‘ A modest little tale about Cuban snails offers a fine comment on how the capitalist money system values everything in terms of prices, often with disastrous results. Polymita tree snails have spectacular shells like painted artworks. This attracts collectors who then make money by selling the shells. The trade reduces the snail population, and as they become rarer, their price goes up, which makes them even more collectible. This accelerator effect is driving them to the edge of extinction, like so many other hunted animals.

The BBC describes them as ‘threatened by their own beauty’. What really threatens them is capitalism, a profit-hungry beast which won’t stop until it devours everything. Or until we abolish it.’

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

On the Eightieth anniversary of the dropping, by the USA, of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, we reprint one of many pieces from the Socialist Standard on this horrific action and reiterate the conclusion at the end of the piece below.

‘Socialists want no part of this nightmare world. Socialists are opposed to war, whether nuclear or “conventional” weapons are used.

The solution however, does not lie in the banning of a specific kind of weapon. Weapons are only necessary in a world of capitalist competition. The real enemy is the social system that breeds it. Our task is to keep the issue clear. To insist on the need for a society without privilege, poverty, or war. We take our stand solely for socialism.’

From the September 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘“We take no pride in being able to massacre millions of our fellow human beings, to poison the air, to cripple the children of the future. We find no safety in weapons designed only for wars that nobody can win… “

These words from the leaflet announcing the second Aldermaston March, expressed the feeling of the idealistic element of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Heard above the suave evasions of politicians, and the arrogant threats of generals, this call, to those enchanted, seemed the golden echo of truth itself; promising in victory, a finer and happier life for Man.

How and why did this protest arise? What has it achieved? Will it set the foot of Man on the long-sought path of Peace and Happiness?

To answer these questions one must go back to see how it came into being and how it has grown.

THE FIRST ATOMIC BOMB

On July 16th, 1945, in the New Mexico desert, the Los Alamos scientists successfully exploded the first atomic device. Reports of this were hurried to President Truman at the Potsdam Conference. After consulting his advisers he gave authority to an air force group, in special training since the autumn of 1944, to prepare to use the atomic bombs.

In the early days of August, from a warship in mid-Atlantic, Truman gave the final order to begin the atomic bombing of selected Japanese cities. At the earliest indication of clear weather over Hiroshima, a B-29 was dispatched. A uranium bomb, assembled in the air on the way to the target, was dropped. Hiroshima on the morning of August 6th, 1945, became the first atomic crematorium. The “new weapon of special destructive force” which Truman had casually mentioned to Stalin, was a secret no longer.

The Russian government, fearing a belated American attempt to deprive it of some of the spoils of Yalta, hastened to declare war on Japan. A right to participate in the final share-out of the Far Eastern loot; a desire to safeguard their sphere of influence, these were the main concerns of the Russian rulers. No protest at a sickening outrage. No sorrow expressed at the agonies of the Hiroshima victims, the seared, stunned survivors; the radio-active remnants of what had been men, women and little children! So much for the party of Lenin and Stalin in the glorious fight for Peace!

Truman’s other allies, the British ruling class, their interests now in the care of a Labour Government, watched, from afar, the results of their joint scientific and industrial enterprise. Three days after Hiroshima, Attlee’s representative, Group Captain Cheshire, was present at the bombing of Nagasaki, where a plutonium bomb, operating on a new principle, was used.

Public awareness of the circumstances in which the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan has always been limited by the facile myth that these bombs were necessary to break the back of Japanese resistance, thereby saving Allied lives. Japan was, in fact, on the verge of collapse.

A GRUESOME EXPERIMENT?

Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, towns on a carefully selected list of possible targets, a gruesome experiment? A callous scheme of sections of the American military, designed to discover the respective merits of different kinds of atomic bombs when used against densely-populated industrial centres?

Was the atomic bombing a practical demonstration of American technical superiority in warfare to warn the Russian rulers against expansion which might further encroach upon American spheres of influence?

Whatever answers posterity may yield, however intricate the web of truth, to Socialists, there is no word, no line, to justify this deed. Nothing can excuse the roasting of the newly-born or the incineration of infants at play, the slaughter of thousands.

Whatever may have been the reasons, political, economic, military or personal, that may have moved the principal actors to speak the lines and play the parts they did, to Socialists one thing is the essential point. This war and all its misery and fire, was rooted in capitalism.

It is not the villainy of militarists, the schemings of armament kings, the bellicosity of dictators, the ineptitude of statesmen, that is the cause of war in the modern world. It is not deceptions practised upon honest by dishonest politicians.

It was not the manoeuverings of Roosevelt and Churchill nor the embargo placed upon raw materials for Japan in 1941 and all the machinations on both sides of the Pacific leading up to the “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbour that were the causes of war in the Far East.

