Marxism vs Militarism: How the media presents the UK armed forces

From the annual remembrance day parades with every street corner and war memorial showered with paper poppies and the previous year's VE day celebrations (in which Union Jack bunting and celebratory afternoon teas in honour of the UK winning the Second World War gave a superficial sense of "80 years of peace" in a war torn world ruled by corrupt neo-colonial and imperialist warmongering leaders' interests) to the constant arms fairs and attempts at recruitment into the army.... to the ultimate climax of new US air bases in the UK, the presence of the military in the UK is ever more obvious. It appears continually creeping up on us like some grotesque spectre of impending doom of things to come, much akin to a vile version of Charles Dickens' Ghost of Things to Come but clothed in garish green and brown camouflage, hinting at the huge threat and fear for our lives unless we facilitate effective revolution against the global capitalistic and ultranationalist systems we live under ruled by exploitation and expropriation of land, and  for the main world leaders to come together the sinister desire to engage with a favourite pastime: seeing how many people can be illegally killed without intervention by the UN taking place....

Its also important to take into account the fact that when assessing the extent of a nation's military influence, its not always a developing vs developed world or a coloniser vs colonised situation regarding the military powers with the greatest influence which can be observed; the same principles of a significant superpower status and ability to control and any other nation when acting as an imperial power is considered universally as the peak stage of supposed international development. One of the most effective and efficient ways of reaching this point is through military expansion. This was something that Marx considered an inherently socially and politically conservative ideal, which would in many ways appear somewhat counter-intuitive to proposed revolutionary intentions considering, as he put it, they were "performing a system maintaining repressive function" which exists merely to fulfil and work around the interests of the elite with vested interests in the capitalist dimension of neo-colonial warfare (Wolpin, 1978). Not only this, but it is also clear to see that a nation's armed forces prove to act as a very effective illustration of the structural and hierarchical integrity of the current classist and elitist society ruled by the ever present repression and imbalances in power that define it. This is observed through the strong hierarchy of influence and importance amongst those installed in the military. For societies in which the military does not appear to have very much separating it from the government and parliamentary leadership, or temporarily or permanently acting as the government, this is especially apparent.

However, as materialists who would consider making use of the existing structures and defining features of current society fundamental in achieving successful revolution, Marx and Engels would likely not have disregarded or refused to acknowledge the history of the military in assisting the formation of the capitalist society they studied. In fact, military training was often used by many revolutionaries to their advantage to further assist their ability to effectively rise against and overthrow the oppression, and promote improved social mobility throughout the process of successful revolution. This was the case with Engels, who had undergone military training at a young age, wrote with interest on militarism, and was formerly a volunteer for the Berlin-based military group, Brigade of the Artillery, which was the turning point for his political development, and the way he met Marx and many other of the influential left-Hegelians that the basis of his political philosophies were built upon. He used this military training and experience to actively assist the armed uprising in Prussia as a general around this time, and in turn allowing this to assist his working with Marx in London. So much so, he is referred to by the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism Online as a "military thinker" as opposed to a revolutionary theorist, which further proves to exemplify this sentiment.

When linking back to present times and the role of the media in presenting and glamourising the UK's military and imperial past, in spite of its empire no longer being active and its hard power elements having diminished over time, it can be seen that the main appeal to preserve the military influence of the UK and continue to assist its expansion is largely down to a sense of national pride, and perhaps nostalgia for imperial times, as well as with a lack of willingness to remove existing structures so heavily ingrained in the cultural and socio-political history of the nation.

