Proper Gander: Regulations, nations and alienation (2026)

The Proper Gander column from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

BBC News  made sure to emphasise that a Home Office investigation which led to a couple of arrests was prompted by the findings of an episode of its Scams & Scandals documentary series. As its title indicates, The Immigration Fraudsters revealed misconduct among ‘legal advisers’ preparing applications for their clients to remain in the UK. Presenter Billy Kenber tells us ‘we’ve gone undercover to expose this hidden world of illegality’, which means that much of the programme consists of blurry, shaky footage from a concealed camera worn by his colleague. Posing as a foreign national, he visits law firms and advisers who can arrange the necessary paperwork for a claim to the Home Office as an asylum seeker. The covert footage reveals that some advisers gather fabricated evidence to meet the criteria, and Kenber suggests that possibly thousands of people have been granted leave to remain on fraudulent grounds.

Those who make claims for asylum include people who have newly arrived in the UK and others who originally entered under a temporary student or work visa or as the spouse of someone with leave to remain. A successful application confers refugee status, which doesn’t automatically mean permanent entitlement to live in the UK, but permits official employment and being able to claim benefits, apply for ‘social housing’ and use all NHS services. People without official approval to be in the country have ‘no recourse to public funds’, meaning they don’t have access to these aspects of the state. Those in this position without the funds to buy their way out have to rely on cash-in-hand work for an income and are more likely to be trapped into slave labour or homelessness.

For a claim for asylum to be granted by the Home Office, a fear of persecution in the applicant’s country of origin is required. As Ejel Khan of the Muslim LGBT Network explains, homosexuality is illegal in many countries, so fleeing one could be grounds for a gay person applying for asylum in the UK. The undercover reporter meets an immigration adviser who says that for a four-figure fee she can arrange a claim on this basis. He says that he isn’t gay, which doesn’t prevent her from offering to provide a letter declaring that he has had sex with a man, and also membership of the ‘Worcester LGBT Asylum Seekers Group’. The reporter goes to one of its meetings in London which has over 200 attendees, some of whom say next-to-none of them are gay.

The Immigration Fraudsters also covers another route for making asylum claims, on the grounds of being a victim of domestic abuse. This applies in situations where someone has come into the country on a family visa, so their entitlement to remain relies on being in a relationship with their partner who already has official status. If the relationship were to end, the partner under the visa would ordinarily lose their right to remain in the UK, unless they were a victim of domestic abuse. The undercover reporter records an adviser offering to arrange a fake claim (under the 2013 Migrant Victims of Domestic Abuse Concession) of being a victim of psychological cruelty from his wife.

The documentary’s producers contacted the dodgy advisers about their activities and received replies bluntly denying any wrongdoing. This wasn’t enough to satisfy the Home Office, hence their announcement of an investigation following the programme’s broadcast, which led to raids by its Immigration Enforcement team and arrests. One way of looking at this is that the BBC, as one branch of the state, was carrying out the ‘due diligence’ which fell within the remit of another branch of the state, the Home Office.

Kenber meets with above-board legal experts who say that people who apply fraudulently make it harder for those with genuine claims, a sentiment echoed by immigration minister Mike Tapp after the raids. The Immigration Fraudsters doesn’t include discussion about the wider context of the issue, beyond quoting some statistics about the number of asylum applications. Having a situation where people lie about being persecuted in order to stay in the UK comes from a combination of factors, each illustrating how society’s capitalist framework alienates us. Fundamentally, the division of the world into countries, as territories of different states, reduces people to being subjects of those states. This accords us differing status in relation to other countries, according to our wealth, nationality, immigration rights and even our family role. Alongside this bureaucratic alienation, there’s also that caused in those states and cultures which are particularly oppressive, including towards anyone who isn’t heterosexual. Understandably, people will want to leave those countries for another where their prospects may be better. Domestic abuse, and especially being trapped in a violent relationship, is another effect of living in a divisive, alienating society. Fleeing these situations means being processed and accorded the status of asylum seeker and, maybe, refugee. While many staff work hard trying to help people navigate the system, the framework they work within is complicated by its legal and financial constraints. This doesn’t prevent some people wanting to manipulate it, leading to fake claims for asylum. While there’s nothing admirable about pretending to be a victim of abuse, those who do would have to be in a dire enough situation to push them towards this. The suspect advisers are exploiting their clients’ grim position, but they’re also products of their circumstances. Presumably, this career pays better than their other options. A capitalist economy encourages people to try to make money out of anything, including desperation. The arrests which followed the programme’s broadcast may lead to some disruption of the network of ‘legal advisers’, and the Home Office is likely to tighten up its legislation. Such measures can’t change the conditions which have created the issue, nor resolve the plight of people seeking asylum, with or without fabricated paperwork.