STRUGGLE FOR MARKETS 

Basically, the cause of the war, which led to the bestiality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was the conflict between the different national groups of capitalists, each aiming to improve its position in the relentless struggle to maintain or expand its control over markets and sources of raw materials. Little territory or resources, easily exploitable, remained to the nations such as Germany, Italy and Japan which had come late to the table.

To satisfy their growing appetites, arising from industrial and commercial expansion, the senior predators, they thought, must yield to them a large share of the economic fruits of earlier piracy.

The Japanese forces slowly advancing into Indo-China were a menace to American, British, Chinese, and Dutch interests in the islands and archipelagoes of South East Asia, fabulously rich in raw materials. Rubber, tin, nickel, oil and the like were never absent from the calculations of all concerned. The Japanese sought to control the Chinese mainland and to bring all South East Asia under their economic and cultural sway, by force of arms, if necessary.

In the West, if Germany over-ran Europe, the American rulers would find their long-term interests threatened, by a collossus commanding vast technical and industrial resources. A bitter struggle therefore ensued. The bomb and the bayonet became the means to convince where the honeyed modulations of sleek and urbane ambassadors had failed.

The attack on Pearl Harbour, the possibility of which American admirals had been discussing since the early thirties, helped to persuade the ordinary American people, who like people everywhere else, had no desire to become involved in war, that war was necessary in the interest of the nation as a whole. The Pearl Harbour attack roused the American people to a fury; they were in the war before they knew what it was all about. To the American man in the street the atomic bombing was a justified reprisal for the Japanese attack four years earlier. Thus does violence breed violence.

RUSSIA

It must not be thought that Russia comes into conflict with the other powers because of ideological reasons; because its social system is alleged to be “Socialist.”

Russia is a capitalist country. All the basic features of capitalism exist there; class monopoly of the means of production, backed-up by a powerful state apparatus, the dominance of commodity production and the profit motive, the subjection of the majority to wage-labour, the “anarchy of production” called “state-planning”; all are there.

All modern nations have these basic attributes. They may have particular features arising from the different national and economic backgrounds from which capitalism developed in each country. Each emerging capitalist class was born into a certain historical situation. The new industrial capitalists of England in the nineteenth century had the world at their feet; the later arrivals to the capitalist jungle, while having advantages in being able to learn and apply the latest techniques, found themselves surrounded by already entrenched rivals.

It is not what men think or say about themselves that is crucial to the analysis of a social system. It is how they are related to other men about the means of production, what role they play in the productive process, what, in fact, they do. In struggling with the traditional capitalist groups of the world, the top-ranking Communist Party bureaucrats, and politicians, the military, and industrial senior executives, in short, representatives of Russian capitalism, are different in no fundamental way. They are all as helpless to prevent war, and all as ruthless in its prosecution when diplomacy has failed.

FOR SOCIALISM

Socialists want no part of this nightmare world. Socialists are opposed to war, whether nuclear or “conventional” weapons are used.

The solution however, does not lie in the banning of a specific kind of weapon. Weapons are only necessary in a world of capitalist competition. The real enemy is the social system that breeds it. Our task is to keep the issue clear. To insist on the need for a society without privilege, poverty, or war. We take our stand solely for socialism.’

B

Appended at the bottom of this article in the original issue of the Socialist Standard:

Lord Attlee and the Bomb

“He [Mr. Truman] had to take the decision about the atom bomb. It is questioned sometimes. In my view, in the light of the knowledge we had at that time, he was absolutely right.”

Lord Attlee at a Pilgrims’ Dinner (July 21st, 1956) reported in “Daily Telegraph” (July 22nd, 1956)

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2016/05/hiroshima-nagasakithe-background-1959.html

One hundred and thirty years ago on the 5th August 1885. Frederick Engels died.

The below is from the Socialist Standard of August 1995 on the centenary of his death.

‘1995 is the Centenary of the death of Karl Marx’s friend and collaborator Frederick Engels, and Engels spent his entire adult life working for socialism. A prolific and popular writer as well as indefatigable activist and theorist, his name is justly coupled with that of his life-long friend as the originator of scientific socialism.

Engels became a Socialist (or Communist in the language of the time) earlier than Marx, in October 1842—at the age of 22—after a meeting with Moses Hess. Hess, Engels wrote a year later, was the first of the “Young Hegelians” to embrace socialist ideas, so founding a school of German “philosophical communism”. 

The Young Hegelians were a group of intellectuals who gave Hegel’s philosophical views a radical twist and used them to criticise the then existing political and social order. Engels associated with them when he was in Berlin doing his military service in 1841-2. 

