Author: cynical but optimistic

What have American workers got to celebrate?


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.)



The history of America up to the period of the Revolution is the record of the rise to enormous wealth of a land-owning, slave-holding, and trading autocracy. The property qualificacation excluded the workers from the vote [and the same was true long after the Revolution), all wealth and power being in the hands of the wealthy class.


During this time there were frequent revolts of the oppressed, all of which were ruthlessly suppressed by the future advocates of eternal liberty.


The enclosure of the common lands in France, Germany, and England gave rise to a multitude of starving outcasts, some of whom turned their eyes toward the New World in the hope of finding an amelioration of their lot. These provided ready material for the kidnapper and emigration agent, who enticed them across the Atlantic and then sold them into a species of slavery (indentured service) even worse than the slavery of the blacks.


The records of the American white slave traffic exhibit an almost unbelievable barbarity. This traffic is fully discussed by James O’Neal in “The Workers in American History,” where the worst evils of Negro slavery are shown to be paralleled if not surpassed by the system of indentured service.


Of course, the followers of the “meek and lowly one” had to have a finger in the pie, and we read that—
   The famous Whitfield, and the two Wesleys, visited America at this period (1743) and urged the expediency of allowing slavery. (Ludlow, p. 38.)
In his “Story of the Negro” Booker T. Washington points out that the white man sold his own people in America years before the first black slaver sailed into Jamestown, Virginia (1619).


These, then, were the conditions from which the wealth of America had arisen.


When the English capitalists realised what a prize was within their grasp they tried to keep their hands upon it, and in doing so, overreached themselves. Navigation laws were passed confining to English vessels, navigated by Englishmen, all importation into and exportation from the colonies, and even forbidding any importation of European commodities except those commodities coming from England.


Subsequently a further Act was passed forbidding all colonial staples to be imported otherwise than to England, so that a duty equivalent to the English customs duty was laid on the importation of such articles from one colony to another. Says Gibbins:
   It is quite obvious, apart from any consideration of national policy, these regulations were dictated by the class interests of British manufacturers and merchants. (“Industry in England,” p. 366.)
All these restrictions, however, failed in their object An extensive contraband trade developed and American smugglers waxed wealthy.


It was the time when the great inventions were revolutionising industry in England. The production of wealth in prodigious quantities was commencing, and the world lay waiting to absorb all the English manufacturers could produce. So we can guess with what consternation they viewed the attempt of the Americans to produce and export on their own account, instead of remaining producers of raw material for English manufacturers and a dumping-ground for British manufactures:


The revolution commenced with some skirmishes in Boston and the upsetting of the East India Company’s tea in Boston harbour. For some time this vast company was on the verge of ruin owing to the large stocks of tea and other Indian goods on their hands. The English Government magnanimously (!) agreed to accommodate the Company by taking off as much duty in England as would make the Company’s tea cheaper in America than any foreigners could import. This struck a mortal blow at the smugglers. The latter were consequently roused to righteous and indignant action, and stood right sturdily for the “Rights of Man” by throwing the pernicious tea into the Atlantic.


Washington, one of the principle figures in the Revolution, prior thereto was engaged in surveying land, and O’Neal states that on the eve of the war a case was pending against him for illegal surveying. He was also deeply involved in the white slave traffic. His “poverty” may be estimated from the fact that he offered to raise and equip at his own expense a force of 1,000 men to relieve Boston.


Benjamin Franklin also was not above turning a honest penny in the slave traffic.


The delegates who had been chosen for the Philadelphia Congress of 1774 “Had known what it was to breakfast in a villa on the Hudson River with a very large silver coffee pot, a very large silver tea pot, napkins of the finest materials, plates full of choice fruit, and toast and bread and butter in great perfection. But in Philadelphia . . there was magnificence, and, above all, abundance, under many roofs. ‘A most sinful feast again,’ John Adams wrote, ‘everything which could delight the eye or allure the taste. Cards and creams, jellies, sweetmeats of various sorts, twenty sorts of tarts, fools, trifles, floating islands, and whipped sillabubs. These dainties were washed down with floods of Madeira.’ ” (Trevelyan, vol I., p. 225.)


