SPGB May Events (2026)

Party News from the May 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.

Blogger's Note:

Harald Sandø's book, Waking Up, was reviewed in the August 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Abolish the wages system (2026)

From the January 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalism is based on minority ownership and control of the means of production (land, railways, factories, food distribution, etc), that is, the means to produce what we need to survive and flourish. Production is for profit not human need. If something isn’t profitable it isn’t produced. Work is done by people who are forced by economic necessity to sell their ability to work for a wage.

How did the wages system come about? Well, it depends on who you ask, and whereabouts in the world you go to ask the question. If you ask the capitalist propagandists they will say it is because human beings decided to trade with one another and money was a way of doing this more efficiently. This is a lie that ignores the numerous indigenous communities from America to Africa to Australia whose land was forcibly and violently taken.

America is a land stolen from a people and built with the labour of other people whose land was stolen from them. In Britain, we had the Enclosure Acts of the 18th and 19th centuries in which roughly 5.5 million acres of common land was forcibly taken and placed into private hands, with mass evictions of agricultural communities. In Scotland in the Highland Clearances between 1750 and 1830 roughly 70,000 to over 150,000 people were ‘cleared’ from the land.

This story of enclosure and clearances was a win-win for the ruling class: communal land was turned into profit, specifically sheep farming in Scotland, and a mass of dispossessed people was created who owned nothing but their ability to labour, which they were forced to sell to survive. In 1750 Glasgow’s population was 32,000. By 1851 it was over 300,000. That’s the scale of the operation.

Marx wrote that capital comes into the world dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt. That is the real story of how the wages system came into existence.

Why abolish the wages system? Because it is exploitative. The surplus value of our labour is taken from us by the capitalist parasites in the form of profit. It is also alienating in a number of ways.

Alienation from the product: we don’t own or control what we make; it ends up feeling like something outside us — even something used against us. We’re forced to buy back the products of our labour from the capitalists.

Alienation from the labour process: we don’t shape how we work; the pace, purpose, and methods are set by others, so our work is disconnected from who we are.

Alienation from other people: we’re pushed into competition and treated as commodities, which strains our relationships and weakens solidarity.

Alienation from nature: we’re cut off from the natural world; nature is reduced to a resource for profit, creating a rupture between how we live and the environment we depend on.

Alienation from our species-being: we lose the chance to express our creativity and human potential; work becomes just survival, not self-realisation.

Endless economic growth on a finite planet threatens ecological disaster. In 2024 alone, about 8.1 million hectares of forest were lost globally — roughly an area the size of England. Over 47,000 species are currently threatened with extinction. Wildlife populations have plummeted over recent decades: on average, global wildlife populations have dropped by about 73 percent over the last 50 years — a collapse driven by habitat destruction, pollution, deforestation, and industrial exploitation of nature.

War is an extension of the war of the market place involving different gangs of capitalists. Socialists were among the brave class-conscious workers who refused to murder their fellow workers in the first and second world wars, declaring instead the socialist mantra: ‘a bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends’.

The Socialist Party was formed in 1904 as a breakaway from the reformist and authoritarian Social Democratic Federation. We are a leaderless organisation that holds, like Marx, that ‘the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself’. We, also like Marx, define socialism as a stateless, moneyless society based on production for human need (as opposed to sale on the market) in which people will no longer have to work for wages.

Left-wingers don’t offer a real alternative. Lenin combined the state and the wages system into one tyrannical regime. Corbyn and Zarah Sultana claim to be socialists but what they’re actually advocating for is an impossibly humanised capitalism.

The only viable and practical solution to the world’s problems is socialism, a moneyless stateless society based on production for human need. Apologists for capitalism tell us that we’re greedy, selfish, bloodthirsty. Let the parasite class speak for themselves! Workers demonstrate their moral character every day through small acts of workplace solidarity. We can and will organise ourselves into a leaderless organisation of the working class for the working class when, as Marx put it, we take off our banners the conservative motto ‘a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work’ and inscribe instead the revolutionary watchword ‘abolish the wages system’.

Johnny Mercer

Blogger's Note:

Though it isn't mentioned in the text, I believe this article is partly based on the talk that Johnny gave in London last November. An audio recording of that talk is available at the following link.

World Socialist Radio - Abolish the Wages System (2025)

From the Socialism or Your Money Back blog

Abolish The Wages System: Why We Need To Get Rid Of Capitalism by The Socialist Party of Great Britain

This episode is a recording of a talk given by Johnny Mercer at The Socialist Party’s Head Office on 30th November 2025.

