News from Germany

Is it still ‘Deutschland, Deutschland über alles?‘ Germany experienced revolutions in 1848 and 1918. Both failed. Should 'Germans' come to the point of considering another one then the only revoulition that matters to it, and to the world is the one that sees enlightment, common sense and rationality finally realise that it’s time for socialism above all.

Peace dividend bad for military-industrial complex.

‘European military stocks have tumbled, defying broader positive market sentiment, as traders assessed the White House meeting that brought fresh hope for a Ukraine peace deal.

On Monday, US President Donald Trump met with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and key Western European backers. The talks came two days after Trump’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, which both sides described as a step toward peace between Russia and Ukraine.

The STOXX Europe Total Market Aerospace & Defense Index fell 2.6% as traders viewed the ongoing negotiations as a chance to take profits following a strong rally in the sector. Shares in Italian defence firm Leonardo and Germany’s Hensoldt were down 10.1% and 9.5%, respectively. German defence supplier Rheinmetall and tank components maker Renk also declined 4.9% and 8.2%, respectively.

“Any de-escalation of tensions between Russia and Europe, and talk of spending more on US equipment, is negative for these companies,” Craig Cameron, head of European equities at Franklin Templeton, told the FT.

According to analysts, shares in defence groups could be seen as a rough indicator of progress in the Ukraine peace talks, as military supplies tend to benefit from ongoing conflicts.

European defence stocks surged in the first half of the current year, driven by Germany’s announcement in March that it would ease its strict debt limits to enable a new wave of investment in defence and infrastructure, amid growing concerns that the US may scale back its role in European security and the Ukraine conflict. The EU also launched a $900 billion defence industry drive to militarise its economy citing an alleged Russian threat as a key reason for the increase.’

Conscription.

More about conscription in Germany which was previously referenced in SOYMB in July.

https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2025/07/militarism.html

‘The German cabinet has approved a draft law introducing voluntary military service for teenagers as part of a wider militarisation push by officials who have repeatedly claimed that Berlin must be “ready for war” by the next decade.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz vowed to turn the Bundeswehr into the “strongest conventional army in Europe,” in a speech delivered less than a week after the world marked the 80th anniversary of the fall of the Third Reich in May. President Frank-Walter Steinmeier stated in July that volunteer enlistment alone may not suffice to achieve that goal.

During a special session held in a secure bunker at the Defence Ministry in Berlin, the German cabinet approved a new program targeting up to 40,000 young recruits annually by 2031.

“The Bundeswehr must grow. Only then is deterrence against Russia truly credible,” Defence Minister Boris Pistorius claimed, repeating the NATO talking point about a looming Russian attack. Moscow has dismissed this speculation as “nonsense.”

The plan would require all 18-year-old males to complete a questionnaire assessing their willingness and fitness to serve beginning in January 2026. The questionnaire would be optional for women. Selected candidates would undergo a minimum of six months of basic training. The initial intake is capped at around 20,000 recruits next year due to logistical constraints, with gradual expansion planned over the next six years.

The legislation also includes a mechanism for a potential return to universal military conscription, which was suspended in 2011, but critics have demanded automatic reactivation of the draft should the voluntary scheme fail to deliver sufficient numbers. The plan must still be approved by the Bundestag and will not be passed without “significant changes,” according to ruling CDU/CSU defense spokesman Thomas Erndl.

Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in early 2022, Berlin has significantly increased military spending and has become the second-largest supplier of arms to Kiev after the US. Ukraine used German Leopard tanks in its incursion last year into Russia’s Kursk Region – the site of the largest tank battle of WWII.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in late May that Berlin’s “direct involvement in the war is now obvious,” warning that “Germany is sliding down the same slippery slope it already followed a couple of times in the last century.”'

Unemployment up.

‘Unemployment in Germany has risen to its highest level in a decade, official figures released showed. The labour report comes as the country's faltering economy risks contracting for a third consecutive year.

The figures showed the number of unemployed individuals having topped three million in August for the first time since 2015. The month-on-month increase came in at 46,000 to put the tally at 3.02 million in seasonally unadjusted terms, or 6.4% of the population.

Federal Employment Agency chief Andrea Nahles blamed the labour market struggles on Germany’s weak economy. The EU’s largest economy shrank by 0.2% in 2024 after contracting by 0.3% in 2023. This year, following a 0.3% expansion in the first quarter, output fell by 0.3% in Q2 as uncertainty grew over new US tariffs. The International Monetary Fund recently warned that Germany could face a third consecutive year without growth.

Germany’s economic downturn has coincided with Berlin’s decision to halt imports of low-cost Russian energy, which was vital for its industry. European gas prices rose sharply after Russian pipeline deliveries largely stopped and the Nord Stream pipelines were sabotaged later that year. Before the sanctions, Germany sourced 55% of its gas from Russia, but has since shifted to pricier liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from the US and Qatar.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz admitted last week that Germany is facing a “structural crisis” rather than temporary “weakness” and said that steering the economy toward growth has proven more difficult than expected. Key industries such as the automotive segment “no longer truly competitive,” he added.

