Saturday, April 20, 2024

Peace Between Peoples – No Peace Between Classes: Repost

 

The Socialist Party, formed in 1904, has, from its inception eschewed leaders and has opposed war. Today, 20 April, marks the birthday of an individual who is, understandably, loathed by many but who still carries a fascination for  more, amongst whom are those who would like to recreate the past. As the post points out, leaders do not operate in a vacuum. The ideologies may change but the fundamental capitalist causes of conflict remain the same. The present conflicts in the world continue to menace the future of humankind. There is a solution: Socialism.

The following is a repost from SOYMB, 25 March, 2022.


One of the many problems that capitalism has not solved is that of war. We see each day the mobilisation of military forces on some border as perhaps another potential bloody conflict may break out. The companion parties of the World Socialist Movement have a consistent history of opposing all war. In our analysis which has withstood the test of time, war is fought for the interests and advantages of the ruling class, fought to protect or extend capitalist profits. Of course, no ruling class will ever admit going to war for such sordid motives. Every war has to be justified as a ‘righteous’ and ‘just’ war reluctantly resorted to for ‘humanitarian’ reasons or in defence of international ‘justice’, otherwise, no worker would sacrifice their lives or surrender their liberties so willingly.

Many assume Hitler was the sole cause of the Second World War and all the associated horrors as they blame Putin today for the Ukraine war. This is a gross oversimplification. Germany in the 1930s wasn’t suddenly corrupted by Hitler’s charisma. The political tensions and strife were all there, the results of a previous world war and a great depression. Hitler was just able to capitalise on this. But if he hadn’t there’s nothing to say that nobody else would. Elimination of the main figurehead won’t necessarily prevent events that were as much a product of the wider socio-political context. Problems rarely exist in isolation.

These lies about international justice and freedom and the like have been uncovered but not before people were deceived and dragged into the great slaughter, then they opened their eyes and saw the truth. They saw clearly that the war was not about their own interests, or anybody’s rights and freedoms, but that war was a terrifying conflict between predatory groups seeking advantage over the others. It then seemed so simple and understandable and we are taken aback when we are reminded that we found the pretext of wars in what the politicians and the media said. They will claim that the war was waged to defend national sovereignty or to protect their ethnic cousins. Or they will argue that ‘our’ government’s foreign policy was misunderstood while ‘their’ government’s foreign policy was simply wrong because its leader is a war-monger and militarist adventurer. ‘Our’ side had recourse to war only because ‘our’ government was forced into a ‘defensive position due to the other nation’s aggression.

But he or she who truly wants to know the causes of war today, the real causes, will recognise the reasons we mentioned above as well-worn. He or she would be very naive if they believed the guises and lies whose aim is to cover up the real causes of wars. He or she who wants to explain how wars come to be, both the past ones and the ones that threaten us in the future, and what are their causes, is obliged to examine and learn first the capitalists seek to place their excess capital abroad, in order to obtain bigger interest and more profits, to have these countries as markets for their merchandise, To subjugate them politically, to have their governments under their own influence. To pull the strings and play them in their hands like puppets.

Around the world the old ‘democratic’ methods are abandoned by the political parties, the so-called civil and human rights have been reduced to a mere joke on the people, and there is no means of oppression, violence and terror that is not being used on them. The state has become the private playground of every oligarch who can afford to finance a lobby group or think-tank, the social and welfare services have become merchandise in privatised hands and finally, a whole camp of parasites on the public purse follow any party clique in the ups and downs of political power. Bankers, big industrialists and merchants now hold in their hands huge concentrated economic forces (stock-market capital, land, factories, real estate), that is, it holds in its hands almost completely the lives of the people. The causes for new wars develop daily and the important resources of the country are wasted in preparing for war.

The causes for the war are to be found in the very process of capitalist production, distribution and exchange where corporations seek to establish control over markets, sources of raw materials and areas for exploitation. In their inextinguishable thirst for new profits, cliques of big business seek other countries, outside of their own trading bloc, to exploit. This search for expanding areas of markets comes up against rival groupings. What the capitalist elite of one nation desires is the same thing the sharks of the other countries crave too. And in the name of nationalism the ‘fatherlands,’ and the ‘motherlands’ launch their armies against each other. And the price of these conflicts is paid by the people with their own innocent blood.

This process, unavoidable so long as capital rules, creates ceaseless conflict. Hark back to the dissolution of the Soviet Empire and the so-called ‘peace-dividend’ which was promised. Instead, each year has seen war around the globe and more nations devoting vast resources to their military machines.

