The Badger Cull - What You Need to Know

"I can’t understand how anybody who’s looked at the science would say this is a good idea”

– Professor John Krebs, architect of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial

Unless you’ve been living in a sett for the last year, you have probably heard a lot of talk about the proposed badger cull, which will begin in the Taunton Deane area of West Somerset and around Tewkesbury in Gloucestershire (and potentially in Dorset) on 1st June 2013. After many months of reading, protesting, letter writing and conversing with scientists and animal rights activists, I have attempted to condense all of the available information into one readable article, complete with references for those that want to dig a little deeper into the issue. And so today, on the eve the cull, I present the case against this sick, unscientific, undemocratic and unjust crime against nature...

What's the problem?

Badgers, like many other wild animals, carry Bovine Tuberculosis (bTB). The disease can be passed between wild animals and cattle, and from cattle to wild animals. In 2011, approximately 26,000 cattle were slaughtered due to BTB¹ - there is no denying that this disease impacts on the livelihood of cattle farmers. Government compensation per cow ranges from £98 to £4,913² depending on the age, breed and sex of the cow – and that's your taxes, if you pay them. Understandably, many farmers are concerned that having badgers on their land is a major threat to their herd and their business. Eradication of badgers therefore at first glance seems like a logical method of preventing the spread of Bovine TB, and a harsh, but necessary, measure if we are to continue dairy farming in this country. However, things are not so straightforward.

Is bTB the biggest threat to cattle?

Given the coverage in the media, you would be forgiven for thinking that bTB was the biggest threat to cattle, however bTB is far from being the biggest reason for slaughtering dairy cattle in Britain. In 2011, mastitis accounted for 17.54%, lameness accounted for 9.36%, old age accounted for 6.39%, calving injury accounted for 4.41%, accidents and trauma accounted for 4.38%, and all infectious diseases accounted for just 3.23% of slaughtered cattle³. The elephant in the room is that diseases such as mastitis and lameness kill far more cattle than bTB, with mastitis costing the dairy industry in excess of £168 million a year⁴.

How is TB transmitted?

The exact route of transmission between badgers and cattle has not been proven. As David Williams, Chair of The Badger Trust put it - “Until the science is clear, we should not be making the badger a scapegoat. Remember DDT, myxomatosis and Thalidomide. We thought we knew that these were scientific certainties but they were disastrous. We should be wary for the future”⁵.

Cattle are herd dwelling animals that live closely together, and are generally kept in enclosures (fields, barns, etc.) and therefore spread of bTB between cattle is quick. In 2005, scientists at Oxford University found that cattle-to-cattle transmissions of bTB “consistently outperform environmental, topographic and other anthropogenic variables as the main predictor of disease occurrence”⁶. Cattle catch the disease from breathing in air from the lungs of other cattle, particularly in poorly-ventilated spaces such as barns. The disease may be brought into the herd from new cows, shared breeding bulls and coming into contact with infected cows at markets and shows⁷. Cows are, of course, tested for bTB - however DEFRA estimates that the test only detects around 80% of infected cattle⁸. Furthermore, a team from Liverpool University has found that the presence of a common fluke that parasitises the liver of cattle can reduce the chances of TB being detected by the test⁹. This fluke has increased dramatically in numbers over the last 15 years, the same period that has seen a large increase in incidences of TB in cattle.

Direct interactions between cattle and badgers are very rare¹⁰. It is thought that TB is transmitted from badgers to cattle primarily via urine and dung left in fields, and laboratory studies have shown that cattle can catch the disease from infected badgers under controlled conditions, albeit in an enclosed environment. Testing for infected setts has around a 40-50% success rate, and therefore only targeting infected setts would be expensive and unreliable¹¹.

In a stable and undisturbed badger population, there is little movement and infected animals remain isolated. However, if badgers are removed, other badgers move into the area, bringing any diseases they have with them. When culling occurs, there is a small reduction in bTB within the cull zone, however on the edge of the cull zone there is an increase due to badger dispersal (the “perturbation effect”)^12,13.

Badgers can pass bTB to cattle, however cattle can pass TB to badgers also¹⁴. bTB is also an issue where badgers are not present, including the Isle of Man and parts of Scotland¹⁵, and so they are not necessarily a factor in the spread of the disease.

Badgers are not the only wild animals that carry TB. Deer carry TB and tend to wander much further than badgers. Fallow and red deer in particular have high incidences of the disease. Foxes, squirrels and rats also carry TB¹⁶. However, following two studies indicating the relatively high incidences of TB in deer, Defra concluded that they are unlikely to pass the disease onto cattle. The Badger Trust responded: "This statement is plainly nonsense to those of us who have watched wild deer grazing alongside cattle at pasture."¹⁷

A Bit of History

In 1934, at least 40% of dairy cows in Great Britain were reported to be infected with Bovine TB¹⁸. In 1947 the Government began a programme of comparative  testing of cattle for bovine TB and slaughtering infected cattle to try and control the problem, which became compulsory in 1950 and reduced the number of bovine TB cases to a very low level by 1960, and by the mid-1960s cases of bovine TB in cattle were confined to a few areas of south-west England, and remained at low levels in other areas until the early 1990s¹⁹. TB incidences in cattle are far lower now than the in the 1930s. There was no badger cull back then - measures to reduce incidences of cattle-to-cattle transmission were responsible for the dramatic reduction in TB.

Badgers were first linked to bTB in 1971, and shortly afterwards farmers were issued licences to cull them. Between 1975 and 1981, badgers were gassed in their setts using hydrogen cyanide and from 1986 to 1998 culling occurred only on land used by tuberculin-positive cattle²⁰. The effectiveness of previous strategies was unknown because they were not compared with each other or a strategy of no culling. Pro-cull advocates often point to the cull undertaken in Thornbury between 1975-81 as there was a slight reduction in bTB in cattle in the area, however this was not conceived as a scientific experiment and more research was required to evaluate the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of a cull¹¹. A large-scale trial badger cull was implemented in 1998 by the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) on Cattle TB. Early results showed a consistent (around 27%) increase in bTB in cattle where culling had taken place, which is likely to be due to higher rates of badger dispersal in these areas²¹. Following the trial, the ISG stated in their report “while badgers are clearly a source of cattle TB, careful evaluation of our own and others’ data indicates that badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain. Indeed, some policies under consideration are likely to make matters worse rather than better. Second, weaknesses in cattle testing regimes mean that cattle themselves contribute significantly to the persistence and spread of disease in all areas where TB occurs, and in some parts of Britain are likely to be the main source of infection. Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone”¹³.

The recent rise in bTB in cattle has, in part, been attributed to relaxation of cattle testing following the mass slaughter moved all over the country, infecting other herds and potentially the local badger populations. A return to testing and biosecurity has already seen a decrease in the rate of infection, despite stories of farmers swapping cattle tags to keep infected valuable animals on their farms²²

Why is the cull going ahead?

Despite this country’s top scientists and wildlife experts repeatedly finding that the cull won’t make much of a difference and that there are other avenues worth exploring, the cull will still be going ahead. Professor John Bourne has the answer: "I think the most interesting observation was made to me by a senior politician who said, 'Fine John, we accept your science, but we have to offer the farmers a carrot. And the only carrot we can possibly give them is culling badgers'."¹²

So if killing badgers isn’t the answer, what is?

