The headline in The Guardian reads, ‘Starmer decries ‘worst of all worlds’ benefits system ahead of deep cuts.’

Britain’s benefits system is the “worst of all worlds”, with the number of people out of work or training “indefensible and unfair”, the prime minister has said as he prepares for deep cuts to disability payments.

‘Addressing a private meeting of Labour MPs Keir Starmer said he would take tough decisions to cut the bill for working age health and disability benefits, which is expected to hit £70bn by 2030.

The government has already vowed to cut £3bn over the next three years and is expected to announce billions more in savings from the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit.’

The guy is wasted in his role as Prime Minister. He should be a stand-up comedian. He would have his audience rolling in the aisles with mirth.

He’s already got plenty of knock ‘em dead material – different material to the one that wants to send the British working class to go fight and die in Ukraine.

His ‘welfare’ material includes, ‘It runs contrary to those deep British values that if you can work, you should. And if you want to work, the government should support you, not stop you’.

Also, ‘This is the Labour party. We believe in the dignity of work and we believe in the dignity of every worker, which is why I am not afraid to take the big decisions needed to return this country to their interests whether that’s on welfare, immigration, our public services or our public finances’.

Just give us a minutes whilst we wipe the tears fro our eyes and hold our aching from laughter stomachs. Firstly, who on earth still thinks that the Labour Party represents the working class? Did those who voted for it in 2024 think so? Secondly, the ‘deep British values’ are those of the ruling British capitalist class who have no qualms at all about firing workers when economic circumstances change and it’s profits are negatively affected.

Work is a Hobson’s Choice in a capitalist society where the necessities of life can only be obtained through the means of exchange which means selling one’s physical/mental labour power for a wage/salary in order to buy what one needs in order to live, work…repeat, and repeat again and again.‘The government is concerned that the recent growth in the bill for these benefits, which rose by nearly £13bn to £48bn between 2019-20 and 2023-24, is unsustainable.’ Governments within a capitalist system are there to run affairs for the benefit of the national capitalist class as a whole even if the are disagreements about various things between that class.

This threatened attack upon the weak in society is intended to lessen the burden of the capitalist class in its financial support of the state.

Starmer’s warfare will need funding from somewhere too.

How much longer willl the majority allow this all to continue? As Percy Shelley pointed out, we are many, they are few! Better late than never to understand and implement socialism. What’s stopping that?

Note: not suggesting socialism in one country only, socialism has to replace capitalism globally.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/10/starmer-decries-worst-of-all-worlds-benefits-systems-ahead-of-deep-cuts

Trigger warning for those with musophobia. To those unfamiliar with Robert Browning’s poem retelling of the Pied Piper legend it concerns the town of Hamelin in Germany which, in the middle ages, was a town overrun with rats.

One day a stranger appears before the Town Council and offers to rid the town of rats for one thousand guilders. This he proceeds to do by playing upon his pipe and leading all the rats into the river Weser to be drowned.

When he demands his agreed payment the Mayor and the council go back on the bargain, the rats no longer plaguing the town, and they thinking of how much wine they could refill their cellars for, offer him fifty guilders instead.

y failing to keep the bargain they cause the Pied Piper to take a terrible revenge upon the town

A recent story in the MailOnline describes the rat problems now faced by the citizens of Birmingham. Those interviewed ascribe the problem to the financial problems which the city finds itself in which have resulted in industrial action by bin men along with an increase in fly tipping and problems caused by work on the HS2 high speed railway.

The article notes the ‘outrage’ caused by the council now charging twenty four pounds per visit to get council pet control operatives to attend and deal with problems. This was once a free service.

Birmingham Council is Labour controlled and the subtext of the article is to infer that Labour is incompetent at running an enterprise like Birmingham Council. Which it may be. Birmingham has a ‘nine figure hole in its finances.’

