Another New Left (2026)

Book Review from the July 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

This is Only the Beginning. The Making of a New Left, From Anti-Austerity to the Fall of Corbyn. By Michael Chessum. Bloomsbury. 2022. 230pp.

After the collapse of the USSR at the beginning of the 1990s ‘socialism’ became discredited. It had supposedly been tried and had failed. Apologists for capitalism proclaimed that capitalism was the only game in town and even the end-point of history. After the financial crash of 2008 the tide began to turn and ‘capitalism’ came to be unpopular.  An anti-capitalist movement of sorts arose, demanding that people should come before profits. Chessum was himself involved in this, both as a student activist and later as a Corbynite (he was a treasurer of Momentum).

The decade began with student fury at the breaking by the Liberal Democrats of their election pledge to abolish student tuition fees, when they entered into a coalition government with the Conservatives after the 2010 General Election. Universities up and down the country were occupied and the Tory party’s HQ in London ransacked. Then there was the campaign of direct action by UnCut against the premises of firms that were avoiding paying UK taxes by operating from tax havens. Then the campaign against the austerity measures imposed by the Coalition government. The movement had been given a boost by the Occupy movement of 2011 which identified a more general enemy than the government: the ‘top 1%’, the super-rich.

Chessum concedes that none of these campaigns was a success and writes of ‘the defeat of the anti-austerity movement’ (p. 104). What, for him, was positive were the new organisational form and methods of these movements: anti-hierarchical with actions being decided by groups of activists on the ground themselves and not directed by some leadership. This meant that not just the Labour Party but also the Leninist groups had no attraction for them and both stagnated.

Ironically, the second half of the decade saw the entry of many of the ‘anti-capitalists’ into the Labour Party, to elect Corbyn as Leader (twice) and then to try to change the Labour Party. That didn’t work out partly because, as Chessum himself experienced, the approach of those around Corbyn was also top-down. Corbyn resigned as Labour leader in 2020 following Labour’s poor showing in the 2019 general election and his opponents took back control of the party. So, another defeat. That’s where the book ends, but with Chessum confidently predicting that the anti-capitalist movement would find political expression in some other way. Hence the book’s title.

Obviously, it is a good thing that these days there are more people than there were in a recent past who recognise that capitalism puts profits before people and that something should be done about it. But what? Most anti-capitalists seem to think that, with enough pressure from below and with enough determined political will, people can be put before profit; that in effect capitalism can be reformed to allow this. But the experience of past attempts to do this have shown that it can’t be. Attempts to do this from below will fail just as surely as past attempts from above have done. It’s not a question of the method used but the fact that it is economically impossible to make capitalism put people before profit. Capitalism is driven by profit-making which must — and in the end always does — come first.

Chessum’s prediction that the movement would not die with Corbynism has since been borne out. When last July Sultana and Corbyn announced the launch of a new leftwing party, 800,000 expressed an interest. But the two made a mess of it and in the end most went on to join or support the Green Party. Chessum himself was among these and is now a Green Party councillor and Council Cabinet member for ‘Economy, Cost of Living and Empowered Communities’. Let’s see how he does.

Adam Buick

Your Party hits the rocks (2026)

From the May 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month the Central Executive Committee, the ‘collective leadership’ of the (ridiculously named) Your Party, decided to enforce the condition for joining that you should not be a member of any other political party. Up to then such ‘dual membership’ had been tolerated and the condition was only applied to some of the top leaders of the SWP and to candidates seeking election to the CEC. Members of Trotskyist groups, including the SWP, continued to be active and hold office in YP’s ‘proto-branches’.

Actually, the resolution passed at YP’s founding conference in November did not completely ban being a member of another political party as it allowed this subject to CEC approval. What the CEC decided on 12 April was that members of a certain type of political organisation can no longer be YP members or join, the type which it said ‘operates as a democratic centralist party or organisation, maintains its own national political membership structure, and requires political discipline and accountability to an external leadership or programme’.

Clearly what they had in mind were Leninist would-be vanguard parties. In fact a list circulating ahead of the CEC meeting named as examples ‘the SWP, Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, Socialist Party, Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee), Scottish Socialist Party, Socialist Equality Party and Revolutionary Communist Party’.

The ‘Socialist Party’ is not a reference to us but to a section of the old ‘Militant Tendency’ which since 1997 has been trying to usurp our name. The full name they have given themselves is ‘Socialist Party of England and Wales’, or, appropriately enough, SPEW. The list wouldn’t have needed to include us of course since we are opposed to Your Party as we are to all other political parties that support capitalism in one form or another. The inclusion of the SEP (one of the fragments of the once premier Trotskyist organisation in Britain, the Workers Revolutionary Party) seems unnecessary as it opposed YP from the start, denouncing it as a joint Corbyn/SWP plot to divert the working class from revolutionary action (ie following the lead of the SEP).

The two biggest Trotskyist ‘entryist’ groups, the SWP and SPEW, took the ban graciously and instructed their members to withdraw from YP. Some of the smaller ones may decide to practise ‘deep entryism’ by remaining secret members of their vanguardist group.

So, where does this leave YP and the groups that have been excluded? For the latter, it’s back to what they used to do (and what they would have continued to do had they been allowed to stay in) — exploiting any discontent to try to build up a following for their particular, vanguard proto-party, through taking over existing protest groups or setting up their own front organisations such as Stand Up to Racism, Stop the War and ‘Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition’. In fact, the last, which is a front organisation for SPEW, nominated candidates for this month’s local elections even before the ban was enforced.

YP’s attempt to be a strong left-of-Labour electoral force hasn’t taken off and it looks like it never will. It was bad luck for them that, as they were preparing to launch themselves as such a party, the Greens elected an eco-populist as leader who stole the clothes they were about to put on    — tax the rich, renationalise the utilities, improve social services, rally to beat the Reform party. It is clear that most of the 800,000 who expressed an interest in the idea of forming a new leftwing party have come to see the Greens as this. Since the Green Party does not even claim to be a socialist party, this shows that most of the 800,000 didn’t want a new system to replace capitalism but merely the implementation of ‘progressive’ reforms and policies within it.

If it had taken off, YP would only have been a Labour Party 2.0. Now, it won’t even be that but a party whose MPs will mainly be pro-Gaza local Muslim dignitaries (denounced by the Trotskyist ex-entryists as ‘landlords’) and whose councillors will be representatives of localist ‘independents’ engaged in pot-hole politics.

