The following is from the Socialist Standard April 2021

‘Ten years ago, I found myself the recipient of several angry emails, all sent to my work email address. My crime had been to write a letter to a student newspaper in which I criticised a student’s proposal to make it compulsory for university staff to wear a red poppy. The details of this affair aren’t relevant here and my opinions about the red poppy are easy to find elsewhere (in summary: no communist or socialist should have anything to do with the thing). Presumably unaware of the irony, one outraged nationalist emailed me to say that the Second World War was justified, since it guaranteed ‘the freedoms that we enjoy today’, and also wrote to my line manager recommending that I be disciplined for asserting otherwise. For many on the right, this is what free speech really means: freedom of speech for me and for the people who agree with me.

But some – perhaps an increasing number – of those on the left of politics are also eager to no-platform or ‘cancel’ their real or supposed ideological opponents. Weaker manifestations of cancel culture include ostracism, blanking, ghosting and gossip-mongering – the tactics of an online left that often seems hellbent on plumbing the depths of infantilism, narcissism and moralism. Sometimes leftists go even further, attacking the validity of free expression itself and seeking to curtail it. In the ‘wokest’ corners of the web today, appeals to the principle of free discourse are often mockingly parsed as ‘muh freeze peach’ and the essential foundation of radical political debate – being able to write or say what you think in dialogue with (or opposition to) others – is more and more ridiculed as the outdated obsession of centrist squares, out-of-touch boomers, or, to use the argot, ‘literal fascists’.

Left-wing suspicion of free speech is nothing new. To cite a classic example, Herbert Marcuse’s essay on ‘Repressive Tolerance’ (1965) attempted to justify the denial of freedom of speech and organisation to ‘groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race or religion’. Such groups and movements are still with us, of course, and they should be countered at every turn. But we would argue that for socialists, it doesn’t make sense to suppress repellent social and political views – something Marcuse himself recognised would be ‘undemocratic’ (albeit, in his view, a necessary step towards achieving a more genuine democracy). In general terms, expressions of prejudice and hatred should be permitted, not because there exists some ideal ‘free market of ideas’, but because it is only by discussing and debating them that their vile nature can be exposed. As John Milton famously put it in his Areopagitica ‘Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter? Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing’.

We understand the appeal of cancel culture. After all, many of the most prominent free speech advocates in today’s public sphere are unpleasant conservatives such as Toby Young, who seems to pop up every five minutes on a British television channel to complain that you can’t say anything these days. But we should not embrace cancel culture just because right wingers oppose it. For one thing, free speech, as Thomas Scanlon argued long ago, is a good in itself, regardless of any consequences its exercise might have: this is because freedom of expression – including the freedom to hear others’ speech and make judgements about it – is important to us as rational, autonomous persons who can and should be able to make up our own minds about particular issues.

Moreover, it’s not clear that cancelling even works very well. The conservative and alt-right wingnuts and hatemongers who complain the loudest about being no-platformed – we’re thinking here of Young, Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson – are actually well-connected and powerful operators who, when cancelled, usually have little difficulty in finding alternative outlets for their opinions. Depriving such characters of their platforms is therefore generally counter-productive: all too often, it only allows them (and their deluded working-class supporters) to posture as the victims of a left-wing PC purge before trotting off to their next lucrative media gig. Cancellation does not starve these toxic edgelords of the oxygen of publicity; quite the opposite, in fact.

And what about the less elevated targets of cancel culture? Cancellation can be devastating for the less well-connected. It is becoming quite commonplace for ordinary people who offend against dominant public opinion on issues such as trans rights or Brexit to suffer reputational damage or to lose work and income . And there is little doubt that such personal and financial ruination is often intended by the cancellers. Indeed, the hostile environment created by cancellation aligns perfectly with the individualist, aggressive, competitive dynamics of contemporary capitalism – the ‘abyss of failed sociality’ as Axel Honneth has so cheerily put it – and the social sadism and ‘humilitainment’ that now mars large parts of mainstream media culture.

