121 YEARS FOR SOCIALISM (ZOOM)
Event DetailsDate: June 13, 2025 7:30 pm – 9:00 pm
What we said in June 1905.
To connect to a Zoom meeting, click https://zoom.us/j/7421974305
Rogue states
When one thought that the insane behaviour of capitalist states couldn’t get any more demented the attack on Iran by Israel shows that the madness that drive entities to follow the fundamental aggressive nature of capitalism has now reached an unthinkable level of craziness.
The position of the SPGB/World Socialist Movement regarding war has always been absolutely and unequivocally against actions which ultimately always hurt and impact the majority working class the most
This current escalation of conflict between Israel and Iran has the potential, has as the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, to drag the world to ultimate devastation.
At the very least, depending upon the response of Iran, it could cause a severe collapse in the capitalist world economy.
The peace talks between Iran and the United States were due to take place this weekend. Some think that Israel’s actions were to ensure that successful diplomacy and negotiation did not occur.
Iran has been categorised for many years by others as a rogue state. This new threat to the world as a whole means that there are other rogue nations, Israel and the United States. The United States is complicit with Israel in the ‘Pearl harbour’ of 2025
We say a plague on all your houses but whilst capitalism continues to exist then the world depends upon the sanity of the actors within its system. The recent events of the past few years and the one which took place within the last twenty four hours demonstrate that aggression toward capitalism by the majority working class, and the replacement of capitalism with socialism, is the only rational and sensible course for the world to follow.
From the March 2006 issue of the Socialist Standard
‘We’ll be watching the news headlines, or maybe there’ll be a news flash, and we’ll be informed that the RAF, along with the USAF’s long-range B-52 bombers, and the Israeli Air Force have carried out overnight bombing raids across Iran, targeting nuclear facilities, radar stations, airfields and anti-aircraft bases.
As in the case of Iraq, there will be the prior attempt at the mass manufacture of consent. Bush and Blair, and indeed any other European leaders who think they will have something to gain, will peddle the line about newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They’ll say he is another Saddam Hussein who, if Iran’s nuclear programme is not halted, will be able to lob a nuclear missile at the West in a few minutes and that Iran is supporting international terrorism, financing terrorist cells all over the world, including Al Qaeda. The case will be made that Iran is still very much a part of the axis of evil, first referred to in George W Bush’s State of the Union Address in 2002, and its people, secretly harbouring thoughts of Western-style democracy, are crying out for regime change.
Indeed, it has already started. In his January 2005 State of the Union Address, Bush said: “Iran remains the world’s primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve.” The White House has in fact been steadily creating an anti-Iran climate in the US for some time. The Wall Street Journal (3 February) reported that “in recent polls a surprisingly large number of Americans say they would support U.S. military strikes to stop Tehran from getting the bomb.”
Both Bush and Blair have already hinted at military intervention and Israel has previously threatened Iran. The New York Times (13 January) reported Meir Dagan, the chief of the Israeli Mossad, declaring that “Israeli policy makers all agree that a military option against Iran’s nuclear facilities cannot be ruled out”. The Sunday Times (11 December) had already reported that Ariel Sharon had instructed Israel’s air force to get ready for a military attack against Iran by the end of March, when Israeli elections are scheduled. Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party, gave notice that if Sharon did not wipe out Iran’s nuclear installations, he would see the job was done if he became prime minister in March.
A year ago it was reported that Iran was anticipating an attack by the US and that it was ready for an impressionable response within 15 minutes. For over a year Iran has been mobilising recruits into citizens’ militia and has made plans to engage in the kind of “asymmetrical” warfare that has bogged down US troops in neighbouring Iraq.
Iran has sizeable oil reserves that look quite enticing and which other countries have been eyeing up for some time. The highly regarded Oil and Gas Journal reported last year that 125.8 billion barrels of oil were in Iran just waiting to be pumped out. Iran is also the number two producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
Most of Iran’s crude oil is to be found in an area known as Khuzestan, bordering Iraq and the Persian Gulf and the location of Iran’s largest untapped oil fields – Yadavaran and Azadegan. There are serious profits to be had here but, tellingly, the Chinese state oil company China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation has a 50 percent stake in the vast Yadavaran field.