The speaker outlines the Socialist Party of Great Britain’s case for abolishing the wage system, arguing that capitalism is rooted in minority ownership of the means of production and in production for profit rather than human need. They reject the idea that capitalism emerged naturally, instead tracing its origins to violent dispossession – from the Enclosures and Highland Clearances in Britain to slavery and colonialism globally – which created a propertyless working class forced to sell its labour. Drawing on Marx, the talk emphasises the exploitative and alienating nature of wage labour, detailing how workers are separated from the products of their work, the labour process, each other, nature, and ultimately their own human potential. Capitalism’s pursuit of endless growth is linked to ecological destruction, and global conflict is framed as competition between capitalist interests fought at the expense of the working class.

The second half outlines the principles of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, founded in 1904 as a breakaway from reformist movements and committed to a leaderless, democratic, revolutionary transformation. The speaker defines socialism as a stateless, moneyless society based on common ownership and production for need, stressing that emancipation must be won consciously by the working class itself. They argue that all other political parties – including those considered left-wing – ultimately support capitalism, offering only reforms rather than systemic change. The talk concludes by urging workers to unite under the SPGB’s banner to replace capitalism’s inequalities with a society grounded in freedom, equality, and genuine human solidarity.

World Socialist Radio is the official podcast of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. We have one single aim: the establishment of a society in which all productive resources – land, water, factories, transport, etc. – are taken into common ownership, and in which the sole motive for production is the fulfilment of human needs and wants.

RSS Feed for Abolish The Wages System: Why We Need To Get Rid Of Capitalism.

To read more news, views, and analysis please visit: worldsocialism.org/spgb

SPGB London Meeting: “The Romantics’ Critique of Capitalism.” (2025)

An SPGB meeting next Saturday at their Head Office in South London. Cut and pasted below is a post from Johnny Mercer, who will be the speaker at the meeting:

"CALLING All ROMANTIC REVOLUTIONARIES: Mulled wine and a Christmas critique of capitalism, what’s not to love? In this talk I’ll be discussing the revolutionary ideas of people like Shelley, Turner, and Mary Wollstonecraft. I’ll be analysing how romantic concepts influenced socialists from Marx to Morris. And how these ideas continued in art/anti-art movements from Dada, to the Situationists, to a bit on my own arts practice. As ever plenty of time for questions and discussion! 3pm Sat 13th of December, 52 Clapham High Street. PLEASE SHARE LONDON ARTSY FOLKS!"

SPGB December Events (2025)

Party News from the December 2025 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.

SPGB November Events (2025)

Party News from the November 2025 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.

Computer says ‘SPGB’ (2025)

From the March 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following is the result of an AI experiment, as it happened, with no edits.

QUESTION: Which organisation is the most orthodox Marxist in the U.K?

CHATGPT: The most orthodox Marxist organization in the UK is generally considered to be the Communist Party of Britain (CPB). It adheres closely to traditional Marxist-Leninist principles, emphasizing class struggle, the establishment of a proletarian dictatorship, and the eventual goal of achieving socialism through revolution. The CPB does not adopt the more modern or revisionist approaches seen in other left-wing groups, and it remains committed to the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. Other groups with a similar orientation include Workers’ Party of Britain (WPB) and certain factions within the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee), but the CPB is typically seen as the most prominent and consistently orthodox in terms of Marxist ideology.

QUESTION: Isn’t it Leninist?

CHATGPT: Yes, you’re absolutely right! The Communist Party of Britain (CPB) is indeed more accurately described as Marxist-Leninist rather than just Marxist. Marxism-Leninism refers to the application and adaptation of Marxist theory by Lenin, particularly focusing on the role of the vanguard party, the importance of proletarian revolution, and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat as a precursor to socialism and communism. The CPB embraces these Leninist concepts, as well as the idea of centralized, disciplined party leadership in the struggle for revolution. In summary, while the CPB is rooted in orthodox Marxism, it also incorporates the key elements of Lenin’s thought, making it more accurately classified as a Marxist-Leninist organization.

QUESTION: But if Marx said that ‘the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself’ doesn’t this contradict Lenin’s notion of a vanguard of ‘professional revolutionaries’?

