successful, the court will not order reinstatement but only financial compensation, which is often a dismal amount and in any case cannot in law exceed a maximum of the claimant’s annual salary. If legal action is attempted, furthermore, any claimant can expect to wait a long time indeed for their case to be heard. One of the criticisms of the employment tribunal system recently highlighted by the Institute of Employment Rights was that people bringing unfair dismissal claims are waiting up to five years for their case to come to court.

Employment insecurity

Finally, in the higher education sector at least, a further negative consequence of the redundancy exercises employers go in for to reduce their costs is that these inevitably signal a deterioration in working conditions for those employees still in post. Despite the terminology of ‘deletion of role’ that employers often use, everyone who works in universities knows that the work (or at least some of the work) of staff who have been dismissed will still need to be done, which inevitably means longer hours and increased pressure for the remaining staff. Though these staff will be breathing a sigh of relief that they still have their jobs, nevertheless they know they will be called upon to work longer hours and more intensively to cover that work. And they know that, if they don’t come up to the mark in this, they may well be the ones for the high jump next time the employer sees it as necessary to embark upon ‘reducing the head count’.

What’s for sure, finally, is that no solution to this kind of merry-go-round in any sector of employment is to be found in seeking to change employment law or giving employees more ‘rights’ – or anything like that. This is the case whether it’s a sector focused directly on realising profit for its owners or shareholders or one that is part of the infrastructure of the profit-making system, such as education. All forms of employment are locked into the system of buying and selling and production for profit, together with the insecurity and upsets it causes for workers through its constant need to reorganise in order to adapt to capitalism’s economic conditions. And this will continue until those workers decide collectively to do away with that system and replace it with one of common ownership, voluntary work and free access to all the goods and services they produce – what we call socialism.

Howard Moss

Prosocial (2026)

Book Review from the August 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard 

 

Conflict Resolution. By Douglas P. Fry. Edward Elgar. 2026. 121pp.

‘Nomadic foragers, as we all used to live, were socialist, prosocial, egalitarian societies’ (Douglas P. Fry).

In this distillation of long years of fieldwork and scholarship, the world-leading anthropologist Douglas Fry draws upon his knowledge and experience to propose means of resolving conflicts between individuals or groups as they might arise in contemporary contexts. Its analysis and recommendations are underpinned by the author’s accumulated understanding of how human beings have related to one another throughout the 300,000 years of our species’ existence. And it is precisely this that makes it of particular interest and relevance to socialists.

To be specific, a central plank of his arguments is how entirely fallacious are the oft-repeated claims that war, aggression and greed are rooted in the human psyche. All the evidence, he insists, is that such forms of behaviour, far from being somehow embedded in our nature, are, when they occur, an outcome of social conditioning and that our evolutionary history shows that we have just as much potential for, and indeed a much more natural bent, towards attachment, caring partnership and cooperation.

Drawing on decades of his own research and with evidence from various different fields of study, he demonstrates how over the approximately 290,000 years of prehistory (the Palaeolithic era), the overwhelming principle of existence among human groups was (and still is today among indigenous populations he has investigated across the world) non-violence, cooperation and egalitarianism, characterised by sharing food, caring for the vulnerable and maintaining social bonds. This the author sums up as ‘community solidarity and harmony’, reinforced by ‘socialization and social control mechanism geared toward promoting prosocial values and behaviors’. Not that violence, greed or attempts to monopolise necessities would never have occurred in Palaeolithic societies or never occur in modern indigenous cultures, but in such circumstances ways are usually found to resolve the conflicts caused via ‘restorative’ methods or by reconciliation, eschewing violence and seeking to practice ‘fairness’ in the eyes of the individuals most directly affected and of the collectivity. But in the rare cases where this is not possible, it may be necessary to apply sanctions to ‘wrongdoers’, probably via some form of social ostracism or banishment. As for large-scale organised killing, the author echoes the now widely accepted view that this has been largely a feature of the last approximately 10,000 years. Starting then, hunter-gatherer life (referred to in this book as ‘nomadic foraging’) gave way to settled agriculture with social hierarchies and control and domination of wealth by small groups of people developing and eventually becoming the norm. Later, of course, the industrial production of capitalism took over from agricultural society, but that society continued to manifest, as it still does, those same basic features: power and wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, leaders and led, and a willingness of the many, via social conditioning, to sacrifice themselves in the interests of the privileged few.