Russia too has a claim in Iranian oil. Three years ago Russia decided to expand its oil procuring and distribution methods by shipping Russian crude to Iran, to be refined for domestic consumption, with Iran delivering a corresponding amount of oil to Russia, thus decreasing the cost of exports via tankers loaded at Black Sea ports and making Russian oil accessible to buyers at competitive prices.
So it’s unlikely that Russia and China will agree to a UN Security Council Resolution against Iran which could justify military action if it is thought to have been breached; for they have strong vested interests in Iran which they are desperate not to jeopardise. Not that this will bother the US in the least, as both Russia and especially China are economic powers that threaten US global ambitions, so any attack on Iran, which consequently leads to the overthrow of the present regime in Tehran, upsets the long-term ambitions of China and Russia.
Iran would be no push-over. The US would not enjoy a hasty capitulation of the Tehran regime, as was the case with Baghdad, exhausted by over a decade of perpetual bombardment and sanctions. The Iranian army comprises about 350,000 active-duty soldiers and 220,000 conscripts and you can add to this 120,000 of the elite Revolutionary Guard. The country’s navy and air force total 70,000 men. Between them, the armed forces have about 2,000 tanks, 300 combat aircraft, and three submarines, hundreds of helicopters and at least a dozen Russian-made Scud missile launchers, the kind Saddam fired at Israel during the first Gulf War of 1991. Iran also has an unknown number of Shahab missiles with a range of more than 1,500 miles. With this in mind you can begin to appreciate the remarks of John Bolton, now the US ambassador to the UN, in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq: “Real men want to go to Iran”.
True, a lot of Iran’s military hardware is old, thirty years old in some cases, and no match for the state-of-the-art weaponry the US is wont to use. Nevertheless, it is still weaponry and more than capable of delivering untold damage to US forces or any other country within striking distance of its missiles perceived as being pro-US
With Iran controlling the Strait of Hormutz, oil tankers could easily be bombed as well tankers and platforms elsewhere in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. And Tehran could escalate any conflict, giving the nod for Lebanese Hezbollah militant attacks on Israel, sanctioning also assaults on US interests throughout Central Asia.
Oil Bourse
This month Iran intends to launch its Oil Bourse which will facilitate the future trade of oil in the euro instead of the US dollar. According to John Pilger writing in the New Statesman (13 February) this could have far-reaching consequences:
“The effect on the value of the dollar will be significant, if not, in the long term, disastrous. At present the dollar is, on paper, a worthless currency bearing the burden of a national debt exceeding $8trn and a trade deficit of more than $600bn. The cost of the Iraq adventure alone, according to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, could be $2trn. America’s military empire, with its wars and 700-plus bases and limitless intrigues, is funded by creditors in Asia, principally China. That oil is traded in dollars is critical in maintaining the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. What the Bush regime fears is not Iran’s nuclear ambitions but the effect of the world’s fourth-biggest oil producer and trader breaking the dollar monopoly. Will the world’s central banks then begin to shift their reserve holdings and, in effect, dump the dollar? Saddam Hussein was threatening to do the same when he was attacked.”
Likewise, Krassimir Petrov, Professor of Economics at the American University of Bulgaria, writing of the establishment of an Oil Bourse in the January edition of Energy Bulletin, said:
“In economic terms, this represents [a great threat] because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for euros to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the US dollar altogether. Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans … The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar.”
Addicted to oil
George Bush, in his January 2006 State of the Union Address made an interesting statement: “The US is addicted to oil”. That’s perhaps the truest statement Bush has ever said, but he’s mistaken if this is meant to signify that the US is going into detox and will be weaning itself off oil. At the moment there is just too much US corporate interest in the Middle East and Central Asia for the US to even think of cutting back on one barrel of oil.
