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).

Syndicalism: Is revolution through unionisation desirable or practical?

One typically views a union as a group of unified masses of all different ages, backgrounds and occupations all standing together on a picket line much like the image above of members of Unite in the UK mobilised in London. All sexes, political orientations and cultures choose to mobilise this way. At first glance, it seems like the ultimate display of unity and collective society and the ultimate means by which a true community-led revolution can succeed. It can even, perhaps, be seen by some as a parallel or potential alternative to state centralisation of political power, and instrumental in the formation of a proletarian-led anarchy. However, it is also through this means of mobilisation that the state can further flourish as can other vanguardist and authoritative means of accumulation of power and resources amongst the masses, as well as equally appearing to further promote alternative pseudo-fascist authoritarian right wing ideology (the AFL CIO is an example of this, as were many unionist Falangist movements). Moreover, the wide and all-encompassing nature of many unions giving representation of multiple political groups of varying positions on the political spectrum would mean that they would have limited core motives to stand for, and so would be unlikely to drive the state to bring about any real political change once they have succeeded in gaining influence.

While skilled artisans of a specific trade may value specific forms of craft unions as a means of gaining support and unity with other individuals of this trade so as to preserve it and agitate for improved pay, conditions and support within the workplace, unions can also be instrumental in assisting the mobilisation low-skilled blue collar workers (who could have very clear working class values on any part of the political spectrum). This can be observed when referring Jeff Schurke's idea of a "blue collar empire". With this it would be seen that unions would be heavily instrumental in promoting a sense of solidarity within these communities of workers in the US during the Soviet era in fighting against the supposed threat of communism and its potential influence on them. This threat would be minimised through the boycotting of any Soviet trade unions and the formation of their own separate alternative as in the AFL-CIO. The view was that these far left unions would function as “totalitarian governments enslaving their people” and rivals to Nazi leadership, if anything, the Nazis appearing to have been somewhat more moderate with regard to their methods and organisation. The first right wing AFL-CIO unions were major advocates of traditional society and preservation of the existing economic conditions, thus making them direct polar opposites to the more progressive rank-and-file systems that the unions on the far-left favoured, in which agitation against the bureaucracy through greater emphasis on the general public and grassroots interests were seen as core values in dismantling existing economic conditions and striving for change within the workplace. The far-right unions also appeared to be a lot more sectarian and motivated by organisation in relation to the specific hard to replace crafts and skills one had so as to make them appear as such, as opposed to supporting more collective industrial action through mobilisation of the proletariat as with the more left-wing unions. Craft unions, however, also could potentially be seen to remain quite popular in principle from a socialist perspective, in that there is opposition to the key capitalist of the mechanisation of industry (which would prove to increase efficiency and productivity, as well as reduce the cost of the production- with the workforce being reduced in size and paid less). A craft is essentially a skill that requires use of the hands and that cannot be mechanised. Because of this, it would be considerably more labour intensive and less economical to supply for growing economic demands than mechanisation and modernisation of industry if this was preserved as a substantial part of the economy. It can thus be seen that there are two similar attitudes in favour of craft unionisation, although with different methods and reasoning behind them, on both the left and the right wing.

However, although appearing very much contradictory to the leftist ideology and core principles, the far-right Falangist movement in Spain during the 1930s adopted some strikingly similar positions on the matter to the left. They appeared to show strong disapproval of the changes in industry under capitalism, seeing that it “disregards the needs of the people, dehumanises private property and transforms the workers into shapeless masses that are prone to misery and disrepair”. With this, clear parallels to the Marxist ideology are apparent, as are other socialist principles in relation to social restructuring, addressing rural inequalities, and improving wealth distribution for the net benefit of society, in Jose Antonio Primo de Riveras’ 1934 manifesto. An anti-vanguard sentiment can also be noted here, with class struggle being seen as something that needs to be abolished, and the operation of the proposed syndicalist aims not relating to the comparative strength and stability of the individuals of whom the Spanish proletariat consisted, intending to reduce infighting and develop greater cooperation and collaboration amongst the workers. Advocacy for unity and bringing together all unions, as one would see with national federations of unions, is the preferred means of addressing this, seemingly going against the sectarian nature of many other unions globally. However, this and the forms of unionism that developed from these principles appeared to present nationalism as the main priority and reasoning behind them, so as to use the economic and social power they have accrued to their benefit, increasing their prominence in Europe and developing their influence as an imperial power. Similarly, these principles were also applied to the advocacy for the Spanish Armed Forces and military establishment of the time, so as to protect their political sovereignty and territorial integrity.

With this in mind, whilst it can be seen that, superficially, all unions are homogeneous in nature and focus on emancipation of workers and restructuring of society based off of anti-sectarian and socialist principles, it is clear that this is far from the truth, and not a purely leftist position to take. It is because of this sheer breadth of demographics, political leanings and ideologies associated with the unions, very little can be seen to suggest potential change to society (not to mention greater division and conflict in interest amongst individual unionised workers). This would present the syndicalist movement as an ironically very sectarian approach and a breeding ground for internal conflict and infighting amongst those involved. This is along with the huge potential for vanguardist sentiments to arise through this, undermining the democratic and socially oriented motives of unionisation.

https://spartacus-educational.com/SPfalange.htm#:~:text=6.,Cortes%20as%20we%20know%20it.