It is estimated that only 15% of badgers carry bTB¹³, and therefore around 85% of badgers killed during the cull would not have posed any threat to cattle whatsoever. Back in 1997, Lord Krebs (the architect of the RBCT) supported the development of a vaccination for cattle - "We recommend that the best prospect for control of TB in the British herd is to develop a cattle vaccine. This is a long-term policy and success cannot be guaranteed. But the potential benefits are substantial and we consider this should be a high priority"¹¹. In 2011, speaking to The Guardian, he re-stated his view that development of a vaccine should be a priority and called for "biosecurity measures" to reduce incidences of cattle coming into contact with badgers and other sources of TB, and from passing the disease between cattle. He also put into context the pointlessness of the cull - "You cull intensively for at least four years, you will have a net benefit of reducing TB in cattle of 12% to 16%. So you leave 85% of the problem still there, having gone to a huge amount of trouble to kill a huge number of badgers. It doesn't seem to be an effective way of controlling the disease"²³.The Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), undertaken between 1998 and 2005 report stated "While endorsing the need for continued research on vaccine development, we recognise that substantial obstacles need to be overcome in developing an effective vaccine and therefore advise that vaccination, of either cattle or badgers, should be considered only as a longer term option" and also "...there were insufficient data on the efficacy of [vaccines] in badgers to assess whether or not it represented a viable vaccine candidate"¹³.

Badger culling has been trialled and shown not to work. Vaccination is a potential alternative that us only just beginning to be explored. The Welsh Government has scrapped plans for a cull and has now embarked on a badger vaccination programme using the BCG vaccination - now that a proper attempt at this is being carried out, it would be very wise to wait and see what the results are before going for a destructive method that is not even recommended by top scientists, who are not averse to killing badgers themselves, if they thought it would make a difference. Other vaccination schemes are currently being trialled by conservation groups such as The National Trust and The Wildlife Trusts. Badgers are trapped and injected with the vaccine and then set free again. Although it is far too early to tell how effective this will be, if Lord Krebs is right, it would make sense to put off the cull until we some results from Wales. Continued research into a vaccine for cattle would be a sensible use of time and money.

The BCG vaccination has been shown to be 56-64% effective in cattle²⁴, however it is not currently used due to EU regulations. Until recently, it was impossible to tell the difference between an infected and a vaccinated cow, a DIVA (Differentiation of Infected from Vaccinated Animals) test, which can tell the difference, has recently been developed and is awaiting validation before an attempt to change the law can be made. Rather than lobbying for a cull that simply won’t work, it is difficult to understand why farmers are not putting their efforts into lobbying for vaccination research and a change in the law. The scientists and other cull opponents would almost certainly join them if it meant an end to killing badgers.

In a recent letter to Veterinary Times, six veterinary surgeons recommended the simultaneous vaccination of cattle and badgers as the best approach²⁵. They also drew attention to the issue of selective breeding of cattle for human purposes, which has effectively halted co-evolution with bTB. Cows with any resistance to bTB are slaughtered, as until recently there was no way of telling the difference between an infected and an immune cow. Welfare of cattle, including the conditions that adult cattle are subjected to and the lack of normal relationships between cows and calves could affect the health of cattle and make them more susceptible to bTB. They concluded that the dairy industry itself is at fault, and the solution lies in long-term restructuring and de-intensification of the industry.

Biosecurity measures would limit the spread of the disease in cattle, such as putting up badger-proof fences, keeping cattle in smaller sheds and improving ventilation, as well as more rigorous testing. Farm manager Steve Jones, who is against the cull, agrees that poor farm management, lax biosecurity and low standards of animal welfare, as well as slow responses to tackling bTB are the major problems, not the badgers. He maintains that farms should have quarantine areas for infected cattle, water troughs (sometimes shared by badgers) should be cleaned regularly and made badger-proof and that animal welfare should be prioritised.  A recent study suggests that managing farms for conservation can reduce the risk of transmission of TB from cattle to badgers, and makes some recommendations for farming practices, in particular an increase in hedgerows and a reduction of hedgerow gaps, which were found to be significant factors²⁶. Julian Drewe of the Royal Veterinary College found that indirect contact between badgers and cattle occurs frequently, as cows have often been recorded at badger latrines. As badgers use the same latrines year after year, the simple act of fencing off the latrines will help to prevent this indirect contact^10,27.

Who is opposing the cull?

A poll conducted by the BBC in 2011 suggested that 63% of the population are opposed to the cull²⁸, and a Guardian poll put this figure at 91%²⁹.

A wide variety of scientists, celebrities and organisations have come forth to oppose the cull. Scientists include Lord Krebs, the architect of the ISG cull trial, and Professor John Bourne, who led the cull trial. These are experts in their field who are not averse to killing badgers if it made a difference, and they stand by their finding “badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain.”¹³ Thousands of badgers were killed in order to obtain that result.

Wildlife and animal rights organisations against the cull include The Badger Trust, RSPCA, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts, League Against Cruel Sports, Badger Watch and Rescue, Humane Society International, Network for Animals, Viva and Conservatives Against Fox Hunting. Both the Green Party and the Labour Party have also voiced their opposition to the cull.

A campaign such as this is likely to attract the backing of a few celebrities. But by celebrities, I don't just mean the usual brigade that jump on the animal rights/environment bandwagon for a bit of publicity (although doubtless there are a few of these amongst them). Many of the most prominently outspoken celebrities involved are famed and respected for their wildlife knowledge - I'm talking about the likes of David Attenborough, Chris Packham, Michaela Strachan, Simon King and Bill Oddie here³⁰ – natural history experts in their own right, whose views are not to be taken lightly.

For several generations, the public has entrusted David Attenborough to inform about wildlife, and there’s no reason to stop listening to him now: "You may think that culling is the answer and it sounds easy to start with but it can very well make things much worse… Survivors will carry the disease into areas that have hitherto been unaffected. There's good scientific research available to show that culling badgers can make things worse and not better."³¹

Of course, Queen Guitarist Brian May is at the forefront of the campaign. But aside from his noodling guitar solos, he’s a respected scientist in his own right (in astronomy) and has been campaigning on animal rights issues for years.

Direct Action to date

Demonstrations outside supermarkets that have stated that they will continue to sell milk from the cull zones have been among the most visible elements of action taken so far, along with highly publicised marches and walks around the cull zones. Web-based activism has also played a large role, with numerous anti-cull Facebook groups and Twitter accounts sharing news items, scientific reports, petitions, details of protests and boycotts and collecting a large number of followers, to whom news and information of forthcoming direct actions can now easily reach. As has been seen in recent years with the Arab Spring, the Occupy Movement and other protest groups and campaigns, this can draw out large numbers of people.

Activists have been out in the cull zones flyposting, sett surveying (so as to locate areas to focus direct action later on), tying black and white ribbons around trees on cull zone land to let farmers know they’ve been around and searching for signs of pre-baiting (typically peanuts left out for badgers). Activists have also been photographing evidence of bad practice or illegal activity on farms within the cull zones and making them public over the internet. In particular, the welfare of pheasants reared for shooting has been a major target³².

Disruption has been caused to the studies of the number of badgers within the cull zones. Recent studies have suggested that the number of badgers in the cull zones is much lower than thought, slashing the number of badgers thought to be in an area by around a third, however the Coalition of Badger Action Groups have claimed that this was due to activists removing hair samples from the hair traps. Therefore the number of badgers is unknown, making it difficult to set targets³³.

Call this a democracy?

The badger cull is perhaps one of the finest case studies of recent times to point those who claim we live in a democracy to. Firstly, this is a Conservative Party policy, that is being implemented, a party so weak and unpopular that they failed to win the last election without the help of the even more unpopular Liberal Democrats, who are either far too weak or unwilling to stand up and put a stop to it. A badger cull was mentioned in the Conservative Party manifesto, but not in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.  Secondly, there’s the opinion polls – all of which show that if this policy went to a vote it would certainly be consigned to the dustbin of failed policies and never be brought up again. Unfortunately, the nearest thing to a vote we get on this policy is the much-hyped e-petition service, where anyone can start a petition and if it gets enough signatures and the backing of an MP, it can trigger a debate in parliament. The badger cull is so deeply unpopular amongst the general public that it succeeded in doing both, being among the first e-petitions to reach the critical number of signatures and gained the backing of Green Party MP Caroline Lucas. Owen Paterson left the debate in disgust early on, most likely as he was afraid of the humiliation would have faced. Our elected representatives then battled for hours before taking a non-binding vote – with 147 MPs voting against the cull and 28 voting for it. However, despite this victory, the vote did not put a stop to the cull. On this issue, on every level, it has been shown that the so-called democracy we live in and promote (often violently) around the world is a complete shambles.

