A LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST 

THIRD WAY MARXIST MOVEMENT

WORLDSOCIALISM.ORG/SPGB

Part of the World Socialist Movement

INTRODUCTION TO WHAT WE STAND FOR

The short articles in this section give an overview of the Socialist Party’s ideas and how we think the world should change. We cover how the current system that governs the world – capitalism – operates and how it inevitably causes the worst of the planet’s problems – war, poverty, starvation, environmental damage and climate change. We describe a different system – socialism – that could solve those problems and provide a better life for virtually everyone. Lastly we tackle the question of how capitalism can be ended and replaced by this better way of life.

The articles are written as a sequence and a link at the end of each one goes to the next. However, if you prefer to browse them in a different order, the titles are given below, For more detailed information about our views, see these more in depth articles. Our monthly publication, the Socialist Standard, can be read here and you can request 3 free copies here.

About capitalism

Economic instability
Inefficiency
Existential threats
About class
Reformism
About socialism
Class consciousness
Human nature

The World Socialist Party US is part of the World Socialist Movement. The World Socialist Movement consists of socialist ‘companion parties,’ groups, and individuals in various countries. You may like to explore the websites of our companion parties in Britain and Canada: The Socialist Party of Great Britain and The Socialist Party of Canada.

The goal of the World Socialist Movement is world socialism, which we define as ‘a world society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution by and in the interest of the community as a whole.’

The word ‘socialism’ is used by different people to mean different things. An essential feature of socialism as we understand it is democracy. We also hold that socialism must be established by democratic means. The World Socialist Movement itself is organized democratically.

For further discussion of the meaning of socialism, see the website ‘What Is Socialism?’.

Capitalism is inherently unjust, exploitative, and predatory. Its ruthless pursuit of profit ruins the natural environment on which all life depends. Its rivalries sow conflicts that may escalate to nuclear war and destroy civilization. Only socialism can ensure human survival.

We invite you to join us, help spread socialist ideas, and lay the basis for a better life for everyone. Where else will you get the chance to argue about the finer points of dialectical materialism? We also encourage you to donate and buy some of our merch. Your generous donations and purchases allow us to continue our organizational and educational efforts. Feel free to contact us if you have any questions and remember: the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself.

How We’re Different

Photo byEric ProuzetonUnsplash

The WSPUS and our companion parties in the WSM

• claim that socialism will, and must, be a wageless, moneyless, worldwide society of common (not state) ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution.
• claim that socialism will be a sharp break with capitalism with no “transition period” or gradual implementation of socialism (although socialism will be a dynamic, changing society once it is established).
• claim that there can be no state in a socialist society.
• claim that there can be no classes in a socialist society.
• promote only socialism, and as an immediate goal.
• claim that only the vast majority, acting consciously in its own interests, for itself, by itself, can create socialism.
• oppose any vanguardist approach, minority-led movements, and leadership, as inherently undemocratic (among other negative things).
• promote a peaceful democratic revolution, achieved through force of numbers and understanding.
• neither promote, nor oppose, reforms to capitalism.
• claim that there is one working class, worldwide.
• lay out the fundamentals of what a socialist society must be, but do not presume to tell the future socialist society how to go about its business.
• promote an historical materialist approach—real understanding.
• claim that religion is a social, not personal, matter and that religion is incompatible with socialist understanding.
• seek election to facilitate the elimination of capitalism by the vast majority of socialists, not to govern capitalism.
• claim that Leninism is a distortion of Marxian analysis.
• oppose all war and claims that socialism will inherently end war, including the “war” between classes.
• noted, in 1918, that the Bolshevik Revolution was not socialist. Had noted even earlier that Russia was not ready for a socialist revolution.
• was the first to recognize that the former USSR, China, Cuba and other so-called “socialist countries” were not socialist but state capitalist.
• claim an accurate and consistent analysis since the first Companion Party was founded in 1904.

Other “Socialist” Parties and Groups

We don’t want to go into a long rant against these groups, but we are occasionally asked what makes the World Socialist Movement (WSM) different from them. The intent here is to list some organizations of which we are aware, and the reasons we oppose them.

Some members of the organizations we criticize have the best of intentions, but good intentions do not change the nature of those organizations, and membership carries the responsibility for the actions of those organizations.

First we list some specific points which we think are important and differentiate the World Socialist Movement from the others listed. Our ideas are listed, and under each point some comments on the other “socialist” parties and groups. After this we list, in four categories, some parties and groups which claim to be socialist, with some specific comments on the parties and groups in each category.