CHATGPT: You’re right to point out that there’s a potential tension between Marx’s emphasis on the working class emancipating itself and Lenin’s concept of a vanguard party led by professional revolutionaries. This has been a point of significant debate among Marxist theorists and revolutionaries.

Marx’s vision of emancipation: Marx famously wrote in The Communist Manifesto that ‘the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself’.” This suggests that workers must be the active agents of their own liberation, which implies a democratic, self-organized process of revolution led by the working class itself. Marx was critical of any attempts to impose revolution from above or to replace the class struggle with a leadership-driven project.

Lenin’s vanguard party: Lenin, in contrast, argued that the working class, on its own, would not necessarily develop the class consciousness required to overthrow capitalism. He believed that, due to the oppression and alienation inherent in capitalism, the workers could be bogged down by trade union consciousness, which focuses on immediate economic struggles rather than revolutionary transformation. Hence, Lenin proposed the need for a vanguard party—a highly disciplined, centralized group of professional revolutionaries who would guide the proletariat towards revolutionary consciousness and lead the struggle for a socialist revolution. Lenin argued that such a party would be essential to navigate the complexities of revolution and maintain the direction of the struggle, which he felt the working class on its own might not be able to do effectively.

Contradiction or development?

While at first glance these two perspectives seem contradictory, Lenin viewed his ideas as a necessary development of Marx’s theory in response to the historical and social conditions of his time. Lenin’s view is that in a period of imperialism and complex state power, workers needed not just to rise up spontaneously but to be led by a well-organized, politically aware, and disciplined party to successfully seize power.

Critics of Lenin’s approach argue that it undermines the Marxist idea of workers’ self-emancipation and could potentially lead to a bureaucratic, top-down system that alienates the masses (as they believe happened in the Soviet Union). On the other hand, Leninists argue that a vanguard party is necessary to channel the spontaneous energies of the working class into a coherent revolutionary force.

Conclusion: In short, the tension you’ve identified is a key point of divergence between orthodox Marxism (focused on working-class self-emancipation) and Marxist-Leninism (which emphasizes the role of a vanguard party). Lenin’s theory of revolution was intended to address what he saw as the practical challenges of organizing for revolution in a more complex and repressive capitalist society, but it is indeed a departure from Marx’s emphasis on working-class self-liberation.

QUESTION: With that in mind shouldn’t the answer to my first question be the SPGB?

CHATGPT: Yes, you raise a very valid point. The Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) could indeed be considered one of the most orthodox Marxist organizations in the UK, particularly in the sense of adhering to the principles that Marx articulated, especially the idea of working-class self-emancipation.

SPGB’s approach: The SPGB, founded in 1904, explicitly rejects the idea of a vanguard party and the Leninist approach of professional revolutionaries. The SPGB maintains a Marxist stance that the working class must achieve socialism through its own efforts, emphasizing the necessity of democratic control, self-emancipation, and conscious political action. It stands by the view that the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself, which aligns closely with Marx’s original vision, rather than a top-down leadership model.

The SPGB rejects any form of dictatorship of the proletariat or the centralization of power within a vanguard party. Instead, it focuses on the need for a majority of the working class to develop socialist consciousness and democratically take control of the means of production.

Contrast with Leninism: In this sense, the SPGB is indeed much closer to the orthodox Marxist position that you mentioned earlier, as it emphasizes that revolutionary action must arise from the working class itself rather than being led by a professional revolutionary elite, which is a hallmark of Leninist thought.

Conclusion: Given that the CPB (Communist Party of Britain) embraces Marxist-Leninist principles, it places itself more in line with Lenin’s ideas about the role of a vanguard party. Meanwhile, the SPGB adheres strictly to Marx’s original notion of working-class self-emancipation, without the leadership of a vanguard party, making it a more orthodox Marxist organization in terms of the original ideas put forward by Marx. So, in that sense, the SPGB would be a more accurate answer to your question.

QUESTION: Also Lenin believed that a state run wages system was the same as socialism but Marx believe in the abolition of the state and the wages system, didn’t he?

CHATGPT: Yes, you’re absolutely right again in pointing out a fundamental difference between Marx and Lenin on the nature of socialism, particularly regarding the state and the wages system. These differences are crucial in understanding the divergence between orthodox Marxism and Marxist-Leninism.