Furthermore, there are dangerous competitors out there, who have an insatiable thirst for oil, so it’s important that the US has a say in who has access to the world’s oil resources. The US is not that dependent upon Middle East oil for its own domestic consumption, but is aware that one way to control its foremost economic rivals is to influence just how much oil they can have and at what price. With China a fastly growing economic, political and military power, naked aggression is a strategy the US has been and will continue to be prepared to pursue throughout the oil rich regions of the Middle East and central Asia, regardless of the cost of life and the dent to the US’s global image. The dollar needs defending, the world’s oil resources need to be controlled and military bases built. Dealing with Iran is just one move in the US game-plan to maintain its global hegemony – the real enemy is yet to be confronted.
But for now Washington will use its man at the UN, John “Real Man” Bolton, to help hype a global crisis which could consequently be used to justify attacks on Iran, with or without the blessing of the Security Council. No evidence exists as to Iranian desires to create an atomic bomb, but the country is enriching uranium – legally, as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which some pro-US nuclear states have refused to sign up to. This is the excuse that is being used to whip up support another war for oil.’
John Bissett
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2022/03/real-men-want-to-go-to-iran-2006.html
Happy Birthday SPGB!
The Socialist Party of Great Britain was formed on the 12th June 1904.
The below is from the first issue of the Socialist Standard September 1904
‘The greatest problem awaiting solution in the world to-day is the existence in every commercial country of extreme poverty side by side with extreme wealth. In every land where, in the natural development of society, the capitalist method of producing and distributing wealth has been introduced, this problem presses itself upon us. Not only so but the greater the grip which capitalism has on industry the more intense is the poverty of the many and the more marked are the riches of the few.
In observing the conditions of this problem, the fact is quickly forced under our notice that it is the producer of wealth who is poor, the non-producer who is rich. How comes it that the men and women who till the soil, who dig the mine, who manipulate the machine, who build the factory and the home, and, in a word, who create the whole of the wealth, receive only sufficient to maintain themselves and their families on the border line of bare physical efficiency, while those who do not aid in production – the employing class – obtain more than is enough to supply their every necessity, comfort, and luxury?
To find a solution to this problem is the task to which the Socialist applies himself. He sees clearly that only by studying the economics of wealth-production and distribution can he understand the anomalies of present-day society. He sees, further, that having gained a knowledge of the economic causes of social inequality, he must apply this knowledge through political action – through the building up of a Socialist organisation for the capture of Parliament and the conquest of the powers of government.
To every sober observer of social facts it is patent that the life condition of the workers is one of penury and of misery. The only saleable commodity they possess – their power of working – they are compelled to take to the labour market and sell for a bare subsistence wage. The food they eat, the clothing they wear, the houses in which they live are of the shoddiest kind, and these together with the mockery of an education which their children receive, primarily determine the purchasing price of their labour-power. By organising in their various trades they may force their wage a little above this normal value, but taken on the average they are bound to sell their activity – physical, mental and moral – for the bare cost of their subsistence.
In return for this wage they create, by the conversion of raw material into manufactured products or by other means, a value far in excess of the value paid them as wages. The difference between these two values is taken by the employing class, and constitutes the source of profit, interest, and rent. These three forms of exploitation are the result of the unpaid labour of the working-class.
So long as this lasts – and it will last as long as the capitalist system of society – it will not be possible for the workers by any Trades Union organisation to more than slightly modify their condition, and their power in this direction is becoming every day more limited by the combinations among employers to defeat the aims of the working class.
Then, too, the magnitude of industrial operations, ever tending to increase by the inherent tendency under free competition of the large producer to crush out his smaller trade rivals – the joint stock company takes the place of the large individual, capitalist, the trust the place of the joint stock company. The worker is thus brought face to face with an ever greater foe.
The Socialist can calmly view this struggle, knowing that ultimately the victory is with him. In the meantime, however, he has to show the workers that while their organisation in trades will prove an invaluable aid in the transformation of society by facilitating industrial reorganisation, yet at present they can best help to emancipate themselves from the thraldom of wage-slavery by recognising that in their class struggle with their exploiters they can be most certain of success in the political sphere of action.