The article lists the swingeing cuts to various welfare and other programmes that will take place and notes that higher charges will also occur in some.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14464457/city-rats-Birmingham-residents-horror-surge-rodents-tax-bin-strikes.html

A recent piece in The Sun focused upon a suburb of Birmingham, Perry Barr, which it describes as the unemployment centre of the UK. The article then goes on to speak of crime and drug abuse there.

A Job Centre employee is quoted, anonymously, as saying, ‘Most people don’t want to work because they are being paid too much – up to £3,000 per month.’ Are Sun readers going to unthinkingly accept figures like this and then mutter in outrage about the scrounging jobless?

Surprisingly the article offers balance in quoting individuals who speak of the difficulties in getting employment in that area. There are six areas of Birmingham listed in the top ten UK unemployment hotspots.

However, it can’t resist another dig, so quotes someone who says, ‘A lot of jobless people have more money than people in work. It is laziness, they won’t do certain jobs and think ‘Why should I work when I get more in the benefits system?’.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/33575799/unemployed-joblessness-capital-uk-birmingham

The blight which so negatively affects organisations operating in the present system and which makes individuals lives so miserable is capitalism. Until the majority understand this and are prepared to work toward the only sane alternative then misery of one kind or anothBer will continue to abound.

ONE WORLD, ONE PEOPLE (ZOOM)

 ‘Many people appear to be shocked and affronted by the behaviour of those who currently control state power in the US.

They seem to have ‘blackmailed’ Ukraine to force them into an agreement about rare earths. They claim that they will take over Greenland ‘one way or the other’ (for raw materials and ‘defence’ it seems) and will ‘reclaim’ the Panama Canal – presumably by armed force in both cases, if necessary.

This is business as usual for any capitalist state – and that business is the protection of trade routes, markets and sources of industrial inputs. But for now the gloves have come off, there is less pretence than usual.

A true reflection of the economic system that it serves.’

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

Socialist Sonnet No.184 (A)

Challenging (1)

There is a challenge to we advocates

Of our world being transformed by conscious choice,

Here is the quaver of doubt in my voice.

I’m a frequent witness to parlous states

Hedgerows, verges and lay-bys are left in;

Tree hung dog-poo bags, or tied up and tossed

Amongst bottles and cans and slimy waste

Of fast food cartons by those bereft in

Their social concern, the couldn’t-carers

For whom self not others matters the most.

Meanwhile, volunteers are doing their best

To make things better, as litter pickers.

Social and anti-social, here’s a schism

That’s not the fault of capitalism.

Socialist Sonnet No.184 (B)

Challenging (2)

It certainly seems at times there are those

Who are despoilers, being bent on making

The world worse, intent only in taking,

Without consideration or remorse.

They stand in contradistinction to all

The many, many unreported acts

Of humanity, unacknowledged facts,

Obscured by the far fewer that appal.

People can choose, sometimes it’s the wrong choice,

Hindering progress, even appearing

To reverse it.  Those resolved on steering

Towards better, need a persistent voice

Amidst the clamour of competing views,

And media dedicated to bad news.

D. A.

From the June 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘On March 5th, 1953, one Jospeh Vissarionovich Djugashvili, alias Stalin, died.

In the Soviet Weekly (12:3:53), under a large photograph of the late Russian dictator, the following words were written:—

“The immortal name of STALIN will always live in the hearts of the Soviet people and all progressive mankind!”

And in a statement published on the same day as Stalin’s death, by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. and the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, we are told that: The heart of Jospeh Vissarionovich Stalin, comrade, in arms and continuer of genius of the cause of Lenin, wise leader and teacher of the Communist Party and the Soviet people, no longer beats.” The Russian Communists, in their statement, also inform us that: “Comrade Stalin led our country to victory over Fascism during the Second World War . . . “



In his funeral oration Georgi M. Malenkov, now Soviet Minister of Power Stations, spoke of Stalin—the “Great” Stalin—as the greatest genius of mankind, the great thinker of our epoch and the greatest theoretician on national questions. And he continued:—

“The strengthening of the country’s defence capacities and the consolidation of the Soviet armed forces have been the object of Comrade Stalin’s tireless concern.”

