The tensions inherent in capitalism mean that the condemnation of individuals by one state toward the leaders, population or others of another competing state are a ‘normal’ activity.

The demonisation of the individual listed below appear to us to be taking things to an entirely different level.

‘The basis for the action instigated by the American State department appears to be the perceived threat to the economic interests of the American state

From an internet search:

‘On July 2, 2025, Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, presented her report titledFrom economy of occupation to economy of genocide” during the 59th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. The report highlights the deep entanglement of corporate, academic, and financial entities in sustaining Israel’s occupation and alleged genocide in Gaza. It calls for international criminal responsibility for companies and their executives involved in enabling these actions.

Key Findings: The report identifies major corporations such as Elbit Systems, Lockheed Martin, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon as complicit in providing tools, technologies, and logistical support that have fuelled the use of force against the Palestinian civilian population. It also criticises universities for their role in perpetuating the apartheid regime through research and collaborations with Israeli military and tech firms.

Corporate Involvement: The report emphasises the role of the military-industrial complex, technology sector, financial system, and academic institutions in supporting the Israeli occupation. It specifically mentions companies like Palantir, Caterpillar, and Volvo for their alleged contributions to the conflict.

Academic Complicity: Universities, including MIT and the Technical University of Munich (TUM), are highlighted for their partnerships with Israeli institutions, which the report claims contribute to the development of surveillance, crowd control, and military technologies used against Palestinians.

Financial Support: The report also points to international financial institutions and banks, such as BNP Paribas and Barclays, which have underwritten Israeli treasury bonds, thereby supporting the war effort.

Calls for Accountability: Albanese urges the international community to hold corporations, universities, and financial institutions accountable for their roles in enabling the occupation and genocide. She emphasises that international law imposes obligations to prevent and disengage from activities that fuel serious crimes, including genocide.’

‘Francesca P. Albanese 1977) is an Italian legal scholar and expert on human rights.

On 1 May 2022, she was appointed United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories for a three-year term, which was then renewed for another three years. She is the first woman to hold the position.’ Wiki

.Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide  Convention defines genocide as:

… any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group On 9 July Marco Rubio, American Secretary of State issued the following: ‘Today, I am imposing sanctions on Francesca Paola Albanese, the United Nations Human Rights Council “Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967,” pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order 14203, “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court.” Albanese has directly engaged with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in efforts to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel, without the consent of those two countries. Neither the United States nor Israel is party to the Rome Statute, making this action a gross infringement on the sovereignty of both countries.

‘The United States has repeatedly condemned and objected to the biased and malicious activities of Albanese that have long made her unfit for service as a Special Rapporteur. Albanese has spewed unabashed antisemitism, expressed support for terrorism, and open contempt for the United States, Israel, and the West. That bias has been apparent across the span of her career, including recommending that the ICC, without a legitimate basis, issue arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.

She has recently escalated this effort by writing threatening letters to dozens of entities worldwide, including major American companies across finance, technology, defence, energy, and hospitality, making extreme and unfounded accusations and recommending the ICC pursue investigations and prosecutions of these companies and their executives. We will not tolerate these campaigns of political and economic warfare, which threaten our national interests and sovereignty.

The United States will continue to take whatever actions we deem necessary to respond to lawfare, to check and prevent illegitimate ICC overreach and abuse of power, and to protect our sovereignty and that of our allies.

Albanese is being designated pursuant to Section 1(a)(ii)(A) of Executive Order (E.O.) 1420’

https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/07/sanctioning-lawfare-that-targets-u-s-and-israeli-persons/

pod.link/1819552886

With characteristic opportunism, Nigel Farage, sniffing political power, is seeking to present himself as the leader of a kind of neo-Labour Party who will fix everything Labour has always promised to fix for workers but never has. In the end however, he is only an extreme example of the opportunism inherent in all capitalist political leaders as they seek to control a system that breeds economic chaos, poses the constant threat of war and environmental degradation and can only ever offer workers at best a few crumbs from the table of the rich.Adapted from an article from the July 2025 edition 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.To read more news, views, and analysis please visit: worldsocialism.org/spgbor, for a free three-issue subscription to The Socialist Standard: 

Worldsocialistradio.com

THE RISE AND FALL OF SOLIDARNOSC IN POLAND IN THE 1980S (ZOOM)

Penny Pinching

Treasuries are empty vessels.