Mike Foster

Against technocracy (Part 1) (2026)

From the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is a scene in Star Trek: First Contact (1996), where Captain Jean-Luc Picard comments: ‘The economics of the future are somewhat different. You see, money does not exist in the 24th century…The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity’.

Such sentiments draw on a long tradition of utopian thinking. A common feature of such thinking is the idea of material abundance. Abundance is what renders money obsolete.

In the painting The Land of Cockaigne by the Flemish Renaissance artist Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1567), a trio of figures is depicted dozing beneath a tree, their tools of the trade lying unused beside them. This is a magical world in which a cooked goose makes itself available on a platter and a roasted pig trots past with a carving knife stuck in its flank. No need to lift a finger to satisfy one´s hunger pangs.

The painting has attracted different interpretations. For some, it represents a moralising critique of the spiritual emptiness associated with sloth and gluttony (‘consumerism’); for others, the wistful dream of a world beyond grinding labour and material deprivation.

The Cockaignian tradition can be traced to the folk utopias of early medieval Europe and even earlier. What is striking about it is the relative lack of emphasis on technology as the means of achieving abundance. Mother Nature, not human ingenuity, was the provider of plenty.

This began to change over time, Bacon´s scientific utopia, The New Atlantis (1627), being an early example. From the mid-18th century, small-scale cottage industries gave way to the factory system. This was the first industrial revolution based on steam power and mechanisation. We have since had a second industrial revolution, commencing in the late 19th century (Fordist mass production and electrification), a third in the late 20th century (automation and digital electronics) and are currently in the throes of a fourth, featuring such cutting-edge innovations as AI, machine learning, the Internet of Things, advanced robotics and biotechnology.

Marx and Engels

When Marx and Engels published their Communist Manifesto in 1848, the Second Industrial Revolution had not yet begun (the first patented electric light bulb was still decades away). They held that socialism depended not only on a majority wanting it and understanding what it entailed, but also on the productive apparatus being sufficiently developed to ensure the reasonable needs of the population could be adequately met.

In the mid-19th century, this was not possible. For this reason, the Manifesto called for the ‘centralisation of all instruments of production in the hands of the State, ie, of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible’. State ownership was thought to be a more effective way of achieving this by capitalising on economies of scale.

However, by the late 19th century, there was a clear shift in their thinking. Thus, their 1872 Preface to the Manifesto stated that, because of the advances of modern industry since 1848, the state capitalist transitional measures they earlier proposed had become ‘antiquated’ and that ‘no special stress’ should be laid on them.

Interestingly, in 1878, we find Engels writing: 

‘The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties – this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here’ (1878, Anti Dühring, Part 3).

New thinking about how to expedite a post-capitalist society was certainly required (and Marx and Engels were moving in this direction), but sadly, many supposed ‘Marxists’ today seem to be trapped in a time warp, their vision limited to nothing more ambitious than the nationalisation of the ‘commanding heights of industry’.

Edward Bellamy

Back then, socialists were not alone in recognising the growing technological potential to supersede the capitalist money-based economy. A foretaste of a non-Marxian technocratic version of this was provided by the American journalist, Edward Bellamy, in his fictional work Looking Backward (1888).

This was an enormously influential book, particularly in America, selling over a million copies shortly after publication. In it, Bellamy described the huge economic benefits that would result from dispensing with money:

‘Another item wherein we save is the disuse of money and the thousand occupations connected with financial operations of all sorts, whereby an army of men was formerly taken away from useful employment’.

However, his vision of a future moneyless society was a statist one, the ‘nation’ being deemed ‘the sole employer and capitalist’ (reminiscent of Lenin’s later description of ‘socialism’). Production was organised under the aegis of a ‘General Council of the Industrial Army’.

There was limited political democracy insofar as the government was elected, with this kind of society enjoying broad support, but practical decision-making itself was generally top-down and paternalistic. Labour would take a compulsory, quasi militaristic form (unlike Marx´s idea of ‘freely associated labour’) with individual consumption being rationed via a credit card scheme.

Bellamy saw this future moneyless society as being technically advanced and exhibiting a high degree of automation. This was not a vision that appealed to everyone, however. William Morris, who likewise wrote about a future moneyless society in News from Nowhere (1890), was critical of Bellamy´s outlook – in particular, its negative depiction of work as a coerced activity requiring extrinsic incentives to motivate individuals to work.

The idea of work being intrinsically undesirable is also implicit in some contemporary representations of a moneyless future. One example is the concept of ‘Fully Automated Luxury Communism’ (FALC), associated with writers such as Aaron Bastani.

Automation will undoubtedly play an important role in a post-capitalist society, particularly when it comes to work deemed dangerous, dirty or monotonous. However, we would surely not want to eliminate all work and the potentially enormous creative pleasure to be derived from working. It is the terms and conditions under which we currently work that are the problem, not necessarily work itself.