Had Sultana’s ‘Grassroots Left’ rather than Corbyn’s ‘For the Many’ won a majority on the CEC, the Leninists would have been allowed to stay in as ‘factions’ and the party would have been advocating policies without much electoral appeal, such as ‘Smash Israel’, ‘Leave NATO’ and ‘Abolish the Monarchy’. In other words, a small party similar to previous attempts to unite ‘the Left’ including the Trotskyists in a single electoral party such as ‘Socialist Alliance’, Respect and Left Unity and which are now just history and where YP is heading too.

What is required is a mass working-class party dedicated to the establishment of a genuine socialist society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production so that production directly to meet people’s needs can replace production for sale on a market with a view to profit. A party that avoids advocating reforms to capitalism in order to avoid attracting the support of those who only want that; a democratically organised party in which vanguardist factions would not be welcome.

Adam Buick

SPGB Snippets: Not socialism (2026)

From the Socialist Party of Great Britain website

April 29, 2026

The so-called Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) is putting up candidates in the forthcoming elections for local councils and for the Senedd (Wales Government). Their watchword is ‘Join the Socialists!’. But their agenda is to ‘fight for the day-to-day issues, like pay, benefits, rights, and an end to oppression and war’. In other words they are campaigning for improvements to capitalism and not, despite their name, for socialism – a society of worldwide cooperation in production and distribution and free access to all goods and services.

Given this, the reference in their literature to ‘a society democratically run by working-class people’ means nothing, since their focus on reforms of capitalism can only mean relegating socialism to a dim, unthought-out, far distant future.

Tiny Tips (2026)

The Tiny Tips column from the April 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘Ukraine is being devastated… The threat of escalation to nuclear war intensifies. Perhaps worst of all, in terms of long-term consequences, the meager efforts to address global heating have been largely reversed. Some are doing fine. The US military and fossil fuel industries are drowning in profit, with great prospects for their missions of destruction many years ahead… Meanwhile, scarce resources that are desperately needed to salvage a livable world, and to create a much better one, are being wasted in destruction and slaughter, and planning for even greater catastrophes’.

[CounterPunch]

‘We really don’t have time for the Marxists, Leninists, Trotskyists, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Spartacists, Revolutionary Communists or whatever sect in Your Party to get their shit together in order to take on the challenges we face – they might never overcome their miniscule differences or the battle of the £1 newspapers,’ Mish Rahman, a former Labour politician-turned-Your-Party-insider who defected to the Greens last month, told Novara Media. Rahman said he doubts the differences between the two camps are as substantive as they’re made out: ‘[Sultana and Corbyn] are not far off each other [politically], it’s just a proxy war for control’. 

[NovaraMedia]

‘”They say they don’t have enough homes, but look at how many empty ones there are – [the council] just doesn’t want to fix and repair them,” says mother-of-one Vanessa. She lives on Central Hill estate in Lambeth but only in temporary accommodation and says she’s been left “in limbo”. Dozens of properties on the south London estate are unoccupied, one for eight years, and yet the borough has the third-highest housing waiting lists in the capital – something that Vanessa, who has been waiting for a social home for three years, describes as “outrageous”’. 

[BBC]

Los Angeles spent about $418 million on homelessness programs in 2025, yet only a small share went toward helping people leave the streets for good, according to the New York Post. A recent City Hall report suggests most of the money supports short-term services that manage homelessness rather than resolve it. 

[ZeroHedge]

In 2021, there were only two diagnosed silicosis cases in California. In 2025 there were 214. ‘The number of cases is rising rapidly’ Dr. Michaels wrote to me, ‘That’s the important point’. Here’s the more tearful description from Dr. Michaels..: The hallmarks of the disease: shortness of breath and diminished exercise capacity that progresses to an inability to climb even one flight of stairs. A short walk that should take just 20 minutes can take an hour. Working is difficult or impossible. People cough incessantly. They can’t sleep because it is difficult to breathe and they are kept awake coughing. Over time, people with more advanced silicosis require supplemental oxygen and can’t leave home without an oxygen tank. And they are at increased risk of dying from lung cancer. The crime behind this slaughter is that safer, profitable substitutes are available. 

[Common Dreams]

(These links are provided for information and don’t necessarily represent our point of view.)

Cooking The Books: Capitalism to blame not ‘neoliberalism’ (2026)

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

Adnan Hussain, MP for Blackburn, one of the four pro-Gaza MPs who are allied with Corbyn in the Independent Alliance parliamentary group, was as such one of the provisional leaders of Your Party. He subsequently quit Your Party but is still a member of the Independent Alliance and he still agrees with the new party’s basic position that capitalism can be reformed so as to benefit the many.

The Socialist (the paper of one of the remnants of the Militant Tendency) reported that he told a meeting in Blackburn on 30 August:

‘“Neoliberal policies have destroyed the unity of communities”, creating loneliness, isolation, and mental ill-health. He said that the new party will fight for the funding needed for housing, health, education, and transport, and to reopen youth clubs and community centres’.

Normal reformist rhetoric, encouraging the mistaken belief that capitalism could be made to provide adequately these essential services that people need.

That it is ‘neoliberalism’ that is the problem has been a constant theme of his tweets. For instance, this on 23 October:

‘Capitalism, unrestrained, measures everything, even human life, by its economic yield. Neoliberalism then sanctifies this as “freedom.” The result? A society where dignity is traded for productivity and compassion is seen as inefficiency’.

This suggests that it is neoliberalism — unrestrained capitalism, or giving capitalist enterprises freer rein to pursue profits as they see fit — that results in this, and that state intervention to restrain capitalism could prevent it. But it wouldn’t.

All the things he criticises — communities destroyed, people treated as things — have happened, but because of capitalism. Governments have had to give priority to profit-making as that is what drives the capitalist economy. Public services and amenities are paid for out of taxes and taxes fall in the end on profits. So, after the post-war boom came to an end in the mid-1970s, governments had to decide between maintaining these services and encouraging profit-making. It wasn’t a real choice as, capitalism being what it is, a system driven by profit, they had to give priority to profit-making.

