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

Geopolitical observations of the historic and present day relations between the US and Latin America

You may have noticed I have been a bit quiet lately. I am back now with some more fire, which I am kicking off with this highly topical and important post.

With major geo strategic presence and longstanding ties to the main politically influential Western superpower nations assisted by historic imperialism and neocolonialism, much of Latin America has remained ripe for trade, investment and international relations, further fostering its rapid socioeconomic and political advancements which have accelerated over the course of the last century. However, this has not necessarily resulted in social progress and greater gains for the welfare of society collectively. In fact, it has arguably been the force for greater corruption, and the means by which war and conflict continue to flourish.

While the origins of this can be traced back to the 19th century and further accelerated by the conflict in interest regarding the needs of the population and the means by which the state of the nations can further develop its international influence and rise to the level of maturity that is evident in many of the core Western superpowers, it appears that the obvious tensions between the global north and the global south that is the main reason for these apparent failings. For instance, nine Latin American nations (Brazil, Bolivia, Guatemala, Haiti, Cuba, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Peru) were key founding members of the League of Nations. They, however, realised that this was more down to the fact that the power within the Americas is imbalanced and mainly concentrated within the US, as well as there being a very clear western emphasis placed upon the principles that the League of Nations operates by, in that European issues appeared to have taken centre stage in times of debate (Leonard, 2019). This can also be further reflected on through the apparent isolationist principles of the US with regard to their control of the Latin American region and the means by which they would consider relations with Europe having also appeared as important driving forces for further exacerbating tensions globally, and so acted as a hindrance to attempts to resolve conflict and mitigate against war. One can effectively observe this through the historic Monroe Doctrine comprised in 1823 by US president James Monroe as a means of "set(ting) forth the concept of a republican western hemisphere that was fundamentally different to the Old World", which functioned as a means of demonstrating the US sovereignty and colonial influence over Latin America, so as to effectively maintain their ability to own this region and use it to their own geopolitical advantage, and ensure that Europe cannot influence and engage with it.

During the First World War, Brazil was the only Latin American nation who actively participated int the conflict (which they did through a major campaign against submarines and the sending of support personnel to Europe)- the other Latin American nations, namely Brazil, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama declared War on Germany, while Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru chose to break their existing diplomatic relations with Berlin (Leonard, 2019). This would thus, not only prove to be important in illustrating their varying degrees of internationalism historically and the relevance of this to their relations with the US in the present time, but also provide an explanation for the way in which their relations with Europe became the way they are today, and how this influences their engagement with present day global conflicts. This can be seen through the recurring themes of further development and restoration of international relations through encouraging alliances to be formed with the western world, and for clearly evident internationalist priorities to have become evident so as to promote their advancement as more geopolitically influential nations. Therefore, Latin America's aims appear to mirror yet also somewhat act as the direct antithesis to the core interests of the US. This pattern continued on during the Second World War and through to the Cold War, this transition period appearing to be the point that acted as the beginning of "years of political and social upheaval" (Bethell and Roxborough, 1988). This could likely be attributed to the rising hegemonic influence of the nations, all of which having different views on the US, as a collective, and there having been particular growth in support for the revolutionary leftist and Marxist principles which still remain heavily ingrained within the society of the Latin America of today. The rise to a form of democracy, be that complete or partial, as well as sense of increasing liberalisation at the end of the second war proved to have acted as a catalyst for this change. Particularly notable reforms had become apparent for Cuba since their 1944 election in which Ramon Grau San Martin, who experienced a landslide victory against the comparatively more conservative candidate Fulgencio Batista who previously dominated their political landscape. A thirteen year dictatorship in Guatemala was also terminated, and the success of a popular revolution in Ecuador both took place that same year, and the liberalisation of the Estado Novo in Brazil began in 1945. Furthermore, unlike the US, when the Cold War took place, Latin America was comparatively uninvolved with it and was relegated as a region of low priority for the US, therefore providing them with limited incentive to actively engage them in conflict. This period also marked the beginning of many new intra-regional relations between nations within the Latin American continent, many of which still having their role in the supporting and assisting of the socioeconomic and political situation that they are in today, and in further establishing their international sovereignty (Connell-Smith, 1976). These dramatic gains had mainly become more apparent towards the end of the Cold War, with them appearing to have changed from something of "a pawn of the world powers", to there being "a new diplomatic climate" by the 1960s when the Cold War was largely "out of the way" for them (Parkinson, 1974). This period also appeared, however, to not have entirely been a point of comparative growth and stability for the relations between the US and Latin America in that tensions regarding the rising support for the new progressive communist ideals that conflicted with the US' principle ideals became apparent. This was observed with the Bay of Pigs invasion by which John F. Kennedy ordered troops to Cuba to overthrow Fidel Castro and lead to the election of a non-communist government friendly to the US. This plan failed after counterattacks from the Cuban military brigade, and after the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, the imprisoned members of the brigade were released and Operation Mongoose, another plan to destabilise the Cuban government and potentially assassinate Castro was put in place.