Chancellors, in a parlous state

Of limited means, must wrestle

With demands as they inflate.

More for defence and more for health,

More for increasing benefits;

Meanwhile, the wealthy guard their wealth

Or money markets take the hits.

Every penny capital pays

Whether as salaries or doles,

If taxes rise so must wages,

Too much by capitals’ gauges

And it’s then the stock market falls:

So, back again, to crisis days.

D. A.

 ‘If you’re feeling fearful right now, possibly because Labour wants to cut your welfare to pay for fighter planes, you won’t be consoled to learn that superyachts are getting bigger. One yacht owner helpfully explains why, for example, these floating 5-star hotels need huge kitchens to provide gourmet fare: “If you are used to eating well, not everywhere [in the world] are there restaurants good enough.”’

How tiresome for the poor lambs. Globally, 733 million are not used to eating much at all, and 9 million a year starve to death. Yet when you point to capitalism’s monstrous inequality, caused entirely by the rich exploiting the poor, the rich are the first to accuse you of the politics of envy.’

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

World Socialist Radio

First rule of soldiering, never volunteer for anything. First rule for socialists, remember workers have no country so don’t fight capitalism’s wars for them.

Reuters reports that fourteen years after compulsory military service came to an end in Germany it now plans to ‘ introduce a voluntary six-month military service scheme… as Berlin tries to train more reservists and bolster national defences over security concerns about Russia.’

The German’ Defence’ Ministry wants to increase the number of ‘professional’ military by eighty thousand and double the trained reservists by one hundred thousand.

The envisaged scheme is for volunteers to sign up initially for a six month period where they would be ‘trained ‘in simple tasks such as guard duties under the scheme, but a military draft to recruit more people could be considered if uptake were deemed too low.’

‘“The aim remains for the law on the new military service to come into force in January (2026).. Our actions are focused on this,” a spokesperson for the ministry said, adding that details would be revealed once the legislation reaches parliament. Participants in Germany’s planned scheme will have the opportunity to extend their homeland security training to obtain a truck driver’s licence or train as a tank driver, the sources said .New improvised barracks are also planned so that recruits can train closer to home, they added.

The sources said Pistorius wants to have the legislation passed by the end of next month, with the first recruits to start training from May 2026.

Questions remain about the plan, including who would be drafted for compulsory service if the government did not meet its recruitment targets.’

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-plans-six-month-voluntary-military-service-sources-say-2025-07-04/

The below is from the Socialist Standard January 1971

‘It is just over ten tears ago that peace time conscription (one of the Attlee government’s steps towards socialism) came to an end (by order of a Tory government). For the most part, National Servicemen agreed that the time they spent in the forces was a stilling bore. Some swore that they spent almost the entire two years sitting around with virtually nothing to do; others, that any sporting prowess was the passport, through a corrupt adjutant, to a cushy posting.

The surprising fact was that so many of these men, after their demob, could recall the episode without experiencing an overwhelming urge to blow up the Houses of Parliament. Very few were really angry about those wasted months; they looked back on it all with an amused tolerance, perhaps even with some affection.

They remembered the time spent square-bashing under roaring NCOs, the kit inspections with everything moronically clean and laid out in monotonous pattern. They swapped memories of barrack room japes and booze ups as if service life was one long revel. Many a demobbed clerk used to announce his morning arrival at the office with “Orderly officer! Stand by y’beds!” It was almost as if, in very drab lives, being plucked out into the service was one isolated, treasured patch of colour.