What we can learn from the Bay of Pigs Invasion: An analysis of the imperial and neo-colonial dimension of present day intra-American relations

Since long before James Monroe's execution of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 composed with the core principle that the US is free to engage with the assets of colonial Latin America for its own gains without interference from the European colonisers active within this region, the Latin American continent has become regarded as the subject of many anti-colonial and internationalist revolutionary movements, as well as, in stark contrast, the site of the most significant interest by the US in fulfilling their individual neo-colonial capitalist aims. These patterns in power have remained continual throughout the course of the rest of the 19th and 20th century, with rivalries between European colonial superpowers becoming prevalent, alongside multiple conflicts having been established between the Global North and the Global South during this period, and further accelerated under Trump's presidency over the last year and a half, by which many violations of international law and order through illegal occupation and exploitation of land within Latin America and the Caribbean had taken place. It is through observing the case that the US failed in their attempt at overthrowing Fidel Castro and declaring influence over Cuba in the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion (along with the observations being made on power dynamic with the US and Latin America in the Cuban missile crisis having taken place the following year) that one can reflect on the importance of peace and international security, as well as the ongoing legacy of crucial mobilisation against imperial war by the people of Latin America, when examining historic and present day intra-American relations.

The revolutionary tradition and widespread class struggle in Cuba was rooted in change initiated through the successful overthrowing of Fulgencio Batista to facilitate a more people-centred revolution led by more humanitarian aims built on the reversal of the corrupt governance previously apparent by which mass unemployment, widespread social and economic disparity, poorer living standards and fear and violence under a corrupt and oppressive previous government. This appeared to have worked very well and provided the necessary reforms needed to give a greater sense of stability within Cuban society. Advancements in social welfare systems implemented during this period still remain to be evident and in practice in Cuba at this present day. However, in reflecting on the following year and the attempts by Khrushchev to assist Cubas military influence through the provision of Soviet nuclear missiles to act as further defence against the potential threat of invasion by the US proved to also have been important in recognition of this sentiment and its importance in understanding stability and international security for Latin America and the Caribbean as well as helping important reflection on the close ties between the western Soviet powers and the Global South. This assisted the lead up to the Cuban missile crisis, and its aims to sabotage any US military intervention proposed. While this didn’t necessarily achieve the desired result in several ways, it was important in highlighting the perceptions people have of post colonial Latin America.

The penchant of the US (and much of the western world in general) for increasing their individual influence as sovereign nation states so as to preserve their individual superpower status through the elimination of supposedly significant threats to their lasting colonial power is very much apparent when observing their many attempts to overthrow many revolutionary left attempts at socio-political change. This would thus exemplify the need for any attempts at revolution to be globalised and to take place on a international level which encompasses the needs and interests of all nations regardless of levels of development and sovereign influence as individual powers able to govern themselves and have a role in assisting other forms of governance on an international scale. Equally, when applied to these contexts, the long term success of proposed socialist revolution should be assessed largely in relation to its sustainably and ability to remain a permanent form by which ongoing social, economic and political reforms on a global scale can continue to take place, assisting intended revolutionary goals for a continual transition to an anti-capitalist utopian socialist society. This proposal as advocated for by Fidel Castro and revolutionary movements in Cuba would thus appear to act as the complete antithesis to the US' intended aims for society built on capitalism, exploitation and expropriation of land, resources and people. The parallels with many of the other Global South nations (particularly those within geographically important or vulnerable situations exacerbated further through Western superpower interests in controlling and annexing their resource rich regions) can be made increasingly apparent. However, the true strength of collective mobilisation on both a small individual level and nationally and the irrepressible nature of a global revolution of society had proven to surpass capitalist influence and was fundamental in the establishment of a sense of unity and solidarity within Latin America and the Caribbean in class struggle and the the fight for emancipation from their colonial past.

Imperial war and its ongoing legacy: how colonial superpower interests rise above the law

Through reflecting on the US' current interests and continual precedent to engage with and provide support and direct military action to allied nations at war, further exemplifies the sentiment that war is only beneficial for the already internationally influential superpowers wishing to further preserve and maintain their capitalist and colonial expansionist agenda. Lenin's sentiment on the rise of global imperialism as being the highest stage of capitalism all rapidly expanding nations aim for to reach their ultimate in development as sovereign states clearly remains hugely apparent. This is merely a means of demonstrating authoritarian influence and displaying patterns of power believed to be constant and unchanging, thus providing effective foundations for future neo-colonial means of using culture, political ideals and Western based means of accelerating economic change to support their individual internationalist capitalist interests, these are what Pregger-Roman considers as "series of exploitative commercial relationships", these being achieved through mercantilism, industrial advancement and international trade, all core elements of global capitalist society. This perfectly complements much of Trotsky and Luxemburg's theory on the importance of globalising a continual and sustainably executed revolution, and acts as the exact antithesis to much of Kautsky and Bernstein's dialect, by which imperialism and socialist revolution are seen to effectively take place in conjunction with each other's mutual existence, and thus not appear to be counterintuitive and representative of the opposing capitalist ideals that Lenin describes.