This book is one of many in the field of anthropology, archaeology and a gamut of other disciplines which have contributed to exploding the enduring myth that violence, competition and selfishness are somehow ‘locked into’ human interaction, that there exists inevitably some kind of ‘war of all against all’. Douglas Fry’s stark opposition to that idea is summed up in his statement that ‘on the basis of cross-cultural data … humans have a universal inclination to resolve conflicts and restore normal patterns of harmonious social interaction’ and that ‘the normal state of social affairs is to exchange good deeds, to feel gratitude, to be generous and appreciate the generosity of others. Overall, people strive to maintain positive interpersonal relations with others through mutually beneficial exchanges’.

All this is serious grist to the mill for socialists, providing as it does a powerful response to those who argue that the cooperative society of voluntary endeavour and free access to all goods and services which we call socialism is impossible because it is against what is usually referred to as ‘human nature’. We cannot but agree with the author’s plea that ‘the human potential for resolving conflicts without violence should be fully acknowledged, nurtured, and further elaborated by the people sharing one small planet in the vastness of space’. At the same time, however, though this plea is expressed, as all else in this book, in truly engaging fashion, it is difficult to see how its substance can be realised within the framework of the current social system of class division and production for profit. Rather, the environment for it to come to fruition has to be a society of economic equality and production for need.

Howard Moss

Life and Times: Detectorists and grave robbers (2026)

The Life and Times column from the July 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

I recently tuned in to two investigative series on Radio 4. Though they told what on the surface seemed quite different tales, they were linked by an important, in fact fundamental feature of the society we live in. They both equally vividly illustrated the hold that money has on us and the lengths to which some of us will go to obtain it. The first one told the story of two metal detectorists who stumbled upon a hoard of ancient Anglo-Saxon coins and decided not to follow the legal requirement to surrender them to the Treasury but to keep them and try to sell them secretly. The series was aptly entitled ‘Fool’s Gold’, since, in the end, the ‘gold’ they found had disastrous results for them. The second one, ‘The Grave Robbers’, investigated the fraudulent methods used by a covert group to claim the estates of people who die without leaving a will.

Detectorists declaring their discovery of ancient coins or artefacts are entitled to 50 percent of what the Treasury deems to be their value, the other 50 percent going to the owner of the land on which they were found. That value, however, is usually only a fraction of what collectors will pay on the black market. In this case the ‘official’ value of the coins in question was likely to be up to £12m. But the 50 percent of that amount the discoverers would have been eligible to receive was not enough for them and they chose to try to sell the coins themselves. It didn’t work, since, as the series told us, in the close-knit detectorist community secrets don’t stay secret for long, especially as, when some of the coins started appearing at a Mayfair auction house, rumours of an undeclared hoard begin to spread. The upshot was that the detectorists were exposed and went on the run, but finished up in the dock accused of theft and given prison sentences. However, hundreds of the coins remained unaccounted for, and still do.

The other series, ‘The Grave Robbers’, investigated a different kind of fraud, one where a ‘crime group’ uses forged wills to claim ownership of houses when people who lived in them on their own die without leaving a will. The ‘gang’ forges wills, as the programme put it, ‘to take the homes of the dead’, with the result that any genuine heirs that might exist are left with nothing. The series found that the group in question, based in Eastern Europe, was also involved in cannabis farms, money laundering and the sale of fake UK work visas. We hear from neighbours of a deceased man how the gang, using false but legally approved documents, had taken possession of his house, selling everything of value and using the property for whatever purpose they saw fit.