Perhaps those gentle memories were a rationalisation of what was actually an unpleasant experience, which the conscripts could not contain or justify in any other way. If there is a massive guilt complex at large, it has probably been successfully projected; a recent Opinion Research Centre poll said that 43 per cent of those questioned about conscription favoured a return of it.

At this time of long haired, protesting, questioning, free-loving, delinquent, youth — a return of conscription? It is useful, to take that as a starting point.

If we played the old psychological party game and asked a collection of people what word came immediately to mind when we said “Army”, a fair number would reply “discipline”. And it is discipline, with elements of orderliness, smartness, cleanliness, which present day society is supposed to lack. A large part of the Services’ efforts goes into this discipline business and the instilling of it is the basis of all those parades, saluting, stamping, polishing, shining, folding, adjusting . . 

A plainer, but more accurate, way of expressing this is that it is intended to induce a state of mind in which the disciplined ask no questions. They obey — even the word of an ignorant, bull-headed man whose only advantage is in the stripes on his sleeve. Men who can be trained to co-operate enthusiastically in pointless activities like making sure they walk about a barrack square in exactly the same way as a few hundred other men can also be trained to give of their best in other, equally pointless, activities. They will, for example, if the man with the stripes tells them to, do their best to kill some other, equally disciplined and conditioned, man who is wearing a different uniform.

Once in that mindless mob action, it takes some courage to make a stand. Conform — that is the password. When you are in the mob you take everything like a soldier. That includes your work (which may mean killing your fellow conscript on the other side), your punishments, your drink. Even your sex. The old conscripts may backlash, now that they are in their thirties and forties, at the so-called Permissive Society and the current attempted ventilation of some of the more suffocating phobias of sex. It was different in their day, when a soldier was applauded for taking a local wench upright in an alley at the back of a dance hall. That, after all, was the soldier’s way . . .

This professed contempt for women is in fact part of an obsession which finds its place conveniently among the myths of capitalism. That is the obsession with manliness, the notion that a man must act in a particular style and must confine his interests to particular fields. Thus in advanced society a man may be employed in a factory, he may relax in some sports, he is pressured to adopt certain dress styles, even to like particular drinks (like in the T.V. ad for Courage bitter). To step out of this pattern — for example for a man to put on an apron and do the housework while his wife goes out to work — would be to put doubt on his sexuality, even his sanity

There is of course a vast amount of research which destroys the idea that the respective roles of men and women in society are fixed and necessarily logical. In fact capitalism allots to them the roles which fit in with the system’s needs and priorities. Predictably, capitalism justifies this with a campaign which glorifies the roles it has allotted and by erecting a huge edifice of prejudice. In this way, manliness and militancy are connected; the soldier stamps his way around, he shouts his commands. He demonstrates strength.

The crucial point here is that the reactions and the disciplines which are instilled by military life are in their way very useful to capitalist society outside. Capitalism is a social system of privilege in which the vast majority are underdogs. If they ever realise their sheer power, if they ever see through the system’s deceptions, then the days of privilege are numbered. A great propaganda effort is devoted to delaying the day of reckoning.

Workers are taught that in many things conformity is a virtue; they are taught that mass production is good because it is more profitable. The ideal which is dangled before them is to live in one of a regiment of semis, with a Ford in the gutter outside and two point three (or whatever point it is) children to take out an endowment insurance on. They are taught docility, that the life of the worker who accepts his lot is good (those endowments mature someday) and getting better. Anybody who gets impatient at the slowness of the “improvements”, or who wants more than an improvement, must be a neurotic, a long hair, a hippy. It would obviously do him good, knock all that nonsense out of him, if he had to go in the Army. A pity they don’t bring conscription back . . .