Clearly this is a “broad brush” approach. If this results in minor errors in our assignment of ideas to these groups, we apologize and are willing to make corrections. Overall, however, the comments will give a good perspective of how they differ from the World Socialist Movement (WSM):

1. We believe that socialism will be a wageless, moneyless, free-access society.
   • None agree with this.
   • Most support a market system. Some suggest that a non-capitalist market is possible. These suggestions show a lack of understanding of market economics. While non-capitalist market systems have existed, they are impractical in a modern world. If a “non-capitalist” market system was established it would eventually become a capitalist market system.
2. We believe that leaders are inherently undemocratic; socialists oppose leadership.
   • All support leadership.
3. We believe that socialists shouldn’t work for reforms to capitalism, because only a movement for socialism itself can establish socialism.
   • Those which work for reforms hold either that reforms to capitalism will eventually result in socialism, or that supporting reforms is an appropriate way to convince workers to support socialism.
   • Some put forward a reasonable analysis of capitalism, but then work to give capitalism a “human face”. Some claim that they want to end capitalism. Their bottom line is, however, just capitalism with reforms. Democratic Socialists of America is a good example of this.
4. We believe that socialism will be a cooperative, world wide system, and it has clearly not yet been established.
   • Most, perhaps all, of them support nationalism, which is closely akin to racism (which they explicitly claim to oppose), and in any case hinders worldwide working class solidarity. Nationalism is a concept only useful to separate people, and is therefore anti-working class.
5. We believe that a scientific approach and understanding by the working class are necessary to establish socialism.
   • Generally support emotionalistic campaigns, in which logic and rational analysis are ignored.
   • Any group which wants people to follow their leadership is unlikely to promote real understanding. What needs to be understood if one is just following the leader and doing what one is told?
6. We believe that democratically capturing the state through parliamentary elections is the safest, surest method for the working class to enable itself to establish socialism.
   • Most seem to support this, parliamentary, approach at some level. But their commitment varies so that some support both parliamentarism and anti-parliamentarism at the same time.

This list is by no means complete. It is only intended to put some real names to parties claiming to be “socialist”. If you have a specific interest in one not on the list, send us some of their literature, or preferably a few issues of their journal, and we’ll consider adding them—and our critique.

Leninists and Trotskyists

Notable past and present Leninist and Trotskyist organisations include the following:

Name	Country
Communist Party of Britain	UK
Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)	Canada
Communist Party of Canada	Canada
Communist Party of Cuba	Cuba
Communist Party of the Soviet Union	USSR
Communist Party of the United States of America	USA
Fourth International	international
International Communist League (a.k.a. Spartacist League)	international
International Socialists	international
Progressive Labor Party	USA

These comments apply to both the Leninists and the Trotskyists.

Free access
No. Support a market economy.

Leadership
Noted for their vanguardist approach (the idea that a small group of leaders—the vanguard—will lead the working class to socialism). Lenin said that if workers were not led by a vanguard, it would take them 500 years to understand and establish socialism. This apparently justified the brutal subjugation of the Russian people (and later all of eastern Europe), because they had to be led to socialism against their will.

Reformism
Campaign explicitly for reforms.

One-country socialism
Claim that socialism was established in Russia in 1917, even though Lenin correctly noted in 1920 that state capitalism would be a step forward for Russia.

Democratic approach
When the Bolsheviks lost the first election in Russia after their 1917 revolution, they dissolved the new constituent assembly as soon as it met, in January 1918. By the middle of 1918 the Bolshevik government had arrested leaders who opposed the Bolsheviks, expelled their delegates from the Soviets, and driven the parties underground, making the Communist Party the only legal party in Russia.

For more information on Trotskyists, read Trotsky: The Prophet Debunked.

Socialist International

The Socialist International is a worldwide organization of “social democratic” parties, including the following:

Name	Country
African National Congress	South Africa
Australian Labor Party	Australia
Democratic Socialists of America	USA
Labour Party	UK
New Democratic Party of Canada	Canada
New Zealand Labour Party	New Zealand
Social Democratic Party of Germany	Germany
Social Democrats USA	USA
Socialist Party	France

Free access
No. Support a market economy.

Reformism
Usually do not, or cannot, distinguish between reforms and socialism. Most of them explicitly consider socialism and capitalism compatible (usually by defining “socialism” so that it means capitalism).

One-country socialism
Claim the existence (past or present) of socialism in at least one country.

Democratic approach
When the Bolsheviks lost the first election in Russia after their 1917 revolution, they dissolved the new constituent assembly as soon as it met, in January 1918. By the middle of 1918 the Bolshevik government had arrested leaders who opposed the Bolsheviks, expelled their delegates from the Soviets, and driven the parties underground, making the Communist Party the only legal party in Russia.

Some of these parties have, on occasion, been the provincial or national governments in several countries. If they do not claim to have established socialism, after apparently being elected to do so, then they have no justifiable claim to be socialists, even using their own, flawed definitions of socialism.

DeLeonists

Name	Country
De Leonist Society of Canada	Canada
Industrial Union Party	USA
New Union Party	USA
Socialist Labor Party of America	USA
Socialist Labour Party (1903–1980)	UK

Free access
No. Supported labour vouchers, which although not exactly the same as money, are very similar in some ways. Labour vouchers were supported by Marx to accommodate the real shortages that existed in 1875. Even if they were appropriate in 1875, and that is at least questionable, they are not now. For a description of labour vouchers, please see the article on Labour Vouchers.

Leadership
Appeared to recognize that only a working class that understands the problems can build the solution, but occasional concerns were raised by ex-SLPers and others over perceived autocratic leadership in the SLP (which was the largest DeLeonist organization). The reliance of the SLP on leaders was exposed when the whole organization suddenly disappeared, apparently due to exhaustion of the existing leaders, even though there were still quite a few activists at the local level.