Such were the poor down-trodden whose souls the times were trying (according to Thomas Paine), and who proposed vindicating the Rights of Man! Another comic tragedy was in process of production upon the stage of history. In relation to the above it is well to remember that the vast majority of the population at that time (excluding Indians) was composed of poor whites and slaves both black and white.


To prosecute the war the English proceeded to engage German mercenaries and disaffected Americans. By the offer of freedom to indentured servants they attracted many to their ranks’ so that the rebels were compelled to offer the same inducement.


The stock jobbery and wrangles of the English capitalists, in the attempt of each to make the war as lucrative as possible to himself, put England out of the running from the start. On the American side similar jobbery prevailed. I will quote Washington’s own words:
   Such a dearth of public spirit, and such want of virtue; such stock-jobbing, and fertility in all the low arts to obtain advantages of one kind or another in this great change of military arrangement, I never saw before, and I pray God’s mercy that I may never see again. (Trevelyan, Vol. I., p. 403.)
His letters during the war are full of similar complaints. All along he complains of the enormous desertions, sometimes of whole regiments. and of the difficulty of getting recruits. High bounties had to be offered by the different States before the various armies could be raised, and immediately their term of service was up they departed.


On both sides the aid of the Indians was extensively employed, and they were urged on by bribes to acts of the greatest barbarity. 


The gentle refinement of Washington, the glorious example of American schoolboys of today, may be judged by the following:
   During the summer (August and September, 1779) a terrible revenge was taken on the Iroquois for the Wyoming massacres by General Sullivan, who with 5,000 men devastated their whole country between the Susquehannah and Genesee rivers,—covered, we are told, with “pleasant villages and luxurient cornfields”—burning every village, giving no quarter. At one village, which is termed the “metropolis of the Genesee Valley,” no less than 160,000 bushels of corn were destroyed. The Indians were pursued as far as the British fort of Niagara, and Indian agriculture was destroyed throughout the district. The total American loss did not exceed 40 men. The responsibility for these cruel measures lies at Washington’s own door. His instructions to General Sullivan (May 31st) were “that the country may not be merely over-run, but destroyed.” (Ludlow, p. 164.)
At length England agreed to evacuate America. It is noteworthy to mention (bearing in mind the much-vaunted Rights of Man) that one of the articles in the final capitulation stipulated the restoration of slaves and “prohibited the British from carrying away any Negroes or other property of the inhabitants.”


Such was the great American Revolution. At bottom it was a fight between the privileged class of America and England to decide who should enjoy the wealth wrung from the slaves of both colours.


In early times to have imported free workers into America would not have sufficed for the needs of the privileged class, as the workers would have spread far and wide and gained their subsistence without working for a master. Hence workers had to be introduced in two particular forms of servitude (chattel slavery and indentured service) which tied them to their particular masters for a definite period or for life.


Long after the Revolution these forms of servitude continued. When economic development had rendered wage labour possible and more profitable, then the old forms of slavery disappeared.’
Gilmac.




‘The Circus’ at Vauxhall Cross

 

For those of us for whom the novels of John Le Carre and Len Deighton are a guilty pleasure, particularly the ones dealing with the seedy world of British espionage the recent news that Operation Wedlock, apparently a twenty year investigation into a member of MI6, Military Intelligence, Section 6, suspected of being a mole, i.e. someone passing on secrets to a foreign power, could easily have come from the pens of those two worthy writers.

In a case of life imitating art Le Carre’s 1974 Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy had played out this scenario.. Unlike in real life, where the long and expensive investigation of the individual under suspicion came to nothing the fictional one was successful in rooting out a mole.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jun/27/uk-spy-operation-wedlock-suspected-russian-double-agent-mi6

Some call it the world’s second oldest profession and the suspicion, and likelihood that one, or more, of those engaged in it, whether they be lowly agents or ‘control’ are playing a double game has probably existed since spying first became a thing.

The nineteen sixties saw three of the the Cambridge Five, Maclean, Burgess and Philby, British members of the security services defect to Russia to whom they had been passing on state secrets for many years because of ideological reasons.