These principles still remain very much apparent today in relation to Trump's expansionist imperial agenda, and the key basis of the Monroe doctrine acts as a means by which he can justify his illegal imperially motivated use of warfare and military presence within Europe and Latin America, such as his activities in Venezuela. While these are criminal and unjustifiable acts against international law that have been carried out merely for the US's individual corrupt interests, this has remained a common theme over the centuries with the US's isolationist approach being used to further increase their power over other nations when engaging with their wars. Moreover, the overriding economic dimension of this is also very prevalent in that, as is also the case with his proposals for intervention in European nations, the resources that Venezuela is rich in such as oil and minerals have proved to act as a major incentive for Trump's imperial expansion. This would further appear to present the US's huge capitalist and consumer oriented interests as another primary means by which to gain influence, and a significant means of also effectively justifying environmental exploitation. When looking at this from an imperial lens as applied to Mackinder's Heartland theory, it could also be considered as a means of further expanding the core "heartland" (the region with the most geostrategic influence globally which was immune to - which, according to Mackinder in his 1904 work "The Geographical Pivot to History", consisted of the, at the time, main international superpowers of Russia and parts of Europe (Mackinder, 1904). He was famously quoted saying "whoever rules the heartland commands the world" (Naintarah, 2025). This would thus prove to clearly explain the interests of the US mainly regarding competing against other regions that are equally geopolitically and geostrategically influential, as well as their emphasis being on resources and land of value.

Propaganda, poison… and pants filled with tomatoes: the crazy happenings at Stalin’s dinner parties

 

                                                                Me vs Stalin dining

A man fond of overconsumption of expensive food and alcohol, Stalin was known for his memorable (and rather shocking) feasts which did more than just entertain; an abundance of food in opulent surroundings was a display of decadence, power and authority- proving to act as a valuable means of demonstrating his political influence. This would be further exemplified through his playing of propaganda films (these having been accessed from Goebbels’ library) to enlighten and entertain the guests.

Traditional and simple Eastern European dishes but made in excessive quantities and using high value ingredients rarely accessible to the masses were eaten. These included a variety of cold appetisers (known as zakuski)  consisting of caviar, cold salmon, and pickled meats and vegetables, to be followed by rich meat stews (notably one made from a two week old young lamb), suckling pigs, roasted geese, grouse and turkeys, and various side dishes such as porcini mushrooms in soured cream and asparagus mousseline. A array of desserts followed. Strategically positioned amidst these would have been multiple bottles of various forms of alcohol (various semi-sweet medium-dry Georgian wines including Khvanchkara and Kindzmarauli he favoured, Starka, vodkas and cognac). These made for a very un-proletarian banquet scene.

The drinking was what took centre stage and made the dinner parties what they were with many cruel games and tricks being played on the attendees (especially those who were already too drunk). To exclude oneself from these alcoholic activities was something met with as much anger as declaring oneself a Trotskyist. However, ironic though it seems, Stalin had a very low tolerance of alcohol considering his various health issues, height and lifestyle. He also appeared to find social events, particularly those that had political and ideological dimension, stressful and relied on alcohol to, as put by Mark Schrad in his book Vodka Politics, “keep his inner circle in balance” as well as perhaps increase his intimidating influence and make him look stronger. We can thus effectively reflect on the resemblance of Stalin to the typical caricature of a Russian man drinking vodka; with the Russian people during the Soviet era struggling greatly with alcoholism (consuming on average 8 gallons per person per year of pure alcohol, compared with the US average of 4 gallons per person per year) has a means of escape from concerns financially and socially, and finding pleasure in a bleak life full of constant fear of persecution. The alcohol that many Russians would have consumed during this period would have been fairly cheap to access, and often produced economically at home. This was during the major appropriation of farmland and grain production that took place in the 1920s after Stalin’s mass appropriation of agriculture leading to the starvation of millions of people. As a result of purely Stalin’s dinner parties, in fact, several of his fellow dictators including Khruschev and Beria also became alcoholics.

These parties were said to offer “clandestine means of coaxing of those in the dictator’s inner circle to reveal themselves and others” such as through repeated toasts praising the dictator in rapid succession of shots of vodka, in which failing to finish one’s shot would lead to punishment by forcing more alcohol on them. This gave him a lot of pleasure. Another of these games that Stalin enjoyed featured participants guessing the air temperature outside and being forced to down a shot for every degree above or below the correct value. Fear to impress the tyrant and constant pressure to praise him resulted in drastic actions being taken. For instance, knowing of Stalin’s hatred for Khrushchev and not wishing to pass up on any opportunity to impress him, guests would place rotten tomatoes on Khruschev’s seat (and Stalin would place them directly into his suit!). Often this backfired and random guests would have their pants soiled with these tomatoes, much to Stalin’s humour.

For this, dear comrades, I wish you solidarity and peace for this festive season. May we be united in our hopes for a revolutionary new year and enjoy drinking, partying and having fun (although hopefully we won’t end up like Stalin’s comrades).