One-country socialism
Their position varied. DeLeonism was generally an American phenomenon, and this may be partly responsible for the tendency, by some, to talk about establishing “socialism” in the United States. Nevertheless, this tendency fostered a nationalist approach that the WSM opposes.

The SLP said that “socialism” can be established in one country. As evidence, we quote from the SLP journal, The People (1 May 1993), in answer to an unprinted letter:

What would a socialist America do about the wages, or capitalist, system in the “third world”?

You are wrong when you say that socialism in America would leave Europe and Japan unaffected. Today, capital is increasingly international. What affects capitalism at its heart affects all its limbs.

Parliamentary approach
Supported the socialist industrial union (SIU) model, which we claim was somewhat at odds with their stated support for a parliamentary approach.

The SIU model has some clear attractions. It is easy to explain and understand, it builds upon recognizable, existing structures, and it is worker-oriented. However, the SIU model creates or continues as many problems as it addresses. The SIU model deserves a longer discussion than is appropriate for this immediate discussion (of differences), so if you want to review a longer article, please see the article on Socialist Industrial Unions.

The Jewish activists who fought for real freedom

A new book rediscovers the Jewish non-Zionist tradition of fighting antisemitism, writes Rob Ferguson

Protest against child slavery in New York in 1909 with slogans in Yiddish and English 

(Picture: Library of Congress)

By Rob Ferguson
Tuesday 30 January 2024

SOCALIST WORKER Issue 2890
News

The Radical Jewish Tradition—revolutionaries, resistance fighters and firebrands by Donny Gluckstein and Janey Stone is published at a critical juncture.

It comes as millions react in horror and rage at Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

It has rarely been more important to restate the Jewish radical alternative to Zionism and reject a conflation between Jewish identity and Israel.

The Jewish radical tradition has been largely written out of the record both by establishment historians and by Zionists determined to expunge the role of Jewish anti-Zionists.

Gluckstein and Stone bring together great threads of the radical Jewish tradition from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, up to the Holocaust.

They have provided an invaluable resource for socialists and anti-imperialists today.

The book dispels the narrative of Jewish history as one of “eternal victims”, used by Western governments and Zionists to justify support for Israel.

The authors root the rise of modern antisemitism in the development of capitalism, not as simply the latest episode of ‘the longest hatred”.

This is important because, as the authors show, for the Jewish radicals, the fight against antisemitism was inseparable from the fight for socialism.

The authors note how Jews sought to embrace equality and assimilation into wider society during the nineteenth century.

Legal restrictions on Jews were dismantled but they found themselves facing rising “racial” antisemitism and violence born of a capitalist system wracked by crises and state rivalry. In response, a radical tradition sought to wage a common struggle with non-Jews against a capitalist order.

But those promoting a Zionist ideology sought an accommodation with capitalism, and a place in the world imperialist order on the basis of Jews as a “nation”.

The book highlights the pre-First World War and inter‑war Jewish experience, spanning Russia, Poland, New York to London’s East End, where Jews were highly prominent in all the major revolutionary currents.

During the Russian Revolution of 1905, Leon Trotsky, a Jew, was elected president of the Petrograd workers’ council—and 11 of its 35 executive members were Jewish.

In London’s East End and in New York, radical Jewish movements mobilised through working class struggles.

They were also in solidarity with the victims of the pogroms in Tsarist Russia and against the rising fascist movement of the interwar years.

In New York, Jews also organised with black people against racism.

An important new book

This was often in the face of opposition from leaders of the Jewish establishment and reformist leaderships.

An important chapter deals with Poland and particularly the anti-Zionist Jewish Labour Bund, which organised workers’ struggles and mobilised militias to defend Jewish people.

Another section addresses the heroic resistance of Jewish fighters in the ghettos and concentration camps of Europe during the Holocaust.

Today, Zionist historians emphasise collaboration on the part of non-Jewish populations in Europe, such as Poland, and participation in the Holocaust.

On the other hand, right wing regimes in Poland, Hungary and elsewhere seek to erase the historical record of complicity.

New forces are now emerging, fighting towards the renewal of a radical, anti-Zionist politics.

They seek common cause with Muslims, Palestinians and non-Jews against Islamophobia, antisemitism, settler colonialism and imperialism.

This is evident amongst a layer of young Jewish radicals in the United States and on a lesser scale, in a growing Jewish bloc on London’s pro-Palestine demonstrations.

The Radical Jewish Tradition offers an important contribution to the debates taking place in these movements.

Crucially, this book provides a much-needed counter to the Zionist narratives peddled unremittingly by warmongers and the media. Donny Gluckstein and Janey Stone signpost a tradition of which our movement can be proud and from which we have so much to learn.The Radical Jewish Tradition: by Donny Gluckstein and Janey Stone, £12 plus postage. Available from bookmarksbookshop.co.uk 

ANTI-ZIONISM IS NOT ANTI-SEMITIC

Actually, what we said in 1947 in the chapter on Zionism in our pamphlet The Racial Problem could fit the bill (emphasis added):

Quote:

Chapter VI : Zionism We cannot deal with the problem of anti-semitism without also discussing Zionism. Again, we can only deal with it on broad, general lines, because of obvious limitations of space.Although the beginning of what we know today as the Zionist movement took place towards the end of the last century, it is only in recent years that the movement has gained any great strength. Today, there are over 550,000 Jews living in Palestine; yet in 1919 there were only some 60,000. In 1919, they constituted 9% of the population of Palestine; today they constitute 33%. The early movement was weak and poorly organised. Most Jews were quite indifferent to the movement; certainly they did not wish to go to Palestine. Of the two million Jews who emigrated from Russia, Austria, and Roumania between the years 1881 and 1908, over one and a-half millions went to the United States, 300,000 went to Western Europe, and only 26,000 went to Palestine. Even among those people who did emigrate to Palestine in the early days, there was little of the active, colonising spirit. Most of the younger element preferred to try their fortunes elsewhere.Since the end of the first World War, conditions have changed. Anti-semitism has become stronger than ever before, with obvious results. First of all, those Jews in countries where anti-semitism was most active tried to emigrate to countries where they would be less badly treated. Secondly, as the tide of anti-semitism rose higher and higher, so did many Jews become more and more interested in the idea of a “National Home”, where, as they thought, they could be together and be free once and for all from the hostility of people around them.Although all manner of places had been suggested for this “National Home”, including British East Africa, British Guiana, and San Domingo—and, more recently, Eritrea and Madagascar have also been mentioned—for various reasons, the final choice of the Zionists has been Palestine.The Zionists themselves do not constitute one united group. At least four separate organisations go to make up the movement. The largest group is the Histadruth, the Trade Union wing. The others are the Revisionists, an extreme group, whose methods and activities are strongly anti-democratic and violent in character; a religious section; and lastly, the Democratic Zionists. Although some of them are now prepared to accept the compromise of Palestine, i.e., the division of Palestine into two separate states, the overwhelming majority, irrespective of the group to which they belong, now want the whole of the country as a Jewish state.The essence of Zionism is escape; escape once and for all from hatred and persecution. Its supporters argue that the main cause of the troubles of the Jews is the fact that they have no country of their own. Only by settling in a country of their own will they be safe from anti-semitism. No longer then will they be a small minority of outcasts, dependent upon the tolerance of others, but members of their own Jewish state. As such they will be free from interference and discrimination.Such beliefs are mere wishful thinking. In the first place, many Jews are not the slightest bit interested in going to Palestine. This is recognised by many Zionists themselves in their more realistic moments. In any case, even if it was a fact that every Jew wanted to go, the country itself is incapable of supporting such an increased population. This, too, was recognised by David Ben-Gurion, a well-known Zionist leader, when he said:“We shall go to Palestine in order to become the majority there. If need be we shall take the country by force. If Palestine proves too small . . . her frontiers will have to be extended” (Manchester Guardian, 3.7.46).The declared and avowed aim of the Zionists is to make Palestine a Jewish state. They are, in short, “nationalists”, looking to solve their problems not by abolishing capitalism but by creating one more national state in a capitalist world of national states and empires. Zionist nationalism, as such, is not different from the other nationalisms and we, as Socialists, are opposed to them all, whether they be British, American, Russian, Polish, Indian, or any other. The most that could be said for nationalist movements where directed against alien rulers was the argument that, with alien rule ended, it would be easier for the workers to grasp the fact that their enemy is capitalism, whether the capitalists are aliens or not. It is, however, clear, that in practice the capitalist class in each country finds it about as easy to set the workers against the workers of other countries as it was to set them against a foreign ruling-class. What are called nationalist movements are essentially the movements of capitalist groups striving to drive out foreign exploiters so that they can mount the vacant saddle.The spokesmen of nationalist movements do not in the main declare their capitalist objectives. British capitalism talked of pacifying the Middle East, or of helping the Jews and Arabs. Actually, British Imperialism was in Palestine for reasons of Imperial strategy and to protect oil interests in that region; which also of course explains the increasing intervention of the USA in the Middle East. With all this, a new factor is becoming of importance, which we shall refer to again later, the factor of rising Arab nationalism.It is against this background that the demand is made for the settlement of Jewish people in Palestine, with the usual irrelevant arguments so beloved of all nationalisms. The Principal Rabbi of the Federation of Synagogues, Kopul Rosen, writing to The Times (13/7/46), claims, for example, that those who work for the return of the Jewish people to Zion, “whether they be Zionists or non-Zionists, are fulfilling not a secular ambition, but the Divine will as revealed in the visions of Israel’s prophets”. Moslem Arabs can, of course, invoke a like “Divine” mission.Similarly the Zionists talk of the “historical connection” of the Jews with Palestine. The Jews, they say, are returning home to the land of their forefathers, which they left many centuries ago. As we have already seen, this is no claim at all. The Jews were certainly not the original inhabitants of Palestine, and, further than that, they have had no contact with the country worth speaking about for almost two thousand years. The Welsh could just as logically argue for taking back England again, or the Red Indians for taking back North America. Such sentimental arguments are always to be found associated with nationalism.The Zionists also attempt to bolster up their case by referring to the progress and prosperity they have brought to Palestine. They instance the large increase in the Arab population itself; the higher standard of living of the Palestine Arabs compared with that of Arabs in other countries; and the fact that no Arab has been turned off his land without compensation. But here again, these arguments count very little. They in no way face up to the fact that there is a considerable section of Arab landless labourers in Palestine, many of whom are compelled to work for Jewish farmers and capitalists, and that generally their wages are less than those paid to Jews. Nor should it be forgotten, when comparing the wages of Arabs in Palestine with those earned by Arabs in other countries that the cost of living tends to be considerably higher in Palestine.But, in any case, all these arguments are really incidental to the question. The crux of the matter is that the Zionists are now determined at all costs to make a Jewish National State in Palestine. As such they come into direct conflict with the Arab ruling class in Palestine itself, and, more particularly, they become the objects of hatred of the Arab world generally. The main point of the Zionist case is that by establishing a National Home of their own they would be free from anti-semitism. In this, they have been proved completely mistaken. In their efforts to flee from the anti-semitism in Europe, they have only succeeded in generating another, Arab anti-semitism. Even on the short view of helping the homeless refugees, the wisdom of this policy is more than doubtful.Finally, it must be stressed that Zionism, even if it were to succeed in Palestine, which is doubtful to say the least, is itself no solution to the Jewish problem. To set up a Jewish state in Palestine in no way solves the problem of anti-semitism in Britain, the United States, Russia, Canada, South Africa, or any other country. Whatever happens about the National State in Palestine, the Jews will still be the object of hatred and discrimination in those countries. Anti-semitism will not be eradicated by the founding of Jewish National States, whether they be in Palestine or anywhere else. The root cause of modern anti-semitism, as we have already pointed out, is to be found in the capitalist system of society, and only when capitalism itself is abolished will anti-semitism disappear. If any Jewish worker reading this pamphlet feels himself filled with the need to reproach us for what he thinks is an “unrealistic attitude”, let him reflect for a moment upon the so-called “realistic attitude” of the Zionists in Palestine and the results which have ensued. It is the Zionist policy which is “unrealistic”, as many Jews will find to their bitter cost. Our case to the Jewish workers is that under no circumstances should they allow themselves to be deluded by ideas of nationalism and “race” into supporting such movements as Zionism which will not solve their problems.The only solution to anti-semitism is Socialism, and to the extent that Jewish workers co-operate with other members of their class to bring about Socialism will the complete eradication of anti-semitism be more quickly achieved.