All too often, work is unthinkingly equated with waged employment. These are not the same. In fact, even today under capitalism, most work is performed outside the money sector, not within it (María Ángeles Durán 2012, ‘Unpaid Work in the Global Economy’, Fundación BBVA).

We need work, or labour, as a form of creative self-expression. In hunter-gatherer societies, the distinction between work and play tends to be blurred. Much the same approach to work is found in Marx´s description of a higher phase of communist society in which ‘labour has become not only a means of life, but life’s prime want’ (1875, Critique of the Gotha Programme).

The Technocracy Movement

Bellamy´s futuristic society has been interpreted to represent a proto-technocratic utopia. However, the term ‘technocracy’, denoting governance by technical experts, was only coined somewhat later, in 1919, by an engineer, William Smyth. The basic idea behind this subsequently found expression in the rise of a movement in the 1930s in America (also in Canada and parts of Europe), bearing that name: the ‘Technocracy Movement’.

Though Howard Scott and Marion King Hubbert founded this movement, the individual thought to have first clearly set out the basic principles of technocracy was the American sociologist Thorstein Veblen in 1921, in an article titled ‘Engineers and the Price System’.

Veblen saw technological development as paving the way to the reorganisation of the economy, leading automatically to the gradual disappearance of money. Technological innovation followed its own developmental trajectory. The price mechanism was regarded as simply a wasteful and unnecessary encumbrance on production. It did not so much ‘guide’ technological development as follow it (and profit from it).

Veblen envisaged the decline of business culture and its replacement by a more technically-minded society in which people like scientists and engineers would lead the way. There was, he suggested, a built-in or deep-seated antagonism between the pecuniary values promoted by financiers and businesspeople and the industrial values embraced by the technicians and skilled workers.

The economist J M Keynes later said something similar in his 1930 essay ‘Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren’. Keynes suggested that within a century, technological progress and rising affluence would cause our obsession with money to die out. At the same time, the working week would contract to a mere 15 hours on average.

During the Great Depression, interest in the Technocracy movement grew rapidly, and the movement became quite popular for a brief period (at one point attracting hundreds of thousands of adherents) before going into steep decline following the implementation of Roosevelt´s New Deal reforms that drew support away from the movement.

Among the various ideas it advanced was the suggestion, grounded in Scott´s ‘Energy Theory of Value’, that energy units (joules) should replace money as the unit of accounting in the production and distribution of goods, with citizens being allocated ‘energy certificates’ to regulate consumption. What lay behind this was the belief that the money system was something inherently wasteful and oriented towards the perpetuation of needless scarcity. As one contemporaneous article noted:

‘Technocracy states that price and abundance are incompatible; the greater the abundance, the smaller the price. In a real abundance, there can be no price at all. Only by abandoning the interfering price control and substituting a scientific method of production and distribution can an abundance be achieved’ (Sept 1937, “What is Technocracy”, The Technocrat).

Jeremy Rifkin and Zero Marginal Cost

The claim about increasing abundance brought about by the price-collapsing effect of technological innovation is the stuff of much recent sensationalist speculation. According to Jeremy Rifkin, author of the best-seller The Zero Marginal Cost Society (2015), the ‘emerging Internet of Things is speeding us to an era of nearly free goods and services, precipitating the meteoric rise of a global Collaborative Commons and the eclipse of capitalism’.

However, Rifkin´s thesis is based on a flawed understanding of marginal cost pricing. Even if the marginal cost of producing some item (the cost of producing one additional unit of this item) fell to zero, there are still fixed costs to account for. Information goods, for example, may be ‘non-rivalrous’ in the sense that if I use the internet to do a Google search, it doesn’t prevent you from doing the same. But, internet-based corporations like Google or Meta still have enormous fixed costs to pay for. They still have to generate revenue to cover these costs and realise the huge profits they make in the process.

For the same reason, the prognosis of people like the billionaire, Elon Musk, about AI eliminating all jobs within two decades is fanciful in the extreme. Remarkably, someone who has profited so much from capitalism seems to know very little about how it actually works.

Capitalist production presupposes sufficient ‘effective demand’, such that a business can expect to realise a profit meeting this demand. Without the prospect of profit, even essential needs will remain unmet. To satisfy them, workers depend on paid employment in a capitalist, money-based economy.

How would this be possible if no one had a job? Living labour, not machinery, is the source of capitalist profit. In theory, if all work were automated, the rate of profit would fall to zero, and capitalism would cease to exist.

However, this is not remotely likely to happen. Well before that, Marx’s famous ‘counteracting tendencies to the falling rate of profit’ would kick in. For instance, growing technological unemployment would depress wages, thereby paradoxically making it more profitable once again to employ more labour.

Thus, there are self-correcting mechanisms that pre-empt the sort of scenario that people like Musk have in mind. Indeed, some studies suggest AI will lead not to a reduction but to an increase in jobs overall, with its main impact being to transform the nature of work under capitalism.