Hegel (who had died in 1831) was a conservative who supported both Protestant Christianity and the Prussian monarchy, but as he saw the history of humanity as a progression through stages towards the goal of a free and rational society it is easy to see how his philosophical views could be given a radical interpretation, He himself saw “the end of history”, or the goal towards which society had been moving throughout history, as being the Protestant monarchy; the Young Hegelians saw this as a democratic and non-religious state; Moses Hess saw it as a society of equality and common ownership, a view to which Engels, as stated, adhered in 1842 and which Marx came over to towards the end of 1843. 

Owenite Socialism 

Soon after becoming a Communist Engels went to live and work in England, in the office of the Manchester branch of the cotton-spinning firm, Ermen & Engels, in which his father was a partner. Here he encountered another group which advocated common ownership, but which had reached this conclusion by a quite different route: the Owenites or, as they called themselves, the Socialists (they in fact invented the word). 

Robert Owen, who could justly be called the father of modem, or industrial era, socialism, had developed a materialist theory of human behaviour and argued that marriage, religion and private prop­erty “together form the great trinity of causes of crime and.immorality among mankind”. 

The Owenites were essentially a propaganda group carrying on agitation against this trinity. They repudiated state and church sponsored marriage for life and advocated divorce, birth control and worn en’s liberation. They attacked the bible and Christianity as untrue (some from an atheist point of view, but others advocated a new “religion of humanity. They denounced private property and competitive individualism and advocated a “rational system of society” where there would be common ownership and distribution according to needs without money or buying and selling. Insofar as they did more than propagate these ideas they attempted to set up settlements in both Britain and America on communist lines. 

At this time—the early 1840s—the Owenite Socialists were the strongest they were ever to be. Their national association had tens of thousands of members they were able to open meeting places up and down the country, like the Hall of Science in Manchester. They also ran a weekly paper called the ‘New Moral World‘ as well as publishing numerous tracts and pamphlets. Engels attended the Sunday lectures at the Manchester Hall of Science and was clearly impressed both by the hundreds of people attending but also by the quality of the lectures and discussions. There can be no doubt that, after becoming a philosophical communist under the influence of Hess, Engels learned much of the rest of his socialist ideas from the Owenites.

One obvious example is his views on marriage and women’s liberation. Not only did he not believe in marriage but he did not practise it either. He and Mary Burns lived together as partners for 18 years until her death in 1863. Afterwards he and Lizzie Burns lived together as “Mr and Mrs Engels” till her death in 1878. In neither case were these relationships sanctified by the church or state (though Engels and Lizzie Burns did go through a formal marriage ceremony on her death-bed as her last wish). Marx’s wife was so shocked by this flouting of bourgeois convention that she always refused to meet Mary Burns.

Engels’s book on The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, published in 1884, shows an evident sympathy for the plight of women as an oppressed group, as when he describes the ending of descent through the female line and the coming of the father-dominated patriarchal family as “the world-historic defeat of the female sex”, a wrong which he argued would be undone through the (re-)establishment of common ownership in place of private property. The Owenites of the 1840s would have appreciated both the book and the sentiment.

Engels contributed articles to the New Moral World from November 1843 to May 1845. He returned to Germany in August 1844 where he remained in his father’s house in his home town of Barmen (near Düsseldorf in the Rhineland). Here he joined with Hess in carrying out a campaign in the area of basic socialist propaganda, i.e. straight arguments for a communist society without private property, competition, buying and selling or money. It was here too that he wrote his first book The Condition of the Working Class in England based on information he had gathered while working in Manchester and associating with the Owenites, Chartists and trade unionists of the North of England. 

Agitation for Socialism 

In February 1845 he and Hess spoke at a series of meetings in Elberfeld. At the first of these Engels began by denouncing existing society in these terms: 

In our present-day society, each man works on his own, each strives for his own enrichment and is not in the least concerned with what the rest are doing; rational organisation, or distribution of jobs, is out of the question; on the contrary, each seeks to get the better of the other, seeks to exploit any favourable opportunity for his own private advantage and has neither time nor inclination to think about the fact that, at bottom, his own interests coincide with those of all other people. The individual capitalist is involved in struggle with all the other capitalists; the individual worker with all the other workers; all capitalists fight against the workers just as the mass of workers in their turn have, of necessity, to fight against the mass of capitalists. In this war of all against all, in this general confusion and mutual exploitation, the essence of present-day bourgeois society is to be found. But, gentlemen, such an unregulated economic system must, in the long run, lead to the most disastrous results for society . . . (Marx-Engels Collected Works, Vo1.4, p. 243).

Among these “disastrous results” were commercial crises. These would be impossible in a communist society: 

In communist society, where the interests of individuals are not opposed to one another but, on the contrary, are united, competition is eliminated. As is self-evident, there can no longer be any question of the ruin of particular classes, nor of the very existence of classes such as the rich and the poor nowadays. As soon as private gain, the aim of the individual to enrich himself on his own, disappears from the production and distribution of the goods necessary to life, trade crises will also disappear of themselves. In communist society it will be easy to be informed about both production and consumption. Since we know how much, on the average, a person needs, it is easy to calculate how much is needed by a given number of individuals, and since production is no longer in the hands of private producers but in those of the community and its administrative bodies, it is a trifling matter to regulate production according to needs. Thus we see how the main evils of the present social situation disappear under communist organisation. “(Marx-Engels Collected Works, p.246). 