This other article, from 1918, also shows that Socialists opposed Zionism from the start:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1918/no-166-june-1918/futility-zionism

Reviews & Culture

A working class author to remember and rediscover

Jack Hilton's account of working class life in the first part of the 20th century includes valuable insights

Caliban Shrieks by Jack Hilton (pictured on left) was a testimony of working class life

By John Newsinger
Thursday 07 March 2024

SOCIALIST WORKER Issue 2895

At last Caliban Shriek, by working class author Jack Hilton, has been reprinted thanks to the efforts of Jack Chadwick.

Chadwick became absorbed by the book while browsing the Working Class Movement Library in Manchester in 2021 and worked to get it reprinted. The powerful semi-autobiographical surrealist account of working class life was first published in 1935.

It was reviewed by George Orwell, who praised Hilton’s considerable literary gifts and championed him for giving voice to “the normally silent multitude”.

What Caliban Shrieks did was portray working class life from the inside. It did not provide facts and figures about poverty and hardship. Instead the book conveyed “what it feels like to be poor”.

The book, as far as Orwell was concerned, was important for the way it presented “a genuinely working class outlook”.

Who was Jack Hilton? He was born into a working class family in Oldham in 1900, most of his siblings died in infancy, and he went to work part-time in a cotton mill when he was eleven.

He served in the British army during the First World War and afterwards travelled around, working as a casual labourer and experiencing the delights of the British poor law system.

Eventually, he settled in Rochdale, working as a plasterer in the building trade.

In the 1930s, he joined the ranks of the unemployed and was active in the National Unemployed Workers Movement.

He went to prison for his part in a march on the Rochdale poor house. Banned from protest on his release, he turned his hand to writing, and Caliban Shrieks was the result.

The book is a powerful, uncompromising account of working class life—of his life, written from the inside.

His account of the demonstration that led to his imprisonment provides something of the book’s flavour.

“Of course we were guilty: vile language was used, windows were broken, stones thrown, assaults committed. A mob was unleashed. It was angry, it was hungry, it had been underfed. This is what happens when people are unemployed and starving.”

His account does not spare the feelings of middle-class socialists, trade union bureaucrats or Labour politicians.

As far as Hilton was concerned Labour Party MPs for some reason always become less militant “the longer they hold office”. To Hilton militancy was rooted in “the soil of poverty and hopelessness”.

Once elected to the Commons, they experienced “privilege” and inevitably embraced “satisfaction”.

Their politics were, and indeed still are, what he superbly characterises as a combination of” ‘evolution and constipation”.’

He is particularly scathing about how while apparently “fighting for redress for the poor, fighting for humanity and decency”, they still had always to remember that their opponents were “like themselves, honourable members, honourable gentlemen, aye, even right honourable gentlemen”.

And, of course, there was always “the stimulating effects of the alcoholic parliamentary bar”. Nothing changes.

There is so much more in this classic of working class literature that deserves reading and rereading.