We cannot depend on technological innovation alone to transcend capitalism. This is a major weakness of the technocratic paradigm, which we will examine in Part 2.

Robin Cox

Link to Part 2.

Blogger's Note:

Star Trek: First Contact was reviewed in the July 1997 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Material World: Malawi after capitalism — chaos or common ownership? (2026)

The Material World column from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received the following interesting communication.

Comrades, friends, fellow workers of across the world.

To begin, I shall explain why the Socialist League of Malawi exists today. Although LESOMA was first formed in 1974 to oppose Banda’s dictatorship, the objective of our founding fathers led by late Dr Attati Mpakati who was assassinated in 23 March 1983, was never simply to replace one government with another. LESOMA objectives then, as now, is the establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole society.

The current situation in Malawi: A crisis of the market, not of nationality

Sixty-two years after formal independence, the working class of Malawi remains trapped in the wages system. Successive governments — MCP, UDF, DPP, PP, have all administered capitalism. The results are before us:

1. Economic: Malawi remains a supplier of raw tobacco, tea, sugar, and uranium for the world market. 70 percent of us live on less than $2.15 a day. Yet warehouses are full of maize that cannot be sold at a ‘profitable’ price. Hospitals lack drugs that sit unused in private pharmacies because patients lack money. The kwacha collapses, debt rises, and the IMF dictates our budget. This is not ‘underdevelopment’. This is capitalism working normally.

2. Political: We have multi-party elections, but every party stands for the same thing: managing the market, attracting foreign investors, and maintaining the state. Corruption scandals from Fieldyork and Cashgate to fertilizer subsidies are not abuses of the system, they are the system. The state exists to protect property and profit, not people.

3. Social: 4.4 million Malawians face food insecurity in 2026 despite good rains. Our youth flee to South Africa for piece-work because there are no wages here. Women carry water 5km while bottled water is exported. Cyclones Freddy and Ana showed that climate breakdown hits workers first, because safety is unprofitable.

LESOMA’s position: There is no Malawian road to socialism

Since our reconstitution, LESOMA has set out its objectives clearly in our Constitution and Declaration of Principles. We do not seek to ‘develop’ Malawi inside capitalism. We do not call for a ‘national democratic revolution’ or alliances with employers. Capitalism is a world system and can only be replaced by world socialism.

What does that mean for Malawi?

1. Common ownership: The land, the tea and tobacco estates, the uranium at Kayelekera in Karonga District, the lake, the factories — all held in common, not by the state, not by foreign companies, not by ‘patriotic’ businessmen. Democratic control by the whole community.

2. Free access: Food, housing, healthcare, education, transport provided for use, not for sale.

3. No state, no borders: The armed forces, police, and prisons exist to protect property. Without property, their function disappears. Administration of things replaces government over people. There will be no ‘Malawian’ socialism, because socialism cannot exist in one country.

This is now a practical option. Workers in Malawi and worldwide have developed productive capacity to meet everyone’s needs. The barrier is not technical. It is the market. We produce for profit, not for use. That is why fertilizer is locked in warehouses while farmers need it. That is why nurses are unemployed while clinics are understaffed.

The international socialist stand in 2026

LESOMA seeks partnership with your party and all serious socialist movements worldwide. Our position is unchanged since 1974:

1. We reject all war. Competition for oil, lithium, trade routes, and markets caused the wars in Congo, Sudan, and Ukraine. Even now it is the cause of the war between Iran and Israel and the United States of America. Only common ownership ends the economic basis of war and environmental destruction.

2. We reject reformism. Trade unions, minimum wage laws, and aid projects cannot abolish the wages system. They can only negotiate terms of exploitation. We do not oppose workers struggling for better conditions, but LESOMA’s sole objective is socialism, not better-managed capitalism.

3. We reject self imposed leadership. Socialism cannot be brought by a vanguard, a coup, or a guerrilla army. It requires the democratic action of the majority. Our task is education and organization, not to lead workers but to make socialists.

Our immediate work in Malawi

Once we get registered and have enough funds, LESOMA intends to:

1. Educate: Spread the case for a world of common ownership in Malawian languages like Chichewa, Tumbuka, including English which is the current official language in Malawi. We will explain to the masses why fertilizer subsidies, ‘youth empowerment funds’, and foreign investment cannot solve poverty.

2. Organise: Build a political party hostile to all other parties — because all other parties stand for capitalism. We will contest elections, not to run capitalism, but to win a mandate to abolish it.

3. Internationalism: Work with workers in Zambia, Mozambique, South Africa, and worldwide. The problems of a miner in Karonga Malawi and a call-center worker in London are the same: no access without money.

We will not call for armed struggle. Violence is the method of capitalists.

Chaos or common ownership?

Malawi today faces rising debt, climate shocks, and political disillusion. The danger is not only poverty, but that workers turn to ethnic parties, religious sects, or military strongmen out of despair. That is chaos.