These ideals can be effectively applied and used to condemn and oppose unjustifiable imperial violence and abuse of military power (as is currently being observed with nations such as the US and Israel) to control and exploit land, resources, and the potential geostrategic benefits to other nations affected by conflict and repression, overshadowed, denied and made unimportant by them through drawing about claims of self-defence and direct attacks against the supposed enemy. This can thus be seen to appear as an effective means by which to remain corrupt and not transparent over unlawful activities and make death and genocide seem somewhat more palatable to a wider audience. This can be observed through the US and the UK governments' complicity in the ongoing genocide in Gaza, and more recently the illegal occupation and bombing of Iran and Lebanon, and the blocking supplies of aid to Cuba. 

Equally, Security also continues to remain a significant issue and major strain on the affected nations undergoing unresolved conflict, and one which is complex, multifaceted and without clear cut means of effective resolution. This has been a particularly significant issue with the US and the Middle East's relations, in that the US was directly present and an active contributor to this region, at the same time Iran facilitated a major security complex with the US when under the Shah. This, in spite of on the surface appearing to be important in developing their geopolitical power and position with economic relations and interconnectivity, it helped their exploitation and ongoing threats from abroad led by the US. This acted as the key point by which the Iranian economy began to decline and reliance on the US continued to be at its greatest, thus effectively foreshadowing today's conflicts. This was a period of major conservativism and authoritarian governance for Iran domestically, as well as, somewhat ironically, their greater assertiveness against alternative western authoritarianism, and their status as the supposed e ‘Policeman’ of the Gulf and the strongest US ally in the Middle East" (Hussain, 2015). This can thus exemplify sentiments that imperialism and the actions that lead to it are favoured by rapidly expanding global powers of varying levels of development to further support their international capitalist influence, as was hypothesised perhaps in much Leninist dialect, potentially showing clear parallels with the globalisation of the Russian Revolution.

This has been overshadowed through claims that the bombing of Iran would be a means of bringing about peace through the overthrowing of a far right government (in spite of obvious breaches of international law by which unjustifiable and illegal violence against innocent civilians has taken place). This has proven to act as a crucial turning point for the rise in far right violence and ultra-imperial, supremacist and fascist attitudes having become increasingly apparent. This, as well as being clearly influenced by a sense of fear and desperation due to failures of current political systems, leads to the ideal conditions for fascist extremism to flourish. The highest stages of supposed development through extremes in capitalist influence and superpower status can thus be reached. Moreover, leading on from this point, it can be seen that there is a common recurring pattern of resource demands and the need to further extrapolate internationally valuable commodities (typically oil, cash crops and fossil fuels) so as to assist the accumulation of greater wealth and economic power, and gain control over more valuable land to fulfil their neo-colonial aims. These appear to exclusively support only the developed imperial world. This, therefore, acts as further explanation to substantiate claims presented here that imperial war only functions as a means by which the already influential highly developed nations can further preserve and expand their own geopolitical influence at the major price of having the majority of the world undergo major socioeconomic and political challenges with lasting impacts for the future stability and prosperity of much of the world.

Together Alliance demo against the far right: Spreading love, hope and unity from Portsmouth

 You'll notice I've been a bit quiet lately. Not to worry, I'm okay but just busy with uni work and other commitments. More great posts soon to come.