A call to arms

The badgers cannot defend themselves against the guns. The farmers in support of the cull are being sold a white elephant by a government that is unwilling to tackle the real issues. Every possible legal method of defeating the cull before it starts has been tried, and despite every battle having been won by opponents – from the science to public opinion and winning over our MPs – Mr Paterson and the NFU appear to have won the war. All hope is, however, not lost. The following options are still left open to us:

1. Consumer boycotts – The majority of milk from the cull zones are sold in supermarkets. Of the big supermarkets, the Co-op, Waitrose and Marks and Spencer have stated that they do not sell milk from the cull zones. Yeo Valley milk is also not from the cullzones. Sainsbury’s and Tesco have been the focus of recent protests and have not yet backed down. The company that supplies Asda and Starbucks has responded to the pressure and has now stopped sourcing milk from a farm in the cull zone. Cow’s milk is not a requirement for a healthy diet, and there are alternatives, such as goat’s milk, soya milk, rice milk, oat milk etc. If enough people stop buying their milk then the farmers who are allowing the cull to go ahead may need to reconsider. For starters, you could try sending these suggested tweets: http://lizziethebadger.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/the-govt-didnt-listen-but-maybe-the-supermarkets-will/ or sending messages to all of the big supermarkets via this link http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1736&ea.campaign.id=16398&ea.tracking.id=website

2. Direct Action – People will be out in the fields at night doing all they can to stop badgers being shot. As many people as possible are needed. No-one is expected to stand in front of a gun, but we can still make things as difficult as possible for the shooters. Not all badgers will be saved, but the more people who come out, the more expensive this will be, and the chances of shooters hitting the target numbers of shot badgers will be reduced. Direct action is being organised by Stop the Cull http://badger-killers.co.uk/ and various Hunt Sabs groups – to find your local one visit http://hsa.enviroweb.org/index.php/get-involved/localgroups

3. Promote alternatives. Although the farmers are responsible for paying for the cull and allowing access onto their land, it is arguably not entirely their fault that they are being sold something that will not work - this lies with the NFU and Defra, who are strong positions to influence their opinions. There are alternatives, and if the science and/or threats of direct action are enough to make them reconsider, we need to be there to help them tackle the problem in other ways.

4. If you haven’t already, sign the petition. Although the debate in parliament has taken place, the more signatures we get on the official petition, the more pressure we will put on them.

5. Boycott milk from the cull zones. The Co-operative, Marks and Spencer and Yeo Valley have stated that they do not source from the cull zones. To date, most other supermarkets, including Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Asda, have stated that they will not stop sourcing from the cull zones. There are also initiatives to boycott the dairy industry altogether.

6. Demonstrate. Many local animal rights groups have been organising demonstrations across the country, often outside supermarkets selling milk from the cull zones. If there isn’t one near you, in these days of social media it is not difficult to set up an event and promote it. There is a national march on 1^st June starting at at Millbank, near Tate Britain, London, SW1P 4RG at 12pm.

7. There will be a parliamentary vote on Weds 5th May 2013. Please write to your MP and urge them to vote against the cull. MP details can be found here: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/

Although the main focus of the campaign against the cull is protecting the badgers from being unnecessarily shot, this campaign has now gone far beyond that. As well as the animal welfare issue, this is also about science versus speculation, people versus government and democracy versus authoritarianism. When the government has chosen to ignore the findings of top specialists, the opinion of the vast majority of the public and the votes of the majority of our elected representatives, it is only right that this matter be taken into our own hands.

References

1.           DEFRA Badger cull to proceed next year. (2012).at <http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2012/10/23/badger-cull/>

2.           DEFRA Compensation for Bovine TB, BSE, Brucellosis, and Enzootic Bovine Leukosis – July 2012. 1–4 (2012).

3.           CHAWG First Annual Report - GB Cattle Health & Welfare Group. (2012).

4.           Bradley, A. J. Bovine Mastitis: An Evolving Disease. The Veterinary Journal 164, 116–128 (2002).

5.           Badger Trust Bovine TB test undermined: infected cows escape detection. (2012).at <http://www.badgertrust.org.uk/_Attachments/Resources/670_S4.pdf>

6.           Gilbert, M. et al. Cattle movements and bovine tuberculosis in Great Britain. Nature 435, 491–6 (2005).

7.           DARD How do cattle become infected? at <http://www.dardni.gov.uk/index/animal-health/animal-diseases/tb/tb-how-cattle-infected.htm>

8.           DEFRA Bovine TB – The facts. (2009).

9.           Claridge, J. et al. Fasciola hepatica is associated with the failure to detect bovine tuberculosis in dairy cattle. Nature communications 3, 853 (2012).

10.         Drewe, J. A., O’Connor, H. M., Weber, N., McDonald, R. A. & Delahay, R. J. Patterns of direct and indirect contact between cattle and badgers naturally infected with tuberculosis. Epidemiology and infection 1–9 (2013).doi:10.1017/S0950268813000691

11.         Krebs, J. R. et al. Bovine tuberculosis in cattle and badgers. (London, 1997).

12.         Kendall, P. & Packham, C. Vital cull or heartless slaughter? The great badger debate. The Independent (online edition) (2012).at <http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/vital-cull-or-heartless-slaughter-the-great-badger-debate-8202970.html>

13.         Bourne, F. J. Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB. (London, 2007).

14.         Carrington, D. Counting the cost: fears badger cull could worsen bovine TB crisis. The Guardian (online edition) (2013).at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/27/badger-cull-bovine-tuberculosis>

15.         Anon. Dead Sett? SchNEWS 1 (2012).at <http://www.schnews.org.uk/issues/pdfs/804.pdf>

16.         The Badger Trust Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers: Q and A. (2012).at <http://www.badgertrust.org.uk/_Attachments/Resources/534_S4.pdf>

17.         The Badger Trust At least 26 per cent of deer found with TB, study reveals. (2012).at <http://www.badgertrust.org.uk/_Attachments/Resources/288_S4.pdf>

18.         DEFRA Animal health 2004. The report of the Chief Veterinary Officer. (2005).

19.         Reynolds, D. A review of tuberculosis science and policy in Great Britain. Veterinary microbiology 112, 119–26 (2006).

20.         Woodroffe, R., Frost, S. D. W. & Clifton-Hadley, R. S. Attempts to Control Tuberculosis in Cattle by Removing Infected Badgers: Constraints Imposed by Live Test Sensitivity. Journal of Applied Ecology 36, 494–501 (1999).

21.         Donnelly, C. A., Woodroffe, R., Cox, D. R., Bourne, J. & Morrison, W. I. Impact of localized badger culling on tuberculosis incidence in British cattle. Journal of Applied Ecology 426, (2003).

22.         Kaminski, J. Badger culls don’t stop tuberculosis in cattle – the evidence is clear. The Guardian (online edition) (2011).at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/aug/11/badger-cull-dont-stop-bovine-tb>

23.         Harvey, F. Badger culling is ineffective, says architect of 10-year trial. The Guardian (online edition) (2011).at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/11/badger-culling-ineffective-krebs>

24.         Ameni, G., Vordermeier, M., Aseffa, A., Young, D. B. & Hewinson, R. G. Field Evaluation of the Efficacy of Mycobacterium bovis Bacillus Calmette-Guérin against Bovine Tuberculosis in Neonatal Calves in Ethiopia. Clinical Vand Vaccine Immunology 17, 1533–1538 (2010).