On social media, cancel culture often involves the vicious policing of speech, pile-ons and denials-of-service for the most minor of offences against political orthodoxy by relatively powerless individuals. As Kristina Harrison has put it , cancel culture, in its dismissal of nuance and dissent, tends to elevate ‘not debate and politics but moral absolutism, authoritarianism and hysteria, the tools of the witch-hunter’. Like the witch-hunter, the canceller moves readily between criticising the ambiguous behaviours or statements of her targets to making essentialist assertions about them, so that public figures or social media influencers who make misguided, ambiguous or problematic remarks about, say, racial or trans issues automatically become racists or transphobes. This point was made well by the late Mark Fisher in his critique of left-wing call-out culture, ‘Exiting the Vampire’s Castle ‘. Veteran BreadTuber Natalie Wynn (aka. Contrapoints), herself a prominent cancellee, makes the same and many other points in her far-reaching critique of the same.

And it should go without saying that Karl Marx himself would not have been impressed by no-platforming and cancel culture, although some leftists seem to be confused about this. A meme recently on Facebook consists of a four-panel cartoon depicting alt-lite rent-a-gob Milo Yiannopoulos moaning to Karl Marx about violations of his freedom of speech. In the final panel of the sketch, Marx silently picks up Milo and throws him over a clifftop. It’s a fun image, to be sure; but it’s also misleading. In reality, Marx fiercely defended freedom of speech. In ‘On the Freedom of the Press‘ (1842), for example, Marx, with his usual sarcasm, ventriloquised the Prussian press censors of his day, mocking their hypocrisy: ‘Freedom of the press is a fine thing. But there are also bad persons, who misuse speech to tell lies and the brain to plot. Speech and thought would be fine things if only there were no bad persons to misuse them!’ In fact, Marx opposed censorship throughout his life. And anybody suspecting Marx of capitulating to liberalism in this regard should think again. As Eric Heinze argues, Marx defended free speech not as a bourgeois right, but as something more fundamental: a foundational philosophical praxis that makes possible the very discussion of rights.

Today, we socialists make up a tiny minority of the population and we have very little political and social clout. To change this situation, we need to be able to explain to other members of the working class what socialism is and why everybody will benefit from it. Sometimes this seems like an impossible task: even in relatively ‘open’, liberal societies, the major media organisations, as well as all the other institutions of capitalism, are overwhelmingly ranged against us and communist ideas are vilified, marginalised and misrepresented in both right- and left-wing media. But we must make use of whatever relatively democratic spaces and opportunities do exist to shout about socialism. To attempt to deny free speech to our opponents simply on the grounds that they hold repellent or false views, meanwhile, would be unprincipled and counter-productive; ultimately, it would only make it even easier than it already is for those in power to silence us.’

S.H.

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2022/03/socialism-free-speech-and-cancel.html

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2020s/2024/no-1436-april-2024/

Easter was once the time for putting on your duffle coat, making sure you were wearing the appropriate badges, picking up your banner and going on the march to Aldermaston to protest against nuclear weapons. Fast forward to 2024 and marches of various kinds are still happening to protest against the various iniquities the capitalism imposes upon us all across the world.

Well meaning intentions butter no parsnips as they say.

A suggestion, a worthwhile activity to engage in at Easter or any other time of the year would be to educate yourself about the benefits of real Socialism and how to bring it about. Workers of the World Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

Editorial from the Socialist Standard, March 2008

‘Fifty years ago this Easter CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) was effectively born from demonstrations held outside the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston, Twenty-five years on from Easter 1958, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (and similar movements) had risen again, able to mobilise millions onto the streets of capital cities throughout Western Europe in response to a return to cold war US/USSR rhetoric.