Both these stories illustrate the rampant hold that money or the prospect of it can have on human actions. And they are of course just the tip of the iceberg. We know that every day multiple attempts of all description are made to carry out what has come to be called ‘scam’ activity at the expense of both individuals and institutions, facilitated of course by the tools of electronic media.

Should we be surprised at this? Probably not, since the class-divided system we live in, where a tiny minority own most of the wealth and the vast majority own little but their ability to work for that majority in order to keep their heads above water, is by its nature a dog-eat-dog affair. Though vast wealth rarely brings meaningful satisfaction to the minority who have it, they do have praise and privilege heaped upon them, creating the temptation among others to look for ways of becoming part of that, to ‘get rich’, even at the expense of others who have little themselves. There is much talk of guarding against scams, but, within a system ruled by money, profit and wealth accumulation, such activities cannot be controlled. There may be attempts, via legislation or policing, to curb their extent, but, as with the other multiple problems the system throws up, it is unlikely to end up as anything more than tinkering at the edges.

Having said this, we must also observe that, though few people would mind having more money or being rich, the vast majority of us would not stoop to cheating or deceiving other individuals to achieve that purpose. At the same time, it cannot be denied that, while we are essentially cooperative creatures, we are also capable of a wide range of non-cooperative behaviours according to the situations we find ourselves in or are imposed on us. So, in some of us, the competitive nature of the society we live in can trigger anti-social forms of behaviour – the so-called ‘worst instincts’. Yet we all know from personal experience and on a day-today basis that most of those around us, far from seeking to make gain at the expense or disadvantage of others, are more likely to go out of their way to come to their assistance. It is, in fact, no exaggeration to say that even the very system we live in, competitive though it is at the core, depends on us cooperating with one another on a day-to-day basis in order for it to operate. The remarkable thing is that, though ‘money rules’ is the bane of most people’s existence, dictating actions and priorities and often causing hardship and suffering, this does not prevent so many of us from behaving generously towards others even if it means financial loss or inconvenience for ourselves. The recent World Happiness Report by Gallup, after carrying out exhaustive research, concludes that a key source of human happiness is being generous to others and engaging in volunteering activity. This writer can only reflect on how much more effectively human cooperation and generosity would flourish in the moneyless society based on voluntary work, democratic organisation and free access to all goods and services that we call socialism.

Howard Moss

Indo-European (2026)

Book Review from the July 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Proto. How One Ancient Language Went Global. By Laura Spinney. William Collins. 2026. 342pp.

‘Migration has been a constant, “indigenous” is relative’ – Laura Spinney.

This is a book about the ancient language commonly known as Proto Indo-European which, starting around 5,000 years ago, began to spread beyond its home territory in the west Eurasian steppe (modern Ukraine, Moldova, southern Russia) in various different directions. As it did so, it gradually evolved into many different languages according to where the people speaking it went and settled.

Modern research has shown that today approximately half the world’s population speak a variant of that ancestral language in places as far apart as, for example, India and Britain, Iran and Iceland, Russia and the United States. What kind of research are we talking about? Archaeological, linguistic and, most recently, genetic. As the book’s author puts it, ‘the new tools of archaeology and genetics [largely via DNA] have opened our eyes to our past’. And she shows a breathtaking panoply of knowledge in these fields as well as a profound and detailed understanding of historical developments across the world since the earliest times. Furthermore, while producing a work of consummate scholarship, she manages to communicate her material with a reader-friendly lightness of touch and a style which, much of the time, is downright entertaining.

So, as the original Indo-Europeans moved east, west and south from their homeland, they came into contact with other peoples speaking other languages. Sometimes they ended up adopting the languages they came into contact with, but more often they carried on speaking a form of their original language modified by the different forms of speech of those they interacted with. To such an extent in fact that, over a period of time, many of the languages deriving from Indo-European became mutually incomprehensible – as is the case today between, say, Hindi and English or Russian and French or Welsh and Kurdish, all of which are of Indo-European origin.