The country's automotive sector has shed more than 51,000 jobs just in the past year alone, according to recent data.’

War not butter.

‘Germany’s welfare state is no longer financially sustainable, Chancellor Friedrich Merz has warned, citing mounting financial constraints. 

Merz made the remarks during a speech to fellow Christian Democratic Union (CDU) members in Osnabrueck, a city in Lower Saxony that is home to carmaker Volkswagen. 

“The welfare state as we have it today can no longer be financed with what we can economically afford,” Merz said, calling for a fundamental reassessment of the benefits system. He noted that welfare spending hit a record €47 billion ($55 billion) last year and continues to rise this year. 

Social welfare outlays have surged and are expected to climb further this year as Germany’s population ages and unemployment rises. The country provides a wide range of support measures, including housing and child benefits, unemployment payments, family allowances, and subsidies for the care of the sick and elderly. But with the economy stagnating in 2025 under both structural and cyclical pressures, the burden on the system is growing. While most benefit recipients are German citizens, a significant share are foreign nationals. 

In the same speech, Merz said Germany was experiencing a “structural crisis” rather than a temporary weakness, conceding that putting Europe’s largest economy back on track has proven more difficult than he anticipated. Once the EU’s economic powerhouse, Germany’s economy has slowed sharply since 2017, with GDP rising just 1.6% compared to 9.5% for the rest of the Eurozone. 

Merz’s warning came as official data showed Germany’s economy contracted by 0.2% in 2024 after a 0.3% decline in 2023, marking the first time since the early 2000s that Europe’s largest economy has shrunk for two consecutive years. Industrial production fell during Olaf Scholz’s tenure and has continued to weaken under his successor, with GDP dropping 0.3% in the second quarter of 2025, according to the latest data from Germany’s statistics office. The downturn has been driven by high energy prices, elevated interest rates and a shortage of skilled labour.’

Child Labour

 

On 29 August 1833 Britain’s first Factory Act came into law.

The below is from the Socialist Standard January 2015

‘One of the iconic images from the early years of industrial capitalism is that of young children working in mines and cotton mills. Here we examine the history and current situation regarding child labour.

Labour by young children was at the heart of capitalism from the start. Factory production was preceded by domestic industry, whereby small-scale manufacturing took place in workers’ homes; this included the textile industries, where the earliest examples of factories arose. Working in their own homes, handloom weavers could have their children, perhaps as young as four, working alongside them. Down to the 1820s a cotton spinner working in a factory would often have his wife and children working with him, thus preserving the family group. Workers generally saw this last as a positive point, even in the unpleasant conditions of the early factories. Even after families working together in factories declined, children continued to work there. In 1851 there were 600,000 children under fifteen working in England, Wales and Scotland, including 180,000 in textile factories, 130,000 in agriculture and 38,000 in mines. Toiling in such unhealthy environments naturally led to many children suffering health problems, such as curvature of the spine, not to mention the lack of any decent education to speak of and little time or opportunity to play.

As a specific example, from 1813 George Courtauld employed girls, and some boys, aged ten upwards, as apprentices at his silk mill in Braintree. They came from London workhouses, and he paid the workhouse for each child. The children signed a contract that committed them to work at the mill till they were twenty-one. The company went on to become one of the world’s largest producers of artificial fibres.

Child labour was generally seen (by the wealthy, at least) as something entirely natural and unexceptionable, though various objections on moral grounds were made. Others saw it as socially advantageous, since idleness on the part of children was supposedly the road to criminality. There grew up a tension between the desire of some members of the capitalist class for abundant cheap unskilled labour power in factories, which children could provide, and the increasing need for workers with some basic education in terms of literacy and numeracy. Consequently the British Parliament introduced a number of Factory Acts to regulate working hours for children and women, the provision of education and various basic safety measures.

The 1802 Act limited the working hours for apprentices and required them to receive some form of instruction. More significant was the Act of 1833, which prohibited the employment of under-eighteens at night in textile factories. Children (defined as those aged nine to thirteen) could work a maximum of nine hours a day, and young persons (aged thirteen to eighteen) a maximum of twelve. Children could not work in textile mills, except in silk mills (where foreign competition was a problem). Similar regulations were gradually extended to other industries, such as to bleaching and dyeing works in 1860.

The 1870 Elementary Education Act made school attendance compulsory in England and Wales between the ages of five and thirteen, but only in areas where there was a School Board which decided to introduce this. In 1878 the ‘half-time’ system was set up: children under ten could not be employed in factories and those under thirteen were required to split their time between school and employment.

Incidentally, Karl Marx was quite keen on a combination of work and education, mentioning that factory inspectors felt that this made each more congenial to the child than limiting them to just one. And he looked forward to ‘the education of the future, an education that will in the case of every child over a given age, combine productive labour with instruction and gymnastics … the only method of producing fully developed human beings’ (Capital, vol 1, ch 15, sec 9). Much would depend, of course, on the age of the child and the kind of labour involved.