Because he was arguing directly for Socialism Engels had to face the same objections as Socialists do today, in particular “it’ s a nice idea, but it would never work”. Engels chose to counter this by saying that “community of goods” and voluntary work had been tried and were working in various communistic colonies set up by the Shakers, the Rappites and others, to show that people could live in communist conditions. For his informa­tion he relied heavily on a series of articles by the Owenite John Finch which had appeared in the New Moral World between January and October 1844. Engels quoted Finch’s description of how the Rappite community at Economy functioned: 

They live in families of from twenty to forty individuals, each of which has a separate house and domestic establishment. The family gets its supplies as much as it requires from the common stores. They have an abundance for all and they get as much as they wish without charge. When they need clothing, they apply to the head tailor, the head seamstress or shoemaker and are furnished with it made to their taste. Fresh meat and the other foods are divided among the families according to the number of individuals in each, and they have everything in abundance and plenitude.” (“Description of Recently Founded Communist Colonies Still in Exist­ence”, Marx-Engels Collected Works, Vol.4, p.220). 

Engels envisaged a communist society (as opposed to a communist colony or commune) functioning on this sort of principle too. But what would be the incentive to work? Who would do the dirty work? Engels had already answered this in the first article he wrote for the New Moral World in November 1843: 

It was Fourier, who, for the first time, established the great axiom of social philosophy, that every individual having an inclination or predilection for some particular kind of work, the sum of all these inclinations of all individuals must be, upon the whole, an adequate power for providing for the wants of all. From this principle, it follows, that if every individual is left to his own inclination, to do and to leave what he pleases, the wants of all will be provided for, without the forcible means used by the present system of society. This assertion looks bold, and yet; after Fourier’s mode of establishing it, is quite unassailable, almost self-evident—the egg of Colombus. Fourier proves, that every one is born with an inclination for some kind of work, that absolute idleness is nonsense, a thing which never existed, and cannot exist: that the essence of the human mind is to be active itself and to bring the body into activity; and that, therefore, there is no necessity for making people active by force, as in the now existing state of society, but only to give their natural activity the right direction. He goes on proving the identity of labour and enjoyment, and shows the irrationality of the present social system, which separates them, making labour a toil, and placing enjoyment above the reach of the majority of the labourers; he shows further, how, under rational arrangements, labour may be made, what it is intended to be, an enjoyment, leaving every one to follow his own inclinations.” (‘Progress of Social Reform on the Continent’, Marx-Engels Collected Works, Vol. 3, pp394-5). 

Ahead of their time 

Engels later revised his rather optimistic view of these communist-type settlements within capitalism. In 1848 in the Communist Manifesto, which he and Marx drafted, the section on “Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism” refers to “small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure”, explaining this failure as being due to the fact that conditions weren’t yet ripe for the establishment of socialism: industry wasn’t developed enough nor was the working class. 

This left the ideas the early Socialists expressed—ideas of common ownership, voluntary work, distribution according to need and no money and no buying and selling—hanging in the air, as it were, with no material or class basis. As a result they appeared as abstract propositions unrelated to practical reality, or “utopian” in that sense. The ideas themselves, however, remained perfectly valid as a description of the content of socialism, of the features of the society workers would have to establish to free themselves from the exploitation they suffered under capitalism. 

Engels’s criticism of the Utopian Socialists was not of their ideas for a new society but of the fact that these were not connected to the working class movement as a means of realising them, and in fact could not have been at the time they were first put forward in the 1820s and 1830s. As he and Marx went on to say in the same section of the Communist Manifesto: 

But these Socialist and Communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing society. Hence they are full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class. The practical measures proposed in them—such as the abolition of the distinction between town and country, of the family, of the carrying on of industries for the account of private individuals, of the wage system, the proclamation of social harmony, the conversion of the functions of the State into a mere superintendence of production, all these proposals point solely to the disappearance of class antagonisms.

Although Engels was never again to enter into such detail as to what a socialist society might be like as he did in 1843-5, he never departed from this view that the classless society the working class should strive for should be a society of common ownership, democratic control, production and distribution for needs, without buying and selling, money, wages or the coercive state.’

Adam Buick

Engels – what to read . . .

The Condition of the Working Class in England

Classic description from a Socialist point of view of the conditions industrial capitalism imposed on the newly-formed working class in England in the 1840s. Written in 1845 when Engels was still only 24, it was based on his first-hand experience of living and working in Manchester at the branch of his father’s cotton business from 1842 to 1844.