Yesterday I went to London with my Portsmouth comrades to what was the largest anti-far right counter-demo in UK history which amassed half a million anti-racists marching together from Park Lane to Trafalgar square with the aim of uniting the people to demonstrate pride in the diverse cultural landscape of the country we live in and celebrate all who call it home. Unlike the pathetically small group of right-wing counterparts failing to provoke us, we were not establishing a mobilisation fuelled by fear and hatred, but collective hope for a peaceful future in which we could all live as one without the fear of conflict or persecution that comes against us for merely being who we are. Seeing the multitude of causes, signs shown and political groups represented, this felt like a true mobilisation to bring together and establish links between all means of mobilisation, and truly bring to light all forms of collective action we all as citizens of this world united in struggle can take, with these naturally not including anger and hate. Ultimately, this showed how there were truly many more of us anti-fascists combined with our common aim to overrule hate with love and fear with strength, than any sad racists with fragile bruised egos wishing to sabotage us with their displays of superficial so-called power. We now felt stronger than we imagined, and collectively a clear force to be reckoned with. Collectively united against the constant persecution and abuse of many, we all felt truly like cogs in a machine all here in our small individual forms to bring about varying degrees of change. 

And this wasn't just down to observation within our bloc. The press (even the BBC, who are far from progressive and in support of our causes usually) was saying this too. We had five coaches organised by Stand Up to Racism coming from Portsmouth for this event, including one specific student coach with 30 people on it, and our SWSS group was the largest there. This was the largest mobilisation coming from Portsmouth since the Iraq war. I also, on a much smaller scale, managed to make a paper selling record for our SWSS and SWP, in that I was able to sell twelve copies of the Socialist Worker in the space of less than half an hour.

Unlike with many other protests against the far right in which I have left feeling demoralised, trampled on and drowned out by oppression and abuse, I got on the coach back to Portsmouth feeling stronger and with greater hope for the future. I felt that our collective efforts in crushing hate and making racism unwelcome in society, had really succeeded. We truly felt we were winning and our constant activism (even when reception was poor) had never failed. When travelling to and from many anti far right demos, I usually aim to keep a fairly low profile and make myself difficult to individually identify and arrest, or get recognised by the racists (wearing limited pin badges, fairly neutral clothing, less obvious makeup). But this time I didn't feel the need to worry about this so much, an obvious positive. The small far-right group waving Union Jacks, Shah Iranian flags, US flags and Israeli flags (how does one even support all of those at the same time?) were too small to be of any threat. You luckily couldn't even hear their chants. I hope that demos such as this continue to inspire others to bring about positive change and realise that, however small their actions, they are not irrelevant and they shouldn't feel afraid of the oppression and to lose hope because of this.

Trotsky, Lenin and Luxemburg: a revisionist take on the role of the military in achieving revolution

 

Being considered as a means by which to maintain security, stability and assist the restoration of diplomacy between nations, as well as an instrumental means by which to preserve the individual economic and political influence that major global powers rely upon to maintain their superpower status, it is clearly apparent that the prioritisation of military interests would act as an effective indicator of a comparatively more right wing state. This is especially apparent if there are strong military alliances having been active within these nations, and would further prove to exemplify the sentiment that the imperial means by which to maintain and reach the highest stage of capitalism, as a way of assisting these. The reason is thus clear why many on the left would act repulsed and appalled by it taking centre stage in international political decision making. This can be seen with Isegrim-Schippel regarding the militia as "an impossibility and an absurdity" when going about his crusade against the development of a militia. His reasoning, despite also being in favour of nations having a strong and well-established military in that it can relieve economic pressures on society, is that it is a waste of resources and is economically impractical to spend so much of a country's GDP on the weapons and military training. This military training in question tends to relate to the youth, something which he finds problematic considering that there is supposedly the potential for the non-commissioned military officers "to exert the most corruptive influence on the youth". When linking back on the point regarding the development of a strong military, this appears to very much coincide with the arguably leftist and internationalist principle of individual military autonomy. This can be closely linked with the prevalence of issues posed by membership to military alliances today, such as with the case of the UK and its reliance on the US for military reasons as opposed to the development and strategic planning of their own armed forces, a decision made largely for their own right-wing vested interests.