The story of the spread of the common ancestor of many of the roughly 7,000 languages spoken around the world today is also part of the story of the wider inbuilt ability of the human species to adapt to changing circumstances of life – referred to by some writers as ‘plasticity’. We are talking here about human behaviour more generally and the truth that the way a human group organises itself in a given physical or social environment context has never been eternal but rather is subject to change according to conditions and circumstances and has been ever-shifting over history.

In its own way, therefore, the story so eloquently told in this book serves as an object lesson to opponents of the idea that there is no alternative to the kind of society we live in and that other different social arrangements, such as the free-access society advocated by socialists, are impossible or ‘utopian’. Those who maintain that we must continue to accept and live in a society divided by class and wealth would do well to heed the fact, made abundantly clear by Laura Spinney, that, in the less than 2 percent of the whole of human history she covers in her book (ie 5,000 years out of 300,000), we have undergone and adapted to multiple changes both linguistically and in a host of other domains. And there is certainly more of this to come. Just as, in Spinney’s words, ‘throughout humanity’s long existence, languages have never ceased to absorb and change each other’, we look forward to changed social arrangements in the future which will allow humans to move from the realm of oppression and necessity to that of cooperation and abundance.

Howard Moss

Letter: Animal liberation and socialism (2026)

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

Animal liberation and socialism

As a member of the organisation Socialism for Animal Liberation referenced in Howard Moss’s article ‘The Annual Vegan Fair’ (Socialist Standard, May 2026), I would like to make the following response.

SAL was formed in the summer of last year with three very clear goals. The first being to campaign for an end to all forms of animal abuse. The second being to bring anti-capitalist ideas into the animal rights movement. The third being to bring animal liberationist arguments into the movements of the left. We also understood SAL to be an emerging coalition of individuals and groups and welcomed participation from all different revolutionary traditions, whether they be socialist, anarchist, communist or radical green.

Bearing this in mind, I was a bit surprised by some of Howard’s comments.

For starters, Howard doesn’t seem to think that SAL is as committed to socialist politics as we are to animal liberation and feels that the organization will end up concentrating on individual acts of animal abuse to the neglect of systemic change. To be blunt, I really don’t know where this comes from since in all our literature and in all our presentations we make it crystal clear that it is only with socialism and socialism alone that we will end not just the exploitation of people by capital but also of animals and the natural world that we share the planet with. The modern-day animal rights movement, by contrast, often neglects the need for political change, focussing instead on personal outreach around veganism, on boycott, on direct action and on lobbying, all of which have their role but which ultimately cannot deliver animal liberation.

Howard makes the comment that SAL doesn’t appear to have a clear understanding of socialism and then lists some of the indices of what constitutes a post capitalist society such as its being moneyless and leaderless. I’d personally consider many of these criteria to be more indicative of a communist society than of a socialist state but I’ll agree to disagree with Howard on that one, as I do with anarchist comrades in SAL! If Howard means that not everyone would sign up to the SPGB definition then he’s completely correct, SAL being a coalition of shared concerns rather than a political party.

Some of Howard’s remarks unfortunately read along the lines that everything will be ok come the revolution, something more than problematic on several counts. The history of women’s relationship and socialist revolutions shows that if the left don’t take on demands in the here and now they are highly unlikely to be realised in the future. Likewise, does the Socialist Party of Great Britain have a formal commitment to animal liberation? If it doesn’t, and I’m fairly sure it doesn’t, then why should we see the end of the meat and dairy industry, of vivisection and of all bloodsports come socialism? Securing animal liberation means transforming human society in its entirety, hence the reason why comrades of SAL in other countries have spent so much time developing a programme that is both revolutionary and transitional.