Malenkov then bid farewell to “our teacher and leader, our beloved friend . . . !”



After Malenkov had finished Beria, who has since been shot as a traitor and an enemy of the Soviet State, reminded those present that:—

“Our great leaders Lenin and Stalin taught us untiringly to increase and sharpen the vigilance of the Party and the people, against the designs and intrigues of the enemies of the Soviet State. We must now still further intensify our vigilance.”

And they did—against the Secret Police Chief, Beria, himself!



Three Years Later

Three years after the death of the “great” Stalin, “Comrade” Khrushchev, first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in his report to the twentieth Congress of the Party, shocked many of the “comrades” present by saying:—

“Many of the shortcomings we are now working to eliminate would never have arisen of not for the complacency that at one time gained currency in some links of the Party, and for the tendency to give a rosy picture of the real state of affairs . . .

   “If Party unity was to be further consolidated and Party organisations made more active, it is necessary to reestablish the Party standards worked out by Lenin, which in the past had frequently been violated.

    “It was of paramount importance to re-establish and to strengthen in every way the Leninist principle of collective . . .

       “The Central Committee was concerned to develop the creative activity of Party members  . . . It vigorously condemned the cult of the individual as being alien to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism, a cult which tends to make a particular leader a hero and miracle worker and at the same time belittles the role of the Party and the masses and tends to reduce their creative effort. Currency of the cult of the individual tended to minimize the role of collective leadership in the Party, and at all times resulted in serious drawbacks in our work.”

(Cominform Journal, 17.2.56).

This was only the first shot against the late “leader and genius” of the Soviet Union—Joseph Stalin.



M. A. Suslov also condemned the cult of the individual: and said that collective leadership had at least been re-established. And A. I. Mikoyan admitted that in the past three years “after a long interruption, collective leadership has been created.” (Applause). (Cominform Journal, 2.3.56, emphasis theirs). He continued by saying: ” . . . for approximately 20 years we had no collective leadership . . . ” And:

“In analyzing the economic position of present-day capitalism it is doubtful whether Stalin’s well-known thesis in the ‘Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.’ can be of any help to us or is correct—in relation to the United States, Britain and France—the thesis that with the break-up of the world market the volume of production in these countries will shrink! This assertion does not explain the complex and contradictory phenomena of present-day capitalism and the fact of the growth of capitalist production in many countries after the war.”

(Cominform Journal. 2.3.56).

Dealing with Stalin’s book ‘The Short History of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of the Soviet Union‘ Mikovan says that it is inadequate and inaccurate. After attacking other books on Party History and the Civil War, he admits that “Such historical scribbling has nothing whatever in common with Marxist history.”



Stalin the Terrorist

Since the termination of the twentieth Communist Party Congress in Moscow, it has been reported that Khrushchev made another—more pointed—attack on Stalin at a secret session. He is reported to have accused Stalin of making mistakes in regard to Soviet agriculture, of weakening the Russian Army prior to the Second World War by killing 5,000 Russian army officers—and of terrorism. Even Harry Pollitt, the British Communist, admits that “Stalin . . . ignored warnings about Hitler’s invasion plans . . . ” (Daily Worker, 24.3.56). He also admits in his first article condemning Stalin, that Stalin made serious mistakes in connection with agricultural policy, and later in his relations with Jugoslavia.



According to the Manchester Guardian (28.3.56), the first reliable report of what Mr. Khrushchev actually said about Stalin appeared in the Polish Communist Party paper Trybuna Lubu. In an article bu Jerzy Morawski, a leading Polish Communist, he says:—

   ” . . .  the degeneration of the security organs could, and indeed did take place. They became independent of the Party authorities and were used to consolidate the personal power of Stalin.”

And:—

“Later on repression was used automatically and blindly.”