Further restrictions on children working were introduced in the first part of the twentieth century, together with further requirements for education. The 1918 Education Act put an end to the half-time system, though not immediately. In 1935 the Conservative government produced an Education Bill that would raise the school leaving age from fourteen to fifteen; but it allowed children to leave at fourteen if they had ‘beneficial’ employment. Many poorer workers needed the wages of their fourteen-year-old children, while many employers wanted the cheap labour power involved. One MP, the Duchess of Atholl, noted in the parliamentary debate on the bill that some work in textile factories required ‘small fingers’, and that excluding fourteen-year-olds would mean ‘placing a very serious handicap on one of our most important export industries … not one of our great commercial competitors in Europe has raised the school-leaving age to 15’. The Second World War prevented implementation of the Act, and children left school at fourteen until 1947. In the early fifties there were some proposals to put the leaving age back to fourteen again, but nothing came of these. It was eventually raised to sixteen in 1972.

And what of the current situation? It might be thought that children toiling in sweatshops and so on is a thing of the past. After all, even those who want an absolute minimum of government interference in the economy will generally agree that laws prohibiting child labour are acceptable. Surely capitalism in the twenty-first century has no need to employ children? In fact, globally child labour remains widespread.

The minimum age for employment varies across countries, being as low as fourteen in some places, with eighteen as a common minimum for hazardous work. But legal requirements are often ignored in the name of profit. Though the number is declining, 168 million children are reportedly still involved in child labour (this figure is taken from the International Labour Organization (ILO) website, which contains a lot of relevant information: www.ilo.org). In an echo of early capitalism, child workers mostly take part in unpaid work for their family, rather than being in paid employment. In sub-Saharan Africa, roughly one child in four is a child labourer. Furthermore, child labour is in no way confined to the poorest countries; one estimate from 2000 was that 300,000 children were working illegally in the US, and 2.5 million globally in ‘developed countries’, though such figures have to be taken with a large pinch of salt. In addition many child workers in developing countries work in effect for multinational companies, often via subsidiaries much earlier in the supply chain.

Over half of the 168 million are in hazardous work, defined as work which ‘jeopardises the physical, mental or moral well-being of a child, either because of its nature or because of the conditions in which it is carried out’. The very worst forms include trafficking, debt bondage, compulsory recruitment to armies, prostitution, pornography and drug smuggling.

Even mining and quarrying still employ around a million children, working deep underground in tiny tunnels, pounding boulders or using toxic substances such as mercury; this is primarily in informal, small-scale, often family-based operations. An ILO report from 2007 found that girls did not take part in underground extraction work, but could be used to transport rubble and pan for precious stones or gold. In Peru some girls as young as ten could work twelve hours a day in bars that served the mining community, leaving them open to physical and sexual abuse.

The ILO runs an International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour, which has the goal of ending the worst forms by 2016, but it is accepted that even this limited aim will not be met. The ILO has promulgated various conventions on child labour, and many countries have ratified these, but of course this does not imply that any significant action will be undertaken. In October 2013 the Third Global Conference on Child Labour was held in Brasilia: this produced a Declaration which noted that ‘child labour impairs the realisation of children’s rights and its eradication constitutes an important issue for development and human rights’. It speaks further of encouraging this and promoting that and strengthening something else, but it fails to recognise that child labour and its associated horrors will continue as long as global capitalism enforces widespread poverty, employers benefit from the employment of children, and the poorest workers and peasants have to resort to putting children to work in an attempt to relieve their own poverty.’

PAUL BENNETT

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2015/no-1325-january-2015/little-children-suffer/

SPGB Meeting TONIGHT 29 August 1930 (GMT +1) ZOOM

 

Friday 29 August 7.30 p.m.

Have you heard the News?

Discussion on recent events

To join the meeting click https://zoom.us/j/7421974305

Rogue algorithm

 

Microplastics are found in the human placenta, semen and brain. More than 170 trillion plastic particles are in oceans. Yet the recent Geneva summit on curbing plastic production collapsed, because plastics mean profits for some.

‘A lot of the countries reflected their own feelings of anger, disappointment, sadness, for instance France’s Minister for Ecological Transition said that she was disappointed and angry that a handful of countries, guided by short-term financial interests, had blocked the adoption of an ambitious treaty.’ – Guardian Science Weekly

By 2060, plastic production is expected to triple to a billion tonnes a year. Capitalism is like a rogue algorithm designed to chase money, even at the cost of the planet. We need to upgrade to world socialism.

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

Result misery

 

In Charles Dickens 1850 novel, David Copperifeld a character, Wilkins Micawber, opines that  ‘Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery. ‘

Obviously, there are not many readers in various governments who have learnt from Mr Micawber.

‘Britain is facing the prospect of a repeat of its crippling 1976 economic crash as soaring debt and borrowing costs raise doubts over Labour’s budget policies, leading economists have warned, according to a Telegraph report.