This is no more than an attempt at an easy answer to all the doubts and questioning about capitalism and its effects. Militarism is itself suppressive, an attempt to harden bodies and brutalise minds to the point where they are ready to obey any order, tolerate any obscenity. But the questioning will go on and militarism is no more than an obstacle to be surmounted. If there is no discipline in this it is not the discipline of the barked command, the automatic obedience. It is the discipline of knowledge and in the struggle between the two there is no doubt about which shall overcome.’

Ivan

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2016/06/motives-of-militarism-1971.html

First rule of soldiering, never volunteer for anything. First rule for socialists, remember workers have no country so don’t fight capitalism’s wars for them.

Reuters reports that fourteen years after compulsory military service came to an end in Germany it now plans to ‘ introduce a voluntary six-month military service scheme… as Berlin tries to train more reservists and bolster national defences over security concerns about Russia.’

The German’ Defence’ Ministry wants to increase the number of ‘professional’ military by eighty thousand and double the trained reservists by one hundred thousand.

The envisaged scheme is for volunteers to sign up initially for a six month period where they would be ‘trained ‘in simple tasks such as guard duties under the scheme, but a military draft to recruit more people could be considered if uptake were deemed too low.’

‘“The aim remains for the law on the new military service to come into force in January (2026).. Our actions are focused on this,” a spokesperson for the ministry said, adding that details would be revealed once the legislation reaches parliament. Participants in Germany’s planned scheme will have the opportunity to extend their homeland security training to obtain a truck driver’s licence or train as a tank driver, the sources said .New improvised barracks are also planned so that recruits can train closer to home, they added.

The sources said Pistorius wants to have the legislation passed by the end of next month, with the first recruits to start training from May 2026.

Questions remain about the plan, including who would be drafted for compulsory service if the government did not meet its recruitment targets.’

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-plans-six-month-voluntary-military-service-sources-say-2025-07-04/

The below is from the Socialist Standard January 1971

‘It is just over ten tears ago that peace time conscription (one of the Attlee government’s steps towards socialism) came to an end (by order of a Tory government). For the most part, National Servicemen agreed that the time they spent in the forces was a stilling bore. Some swore that they spent almost the entire two years sitting around with virtually nothing to do; others, that any sporting prowess was the passport, through a corrupt adjutant, to a cushy posting.

The surprising fact was that so many of these men, after their demob, could recall the episode without experiencing an overwhelming urge to blow up the Houses of Parliament. Very few were really angry about those wasted months; they looked back on it all with an amused tolerance, perhaps even with some affection.

They remembered the time spent square-bashing under roaring NCOs, the kit inspections with everything moronically clean and laid out in monotonous pattern. They swapped memories of barrack room japes and booze ups as if service life was one long revel. Many a demobbed clerk used to announce his morning arrival at the office with “Orderly officer! Stand by y’beds!” It was almost as if, in very drab lives, being plucked out into the service was one isolated, treasured patch of colour.

Perhaps those gentle memories were a rationalisation of what was actually an unpleasant experience, which the conscripts could not contain or justify in any other way. If there is a massive guilt complex at large, it has probably been successfully projected; a recent Opinion Research Centre poll said that 43 per cent of those questioned about conscription favoured a return of it.

At this time of long haired, protesting, questioning, free-loving, delinquent, youth — a return of conscription? It is useful, to take that as a starting point.

If we played the old psychological party game and asked a collection of people what word came immediately to mind when we said “Army”, a fair number would reply “discipline”. And it is discipline, with elements of orderliness, smartness, cleanliness, which present day society is supposed to lack. A large part of the Services’ efforts goes into this discipline business and the instilling of it is the basis of all those parades, saluting, stamping, polishing, shining, folding, adjusting . . 

A plainer, but more accurate, way of expressing this is that it is intended to induce a state of mind in which the disciplined ask no questions. They obey — even the word of an ignorant, bull-headed man whose only advantage is in the stripes on his sleeve. Men who can be trained to co-operate enthusiastically in pointless activities like making sure they walk about a barrack square in exactly the same way as a few hundred other men can also be trained to give of their best in other, equally pointless, activities. They will, for example, if the man with the stripes tells them to, do their best to kill some other, equally disciplined and conditioned, man who is wearing a different uniform.