Corbyn himself always criticises neoliberalism rather than capitalism itself. But it is not the ‘neoliberal capitalist order’ that is the problem. It is the capitalist production-for-profit system as such. Neoliberalism is not a system but a policy forced on governments, particularly since the 1980s, of reducing state intervention in the economy. A return to more state intervention won’t prevent capitalism measuring everything by its ‘economic yield’ or putting productivity before dignity and efficiency before compassion. No action by a reformist government can change that. In fact, any serious attempt to restrain capitalism from giving priority to profit-making and to spend more on meeting people’s needs would provoke an economic downturn as the search for profits is what drives the economy.

World Socialist Radio - Why We Can’t Support Your Party (2026)

Adapted from the January 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why We Can’t Support Your Party by The Socialist Party of Great Britain

The Socialist Party of Great Britain refuses to support the newly founded political organisation “Your Party,” launched in November 2025 under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana. “Your Party” promotes a reformist programme that seeks gradual change within capitalism through taxation, nationalisation, and expanded public services, rather than advocating the abolition of capitalism itself. This approach has repeatedly failed, citing historical examples such as the Syriza government in Greece, because capitalist economic pressures ultimately block meaningful reform. Although the party’s rhetoric speaks of fundamental transformation, in practice it will pursue modest reforms that leave capitalism intact, making it incapable of achieving genuine socialism — which, they argue, requires conscious majority support to replace the entire economic system.

Taken from the January 2026 edition of The Socialist Standard.

RSS Feed for Why We Can’t Support Your Party

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.

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

or, for a free three-issue subscription to The Socialist Standard: spgb.net/podcast

Featuring music: ‘Pushing P (Instrumental)’ by Tiga Maine x Deejay Boe. Source: Free Music Archive, licensed under Creative Commons CC BY 4.0

Rootless (2026)

From the February 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Grassroots Left, one of the factions within new leftist political grouping Your Party, says in the programme for the central executive committee of the party: ‘Our goal is to bring an end to capitalism, a socially and ecologically destructive system driven by the profit motive and private ownership of the means of production, and replace it with a socialist society organised to meet people’s needs, not generate profit’ (tinyurl.com/ysjhycp9).

Wonderful, they want to bring an end to capitalism! Well…. no, they are regurgitating Old Labour nonsense from decades ago because they go on to say that they want to have ‘key sections of the economy owned and democratically controlled by the people who work in them and depend upon them’.

We wonder what those key sections are. Shipbuilding? Steel? Textiles? Nah, too late mate, all gone. According to current UK government figures, service industries (care homes, education, estate agents, advertising, and of course banks and insurance companies, the latter four being of sod all use except in a capitalist society) account for 81 percent of total UK economic ‘output’.

And if they did get their way, given they are talking about the UK only, how do they intend to manage the interchange of wealth between this services economy with the world capitalist economy, ever hungry for profits? We don’t have a clue, and neither do they.

Then what happens when the capitalist economy goes into recession, as it inevitably will? Which of these geniuses will have the task of wringing their hands as they take the so sad decision of cutting services and jobs?

How many workers are going to fall for such tripe? Probably not many, but it will help capitalism as it will sow even more confusion in workers’ minds as to the real meaning of socialism.

Budgie

Why we can’t support Your Party (2026)

From the January 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Over the weekend of 29-30 November some 2000 attendees at a conference in Liverpool founded a new political party called simply ‘Your Party’.

After Labour lost the 2019 General Election long-time left-winger Jeremy Corbyn resigned as leader and was succeeded by the man who is now the Prime Minister. During the four years during which he was leader Corbyn had tried to steer the Labour Party towards the left. Starmer decided not just to reverse this but to turn the Labour Party into a mainstream capitalist party, even to the extent of describing itself as a better ‘party of business’ than the Tories.

Corbyn himself was suspended as a member of the Parliamentary Labour Party (though not of the Labour Party itself). Starmer could have let him stay a member (as Corbyn would have wanted) but he and those around him were adamant. They wanted to completely change the Labour Party by in effect lopping off its leftwing. Corbyn’s supporters were expelled. Corbyn himself was not allowed to stand as a Labour candidate in the 2024 general election. They put up a candidate against him; which meant that as he stood against a Labour candidate he was automatically expelled from the Labour Party. He won, easily, as an Independent.

From that point on, there were calls for Corbyn to support the formation of a new left-of-Labour party which would in effect be the Labour Party’s former leftwing as a separate political party. Whatever the reason Corbyn dithered and another suspended Labour MP, Zarah Sultana, precipitated things by announcing in July that she was resigning from the Labour Party to co-lead a new leftwing party with Corbyn. This was an announcement that a lot of people had been waiting for and up to 800,000 were said to have expressed an interest in the new party, though by the time of the conference only some 53,000 had actually joined.

Sortition

A new party cannot be created just like that. It has to have a statement of what it stands for and a constitution. Corbyn and his advisers drew up a plan which, in theory, seemed reasonable enough (as long as the provisional committee played fair).

A provisional committee is set up to draft a statement of aims and a constitution both to be put to a founding conference. These would be subject to amendments suggested by meetings of members. Those attending the conference are to be chosen by lot (now called sortition) from the membership. Conference will debate the finalised documents and selected amendments. These will be voted for or against online, not just by those chosen to attend the conference but also by the rest of the membership on the basis of one member one vote.

This — including sortition — seems a democratic way of going about founding any new party whatever its aims. Choosing those attending a founding conference by lot should ensure that they will be a representative cross-section of the membership and reflect the views of the average member and not just of an activist minority. More generally, it is an alternative to election but still a democratic way of choosing people to carry out particular tasks (as it already is today for choosing trial juries) and could have a wider use in a classless socialist society.

This, however, did not go down well amongst the activist minority made up of the various Trotskyist groups that had decided to ‘enter’ the new party (as in the past they had ‘entered’ the Labour Party). They argued that this would exclude experienced activists like, er, themselves.

In the event, it didn’t exclude them. It just ensured that they were represented in accordance with their proportion of the new party’s members. The Trotskyist groups were pleasantly surprised that quite a few of their militants were chosen to attend, even some from the more obscure grouplets

Do as I don’t

The Trotskyists also objected to a provision in the proposed constitution barring dual membership with another political party. This was in fact already in the application form to become a member and take part in the founding process. This, however, wasn’t enforced and members of the SWP, the old Militant Tendency (now calling themselves SPEW) and most lesser Trotskyist groups joined and participated freely in the pre-conference Your Party meetings.