During the 50 years of CND’s history some things have changed: Trident has replaced Polaris and Faslane submarine base has replaced Greenham Common cruise missile base as the focus for protest. Meanwhile the global nuclear stockpile is now double what it was in 1958, and the number of nuclear states has also more than doubled.



And it wasn’t just the badges with the distinctive CND logo that were recycled from the 60s to the 80s: the same kilogrammes of uranium or plutonium from scrapped and ageing warheads have been thoughtfully reused ten years later in the next generation of killing technology.



Despite the laudable aims then – as embodied in their title – the reality of CND is that it has been a front: a cover for the little-known CPPTSRNP (Campaign for Possible Partial, Temporary and Reversible Slowing of the Rate of Nuclear Proliferation). A bit more accurate, if a little clumsy when put on a banner, and hardly a good rallying cry for supporters of course. But CND has, by whatever measure you wish to use, failed. Not through lack of effort of course – no other issue dominated politics throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s.



The parties of the World Socialist Movement are unique in opposing all war – not just certain types of war or certain situations. This is based on a recognition that the interests of the working women and men who usually make up the cannon-fodder and collateral damage of war can never be aligned with states and governments. We oppose the monopoly that the global owning class have over ownership of the Earth’s productive resources that are the usual spoils of armed conflict. We see little value therefore in pleading with our rulers to continue their capitalist battles, but to request that they use only this or that weapon.



In the Socialist Party we were sometimes told by CND supporters that there just wasn’t enough time to work for socialism: there were only weeks or months left to stop nuclear annihilation and that objective had to be the priority. Thankfully that prediction proved to not be the case. But it is a common objection to the case for socialism, that there is some immediate more pressing campaign that – with just one final shove – will be won, and only then can we start to look to changing the basis of society.



The history of movements to reform one part or another of capitalism has been a history of failure in the main part. We can choose to tinker at the margins or to get to grips with the problem. We can complain about the symptoms, plead with our rulers, or make the decision to address the cause. The history of CND should give us no confidence that reformism is fit for purpose – certainly not with regard to trying to do away with weapons.



We predict that unless the war machine that is capitalism is politically challenged by a majority – armed with nothing more or less than an understanding of how it works – then in another 50 years we will still have wars raging round the globe, with ever more sophisticated weaponry. And of course, we will still have CND. The choice is between a world to win and a world to lose.’

Was the myth of a Greek King named Midas who was granted the ability to turn everything he touched to gold meant as a message to be careful what you wish for? In the myth, once endowed with that ability then food, drink and his daughter were all turned into the yellow metal leading to his own death from starvation.

Socialists do not wish harm upon any individual of any class but when the current social system has developed to the point where the lives of anyone on the planet could be lived free from poverty, hunger and free from the ills inherent in capitalism, then the continuing magnitude increase in wealth of a minority and the power that gives over the lives of everyone is well past the point of acceptability.

Lest anyone, particularly in the ‘land of the free’ believes that such wealth comes from the i efforts of individuals within the ruling class and that they are fully deserving of it, then be aware that the wealth of the capitalist class comes from, and always has, the exploitation of the vast majority who are forced to sell their labour power in order to live.

Diversity, equity and inclusion occupy the thoughts and efforts of many in efforts to promote a fairer society for many considered to have been historically oppressed. These aspirations will only be fully attained with he abolition of global capitalism and its replacement by a Socialist society.

‘The wealthiest Americans got even richer last year and now possess $44.6 trillion in combined assets, thanks to the skyrocketing stock market, CNBC reported, citing new data from the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve defines America’s top 1% as those with personal wealth amounting to more than $11 million. In the fourth quarter of last year, they saw their combined net worth rise by around $2 trillion, according to CNBC.

The rise was largely the result of a stock market rally at the end of the year, as the value of corporate equities and mutual fund shares held by the richest US citizens skyrocketed from $17.65 trillion to $19.7 trillion.