The crisis nearly fifty years ago saw a Labour government forced to seek an emergency loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) after deficits and inflation spun out of control. It became one of Britain’s worst postwar crises, with the bailout bringing deep spending cuts and Labour losing power a few years later.

Now Chancellor Rachel Reeves faces similar warnings, with forecasts showing a £50 billion ($68 billion) gap in the public finances and debt interest set to exceed £111 billion. Debt now exceeds 96% of GDP. At around £2.7 trillion, it is one of the heaviest burdens in the developed world. Government borrowing costs have surged, with yields on 30-year bonds climbing above 5.5%, higher than those of the US and Greece.

Jagjit Chadha, former head of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, told the Telegraph the outlook was “as perilous as the period leading up to the IMF loan of 1976,” warning Britain could struggle to meet pensions and welfare payments.

Andrew Sentance, once a Bank of England policymaker, said Reeves was “on course to deliver a [former UK Chancellor Denis] Healey 1976-style crisis in late 2025 or 26,” accusing Labour of fuelling inflation with higher taxes, borrowing, and spending.

The warnings come weeks before Reeves is due to present her first autumn budget, where she is expected to announce further tax rises to cover the shortfall – a move critics argue would deepen the downturn. The Labour government also faces deepening political and economic challenges, including declining support.’

The Mail Online carries similar a similar Cassandra woe and thrice woe story about France.

‘France is facing a staggering £2.58trillion 'debt explosion' and could soon be forced into the humiliation of an International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout as Emmanuel Macron's government teeters on the edge of collapse.

Eric Lombard, the Minister of Economics and Finance, issued a stark warning that 'a risk exists' that the IMF will be forced to bail out Paris. 

The revelation comes amid widespread predictions that the French Government may be toppled in a matter of weeks after Prime Minister Francois Bayrou, 74, said he would seek a confidence vote in Parliament. 

Opposition parties from Jean-Luc Melenchon's radical-Left France Unbowed to Marine Le Pen's hard-Right National Rally have vowed to bring Bayrou down. Even members of Bayrou's own camp have branded the vote plan reckless with MP Nicole Dubre-Chirat calling it 'suicidal'.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15038207/France-faces-catastrophic-2-85TRILLION-debt-explosion-meltdown-minister-warns-country-heading-IMF-bailout-Emmanuel-Macrons-government-verge-collapse.html

The optimistic Mr Micawber was also fond of saying that something will turn up. The exploited majority who continue to support capitalism and provide the means for capitalists to increase wealth and power at the expense of the majority should not be waiting for capitalism to plunge into crisis which will affect those dependent upon wages, salaries, pensions and state benefits and not the minority wealth owning class.

With all its contradictions capitalist will not collapse completely of its own accord. So it behoves the majority not to wait hopefully for something to turn up but to take positive steps to educate themselves about socialism and to then work to ensure that capitalism is consigned to the dustbin of history where it should have been put long ago.

World Socialist Radio - Introducing The Socialist Party

 

Introducing The Socialist Party

by The Socialist Party of Great Britain

The Socialist Party and the World Socialist Movement affirm that capitalism is incapable of meaningful change in the interests of the majority; that the basis of exploitation is the wages/money system. The Socialist Standard is proud to have kept alive the original idea of what socialism is — a classless, stateless, wageless, moneyless society or, defined positively, a democracy in which free and equal men and women co-operate to produce the things they need to live and enjoy life, to which they have free access in accordance with the principle ‘from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs’.

World Socialist Radio is the official podcast of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. We have one single aim: the establishment of a society in which all productive resources – land, water, factories, transport, etc. – are taken into common ownership, and in which the sole motive for production is the fulfilment of human needs and wants.

To read more news, views, and analysis please visit: worldsocialism.org/spgb

or, for a free three-issue subscription to The Socialist Standard: spgb.net/podcast

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/world-socialist-radio/

False Flags

 

There appears to have been a swelling of the ranks of vexillophiles in Britain, or more specifically in England. It’s not known if these enthusiasts are dormant fans of the Big Bang Theory, an American sitcom that ran from 2007 to 2019, (a sort of Friends but centred on scientists) where one of the main characters ran a vodcast titled Fun with Flags.

The latest devotees of vexillophile are concentrating on flying the English Cross of St George in many towns and cities in response to a grass roots movement, Operation Raise the Colours.

The SPGB position on nationalism is well documented. The piece below is merely one example of that. The present ‘flag’ resistance can be one seen as as a misguided response from a section of the population that feels that its concerns are being ignored by the state. It’s unlikely to result in any political action being taken to satisfy those right or wrong concerns. Whether the vexations expressed by these actions are, as is being posited by some, a systematic attempt by the ‘far right’ to galvanise the working class into challenging the status quo for political advantage is debatable. Even if that were the intent it is unlikely to achieve any positive results.

Only when socialist political consciousness amongst the majority of those who run capitalism on behalf of the exploiting minority will constructive change in the social system occur.