Such political action will, however, be quite futile unless carried on by a class-conscious party with definite aims. Such a party must recognise that in the class-war they are waging there must be no truce. They must adopt as their basis of action the Socialist position, for in no other way can their ills be redressed.
To neither of the two historic parties can we look with any hope. The Liberal Party, like the Conservative Party, is interested in maintaining the present class society, and cannot, therefore, be expected to help in its transformation from capitalism to Socialism.
The National Democratic League and the Labour Representation Committee are also to be avoided. The former has a programme of purely political measures, each of which is found in the constitutions of France and the United States of America without the working-class being in any way benefited. The latter organisation has no programme whatsoever, and its members possess no principles in common save the name “Labour.” As soon as any question of constructive legislation is brought before it its component elements will break part, being unable to agree among themselves. Unity is only possible among those who possess common principles. Unity can not, therefore, be secured for any length of time by the members of the Labour Representation Committee, but even if it could, the body is not based upon Socialist principles and should not receive the adhesion of working men.
We, as Socialists, venture to assert that the party which is ultimately to secure the support of the rank and file of the working-class must be a Socialist party. Such a party must be ever prepared to further the realisation of a Socialist Society. It must proclaim the fact that this realisation can be achieved by the members of the working-class using their political power to return to Parliament and other public bodies only those who are members of The Socialist Party.
In the past two bodies of men have put forward the claim to be Socialist parties, viz., the Independent Labour Party and Social Democratic Federation. We who have for many years taken a share in the work of the latter organisation and who have watched the progress of the former from its initiation, have been forced to the conclusion that through neither of them can the Social Revolution at which we aim be achieved, and that from neither of them can the working-class secure redress from the ills they suffer.
The Independent Labour Party, founded for the ostensible reason of forming a half-way house to Socialism, was fated to meet with the reward of every party founded upon a compromise. With a membership of those who were sympathetic with Socialism, but who were not Socialists, they were bound to drift nearer and nearer to the Liberal Party. Having neither the courage to proclaim themselves Socialists nor to disavow Socialism, they are to-day coquetting with that working-class wing of the Liberal Party – the Labour Representation Committee. When the question of Socialism was raised on the committee, their chief representative declared that was neither the time nor the place for such discussion. With a party of this kind, which, in the words of their president, “is independent to support, independent to oppose” the two historic political parties, the working-class should have nothing to do.
The Social Democratic Federation formed to further the cause of Socialism in Great Britain, has, during the last few years, been steadily following the compromising policy adopted from the first by the Independent Labour Party. So much is this the case that to-day, for all purposes of effective Socialist propaganda they have ceased to exist, and are surely developing into a mere reform party, seeking to obtain the provision of Free Maintenance for school children.
Those Socialists who, within its ranks, sought to withstand this policy, have found the task to be an impossible one, and have consequently seceded and formed themselves into the Socialist Party of Great Britain – a party determined to use its every effort in the furtherance of Socialist ideas and Socialist principles.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain is convinced that by laying down a clearly defined body of principles in accord with essential economic truths, and by consistently advocating them, swerving neither to the right nor to the left, but marching uncompromisingly on toward their goal, they will ultimately gain the confidence and the support of the working-class of this country. once this is secured it is a small step to the organisation of a Socialist Parliamentary party. When this is accomplished all is gained.
The first duty of The Socialist Party is the teaching of its principles and the organisation of a political party on a Socialist basis. The party becoming strong will capture parliamentary and other governmental powers. When these powers – legislative, administrative, and judicial, are wrested from their present class holders, they way is clear for the building up of the industries of the country upon the principle of collective production and collective distribution, and for the establishment of the Socialist Republic.
Men and women of the working-class, it is to you we appeal! To-day we are a small party, strong only in the truth of our principles, the sincerity of our motives, and the determination and enthusiasm of our members. To-morrow we shall be strong in our numbers, for the economic development of capitalist society fights for us, and as, through the merging of free competition in monopoly and the simplification of industry, the personal capitalist gives place to the impersonal trust as your employer, you will be forced to see that the welfare of the people can best be guaranteed by the holding of all material wealth in common.