The fourth and fifth persons in the Cambridge Five, Caincross and Anthony Blunt were not exposed until much later. Anthony Blunt was very much part of the establishment. He was Surveyor of the Queen’s Pictures

The below extracted from the Socialist Standard January 1980

And out of all the confusion emerges a picture of British capitalism which does not meet the demands of modern, thrusting, super-competitive capitalism. The Blunt affair, like its predecessors in the Great Whitehall Spy Drama, was taken by many people as evidence that Britain is run by a bunch of effete, disreputable upper class twits who all went to the same school, and who are too stupid, or too corrupt, to recognise a spy even if he was delivered to their In Tray in manacles. Well, there is nothing to be gained by discussing the accuracy of that caricature; it is more useful to point out some of the lessons to be learned from the infamous scandal of Anthony Blunt.

We have already said that Blunt is a very learned man — although it is another matter whether his talents would ever have seen the light of day had he been born into a working class family, who rely on selling their labour power to live. There is little demand among employers for experts in the works of Nicolas Poussin. But then the other spies Blunt was associated with — Philby, Maclean, Burgess — were also very clever. Burgess, said Blunt, was “… one of the most remarkable, brilliant, and one of the most intelligent people I’ve ever known”. (He might also have used words like ‘drunken’ and ‘abusive’ except that such minor faults can be overlooked in one of such rare gifts.) Philby too was once highly thought of, the rising star in the Secret Service, described by Hugh Trevor Roper (The Philby Affair) as ” favoured by society, liberally educated, regarded by all who knew him as intelligent, sensitive, transparently sincere”.

Stalinist Murders

Now the working class are depressingly willing to pay their respects to people who are described as ‘intellectuals’ even when, like this bunch, they are blind to some obvious facts of reality. Blunt has told us their version of reality in the Thirties:

… in October 1934 I found that…. almost all the intelligent and bright undergraduates who had come up to Cambridge had suddenly become Marxist [sic]… and there was this very powerful group, very remarkable group of Communist intellectuals in Cambridge.

(This provoked a doctor to write, irritably, to the Daily Telegraph from Moreton-in-the Marsh: “I was up at Cambridge in 1935 and many of my circle were bright. But had any of them expressed Marxist views he would have been debagged and thrown into the Cam”)

But what was happening in Russia at that time to impress all those incredibly brainy undergraduates? In 1934 the 17th Party Congress was held, with perhaps many of the participants being as brainy as those bright young men in Cambridge. Unfortunately, their leader Stalin was not favourably impressed with them, and soon afterwards he had over half of them shot, along with nearly three-quarters of the Central Committee they had elected. This was a comparatively minor incident in the horrifying story of imprisonment, torture and murder which characterised Stalin’s rule over Russia. One estimate of the total casualties during these years appeared in Robert Conquest’s book The Great Terror. Conquest used a variety of sources — participants’ accounts, official statistics and the 1959 Census — and he came to the conservative estimate of 20 million dead.

Forgetful Politicians

Much of the information about this was available at the time, but it did not impress those brilliant students at Cambridge. Some of them were even prepared to justify the August 1939 pact between Russia and Nazi Germany. “We argued”, said Blunt, “that it was simply a tactical necessity . . . ” In fact he carried his enthusiasm a bit too far, continuing to pass British secrets to Russia after the two states were in the war on the same side. This illustrates not only his blind devotion to the blood-soaked dictatorship but also the actual fragility of the unity between capitalist powers, even when they call themselves the Allies.’

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2014/09/anthony-blunt-no-sort-of-traitor.html






‘Moral imperative’?

 Fellow workers currently in receipt of a PIP or Universal Credit will no doubt be relieved that the government has been forced to withdraw its plan to directly attack their standard of living.

They might also be thinking that Starmer & Co. would be more honest if they used the term ‘economic imperative’ instead when referring to plans to change the social insecurity system.

Because capitalists everywhere are bound to resist increases in the amount of tax taken from profits to fund the system, in the same way that they are bound to resist attempts to increase wages.

By so doing they reveal their real imperative: the protection of profitability, come what may for the rest of us.



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

Billionaires no longer want to play

An eighty one year old Norwegian/ Cypriot living in the United Arab emirates has told us, the Brits, – socialists of course don’t believe in nationalism or artificial borders but since, until we replace capitalism with socialism this is the designated part of the world in which we live – that Britain is kaput, finito, finished. Using a fairy tale christian metaphor he has told us we’ve ‘gone to hell’ and he’s going to pick up his ball and pee off somewhere else.