Socialism, Utopian and Scientific

The third part of a longer work Anti-Duhring published as a separate pamphlet in 1880. The most widely-distributed of all Engels’s writings and still the best introduction in the words of one of them to the social and political ideas of Marx and Engels.

Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State

Another Socialist classic, published in 1884, in which Engels traces the origin both of the state as a separate coercive institution standing over the rest of society and of the patriarchal family and the subjection of women to the coming of private ownership of land and other resources and the dissolution of the communistic  conditions in which humans originally lived. The re-establishment of common ownership, Engels argues, will lead to the disappearance of the state and to the restoration of equality between men and women.

The Housing Question

Series of articles Engels wrote in 1872-3, published as a separate pamphlet in 1887, analysing typical attempts to deal with a social problem by means of reform measures within capitalism. Engels shows how such measures can never solve the problem; at best they can only relieve it temporarily, as any measure which permanently reduces the cost of living of the working class will exert a downward pressure on wage levels, so taking away with the one hand what the other had given.

Articles from the Labour Standard

Series of articles in English for a London trade-union paper in 1881, aimed at persuading English trade-unionists that pure and simple trade-unionism was not enough and that workers should also organise politically with the aim if abolishing the whole system of having to work for an employer for a wage. Still sound advice today.

In the August 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard these words appeared,

‘A writer in the “Daily Chronicle” (29/7/14) outlining the probable results of the threatened war says:

. Let us all, whatever our party, stand together and do what we can to avert this coming disaster.”

Tom Sala

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/search/label/August%201914

On  the 4th August 1914 Britain declared war on Germany. Unfortunately, the propaganda machine of many states ensured that the various national working classes of many countries went out and for the next four years engaged in industrial slaughter of each other on behalf of their capitalist masters.

‘The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was about 40 million, with estimates ranging from around 15 to 22 million deaths and about 23 million wounded military personnel, ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history. The total number of deaths includes between 9 and 11 million military personnel, with an estimated civilian death toll of about 6 to 13 million.

Of the 60 million European military personnel who were mobilised from 1914 to 1918, an estimated 8 million were killed, 7 million were permanently disabled, and 15 million were seriously injured. Germany lost 15.1% of its active male population, Austria-Hungary lost 17.1%, and France lost 10.5%. The human cost of the war left the world with millions of casualties prompting leaders to create new memorials for the deceased.’

Internet’s response to the question of casualties.

Later in the twentieth century, capitalism repeated its deadly game. Following the end of the second lethal conflict there continued to be almost permanent ‘minor’ conflicts up to the present day. ‘Minor’ being a relative term given the events that occurred in places like Vietnam and West Asia.

We are presently in a situation where a bellicose and belligerent USA, supported by Western European countries, is threatening to go to war with another nuclear power state.

Following on from SOYMB ’Three Generals’, https://soymb.com/2025/07/three-generals.html

we now have another American General, Alexus G. Grynkewich, NATO Supreme Commander, issuing war-ridden statements that in a rational twenty first society should have mental health professionals treating him for articulating delusions, shared by many in various positions of power, that, if translated into actions would have devastating consequences for the whole of the world.

Upon reflection we have perhaps been too unkind to this General. Our comments are more apposite when applied to the present President of the United States.

Grynkewich says that by 2027 Russia could attack Europe whilst in coordination China could launch military action in the Pacific.

The report says that he, ‘emphasised the need for closer military collaboration with industry and the need for companies to develop systems at a faster pace. Grynkewich said a key focus for him also will be making sure that NATO allies are keeping up with recent pledges to increase defence spending to 5% of gross domestic product and that those increased investments are directed toward the right military priorities.

“Time is of the essence, and I intend to keep highlighting that and letting everyone know that we’ve got to move out and we’ve got to move quickly,” he said.’

https://www.legion.org/information-center/news/security/2025/july/top-us-commander-in-europe-nato-must-be-ready-for-two-front-conflict-with-russia-and-china

One wonders if he, and the previous three Generals referenced have ever read Major General Smedley Darlington Butler’s ‘War is a Racket’ where he says he eventually realised that he had been used as a racketeer on behalf of capitalism..

In response to a ‘mean tweet’ from Dmitry Medvedev a former President of Russia Donald Trump has announced the moving of two American nuclear submarines closer to Russia.

‘Ohio-class submarine: A class of nuclear-powered submarines used by the United States Navy, consisting of 18 vessels in total, including 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and four guided missile submarines (SSGNs) converted from the original SSBNs These submarines are the largest ever built for the U.S. Navy, measuring 560 feet (170 meters) in length and displacing 18,750 tons when submerged They form the sea-based leg of the U.S. nuclear triad, providing a secure second-strike capability and carrying approximately half of the U.S. active strategic thermonuclear warheads The SSBNs are armed with up to 20 Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), each capable of delivering multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) with a range exceeding 6,100 nautical miles . The four SSGNs, following conversion, can carry up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles and support special operations forces, including up to 66 Navy SEALs. Internet.