To conclude with a little humour, the Labour Party apparently still conclude their conference with the singing of the Red Flag. The sentiments expressed re the scarlet standard by that capitalist supporting organisation in supposing that it has any interest of the working class at heart are as ludicrous as those who are currently painting a red cross on traffic islands and sticking up ‘national’ flags on lamp posts.

From the September 2022 issue of the Socialist Standard speaking of Scottish nationalism.

‘To many workers nationalism, like some other prejudices, is just another weird idea left over from the past. However, too many others still identify with countries and nations. Nationalism therefore still plays a large part in keeping workers divided.

Some try to make a distinction between patriotism and nationalism: with patriots identifying with their own imagined country without harbouring any ill-will towards people of other countries and nationalists who, as well as having special affection for their own imagined country, are also more xenophobic.

These concepts are so entangled that it makes no sense trying to disentangle them: it is the unsound nature of these notions which bothers us.

To the nationalists, whether Scottish or English, British, German, Russian, Chinese, American or whatever, the concept of the nation is a very important matter. For some it is the most important matter. Nationalists adhere to the strange notion that the nation, or nation-state, is an entity to which we should have automatic allegiance.

But why should we have such allegiance? And what exactly is a nation, and in whose interests does a nation-state operate?

Until the eighteenth century local feeling was much more important than national feeling. The pre- eighteenth-century community-spirit sense of nationality considered a nation to be composed of people living in a particular area with a common language, culture and history; but not necessarily ruled by the same state.

During the eighteenth century some new countries and nations were created. Great Britain, for example was a nation-state created by a merger between England & Scotland in 1707. This was not a ‘hostile takeover’ of Scotland by England, but a deal done between the ruling class of England and their counterparts in Scotland. Needless to say neither the working class in England nor the workers in Scotland were consulted. Certain gentlemen in what was then the North American colonies became rather disgruntled over trade and taxation and their lack of representation in the British parliament. These grievances between the gentleman rulers on either side of the Atlantic eventually led to the American War of Independence. The British gentlemen on the American side of the ocean foreswore their allegiance to the King and declared independence from Great Britain. In their Declaration of Independence in 1776 they called the new country the United States of America.

The French Revolution in 1789 and its aftermath gave impetus to the further development of liberalism and nationalism throughout Europe and by the nineteenth century nationalism had become more important and much more assertive than the hitherto existing sense of nationality.

The new nationalism intertwined with liberalism was really part of the ideology of the rising bourgeoisie.

Eastern Europe was relatively backward but north-west Europe had reached an advanced stage of industrial and trade development. Industrialisation and increased commercial development spread from west to east along with the political ideas of the rising bourgeoisie.

The new nationalism was essentially the idea that the nation, whatever it was conceived to be, is the most important unit of organisation in society and should therefore be equivalent to the state: it was the concept of the nation-state.

Nationalism and liberalism posed a threat to the cohesion of states like the Habsburg Empire which contained Germans, Hungarians, Italians, Czechs, Poles, Croats and Serbs within its boundaries. On the other hand, new states could be established if the idea of nationalism captured the minds of Germans and Italians whose nations were both divided into various separate states. So, sometimes nationalism united territories into new countries and sometimes it tended to disrupt and divide existing countries.

In 1861 Italy went from being a ‘geographical expression’ to unification. There was at that time a number of competing notions about what a united Germany might be. The so-called Holy Roman Empire had been dissolved in 1806 leaving a collection of petty states which organised themselves during the course of the 19th century into a number of configurations and confederations which eventually led to unification in 1871.

The old absolutist system of government was diametrically opposed to the needs of a developing and dynamic capitalist economy and it was this antagonism of interests which gave rise to the attack by the middle class against absolutism and the feudal rights of the aristocracy.

Liberalism required the unity, inherent in nationalism, of nationhood in society to ensure the satisfactory operation of a liberal constitution. So bourgeois liberals promoted nationalism to further their own ends. But the acquiescence at least of workers and peasants was essential in achieving national unity and independence.

To maintain national cohesion, nationalist ideology is required. Various paraphernalia like flags and national songs/anthems are used to help indoctrinate the subjects of a nation with the myths and fantasies of nationhood. History books with a twisted account of how the nation arose and how it has done great things are also very useful.

A measure of how successful this indoctrination is can be seen at international sports events, where the participants go into a trance-like state as they sing the national anthems of what they have been trained to believe are ‘their’ countries and many are overcome with emotion.

‘Scots Wha Hæ’

The Braveheart Legend today owes much to the eighteenth century romanticised view of the Wars for Scottish Independence of the late thirteenthand early fourteenth century, which culminated in the Battle of Bannockburn in June 1314.

These wars were really struggles amongst the aristocracy, who had lands in both England and Scotland, for political power commensurate with their landholdings and their own perceived greatness.

The song Scots Wha Hæ, by Robert Burns, was ostensibly based on Robert Bruce’s speech to his troops before the Battle of Bannockburn, but Burns was influenced just as much by contemporary struggles in Europe and elsewhere when he wrote this song. He also knew that to openly write such a song about the ‘radical’ struggles of his own time, whether in Britain or abroad, could expose him to prosecution for sedition.