Apparently he’s peed of with Norway too.

According to the Evening Standard the ‘UK’s ninth richest billionaire, Norwegian-born shipping tycoon John Fredriksen, has said “Britain has gone to hell” and has moved his business out of London in the latest worrying sign of the huge exodus of wealth from the capital.The oil tanker magnate, whose wealth was estimated at around £13.7 billon in this year’s Sunday Times Rich List, is the latest in a series of wealthy foreign-born London residents who are quitting the UK – or at least loosening their links – because of Labour’s scrapping of the non-dom tax regime and their disillusion with Britain’s poor economic prospects .Asked by Norwegian title E24 about his feelings for the UK, Fredriksen said: “It’s starting to remind me more and more of Norway. Britain has gone to hell, like Norway.” The comments came after it emerged he has closed the London headquarters of Seatankers Management, one of his private shipping businesses, which was based on Sloane Square.’

In the interview Fredriksen, widely known as JF in the shipping industry, added: “The entire Western world is on its way down.”

People should get up and work even more, and go to the office instead of having a home office.”’

Friedriksen is not the first billionaire to berate wage slaves for not working hard enough to contribute more to a billionaire’s profits.

A number of other wealthy Norwegians have also reportedly left London this year, according to E24. Billionaire Helene Odfjell, 59, the biggest shareholder in Odfjell Drilling emigrated to the UK in 1989 but is now said to be based in Lugano, Switzerland. Another Norwegian shipping billionaire Peter T. Smedvig, 78, reportedly moved to Stavanger in Norway in March having lived in London since 1991.’

The explanation for this flight from the UK appears to lie with the abolition of a system which allowed non-domiciles to avoid having to pay money to the UK state. The more you have the more you want to keep.

The centuries old non-dom system that has allowed wealthy foreign-born British residents to shield their overseas assets and income from UK tax ended on April 6 this year. Its abolition has been blamed for an unprecedented exodus of millionaires from the UK. There has been particular anger that foreign assets placed in trusts have lost their exemption from inheritance tax. Advisers Henley & Partners forecast that the UK will lose 16,500 high-net-worth individuals this year, more any other country.’

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/billionaire-shipping-nondom-john-fredriksen-oil-tankers-b1234987.html





The insanity continues

 

The insanity continues but hey twenty thousand jobs not to be sneezed at, right? Plus we bargained the US salesman down and made a saving bro. The cost of a F-35A is anywhere between sixty and eighty million dollars.

Using defence as an engine for growth to create jobs across in the UK.’ – using the working class to provide profits for one set of capitalist exploiters whilst creating machines to kill another other working class who are in thrall to a different set of capitalists.

‘The UK will purchase 12 new F-35A fighter jets and join NATO’s dual capable aircraft nuclear mission in a major boost for national security.

The Prime Minister will announce at the NATO summit tomorrow [Wednesday] that the UK intends to buy at least a dozen of the dual capable aircraft, which can carry both nuclear and conventional weapons.

The decision will support 20,000 jobs in the F35 programme in the UK, with 15% of the global supply chain for the jets based in Britain, supporting highly skilled jobs and opportunities for working people and delivering a defence dividend across the country.

The new fast jets will be based at RAF Marham, with the Government expected to procure 138 F35s over the lifetime of the programme. The procurement of 12 F-35A rather than 12 F-35B as part of the next procurement package will deliver a saving of up to 25% per aircraft for the taxpayer. 

The purchase represents the biggest strengthening of the UK’s nuclear posture in a generation. It also reintroduces a nuclear role for the Royal Air Force for the first time since the UK retired its sovereign air-launched nuclear weapons following the end of the Cold War.

The UK will deploy the jets as part of NATO’s nuclear Dual Capable Aircraft mission, strengthening NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: In an era of radical uncertainty we can no longer take peace for granted, which is why my government is investing in our national security, ensuring our Armed Forces have the equipment they need and communities up and down the country reap the benefits from our defence dividend. Supporting 100 businesses across the country and more than 20,000 jobs, these F35 dual capable aircraft will herald a new era for our world-leading Royal Air Force and deter hostile threats that threaten the UK and our Allies.