Launch time from submarine to impact in Russia, twenty minutes.

Medvedev reminded Trump of Russia’s ‘Dead Hand’ system.

‘Russia’s “Dead Hand,” officially known as the Perimeter system, is a Cold War-era automatic or semi-automatic nuclear weapons control system developed by the Soviet Union to ensure a retaliatory nuclear strike even if the country’s leadership was destroyed in a first strike. The system is designed to detect a nuclear attack through seismic, radiation, light, and pressure sensors, and if communication links with top military command are severed, it can initiate the launch of Russia’s intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The system is reportedly activated during times of crisis and is said to be capable of sending launch orders via command rockets flying over the country, even in the presence of radio jamming. While some sources suggest it operates fully automatically, more recent accounts indicate it is likely semi-automatic, requiring some level of human approval after activation.

The system’s core is believed to be located in deep underground bunkers south of Moscow and at backup sites. It was reportedly brought online in 1985 and remains in use by the Russian Federation. The system is a key component of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, ensuring a retaliatory response to a decapitating strike. Despite some scepticism about its existence and functionality, Russian officials have confirmed its existence, with General Sergey Karakaev stating in 2011 that the U.S. could be destroyed in 30 minutes if the system were activated. The system has been reported to be upgraded to include radar early warning systems and Russia’s new hypersonic missiles.’ Internet.

As of January 2025 the Doomsday Clock- Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is set at eighty nine seconds. What will it perceived to be on its next reset?

Capitalism, more than it has ever done, represents an existential threat to every man, woman and child on the planet.

The words from the August 1914 Socialist Standard are more relevant than ever., ‘perhaps the working classes, hitherto so loyal and patriotic, will turn savagely against the powers that be.’

How much longer before we all recognise where our collective interest lies and we abolish capitalism for ever before capitalism abolishes us?

‘ The disgusting slaughter and destruction of war continues in the Middle East, Ukraine and less visibly (at least via mainstream media) in other parts of the world. For sure, some of this madness may be caused by the difficulties and distractions of career politicians, but the context will always be the competition between capitalists for control of trade routes and territory (raw materials and markets). No amount of wishful thinking will change this situation, nor will it end the appalling waste of human effort and resources that are sucked up by the war industries.’

As the SPGB has repeatedly said throughout the last 120 years, if you want peace, help prepare for socialism.’

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

MAGA’S MEGA MELTDOWN (ZOOM)

This news item is taken from one of many media reports all noting the same:

‘London [UK], July 28 (ANI): British Defence Secretary John Healey has said the UK is ready to fight China alongside allies like Australia if tensions over Taiwan escalate into conflict, Russia Today reported citing a UK-based media group. {The Telegraph}

“If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together,” Healey said, when asked whether Britain would help Taiwan prepare for a possible confrontation with China.

However, he later clarified that he was speaking in “general terms,” adding that Britain still prefers disputes in the Indo-Pacific to be resolved “peacefully” and “diplomatically, ” as per RT.

His comments come amid rising global concerns over Chinese military activity around Taiwan and the growing Western focus on the Indo-Pacific region.’

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/indo-pacific-region/uk-says-its-ready-to-fight-china-over-taiwan-backs-peaceful-resolution

These reports come on the date when on 28 July 1914 the Austro- Hungary Empirre declared war on Serbia leading to the conflict across the whole of Europe.

On 23 July 2014 the Empire had issued an ultimatum to Serbia. This followed the assassination of Grand Duke Ferdinand on 28 June 1914.

The Austro-Hungarian diplomatic note included the following:

‘However, the events of recent years, and particularly the tragic events of June 28, have demonstrated the existence in Serbia of a subversive movement whose aim is to detach certain parts of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. This movement, which has grown under the eyes of the Serbian government, has manifested beyond Serbian borders through acts of terrorism, a series of attacks, and murders.

The Royal Serbian Government, far from fulfilling the formal commitments contained in its declaration of March 31, 1909, has done nothing to suppress this movement. It has tolerated the criminal activities of various associations and affiliations directed against the Monarchy, the unrestrained rhetoric of the press, the glorification of attackers, the participation of officers and officials in subversive acts, unhealthy propaganda in public education, and finally, all manifestations likely to incite the Serbian population to hatred of the Monarchy and contempt for its institutions.’

The ultimatum said:

‘Furthermore, the Royal Serbian Government pledges to:

1. Suppress any publication inciting hatred or contempt of the Monarchy and any works promoting actions against its territorial integrity.