One objection to Trotskyists being in the new party was set out by the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Britain, Robert Griffiths, in an article in the August issue of their paper Unity, where he criticised ‘the readiness of the ultra-leftist sects to infiltrate broad-based mass movements in order to divide them, pose as a “left opposition” to the leadership and recruit from those they influence and mislead’.

Which is indeed what Trotskyists plan, though it’s a bit of a cheek coming from the CPB as it’s what its antecedents used to be good at. (Incidentally, the CPB position is not to join the new party but to vote and campaign for its candidates under certain circumstances).

The Trotskyists lost no time in forming a ‘left opposition’ and campaigning to make the constitution of the new party as democratic as possible. This was not because they believe in democratic organisation but because it would give them a wider opportunity to work and recruit within the new party. They joined a ‘Socialist Unity Group’. One of its constituents calls itself the ‘Bolshevik Tendency’; which would have been a better name for their faction.

They are hypocrites because their own organisations are not organised democratically. Take the SWP, for example. It is run by a Central Committee which is chosen in this way:

‘The outgoing Central Committee selects and circulates a provisional slate for the new CC at the beginning of the period for pre-Conference discussion. This is then discussed at the district aggregates where comrades can propose alternative slates. At the Conference the outgoing CC proposes a final slate (which may have changed as a result of the pre-Conference discussion). This slate, along with any other that is supported by a minimum of five delegates, is discussed and voted on by Conference’.

What this means is that the SWP is run by a self-perpetuating group that in effect renews itself by co-option. The slate ‘selected’ by the outgoing committee is virtually assured of winning. It was how the Politburo of the CPSU was chosen in the old USSR. Their constitution also states that ‘permanent or secret factions are not allowed’.

When the SWP led a move to ‘seize control’  of the conference agenda by means of an emergency resolution, the conference organisers took this literally as a call to storm the platform and invoked the paper ban on dual membership to expel the leaders of the SWP (and hire a security firm to guard the platform).

In the end, the conference voted not to endorse a complete ban on dual membership but to make acceptance of being in another party more difficult. So the Trotskyists are still there.

What does the new party stand for?

Before adopting a constitution the conference also adopted a Political Statement setting out its general aims. This began:

‘Your Party is a democratic, member-led socialist party that stands for social justice, peace and international solidarity. Our goal is the transfer of wealth and power, now concentrated in the hands of the few, to the overwhelming majority in a democratic, socialist society’.

This is rather vague and says nothing about how quickly — or how slowly — this ‘transfer of wealth and power’ is to take place nor what the end result will be like. It is what the Labour Party promised in its election manifesto for the February 1974 general election. In fact, it is even rather less radical in terms of rhetoric as that manifesto talked about ‘a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power in favour of working people and their families’.

The Statement doesn’t go into what they envisage this ‘transfer of wealth and power’ as involving but it will be much the same as Attlee set out in 1932 (Will and the Way to Socialism, p. 42):

‘A Labour [read: Your Party] government, therefore, not only by the transference of industry from profit-making for the few to the service of the many, but also by taxation, will work to reduce the purchasing power of the wealthier classes, while by wage increases and by the provision of social services it will expand the purchasing power of the masses’.

So, different private profit-making sectors of the economy are to be gradually brought into some form of ‘public ownership’; taxes on the rich increased; services provided by central and local government expanded and improved, and money wages increased. All this to take place initially within the framework of the existing mixed private/state capitalist economy. The end result — several decades down the line — would be a society where people’s incomes and what they owned would be more equally distributed than now and in which they would be working for some ‘public enterprise’ paying them a good wage and be provided with well-funded public services and amenities.

This is the old Fabian dream of the gradual transformation of capitalism into a more equal society by means of nationalisations and social reforms. It’s not as if it has not been tried, and failed. It always was impossible because it involves trying to make capitalism work in a way that it cannot.

What drives the economy under capitalism is the pursuit of profits to be accumulated as more capital invested for more profit. If a government interferes with this, the result will be a slowdown in the economy depriving the government of the tax revenues to proceed further towards a more equal society. Based as it is on profit-making, the capitalist economy cannot tolerate a growing increase in the purchasing power of workers and their families at the expense of what is the source of the purchasing power of the rich, profits.

The last time it was tried

All reformist governments with such a programme have failed everywhere, the most recent, spectacular one being the Syriza government in Greece in 2015. This failure is particularly significant as Your Party has a lot in common with Syriza, whose name is an acronym in Greek for ‘Radical Coalition of the Left-Progressive Alliance’ and which included Trotskyist groups as constituent parts.

Leftists explain the failure of Syriza either by a lack of determination or by a sell-out. In fact, it failed because the leftwing government came up against how capitalism works and realised that if it continued to try to apply its policy it would make things worse (they reasoned that if things were going to get worse it would be better that this should be managed by them, who had some sympathy for the working class, rather than by their political opponents who didn’t). A Your Party government would face a similar dilemma.

It is all very well Zarah Sultana saying, as she did in her closing speech to the Conference:

‘We are not here for tweaks of a broken system. We are not here just to lower some bills and sprinkle a wealth tax. We are here for a fundamental transformation of society’.

It got her a standing ovation and it will on May Day and at the end of the next Conference and similar ceremonial occasions but, in practice, in between, Your Party will be campaigning just for ‘tweaks’ and ‘sprinkles’ and seeking votes and popular support on this basis. It will be yet another reformist party. Support built on that basis will be of no use in furthering the cause of socialism. Which is why we cannot support the reformists who have formed what we can only call ‘Their Party’.

Adam Buick

Party News – YP conference (2026)

Party News from the January 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

YP- Labour 2.0?

Just to demonstrate our northern hardiness, members went out in uninviting November weather to Manchester and Liverpool to dish out 500 leaflets on the occasion of the first national conference of Your Party (now its official moniker). Previously, other members had done likewise at YP events in Huddersfield, Bolton, Preston, Stroud, Swansea, Cardiff, Newport, Brighton, Oxford, Gillingham, and London (all compass points).