As for Orwell, he asked for Hilton’s advice when he was getting ready to travel up north to work on his The Road to Wigan Pier.

Indeed, it was Hilton who actually suggested that he visit Wigan. But what did Hilton think of Orwell’s book? He was not in the least bit impressed. Indeed, he thought Orwell had completely wasted his time writing it.

Hilton was to publish his own account of a journey surveying working class life, English Ways, in 1939.

Orwell reviewed that as well, praising it for its “glimpses of working class life” and for giving “a hint of what a proletarian revolution might be like”. We can only hope that English Ways is republished as well.

Caliban Shriek is available from all major booksellers from 7 March

Available from bookmarksbookshop.co.uk 

Under the Banner of King Death: telling the story of piracy from below

The graphic novel is an adaptation of historian Marcus Rediker’s Villains of All Nations

Reviews & Culture
Dave Clinch
Tuesday 05 March 2024

SOCIALIST WORKER

Issue 2894

Under the Banner of King Death gives a visual perspective on the history of piracy

A new book—Under the Banner of King Death—is from the team that produced Prophet Against Slavery about the life of the abolitionist Benjamin Lay.

It is an adaptation of Villains of All Nations by distinguished professor of history Marcus Rediker, which examines the period 1660 to 1720, known as the “Golden Age” of piracy.

Set in graphic novel form, the book brings a visual perspective to our history “from below”.

The graphic novel is increasingly being used by educators who understand that students are more receptive to what could be termed “visual literature”.

The authors raise the profile of predominantly ordinary working sailors from diverse backgrounds, “poor men from the lowest social class”, as Rediker notes in the foreword.

David Lester’s unique, exquisite and meticulously researched illustrations elevate the lives of the pirates of this period. These figures are John Gwin, an African American fugitive from slavery in South Carolina.

Ruben Dekker an ordinary seafarer from Amsterdam and Mark Reed, an American woman “Mary”, who dressed in male clothing.




Aboard The Night Rambler decisions are made by voting on equal shares of the spoils from “prize” ships.

The captain only had control of going into action against another ship. Sailors were effectively living in an embryonic social democracy.

The book portrays the “London elite”, horrified by the threat to their profits, employing a ruthless sea-captain, William Snelgrave, to find, kill or arrest the pirates.

In an informative afterword, essay historian Paul Buhle explores ‘the images of pirates through centuries of readers from Robert Louis Stevenson to the portrayals in DC comics and Hollywood films.

He shows how Rediker’s research has brought about a fundamental reinterpretation of the lives of these courageous “villains of all nations”.

People from a myriad of ethnic backgrounds created a system of work and reward which benefited all, despite constant threat of bloody ruling class revenge.

It is a beautifully presented sometimes moving visual narrative for young readers and adults alike. Our history—from below. Under the Banner of King Death—Pirates of the Atlantic A graphic novel by David Lester with Marcus Rediker and Paul Buhle 

Under the Banner of King Death: Pirates of the Atlantic, A Graphic Novel

by David Lester and Marcus Rediker

Illustrated by David Lester

Afterword by Paul Buhle

Foreword by Marcus Rediker


Paperback
136 pages / July 2023 / 9781804293492

Under the Banner of King Death: Pirates of the Atlantic, A Graphic Novel | Verso Books

A graphic exploration of action, resistance, and radicalism among eighteenth-century pirates

Under the Banner of King Death is a tale of mutiny, bloody battle, and social revolution, bringing to life an itinerant community of outsiders behind today’s legends. This graphic novel breaks new ground in our understanding of piracy and pirate culture, giving us real reasons to love the rebellious and stouthearted marauders of the seas.

At the pinnacle of the Golden Age of Atlantic piracy, three unlikely companions are sold into servitude on a merchant ship and thrust into a voyage of rebellion. They are John Gwin, an African American fugitive from bondage in South Carolina; Ruben Dekker, a common seaman from Amsterdam; and Mark (a.k.a. Mary) Reed, an American woman who dresses as a man.

When the crew turn to mutiny, they and the freed slaves establish democracy aboard The Night Rambler. This new dispensation provides radical social benefits, all based on the documented practices of real pirate ships of the era: democratic decision-making, a social security net, health and disability insurance, and an equal distribution of spoils taken from prize ships. But before long the London elites enlist a war-hungry captain to take down The Night Rambler in a war that pitches high society against high-seas freebooters.

Adapted from the scholarship and research of celebrated historian Marcus Rediker, Under the Banner of King Death is an inspiring story of the oppressed steering a course against adversity and injustice.

SEE

Marcus Rediker – Historian | Writer | Teacher | Activist

Pirate Enlightenment, or the Real Libertalia Hardcover

 – January 24, 2023
by David Graeber (Author)

The final posthumous work by the coauthor of the major New York Times bestseller The Dawn of Everything.

Pirates have long lived in the realm of romance and fantasy, symbolizing risk, lawlessness, and radical visions of freedom. But at the root of this mythology is a rich history of pirate societies―vibrant, imaginative experiments in self-governance and alternative social formations at the edges of the European empire.