2. Dissolve the “Narodna Odbrana” society and confiscate its propaganda tools, similarly addressing other organizations in Serbia involved in anti-monarchy activities, ensuring these groups cannot reconstitute themselves under a different name or form.

3. Remove from Serbian public education any content—whether in teaching staff or instructional materials—liable to incite propaganda against Austria-Hungary.

4. Dismiss from military and civil service all officers and officials guilty of anti-monarchy propaganda, with the names and offenses to be communicated by the Imperial and Royal Governments.

5. Permit Austro-Hungarian representatives to collaborate in Serbia in the suppression of the subversive movement targeting the Monarchy’s territorial integrity.

6. Initiate judicial proceedings against those implicated in the June 28 conspiracy within Serbian territory, with Austro-Hungarian delegates participating in the investigations.

7. Immediately arrest Commandant Vojislav Tankosić and Milan Ciganović, a Serbian state employee implicated by the Sarajevo investigation.

8. Prevent Serbian authorities from aiding the illegal trafficking of arms and explosives across the border and dismiss and severely punish officials at the Šabac and Loznica border posts who assisted the assassins of Sarajevo.

9. Provide explanations regarding hostile remarks made by Serbian officials, both domestically and abroad, who, despite their official status, expressed hostility toward the Monarchy in interviews following the June 28 attack.

10. Notify the Imperial and Royal Government without delay of the execution of these measures.

The Imperial and Royal Governments expect the Serbian Government’s response by Saturday, July 25, at 5:00 p.m.’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_of_July_23,_1914

The statement issued by the SPGB Executive Committee in the September 1914 Socialist Standard is as relevant today as it was then

‘Whereas the capitalists of Europe have quarrelled over the question of the control of trade routes and the world’s markets, and are endeavouring to exploit the political ignorance and blind passions of the working class of their respective countries in order to induce the said workers to take up arms in what is solely their masters’ quarrel, and

Whereas further, the pseudo-socialists and labour ‘leaders’ of this country, in common with their fellows on the Continent, have again betrayed the working class position, either through their ignorance of it, their cowardice, or worse, and are assisting the master class in utilising this thieves’ quarrel to confuse the minds of the workers and turn their attention from the class struggle.

THE SOCIALIST PARTY of Great Britain seizes the opportunity of reaffirming the socialist position which is as follows:

  That society as at present constituted is based upon the ownership of the means of living by the capitalist or master class and the consequent enslavement of the working class, by whose labour alone wealth is produced.

  That in society therefore there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a CLASS WAR, between those who possess but do not produce and those who produce but do not possess.

  That the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers.

These armed forces therefore will only be set in motion to further the interests of the class who control them—the master class—and as the workers’ interests are not bound up in the struggle for markets wherein their masters may dispose of the wealth they have stolen from them (the workers) but in the struggle to end the system under which they are robbed, they are not concerned with the present European struggle, which is already known as the “BUSINESS” war, for it is their masters’ interests which are involved, and not their own.

THE SOCIALIST PARTY of Great Britain pledges itself to keep the issue clear by expounding the CLASS STRUGGLE, and whilst placing on record its abhorrence of this latest manifestation of the callous, sordid, and mercenary nature of the international capitalist class, and declaring that no interests are at stake justifying the shedding of a single drop of working-class blood, enters its emphatic protest against the brutal and bloody butchery of our brothers of this and other lands who are being used as food for cannon abroad while suffering and starvation are the lot of their fellows at home.

Having no quarrel with the working class of any country, we extend to our fellow workers of all lands the expression of our goodwill and socialist fraternity, and pledge ourselves to work for the overthrow of capitalism and the triumph of Socialism.

THE WORLD FOR THE WORKERS!

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.

August 25th 1914

WAGE WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE! You have nothing to lose but your chains, you have a world to win! – Marx’

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-war-and-socialist-position-1914.html

‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’, Santayana. Austro-Hungary was intent on war with Serbia and its ultimatum was designed to be so onerous that Serbia would have no other choice but to reject it. The causes of wars as delineated in the first paragraph of the Executive Committee’s statement have not changed. The conflict initiated in 1914 led to the deaths of millions. One hundred and eleven years on capitalist deadly competition continues to rain down death and destruction upon innocent men, women and children. The exploited vast majority still have to learn the lessons of history.

NO WAR BUT CLASS WAR

A British General, an American General and a German General walk into a bar. Not a joke unless you want to laugh at the hokum that they’re spouting.

Was the 1969-70 television comedy Up Pompeii! with Frankie Howerd a favourite amongst those who rose in the ranks of the British military? Was their favourite character Senna the soothsayer? Did that character make such an impression upon them that ever since they have been crying at any and every opportunity, ‘Woe, woe and thrice woe!’ The latest is ex head of the army, Sir Patrick Sanders.In a piece in the MailOnline he is quoted as saying,

‘Britain must start building bomb shelters immediately to prepare the nation for a potential war with Russia in the next five years.’