25.         McGill, I. et al. Simultaneous vaccination “best way” to tackle bTB. Vet Times 42, 35 (2012).

26.         Mathews, F., Lovett, L., Rushton, S. & Macdonald, D. W. Bovine tuberculosis in cattle: reduced risk on wildlife-friendly farms. Biology letters 2, 271–4 (2006).

27.         Driver, A. New research sheds light on bTB transmission. Farmer’s Guardian (online edition) (2013).at <http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/hot-topics/bovine-tb/new-research-sheds-light-on-btb-transmission/54470.article>

28.         Black, R. UK public opposed to badger cull, opinion poll suggests. BBC News (online edition) (2011).at <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13684482>

29.         Anon. Would a badger cull be justified? The Guardian (online edition) (2011).at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2011/jul/20/badger-cull-justified>

30.         Badger Protection League Badger Protection League - Supporters. (2012).at <http://www.badgerprotectionleague.com/page/supporters>

31.         Parkham, P. David Attenborough: badger cull could worsen TB in cattle. The Guardian (online edition) (2011).at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/14/david-attenborough-badger-cull>

32.         Anon. Sett for a Showdown. SchNEWS 843, 1 (2013).

33.         Stop the Cull The Times Hair DNA story with a bit of extra background. Stop the Cull (2013).at <http://badger-killers.co.uk/the-times-hair-dna-story-with-a-bit-of-extra-background/>

Follow @stonestanding

Austerity: A Public Meeting in Bath

From Bath People's Assembly:

Press Release 13/5/13 - Austerity: A Public Meeting

Following a strong line-up of successful public debates and events in recent times, including debates on fracking, the NHS and nuclear power, as well as last month's Visions for Change event, featuring stalls and talks from over 25 groups working for a better world and film director Ken Loach, Bath People's Assembly is now returning to its roots and organising a public meeting on austerity this Friday.

The aim of the meeting is to discuss the impact of the government's austerity programme on Bath residents, and to generate ideas for actions to ensure that no-one is unjustly affected. In particular, issues such as benefit cuts, changes to disability welfare, cuts to the NHS, the bedroom tax and related issues such as growing income inequality, workfare and redundancies will be addressed. All are welcome to attend the meeting, which is held between 7.15 and 9pm at the Friends' Meeting House, York St., Bath, BA1 1NG

Entry is free and light refreshments will be provided.

A Facebook event page has been created to promote the meeting: https://www.facebook.com/events/299842250148616/?fref=ts

Follow @stonestanding

Visions for Change 2013 - Full Details Announced

Here's the latest press release from Bath People's Assembly on this Saturday's Visions for Change event - NOT TO BE MISSED!!!

After months of planning, Visions for Change 2013 will open its doors to the public at 11am Saturday 27^th April. More than just groups with stalls, this year’s event features talks and short films, as well as the opportunity to engage with various groups active in the Bath area, find out what they are doing to make the world a better place and to get involved.

Organised by Bath People’s Assembly, the independent democratic forum that all residents of Bath are welcome to attend the meetings of, the event promises to be an exciting one, with a diverse range of groups and speakers, from environmental groups such as Greenpeace and Green Vision, groups concerned with business and economics such as Avon Co-operative Development Agency, the Bath Oliver and Bath LETS, groups campaigning for peace and an end to poverty such as Bath StopWar Coalition, Bath Amnesty and Bath Oxfam, groups opposing government cuts and the current handling of the economy including Bath Against Cuts, Occupy Bath, 38 Degrees and BARF, and many others, including Bath Foodcycle, New Hope and directors of radical films.

Last year’s event was a huge success – the event was packed out and many groups met each other for the first time and have since worked together more closely. It also inspired a similar event in Norwich, and an organiser from Visions for Change Norwich will be speaking at the Bath event. This year the event will be held on two floors – on the ground floor will be stalls and a café run by South West Food Not Bombs, and in the basement will be talks, short films and a radical photography exhibition.

The event is free and is open to the public between 11am and 3pm,and is in the Friends’ Meeting House, York St., Bath, BA1 1NG. Up to date information can be found on the Facebook event page: https://www.facebook.com/events/158627290953876/?fref=ts

The full list of groups attending this year is as follows:

Greenpeace
Bath Oxfam
Bath Against Cuts
Bath Amnesty
Energy Efficient Widcombe
38 Degrees
BARF (Bath Anarchists)
The Zeitgeist Movement
Occupy Bath
South West Against Nuclear
Bath Stop War Coalition
Bath Foodcycle
Frack Free Somerset
Bath People's Assembly
New Hope
Secret City
Bath Quakers
Bath Friends of Palestine
Bath Against the Badger Cull
Green Vision: The Bath Youth Climate Movement
Clevelands Pool Trust
Bath Green Drinks
Visions for Change Norwich
Forum Bath
Bath LETS
Bath Oliver
South West Food Not Bombs
Avon Co-operative Development Agency

UPDATE: Film director Ken Loach has now been confirmed as the guest speaker, between 11:30 and 12:00

Follow @stonestanding

Theory Corner #2: Rules for Radicals (Saul Alinsky)

Saul Alinsky's 1971 book "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals", published shortly before his death, has been a significant influence on radicals from all sides of the political spectrum - from anarchists and other left-wing political activists to right-wing Tea party activists in America. In in he presents 13 rules for activist tactics, based on his extensive experience as a community organiser. As the book is still in print and presumably still under copyright, only the text in quotation marks is directly lifted from the book itself. The remainder of the text is my own interpretation for which I've tried to keep examples contemporary.

RULES FOR RADICALS by Saul Alinsky
Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, p127-130

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have”

If you've got half a nation on your side, then you've got few issues showing your full force to your enemy. But if there's only a handful of you then you need to devise ways of making the enemy look like you're more powerful than you really are. Alinsky cites the example of Gideon: “Conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does”

2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people”

Undertaking an action beyond the experience of the people leads to “confusion, fear, and retreat”, claims Alinsky. It is important that the people are capable of undertaking the action and can perform it well.

3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy”

While you don't want to cause “confusion, fear, and retreat” amongst your own kind, this is highly desirable amongst the enemy. Dumbfound them with something that they are under-prepared for, and you've won a significant victory. However, remember that this victory may only be temporary and be prepared for the possibility of them catching up.

4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules”

As Alinksy states: “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity”. I would add to this the idea of making the enemy eat their own words. A very recent example of this is a 200,000 strong (and rising!) petition to make Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith live up to his claim that he could manage on £53 a week (sign it here: https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week). This also ties in with Rule 5.

5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon”

Ridicule is almost impossible to counteract. People like jokes, and when your enemy becomes one it is difficult for people to take them seriously. It also infuriates them and tips them off balance, causes them to react with impaired judgement, increasing the chance of making mistakes.

6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy”

This goes without saying. If you want people out trying to change the world, make it something they are going to want to do. One of the major reasons for the decline in the number of people on site at Occupy camps over time was that camping in October is not the same as camping in December or January. People stopped enjoying it, whereas it was fun to begin with. Make things fun! This leads into Rule 6.

7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag”

Yep, those tents weren't making the same impression in January 2012 as they did back in October 2011. I hate to admit it, but it really was time to move on and up the campaign a little using another tactic. Fortunately some people have done this, such as the occupation and subsequent community running of Friern Barnett library and Occupy Bath's seamless shift from camping to starting the Bath People's Assembly. The same tactic again and again gets boring and often annoying for the public and activists alike, and the message can often get lost in the process. Keep things fresh and exciting, and always have a plan of what to do next.