We ask you, therefore, to study the principles upon which our party is based, to find out for yourselves what Socialism is and how Socialism and Socialism alone can abolish class society and establish in its stead a society based upon social equality. When you have done this we know that you will come with us and, by enrolling yourself a member of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, help to speed the time when we shall herald in for ourselves and for our children, a brighter, a happier and a nobler society than any the world has yet witnessed.’
Water, water, nowhere…
News that UK water bosses won’t get fat-cat bonuses for polluting waterways might mollify some, furious at the blatant mismanagement and grift. Britain is renowned for being cold, cloudy and wet, yet it’s now projected to run out of water by the mid-2030s, due to lack of reservoirs, and 1tn litres a year in leakage.
Water companies, some nearly bankrupt, push up charges and borrow huge sums not to fix leaks, but to service a £60bn debt mountain, as well as pay around £2bn a year in shareholder dividends.
There’s nothing efficient about capitalism. State or private, it’s always money first, people last. The whole planet needs democratic common ownership. Anything else is just a drop in the bucket.
Britain in the firing line
Is there any reason why we should believe Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov over any any politician? Putting cynicism aside the views expressed by Lavrov do indicate that Britain is firmly in the sights of Russia both as an adversary in the conflict with Ukraine.
The actions of the UK government, whether the perceptions articulated are correct or not, put Britain directly in the nuclear firing line should there be an escalation leading to a wider war than that between Ukraine and Russia.
‘There is no doubt that Britain is helping Ukraine to carry out terrorist attacks inside Russia, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.
Speaking during the ‘Forum of the Future 2050’ in Moscow on Lavrov acknowledged that the “risk of the rise in the level of terrorist threat exists” in Russia.’ It is obvious that all this is being done by the Ukrainian side, but it would have been helpless without the support… from the British,” he said.
Such activities were previously backed by both the US and the UK, but “now we would have to do solely with the British,” Lavrov claimed.
The diplomat was referring to the fact that the UK remains one of Ukraine’s staunchest supporters, despite the US changing course under the administration of US President Donald Trump towards trying to restore dialogue with Moscow and to broker a peaceful settlement of the Ukraine conflict.
“Although who knows, maybe there are still some special services in the US that are participating in such activities by inertia, but the British are 100% involved in them,” Lavrov stressed.
Last week, Moscow’s ambassador to London, Andrey Kelin, similarly accused the UK of participating in Ukrainian drone raids on Russian airbases.
“This kind of attack involves, of course, provision of very high technology, so-called geo-spatial data, which can only be done by those who have it in possession. And this is London and Washington,” Kelin told Sky News. He added that he did not believe that the US was somehow involved due to Trump denying any knowledge of Kiev’s plans.
Downing Street has neither confirmed nor denied the UK’s participation, with a government spokesman saying: “We never comment on operational matters at home or abroad.”’
‘The UK has pledged to supply 100,000 new drones to Ukraine by April 2026, in addition to the 10,000 UAVs it sent last year. The announcement coincides with Britain’s newly unveiled Strategic Defence Review, which proposes steps to rearm its military in light of what it paints as a threat posed by Russia.
London has allocated £350 million ($470 million) from its £4.5 billion Ukraine military package to fund new drone deliveries to Kiev, according to a government statement.
“Ukraine’s Armed Forces have demonstrated the effectiveness of drone warfare,” London stated, admitting that Kiev’s demand for UAVs has provided a boost to the UK’s economy. (Our emphasis).
It also unveiled plans to use Ukraine’s drone experience to train its own military. In order to “learn the lessons from Ukraine,” the UK would allocate over £4 billion for autonomous systems and drones for its armed forces.
. Russia has claimed that Kiev’s Western backers, particularly the UK, France, and Germany, are puhing drone warfare in order to derail the talks and to serve their own political agendas.
London framed its new Strategic Defence Review as “a message to Moscow,” declaring Britain is “ready to fight, if required.” The UK intends to spend £1.5 billion on new weapons plants, £6 billion on long-range arms, and £15 billion on nuclear warheads, among multiple other new expenses.