The UK’s commitment to NATO is unquestionable, as is the Alliance’s contribution to keeping the UK safe and secure, but we must all step up to protect the Euro-Atlantic area for generations to come.” 

From Samlesbury to Stevenage, UK based firms such as BAE Systems, Cobham, GE Aviation, Honeywell, Martin Baker, MBDA, QinetiQ, Rolls Royce, Leonardo UK , Ultra Electronics and EDM Limited all play a vital role in the supply of stealth fighter jets.

The Strategic Defence Review recognised that the UK is confronting a new era of threat, including rising nuclear risks. It recommended that the UK further strengthen our commitment to effective deterrence and our partnership with our NATO Allies, building on our unique role as the only European power to pledge our nuclear deterrent to defend our NATO allies.

The DCA mission is a critical part of NATO’s nuclear deterrence, helping to keep people across the alliance safe.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said: The UK has declared its nuclear deterrent to NATO for many decades, ​and I strongly welcome today’s announcement that the UK will now also join NATO’s nuclear mission and procure the F-35A. This is yet another robust British contribution to NATO”.

The UK has always supported NATO’s nuclear mission, by providing conventional capabilities and resources such as aircraft and airspace to its annual exercises. 

Defence Secretary John Healey MP said: The Strategic Defence Review confirmed we face new nuclear risks, with other states increasing, modernising and diversifying their nuclear arsenals. And it recommended a new UK role in our collective defence and deterrence through a NATO-first approach.This commitment is an embodiment of NATO first, strengthening the alliance while at the same time using defence as an engine for growth to create jobs across in the UK.”

Our commitment to Britain’s nuclear deterrent is absolute, underpinned by our ‘triple-lock’: building four new nuclear submarines in Barrow-in-Furness, in Cumbria; maintaining our continuous at sea nuclear deterrent; and delivering all future upgrades needed.  

This announcement further underlines the UK’s unshakeable commitment to NATO, and the principle of collective defence under Article V. 

The UK remains committed to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons and upholds all our obligations under the NPT.

This announcement follows the SDR’s commitments to deliver up to 12 new conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines and £15bn this parliament to deliver the sovereign nuclear warhead programme.’

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-purchase-f-35as-and-join-nato-nuclear-mission-as-government-steps-up-national-security-and-delivers-defence-dividend





Against all capitalism’s wars

 

‘Israel, the US’s rogue proxy in the Middle East with its own agenda, initiated the current war by attacking Iran with the declared aim of physically preventing it acquiring the nuclear bomb.

According to Netanyahu, Iran’s possession of the nuclear bomb would present an existential threat to the state of Israel. The suggestion is that, if Iran had the bomb, it would use it to annihilate Israel. This is just propaganda as Iran wants the bomb for the same reason as the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India and Pakistan have it – as a deterrent against being attacked. If Iran did have the bomb it would be very foolish of it to use it against Israel as Israel itself is a nuclear state.

The real reason for the war – and why the United States and the West are behind Israel – is to maintain the balance of power in the Middle East. In relations between capitalist states ‘might is right’ and Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons would increase its ‘might’ and so shift the balance in its favour. It’s this that the Western states, who currently dominate the area because it is the source of much of the oil and gas they need to power their production, wish to prevent, ideally by diplomacy but Israel has forced their hand.

Who controls the oil, and the trade routes and pipelines to get it out, has been at stake in all the many wars in the Middle East since the end of the last World War. On the surface the issue appears to be the existence of the state of Israel, established in 1948 as a ‘Jewish homeland’ on land that been the home for generations of non-Jews. This, in itself, was bound to create resentment but it might have worked had not the United States decided to build up Israel’s military might as its proxy on the ground in the region to defend its economic interests there.

Which capitalist states – the West or Iran – control the economic resources of the region is of no concern to the workers living there. The civilians on both sides are being killed and wounded and buildings and useful infrastructure destroyed for an issue that is only of capitalist concern.

As Socialists we place on record our abhorrence at this latest manifestation of capitalist barbarism. The interest of workers in both Israel and Iran is to join with workers everywhere to bring an end to the war- prone capitalist system and replace it with a world socialist commonwealth where the Earth’s natural and industrial resources will be commonly owned by all humanity.’



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