In graduate school, David Graeber conducted ethnographic field research in Madagascar for his doctoral thesis on the island’s politics and history of slavery and magic. During this time, he encountered the Zana-Malata, an ethnic group of mixed descendants of the many pirates who settled on the island at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Pirate Enlightenment, or the Real Libertalia, Graeber’s final posthumous book, is the outgrowth of this early research and the culmination of ideas that he developed in his classic, bestselling works Debt and The Dawn of Everything (written with the archaeologist David Wengrow). In this lively, incisive exploration, Graeber considers how the protodemocratic, even libertarian practices of the Zana-Malata came to shape the Enlightenment project, which for toolong has been defined as distinctly European. He illuminates the non-European origins of what we consider to be “Western” thought and endeavors to recover forgotten forms of social and political order that gesture toward new, hopeful possibilities for the future.

From the Publisher

Editorial Reviews

Review

"The real story of antiauthoritarianism, gendered economics and direct democracy behind a legendary 18th-century pirate province . . . [Pirate Enlightenment] advances Graeber’s mission: to destabilize our idea of what’s possible and show that humans can, and often do, create egalitarian worlds built on points of consensus instead of the sharp end of a cutlass."
―Sam Dean, Los Angeles Times

"David Graeber was a highly original thinker and a wonderful writer. Most of all he was someone who sought out challenging problems and set about trying to solve them."
―Peter Frankopan, New York Times Book Review

"Pirate Enlightenment pluralizes and globalizes our understanding of whose ideas and actions are considered impactful and whose vision shapes the world, a framing that still resonates in contemporary times . . . In his academic writing and political commitments, David Graeber exemplified an ethos of action and conversation . . . As anthropologists have noted, gifts are inalienable―they contain within them something of the giver. Graeber's final book is certainly such a gift." ―Jatin Dua, Science

"One of the most creative books ever published on the history of piracy . . . [Graeber] successfully pairs two kinds of history from below: maritime and Indigenous. This is a highly unusual combination and a winning one. He treats ordinary people, especially women, as thinkers, creators, and makers of history. His theory and methods are as democratic and egalitarian as the culture he seeks to illuminate." ―Marcus Rediker, The Nation

"A tour de force of anthropological scholarship and an important addition to Malagasy history . . . Certain to be controversial, but all the more important for that."
―Kirkus

“Pirates captured the imagination of writers and readers centuries ago, and David Graeber reveals why. He has produced one of the most fascinating, original, and altogether brilliant books ever written about these unruly outlaws.”
―Marcus Rediker, author of Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age

“A characteristically radical re-reading of history that places the social and political experiments of pirates at the heart of the European Enlightenment. A brilliant companion volume to the best-selling Dawn of Everything.”
―Amitav Ghosh

“Daring, carefully speculative, and intellectually ambitious: all qualities that we had come to expect of the late David Graeber. Pirate Enlightenment is a splendid example of Graeber’s transformative and convincing case that the Enlightenment was a cosmopolitan and plebian concoction, fabricated far from the European centers of Enlightenment thought.”
―James C. Scott

“Radical, magical and enchanting: a true history of a people’s Enlightenment, led by Malagasy women and egalitarian pirates at a crossroads of the world, a land of battle, foment, booty, whose inhabitants liked nothing better than pranking outsiders to spread outlandish tales of their lives.”
―Cory Doctorow, author of Chokepoint Capitalism and Walkaway

“In The Dawn of Everything, David Graeber urged historically minded scholars to consider the ways that human beings have continually pursued three basic freedoms, including the freedom to create new forms of social relations. In this book, he provides a fascinating example of the transformative potential of this proposition. Showing how rumored 18th century ‘pirate kingdoms’ established in Madagascar can be understood from the perspective of the local Malagasy population, Graeber gives us a glimpse of people, men and women, taking control of the society in which they lived, making new forms of sociality. He links this historical exploration to a second theme of the previous work, the fact that European political philosophers in the 17th and 18th century were responding to ideas coming from outside Europe, providing them inspiration to image freedoms they had not previously experienced. Pirate Enlightenment is, as the author writes, a provocation―but also an inspiration; and a great piece of story-telling.” ―Rosemary A. Joyce, Interim Director of Global, International, and Area Studies, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley

About the Author

David Graeber was a professor of anthropology at the London School of Economics. He is the author of Debt: The First 5,000 Years and Bullshit Jobs: A Theory, among many others books, and coauthor with David Wengrow of the New York Times bestseller The Dawn of Everything. An iconic thinker and a renowned activist, his early efforts in Zuccotti Park made Occupy Wall Street an era-defining movement. He died on September 2, 2020.

Socialists have a better plan for how to run society

The Socialist Workers Party statement of principles, discusses the need for democratic planning

Barricade, the Paris Commune, May, 1871 by André Devambez

Socialism is about ordinary people taking back control of the economy. It is built on the assumption that working people can make the decisions needed to run the economy.

Economists present capitalism as a “pure” market model. They claim that consumer choices dictate the flow of goods and the success or failure of firms—without any planning.

Apparently these choices force the markets to meet our needs. But we don’t make or break the fortunes of companies by constantly changing what we buy. And the market doesn’t meet our needs. Firms produce things that nobody really needs and are a planet-destroying waste.

At the same time they produce other things that we do need but don’t get—because we don’t have the money to buy them. The market allocates resources and values things very badly.