Middle-class Americans also reportedly saw their wealth increase, but Federal Reserve data indicates that the wealthiest 1% are the primary beneficiaries of the stock market rally, since the market gains remain heavily concentrated in the hands of the richest. The top 10% of Americans own 87% of individually held stocks and mutual funds, according to CNBC, while the top 1% hold half of it and account for 30% of the combined wealth.

The quarterly gain adds to a boom that began in 2020 with the Covid-19 pandemic market surge, CNBC says. Since that time, the net worth of the top 1% has risen by around $15 trillion – almost 50%.

Inequality, which was in decline in 2021 and 2022, began growing again in 2023, the media outlet said, noting that the wealth gap returned to pre-pandemic levels.’

On social media when viewers disbelieve what they’re reading the response is to post in reply, of all the things that didn’t happen, this didn’t happen the most.’

Fifty years ago a Tory ex-prime minister described the behaviour of a company as ‘the unacceptable face of capitalism.’ When is capitalism ever acceptable?

Conservativehome, eight years ago expressed faux outrage at the idea that capitalists might take advantage, correction, more advantage, of the rest of us suckers. ‘Capitalism depends on a code of morality. When those who own or run companies enrich themselves with indecent and grotesque eagerness at the expense of their pensioners and employees, trust collapses and the whole system becomes unsustainable. ‘

https://conservativehome.com/2016/07/25/the-return-of-the-unacceptable-face-of-capitalism/

So, is Thames Water the latest in a long line of unacceptable capitalism?

From The Guardian, 28 March;’ It (Thames Water) has been lobbying the industry regulator Ofwat to increase bills by 40%, pay lower fines for breaches including sewage dumping, and to be allowed to pay out dividends. The watchdog has been examining the supplier’s business plan for 2025-2030, and Thames said Ofwat’s initial assessments made the company “uninvestible” for shareholders.’

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/28/thames-water-on-road-to-state-rescue-amid-investor-standoff-with-ofwa

The following is an extract from the Socialist Standard, August 2003

‘Will there be calls from the so called ‘Labour’ Party to effect immediate nationalisation? Or does the new, always was, business friendly, we can run capitalism better for you than the Tories, eschew such ‘socialist’ ideas now?

There are still some in the Labour Party and in the various left-wing organisations who claim that vast swathes of British industry should be re-nationalised. This is why many see “New” Labour as a dramatic break with “Old” Labour. Jim Mortimer (an ex-Labour Party general secretary) describes New Labour, in a recent pamphlet The Formation of the Labour Party – Lessons for Today (2000), as apologists for capitalism and the new Clause IV as “a symbolic change to mark the abandonment of Labour’s traditional advocacy of a widening area of social [state] ownership”. However, as socialists, we would prefer to see declining faith in nationalisation and the Labour Party as a positive development. The results of Labour governments are no longer clothed in the misleading garb of collectivism but show what they essentially are—managers of capitalism. Electoral imperatives, present from early in Labour’s existence, have triumphed over reforming rhetoric.’

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2023/08/has-labour-party-lost-its-way-2003.html

In a sane society, i.e. a non capitalist one, the supply of free environmentally safe water would be available for the benefit of all, not just for the production of profits and dividends.

The provision of school transport for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) is proving to be an increasingly expensive problem for local authorities. Legally, councils must provide free transport for SEND children unable to walk to school.

At a time when councils generally are struggling financially, with some already, and others well on the way to becoming, bankrupt, the cost of SEND transport continues to rise. In 2018/19 the spending in England was £728. 2023-24 has seen a 95% rise to £1.4bn.

This reflects rapidly rising prices due to inflation along with a 40% increase in demand. The average cost per child in England is up by a third from £6,280 to £8,299. To ease the pressure on budgets, councils are having to consider reducing non-statutory service provision.

The socialist maxim, ‘from each according to ability, to each according to need’ is denied while capitalism persists. The needs of SEND children are undeniable, but as ever it is cost, and its implications, not actual need that is the determinant factor.