And further:—

   “As a result many honest people were sent to prison penal camps or shot.”

  “Almost all the leaders and the active members of the Polish Communist Party then in the Soviet Union were arrested and sent to camps.”

For many years both Socialist and non-Socialist critics of the Russian régime have said that Russia was in fact a dictatorship, that Stalin was a ruthless dictator, that the Soviet Union was a police State, that many innocent people had been thrown into slave camps, and that neither democracy nor Socialism existed there. And for as many years Communists, in all countries, have denied these allegations. Yet now, scarcely three years after Stalin’s death, the Communists themselves are admitting much, if not all, of the truth about Stalin and his bloody dictatorship.



Perhaps in time more will be admitted. The Communists may even deny that Socialism exists in Russia.’

Peter E. Newell

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/search?q=stalin

From the June 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘On March 5th, 1953, one Jospeh Vissarionovich Djugashvili, alias Stalin, died.

In the Soviet Weekly (12:3:53), under a large photograph of the late Russian dictator, the following words were written:—

“The immortal name of STALIN will always live in the hearts of the Soviet people and all progressive mankind!”

And in a statement published on the same day as Stalin’s death, by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. and the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, we are told that: The heart of Jospeh Vissarionovich Stalin, comrade, in arms and continuer of genius of the cause of Lenin, wise leader and teacher of the Communist Party and the Soviet people, no longer beats.” The Russian Communists, in their statement, also inform us that: “Comrade Stalin led our country to victory over Fascism during the Second World War . . . “



In his funeral oration Georgi M. Malenkov, now Soviet Minister of Power Stations, spoke of Stalin—the “Great” Stalin—as the greatest genius of mankind, the great thinker of our epoch and the greatest theoretician on national questions. And he continued:—

“The strengthening of the country’s defence capacities and the consolidation of the Soviet armed forces have been the object of Comrade Stalin’s tireless concern.”

Malenkov then bid farewell to “our teacher and leader, our beloved friend . . . !”



After Malenkov had finished Beria, who has since been shot as a traitor and an enemy of the Soviet State, reminded those present that:—

“Our great leaders Lenin and Stalin taught us untiringly to increase and sharpen the vigilance of the Party and the people, against the designs and intrigues of the enemies of the Soviet State. We must now still further intensify our vigilance.”

And they did—against the Secret Police Chief, Beria, himself!



Three Years Later

Three years after the death of the “great” Stalin, “Comrade” Khrushchev, first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in his report to the twentieth Congress of the Party, shocked many of the “comrades” present by saying:—

“Many of the shortcomings we are now working to eliminate would never have arisen of not for the complacency that at one time gained currency in some links of the Party, and for the tendency to give a rosy picture of the real state of affairs . . .

   “If Party unity was to be further consolidated and Party organisations made more active, it is necessary to reestablish the Party standards worked out by Lenin, which in the past had frequently been violated.

    “It was of paramount importance to re-establish and to strengthen in every way the Leninist principle of collective . . .

       “The Central Committee was concerned to develop the creative activity of Party members  . . . It vigorously condemned the cult of the individual as being alien to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism, a cult which tends to make a particular leader a hero and miracle worker and at the same time belittles the role of the Party and the masses and tends to reduce their creative effort. Currency of the cult of the individual tended to minimize the role of collective leadership in the Party, and at all times resulted in serious drawbacks in our work.”

(Cominform Journal, 17.2.56).

This was only the first shot against the late “leader and genius” of the Soviet Union—Joseph Stalin.



M. A. Suslov also condemned the cult of the individual: and said that collective leadership had at least been re-established. And A. I. Mikoyan admitted that in the past three years “after a long interruption, collective leadership has been created.” (Applause). (Cominform Journal, 2.3.56, emphasis theirs). He continued by saying: ” . . . for approximately 20 years we had no collective leadership . . . ” And:

“In analyzing the economic position of present-day capitalism it is doubtful whether Stalin’s well-known thesis in the ‘Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.’ can be of any help to us or is correct—in relation to the United States, Britain and France—the thesis that with the break-up of the world market the volume of production in these countries will shrink! This assertion does not explain the complex and contradictory phenomena of present-day capitalism and the fact of the growth of capitalist production in many countries after the war.”