The clear parallels with these ideals and those presented by the internationalist and Marxist revisionist Trotsky can be clearly apparent. This is observed through him reflecting on war as being something of an extension of politics and a means of further continuing revolution, with the existing army functioning as the "bulwark of the Tsarist regime". This sentiment is considered to differ quite a lot from the views adopted by other, perhaps more accelerationist, Marxists, in that the militia in itself would prove to act as  therefore prove to act as an important catalyst to the destruction of the old state and comes about due to its existence, and, therefore, the need to protest against its presence. It is through this that we can consider being a revolutionary as not merely being one who engages in direct action and dismantles existing systems, but one who actively seeks to bring about change through implementing new mechanisms for managing society and acting within the interests of the general people versus the elite with the decision making power, so as to develop a new and radically different form of society. While this can perhaps be seen as a more statist and supposedly less radical approach to achieving societal reform, it would appear to thus act as the way in which true democratic and socialist principles can effectively be preserved, so as to further effectively facilitate revolutionary change. It is through an understanding of this that the formation of militias would only act as one part of the achieving revolution with these intents, and clearly not the primary solution. This, according to him, would only be successful through a permanent international socialist revolution. 

This appears to starkly contrast with Lenin's revolutionary aims in that, despite being of similar ideological basis, there was differing emphasis on the use of force in achieving revolution. During the time of the early 20th century and especially in the lead up to the first Russian Revolution, the Russian army rapidly increased in scale and strength. This revolution began in St Petersburg through the mass mobilisation of an army of workers that is known as the "Bloody Sunday" massacre featuring clandestine use of stolen weapons in a protest against the government. This, Trotsky didn't believe to be a sustainable means by which to facilitate an effective ongoing revolution. Considering that his main aim was for a "permanent revolution" which featured gradual transition from an authoritarian capitalist system to a state of complete social democracy without the presence of a state in the form by which it was previously known, the idea of mass uprising and rapid dismantling of all elements of the existing capitalist system would thus prove to be fatalistic. As a result, he instead advocated the democratization of all, along with allowing citizens to form their own individual reactionary efforts. These didn't necessarily need to feature the use of weapons, considering his claims that:

"if the masses possessed machine guns and rifles. . . .this would largely remove the inevitability of an insurrection. The undecided army would lay down its arms at the feet of the armed people. But even unarmed, the masses possessed a great weapon-a moral weapon-their readiness to die"

This would further exemplify the strong revolutionary spirit ever present amongst the masses being in itself enough to allow them to gain the necessary influence and support amongst each other, so as to be able to effectively continue their revolution. After all, he saw it as a permanent internationalist movement which all nations would assist and mutually gain from, all sharing the key intention to greater mobilise all and unite them within class war (seen as a permanent phenomenon).

Is post-colonial international sovereignty an effective measure of development?

 As Lenin claimed, imperialism would appear by many as the highest stage of capitalism and the ultimate in social and economic advancement and civilisation. In fact, in present day political discourse, it remains one of the few things universally accepted by all, Global North or Global South, isolated or geo strategically engaged, coloniser or colonised. It is through this that many tensions arise between major settler colonial powers as to their positions of power and ability to effectively negotiate peace and agree on administration of effective security. Equally, on the other hand, as well as effectively severing ties between nations and leading to conflicts arising, alliances equally influential imperial superpowers can also further develop their influence to support internationalist aims, often leading to them becoming increasingly inter reliant on each other to further preserve their security and influence. This can prove to have clear negative consequences with regard to their sovereignty and ability to govern themselves, as well as therefore hindering potential development. It is through an understanding of this that one can effectively draw conclusions as to how internationally motivated a lot of these actions appear, and what ways supposed social development can best be achieved.

                            Varying forms of sovereignty I have placed on a political compass.