The Liverpool conference was hastily convened to thrash out questions like its name, its constitution, its aims, and in particular who was going to be in charge of it. All this amid breathless drama after Corbyn’s faction summarily expelled Trot entryists from the SWP, on the (actually incorrect) argument that they were registered as a different party with the Electoral Commission and therefore ineligible for membership. At this, Zarah Sultana promptly boycotted the first day of the meeting, which does not bode well for the future of YP but must have tickled Zack Polanski, the Greens’ new ‘socialist’ snake-oil salesman, who is seeing a significant bump in membership as a result of these antics.

Our leaflet was called ‘YP – Labour 2.0?’ and argued that even if Your Party was ever able to form a government, it would inevitably suffer the same fate as the original Labour Party, meaning that YP would not change capitalism, capitalism would change YP. It’s quite possibly no coincidence that we handed Zarah Sultana a leaflet in person, after which a YouTube video appeared in which she specifically denied that Your Party would turn into Labour 2.0.

One resentful but revealing comment heard from a conference participant was ‘SPGB? Oh yes. None of us are ever good enough, are we?’ This must have been a reference to our so-called ‘purist’ reputation among the left, in contrast to their customary ‘pragmatic’ approach. But we’re not purist, just principled. We’ve been telling the left for generations not to keep doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result, but they keep doing it, and now they’re doing it again with Your Party – trying to reform capitalism into something that works for humanity instead of against it. It drives them mad when we tell them that they’re wasting their time trying to fix the unfixable. It must drive them madder still that we’re always somehow proved right when their strenuous efforts fall apart. We wish it wasn’t so, but it will continue to be so until the left, and workers in general, acknowledge the elephant in the room, which is that capitalism needs to be abolished, and replaced with a democratic system of free access for all and collective ownership and control of the Earth’s resources.

PJS

Socialist Sonnet No. 214: Your Party – Not Mine (2025)

   From the Socialism or Your Money Back blog

Your Party – Not Mine

 Is it time a new party was founded?

Sure, the old one’s comprehensively failed,

The locomotive of Labour derailed.

It seems hope is once again unbounded,

As so often before, another red flag

To be run up the polls and kept flying.

Then come the splits, the schisms, the dying,

Such a weight of expectation to drag

Down the vision that was always myopic.

The old nostrums and canards trotted out,

Members who cannot debate, only shout:

Who is going to vote for the shambolic?

This challenge to capitalism’s resolved,

With, at no point, socialism involved.

 

D. A.

Editorial: Socialism defined (2025)

Editorial from the November 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month we recorded that two MPs who had said they were socialists had not replied to a request to say what they meant by socialism. In the meantime, one has replied indirectly while Jeremy Corbyn himself has had a stab at it.

Addressing a Your Party rally in Liverpool on 9 October Zarah Sultana declared:

‘We’re not here for lowering a few bills here and there, and the sprinkling of a wealth tax. We are here for a fundamental transformation of society, the means of production controlled by workers. And another very simple idea, the working class controlling the wealth that they produce. It’s called socialism.’

While Corbyn wrote in an article in the Guardian (13 October):

“Undemocratic parties produce undemocratic societies, where a small section of society owns the resources we all need to survive. Democratic parties produce democratic societies; where wealth and resources are owned by us all”.

Both definitions – while not completely wide of the mark – have their weakness. Sultana’s because she only talks of ‘control’ and not ownership; which could leave her words open to being interpreted as ‘workers control’ of nationalised industry. Also, even if ownership is meant as well as control, socialism is not ownership just by ‘workers’, but ownership by all members of society including those who for one reason or another are not working. They too will have a say on what is produced and how it is distributed.

Besides the nonsense of what parties of a different type produce, Corbyn’s is open to the objection that he doesn’t make it clear that socialism means that all the means of production would belong to all of us, leaving open the interpretation that he is talking about the so-called ‘public’ ownership of just some industries or services; which in fact is how he did mean it to be interpreted.

However, combining the strengths of both we can reach a reasonably good definition of socialism:

‘A fundamental transformation of society where the resources we all need to survive — the means of production — will be owned and controlled by all of us’.

However, we have to express our serious doubts that the new party will adopt this as its aim and that, even if it did, this would be nothing more than rhetoric for ceremonial occasions, its practice being the pursuit of sprinklings such as a wealth tax and other reforms.

Socialist Sonnet No. 208: Your Party . . . Not Mine (2025)

  From the Socialism or Your Money Back blog

Your Party…Not Mine

 On a gloomy Autumnal Saturday,

The red revolution in its latest

Incarnation, trying its very best

To look credible, made its ponderous way

To the bandstand in a Huddersfield park.

Bearing aloft flimsy flags and placards

Proclaiming this new party, hopeful words

Unable to dispel what is the stark

Reality, Lenin’s inheritors

Still misrepresenting socialism,

Soon to be riven by split and schism,

Another grouplet the voter ignores.

But, even if they don’t suffer that fate,

At best they’ll move capital to the state.

D. A.

World Socialist Radio - All Socialists Now? (2025)

Adapted from the October 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

All Socialists Now? by The Socialist Party of Great Britain

This episode criticises how Labour and other self-described “socialist” parties trumpet the label without a coherent understanding of socialism, arguing that most of their proposed reforms—such as nationalisation, higher taxes, expanded public services—do nothing to challenge capitalism’s fundamental logic of production for profit. It describes a “Your Party” meeting, where despite participants’ rhetoric about socialism, discussion centered on reforms rather than systemic change. True socialism means abolishing the market system entirely in favour of a moneyless, cooperative society, and that efforts to rebrand or tweak capitalism as “socialist” are misleading.

Adapted from the October 2025 issue of The Socialist Standard

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 'All Socialists Now?'

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

All socialists now? (2025)

From the October 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

That august publication the Daily Mail recently ran the headline ‘Another Day in Starmer’s Socialist Utopia. When Did Britain Become North Korea?’. It reported that Starmer was ‘hiring a raft of high tax fanatics’, was ‘threatening ‘ID cards for all’, and that ‘fury erupted’ when armed police arrested the writer of Father Ted ‘over online comments about transgender activists’.

It goes without saying that no one with the slightest good sense or judgement could fail to see this for what it was – a pile of breathless and exaggerated bilge. The comparison to the repressive, authoritarian dictatorship that is North Korea was particularly ludicrous, as was the assumption that that regime is somehow ‘socialist’. Equally mind-boggling was the notion that Starmer’s government is socialist too (a ‘socialist utopia’ in fact) and thus to be equated to North Korea, when neither set-up has anything to do with socialism.