In more recent times the rise of the SNP as a political force results largely from the perceived failures of decades of Labour and Tory governments. It could be said, particularly from the 1970s onwards, that the misanthropic projects of Labour and Tory governments led to growing support for nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales.

To the Scottish National Party the nation is the most important thing. The essence of its argument is that the interests of the ‘people of Scotland’, whoever they might be, can be served best by a government in Edinburgh rather than one in London.

They claim nowadays that nationality can be defined in such a way as to include everyone who lives in Scotland. A bit like the USA, where you can become an American or a hyphenated one for a generation or two; or perhaps forever.

It sounds much ‘nicer’ than some of the more virulent and nasty types of nationalism. But unfortunately, many of the SNP’s supporters continue to be the more old-fashioned and nasty type of nationalist.

Change of rulers

Since the collapse of the British Empire after World War II, many nations have gained independence from British rule. None of this has led to any lasting benefit to the workers in these countries. As in the rest of the world the populations of these countries are divided into employers and their wage-slaves.

So, although the nation-state may be a convenient vehicle by means of which a local (national) capitalist class can exploit the workers within its boundaries, it brings no benefit to the workers.

Nationality is therefore something imposed upon the worker. In fact, the workers of the world have no country and therefore should not have any allegiance to this or any other country. Instead of worrying about the interests of the country or the nation to which they belong, their allegiance should be to their own class interests.

Our use of the possessive pronoun with respect to the employers and their wage-slaves was no accident: the countries are theirs – ie, the capitalists – as are we their wage-slaves. But the countries are not ours! We do not own enough of this or any other country to fill a flower pot.

Instead of worrying about the interests of the country to which they belong and its independence or lack thereof, workers should seek independence for themselves: independence from the tyranny of capital and silly flag-waving nations. Nationalism – like sexism, racism, and religious superstition – is anathema to socialists. We can have nothing but antipathy to it. It is totally incompatible with working class interests and the struggle for socialism.

The Scottish National Party argues that social problems in Scotland are caused by London government and that with an independent government in Edinburgh a start could be made in solving these problems.

The Socialist Party argument is that social problems in Scotland are not caused by government from England but, as elsewhere, by capitalism. Re-arranging frontiers or constructing a new state is no more a solution to working class problems than electing a new government of capitalism or changing the Prime Minister.

Such political changes, are irrelevant to the working class, since they leave the economic basis of society – the class monopoly of the means of production – unchanged; and it is precisely this that is the root cause of their problems.

Against all nationalisms

The Socialist Party opposes Scottish nationalism just as it does British nationalism which, of course, is supported by the Tories, Labour and the Liberals. We are opposed to all nationalism and insist that the solution to our problems lies in the establishment of socialism throughout the world.

The First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, has recently proposed holding another referendum on whether or not Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom. She claims that she has a mandate to conduct one. The SNP together with the Scottish Greens, who have turned tartan in the last few years, constitute a pro-independence majority in Holyrood. Although this majority of nearly 56 percent in the Scottish Parliament is based on only 49.2 percent of the popular vote, it is a greater ‘mandate’ than Boris Johnson’s 43.6 percent of the popular vote which gave him 365 seats out of 650 in the House of Commons and control of the British state.

The question of whether or not the Scottish Parliament has the authority to conduct a referendum has been referred to the Supreme Court. Should the Supreme Court rule that the matter is reserved to the authority of Westminster and if whoever replaces Johnson still refuses to grant Sturgeon permission to conduct a referendum, the SNP will fight the next UK general election solely on one issue: separation. This would, they say, be a de facto referendum on independence.

Therefore the proposed referendum in October 2023 or the next general election in 2024, like past elections, gives us a ‘choice’: vote yes, get capitalism; vote no, get capitalism! It is like being asked if migraine is better than diarrhoea. Capitalism offers us innumerable such ‘choices’, in an attempt to pretend we are being consulted.

To borrow some of Burns’s words: ‘Now is the day, and now is the hour’, but not for supporting some madcap scheme to create a new nation, or restore an old one. It is time to get up off our knees and face the future: not a fairy-tale future promised by politicians but the future that we will make. Not Scotland for the Scottish, England for the English, Wales for the Welsh, or any other nationalist fantasy world.

A long time ago in the aftermath of a bloody war we claimed the world for the workers and called upon you, our fellow workers, to fight for socialism. Over a hundred years later our claim and demand is the same. By overthrowing capitalism and taking the world for the workers, we will have one world for one people. To do anything else is, just like the proposed referendum, an exercise in futility.’