(Cominform Journal. 2.3.56).

Dealing with Stalin’s book ‘The Short History of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of the Soviet Union‘ Mikovan says that it is inadequate and inaccurate. After attacking other books on Party History and the Civil War, he admits that “Such historical scribbling has nothing whatever in common with Marxist history.”



Stalin the Terrorist

Since the termination of the twentieth Communist Party Congress in Moscow, it has been reported that Khrushchev made another—more pointed—attack on Stalin at a secret session. He is reported to have accused Stalin of making mistakes in regard to Soviet agriculture, of weakening the Russian Army prior to the Second World War by killing 5,000 Russian army officers—and of terrorism. Even Harry Pollitt, the British Communist, admits that “Stalin . . . ignored warnings about Hitler’s invasion plans . . . ” (Daily Worker, 24.3.56). He also admits in his first article condemning Stalin, that Stalin made serious mistakes in connection with agricultural policy, and later in his relations with Jugoslavia.



According to the Manchester Guardian (28.3.56), the first reliable report of what Mr. Khrushchev actually said about Stalin appeared in the Polish Communist Party paper Trybuna Lubu. In an article bu Jerzy Morawski, a leading Polish Communist, he says:—

   ” . . .  the degeneration of the security organs could, and indeed did take place. They became independent of the Party authorities and were used to consolidate the personal power of Stalin.”

And:—

“Later on repression was used automatically and blindly.”

And further:—

   “As a result many honest people were sent to prison penal camps or shot.”

  “Almost all the leaders and the active members of the Polish Communist Party then in the Soviet Union were arrested and sent to camps.”

For many years both Socialist and non-Socialist critics of the Russian régime have said that Russia was in fact a dictatorship, that Stalin was a ruthless dictator, that the Soviet Union was a police State, that many innocent people had been thrown into slave camps, and that neither democracy nor Socialism existed there. And for as many years Communists, in all countries, have denied these allegations. Yet now, scarcely three years after Stalin’s death, the Communists themselves are admitting much, if not all, of the truth about Stalin and his bloody dictatorship.



Perhaps in time more will be admitted. The Communists may even deny that Socialism exists in Russia.’

Peter E. Newell

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/search?q=stalin

From the June 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘On March 5th, 1953, one Jospeh Vissarionovich Djugashvili, alias Stalin, died.

In the Soviet Weekly (12:3:53), under a large photograph of the late Russian dictator, the following words were written:—

“The immortal name of STALIN will always live in the hearts of the Soviet people and all progressive mankind!”

And in a statement published on the same day as Stalin’s death, by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. and the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, we are told that: The heart of Jospeh Vissarionovich Stalin, comrade, in arms and continuer of genius of the cause of Lenin, wise leader and teacher of the Communist Party and the Soviet people, no longer beats.” The Russian Communists, in their statement, also inform us that: “Comrade Stalin led our country to victory over Fascism during the Second World War . . . “



In his funeral oration Georgi M. Malenkov, now Soviet Minister of Power Stations, spoke of Stalin—the “Great” Stalin—as the greatest genius of mankind, the great thinker of our epoch and the greatest theoretician on national questions. And he continued:—

“The strengthening of the country’s defence capacities and the consolidation of the Soviet armed forces have been the object of Comrade Stalin’s tireless concern.”

Malenkov then bid farewell to “our teacher and leader, our beloved friend . . . !”



After Malenkov had finished Beria, who has since been shot as a traitor and an enemy of the Soviet State, reminded those present that:—

“Our great leaders Lenin and Stalin taught us untiringly to increase and sharpen the vigilance of the Party and the people, against the designs and intrigues of the enemies of the Soviet State. We must now still further intensify our vigilance.”