Once in that mindless mob action, it takes some courage to make a stand. Conform — that is the password. When you are in the mob you take everything like a soldier. That includes your work (which may mean killing your fellow conscript on the other side), your punishments, your drink. Even your sex. The old conscripts may backlash, now that they are in their thirties and forties, at the so-called Permissive Society and the current attempted ventilation of some of the more suffocating phobias of sex. It was different in their day, when a soldier was applauded for taking a local wench upright in an alley at the back of a dance hall. That, after all, was the soldier’s way . . .

This professed contempt for women is in fact part of an obsession which finds its place conveniently among the myths of capitalism. That is the obsession with manliness, the notion that a man must act in a particular style and must confine his interests to particular fields. Thus in advanced society a man may be employed in a factory, he may relax in some sports, he is pressured to adopt certain dress styles, even to like particular drinks (like in the T.V. ad for Courage bitter). To step out of this pattern — for example for a man to put on an apron and do the housework while his wife goes out to work — would be to put doubt on his sexuality, even his sanity

There is of course a vast amount of research which destroys the idea that the respective roles of men and women in society are fixed and necessarily logical. In fact capitalism allots to them the roles which fit in with the system’s needs and priorities. Predictably, capitalism justifies this with a campaign which glorifies the roles it has allotted and by erecting a huge edifice of prejudice. In this way, manliness and militancy are connected; the soldier stamps his way around, he shouts his commands. He demonstrates strength.

The crucial point here is that the reactions and the disciplines which are instilled by military life are in their way very useful to capitalist society outside. Capitalism is a social system of privilege in which the vast majority are underdogs. If they ever realise their sheer power, if they ever see through the system’s deceptions, then the days of privilege are numbered. A great propaganda effort is devoted to delaying the day of reckoning.

Workers are taught that in many things conformity is a virtue; they are taught that mass production is good because it is more profitable. The ideal which is dangled before them is to live in one of a regiment of semis, with a Ford in the gutter outside and two point three (or whatever point it is) children to take out an endowment insurance on. They are taught docility, that the life of the worker who accepts his lot is good (those endowments mature someday) and getting better. Anybody who gets impatient at the slowness of the “improvements”, or who wants more than an improvement, must be a neurotic, a long hair, a hippy. It would obviously do him good, knock all that nonsense out of him, if he had to go in the Army. A pity they don’t bring conscription back . . .

This is no more than an attempt at an easy answer to all the doubts and questioning about capitalism and its effects. Militarism is itself suppressive, an attempt to harden bodies and brutalise minds to the point where they are ready to obey any order, tolerate any obscenity. But the questioning will go on and militarism is no more than an obstacle to be surmounted. If there is no discipline in this it is not the discipline of the barked command, the automatic obedience. It is the discipline of knowledge and in the struggle between the two there is no doubt about which shall overcome.’

Ivan

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2016/06/motives-of-militarism-1971.html

2025 has been designated by the UN as International Year of Cooperatives.

5th July is International Day of Cooperatives.

‘The International Cooperative Alliance (ACI) is pleased to announce the official theme for the 2025 International Day of Cooperatives (CoopsDay): “Cooperatives: Driving Inclusive and Sustainable Solutions for a Better World.”To be celebrated on 5 July 2025, this year’s CoopsDay will serve as a flagship moment within the United Nations International Year of Cooperatives —a once-in-a-decade opportunity to spotlight the critical role of cooperatives in building more inclusive, resilient, and sustainable communities.’ (Our emphasis).

https://ica.coop/en/newsroom/news/theme-announced-coopsday-2025-driving-inclusive-and-sustainable-solutions-better

At least that’s what the International Cooperative Alliance would have us believe.

The poor dears seem to have forgotten that the world economy is driven by the laws of capitalist production. Meaning that every enterprise must increase its productivity if it is to stay in business.