Marx on the state and the wages system: Marx believed that the ultimate goal of socialism was the abolition of both the state and the wages system. He argued that the state, under capitalism, was a tool of class oppression, serving the interests of the ruling capitalist class. In his vision, after a proletarian revolution, the state would gradually ‘wither away’ as class distinctions disappear and a truly classless society emerges. In a communist society, there would no longer be a need for the state as a coercive apparatus because the working class would have collectively taken control of the means of production, and the social relations of production would be radically transformed.

Regarding the wages system, Marx saw it as an essential part of capitalist exploitation, where workers sell their labour power for a wage, which is less than the value they create. In a socialist society, he envisioned the abolition of the wages system and the creation of a system based on communal ownership and the distribution of goods according to need, rather than labour performed.

Lenin on the state and the wages system: Lenin, in contrast, believed that the state would play a central role even under socialism, particularly in the early stages following the revolution. He argued that, initially, the state would need to be used to consolidate power, defend the revolution, and suppress counter-revolutionary elements. For Lenin, the state was a necessary instrument during the transition from capitalism to socialism—what he called the dictatorship of the proletariat—and that it would eventually wither away once class distinctions were fully abolished.

As for the wages system, Lenin and the Bolsheviks viewed the establishment of state control over industry and wages as a necessary step in the transition to socialism. While they aimed to move away from capitalist private ownership, they still believed in maintaining a state-run economy with wages and a system of production, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the revolution. In other words, they didn’t abolish wages in the early Soviet Union but rather reorganized the system under state control.

Lenin’s view was that the ‘state socialism’ (state-controlled means of production and distribution) implemented by the Bolsheviks was a form of socialism, even though it did not immediately meet Marx’s ultimate vision of a stateless, classless, and wage-less society. Lenin saw this as a necessary transitional phase, where the workers’ state would manage the economy and prepare the ground for the eventual realization of full communism.

The core difference:

• Marx: Aims for the abolition of the state and the wages system as part of the realization of communism, where society is based on cooperation, voluntary labour, and the fulfilment of human needs.
• Lenin: Sees the state as necessary during the transitional phase from capitalism to socialism, and views the wages system as a feature that would still exist in the early stages of socialism, but under state control.

Conclusion: So, while Marx envisioned a stateless, wage-less society as the final stage of socialism, Lenin believed that the state and wages would play a role in the early stages of socialism before ultimately transitioning toward full communism. Lenin’s perspective on the state and the wages system marks a significant departure from Marx’s more revolutionary and radical vision for the future of socialism. This difference is one of the key points of contention between Marxist-Leninist thought and orthodox Marxism.

QUESTION: So what is the most orthodox Marxist political party in the U.K?

CHATGPT: Given the distinctions you’ve highlighted between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, and the critiques of Lenin’s approach to the state and the wages system, the most orthodox Marxist political party in the UK would indeed be the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB).

Why the SPGB is the most orthodox Marxist party:

1. Commitment to Marx’s vision of the abolition of the state: The SPGB explicitly rejects Lenin’s idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the need for a transitional state. It adheres to Marx’s vision of a stateless, classless society that emerges after the working class takes control of the means of production. The SPGB believes that the state is an instrument of class oppression and must be abolished rather than used as a tool for governance by the proletariat.
2. Opposition to the wages system: The SPGB is also firmly opposed to the wages system as part of the capitalist exploitation that Marx sought to abolish. The party believes that socialism can only be achieved when production is based on human need, not on profit, and when the wages system is replaced by a system of free access to goods and services, according to need.
3. Focus on working-class self-emancipation: Unlike Marxist-Leninist organizations that advocate for a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries, the SPGB holds that the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself. It is a democratic socialist organization that prioritizes education, spreading socialist ideas, and organizing the working class to take control of the economy and political system.
4. Opposition to state socialism: The SPGB critiques any form of state socialism that retains the apparatus of the state and the wages system. It rejects the idea of a transitional period where a state or vanguard party would manage the economy on behalf of the working class, as is typical in Marxist-Leninist thought.

Conclusion: In the context of the UK, where various parties and organizations claim to be socialist, the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) is the most orthodox in terms of adhering to Marx’s original vision of socialism. Its rejection of Leninist strategies, including the dictatorship of the proletariat and the centralization of power in a vanguard party, sets it apart as a party that seeks to follow Marx’s ideas as closely as possible in today’s political climate.

SPGB March Events (2024)

Party News from the March 2024 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.

SPGB Meetings (2024)

Party News from the February 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

The Not So Different World of Harry Potter (2011)

From the August 2011 issue of the Socialist Standard

The last Harry Potter film based on the books by JK Rowling was premiered last month.