8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up”

Keep up the fight! If you score a minor or partial victory, don't let that be the end. Celebrate by all means, but then get back to work, knowing that things are already going in your favour. 

9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself”

The imagination of the enemy will probably make out that the action you've threatened them with will be far worse than what you're actually going to do. 

10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition”

As Alinsky puts it: “It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign”.

11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive”

Negative actions from the enemy can be used to your advantage and win over public support for your side, the victims of such inhuman brutality. Alinksy cites the example of Ghandi's tactic of passive resistance as a classic example.

12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative”

You may win the battle, but you will then be pushed for a realistic alternative. Best to have one of these up your sleeve for when that moment comes, otherwise you'll be in danger of ultimately losing the war.

13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”

Possibly the most controversial of the rules. Alinsky makes the point that the target is constantly trying to shift the blame elsewhere (such as a company director blaming his board, a company blaming their suppliers etc.). He rightly accepts that a specific target may be not be the only cause, and suggests that by pinning down a target, the others will come out of the woodwork. Alinsky also favours targetting people rather than institutions - for instance going after the CEO rather than the company itself. On polarization, he makes the point that when a decision has been made, even if there are pros and cons either way, one must assume that their decision is completely the right one.

Theory Corner

1. Socialism (Alexander Berkman)
2. Rules for Radicals (Saul Alinsky)

Follow @stonestanding

Bath Lib Dems are April Fools

On the one day where practical jokes are a socially acceptable norm, Occupy Bath played a small prank on the local Liberal Democrats, with hilarious consequences. Around 11am this morning, Occupy Bath put out a message on Facebook and Twitter - "WE'RE OCCUPYING DON FOSTER'S OFFICE (31 James Street West)!!! COME FIND US!", a blatant April Fool's prank if I ever saw one. If our local backstabbing MP's office isn't secure enough to keep out the 99%, then he really is even more of an imbecile than many of us thought.

But it appears that the local Lib Dems are even more gullible than predicted. Rather than using his brain and realising what date it was, Lib Dem Councillor Tim Ball fell for the prank and went down to Don's office to see if anyone was about. Only after this did he acknowledge that it was probably an April Fool's joke (although due to his grammar it appears that he may still be unsure...) - "just been there no one in sight is this another April fool joke". Someone buy this man a calendar next Christmas.

While no-one from Occupy Bath has yet owned up to posting the message, when asked about the incident a former resident of the Queen Square and the Royal Crescent occupations said "Just councillor Tim Ball being gullible and probably not amused. He should have expected us". Another occupier said "Gutted for him... I read also Paul Wiltshire seemed interested in the occupation, thanking Tim Ball for his 'on the spot report' - a sign that the Chron would've shortly been out to find us also, maybe?". This is yet another example of the Lib Dems proving themselves to be a fucking joke and a bunch of fools, locally and nationally. Nevermind, they'll be finished by the next election.

This isn't the first time that Occupy Bath have had dealings with Don Foster. He came to the old camp in Queen Square once, when he was supposed to have been elsewhere at a meeting regarding the NHS cuts (but presumably didn't want to show his face), and instead got a mouthful from a university lecturer over his voting record on various wars. Dirty Don then stated (and I heard this with my own ears) "I have no objections to this camp!" and promptly left for a "sports meeting".

Don Foster at Occupy Bath

Follow @stonestanding

Theory Corner #1: Socialism (Alexander Berkman)

This is the first installment of "Theory Corner", where I'll be posting a thought-inspiring radical text on a (roughly) monthly basis. Alexander Berkman's 1929 classic "Now and After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism", may be dated, but still holds up as an excellent and readable introduction to the subject matter. The chapter entitled "Socialism" I believe to still be of particular relevance to anyone who thinks that voting for a left-wing party could bring about true socialism, and poses a few questions relevant to today:

1. Should we be putting our efforts into campaigning for a more left-wing party (e.g. Labour, Greens, Socialist etc.) than the current government, or is revolution the only answer to our struggles?

2. How relevant would Berkman's ideas be is we had a different electoral system such as Alternative Vote or Proportional Representation?

3. Was Clement Attlee's post-war Labour government an exception, and could there possibly be other means of implementing socialism by parliamentary election?

I'm sure you can think of a few more - feel free to comment and discuss below.

SOCIALISM by Alexander Berkman
Now and After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism, Chapter 13
Full book can be found here: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism

There are many varieties of Socialists. There are Social Democrats, Fabian Socialists, National Socialists, Christian Socialists, and other labels. Generally speaking, they all believe in the abolition of poverty and unjust social conditions. But they disagree very much as to what would be ‘just’ conditions and, still more, how to bring them about.

These days even mere attempts to improve capitalism are often called ‘Socialism,’ while in reality they are only reforms. But such reforms cannot be considered socialistic because true Socialism does not mean to ‘improve’ capitalism but to abolish it altogether. Socialism teaches that the conditions of labor cannot be essentially bettered under capitalism; on the contrary, it shows that the lot of the worker must steadily get worse with the advancing development of industrialism, so that efforts to ‘reform’ and ‘improve’ capitalism are directly opposed to Socialism and only delay its realization.

The enslavement of the workers, inequality, injustice, and other social evils are the result of monopoly and exploitation, and that the system is upheld by the political machine called government. It would therefore serve no purpose to discuss those schools of Socialism (improperly so called) that do not stand for the abolition of capitalism and wage slavery. Just as useless it would be for us to go into allegedly socialistic proposals such as ‘juster distribution of wealth’, ‘equalization of income’, ‘single tax’, or other similar plans. These are not Socialism; they are only reforms. Mere parlor Socialism, such as Fabianism, for example, is also of no vital interest to the masses.

Let us therefore examine that school of Socialism which treats of capitalism and the wage system fundamentally, which deals with the worker, with the disinherited, and which is known as the Social Democratic movement. It considers all other forms of Socialism impractical and utopian; it calls itself the only sound and scientific theory of true Socialism as formulated by Karl Marx, the author of Capital, which is the gospel and guide of all Social Democrats.

Now, then, what do the Socialist followers of Karl Marx — known as Marxian Socialists, and whom, for the sake of brevity, we’ll call simply Socialists — propose?

They say that the workers can never become free and secure well being unless they abolish capitalism. The sources of production and the means of distribution must be taken out of private hands, they teach That is to say, the land, machinery, mills, factories, mines, railroads and other public utilities should not be owned privately, because such ownership enslaves the workers as well as mankind in general. Private possession of the things without which humanity cannot exist must therefore cease. The means of production and distribution should become public property. Opportunity for free use would do away with monopoly, with interest and profit, with exploitation and wage slavery. Social inequality and injustice would be eliminated, the classes would be abolished, and all men would become free and equal.

These views of Socialism are also in full accord with the ideas of most Anarchists.

The present owners — Socialism further teaches — will not give up their possessions without a struggle. All history and past experience prove that. The privileged classes have always held onto their advantages, always opposed every attempt to weaken their power over the masses. Even to-day they fight ruthlessly every effort of labor for betterment. It is therefore certain that in the future, as in the past, the plutocracy will resist if you try to deprive them of their monopolies, special rights, and privileges. That resistance will bring about a bitter struggle, a revolution.

True socialism is therefore radical and revolutionary. Radical, because it goes to the very root of the social trouble (radix meaning root in Latin); it does not believe in reforms and makeshifts, it wants to change things from the very bottom. Revolutionary, not because it wants bloodshed, but because it clearly foresees that revolution is inevitable; it knows that capitalism cannot be changed to Socialism without a violent struggle between the possessing classes and the dispossessed masses.

‘But if a revolution’, you ask, ‘then why do the Socialists want me to vote them into office? Is the revolution to be fought there?’