Increasing productivity is (usually) achieved by spending more of the enterprise’s revenue on technology, so reducing the amount available for wages. So eventually, there will be fewer workers, or lower wages.

There is no opt-out from this particular law.

The below is from the Socialist Standard March 1989.

‘Co-operatives and capitalism’

‘Dear Editors

R. Lloyd in the November 1988 issue asserts as an absolute dogma that “Cooperatives do not give workers security of employment; do not free them from exploitation; and do not allow the luxury of producing goods outside the parameters of commodity production. Co-operatives under capitalism cannot be organised in any other way”.

(Socialist Standard) https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2018/09/co-ops-and-capitalism-1988.html

Accepting with certain reservations, that “cooperatives under capitalism cannot be organised in any other way”, I should like to know how the Socialist Party envisages cooperatives could function in the circumstances where there is a considerable degree of socialist consciousness. It seems to me quite ludicrous to suggest that a significant growth of socialist consciousness will not bring about a concomitant reduction in the scale and extent of capitalist economic relations. Surely, both the desire and the opportunities, to transcend the market place and produce things directly for need, starting with small scale and localised activities, are bound the grow with the growth of the socialist movement itself? It seems to me wholly reasonable to suggest that cooperatives represent one particular form, amongst many, through which these expanding non-market productive relationships will be able to take hold at the expense of capitalist relations. This is not at all the same as saying that co-ops can produce for need within the framework of capitalism. Rather, it means they can only do so outside that framework, which would be possible because the framework itself would have contracted. Nor does this mean that socialist should not still aim for the political abolition of capitalism but only that these two approaches are not mutually exclusive. They are complementary, production, which only operates through the prospect of profit, can possibly operate prior to the political capture of power when the socialist aim to abolish the profit system becomes itself a serious prospect?

Louise Cox

Haslemere

Reply:

We are not in the habit of asserting absolute dogmas. The passage our correspondent quotes was based on hard evidence of the experience of co-operatives under capitalism. She in fact more or less accepts this conclusion, but questions whether it must always be so, suggesting that “where there is a considerable degree of socialist consciousness” co-operatives will be able to “transcend the marketplace and produce things directly for need”.

When there is a “considerable degree of socialist consciousness” (when, that is, millions of people are against the money-prices-wages system and want to replace it with a world of free access and production for need), we can indeed “envisage” a lot of things. That, for instance, capitalist politicians and governments will lean over backwards to offer reforms; that trade union will become more democratic and more militant; that the capitalist state will have an increasing problem to recruit workers to serve in its armed forces, to mention some things have long been a subject of speculation among socialists. We can also envisage the co-operative movement too being affected by this ferment of ideas, by becoming more democratic and even by expanding to a limited extent. Why not? After all, who knows?

Our correspondent, however, is asking us to envisage much more than this. She sees the co-operatives as representing “one particular form, amongst many, through which expanding non-market productive relationships will be able to take hold at the expense of capitalist relations”.

We can’t agree that this is at all a reasonable assumption. Remember, we are talking about a time when there is to be a considerable number of socialists but not yet a majority. This means that the capitalist class, basing themselves on the non-socialist majority, will still control political power and so still monopolise the means of production. How, in these circumstances. could any co-operative detach itself from the rest of the economy, which would remain geared to producing goods for sale on a market with a view to profit, and begin producing goods to consumers could have free access according to need? Where, to get down to the bottom line, would the money come from to acquire the raw materials and power needed to produce the goods that are to be given away free? Surely our correspondent doesn’t imagine that capitalist firms would generously agree to supply these free of charge! The fact is that, as long as the capitalist class control political power, which they will be able to continue to do for as long as there is a majority of non-socialists. capitalist economic relationships (commodity production, wage-labour, production for profit will be bound to prevail, however large the minority of socialist might be.