Socialism: what does it mean?

What gives impetus to such sneering declarations, intellectually empty as they are, is the fact that Labour and its supporters are themselves fond of talking about themselves as socialist, even though the real task they are involved in is finding ways of running capitalism. It’s true that Starmer himself has not uttered the ‘s’ word for some time, but others in his party have, and do so continually. The Labour MP Dawn Butler, for example, recently stated that ‘the Labour Party is a socialist party’ and that ’socialism isn’t a dirty word’. That moved this writer to email her and ask the question ‘Since socialism can be such a confusing word, can you please explain how you see it?’ Receiving no response at all, I thought I would try putting a similar question to another ‘socialist’ MP, Zarah Sultana, who had actually just left Labour to join Jeremy Corbyn in the setting up of a prospective new party (currently calling itself ‘Your Party’). I wrote: ‘I very much sympathise with what you say, in resigning from the Labour Party, about the failure of governments to deal with poverty and inequality and note your point that the issue at the next election will be “socialism or barbarism”. But, since socialism can be such a confusing word, can you please explain what you mean by it?’ I did at least get a response from her, but only the standard acknowledgement of receipt (‘Thank you for contacting me. Please read this automated response to your email, which confirms that I have received your correspondence’) and nothing thereafter.

The unfortunate thing is that, whether in the Labour Party or outside, MPs and others throw the ‘s’ word around without having a clear notion – and sometimes no notion at all – of what it means other than a vague wish for wealth to be spread more evenly and reforms to be brought in which will make life easier and less uncomfortable for those lower down the earnings scale – all with a view to somehow making things more ‘equal’. It rarely if ever crosses their minds that such changes, even if they were possible or feasible, would not change the basic structure of the system we live under which determines that production and distribution of goods and services takes place for profit not need, with overall dependence on money and buying and selling.

‘Your Party’

But despite getting no meaningful answer from the MP calling herself a socialist who had defected to Corbyn’s party-to-be, when I found out that there was to be a local gathering, open to all, to discuss the nature and setting up of the new ‘Your Party’ organisation, I decided to go along to observe, to listen, and maybe to speak. The turnout was 60-70 people, biased towards the older age group but in gender terms pretty much even. Yet if I was expecting to hear talk of socialism, in any of its possible conceptions, that’s not what I got. Most of the hands that shot up were from members of small left-wing groups or parties damning the current Labour government and seeming to envisage some kind of ‘entryism’ into the new party. There were also some non-affiliated attendees with apparently good intentions and maybe looking to find a home in a new ‘caring’ party. But what virtually all the contributions from the floor had in common was talk of the need to press for reform measures of various kinds: eg, nationalisation, higher taxation for the wealthy, expansion of the NHS, more funding for education and other services, ending of anti-protest measures, action against pollution and climate change. Only one speaker stood apart in saying that the main problem was that most young people nowadays have no idea what socialism means and a priority should be to fix that. I agreed with this, even though I doubted whether that person’s conception of socialism coincided with mine.

As for a contribution of my own, my hand wasn’t among those pointed to by the chair and I had to accept that. But had I been chosen, I would have said that I agreed with the idea that a clear view needed to be established of what socialism means. I would have added too that, as far as I was concerned, socialism didn’t mean ways of ‘fixing’ capitalism (impossible anyway) or trying to make it more palatable. Instead, it meant getting rid of the whole system of production for the market and buying and selling and replacing it with a moneyless cooperative society of voluntary work, free access and democratic control worldwide. I would have also said that, short of this, the ‘real change’ Jeremy Corbyn has said his new party will bring is destined to be the same mirage as all previous attempts at radical reform of capitalism have been, ending up as a predictable recycling of the status quo.

HKM

Zarah Sultana spoke at a meeting in Raynes Park (South West London) on 10 September. She said that the new party’s aim was to ‘materially improve people’s lives’. The Labour Party, she said, had betrayed its past principles and was ‘dead’; Starmer should be sent to the Hague for trial as a war criminal. She was in fact surprisingly radical for someone selected and elected as a Labour candidate, calling for the new party to support demonstrations and strikes as well as to get MPs and councillors elected. She favoured the new party being called ‘The Left’ and said it should be organised democratically with provisions for One Member One Vote.

She also said the new party should be ‘proudly socialist’, and that she wanted to ‘bring our country to socialism’ and that the election of local councillors would ‘pave the way to the socialist challenge’. But she didn’t explain what she envisaged socialism as being. The rest of her speech suggested it would be capitalism reformed into a less unequal society with properly funded public services and state-owned utilities and that put people before profit. As she was pretty approachable after the meeting, I could have asked her about it but she was surrounded by people wanting to take selfies with her.

ALB

I went along to a Your Party meeting at a pub in my local seaside town, to find around 40 people, a few youngish but most of retirement age. Many of them were undoubtedly keen for a left alternative to what they saw as a right-wing Labour government. Quite a few others, like wolves at a Bambi picnic, were predatory undercover Trots keen to get themselves on the group’s steering committee. Two facilitators spoke at length, one in an inaudible drone, the other in a grating whine, to the effect that this was to be a workshop event, in which small groups would discuss and then feed back their responses to the questions: (a) what the priority of the new party should be, (b) what name it should have, and (c) what the immediate focus of the local group ought to be. It occurred to me that my answer to all three questions would be the same, and very likely not appreciated by anyone present: abolish capitalism.

The assembled gathering dutifully knuckled down to the task, while I fell into conversation with an enthusiastic ‘socialist’ who believed that China and Russia had a thing or two to tell us about how to run an economy, and wasn’t our government just as fascistic as them nowadays anyway? He left before the end, to catch the football, but accepted a leaflet and promised to look us up. I also bailed out, having regretfully concluded that no open debate was likely, that reformism was the only item on the agenda, and that this new left surge was history repeating itself in a kind of desperate and perpetual amnesia.

PJS

The Greens too?