Russia has repeatedly dismissed claims it plans to attack Western Europe as “nonsense,” accusing the West of using scare tactics to justify shifting public funds toward military spending.
Moscow has warned that foreign involvement, including arms deliveries would obstruct peace efforts and ultimately fail to stop Russia from reaching its military goals. Moscow has also criticised the UK’s and EU’s respective militarisation drives, warning they risk triggering a broader conflict in Europe.’
War to end wars?
On the 6th June 1944 after over one hundred and fifty thousand military landed on Normandy beaches to continue the capitalist war begun in 1939 the Socialist Standard of August 1944 was already posing the question as to whether a third world war was inevitable.
‘War, said Clausewitz, is a continuation of politics by other means. “Without armed forces it will not be possible to have a foreign policy at all,” said Lord Cranbourne, Dominions Secretary and Leader of the House of Lords, speaking to that august body, the Manchester Conservative Association (Daily Express, April 18th, 1944). It would be labouring the point to show the similarity of ideas expressed here. It is, however, a vindication of the Socialist contention that so long as capitalism remains in existence, war or the threat of war must likewise remain to torture our minds and bodies. The above quotation is a frank recognition by one of the leading spokesmen of the capitalist class of the essentially warlike nature of their system of exploitation and profit-making. As if to reassure us of this, Lord Cranbourne went on to say, “I put it forward as a main principle of the Conservative policy, that we must regard expenditure on armaments as the most essential item of national expenditure.” What price “Atlantic Charters,” “brotherly co-operation of nations,” and other vaporous nonsense with which numerous reformers of capitalism would have us believe that war, or at any rate world war, can be avoided!
Lord Cranbourne, moreover, is not the only spokesman of our rulers who realises the necessity of the mailed fist to the modern capitalist state in the light of potential conflicts and the satisfaction of its world market requirements. Mr. Robert Boothby, M.P., writing on the Empire (Evening Standard, April 18th, 1944), says, in a rather anxious manner, “Admittedly we have survived two tremendous tests. But it would be unwise to count upon equal good fortune a third time. If we are to hold our own and talk on equal terms with the other great world federations, we must pursue a definite foreign policy in common and enter into more precise commitments in the field of defence than we have ever done in the past.” Mr. Boothby, a thorough realist, goes on to make a statement that Socialists have persistently stressed for many years past. “The collapse of the League of Nations taught us that paper constitutions are no substitute for the realities of power. It is a lesson we shall forget at our peril.” If it is really that Mr. Boothby wants us to learn the lessons of history, we would ask the following pertinent question. What solution can capitalism provide against the recurrence of a third world war, which is likely to be even more destructive and catastrophic than the present one? The Socialist answer is that there is none. As if in echo to this we quote again. This time from Mr. R. Tees (Cons.) : “I do not believe that this is going to be a war to end wars. Looking round, I think that we are entering on a turbulent period, in which dynamic forces will be everywhere at work.” (Daily Express, July 28th, 1943).
On the other side of the Atlantic, too, there are ominous rumblings, which foreshadow anything but peace—even capitalist “peace.” The Daily Express American correspondent reports a “post-war preparedness programme—which will obviously include compulsory military training for all” (April 26, 1944). He goes on to say : “Projects under discussion also include permanent Government work for scientists to develop new secret weapons, continued war production in miniature so that factories can be quickly converted back to turning out war material, and Government retention of many war plants.”
In view of this, we can readily understand Lieut.-General Patton’s (Blood and Guts!) reassuring a ten year old Texan volunteering as an army mascot : “You can be sure there will be more wars, and I feel convinced, being a boy from Texas, you will give a good account of yourself.” (Daily Express, July 28th, 1943.)
Enough has been said to show that those who are aware of the real forces at work in the modern capitalist world hold out little hope for a future in which war will not rear its ugly and vicious head. To the Socialist this is nothing new. It is because he understands the nature of capitalism and its inevitable development that he refuses to be lulled by all sorts of hole-in-the-corner reformers who pander to ignorance by claiming to have solutions for problems which are incapable of solution within the framework of capitalism. The reader may ask now, Is war inevitable under capitalism, and what solution has the Socialist to offer ?