The struggle does not begin when a government – serving one group of businesses – declares war on another nation. It goes on all the time, taking many forms; some open, some concealed. Diplomatic negotiation and treaties, agreements and alliances between countries, subsidised economic warfare, small proxy wars waged ostensibly between small powers or rebel forces, actually on behalf of great ones, all these are manifestations of the same conflict. The formal declaration of war – rarely practised nowadays, more and more dispensed with – is merely the continuation of this same struggle in a sharper, more open form. The temporary cessation of one conflict gives rise to the escalation of other conflicts.

There is an oligarchy that holds in its hands the most important means of national wealth and whose interests oppose and counter those of the great majority of the people. Many want to deny this, either out of self-interest or narrow-mindedness. They say that there is no such class. And they don’t want to see these parasites, bankers and financiers, big merchants and industrialists, all those idle rich who accumulate capital from the sweat of all the working people. But, of course, the plutocratic oligarchy is always there exploiting the labour of the people, often happening without us realising. A thousand lies and prejudices and customs hide it. A general uncertainty for tomorrow in all aspects of the life of every country arising from the political conflicts of the capitalist gang of every country trying with every means of violence, terror, mass murder and oppression to keep its hegemony, to squeeze out new profits of the people’s misery new profits constantly while all the time preparing for new bloodthirsty episode tomorrow. Everywhere there are volcanoes of conflicts, lying dormant, ready to erupt and bury under its lava unsuspecting citizens.

There are many instances of autocracy and tyranny against us. The 1% tells us that ‘the will of the peoples is sovereign’ yet decide on their own, using their fortunes to buy elections. They send their own representatives to the parliament and they take decisions with their vested interests in mind. And the people frequently make it easy for them, being willing instruments of every charlatan demagogue, prostrating themselves at the feet of various rich local party leaders who can manipulate the passions of the people very skilfully with all their rabble-rousing speeches. We need not mention the outright terror and violence of state pressure, nor the brazen ballot-rigging which have become the main means of electoral domination lately. And so the ‘will of the people’ ends up to be the most disgraceful comedy against them, the ultimate hypocrisy and lie, that conceals from the eyes of the deceived the political dictatorship of the privileged upon the people.

The workers cannot conquer political power by struggling against foreign capitalists but only by struggling against those in their home country who control the existing social structure. It is impossible to support war and the governments waging them and to hope to create revolutionary opinions which will radically change that social system.

Those who replace the red flag of world socialism with the jingoist flag-waving of nations must be denounced. Yet, the tragic fact remains that men and women seem, at present, more willing to work and die for capitalism than to work and to live for Revolution! Only the class war for the overthrow of capitalism can end wars by ending the cause of war – capitalism.

The fight against war is inseparable from the fight for socialism. And this is very important to know, for us who want to fight for our lives and our peace, against the war. We must strike evil at its root, not its branches. Only through our own organisation and our own struggle will working people gain possession of their own lives and the means to free and save themselves from being sacrificed and slaughtered. As there are differing kinds of tyranny and exploitation, our organisations must also be varied with various ways of struggle. But it is obvious that all these organisations must share a common goal: the abolition of the plutocratic oligarchy and the liberation of the people. The only way to fight militarism is to fight capitalism. The capitalist nationalist system breeds wars, and we shall have to build a cooperative society, where things are no longer produced for profit, but for use, in order to be secure in peace. This struggle is known as the class war, and this is the only war in which workers should engage.

https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2022/03/peace-between-peoples-no-peace-between.html



Friday, April 19, 2024

Chairman of UK Capitalism Executive Committee threatens sick workers

 

MailOnline, 19 April, Headline: ‘Sick note squads to crack down on workshy Brits: Rishi Sunak warns 'spiralling' benefit bill is 'unsustainable' and normal 'life worries' are not a reason to shun work as he suggests specialist teams - not GPs - should decide if people can be signed off.’

The UK Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, is, once again, threatening those who are not contributing toward increasing the wealth of UK capitalists.

He is reported as saying, ‘He said it was his 'moral mission' to get people in work, as it was the way to improve living standards.’

In a tough pledge set to feature in the Tory manifesto, Mr Sunak said that in future anyone on benefits for 12 months who did not comply with conditions set by their work coach would be stripped of handouts entirely.