And they did—against the Secret Police Chief, Beria, himself!



Three Years Later

Three years after the death of the “great” Stalin, “Comrade” Khrushchev, first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in his report to the twentieth Congress of the Party, shocked many of the “comrades” present by saying:—

“Many of the shortcomings we are now working to eliminate would never have arisen of not for the complacency that at one time gained currency in some links of the Party, and for the tendency to give a rosy picture of the real state of affairs . . .

   “If Party unity was to be further consolidated and Party organisations made more active, it is necessary to reestablish the Party standards worked out by Lenin, which in the past had frequently been violated.

    “It was of paramount importance to re-establish and to strengthen in every way the Leninist principle of collective . . .

       “The Central Committee was concerned to develop the creative activity of Party members  . . . It vigorously condemned the cult of the individual as being alien to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism, a cult which tends to make a particular leader a hero and miracle worker and at the same time belittles the role of the Party and the masses and tends to reduce their creative effort. Currency of the cult of the individual tended to minimize the role of collective leadership in the Party, and at all times resulted in serious drawbacks in our work.”

(Cominform Journal, 17.2.56).

This was only the first shot against the late “leader and genius” of the Soviet Union—Joseph Stalin.



M. A. Suslov also condemned the cult of the individual: and said that collective leadership had at least been re-established. And A. I. Mikoyan admitted that in the past three years “after a long interruption, collective leadership has been created.” (Applause). (Cominform Journal, 2.3.56, emphasis theirs). He continued by saying: ” . . . for approximately 20 years we had no collective leadership . . . ” And:

“In analyzing the economic position of present-day capitalism it is doubtful whether Stalin’s well-known thesis in the ‘Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.’ can be of any help to us or is correct—in relation to the United States, Britain and France—the thesis that with the break-up of the world market the volume of production in these countries will shrink! This assertion does not explain the complex and contradictory phenomena of present-day capitalism and the fact of the growth of capitalist production in many countries after the war.”

(Cominform Journal. 2.3.56).

Dealing with Stalin’s book ‘The Short History of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of the Soviet Union‘ Mikovan says that it is inadequate and inaccurate. After attacking other books on Party History and the Civil War, he admits that “Such historical scribbling has nothing whatever in common with Marxist history.”



Stalin the Terrorist

Since the termination of the twentieth Communist Party Congress in Moscow, it has been reported that Khrushchev made another—more pointed—attack on Stalin at a secret session. He is reported to have accused Stalin of making mistakes in regard to Soviet agriculture, of weakening the Russian Army prior to the Second World War by killing 5,000 Russian army officers—and of terrorism. Even Harry Pollitt, the British Communist, admits that “Stalin . . . ignored warnings about Hitler’s invasion plans . . . ” (Daily Worker, 24.3.56). He also admits in his first article condemning Stalin, that Stalin made serious mistakes in connection with agricultural policy, and later in his relations with Jugoslavia.



According to the Manchester Guardian (28.3.56), the first reliable report of what Mr. Khrushchev actually said about Stalin appeared in the Polish Communist Party paper Trybuna Lubu. In an article bu Jerzy Morawski, a leading Polish Communist, he says:—

   ” . . .  the degeneration of the security organs could, and indeed did take place. They became independent of the Party authorities and were used to consolidate the personal power of Stalin.”

And:—

“Later on repression was used automatically and blindly.”

And further:—

   “As a result many honest people were sent to prison penal camps or shot.”

  “Almost all the leaders and the active members of the Polish Communist Party then in the Soviet Union were arrested and sent to camps.”

For many years both Socialist and non-Socialist critics of the Russian régime have said that Russia was in fact a dictatorship, that Stalin was a ruthless dictator, that the Soviet Union was a police State, that many innocent people had been thrown into slave camps, and that neither democracy nor Socialism existed there. And for as many years Communists, in all countries, have denied these allegations. Yet now, scarcely three years after Stalin’s death, the Communists themselves are admitting much, if not all, of the truth about Stalin and his bloody dictatorship.