The alternative is not regime change. It is change in economic system. Given free access to the means of life, the energy and creativity of Malawi’s workers could end hunger in months, not 40 years.

Comrades, there is no ‘Malawian solution’. There is a world solution, and Malawi’s working class is part of it. The time has come for workers to stop electing new managers of our poverty, and instead to organise for a world of free access. When the majority wants socialism, we can have it.

For world socialism,

Patrick Nthakomwa, President, Socialist League of Malawi (LESOMA)

The smokescreen of prices (2026)

From the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

The prices shown for delivery on online platforms do not tell the full story of the goods and services we buy. The amount we pay for delivery does not tell the tale of low pay for drivers, fragmented work, and daily risks on the road. The visible cost is only the surface: a simple figure that hides the real human and material costs.

Nor is this limited to delivery. More generally, the market price of a good or service rarely includes all the costs of producing it. A significant part is shifted elsewhere: onto the environment, workers, society, or the future.

Many low-cost products depend on production chains that use natural resources with no attention to environmental impact. Deforestation for non-essential goods, intensive use of energy and water, and pollution generated in production have no direct impact on the selling price. The same is true of working conditions – low wages, insecurity, and limited safety – which remain outside the cost on the market.

Another layer of this smokescreen lies in product design. Planned obsolescence and poor reparability, especially in electronic devices, shift costs onto consumers over time and increase waste. The initial price may seem low, but the overall cost—economic and environmental—is much higher.

There are also less immediate effects: impacts on health, as with ultra-processed food; the growing burden of waste that is hard to recycle; and the degradation of ecosystems. These costs are largely borne by society, often through public spending or a loss in quality of life.

This does not result from a single actor deliberately hiding costs. It is a feature of a system in which firms compete to lower prices and raise margins, while many indirect costs—so-called externalities—are not properly accounted for.

The result is a distortion: what is cheap in the market can be costly for society as a whole. Price acts as a smokescreen, simplifying and concealing, and making it harder to judge the real consequences of our choices.

A more radical approach is to question the system itself. If market prices tend to exclude social, environmental, and human costs, then the issue is not only how to correct the system, but whether it should be replaced.

In a system oriented to human needs rather than profit, production will not be driven by returns to investors but by social usefulness and sustainability. This will require forms of planning—more or less decentralised—able to take real costs into account from the start: decent working conditions, environmental limits, durability and reparability, and health factors.

In such a context, price will be abolished as a means of access to goods and services, making them freely available. This would not mean a lack of coordination, but a different kind of coordination. Production and distribution will be organised through planning, shared priorities, and participatory decision-making, giving the ability to deal with both potential abundance and real scarcity. The production of unnecessary or harmful goods will be reduced – not because it is unprofitable, but because it is recognised as socially and environmentally unsustainable.

This raises important questions. How can complex systems of production be coordinated without prices? How can inefficiency, concentration of power, or rigid bureaucracy be avoided? How can innovation and flexibility be maintained? These are not trivial issues. But the tools and knowledge to make costs visible—and to organise production differently—already exist. The issue is not technical, but political and collective. It requires not only awareness, but a conscious and collective decision to reorganise society on a fundamentally different basis. The sooner we begin to take this seriously, the sooner we can stop treating as inevitable what today may appear ‘natural’ but is simply an expression of the way society is organised at this particular point in time.

Gian Maria

Party News: Local Election results (2026)

Party News from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Here are the results in the wards of the London Borough of Lambeth which we contested:

Brixton North: Labour: 1415, 1365, 1189; Green: 1388, 1304, 1169; Independent (Shake It Up): 372; Conservative: 261, 252, 167; LibDem: 215, 200, 186; Reform: 189; SPGB: 77; TUSC: 53.

Clapham Common & Abbeville: LibDems: 1331, 1195; Labour: 1116, 789; Green: 441, 423; Conservative: 347, 331; Reform: 194, 173; SPGB: 14.

Stockwell West & Larkhall: Labour: 1438, 1301, 1244; Green: 1234, 1211, 1098; Conservative: 420, 358, 265; LibDems: 377, 348, 273; Reform: 374; Independent (Shake It Up): 351; TUSC: 72; SPGB: 68.

The Greens replaced Labour as the largest party and are likely to be running the council for the next four years. They are making ambitious promises. Here is the new leader of the Green group on the council:

‘We will put power in the hands of residents, workers and the community. Things can, and will, get better.’

And one of his deputy co-leaders:

‘Again and again, residents told us the same story – a political elite, locally and nationally, is prioritising the needs of developers, big business and themselves over the needs of people and planet. We will do things differently’.

Power in the hands of workers; not giving priority to the profits of big business. They sound like Labour politicians in the olden days before they learned the hard way that under capitalism priority has to be given to profits and not to making things better for workers.