The answer to these two questions lies in the understanding of the nature of the modern capitalist world. The main outstanding feature of capitalist society—i.e., the present-day world—is the capitalist ownership of the means of production. By this we mean that relatively all the powers of production in existence to-day are owned and controlled by a small minority, known as the capitalist class, leaving the vast mass of the population without any means of obtaining a livelihood than by working for one, or for a group of these capitalists. “You have my very life if you have the means whereby I live,” are the words Shakespeare puts into the mouth of Shylock, and this is true—nay, even truer—than it was then. The workers, with the help of their master’s machinery, raw materials, etc., produce vast quantities of goods which the owner or owners endeavour to sell at a profit on the home and world markets. That is, at such times when they are not engaged in armed conflict with other groups of capitalists !
The most important point to remember about this process of exploitation is that the workers only receive back a relatively small portion of this produce in the form of wages, such an amount as will suffice to keep them in “working efficiency.” Consequently, they are never able to buy back all that they produce, and no matter how much the capitalist may spend in the way of luxurious living, there is always a large surplus left over. This results, as we know only too well, from bitter experience, in slumps, crises and mass unemployment. But it also leads the capitalist to search for new markets or to extend the existing ones. It is here, however, that he meets his colleagues from other parts of the capitalist world, who are engaged in precisely the same hunt. Hence ensues power politics, back-scene diplomatic intrigue, secret trade agreements, quarrels over territory and spheres of influence, and other nauseating features of world capitalist politics and diplomacy. This, we should like to stress, is not due to some inherent predatory instincts to which capitalists and their henchmen are particularly susceptible, but is the logical result of their pursuit of profit.
The cause, then, is clear. Not human nature, nor individuals aspiring to power, nor lack of “brotherly co-operation among nations,” but the profit-making system, the capitalist order of society. The remedy follows logically. Deprive the capitalists of their ownership of the means of wealth production, and make these the common property of all the people—in short, end capitalism and inaugurate Socialism. Profits, spheres of influence, trade routes, and armed might will then no longer interest anybody because they simply won’t exist or be able to exist. This is because in Socialist society things will be produced solely for use, and the sole motivation of production and distribution will be to minister to the general welfare and happiness of mankind. Instead of war, we shall have peace, real peace, not the periodical armistices which capitalism holds out for us. Instead of adulteration and distortion, perfection and beauty to the utmost limits of the capacity of society to provide them. Finally, but certainly not least, instead of exploitation and poverty, we shall bequeath to ourselves freedom and abundance. This transformation, however, can only be achieved when the majority of those persons most likely to benefit by the change—i.e., the working class—have reached an understanding of the cause of their miseries. Armed with this knowledge, they will organise with determination and enthusiasm On the political field for the sole purpose of getting to power for Socialism.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain stands for this mighty revolution, the only political organisation in this country, without exception, to do so. We therefore appeal to all workers to interest themselves in our great work, and when they are satisfied that our position is clear and unambiguous, and founded upon a correct and true interpretation of the facts of the modern world, to join with us in the furtherance and growth of the Socialist movement both here and abroad. Socialism is the only practical alternative to poverty, war, and all its kindred evils. The time is now most opportune for Socialist propaganda and activity. Only by following this course of action may we hope to abolish the poverty of the workers and the possibility of yet another future calamitous holocaust.’
Max Judd
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2022/08/will-there-be-third-world-war-1944.html
SPGB Meeting TONIGHT 6 June 1930 (GMT + 1) ZOOM
HOW THE US STOLE CENTRAL AMERICA WITH BANANAS (ZOOM)
Event DetailsDate: June 6, 2025 7:30 pm – 9:00 pm
Video introduced by Howard Moss.
To connect to a Zoom meeting, click https://zoom.us/j/7421974305
Socialist Sonnet No. 195
Victims
Refugees in their own homes shot and shelled.