The Green Party has just elected a former LibDem candidate as their leader. He too says he’s a bit of a ‘socialist’, as this report of the launch of his leadership campaign recorded:

‘One member asked whether Polanski thought the Green Party was “explicitly a socialist party”. His response was, “On a personal level I agree with the majority of socialist principles”, and said that, “we are a left wing, left of centre party”. But he also clarified, “The reason why I wouldn’t say explicitly, yes, we’re a socialist party kind of in public and as a slogan is I think that’s going to unnecessarily put people off”. He went on to argue that in defining the Greens as a socialist party there would be a need to, “appeal to all the socialists and kind of struggle with all the people who are anti socialist who might have voted Green if we didn’t say we were socialists.” Instead of describing the Green Party in this way, Polanski instead argued that Greens should be talking about a “fair, equitable society where we make sure that everyone is looked after”, and advocating policies like a Universal Basic Income.’

He is in fact on record as having described the Green Party explicitly in public as a ‘socialist party’. In a video debate in February this year he argued that there was no need to set up a new left party as ‘there is, after all, a socialist party in the UK already: it’s the Greens’ .

He doesn’t say what he means by ‘socialist principles’ but it is certainly not a socialist principle to not say you are a socialist in case you lose votes or to seek the votes of anti-socialists. He does, however, give a hint as to what he thinks ‘socialism’ is when he mentions a ‘fair, equitable society where we make sure that everyone is looked after’. That’s probably what he said was his aim when he was a candidate for the LibDems. Which party doesn’t promise that? More important is how such a desirable if rather vague end is to be achieved — by trying to reform capitalism or by making the means of wealth production the common ownership of society under democratic control?

Polanski has also described himself as an ‘eco-populist’. That sounds about right.

ALB

Cooking the Books: Corbyn’s crumbs of comfort (2025)

The Cooking the Books column from the September 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘We will only fix the crises in our society with a mass redistribution of wealth and power. That means taxing the very richest in our society’, tweeted Corbyn on 24 July announcing the launch of a new political party.

That sounds radical but a ‘mass’ redistribution of wealth is not the same as a ‘massive’ redistribution, only a redistribution to some mass of people. Interpreted literally, it would mean that some of the wealth of the very richest is to be taken from them through taxation and distributed amongst a large number of individuals. Let us say from the top 1 percent to those in the bottom 50 percent.

According to the Office for National Statistics, ‘In the April 2020 to March 2022 period, the wealthiest 1% of households held 10% of all household wealth in Great Britain, which was the same as the proportion held by the least wealthy 50% of households combined’.

The wealth tax proposed by former Labour leader Neil (now Lord) Kinnock and others of 2 percent of wealth holdings of over £10 million has been estimated to raise £24 billion a year. The total number of households in the UK is about 28 million, so 50 percent is 14 million. £24 billion divided by 14 million is about £1,714 (£33 a week) per household. No doubt a welcome amount for the families concerned but hardly enough to bring about any permanent improvement in their condition. Even if it is used to improve services rather than as a cash payment, £24 billion divided amongst 14 million is not going to be able to provide much of an improvement.

But perhaps the ‘mass’ that is to benefit from this redistribution is not to be as large as that. In an article in the Guardian (30 July) introducing the new party, Corbyn wrote that one of its policies would be to make ‘the wealthiest in society pay a bit more in tax to ensure that everyone should live in dignity’. About 20 percent of the population are considered to live in poverty. If the £24 billion were to be divided only amongst the bottom 20 percent, some 5.6 million, the amount per household would be £4,286, or an extra £82.42 a week. This would certainly help but whether it would be enough to allow them to live in dignity is another matter.

The original tweet went on to say the ‘mass redistribution of wealth and power’ intended to ‘fix the crises in our society’ would mean ‘bring[ing] energy, water, rail and mail into public ownership’. But what about the rest of production? Seemingly that is to rest in private capitalist hands, so the ‘our society’ the new party is talking about is present-day capitalist society of minority class ownership and production for profit.

Creating an egalitarian society through a redistribution of wealth within capitalism is a pipe-dream as it goes against the logic of the system. Capitalism is based on a minority owning the means of wealth production and on these being used to generate profits that are accumulated as more wealth for the owners. Inequality of wealth ownership and the tendency for the wealthy to get wealthier are built into the system.

Attempting to counter this will mean that the new party will end up being a mere party of protest, spending its time criticising the government for not doing what it ‘demands’ and ‘resisting’ when the workings of the capitalist economy force the government to make things worse.

Editorial: Jeremy Corbyn’s new ‘real change’ party (2025)

Editorial from the August 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Let’s be clear: as socialists, we don’t necessarily dislike Jeremy Corbyn. Indeed, some things he says we’d agree with. Where we differ explicitly is on how our society can achieve ‘real change’.

We agree ‘poverty, inequality and war are not inevitable’, but to be rid of these troubles — and not merely partially, or only for a brief time — we contend that their root cause must be effectively dealt with. No tinkering. No sticking plaster solutions. What’s needed is major surgery.

The aggressive, deadly cancer killing and immiserating humankind in every country is the existence of the divisive, worldwide, capitalist system, so ignore nitwits who say North Korea, Venezuela, China, etc have ‘socialism’ or ‘communism’. They don’t. The current profit-driven system is the undeniable cause of poverty, inequality, war and so much else.

Where Jeremy Corbyn, Zarah Sultana and others on ‘the left’ go wrong is thinking capitalism can be reformed, incrementally or otherwise, so that it becomes useful and beneficial to the majority. Not only will reformism never bring about socialism, far worse, it misleads people into thinking their problems can be solved. Voters led to believe their difficulties can be reformed away will be diverted and put off from considering the ‘real alternative’ — real socialism.

All reforms tend to do is smooth over some problems but create or worsen others. Even when capitalism causes something appalling like the 2008 financial crisis, reforms that were rushed in to solve a crisis can then, over time, be gradually amended, weakened or even ignored because businesses will always be under pressure to cut expenses and increase profits.

Because the fundamental function of capitalism is for capitalists to make profits (otherwise they can go bust), and a fundamental function of government is to assist the capitalist class to make profits (otherwise the economy can go bust), this means even a Corbyn-Sultana government would have to give capitalists what they need to succeed and compete.

So when the going gets tough (which seems to be a never-ending situation now under capitalism), whether Corbyn and Sultana accept it or not, the needs of a profit-seeking few would have to come before the needs of the working-class many. This is why we reject reformism completely.

And nationalising industries etc — which is not socialism — is not a solution. State-run firms must still be profitable, and competitive in markets, so workers’ wages still tend to be the ‘going rate’, which often means little more than enough to pay for all of the essentials.