Putting various bits and pieces together 2030 seems to be the year in which NATO is preparing for in order to take down Russia.

A ‘realistic possibility’ is what he calls that war. In the meantime it’s time to start preparing the sandbags and the gas masks and to start building Anderson shelters. Got to be like the Boy Scouts and be ready for

‘ the prospect of missiles and drones raining down on its cities.’ Except apparently we’re not. How warming such concern is coming from a member of the establishment.Although didn’t he have to sell his physical/mental labour power to survive in a capitalist system? Doesn’t that make him working class?

Of course, being a General he must know what he’s talking about, mustn’t he? Joke intended.

‘If Russia stops fighting in Ukraine, you get to a position where within a matter of months they will have the capability to conduct a limited attack on a Nato member that we will be responsible for supporting, and that happens by 2030,’ he said. Which state does he mean?

An interesting insight he does provide is that the Government, he doesn’t say which Party was running it, had dismissed shelters as ‘too costly or low priority.’.

‘Finland has bomb shelters for 4.5million people. It can survive as a government and as a society under direct missile and air attacks from Russia. We don’t have that.’ Perhaps we should all emigrate to Finland then?

He’s also concerned about the size of Britain’s military which would comfortably fit in Old Trafford football stadium.

Of interest is the statement that ‘Sir Patrick had previously been barred from giving a speech warning that conscription could be required in the event of a major war, amid concern from ministers it would terrify the public.’

Wouldn’t it be terrible if they declared war and no one showed up to fight it?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14899277/Britain-start-building-bomb-shelters-prepare-war-Russia.html

Kaliningrad] known as Königsberg[ until 1946, is the largest city and administrative centre of KaliningradOblast,an exclave of

 Russia between Lithuania and Poland (663 kilometres (412 mi) west of the bulk of Russia), located on the Pregolya River, at the head of the Vistula Lagoon, and the only ice-free Russian port on the Baltic Sea. Its population in 2020 was 489,359. Kaliningrad is the second-largest city in the Northwestern Federal District, after Saint Petersburg and the seventh-largest city on the Baltic Sea.

Kaliningrad Oblast is the westernmost federal subject of Russia. It is a semi-exclave on the Baltic Sea within the historical Baltic region of Prussia, surrounded by Poland to the south and Lithuania to the north and east. The largest city and administrative centre is the city of Kaliningrad. The port city of Baltiysk is Russia’s only port on the Baltic Sea that remains ice-free in winter. Kaliningrad Oblast had a population of roughly one million in the 2021 Russian census. It has an area of 15,125 square kilometres (5,840 sq mi). Wiki.

American General Christopher Donahue has said, Kaliningrad, Russia, is roughly 47 miles wide and surrounded by NATO on all sides and the Army and its allies now have the capability to “take that down from the ground in a time frame that is unheard of and faster than we’ve ever been able to do.”

“We’ve already planned that and we’ve already developed it. The mass and momentum problem that Russia poses to us … we’ve developed the capability to make sure that we can stop that mass and momentum problem.”

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2025/07/16/army-europe-chief-unveils-nato-eastern-flank-defense-plan/

‘German General Christian Freuding has advised Ukraine to ‘ strike Russia. airfields and weapons factories deep inside the country to alleviate pressure on the front.’,

“You can also indirectly affect the offensive potential of Russian strike forces before they are deployed,” Freuding said. “Use long-range air warfare assets to strike aircraft and airfields before they are used. Also, target weapons production facilities.”

Freuding also lamented that despite Western sanctions, Russia has increased its production of drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic systems. “We must reconsider whether our economic measures have been sufficient and where we can apply further pressure, particularly to limit Russian production capabilities,” he said.

The general also pointed to the limitations of US-made Patriot air defence missiles against waves of Russian drones. “It [a drone] costs around €30,000-50,000 ($34,000–58,000) depending on the model. It’s wasteful to shoot it down with a Patriot missile costing over €5 million. We need countermeasures that cost €2,000–€4,000, especially as Russia aims to further increase its production capacity,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Freuding confirmed earlier this month that Ukraine would receive the first batch of long-range missiles financed by Berlin before the end of July. Germany, however, has been reluctant to send Taurus long-range missiles due to escalation concerns.’

Siegfried Sassoon’s first world war poem ‘The General’ tells of two British soldiers who meet a General as they are slogging their way ‘up to Arras with rifle and pack.’ The General wishes them both a good morning. One soldier says to the other, ‘he’s a cheery old card.’ The final line of the poem is ’But he did for them both with his plan of attack.’

The longer we allow the capitalistic system to continue the more likely that its plan of attack will do for us all.