Young men and women in battle fatigues,
Their own lives imperilled by the intrigues
And ambitions of those who feel impelled,
By destiny or profit, to fabricate
Self-serving, spurious justification,
Such gold braided vain glorification
Of leaders in a belligerent state.
War’s irony is its inanity,
The crass and brutal way it insists
In transforming mere men into rapists,
To deny women their humanity.
The world’s changed, or so politicians claim,
But for victims it is always the same.
D. A.
What-er shambles
An interim Water Commission report released on 3 June tells us that “the current system is not delivering what people expect and need” but “There is no simple, single change, no matter how radical, that will deliver the fundamental ‘reset’ of the water sector”
Alongside the blather about a ‘long-term direction’ and better regulation is a plea for the already low risk to investors to be made lower still, to make low returns more attractive to capital.
And there’s the rub – the Commission is (of course!) stuck with the capitalist mindset.
There is indeed a single radical change to make it easier to produce all of the goods and services that we all need – expropriate the capitalists.
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/
Tiananmen Square
Editorial from the June 1990 issue of the SocialistStandard
It takes guts to stand up against a brutal dictatorship. One year ago in China those who exhibited such courage were slaughtered on the streets. They paid the price for expressing dissent in what is absurdly titled a “people’s democracy”.
Since then much has happened. The Chinese state-capitalist bosses still hang to power, but their counterparts in Eastern Europe have discovered that the strength of workers is greater than the arrogance of so-called Communist state bosses. With the exception of the Leninist rulers of Russia and Albania, the pseudo-socialist rulers have been ousted throughout Eastern Europe. Events have occurred which socialists, only one year ago, would have been called utopians for predicting. The Berlin Wall has disappeared; genuine elections have taken place where one-party rule used to exist; inside the Russian Empire workers are joining independent, non-state-controlled trade unions—even the army has formed one, pledging itself not to fire on the workers in the event of an attempted military coup.
The explosive developments of the months since the Tiananmen massacre demonstrate the rapidity with which historical change can take place. It has also shown the power which arises from peaceful, democratic, organised action by workers who will no longer tolerate the conditions under which they are living. No doubt the first workers on to the streets of Leipzig or Bucharest were called utopians by some doubters—surely they did not really imagine that they, mere unarmed civilians, could defeat the might of the militarised state-capitalist regime. But they did. History once again proved the cynics and doubters to be wrong.
The unsuccessful struggle in China was not futile. The victory of the state bosses left blood stains which will give rise to workers’ consciousness. Those who were murdered are not forgotten—after them will come other Chinese wage slaves who will complete the task of removing the Deng dynasty.
But what has the “success” of the East European workers amounted to? Greater democratic freedom exists now than before the workers demanded it. That gain is not to be sniffed at by workers in the West. Apart from the greater opportunities to express themselves and organise, the workers of Eastern Europe are still the victims of a dictatorship: the Dictatorship of Capital.
Do the Poles now own Poland or the Hungarians Hungary or the Rumanians Rumania? Will the Russians own Russia if the Communist Party is dislodged, or will the Lithuanian workers own the wealth of Lithuania once they leave the Russian Empire? Of course not. The means of wealth production in these countries still belong to a small minority of the population—the composition of this minority may have changed (although in Poland and Hungary many of the old state bosses are now buying up the private capital), but they are still the exploiting class.
As long as the profits of the bosses are the product of the legalised robbery of the wealth producers the workers are not free. To be a wage slave in Britain is less like being a prison inmate than being one in China, but the compulsion to work in order to make the bosses rich is the same for both.
It is the capitalist system which is the enemy. It is only by establishing a classless, stateless, propertyless global society that real freedom will be won. The struggle of workers in Britain to get rid of the profit system can only strengthen the struggle of our fellow workers in China, just as the heroic actions of our fellow workers in Tiananmen Square will serve as a permanent reminder to us of the ability of workers to stand up and be counted in the most difficult of circumstances, and the ruthless resolve of our class enemies to destroy dissent.