Schurke, J., (2024). Blue Collar Empire: The Untold Story of US Labour’s Global Anticommunist Crusade. Verso Books. DOI: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5ZAgEQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1910&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

China’s cultural revolution: A period of growth or an advocacy for continuity?

Set about with Mao Zedong’s promise to the public of achieving “all this and heaven too” in what would supposedly appear as a brief yet transformative period in which a renaissance in cultural and social thought could be accomplished, one may consider the cultural revolution as a process somewhat akin to the proposal of a permanent revolution. However, this would appear to be a rather superficial perspective on the matter that clearly lacks nuance. This would be due to the ironically more socially conservative elements of the approaches advocated by Mao’s government which had proven to put emphasis on traditional Chinese values and models for society which revolved around the preservation of the existing power structures that acted as the basis of the existing issues regarding class struggle, lack of individual and collective liberty, and wealth and power being concentrated amongst the elites. This also appears to go hand in hand with the strong sense of resistance by the proletariat during this period, along with the widespread campaigns for liberation which were practiced by many Chinese working class women.

When reflecting on the global political situation at the time of Mao’s cultural revolution, it is clear to note that this was at the time in which the Soviet Union was at its peak. This would have proven to act as a significant opposition and source of conflict and rivalry between the East and the West, thus being a hindrance to the development of a permanent international socialist revolution. This may also, in part, act as an explanation for the emphasis Mao placed on militarist development so as to effectively respond to this potential threat, as well as his imperialist interests and desire to be the supreme ruler to which all the main political power is centralised. As observed here, the foundations of a capitalist post colonial society ruled by classist ideals are preserved, and Mao can thus be quoted claiming to act as “the unquestioned and absolute monarch of all he surveyed”.

Equally, when looking at the cultural revolution from a social standpoint, it appears that traditional values were still very much fundamental in the operation of Chinese society during this period thus leading to much uprising and protest particularly by women and other marginalised groups, with it also being known that limited progress was made regarding understanding of sexuality. This situation arguably appeared to have worsened with sexual repression having become increasingly extreme and with limited means by which one could act against this, in spite of the widespread protesting by the repressed. Subservience to the bourgeoisie who appeared to present as the exact representation of the traditional family oriented model of society, as well as actively engaging in the repressive behaviours including “aversion to sexual deviance”, engagement in illicit and inappropriate sexual activities, as well as the manipulation and representation of sexuality through performance arts, namely opera. This can be reflected through Chen Kaige’s Palm D’Or film “Farewell My Concubine” in which, through themes of prostitution, masculinity, sexual repression, and suicide, this sentiment can be observed. These themes are applied to the conflicted nature of this society caused by the division between the more progressive and liberal attitudes, with the socially conservative attitudes, these being portrayed through the personalities of young actors Dieyi and Xiaolou (who would take on roles with clearly conflicting characteristics based off the traditional ideals on gender, with Dieyi taking on female roles and having his body manipulated so as to further suit these). Jinxian, the woman who Xiaolou eventually marries putting an end to his initial homosexual relationship with Dieyi, is very obviously looked down upon by much of the more conservative society and lives with the shame that comes for being engaged in prostitution. This eventually led to her suicide due fear and powerlessness, not only as a woman who has experienced exploitation and repression as a member of the supposedly weaker sex, but as a prostitute who merely used male exploitation of these attributes to support her livelihood. Her suicide could perhaps be seen as an act of submission to these ideas, further symbolising the repression she had to endure, appearing as a means of getting peace and freedom from the rigidity of these norms.

When linking back to the socioeconomic dimension of the advancements in society under Mao’s rule, it can be seen to potentially appear that only the most socially and economically influential members of the proletariat would be able to effectively advance in society, with this advancement being very much merely about gaining status within the existing class-led hierarchical system; the peak of liberty and general aim of the proletariat would be to ultimately become bourgeois.

Chen, P., (2024). Farewell My Concubine: All the World’s a Stage. Published in Criterion(23/7/2024). https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/8546-farewell-my-concubine-all-the-world-s-a-stage

Deshpande, G.P., (1966). China’s Great Cultural Revolution. Published in Economic and Political Weekly (October 29, 1966). 1(11). pp. 453-455. DOI: 4357141

Eggert, B., (2022). Farewell My Concubine. Published in Deep Focus Review (24/4/2022). https://www.deepfocusreview.com/definitives/farewell-my-concubine/

Rose, C., (1993). Chen Kaige (18/10/1993). https://charlierose.com/videos/8619

n.d. An Interview with Chen Kaige. https://ray.com.hk/tomson/interview.html

Singh, V.B., (1968). China’s Cultural Revolution. Published in The Indian Journal of Political Science 29(4) pp. 329-334. DOI: 41854291

Tu, X., and Wei, X., (2024). Politicized Sex Repression and Fascination in The

Chinese Cultural Revolution. Published in Journal of Interdisciplinary Cultural Studies. DOI: 10.29329/almamater.2024.1053.3