In many ways the world described in the Harry Potter books is vastly different from ours. A world of magic, wizards and witches, flying household objects, time travel. Yet despite all this we also find many similarities, especially in regards to their economic system. They, like us, have a money/wages based society.

 

It is not clear why wizards/witches would need a monetary economy given the fact that there is no scarcity, as they possess the powers to create almost anything with the wave of a wand. One could reply to this point with a question of one’s own of course: given the fact that we Muggles have the technology to produce what we need and more ourselves, why do we continue to rely on a system of (mostly artificial) scarcity?

 

One of the main differences is that while all witches and wizards own their own wands (and therefore in a sense their own means of production), in Muggle society the means of production are owned by a minority of the population, leaving the majority forced to sell their labour-power, in exchange for a wage or a salary, to this minority. It follows then that in order to utilise the non-magical technology available to us we first have to reclaim it from the minority who possess it. 

 

Given the fact that wizards and witches have the ability to sustain themselves already available to them, why do they, like so many characters in the books continue to work for a wage or a salary? If it’s simply out of a love for the job or because of a recognition that the work they do is needed for their own and the common good, then why not get rid of the financial incentive all together and allow them to work on a voluntary basis? Yet we don’t see this, all we see is numerous examples of witches and wizards forced to go without the things they need. 

 

An example would be the Weasley family. On numerous occasions in the books we find this family unable to afford the most basic of items. There is, for example, the moment on the Hogwarts express when Ron Weasley is unable to buy food (beginning of the first book I believe) and is forced into the degrading rigmarole of Harry insisting upon buying it for him. 

 

What about the time he is unable to buy a replacement wand and therefore loses a duel to the financially superior Lucian Malfoy? Indeed an impartial observer using only the Weasleys as a case study could assume that poverty and lack of basic necessities was a problem affecting all in the wizarding world. However, further examination shows this not to be the case. As mentioned previously, we have the Malfoys; a very rich family who have more than they could ever want or need.

 

Incidentally why do the Weasleys seem constantly ashamed of their poverty? Their father (Arthur Weasley) is a highly industrious man and their mother (Mollie) has singlehandedly raised seven children, surely if there is to be any shame in their situation it is to be shouldered by wizarding society as a whole?

 

It is not made clear in exactly how the Malfoys are so incredibly wealthy. The vast majority of people in Muggle society who can boast such wealth have only achieved it through extracting the surplus value from the labour of those they employ, did the Malfoys exploit their wealth through similar means, or are they simply a relic of feudalism like today’s aristocracy? 

 

It is true that in one of the books Hermione started a campaign to free house elves from chattel slavery, but there doesn’t seem to have been a movement to abolish wage-slavery.

 

There is also the issue of religion. It cannot go unnoticed that in the magical world of Harry Potter they celebrate Christmas. Yet given the fact that so many witches and wizards were tortured and killed in the name of Christianity (those that couldn’t employ the fire-resisting charm at least) why would they want to celebrate the birth of its founder? One can only assume that our fellow Muggles who go about expounding the supposed word of Christ have made a serious mistake; in actual fact Jesus Christ was not the Son of God but a highly advanced wizard, capable of charms that allowed him to walk on water, cure lepers, and revitalise the dead! “No spell can bring back the dead Harry, I trust you know that,” says Dumbledore in The Goblet of Fire; “Unless you’re Jesus!” should have been Harry’s reply.

Johnny Mercer

Anyone know a lifestyle anarchist? (2011)

From the July 2011 issue of the Socialist Standard

  Keep a look-out for people who are chock-full of undirected, ill-informed revolutionary gusto, but empty of any desire to organise their views into a coherent critique of the world.

Are they easily bored by drab Marxian theory, with its ‘materialist conception of history’ and its ‘labour theory of value’? Do they feel guilty because their parents managed to scrape a bit more out of capitalism than the average wage-slave? Do they feel the need to rebel against daddy’s ‘inbuilt patriarchal mentality’ and mother’s lack of ability to cut the apron strings? Perhaps they like to wear bands around their wrist bearing slogans like ‘make poverty history’ or even better ‘make poverty herstory’. They might feel a sudden urge to grow dreadlocks, wear low crotched shorts, and backpack around the world. They may feel the need to say every damn thing as if it was a question, constantly inserting the word ‘like’ while offering self-righteous homilies about how they ‘just really want to like help the world?’ and how ‘we’ve like got to find like a new way of living?’