John Cumming

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2022/09/nationalism-deadly-enemy-of-socialism.html

SPGB Summer School 22 -24 August (Friday - Sunday) Talks on ZOOM

SPGB Summer School Talks on Zoom

To join:  https://zoom.us/j/7421974305 

Friday 22 August 19.15 – 20.45 (GMT + 1)
*MARXISM AND MARX – CAN THEY EVER BE FRIENDS? *
/Speaker: Keith Graham/

Saturday 23 August 10.00 – 11.30: (GMT + 1)
*MARXISM, REFORMS AND REFORMISM*
/Guest speaker: Cat Rylance/

14.00—15.30 (GMT + 1)
*DO SOCIALISTS NEED MARX? *
/Speaker: Howard Moss/

19.15—20.45 (GMT + 1)
*FOR MARXIST PLURALISM*
/Guest speaker: Edmund Griffiths of the Communist Corresponding Society/

Sunday 24 August 10.00—11.30 (GMT + 1)
*MARXISM AND THE SOCIAL REPUBLIC. MARX AND KAUTSKY ON THE DEMOCRATIC
TRANSFORMATION OF THE STATE*
/Speaker: Darren Poynton/

Mine, all mine

So-called rare earth elements, such as scandium and terbium, play an essential role in the functioning of mobile phones, electric cars and so on. Most are currently mined in China, at vast environmental cost but with great importance for the country’s finances and bargaining power.

Now, though, Australia is trying to compete, with a vast pit north of Perth. The government has provided a billion dollar loan to a mining company in an attempt to break China’s near-monopoly and expand Australia’s economy and global influence.

Capitalism really is about profits and power, with little attention to ecological impact and true human need.

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

World Socialist Radio - Book Review

 

Book Review: Raising the Red Flag. Marxism, Labourism, and the Roots of British Communism 1884-1921. By Tony Collins

by The Socialist Party of Great Britain

Taken from the July 2025 edition of The Socialist Standard.

Walter Kendall advanced the view that Bolshevism-Leninism was something that was alien to the formally democratic traditions of the working class movement in Britain, introduced from an economically and politically backward part of the world where conditions were quite different. Collins, writing as a Leninist, argues that in fact those who founded the British Communist Party were all too much in the tradition of reformist labourism. Both views have some merit.

World Socialist Radio is the official podcast of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. We have one single aim: the establishment of a society in which all productive resources – land, water, factories, transport, etc. – are taken into common ownership, and in which the sole motive for production is the fulfilment of human needs and wants.

To read more news, views, and analysis please visit: worldsocialism.org/spgb

or, for a free three-issue subscription to The Socialist Standard: spgb.net/podcast

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/world-socialist-radio/

Strike What For?

 

There are many examples where the withdrawal of workers’ labour power has won them concessions from the capitalist class. However, any concessions won are followed by the necessity to resume the industrial struggle as the capitalist class resumes its class war in the battle to increase profits at the expense of the majority working class.

‘Air Canada flights will resume on Sunday after the government ordered cabin crew to end a strike that led to hundreds of cancellations, the airline has said...Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu ordered binding arbitration to end the dispute, after more than 10,000 Air Canada flight attendants walked earlier on causing 700 cancellations.’

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyex8489gno?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss

‘On August 3, 1981, approximately 13,000 air traffic controllers from the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) went on strike, demanding better pay, a 32-hour work week, and improved working conditions, which they argued were necessary due to high stress and fatigue from heavy workloads. The strike was declared illegal under federal law, which prohibits strikes by federal employees, and President Ronald Reagan responded by ordering the strikers to return to work within 48 hours or lose their jobs. When most controllers did not return, Reagan fired 11,345 of them on August 5, 1981, and imposed a lifetime ban on their rehiring by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The government swiftly managed air traffic by utilising non-striking controllers, military personnel, and supervisors, which allowed it to handle about 80% of the prior workload, although air travel was significantly slowed for months. The strike's failure marked a turning point in American labour relations, weakening the power of unions and signalling a more aggressive anti-union stance by the federal government and private sector.’ Internet.

‘Hundreds of Thousands of Israelis Join Nationwide Strike for Gaza Hostage Deal ‘

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-08-17/ty-article-live/netanyahu-says-he-would-agree-only-to-an-all-in-one-hostage-deal-all-our-conditions/00000198-b5a5-d4ef-a399-ffe77a6a0000

Families of Israeli hostages held in Gaza have called for a nationwide labour strike on Sunday, August 17, 2025, to demand a cease-fire agreement with Hamas to free their relatives, even as Israel’s government continues to expand its military campaign in the enclave. This call comes amid ongoing tensions over the government's approach to negotiations for the release of the remaining hostages.

• Recent Strike Call (August 17, 2025): The strike is being organized by groups representing families of the victims of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack. The appeal urges universities, municipalities, and high-tech companies to shut down, with other employers allowing their workers to participate. However, Israel’s largest labour coalition, Histadrut, is not participating, stating that a strike is unlikely to influence the course of the war or result in the return of the 50 Israeli hostages still held in Gaza. Histadrut chair Arnon Bar-David expressed sympathy but noted the strike would have no practical impact. Internet.

  Histradut has a membership of around 700,000. The Histradut Chair is correct in his assessment that a political strike would not have any impact on the Executive Committee of Israel’s capitalists.