Ultimately with its emphasis on ending profit-based relationships, on social ownership and a planned economy, SAL remains convinced that it is only in the context of a socialist society that animals will achieve true liberation. However, whilst we see that socialism as laying the material basis for animal liberation, there is no inevitable relationship between the two unless we consciously choose to develop one.

Finally, I’m not sure I was present at the online meeting that Howard attended but, like all organisations, when we come together to discuss action, the nature of that meeting will be determined by who attends and by what the agenda is. One month, much of the discussion might centre on how best to support the recent Beagles campaign, understandably so. Another month, most of the meeting might concentrate on discussing the finer points of Marxist theory and how it does, and doesn’t, fit into animal liberationist narratives. In other words, had Howard attended another meeting he might have come away with a totally different impression.

For the liberation of all,

Steven Andrew, 

Salford

Reply:

The article about Socialism for Animal Liberation (SAL) in the May Socialist Standard was largely sympathetic to that group’s analysis of society and its statement of intent. However, it did pick up on the contradiction between calling for complete ‘system change’ and at the same time seeming to focus on reforms to deal with particular problems within the current system. It made the point that focusing on single issues (animal abuse in this case) simply pushes real system change into the background. There is also the fact that any apparent progress via reforms can be – and often is – easily reversed by a mere change of government. A current example of this is the declaration by Nigel Farage that there is nothing wrong with fox-hunting and his suggestion that, if his Party came to power (something not entirely unlikely), the ban on it could be relaxed.

So while history has shown that single-issue campaigns and reforms can achieve a small degree of progress for both humans and animals, it is clear that they cannot lead to real revolutionary change. In other words, contrary to what our correspondent says, it is impossible to be both ‘revolutionary and transitional’ at the same time. The second of these simply precludes the first.

In addition, there is a manifest difference between what he means by socialism and what the Socialist Party means. While, like him, we work for a society without ‘profit-based relationships’, such a society could only come about through doing away with money, buying and selling and leaders and led, something he seems to reject – perhaps because he cannot imagine it. Nothing short of that could give us the ‘post-capitalist’ society he says he is looking for. Anything else would still be some form of capitalism – perhaps state capitalism – which would be unlikely to be a significant improvement for people (or for animals) on what we have now. Above all it would be a ‘state’ system, and, though he uses the term ‘socialist state’, that is in fact a contradiction in terms, since, if socialism is anything meaningful, it is a stateless and borderless society. Moreover, contrary to the distinction our correspondent wants to make between ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’, we’re perfectly happy for such a society to be called either. Like Marx, we consider the two terms to be synonymous and both to mean a society of free access to all goods and services where both humans and animals will be most likely to live decent, comfortable and unexploited lives. – Editors.

Life and Times: The Annual Vegan Fair (2026)

The Life and Times column from the May 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Vegan Fair I went to near where I live was quite an event. People milled around outside the hall where it was being held and on either side of the entrance there were queues at the two food-to-go stalls, one of them offering Persian vegan mezze and the other vegan American-style burgers. I’d arranged to meet my friend Jane, an enthusiastic anti-vivisection campaigner, and when I arrived, she was already outside the hall handing out leaflets and asking people for petition signatures. I greatly admire her dedication and share her concern for the suffering that vast numbers of animals are subjected to in the millions of experiments on them every year – many for no faintly useful purpose. And I’m sympathetic to the vegan cause more generally and to those who put the case for it, though I also think that such things as the food people eat and the clothes they wear must in the end be a matter of personal choice.

Entrance to the hall itself was free and the place was packed. There were stalls and tables of various kinds selling a variety of different types of food as well as jewellery, clothes and ornaments. People seemed most interested in the food and I suppose I was too. What caught my eye among all else was, of all things, a stall offering a wide selection of different types of olive. I liked the look of one particular kind and the young woman at the table selling them told me they were ‘a special olive’. So I asked for some. They turned out be a special price. Too late. I should have asked about that first. But never mind.