One may consider the relationship of the US and the UK in relation to geopolitics and international military operations to better understand this reasoning. While having historically had a strong and powerful empire and major hard power, soon effectively paving the way for their rapidly evolving soft power and cultural influence, the UK is also very much dependent on other nations’ resources to develop. While appearing somewhat isolationist in its approach to trade and communications and aiming to maintain an autarky position through scepticism of trade bloc membership and relations with other European countries so as to greater preserve its own national identity and take full advantage of its individual social infrastructure, from a military standpoint they are heavily reliant on the US’ influence, and a key player in assisting the provision of military aid and direct assistance in times of conflict. It is here that we can clearly see something of a diplomatic internationalist dimension to their operations much akin to the US, yet a clear legacy steeped in national pride and cultural identity. This can be questioned in regard to its positive influence, and the forms of internationalist nationalism that nations take can be clearly observed. 

In relation to this, one might regard national pride as a trivial and insignificant measure of development and relate more to the more complex and multifaceted sociopolitical aspects that could influence this when observing these sentiments. However, it is hugely prevalent and plays a significant role in the development of a nation's sovereignty and individual ability to use aspects of their culture and individual ideology to support their global influence and protect them against imperial threat. Settler colonial violence and abuse of power has maintained presence as a significant issue hindering international relations throughout the past century, and in turn being used as a means of further oppression by the imperial and capitalistic superpowers that would be able to directly benefit from it with regard to preserving their global influence. 

Equally, it also proves to be important to note that, while not directly being linked with imperial activity, the successful use of soft power and use of culture by the west has proven to have been instrumental in assisting the degradation of national identity and the  individual social, cultural and demographic characteristics of the colonised nations. This can thus act as a threat to diversity and result in greater homogeneity of culture globally. This can often be observed when realising the influence of the greater accessibility of Western media, in that this can mean that clear bias towards colonial and imperial centric nations' political perspectives. This could thus potentially foster a rise in pro-imperialist attitudes and the growth of capitalist ideals for these nations affected by globalisation and cultural homogenisation, meaning that attempts by the developing world to establish their own imperial power and superpower status so as to reach the highest stage of capitalist development (linking back on the ideas presented by Lenin in his 1917 theory on imperialism). As a result, it could be seen that international sovereignty, be that through well-established superpower status and global governance, economic self-sufficiency, or through success in nations' creation of cultural capital, would be one of the core means by which to achieve the ultimate in development (or as an effective means by which to avoid potential alternative geopolitical conflict and exploitation of influence that would hinder this).

Ethnic and cultural tensions can continue to arise for these nations as a result of this change with there being a very noticeable sense that indigenous populations would be left unsupported and their culture and environment could become under threat, thus meaning that they would often face barriers to accessing adequate infrastructure, support and employment therefore meaning that their standard of living and quality of life would likely have got considerably worse. This would mean that socioeconomic disparities and already existing equalities would likely continue to become even more apparent than they already are, and could thus put the main means of sovereign influence and autonomy from the westernised world would be reduced, leading to uneven development.

Overall, while one may see the functioning of nations as individual sovereign states to often be a position somewhat dictated by isolationist and individual capitalist motives, thus appearing to present an anti-internationalist sentiment, it is clear that this is not always the case. It can appear that from the perspective of imperially motivated future colonisers as well as the more revolutionary internationalist socialist nations, and those wishing to develop their own specific economic influence to assist their potential international relations, or reduce themselves from existing agreements or alliances that appear to hinder or have a negative influence on their interests. Therefore, it is clear that international sovereignty and ability to maintain one's own economic and political autonomy can prove to be instrumental in further promoting, assisting and acting as an effective indicator of international development.

Holocaust Memorial Day: Reflecting on the politics of antisemitism and how we can stop it

 

Wedding photo of my Jewish grandparents, Rita and Maurice (taken in 1962) who lived through the Holocaust and World War 2