Government policy to reduce its own expenditure is to pass laws making local authorities liable, and then reduce funding as has been the case throughout austerity.

SEND children are not charity cases but growing individuals with their own abilities and specific needs. But, everyone has abilities and needs that will be subjected to rationing as long as money remains the determining factor.

Consider the socialist maxim, and what is required to realise a society in which it can be brought about. Then everyone’s needs can be met.

D. A.

By Royal (Dis)Appointment

The palace has issued a press release:

There is nothing to concern the nation,

Indeed the general public oblation

Has no need to hesitate, wane or cease.

Hand shaking will continue, walkabouts

Likewise, behind firmly fixed barriers

Of course. Because, no matter what occurs,

Our subjects must not begin to have doubts.

Any uncertainty about the state

Has to be ameliorated,

If fallibility’s demonstrated,

People might want to control their own fate.

Should there be any dissatisfaction,

A royal headline’s a great distraction.

D. A.

Capitalism is nothing if not ingenious. Especially when it comes to convincing the majority that there is not a viable alternative to the current exploitative system. Ingenuity also comes into play when circumventing attempts to interfere with profits.

‘An unprecedented surge in car exports from the UK to Azerbaijan is not related to Russia or sanctions evasion, the British Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) has claimed, as cited by Sky News.

The news outlet previously reported that vehicle sales to the South Caucasus nation saw huge growth last year, rising 2,000% compared to the five years prior to 2022. The UK banned imports of cars worth over £42,000 ($53,300) to Russia after Moscow launched its military operation in Ukraine, and has also prohibited sales of “dual use” items to the country.

According to analysis carried out by Sky News, a near-simultaneous rise in car exports from Azerbaijan to Russia has occurred over the same period of time.

A spokesperson for the SMMT explained the surge by insisting that Azerbaijan represents a “flourishing market in its own right,” and that there is no evidence that vehicles being sent to the country are destined for Russia.

“UK vehicle exports to Azerbaijan – as to many countries globally – have increased due to a number of factors, not least a flourishing economy, new model launches and pent-up demand,” the SMMT stated.

Azerbaijan imported another $51 million worth of cars from the UK in the first month of the current year, according to Sky analysis. The South Caucasus nation had not previously been in the top 75 export destinations for British-made cars, data showed.

Azerbaijan is reportedly now ranked the 12th biggest foreign market by value for vehicles from the UK, outpacing countries such as Switzerland, Canada, and Spain. Meanwhile, there are no direct car exports to Russia, according to data from HM Revenue & Customs, as quoted by the news channel.

Similar increases in British exports have reportedly been seen in other former Soviet republics, including Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Georgia. The former saw deliveries of British-made cars increase 800% in 2023, Sky News stated.

“Wherever the UK automotive industry exports, it is committed to compliance with all trade and economic sanctions, and continues to work closely with government and the new Office For Sanctions to ensure the effective implementation of the regulations,” the SMMT spokesperson told the channel.

The lobby group said it had registered no signs of the law being compromised, adding that “it is right to monitor for any potential vulnerabilities in a fast-moving and evolving environment.”’

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a major source of cobalt, vital for battery technology, an industry dominated by Japanese, South Korean and Chinese manufacturers. The actual mining is done by an indigenous workforce whose continuing poverty, and depredated environment, is an exemplar of capitalism at its rawest.

In her article for ‘Black Agenda Report’, Ann Garrison wrote,

‘Huge Chinese corporations so dominate Congolese cobalt mining, processing and battery manufacture that one has to ask why a communist government, however capitalist in fact, doesn’t at least somehow require more responsible sourcing of minerals processed and then advanced along the supply chain within its borders?’

Actually, Ann Garrison answers her own question by her oxymoronic linking communist and capitalist with the Chinese government. Delete ‘communist’ from her statement and she describes precisely how an avowedly capitalist government can be expected to act. It can do no other. Whatever the governing party calls itself. Profit is paramount.

D. A.