Later on, I sat down with Jane and one of her fellow campaigners at the large dining table in the centre of the hall. We’d bought coffee and snacks and, as we ate and talked, I also began looking at the various leaflets and flyers scattered across the table. One in particular caught my eye. It was headed ‘Socialists for Animal Liberation (SAL)’. I read what it had to say and was definitely impressed. One of its paragraphs went as follows: ‘Capitalism is a highly destructive system that drives inequality, war, famine and environmental collapse in order to concentrate wealth and extreme power in the hands of the few. The need for a new economic system is clear. But if we want a future that’s sustainable and one that is not predicated on violence or exploitation, then we must reject capitalism and simultaneously reject all forms of animal exploitation’. It went on to outline aspects of the suffering inflicted on animals by factory farming, adding that ’no amount of suffering is too much for a system which cares only about maximising profit’ and concluding that ‘a post-capitalist society will inherently end the exploitation of animals’.

Later, I used the email address on it to write for further information, outlining what it seemed to me SAL had in common with the Socialist Party but also mentioning that many socialists could only see decent treatment for animals as a pipe dream under a system that set so little store by decent treatment for humans. I amplified this by saying that I thought we should therefore put our energies into campaigning for ‘system change’ (ie a new democratic, marketless, leaderless world system of production for use, without buying and selling or wages and salaries and based on free access to all goods and services) rather than focusing on issues within capitalism that we might consider ‘immediate’ and ‘priority’. I expressed the view that to do otherwise could only have the effect of postponing real system change until the first of never. I nevertheless stressed my personal sympathy with the concerns of the group and asked for more information about SAL and its activities.

I got a quick and friendly reply from their organiser, Claire, together with a copy of the SAL manifesto, which, as well as calling for involvement in ongoing issues of ‘animal rights’, stated: ‘With its emphasis on ending profit-based relationships, on social ownership and a planned economy, SAL remains convinced that it is only in the context of a socialist society that animals will achieve true liberation’. I couldn’t disagree with this or with their statement that they welcomed ‘any reduction, big or small, in the abuse that animals suffer’. Claire also invited me to the group’s next online meeting the following week, which I attended and found interesting, even if I wasn’t convinced that everyone there had a clear notion of what socialism meant. Since then, I’ve been invited to other meetings, one of which was a ‘reading group’ to discuss an article entitled ‘The Case for Socialist Veganism’ from an American journal, Monthly Review. I wasn’t able to attend but, since I’d a written a piece on that very article in a recent issue of the Socialist Standard, I drew Claire’s attention to it and she replied that she would circulate it among the group. I don’t know if she did and, if so, what they made of it, but I couldn’t help thinking that it might well be submerged in discussion of what could be done to alleviate the plight of animals here and now.

Perhaps that’s being unfair, but when, at the vegan fair that day, I drew the attention of Jane, my anti-vivisectionist friend, to the SAL leaflet, she showed little interest, focused as she was on her own immediate mission. And I couldn’t help feeling that, despite the SAL group’s stated desire for a ‘post-capitalist’ society, their overwhelming focus too would be on the various reforms they were chasing in the current system and which, even if achieved, would bring us no nearer the aim stated in their leaflet of ‘a future that works for people, planet and animals’.

Howard Moss

Moral stories (2026)

Book Review from the May 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Moral Ambition. Stop Wasting Your Talent and Start Making a Difference. By Rutger Bregman. Bloomsbury. 2025. 283pp.

‘Humans are social creatures through and through’ (Rutger Bregman)

This is the third of Dutch historian Rutger Bregman’s books to have garnered attention and praise from a wide range of quarters. His theme is, as before, the need for large-scale social change, and on a planetary scale. Described on the book’s dust cover as ‘the internationally bestselling author’, Bregman proposes morally founded activities that people can become involved in to ‘start making a difference’ and help bring about such change. One of the impressive endorsements by various writers and commentators in the book’s opening pages describes it as ‘packed with powerful insights, inspiring stories, and data to back it up’. Another refers to it as ‘a true bible of realistic idealism’. And it is definitely an invigorating and thought-provoking read.