SPGB June Events (2026)

Party News from the June 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:

Justin Fairchild's book, Unchained. Living Without Money, was reviewed in the September 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Halo Halo (2026)

The Halo Halo Column from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

J Gordon Melton, executive director of the Institute for the Study of American Religions at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told The New York Times that 40 to 45 new religious movements emerge each year in the United States’ (Wiki NRM).

One of the more notable, newer ones is Ahmadi, Religion of Peace and Light (AROPL), birthed in 1999 (which has no connection to another, older breakaway Muslim sect, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, also known as Ahmadis)

The new kid on the block lays out what it thinks is its unique selling point:

‘The movement’s literature states that it is the new religion foretold by the Holy Household of the Prophet Muhammad to emerge in end times, that it is the one true universal religion and that its members are God’s chosen people’.

End times – tick, only true religion – tick, chosen people – tick. Not so unique, straight out of the playbook used in the USA, the only difference being the holy household.

As you do when meeting by accident a divine being or angel or the Twelfth Imam, you start a new religion. But the equivalent to the People’s Front of Judaea was split by the Judaean People’s Front which became the AROPL. Fast forward, the AROPL’s current leader, according to the Religion Media Centre (RMC), is an Egyptian-American who claims some sort of lineage back to Muhammad.

It has, of course, its ‘sacred book’ published in 2022. The RMC says that one of the beliefs held is that currency is a scam and when the Divine Just State happens people will ‘contribute what they can and have their needs met by the community’. RMC says also that AROPL ‘believes that 99 per cent of every religion is wrong’. It has some David Icke-type beliefs and a relaxed attitude towards some positions the fourteen hundred year-old parent considers inviolable. This makes Ahmadi heretical in some states.

AROPL would have passed under our radar completely until it found itself the subject of some unsavoury reporting in the media. The concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ isn’t always adhered to in media generally and social media in particular. The Guardian and other media, at the tail end of April, correctly used ‘allegedly’ and we note the story headline without making any judgmental comments on the incident reported: ‘Crewe religious group raided by police investigating allegations of serious sexual offences’.

The allegations follow a familiar but sad pattern found many times before in large and small religious sects. Or should we say cults? The Guardian writes that the raid on the Cheshire headquarters carried out by five hundred police occurred because of a complaint by a woman, previously a member, of rape and sexual abuse. Arrests took place on suspicion of trafficking, sexual offences, forced marriage and slavery.

If legal proceedings follow, then whatever the outcome, the sense of persecution this will engender will only serve, sadly, to reinforce the adherents’ loyalty towards something that lures with false rhetoric. It cannot ever make their lives better.

DC

Cooking the Books: All workers’ parties now? (2026)

The Cooking The Books column from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘We’re now the workers’ party’ proclaimed the headline of an article by Nigel Farage in the Times (10 May) following his party’s gains in the local council elections. A week or so earlier on May Day, Zack Polanski had declared that ‘the Greens are the new workers’ party’.

So, who are ‘the workers’? Capitalist society is divided into two basic classes: a class that owns the resources needed to produce what the members of society need to survive, and a class, without such ownership, whose members are obliged to try to sell their working skills to obtain money to buy what they need to survive. The vast majority of the population are members of this working class, irrespective of what job they do or whether they work in an office or an industrial unit.

Farage wrote about ‘guys wearing orange jackets working for local councils, paid-up trade union members, or the self-employed’, which suggests he is thinking more of manual and industrial workers. That is certainly a common usage of the term ‘working class’, defined by occupation rather than exclusion from ownership of productive resources. There is evidence that many such workers who traditionally supported Labour have switched to Reform.

But if a party is to be judged a workers’ party because of the number of workers who vote for it, any party which has substantial support would be a ‘workers party’ as the vast majority of voters are workers. The Tories, the Liberals and the Scots and Welsh Nats would be workers’ parties too.

Polanski’s claim that the Greens are now the workers’ party is based on promising measures to benefit workers in the workplace. He sounds like a Labour politician of yesteryear:

‘The reforms introduced by Margaret Thatcher nearly half a century ago began the long march downwards in the balance of power and wealth in our country — from those who produce and do the work to those who profit from it …. We will address the massive imbalance in our workplaces and give control back to workers’.

His claim that the Greens are the new workers’ party is in effect a claim that Greens are the new ‘Labour’ party. But why does he think that the Green Party would be any more successful in shifting the balance of power and wealth in favour of those who produce the wealth? Why does he think that the Labour Party failed to do this? And, incidentally, when did workers ever control their places of work?

The Labour Party started off as a trade union pressure group to get legislation passed that would benefit workers. At best it could be seen as a party that aimed to improve the position of workers within capitalism but, although some reforms can do and have done this, capitalism can never be made to run in the interest of the working class, because it is a profit-making system and profits come from the unpaid labour of those ‘who produce and do the work’. It is an anti-worker system and no government can change that.