In a democratically planned economy, decisions about the use of resources would be made on the basis of discussion by those directly affected.

While you can’t really vote on whether a surgeon should cut to the left or the right, you can decide how many hospitals, how many surgeons society trains and so on.

Or take housing. In one way there is no housing crisis, no shortage of housing but a shortage of housing people can afford. So as a start requisition empty properties, the mansions and second and third homes of the rich.

But a permanent solution involves planning. Use the census to estimate the housing needs of the population and establish a public house-building programme, employing thousands to build slightly more houses than are needed.

Then make the provision of a decent residence for every group or individual a basic right, in the same way that everyone has a right to healthcare or education.

Capitalist markets are planned. But from supply chains to where to put roads there is incompetent planning.

Capitalist planning is done by a minority to keep their power and wealth. Democratic planning is crucial to moving beyond the market economy.

We have to dismantle the enormous parasitic financial sector. You can’t have democratic planning and let hedge funds continue. We have to put the population at large in control of money.

A democratically planned economy would be based on the principle that the decisions are taken by those directly affected.

This would require a massive decentralisation of power—something that is an essential part of the revolutionary process to get rid of capitalism. This would be a world away from the tightly controlled bureaucracy that ran society inside of Stalinist regimes in eastern Europe.

As far as possible decisions would be taken at the local level by workplace and neighbourhood assemblies, or by the councils of delegates elected by those assemblies.

Karl Marx’s insight during the Paris Commune of 1871 was that these forms of organisation would develop before the new society was created in the process of fighting the old society. The same methods of self-organisation that would be the basis of a self-managing society are needed today by the exploited and oppressed to resist and, ultimately, to overthrow capital.

A socialist society comes out of the real struggles of people and gives economic democracy to the mass of people. It’s about people deciding how society should be organised.

In a socialist society firms producing the same thing could cooperate. This would cut down on the waste of competition. It would also generate solutions to problems faster.

In a post-capitalist society, shorn of managers, advertising and all the other nonsense of capitalism, the creativity of millions will be unleashed. The possibilities for people to make themselves anew, as Marx put it, are immense.

But if we are to have democratic planning, we also need democratic control of the world’s resources, as well as the workplaces, factories and farms. This means social ownership of the means of production—socialism.

This is the third in a series of columns that discuss What We Stand For, the Socialist Workers Party statement of principles, printed every week in Socialist Worker (see page 18). For the full series go to tinyurl.com/WWSF2024

UK

‘Common Sense Minister’ blasted out of touch after tirade against 4-day week

The Tory MP has been taken apart after deeming support for a 4-day week 'socialist madness’

Hannah Davenport 

5 March, 2024 
Left Foot Forward News 

People have found it hard to see the common sense in Esther McVey’s recent attack on the four-day week, as Britain’s unofficially designation ‘common sense tsar’ has been taken apart for blasting support for the scheme as “socialist madness”.

In an opinion piece for the Express, Esther McVey attempted to demonise trade unions which she accused of “calling the shots over Labour” and took aim at the PCS union representing civil servants over its calls for a four-day working week.

She wrote that the “last thing the country needs” is a return to the “bad old days of union dominance with a weak Labour leader appeasing them”. Ironic given the current state of affairs 14 years of a Conservative government has left the country in.

The 4 Day Week Campaign organisation wrote a scathing response to McVey, blasting the MP for Tatton as out of touch with public opinion, whilst also thanking her for showing how many people actually want a four-day week through the responses to the article.

“Sometimes you can judge the success of an idea by the kind of person who rejects it,” the organisation wrote on X.

“The 4-day week is a non-partisan innovation with support from across the political spectrum. Two-thirds of the public support a govt-backed trial. Esther, you’re out of touch!”

A large majority of the public (65%) support the government exploring the introduction of a 4-day working week with no loss of pay for workers, the most recent survey found.

Furthermore, following the world’s biggest ever four-day working week trial, most of the UK companies who took part made the policy permanent, with the majority of organisations finding the scheme had a positive impact.

1933

SNP MP Stewart McDonald asked why Tory MPs were so “tone deaf” to “basic stuff like this”.

“A defence manufacturing business in my own constituency switched to a four-day week to combat bigger firms poaching staff. The result? Greater retention, job satisfaction and productivity up. Why are the Tories so tone deaf to basic stuff like this?” he wrote on X.

While a historian highlighted on X: “One of the biggest historical successes of the labour movement is winning time for workers to rest and recreate. The same arguments against the 4 day week were used to justify the 6 day week and the 60 hour week.”

Express readers also took to the comments section to highlight some discrepancies they had with McVeys claims in the article, versus the reality of affairs.

One reader wrote: “This government has collapsed living standards so much that many cannot afford to live working 5 days per week.”

Another commented: “McVey thinks her job as an MP is writing articles for the Express and chatting on the sofa on GB News.”

McVey used to host a weekly show on GB News with her husband, also a Tory MP.

Others countered her claim that the 4-day week would burn taxpayers money, by drawing attention to a £8,750 claim the MP made for a personal photographer in 2019, paid for by the taxpayer.

(Image credit: Wikimedia)


Hannah Davenport is news reporter at Left Foot Forward, focusing on trade unions and environmental issues