It focuses in significant part on the work of a number of individuals who, by virtue of their dedication and determination to certain causes, have ‘made a difference’, either historically or more recently, to the lives of large numbers of people. Examples of such individuals, some of them little known, include:

• Thomas Clarkson, who, from the age of 24 in 1785, dedicated his life to campaigning against slavery at a time when, as the author points out, the very notion of abolishing slavery seemed unthinkable;
• Arnold Douwes, the Dutchman, who, in the Second World War and at enormous risk to himself, devoted himself to finding shelter for Jews who otherwise would have been transported to concentration camps;
• Ralph Nader, who over very many years campaigned indefatigably in the US against the advertising and sale of manifestly dangerous products and managed to recruit a whole ‘brigade of Davids’ who ‘combined moral indignation with laborious research’ and eventually become known as ‘Naders Raiders’;
• Rosa Parks, the black woman in Alabama who wouldn’t give up her seat to a white passenger on a bus and lit the spark for the civil rights movement;
• Rob Mather, the British business executive, who, in the early 2000s, inspired voluntary and charitable activity among thousands for the purpose of raising money to combat the world’s single largest killer of children, malaria, and up to the present day is estimated to have saved over 100,000 lives;
• and Joey Savoie, a Canadian would-be psychology student who instead dedicated himself to intensive charitable work and founded a school of ‘Charity Entrepreneurship’ whose graduates then set up projects such as Fortify Health that teaches local millers in India to enrich wheat flower with iron, folic acid and vitamin B2 as a way of reducing iron deficiency anaemia among millions there and protecting against congenital defects like spina bifida.

Bregman also gives space to philanthropists such as Katherine McCormick, whose sponsorship of research into female contraception resulted in the pill and so gave millions of women a new kind of control over their lives, and to campaigning scientists like Joseph Salk and Viktor Zhdanov whose dedication and determination brought crippling and deadly diseases like polio and smallpox under control. And he tells all sorts of other quite fascinating tales of people who have dedicated themselves to ‘making a difference’, some much against the odds of their upbringing, education and the society around them. He frames these with the consideration that ‘a small group of determined individuals can have enormous influence’.

Such stories make this a truly compelling book, as also does its manifest ambition to contribute to improving the lives of humans. So is there anything not to like? In the course of the recent Reith Lectures which its author delivered for the BBC on the subject of ‘moral revolution’, he described himself, on more than one occasion, as ‘an old-fashioned social democrat’. And the trouble is that, just like so many others who call themselves ‘social democrats’, he confines himself to seeking to solve or alleviate the world’s problems within the confines of the existing system, capitalism. His abiding focus is on how to make that system better.

With this book, therefore, he has produced a kind of guide to reformism, novel and very readable, but never seeking to peer outside of the constricting framework of existing society, based as it is on monetary exchange, buying and selling and production for profit. This means that, despite the fact that certain problems may be capable of alleviation or even solution through devoted campaigning or pressure on governments, in the final analysis the anti-human needs of the market and its profit imperative will never allow continuing and widespread scourges such as poverty, insecurity, oppression and unfulfilling work to be consigned to history, and tragedies such as wars and environmental degradation will ever lurk and sometimes pounce. In other words, while admirable in so many ways, this book fails to engage with the real reason that renders necessary all the campaigning and dedication its author records and recommends to others.

That is not to say that the kind of campaigning activity recommended by Bregman – radical, persistent and confident in its ideas – is not necessary. However, it needs to be focused not on ‘morality’ but on challenging the system at source and creating a society capable of offering to everyone a share of the potential wealth and abundance that capitalism – with its interconnected production across the globe, its robots, 3-D printing and digital media – has made possible. Currently all this is being held back by the artificial scarcity and oppression associated with the market, money and production for profit and will only be achievable on the basis of common ownership, the abolition of the market and free access to wealth.

Howard Moss