Of course some might regard all this as speculation and they would be right to a certain extent, but such theoretical questions are important since to have a correct practice now it is necessary to have a correct theory. Our correspondent’s theoretically unsound views lead her to advocate an unsound practice now. namely, encouraging present-day co-operatives, despite their capitalist character, as a potentially “socialistic” form in the future. She thereby places herself in the same camp as those we criticised in our original article, who she must regard as being right if for the wrong reasons.

Finally, our correspondent has misunderstood our position. We have never said that “the only approach available is the capture of political power”. Certainly this is the main goal which the socialist movement must set itself, since until political power has been taken out of capitalist hands the socialist transformation of society cannot be carried out. We note, in passing, that our correspondent too regards winning control of political power as necessary.

There are indeed other things which a considerable number of socialists can do within capitalism apart from the propaganda and electoral activity that any movement seeking to win political control by democratic means must engage in. We have always recognised “the need for the growing socialist movement to formulate its general plans in advance of the capture of political control, so that society might be transformed in a smooth and speedy manner” (as we put it in the Introduction to our pamphlet Socialism as a Practical Alternative). This would no doubt involve the socialist movement, and workers generally, preparing programmes of action for immediate implementation at workplaces and in such fields as education and health once political control has been taken out of capitalist hands. Needless to say. today we cannot do much more than say this will be necessary, since the exact details of such plans will have to be left to the time when the socialist movement will be very much stronger than it now is.’

EDITORS

 tinyurl.com/SPGB-Coops

The below is from the Socialist Standard July 1919

 ‘During the 15th century the minds of the merchants in the rising European commercial States were agitated by the attempts to discover another way to the East Indies, for the customary caravan routes across the Continent of Asia were threatened, and in some cases completely blocked, by the growth of Arabian and Moorish power. Portugal, through Diaz and da Gama, tried round the Southern part of Africa, while Spain sent Columbus across the Western waters.

Columbus eventually reached America, and the land he discovered is thus described by Prescott (Prescott’s Works, edited by John Foster Kirk) in his “Biographical and Critical Miscellanies”:

  All around was free,—free as Nature herself: the mighty streams rolling on in their majesty, as they had continued to roll from the creation; the forests which no hand had violated, flourishing in primeval grandeur and beauty: their only tenants the wild animals, or the Indians nearly as wild, scarcely held together by any tie of social polity. Nowhere was the trace of civilized man or his curious contrivances. . . The only eye upon them was the eye of heaven. (Page 127)The dealings of Columbus, the slave trader, with the natives of this virgin land is a record of fraud, cruelty, and force perpetrated on innocent, generous, and credulous savages. As the immediate pecuniary gains from his discoveries did not satisfy those who financed his expedition, Columbus frequently offered to send to Spain cargoes of the natives to be sold into slavery.



The colonists who followed in the track of Columbus were Court adventurers and companies of merchants, who were granted tracts of land with almost unlimited rights of settlement, being empowered to make their own laws, etc. The settlements were originally on the Eastern coast, but could be extended, if desired in strips right across the continent to the Pacific coast.



From the beginning the attitude of the colonists toward the innocent savages was one of cruelty and rapine, as the following quotation will bear out (in Reference to Rayleigh’s settlement on Roanoke Island, N. Carolina, 1585) :

   Treachery and cruelty, however, marked the brief existence of even this first English colony; a leading Indian chief and his principle followers were massacred by pre-concert at an audience at which no sign of hostility was shown by the Indians.—“War of American Independence,” Ludlow, p. 27.As the new land was opened up the settler commenced to do a roaring trade with the mother country, and the need for workers arose “Voluntary emigration ceased in 1685, and the only additions from England to the white population were by means of transportation and kidnapping, the latter practised chiefly from Bristol.” (Ludlow, p. 31.) “Kidnappers as well as slave buyers, the colonists broke the treaties with the Indians, harried them with commandoes, and sold them as slaves to the West Indies.” (Ludlow, p. 36.)