Your question is to the point. If capitalism is to abolished by revolution, what do the Socialists seek office for, why do they try to get into the government?

Here is just where the great contradiction of Marxian Socialism comes in, a fundamental contradiction that has been fatal to the Socialist movement in every country, and that has made it ineffectual and powerless to be of any use to the working class.

It is very necessary to realize that contradiction clearly in order to understand why Socialism has failed, why the Socialists have gotten into a blind alley and can’t lead the workers to emancipation.

What is that contradiction? It is this: Marx taught that ‘revolution is the midwife of capitalism pregnant with a new society’; that is, that capitalism will not be changed to Socialism except by revolution. But in his Communist Manifesto, on the other hand, Marx insists that the proletariat must get hold of the political machinery, of the government, in order to conquer the bourgeoisie. The working class — he teaches — must grasp the reins of the State, by means of the Socialist parties, and use the political power to usher in Socialism.

This contradiction has caused the greatest confusion among Socialists and has split the movement into many factions. The majority of them, the regular Socialist parties in every country, now stand for the conquest of political power, for the establishment of a Socialist government whose business it will be to abolish capitalism and bring about Socialism.

Judge for yourself if such a thing is possible. In the first place, Socialists themselves admit that the possessing classes will not give up their wealth and privileges without a bitter fight and that it will result in revolution.
Again, is the thing at all practical? Take the United States, for instance. For over fifty years the Socialists have been trying to elect party members to Congress with the result that after half a century of political work they have now just one member in the House of Representatives in Washington. How many centuries will it take at that rate (and the rate is declining rather than growing) to get a Socialist majority in Congress?
But even suppose that the Socialists could some day secure that majority. Will they then be able to change capitalism to Socialism? It would require amending and altering the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the individual States, for which a two-thirds vote would be necessary. Just stop and consider: the American plutocrats, the trusts, the bourgeoisie, and all the other forces that benefit by capitalism; would they just sit quietly and permit the changing of the Constitutions in such a manner as to deprive them of their wealth and privileges? Can you believe that? Do you remember what Jay Gould said when he was accused of getting his millions illegally and in defiance of the Constitution? ‘To hell with the Constitution!’ he replied. And so every plutocrat feels, even if he is not as frank as Gould. Constitution or no constitution, the capitalists would fight to the death for their wealth and privileges. And that is just what is meant by revolution. You can judge for yourself whether capitalism can be abolished by electing Socialists to office or whether Socialism can be voted in by the ballot. It is not hard to guess who’ll win a fight between ballots and bullets.
In former days the Socialists realized this very well. Then they claimed that they meant to use politics only for the purpose of propaganda. It was in the days when Socialist agitation was forbidden, particularly in Germany. ‘If you elect us to the Reichstag’ (the German parliament), the Socialists told the workers then, ‘we’ll be able to preach Socialism there and educate the people to it.’ There was some reason in that, because the laws which prohibited Socialist speeches did not apply to the Reichstag. So the Socialists favored political activity and took part in elections in order to have an opportunity to advocate Socialism.
It may seem a harmless thing, but it proved the undoing of Socialism. Because nothing is truer than that the means you use to attain your object soon themselves become your object. So money, for example, which is only a means to existence, has itself become the aim of our lives. Similarly with government. The ‘elder’ chosen by the primitive community to attend to some village business becomes the master, the ruler. Just so it happened with the Socialists.

Little by little they changed their attitude. Instead of electioneering being merely an educational method, it gradually became their only aim to secure political office, to get elected to legislative bodies and other government positions. The change naturally led the Socialists to tone down their revolutionary ardor; it compelled them to soften their criticism of capitalism and government in order to avoid persecution and secure more votes. To-day the main stress of Socialist propaganda is not laid any more on the educational value of politics but on the actual election of Socialists to office.

The Socialist parties do not speak of revolution any more. They claim now that when they get a majority in Congress or Parliament they will legislate Socialism into being: they will legally and peacefully abolish capitalism. In other words, they have ceased to be revolutionists; they have become reformers who want to change things by law.

Let us see, then, how they have been doing it during the past several decades.

In almost every European country the Socialists have secured great political power. Some countries now have Socialist governments, in others the Socialist parties have a majority; in others again Socialists occupy the highest positions in the State, such as cabinet offices, even those of Prime Ministers. Let us examine what they have accomplished for Socialism and what they are doing for the workers.

In Germany, the mother of the Socialist movement, the Social Democratic Party holds numerous government offices; its members are in the municipal and national legislative bodies, in the judiciary, and in the Cabinet. Two German Presidents, Haase and Ebert, were Socialists. The present Reichskanzler (Chancellor), Dr. Herman Muller, is a Socialist. Herr Loebe, President of the Reichstag, is also a member of the Socialist Party. Scheidemann, Noske, and scores of others in the highest positions in the government, in the army and navy, are all leaders of the powerful German Social Democratic Party. What have they done for the proletariat whose cause the Party is supposed to champion? Have they brought about Socialism? Have they abolished wage slavery? Have they made the least attempt toward those objects?

The uprising of the workers in Germany, in 1918, forced the Kaiser to flee the country, and the reign of the Hohenzollern was at an end. The people put their trust in the Social Democrats and voted them into power. But once secure in the government, the Socialists turned against the masses. They combined with the German bourgeoisie and the military clique, and themselves became the bulwark of capitalism and militarism. They not only disarmed the people and suppressed the toilers but they even shot and imprisoned every Socialist who dared protest against their treachery. Noske, as Socialist chief of the army during the Revolution, ordered his soldiers out against the workers and massacred them wholesale — the very proletarians who had voted him into power, his own brother Socialists. At his hands perished Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, two of the most devoted and loyal revolutionists, coldbloodedly murdered in Berlin on January 16, 1919, by army officers, with the secret connivance of the Socialist government. The Anarchist poet and thinker, Gustav Landauer, and scores of the best friends of labor shared the same fate all over Germany.
Haase, Ebert, Scheidemann, Noske, and their Socialist lieutenants did not permit the Revolution to accomplish anything vital. The moment they got into power they used it to crush rebellious labor. The open and stealthy murder of the truly revolutionary elements was but one of the means used by the Socialist government to subdue the Revolution. Far from introducing any changes for the benefit of the workers, the Socialist Party became the most zealous defender of capitalism, preserving all the prerogatives and benefits of the aristocracy and master class. That is why the German Revolution accomplished nothing except to drive out the Kaiser. The nobility remained in possession of all its titles, holdings, special rights, and privileges; the military caste retained the power it had under the monarchy; the bourgeoisie has been strengthened, and the financial kings and industrial magnates lord it over the German toiler to-day with even greater arbitrariness than before. The Socialist Party of Germany, with many million votes behind it, has succeeded — in getting into office. The workers slave and suffer as before.

The same picture you find in the other countries. In France the Socialist Party is strongly represented in the government. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Aristide Briand, who had also held the post of Prime Minister, was formerly one of the greatest lights of the Party in France. To-day he is the strongest champion of capitalism and militarism. Many of his former fellow-Socialists are his colleagues in the government, and many more present-day Socialists are in the French Parliament and other important offices. What are they doing for Socialism? What are they doing for the workers?