This is probably going to be one of the most personal blog posts I have written (as regular readers would notice, I rarely write about myself and my own life) but I feel that it really needs to be as such for us to fully understand and reflect on the dire situation of continued conflict which ongoing settler colonial rule continues to divide and persecute us. This places vile imperialist and authoritative undertones on religion, which there should not be; it is in its pure form all about inclusivity and respect for others further bringing together and celebrating the richness of our diverse and evolving society. Although not being religious myself and resenting the individuals who have used religion to exploit and abuse influence, I strongly advocate religious freedom as a means of demonstrating the ideals I value, and feel a strong connection to the cultural heritage that comes from having a Jewish family and using this to further understand my beliefs. It is today on Holocaust Memorial Day that we should quietly reflect on this history. This is the point by which we must recognise that a true understanding and empathy for the suffering of those who have fallen victim to antisemitic abuse means recognition of the damage posed by exploitation and abuse of colonial and neocolonial influence on all levels so as not to consider anti-semitism as synonymous with antizionism (especially since Zionism is, in essence, what defeats the object of what is said in the Torah- Leviticus 25:23 “the land cannot be sold in it’s perpetuity for the land is mine” (I.e. only God’s thus making it wrong to colonise)- and to support Zionism would be to associate Jews with a corrupt and war-mongering genocidal state).

Equally, to further expand on this, we should also take a closer look into the beginning and evolution of anti-Semitism as a concept, and use this to come up with an effective solution for resolving it. In much discussion, it is primarily associated with the authoritarian hard right and fascist ideals that the Nazis supported, with this being the point at which it was at its peak and had the most significant future aftermath, fostering much xenophobia, racism and abuse during the decades that followed. However, this was far from when it started, and it would be wrong to assume that it effectively merely came to be because of fascistic sentiments rising in popularity. In fact, its origins can be traced back as far as the medieval times, when it was largely driven by economic issues. This is reflected on by Nathan Reich who, with reference to the Marxist economic theory considers antisemitism as being a response to the neglect of other issues leading to anger by the proletariat at this situation. Jews were considered as comparatively wealthier yet engaging in less hard labour than them, thus leading to this sense of resentment towards them by the Gentile population becoming prevalent. In fact, he even described this as 

“the expression of envy felt by the poor Gentile population for"Jewish" wealth; as the reflection of competition for jobs between Jewish and non-Jewish applicants; as the expression of resentment against the "undue" Jewish concentration in certain well-paid professions and important branches of trade”, especially considering that the Jews were seen as having comparatively less productive occupations (although thanks to their emancipation during the Industrial Revolution, they began to diversify their economic engagement) which were of reduced value (Reich, 1945). Moreover, another authoritative far-left perspective on the matter, would be the Stalinist form of antisemitism. Like Hitler, anti-Jewish sentiments were central to Stalins ideology with him also having planned a mass killing of all Jews. This largely related to his imperial ambitions for the Middle East and seeking to gain control of this region through the extermination of entire religious and ethnic communities that inhabited it (Szaynok, 2002).

Equally, it’s not just from authoritarian interests that antisemitic sentiment is evident. In fact, there is a very clear centrist and liberal emphasis on antisemitic ideas. This is through many on this region of the political spectrum demonstrating some degree of understanding of Zionist philosophy (Reich, 1945), although this antisemitism and developing of opinions on Zionism is also sometimes viewed as a very far left view, although coming from a slightly different standpoint with Israel being seen as a “Trojan horse for antisemitism” and that little is done to form the distinction between Zionism, Judaism and Israel with many having become used almost interchangeably within modern day political discourse (Cohen, 2004). 

With this basic grounding in mind as to what constitutes antisemitism and the varying individuals of differing political positions that have engaged with it, it can be seen that a recurring theme of ultranationalism and desire for colonial and imperial domination have been the core driving forces behind this line of thinking in the present day (therefore appearing to stray far from the initial economically induced hatred for Jews in the Middle Ages). 

With this in mind, it appears that a greater emphasis needs to be placed on reducing corruption and mitigating for the significant negative implications of war criminal activity, thus making greater international security and policing along with the strengthening of the rule of law to prove central in the resolution of antisemitism and the mitigation for existing issues which have stemmed from it. It is, therefore, important that we reform our understanding of the context behind it, seeing it not as a complex and multifaceted issue which has many socioeconomic and political dimensions to it, but for what it is in its crudest form as described here.

With this, I shall end by wishing solidarity and peace for all victims of antisemitic abuse and all living under exploitative settler colonial regimes. May we be united in our hopes for a better future and advancement in humanity.

               A memorial of those who died in the Holocaust at Magilligan Prison, Londonderry