From the December 1972 issue of the Socialist Standard

'Dear Dave,

I see from the News of the World for November 15th that you are the editor of the Trotskyist magazine ‘Mineworkers Internationale’, and that you have published articles addressing the miners on union policy.

You appear to have upset the editor of the News of the World, and the officials of the Communist Party, who say that you are getting the “sane militants” (the C.P.) a bad name.

You wrote (apparently) in one issue of your magazine

“The only long-term justice for the workers will be under a system which they themselves control—a Socialist system.”

and

“Launch the General Strike immediately and occupy the factories, docks, railways without charging, capture the supermarkets and food wholesalers and distribute the food free.”

Hard Enough

And you claim to work for the overthrow of Capitalism.

One can sympathise with your indignation with your exploitation and the fact, as you say, “that Capitalists are making a fortune out of my sweat, discomfort and forfeiture of human dignity”. Fair enough!

But, Dave boy, indignation is not enough! In this business (the class struggle) brains are more important than heart, because our enemy, the Capitalist, is immensely powerful, and helped by a large staff of cunning labour leaders and T.U. Officials.

And I’m going to tell you straight out, that your stuff is doing more harm than good.

First “seize the pits” or “the Supermarkets”, or “the railways”, is rubbish. The workers have a difficult enough job trying seize half-a-pound of steak on a Friday night, without you try to feed them this baloney.

You must begin to learn that the control of the public apparatus of production and distribution is political, not industrial. It is maintained by the Government of the day, if necessary by armed force, although the workers don’t show much evidence of doing any “seizing”, do they? Could it be they’ve too much sense?

The Wrong Interests

Neither are you doing any good trying to cod the miners into taking action for “workers’ control”. The workers will never control Capitalism. What determines class control is ownership, and that ownership is legalised and maintained through Parliament, by the Government of the day, backed by an electoral majority.

It is no business of trade unions to try to usurp the job of a political party. Control of the whole of industry is a political matter concerning the whole capitalist class. The strongest, most militant trade union in the world can do nothing about it and won’t want to, anyway, because people join unions to look after the trade interests, not class interests.

Dave, I’m sorry, but your other stuff urging the miners on strike last year to do as much damage as possible is nonsense too. This is a hang-over from early Russian days when the isolated Bolsheviks sought to create as much dissension abroad as possible, for political propaganda materials.

Strike What For?

I now come to what, for me, is the most stupid and ridiculous nonsense of all. “Launch the General Strike and occupy the factories”. Are you really in your right mind, mate? Don’t you know that whenever the workers have occupied factories, after a few weeks with the wives bringing meals and drinks, they have unoccupied them again?

The capitalists will always beat you at this game; they own everything; they can retire to the Hilton or the country, and starve you out. In fact, the French authorities have said they approve of the strikers occupying the factory because “It keeps the place clean”.

And lastly, the General Strike! What stupid bloody rubbish. First of all, General Strikes for industrial ends are difficult enough, because workers’ action on such a scale concerns the whole capitalist class who have shown repeatedly, all over the world, that they will not hesitate if necessary, to crush strikes by armed force.

But even worse, you are urging a General Strike for “Workers’ Control”, which because you are not clear about it, you call a “Socialist system”.

A Socialist system will and must abolish classes! What are you on about? Will there be wage-workers under Trotskyist “Socialism” then ?

But, worst of all, you are trying to control trade unionists in General Strikes for political purposes — and this is disastrous.

If you claim that all the workers (or a lot of them) are militants, anxious to overthrow Capitalism, why have they got to lose their wages (and some of them, their personal freedom) in General Strikes?

Consciousness Wanted

If they want a General Strike why do they vote for Tory and Labour parties?

If the workers are Socialists, they have a perfectly safe and sane method of abolishing Capitalism, which also happens (as time will show) to be the only possible method — the ballot box.

It is for this reason that the Socialist Party of Great Britain will never support calls for General Strikes for political purposes. People like you, Dave, may feel very strongly, but you haven’t thought very much.

Socialists, in their capacity as trade unionists, because we are exploited like you, and have to join them, say to their fellow workers : Political action is for political parties! Trade union political independence at all costs!

Socialism will be established by a class political party, not the T.U.C., or any trade union.

It Can be Done

Let trade unions mind their own business, the interests of their members.

Let the affairs of the union be run democratically, by the rank-and-file vote, make strikes short and sharp. Procrastination is the death of strikes.

And, lastly, some advice to you, by one who has been right through the Leninist mill himself.

Forget all your Trotskyist dreamworld; it never was right. Look where the Leninist “boring from within” the trade unions has landed the C.P. The very nominees the Communist factions have got “elected” as officials have at times been the first to kick out Communists.

Study Socialism! Get clear on the necessity of conscious political actions by the workers, organised in a political party to take political power, to abolish capitalist control; and replace it by “democratic control”.

This is the road of Success, to Victory.

What you are doing now will only spread apathy as a result of bitter disappointment.

Forget Trotsky, and remember Marx!

Yours for Socialism,

Horatio

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2023/12/an-open-letter-to-dave-douglass-1972.html