Perhaps in time more will be admitted. The Communists may even deny that Socialism exists in Russia.’

Peter E. Newell

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/search?q=stalin

Forget the Matrix, we’re living in an Alice in Blunderland times. At the bottom of the rabbit hole America has drunk from the bottle labelled peace, and the European Union and the UK has drunk fro the bottle labelled war.

Or perhaps the Mock Turtle’s song would be more appropriate; Will you, won’t you, will you, won’t you, will you join the dance?’ EU, UK and Ukraine.

 ‘ Would not, could not, would not, could not, would not join the dance.’ America and Russia.

Or perhaps those advocating for more war have adopted George Orwell’s 1984 slogan, War is Peace.

   

The position of the SPGB (The Socialist Party) has consistently been clear since its inception in 1904. Workers have no country and the slaughter by the working class of one or more state/s of the working class from a different state/s is one of the most pernicious impacts of, and orchestrated by, capitalism.

States have always entered into strange alliances when it suited their political, strategic, military objectives. The USA voting with Russia and North Korea in opposing a United Nations resolution which supported Ukraine and opposed Russia was not on the bingo card in 2024.

A conspiracy theory gaining ground at present is that Starmer’s One Hundred Year Pact recently signed with Ukraine gave Britain access to the natural resources of Ukraine that the President of the United States is desperate to get hold off. Ostensibly to repay America for the billions of dollars it has already supplied to Ukraine in aid over the period of the conflict. Peace means the USA saves in resources sent to Ukraine and future exploitation of Ukrainian resources for the American capitalist class. This is not to say that whatever the motives it is obvious that a peaceful settlement to the conflict needs to take place sooner rather than later.

Scepticism is always the response when politicians or others say everyone in the country supports this proposal or action. Therefore, reticent though we are to issue that sort of blanket speaking it does see fair to say that the majority of the working class do not support the continuation of the conflict. It is the ‘leadership’ of the European Union and the UK who appear to wan to desperately the war to go on.

Capitalist states are rapacious. The UK is nowhere near as powerful as the USA economically or militarily. The legacy media is, and has been for some time, publishing articles of a propaganda nature. The latest is in The Sun detailing how Europe ‘stacks up’ against Russia without the backing of America.

Two quotes: ‘Putin has thrown his troops into the meat-grinder in Ukraine and has been willing to take huge casualties for inches of land.’

‘America has some 3,700 active nuclear weapons while Europe’s only two nuclear powers, the UK and France, have just over 500 together.

Importantly, that’s enough to lay waste to Moscow and St Petersburg and all of Russia’s most critical and cherished sites.’

The first ignores the geo-political causes of the conflict. Whilst everyday Russians have suffered huge losses of killed and wounded the Ukrainians forced to take part have suffered considerably more.

The inches of land is a sizeable part of Ukraine.

The second verges on the insane and delusional. If nuclear weapons were to be used there wouldn’t be anything left of the UK and France. Or of large parts of Europe.

The Mail Online, 24 February 2025, ran a ‘story’ about a Russian submarine which fired a nuclear missile at the UK and the horrific situation that resulted. Is this a softening up of the population to agree to any egregious actions the UK might undertake?

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/html_modules/DeepDive/2025/nuclear%20war/Nuclear%20War_v9/aftermath.html

Are ‘leaders’ blundering toward a third world war because the alternative, incompetence and stupidity, doesn’t bear thinking about.

And it’s one, two, three, what are we fighting for?

Don’t complain, stay on gravy train. Next stop’s Ukraine.

And it’s five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates.

Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,

Whoopee! We’re all gonna die!

Apologies to Country Joe McDonald for alteration to his excellent anti-war song.

WORLD SOCIALISM AGAINST WAR