'The situation as it is is economically unsustainable,' he said. 'We can't afford such a spiralling increase in the welfare bill.'

‘Mr Sunak said: 'For me, it is a fundamental duty of Government to make sure that hard work is always rewarded.

'I know, and you know, that you don't get anything in life without hard work.

'It's the only way to build a better life for ourselves and our family, and the only way to build a more prosperous country.'’

Rishi Sunak is the husband of Indian heiress, Akshata Narayana Murty (they are listed on the 2023 Sunday Times Rich Listas being the 275th richest people in Britain with a combined wealth of £529 million (US$645 million).

Whose ‘hard work’ got you both that Rishi?

‘... figures released revealed that the number of people considered 'economically inactive' after being placed on long term sickness benefits has jumped by a third since the start of the pandemic and now stands at a staggering 2.8million.

Around half are signed off with depression, anxiety and bad nerves.

Overall, 9.4million people aged between 16 and 64 are economically inactive - meaning they are neither in work nor looking for work.

Sunak also said, ‘the Government's 'overall approach is about saying that people with less severe mental health conditions should be expected to engage in the world of work'. ‘

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13327087/Sick-note-squads-crack-workshy-Brits-Rishi-Sunak-warns-normal-life-worries-not-reason-shun-work-ministers-say-benefits-bill-skyrocketing-numbers-long-term-ill-hits-eye-watering-2-8m.htm

To those who are thinking, it’s just the Tories justifying their position as the Party of the well off, and it will all change when Labour win the next election, we have news for you.

‘Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall has laid out their intentions;’ ‘Under a Labour government there would be ‘no option of a life on benefits”, the Party has said, as it set out plans to reduce the number of young people not in work, education or training.’

‘Under our changed Labour party, if you can work there will be no option of a life on benefits,’ she said in a speech to the centre-left Demos think-tank in London, where she sought to outline Labour’s commitment on “investing” in young people.

‘Not just because the British people believe rights should go hand in hand with responsibilities. But because being unemployed or lacking basic qualifications when you’re young can harm your job prospects and wages for the rest of your life.’ The Guardian, 4 March.’

The following is an edited version of Are the Workers Lazy? from the Socialist Standard, August 1975.

‘On July 24th The Sun published the first of 1400 letters it had invited and received on "who is to blame for our present economic crisis". The writer— "A. Worker” — subtracted pensioners, at-schools, servicemen, officials and prisoners from the population and reached his point: "Balance left to do the work, 900,000; people who won't work, 880,000."

Interestingly, the next day the headlines — including The Sun's — were all about unemployment going above a million. Would that have altered "A. Worker's: calculation, had he known? Not at all. One of the features of the nineteen-thirties' depression was frequent assertions by the powerful, and the conviction of the comfortable and ignorant, that the unemployed did not want work.

The answer to the assertion that the characteristic of the working class is to loll about all day is simply to look around. Tower-blocks rise swiftly, motorways spread across the country; the harvest is gathered and transformed into daily bread; post a letter today and it arrives a hundred miles away tomorrow— all done by inert, won't-raise-a-finger people is it? The fact is that capitalism nags everyone to work, from birth. It is the yardstick of school reports: "Works well", "Must work harder", "Steady worker", with "Lazy" the depth of disgrace.

"Work fascinates me. I can watch it for hours", said Jerome in Three Men in a Boat. But— and here is the point— the criticism of slothfulness is only of him who has a lot to do and cannot be seen at it all the time. Having the means to do nothing is another matter and leads (or did, until not long ago) to being called a "gentleman" and bowed— and scraped-to. Only the working class can be lazy; the rich twiddle their thumbs or doze in clubs, but that sis how they Carry All the Responsibility.


The aspect which is carefully concealed, in fact, is that the working class is condemned to work. Born into the capitalist system, the only way to get a living is to sell one's sole possession: labour-power. No wonder people think about work so much— without it, they may go hungry. "Plenty of work" is an allure, the prospect of work which goes on and on and has lots of hours. And what does the working class get for it? Wages, while the fat and the profits go to the owning class.

The "people who won't work" of The Sun's thick-skulled contributor are a myth. It is a tragedy that working people should believe in it. It provides them, of course, with a fear when Socialism is mentioned: what about "the lazy people", the mass of good-for-nothings who would sponge on others' honest efforts? The gullible worker who talks like this never sees that he is repeating what his masters say, and they mean him as well. This is, indeed, a curious habit among proprietors of saying they "built" or "made" or "provided" almost anything. They know, of course, that the workers did it, but the workers are of no account.