Farage’s claim that his party is a workers’ party is laughable in view of its openly pro-capitalist policies. Polanski’s claim can be dismissed as vote-catching rhetoric by an opposition party that has no chance of being called to honour its promise — and, if ever it was in that position, it would fail just as the Labour Party has done and for the same reason. Capitalism simply cannot be made to work for the workers.

A real workers’ party is one that advocates political action to bring about the immediate common ownership and democratic control of productive resources.

But not fighting capitalism (2026)

Book Review from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fight Oligarchy: Where We Go from Here. By Bernie Sanders. Penguin £9.99.

Oligarchy, the opening sentence states, ‘is a system in which a small number of extremely wealthy individuals control the economic, political, and media life of a nation.’ Plenty of examples are given of inequality of wealth. For instance, Elon Musk is worth nearly $400 billion, more than the bottom half of US households. In Mexico, Carlos Slim is worth over $96 billion, while the Sultan of Brunei has wealth of $30 billion and owns 600 Rolls Royces.

Nor is it just a matter of individuals. Three Wall Street firms, Vanguard, BlackRock and State Street, are major shareholders in nearly all the largest American corporations, including Ford, ExxonMobil and Pfizer. Media ownership is extremely concentrated too: ‘Billionaires own and control virtually every major newspaper and radio network in the country.’ Moreover, there is massive oligarchic influence on politics, with gigantic donations and threats to run candidates against politicians who are the least bit awkward. Super PACs (Political Action Committees) can spend millions of dollars to defeat, for instance, members of Congress who oppose US aid to the Israeli government. The Democratic Party offers little resistance to Trump and the oligarchs, having supposedly ‘turned its back on the needs and suffering of America’s working class’ (but when did it ever support the interests of workers?).

At the same time, American workers are on average less well off than fifty years ago, adjusting for inflation. Eight hundred thousand people in the US are homeless, and over sixty thousand die each year because they cannot get to a doctor on time. Suicide rates have increased, especially among young people.

Sanders, an independent senator who has been involved with the Democrats, presents a vivid and harrowing picture of inequality and poverty in the US. He has been on a Fighting Oligarchy tour around various states, talking to audiences about what can and should be done to fight back. What he advocates is, however, the usual reformist fare: raise taxes on the rich and on large corporations, cut military spending, enact Medicare for all, make housing affordable, raise the minimum wage, improve pensions. But, even if made a reality (which is unlikely, given capitalism’s need for profits), this would leave the class division of society unchanged, with workers still subject to the unpredictability of markets and being exploited by their employers. A discussion of Sanders’ views in the April 2017 Socialist Standard noted that the so-called revolution he stood for then ‘leaves capitalism firmly in place’ . Clearly nothing in his views has changed since that time. The book is also quite expensive for such a slim volume.

Paul Bennett

Obituary: Harry Sowden (2026)

Obituary from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Harry Sowden first joined the Socialist Party in 1952 after listening to speakers in Hyde Park. He rejoined in 1986 and was an active member of the former Cornwall branch while it existed and the contact for the party in the area. His son, Dave, writes: Harry was a staunch and passionate socialist, being a member of the SPGB for many decades. He died of old age at 98 just before his 99th birthday. Even at 98 he still lived an independent life, and always had an engineering or construction project on the go. He always wanted to live a long life to see the overthrow of capitalism and the emancipation of humanity from the power class. I remember him saying how being born the 5th May was a privilege as it was the same birthday as Karl Marx. As well as has interest in socialism, he was a keen organic gardener and vegan and saw these various interests interconnected.

Action Replay: Downhill journey (2026)

Happier times.

The Action Replay column from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Participatory sport is about enjoyment and exercise, but the professional version is about financial achievement and the glory of winning. The other side of success is of course failure, and there has been quite a lot of, not just not succeeding, but actually failing in recent weeks.

Leicester City won football’s Premier League in 2016 and the FA Cup in 2021, but they have just been relegated to League One, the third tier of English football. Frequent changes of manager have not helped (a common occurrence in such cases), nor has the death of owner Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha in a helicopter accident two years ago. The club has been losing money, and relegation is likely to exacerbate this.

Chelsea won last year’s Club World Cup, but lost six consecutive league games and are unlikely to qualify for next season’s Champions League. Their last manager lasted just 23 matches, after being given a six-year contract. Large transfer payments and UEFA financial regulations mean they will have trouble improving their squad of players. Supporters have questioned the competence and commitment of the owners.

Burnley have been relegated to the Championship after just one season in the Premier League. Loans to buy players have created further financial problems, and again the company that owns the club has become unpopular and seems to have little idea of how to turn things round.

It’s not just football. In cricket Middlesex have been embroiled in problems, including legal disputes with previous bosses and, again, several coaches in a season. They won the County Championship most recently in 2016, when they were unbeaten. They are now in the second division, and a group of former players have stated that the club is ‘drifting towards irrelevance’.