They are helping to defend and ‘stabilize’ the capitalistic regime of France; they are busy passing laws increasing the taxes so that the high government officials may get better salaries; they are engaged in collecting the war indemnity from Germany, whose workers, just as their French brothers, have to bleed for it. They are working hard to help ‘educate’ France, and particularly her school children, to hate the German people; they are aiding to build more warships and military airplanes for the next war which they are themselves preparing by cultivating the spirit of jingoism and vengeance against their neighbor countries. The new law mobilizing every adult man and woman of France in case of war was introduced by the prominent Socialist, Paul Boncour, and passed with the aid of the Socialist members of the Chamber of Deputies.
In Austria and Belgium, in Sweden and Norway, in Holland and Denmark, in Czecho-Slovakia, and in most other European lands the Socialists have risen to power. In some countries entirely so, in others partly. And everywhere, without a single exception, they have followed the same course, everywhere they have fore sworn their ideals, have duped the masses, and turned their political elevation to their own profit and glory.
‘These men who rose to power on the backs of labor and then betrayed the workers are scoundrels,’ I hear you say in just indignation. True, but that is not all. There is a deeper reason for this constant and regular betrayal, a greater and more significant cause for this almost universal phenomenon. Socialists are not essentially different from other men. They are human, just as you and I. And no man turns scoundrel or traitor over night.

It is power which corrupts. The consciousness that you possess power is self the worst poison that corrodes the finest metal of man. The filth and contamination of politics everywhere sufficiently prove that. Moreover, even with the best intentions Socialists in legislative bodies or in government positions find themselves entirely powerless to accomplish anything of a socialistic nature, anything of benefit to the workers. For politics is not a means to better the conditions of labor. It never was and never can be.

The demoralization and vitiation take place little by little, so gradually that one hardly notices it himself. Just visualize for a moment the condition of a Socialist elected to Congress, for instance. He is all alone, as against several hundred men of other political parties. He senses their opposition to his radical ideas, and he finds himself in a strange and unfriendly atmosphere. But he is there and he must participate in the business that is being transacted. Most of that business — the bills brought in, the laws proposed — is entirely foreign to him. It has no bearing whatever on the things the Socialist believes in, no connection with the interests of the working class voters who elected him. It is just the routine of legislation. It is only when a bill of some bearing upon labor or on the industrial and economic situation comes up, that our Socialist can take part in the proceedings. He does, and he is ignored or laughed at for his impractical ideas on the matter. For they are indeed impractical. Even at best, when the proposed law is not specially designed to grant new privileges to monopoly, it deals with matters involved in capitalist business, with some commercial treaty or agreement between one government and another. But he, the Socialist, was elected on a Socialist ticket, and it is his business to abolish the capitalistic government, to do away with the system of commerce and profit altogether, so how can he speak ‘practically’ on the submitted bills? Of course he becomes a butt of ridicule to his colleagues, and soon he begins to see how stupid and useless his presence is in the halls of legislation. That is why some of the best men of the Socialist Party in Germany turned against political action, as did John Most, for instance. But there are few persons of such honesty and courage. As a rule the Socialist remains in his position, and every day he is compelled to realize more and more what a senseless role he is playing. He comes to feel that he must find some way to take a serious part in the work, express sound opinions in the discussions and become a real factor in the proceedings. This is imperative in order to preserve his own dignity, to compel the respect of his colleagues, and also to show to his constituents that they did not elect a mere dummy.

So he begins to acquaint himself with the routine. He studies river dredging and coast improvement, reads up on appropriations, examines the hundred and one bills which come up for consideration, and when he occasionally gets the floor — which is not very often — he tries to explain the proposed legislation from the Socialist standpoint, as he is in duty bound to do. He ‘makes a Socialist speech.’ He dwells on the suffering of the workers and the crimes of wage slavery; he informs his colleagues that capitalism is an evil, that the rich must be abolished and the whole system done away with. He finishes his peroration and sits down. The politicians exchange glances, smile and joke, and the assembly goes over to the business in hand.
Our Socialist perceives that he is regarded as a laughing stock. His colleagues are getting tired of his ‘hot air’, and he finds more and more difficulty in securing the floor. He is often called to order and told he must speak to the point, but he knows that neither by his talk nor by his vote can he influence the proceedings in the slightest degree. His speeches don’t even reach the public; they are buried in the Congressional Record which no one reads, and he is painfully aware of being a solitary and unheeded voice in the wilderness of political machinations.

He appeals to the voters to elect more comrades to the legislative bodies. A lone Socialist cannot accomplish anything, he tells them. Years pass, and at last the Socialist Party succeeds in having a number of its members elected. Each of them goes through the same experience as their first colleague, but now they quickly come to the conclusion that preaching Socialist doctrines to the politicians is worse than useless. They decide to participate in the legislation. They must show that they are not just ‘spouting revolution’ but that they are practical men, statesmen, that they are doing something for their constituency, looking after its interests.
In this manner the situation compels them to take a ‘practical’ pert in the proceedings, to ‘talk lousiness,’ to fall in line with the matters actually dealt with in the legislative body. Full well they know that these things have no relation to Socialism or to the abolition of capitalism. On the contrary, all this law-making and political mummery only strengthens the hold of the masters upon the people; worse, it misleads the workers into believing that the legislatures may do something for them and deludes them with the false hope that they may get results by politics. In this way it keeps them looking to the law and government to ‘change things,’ to ‘improve’ their condition.

So the machinery of government carries on its work, the masters remain secure in their position, and the workers are held off with promises of ‘action’ by their representatives in the legislative bodies, by new laws that are to give them ‘relief’.

For years this process has been going on in all the countries of Europe. The Socialist parties have succeeded in electing many of their members to various legislative and government positions. Spending years in that atmosphere, enjoying good jobs and pay, the elected Socialists have themselves become part and parcel of the political machinery. They have come to feel that it is no use waiting for the Socialist revolution to abolish capitalism. It is more practical to work for some ‘betterment’, to try to get a Socialist majority in the government. For when they have a majority they will need no revolution, they now say.

Slowly, by degrees, the Socialist change has taken place. With growing success in elections and securing political power they turn more conservative and content with existing conditions. Removed from the life and suffering of the working class, living in the atmosphere of the bourgeoisie, of affluence and influence, they have become what they call ‘practical.’ Seeing at first hand the political machinery at work, knowing its debauchery and corruption, they have realized that there is no hope for Socialism in that swamp of deceit, bribery, and corruption. But few, very few Socialists find the courage to enlighten the workers about the hopelessness of politics to aid the cause of labor. Such a confession would mean the end of their political career, with its emoluments and advantages. So the great majority of them are content to keep their own counsel and let well enough alone. Power and position have gradually stifled their conscience, and they have not the strength and honesty to swim against the current.

That is what has become of Socialism, which had once been the hope of the oppressed of the world. The Socialist parties have joined hands with the bourgeoisie and the enemies of labor. They have become the strongest bulwark of capitalism, pretending to the masses that they are fighting for their interests, while in reality they have made common cause with the exploiters. They have so far forgotten and gone back on their original Socialism that in the great World War the Socialist parties in even country in Europe helped their governments to lead the workers to slaughter.

The war has clearly demonstrated the bankruptcy of Socialism. The Socialist parties, whose motto was ‘Workers of the world, unite!’ sent the toilers to murder each other. From having been bitter enemies of militarism and war they became defenders of ‘their’ land, urging the workers to don the soldiers’ uniform and kill their fellow workers in other countries.

Strange indeed! For years they had been telling the proletarians that they have no country that their interests are opposed to those of their masters, that labor has ‘nothing to lose but its chains’, but at the first sign of war they called upon the toilers to join the army and voted support and money for the government to do the work of carnage. This happened in every country in Europe. True, there were Socialist minorities that protested against the war, but the dominant majority in the Socialist parties condemned and ignored them, and lined up for the slaughter.

It was a most terrible betrayal not only of Socialism but of the whole working class, of humanity itself. Socialism, whose purpose it was to educate the world to the evils of capitalism, to the murderous character of patriotism, to the brutality and uselessness of war; Socialism, which was the champion of man’s rights, of liberty and justice, the hope and promise of a better day, miserably turned into a defender of the government and the masters, became the handmaiden of the militarists and jingo nationalists. The former Social Democrats became ‘social patriots.’