It can be said also that for most people work is what they can get, and devoid of the capacity to interest. Part of the definition of work, commonly, is that it is something dull or unpleasant: if (by rare good fortune) one does something agreeable or even enjoyable it is not reckoned to be truly work.

Oh yes, men and women work, lifelong. They have no choice: the non-workers are those who live by exploitation. Socialism will end that, and make work rewarding in every sense.’

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/06/are-workers-lazy-1975.html



Questioning Nationalism: Tonight on Zoom. 19.30 (GMT +1)


Friday 19 April 19.30

QUESTIONING NATIONALISM 

National identity is a nebulous concept that’s almost impervious to rational argument. For example, questioning Israeli nationalism triggers an automatic accusation of anti-semitism, closing the argument down. Nationalisms in the UK are seemingly more benign, but are they?

Speaker: Dave Alton

To connect to a meeting, click https://zoom.us/j/7421974305

Thursday, April 18, 2024

SPGB April 19 Meeting 1930 (GMT+1) Zoom

 

QUESTIONING NATIONALISM (ZOOM)


Event Details

  • Date:  – 

Friday 19 April 19.30

QUESTIONING NATIONALISM (Zoom)

National identity is a nebulous concept that’s almost impervious to rational argument. For example, questioning Israeli nationalism triggers an automatic accusation of anti-semitism, closing the argument down. Nationalisms in the UK are seemingly more benign, but are they?

Speaker: Dave Alton

To connect to a meeting, click https://zoom.us/j/7421974305

“ If we want peace, we must prepare for war”

 

This old guff has been churned out again recently, this time on behalf of the president of the EU Council (press release, 19 March).

But peace can never be guaranteed as long as the world’s productive resources remain in the hands of the capitalist minority. Because the factions within that minority will always be forced to vie for control of resources, markets and trade routes. And when it comes to it, out will come the weapons.

No point wishing things were otherwise. It’s the rule of their deadly game, a game prepared well in advance by their nationalist poison.

So if you want peace, you must prepare for socialism.


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

Wednesday, April 17, 2024

Socialist Sonnet No. 144

Clerical Errors

 

Clerical men, lest God be offended

By a young woman’s misplaced scarf, allowed

Her beating to death. Repeatedly vowed

Righteous destruction will not be blunted,

But visited on the chosen people

Of the very same God, who in their turn

Have striven hard to dispossess and burn

Their Abrahamic neighbours. They cripple

Their people’s thinking with holy fallacies,

Flags and lines drawn on maps. While, without qualms,

Nominal Christendom supplies the arms,

With political consciences at ease.

By and for benefit of humankind,

A very different world must be divined.

 

D. A.

Free Speech Must Mean Free Speech for ALL!

 

The MailOnline, 16 April, reported that a National Conservatism meeting in Belgium featuring Nigel Farage, former leader of UKIP and the Brexit Party (Reform UK) and a former Tory Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, was ‘thrown into jeopardy following an order issued by Emir Kir, the mayor of Brussels district Saint-Josse-ten-Noode. He said he was banning the event from taking place in the Belgian capital 'to guarantee public safety'.’

An article commentator makes the interesting point that the obscure conference is now on main stream and social media everywhere.

It also gave Nigel Farage the opportunity to rage that, 'We are up against a new form of communism.' Read this Blog post Nigel and see that we disagree strongly with any attempts to prevent you putting across your pro-capitalism perspective but please don’t make such idiotic statements like that one.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13314255/Gathering-right-wing-politicians-Brussels-descends-chaos-police-local-mayor-attempt-shut-conference-Nigel-Farage-lashing-monstrous-efforts-silence-speakers-warns-against-new-form-communism.html

In November 1977 the Socialist Standard laid out the consequences of banning individuals and organisations with whom the ‘authorities’ disagreed.

A ban on all public meetings and processions was imposed by the Greater Manchester Council in August. Other local authorities have considered such a measure and announced that their halls shall not be let to the National Front and “extreme left-wing” organizations. This reaction to the violent disturbances at Lewisham and Birmingham in August was not unexpected. The councils say they have a responsibility for public order and the protection of property, which take precedence over legal rights of speech and assembly. The ordinary apolitical citizen agrees, on the reasonable grounds that he doesn’t want to have his windows broken or be exposed to danger through rioting.