Therefore, when Corbyn says ‘hope’ is ‘something that is desperately missing from our broken political system’, in reality, the suffering majority has no hope of being freed from poverty, inequality and exploitation by a new left-wing party because the political system isn’t ‘broken’ — it’s biased — towards the asset-owning class.

To prevent a capitalist economy getting into trouble even left-wing governments put the needs of the asset-owning class ahead of the working class. The fact is both right- and left-wing governments have been hostile to the working class struggle for ‘real change’ in the past, and will be in the future. Corbyn says ‘real change is coming’. We say, only if the majority reject reformism and replace capitalism with socialism – the common ownership and democratic control of the resources society depends on to survive and where production directly to meet people’s needs will replace production for profit.

Grayson’s Gratitude to the S.D.F. (1908)

 From the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the course of the Joynson-Hicks-Grayson debate in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester, on February 14th, Mr. Victor Grayson, M.P., in immaculate evening dress (which we suppose is typical of his revolutionary views), said : “It would have given me pleasure in to-night’s debate had Mr. Joynson-Hicks, instead of reading the esoteric philosophic ramblings of the philosopher, Mr. Belfort Bax, instead of going to the exotics of Karl Marx, if he had come to the source of English Socialism, the books of the English economists, to learn what the Socialist suggestion really is.”

We are anxious to know what the S.D.F. think of that, in view of their efforts to pat him on the back and take him under their wing, as recorded in the columns of Justice, since it was apparent that he could command a following.

Why you shouldn’t vote state capitalist (2001)

Pamphlet Review from the June 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why You Should Vote Socialist. By Paul Foot, Bookmarks.

Paul Foot is a good journalist, who specialises in exposing capitalism for not living up to its own standards. For this his fellow journalists chose him as “campaigning journalist of the decade”, even though he seems to have got it wrong about Hanratty. But let’s not be too churlish. Despite being a member of the SWP he’s a good writer and the first 50 pages of this 60-page pamphlet are an excellent demonstration of the truth of the old saying “Labour, Tory; Same Old Story” in relation to the Blair government.

Blair and his team have pursued the same policies as the Tory governments of the 80s and early 90s, not just on economic matters, which anyone with a knowledge of how capitalism works could have predicted (as we did, but not Foot – he voted Labour in 1997) but also on civil liberties, where governments have some leeway.

It’s in the last two chapters that Foot goes off the rails. He correctly states:

“Under capitalism, unemployment, inflation, the rise and fall of booms and slumps, are not brought about by governments, but by economic forces beyond government control.”

But also:

“Elected governments of whatever colour cannot and do not determine what happens to the international capitalist economy unless they embark on the most determined and ruthless economic intervention” (emphasis added).

It is just such a policy of state intervention to try to control capitalism that Foot advocates on behalf of the Trotskyist “Socialist” Alliance and the Scottish Sheridan Party (with which the SWP has just merged its Scottish section) who, together, are contesting a third of the seats in the present general election (in most other constituencies Foot says people should still vote Labour!). But, if tried, this would provoke an economic crisis and, if persisted in, would lead to an autarkic state capitalism with shortages and rationing as in Cuba and North Korea.

The alternative to capitalism is not “determined and ruthless” state intervention but socialism, a world-wide society of common ownership, democratic control, and production for use not profit. But Foot doesn’t offer this, not even as a long-term aim. Instead, he accepts a curious definition (by Michael Barratt Brown) of socialism as a society where, among other things, “housing would be available at reasonable rents” and “pensions for the aged and invalid, and payments during sickness and unemployment would be provided on a universal scheme based on contributions related to income”. In other words, the Old Labourite dream of a reformed capitalism. Perhaps Foot never really did vote Labour without illusions.

Adam Buick

Tiny Tips (2025)

The Tiny Tips column from the April 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Female genital mutilation or cutting (FGM/C) is a deeply entrenched cultural practice that affects around 200 million women and girls. It’s practised in at least 25 African countries, as well as parts of the Middle East and Asia and among immigrant populations globally. It is a harmful traditional practice that involves removing or damaging female genital tissue. Often it’s “justified” by cultural beliefs about controlling female sexuality and marriageability. 

(The Conversation)

. . .  “the ELN claims to follow Karl Marx, but it seems to me they believe more in Pablo Escobar.” Indeed, drug trafficking helps explain why, after more than 60 years of armed conflict, peace continues to elude Colombia. The violence briefly diminished after the country’s largest guerrilla group, known as the FARC, disarmed in 2016, but the government failed to take control of coca fields and drug trafficking routes that were abandoned by the FARC. And now ELN rebels and a new generation of criminal groups are fighting over this territory. 

(KAXE)

Representatives for the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant declined to comment on how the pause could impact the plant and jobs. …The plant ‘is not the largest employer by any stretch,’ said Bob Durkin, president of the non-partisan Scranton Chamber of Commerce. ‘But it’s a very important employer. The jobs are really high-quality jobs. They are well paying, family sustaining jobs’. 

(BBC)

In a staggering display of police callousness, the South African government has caused one of the worst mining disasters in the country’s history…. The Stilfontein massacre, which left almost ninety dead, has split the South African opposition and exposed a ruling bloc corrupted by mineral wealth. At its heart, it is a story of the contradictions of politics in an extremely unequal extractive economy. 

(Jacobin)

James Schneider, Jeremy Corbyn’s former Director of Comms, argues for a new party…. Zack Polanski, Deputy Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, says we don’t need anything new. There is, after all, a socialist party in the UK already: it’s the Greens. 

(Novara Media)

. . . William Morris . . . believed that the creation and enjoyment of pre-industrial arts and crafts could undo the assumptions about natural inequality that were baked into capitalism. Influenced by both Karl Marx and John Ruskin, he demanded that works of art should actually embody the equality and freedom that had disappeared in an age witnessing the rise of mass production and excessive consumption on the one hand and widespread poverty and drudgery on the other. In News from Nowhere — his novel-length description of an egalitarian, anti-consumerist society — he aimed at nothing less than rewiring his readers’ minds and hearts. 

(Los Angeles Review of Books)

(These links are provided for information and don’t necessarily represent our point of view.)

Smash! (1974)

From the March 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

A New Election Programme?

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

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

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

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

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

In paragraph 2, however:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horatio.