They may, in short, be on the verge of becoming a ‘lifestyle anarchist’.

Lifestyle anarchism can best be described as the malformed grandchild of that senile old bat, the sixties hippy movement. It sits in an uncomfortable position somewhere between Che Guevara and Ghandi, Bakunin and the Dalai Lama. Lifestyle anarchists like to engage in what they pretentiously call things like ‘grass roots happenings’ and ‘autonomous eco-resistance.’ To be a lifestyle anarchist you have do things like ‘dumpster diving’ or ‘skipping’ basically taking egotistical pleasure in a society that reduces you to eating out of a bin.

Don’t let a lifestyle anarchist hear you complain about the rent, it’s much cooler to ‘squat’ or even better ‘couch surf’. When university tuition fees get raised again or the trees in the park are chopped down in order to build yet another supermarket, it wouldn’t do to put it down to the shitty social system we live under and then actively encourage fellow workers to help get rid of it, oh no. For the lifestyle anarchist it’s much better to ‘occupy’ a lecture hall or chain themselves to an oak. That is of course until they get dragged away by a policeman, at which point they can really impress all their lifestyle anarchist mates by telling the copper what a ‘brutal like fascist like pig’ he is ‘working for like the man like that’.

Ah yes ‘the man’, is this the start of an understanding of what us socialists mean when we say the capitalist class? Not really, the enemy to the lifestyle anarchist is some sort of white European male, intent on keeping us all in a little box by flying planes into world trade centres then blaming it on really nice guys like the Taliban who only ever wanted to fight oppression. These are just some of the reasons among many why the lifestyle anarchists score very high on the rest of the working class’s bullshit radar.

Many lifestyle anarchists don’t ever seem to work at all, raising the question: when the squats get evicted and the ‘skipping’ is getting harder, where does all the money come from? One lifestyle anarchist I met was very vague about how she actually kept herself financially afloat, for the year or so she had spent hitch-hiking around Europe, preferring to answer the question with a patronising ‘you don’t actually need lots of money you know’. ‘Yes.’ I felt like saying, ‘but then you didn’t find your two iPods and your laptop in a skip now did you?’ I never found out what her parents did for a living, (or didn’t do in the case of the capitalist class). I was forced to leave it, we were ‘couch surfing’ in her house at the time and I suspected that if I really chose to assert my kindly granted ‘right to free speech’ it wouldn’t be long before she asserted her ‘right to private property’. It is for this reason that I am tempted to make my first experience of ‘couch surfing’ also my last.

What other anarchists think

Trotsky once described anarchists as ‘liberals with bombs’, whereas the lifestyle anarchists would be better described as ‘liberals with bins’. Trotsky of course had good reason to dislike anarchists, like Bakunin for example who for all his faults provided some very useful warnings about the dangers of authoritarianism in the working class movement, warnings a lot less applicable to Marx than to the likes of Lenin and Trotsky. While the lifestyle anarchists are keen to point out how ‘free from dogma’ they are, their complete lack of theory means they are prepared to uncritically help in the campaigns of any pseudo-socialist, Leninist party going.

It is of course unfair to equate lifestyle anarchism directly with the anarchist movement as a whole. For all its faults at least most strands of anarchism attempt a class analysis. At least some anarchists see the problems inherent in society as stemming from the fundamental features of that society, i.e., wage labour, production for profit, class rule, and the solution lying in the abolition of these same things. Indeed it is interesting to see the old dog anarchists’ reaction to this silly and incessantly annoying puppy chasing its own tail. On the one hand they like to encourage it for its ‘direct action’ and ‘grass roots defiance’ but even they are compelled to comment on the futility of it all.

Of course we socialists have nothing against people who want to raid through supermarket skips in order to help cut down on food bills. Having done it myself I can honestly say it’s incredible what supermarkets chuck away.  I once found a bin bag full of popcorn that was only a week out of date in a Marks and Spencer skip.

Nor do we have anything against those that choose to squat.  It’s another example of the ridiculous nature of capitalism that perfectly good homes should stay unoccupied while people sleep on the streets, just so a landlord can wait till the property prices rise. Where we have a problem is that for all the talk that lifestyle anarchists and others like them make about their actions being a means to an end, it invariably becomes an end in itself – people preferring to pose with their heads in skips or faces wrapped in kaftans without ever trying to actually understand why the world is the way it is.

Johnny Mercer