All right: grant the validity of that. What about “free speech”? The Manchester ban is on everyone, and the Salvation Army and the Scouts have complained that it is unfair to them. (Should the ban last several months, it will be interesting to see if it is applied to the annual Catholic procession in Manchester.) In London, local restrictions and authorities’ reactions have already obstructed the holding of socialist meetings. The position now is that the elbow-room to argue a case in public has seriously diminished.

This is precisely what socialists forecast as an outcome of efforts at “confrontation” by the Socialist Workers’ Party and other groups. In pursuing a policy of violent attack on the National Front meetings and demonstrations, and thereby opposing the law, they put existing facilities at risk. It is a lesson which advocates of violence for political purposes refuse to learn. Eugene Debs was once quoted as saying that when a policeman’s club struck a demonstrating worker’s head, if the worker listened carefully he would hear the echo of the vote he cast at the last election. More correctly stated, what should be heard is that the state has superior force to support legislation: confrontation cannot win.’


https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2016/05/free-speech-official-cuts-1977.htm

The view taken by The Socialist Party, and to which it still adheres today, a view that free speech for all is the only one which is acceptable is still a contentious one forty five years after the following appeared.

From an Editorial in the Socialist Standard of January 1979

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is wholeheartedly in favour of the fullest freedom of speech. This is because we hold that out of full and free discussion of today’s social problems only one valid conclusion can emerge: that Socialism alone will provide the framework within which they can be solved.

Full free speech means exactly what it says: any and every view should be allowed expression so that it can be examined and shown to be wrong. One of the more obnoxious views current these days is racialism, the idea that some human beings are inferior to others and ought to be treated as such.

Many well-meaning people, appalled at the growing support for the National Front and determined that a racialist party should never again be permitted to gain political power anywhere, have been prepared to listen sympathetically to those who call for the NF and its views to be banned. This is an understandable gut reaction but a little dispassionate reflection will show it to be wrong.

Would banning the NF lead to a diminution in racialist sentiments and ideas? Indeed, have the various Race Relations Acts banning the expression of racialist ideas in their cruder forms led to this? The anti-racialist legislation on the statute book has only led to racialists being more careful about the words they use. Ideas cannot be suppressed by legislation.

The real problem is why do certain sections of the working class hold racialist views and how can they be got to abandon them. It is fairly clear why certain workers entertain anti-black prejudices. Suffering from bad housing, poor hospital services, poor schools, etc., and having seen an immigration of black people into their areas they mistakenly link the two together to conclude that it is the coming of black immigrants that is the cause of their problems.

The various racialist Immigration Acts which have been passed by both Conservative and Labour governments to keep black people out have done much to give respectability to the view that immigration rather than capitalism is the cause of today’s social problems.

So workers with racialist ideas are workers who, in their search for an explanation of and solution to their problems, have reached a mistaken conclusion. How can they be convinced that they are wrong? If they can’t be convinced by legislation they can be convinced even less by the tactic of the Socialist Workers Party and others of insulting and even physically assaulting them. The only way is to try to demonstrate to them that their conclusions are wrong.

This is the approach the Socialist Party has always adopted and why, rather than physically fighting with the British Union of Fascists, the Union Movement or the NF, we have exposed their dangerous racialist nonsense before an audience of interested workers.

People who deny the validity of our tactic of combating racialism in calm, open argument are in effect denying that workers are capable of being convinced rationally of the error of racialism. Many of these people have been influenced by Lenin and his contemptuous claim that left to themselves the working class is capable of evolving only a trade union consciousness. They believe that the working class is only fit to be led, in one direction or another, by some minority or other, and so need protection from those who like the NF seek to “mislead” them.

The ultimate basis of all arguments for censorship (and the call for the NF to be prevented from expressing its views is a call for censorship) is such an assumption that people are too stupid or irresponsible or immature to make up their own minds and that some superior body must therefore decide for them. For the SWP and others this superior body is themselves—the self-appointed vanguard of the working class. If they ever came to power the application of this claim to decide what the working class shall and shall not hear would mean the end of free speech for workers just as it did in Lenin and Trotsky’s Russia.’

Mere anti-racialist propaganda on its own, unlinked to propaganda for socialism, can’t be effective. It offers no solution to the problems and frustrations which drive some workers to embrace racialism. It leaves unchallenged the cause (capitalism) while trying to deal with the effect (racialism).

The only effective way to combat racialism, then, is to propagate socialism.’

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2019/02/on-banning-national-front-1979.html