Sussex are also having difficulties. They overestimated potential income, and were deducted twelve points in this season’s Championship. With many players likely to leave at the end of the season, their future success is in doubt. Not being in the Hundred competition considerably reduces their income.

In golf, Saudi Arabia will withdraw their funding for the LIV tournaments next season, which means that LIV will be scrambling around looking for potential investors. The sizeable financial losses involved may make this hard, though. It was all sportswashing, of course, but this has not exactly worked out.

You do sometimes wonder how the capitalists that own and control big sporting organisations and so often run them into the ground have managed to make billions from other companies they own. Maybe sport is just even more unpredictable than ‘ordinary’ capitalist markets.

Paul Bennett

50 Years Ago: Bernard Levin and the SPGB (2026)

The 50 Years Ago column from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Levin wrote a criticism of the SPGB in an article entitled Credo Quia Impossible (The Observer, 18th April 1976) — and here we must add dog Latin to his many other talents. The article patronized us and what he described as the ‘glorious nonsense’ emanating from the SPGB. This attack on the Party gave the impression of an amused tolerance for a ‘sect’ based on ‘eccentricity’ (his words) and was made in a review of a book called The Monument — the story of the SPGB. Unfortunately for Levin, some of the facts and anecdotes contained in The Monument, despite its many merits, are a personal version and the Party does not accept any responsibility for its contents. (…)

He says our position is ‘Marx is right; the SPGB interpretation of Marx is right’. We do not accept that Marx was always right, and we have in the past criticized Marx. Nevertheless, we agree with the main Marxist theories of Historical Materialism and his analysis of capitalism.

Finally the SPGB has never been opposed to, or supported, reforms. Levin is confusing the political action which is necessary to get reforms with the content of the reforms. Nobody could oppose the introduction of safety working measures, of which Levin accuses us, free heating for old age pensioners, or other reforms, and we have never done so. If workers wish to sell their votes for a few crumbs of social reform that is their privilege, and equally, it is our privilege and duty to show that there is an alternative. We want them to take political action that will remove the need for reforms.

We mention these few facts in the rather forlorn hope that Levin will correct his mistaken view of the Party. We would also bring to his notice that no member was expelled or disciplined for carrying a gas-mask, nor is it true that ‘every time there was a vote on an expulsion those who had voted against it were themselves forthwith expelled’. Levin can satisfy himself on this score, as the weekly Minutes of the Executive Committee are intact from 1904 and photocopies are available.

[From the article, 'Bernard Levin and the SPGB', by Jim D'Arcy, Socialist Standard, June 1976]

Blogger's Note:

The Monument was reviewed by Harry Baldwin in the December 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Editorial: Stop blaming politicians (2026)

Editorial from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Public debate today is obsessed with personalities. Political life is reduced to a revolving cast of individuals who are either demonised as the source of society’s problems or celebrated as its saviours. Few illustrate this better than Donald Trump.

But focusing on individuals like Trump misses the central issue. He is not an anomaly, nor the cause of the problems people associate with him. He is a product of the system in which he operates.

Modern society is organised around production for profit, competition, and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a minority. At the heart of this system lies the wage relationship: the majority of people must sell their ability to work in order to live, while a minority owns and controls the means of producing wealth.

This is where exploitation occurs—not as an exception, but as a normal feature of the system. Workers produce more value than they receive back in wages, and that surplus is taken as profit. It is this process that generates wealth at one pole and insecurity at the other.

Within this framework, politics is not a neutral arena. Governments, regardless of who leads them, are compelled to maintain the conditions for profitable production. This limits what any politician can do. They may differ in style, rhetoric, or policy details, but they operate within the same economic constraints.

In such conditions, it is hardly surprising that figures emerge who are aggressive, self-promoting, and skilled at channelling frustration. They speak to real discontent—but redirect it away from the structure of society and towards scapegoats, rivals, or personalities.

The public, meanwhile, is encouraged to focus on those personalities. Outrage is directed at individuals, elections are framed as moral contests, and political engagement becomes a matter of choosing sides. This keeps attention away from the wage system itself—the very mechanism that produces inequality, instability, and recurring dissatisfaction.

Whether it is Trump or any other political figure, the pattern remains. Different individuals come and go, but the underlying relationship between those who work for wages and those who live from profit continues unchanged.

From this perspective, attacking individual politicians is not only insufficient, it is a distraction. It creates the illusion that replacing one leader will solve problems that are rooted in how society is organised at a much deeper level.

As long as the wage system remains—where the majority must work for wages and a minority appropriates the surplus—inequality and conflict are inevitable, and the kinds of political figures people argue over will continue to emerge.

If there is to be meaningful change, the focus has to shift away from personalities and towards the structure itself. The real question is not who governs, but whether a system based on wages, profit, and class division can ever serve the interests of the majority.

Until that question is faced, the cycle will continue—and so will the conditions that produce figures like Donald Trump.