This did not happen because of mere treachery, however. To take that view would be to miss the main point and misunderstand its warning lesson. Treachery it was indeed, both in its nature and effect, and the results of that treachery have bankrupted Socialism, disillusioned the millions that earnestly believed in it, and filled the world with black reaction. But it was not only treachery, not treachery of the ordinary kind. The real cause tees much deeper.

We are what we eat, a great thinker said. That is, the life we lead, the environment we live in, the thoughts we think, and the deeds we do — all subtly fashion our character and make us what we are.

The Socialists’ long political activity and cooperation with bourgeois parties gradually turned their thoughts and mental habits from Socialist ways of thinking. Little by little they forgot that the purpose of Socialism was to educate the masses, to make them see through the game of capitalism, to teach them that government is their enemy, that the church keeps them in ignorance, that they are duped by ideas designed to perpetuate the superstitions and wrongs on which present-day society is built. In short, they forgot that Socialism was to be the Messiah who would drive darkness out of the minds and byes of men, lift them from the slough of ignorance and materialism, and rouse their natural idealism, the striving for justice and brotherhood, toward liberty and light.

They forgot it. They had to forget in order to be ‘practical,’ to ‘accomplish’ something, to become successful politicians. You cannot dive into a swamp and remain clean. They had to forget it, because their object had become to ‘get results’, to win elections, to secure power. They knew that they could not have success in politics by telling the people the whole truth about conditions- for the truth not only antagonizes the government, the church, and the school; it also offends the prejudices of the masses. These it is necessary to educate, and that is a slow and difficult process. But the political game demands success, quick results The Socialists had to be careful not to come in too great conflict with the powers that be; they could not afford to lose time in educating the people.

It therefore became their main object to win votes. To achieve that they had to trim their sails. They had to lop off, little by little, those parts of Socialism which might result in persecution by the authorities in disfavor from the church, or which would keep bigoted elements from joining their ranks. They had to compromise.
They did. First of all they stopped talking revolution. They knew that capitalism cannot be abolished without a bitter struggle, but they decided to tell the people that they could bring about Socialism by legislation, by law, and that all that is necessary is to put enough Socialists in the government.

They ceased denouncing government as an evil; they quit enlightening the workers about its real character as an agency for enslavement. Instead they began asserting that they, the Socialists, are the staunchest upholders of ‘the State’ and its best defenders; that far from being opposed to ‘law and order’, they are its truest friends; that they are, indeed, the only ones who sincerely believe in government, except that the government must be socialistic; that is, that they, the Socialists, are to make the laws and run the government.
Thus, instead of weakening the false and enslaving belief in law and government, to weaken it so that those institutions could be abolished as a means of oppression, the Socialists actually worked to strengthen the people’s faith in forcible authority and government, so that to-day the members of the Socialist parties the world over are the strongest believers in the State and are therefore called Statists. Yet their great teachers, Marx and Engels, clearly taught that the State serves only to suppress, and that when the people will achieve real liberty the State will be abolished, will ‘disappear.’

Socialist compromise for political success did not stop there. It went further. To gain votes, the Socialist parties decided not to educate the people about the falsity, hypocrisy, and menace of organized religion. We know what a bulwark of capitalism and slavery the church, as an institution, is and always has been. It is obvious that people who believe in the church, swear by the priest and bow to his authority, will naturally be obedient to him and his commands. Such people, steeped in ignorance and superstition, are the easiest victims of the masters. But in order to achieve greater success in their election campaigns, The Socialists decided to eliminate educational anti-religious propaganda so as not to offend popular prejudices. They declared religion a ‘private matter,’ and excluded all criticism of the church from their agitation.

What you personally believe in is indeed your private affair; but when you get together with other people and organize them into a body to impose your belief on others, to force them to think as you do, and to punish them (to the extent of your power) if they entertain other beliefs,, then it is no more your ‘private matter’. You might as well say that the Inquisition, which tortured and burned people alive as heretics, was a ‘private affair.’

It was one of the worst betrayals of the cause of liberty by the Socialists, this declaration that religion is a ‘private matter’. Mankind has slowly grown out of the fearful ignorance, superstition, bigotry, and intolerance which made religious persecution and inquisitions possible. The advance of science and invention, the printed word and means of communication have brought enlightenment, and it is that enlightenment which has to some extent freed the human mind from the clutches of the church. Not that she has entirely ceased to damn those who do not accept her dogmas. There is still enough of that persecution, but the advance of knowledge has robbed the church of her former absolute sway over the mind, the life, and liberty of man; just as progress has in the same way deprived government of the power to treat the people as absolute slaves and serfs.

You can easily see then how important it is to continue the work of enlightenment which has proven such a liberating blessing for the people in the past; to continue it, so that it may some day help us do away entirely with all the forces of superstition and tyranny.

But the Socialists determined to give up this most necessary work, declaring religion to be a ‘private matter.’
Those compromises and the repudiation of the real aims of Socialism paid rather well. The Socialists gained political strength at the sacrifice of ideals. But that ‘strength’ has in the long run spelled weakness and ruin.
There is nothing more corrupting than compromise. One step in that direction calls for another, makes it necessary and compelling, and soon it swamps you with the force of a rolling snowball become a landslide.
One by one those features of Socialism which were really significant, educational, and liberating were sacrificed in behalf of politics, to secure more favorable public opinion, lessen persecution, and accomplish ‘something practical’; that is, to get more Socialists elected to office. In this process, which has been going on for years in every country, the Socialist parties in Europe acquired a membership that numbered millions.

But these millions were not socialistic at all; they were party followers who had no conception of the real spirit and meaning of Socialism; men and women steeped in old prejudices and capitalistic views; bourgeois-minded people, narrow nationalists, church members, believers in divine authority and consequently also in human government, in the domination of man by man, in the State and its institutions of oppression and exploitation, in the necessity of defending ‘their’ government and country, in patriotism and militarism.
Is it any wonder, then, that when the Great War broke out Socialists in every country, with few exceptions, took up arms to ‘defend the fatherland’, the fatherland of their rulers and masters? The German Socialist fought for his autocratic Kaiser, the Austrian for the Hapsburg monarchy, the Russian for the Tsar, the Italian for his King, the Frenchman for the ‘republic,’ and so the ‘Socialists’ of every country and their followers went on slaughtering each other until ten millions of them lay dead, and twenty millions were blinded, maimed, and crippled.

It was inevitable that the policy of political, parliamentary activity should lead to such results. For in truth so-called political ‘action’ is, so far as the cause of the workers and of true progress is concerned, worse than inaction. The very essence of politics is corruption, sail-trimming, the sacrifice of your ideals and integrity for success. Bitter are the fruits of that ‘success’ for the masses and for every decent man and woman the world over.

As a direct consequence of it millions of workers in every country are discouraged and disheartened. Socialism — they justly feel — has deluded and betrayed them. Fifty, nay, almost a hundred years of Socialist ‘work’ have resulted in the entire bankruptcy of the Socialist parties, in the disillusionment of the masses, and have brought about a reaction which now dominates the entire world and holds labor by the throat with an iron grip.

Do you still think that the Socialist parties with their elections and politics can help the proletariat out of wage slavery?

Several minor edits have been made to the above text in order to present it as a standalone piece

Copyright disclaimer: As far as I am aware, the copyright on the text posted above expired in 2006 (70 years after the death of the author) see here for more info: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-types.htm. Berkman also highly rated Pierre-Joseph "property is theft" Proudhon, and therefore I expect he'd have no issue with his work being distributed in this manner.

Theory Corner

1. Socialism (Alexander Berkman)
2. Rules for Radicals (Saul Alinsky)

Follow @stonestanding