Irish politics: Brief overview on ultranationalism

 "But you see, it's not me, its not my family"

While this lyric can be interpreted in many ways with it being ambiguous as to whether the Cranberries on writing Zombie were demonstrating anger at all violence, or whether they wrote the song specifically to oppose the actions of the IRA in particular, there does appear to remain a common recurrent theme of apathy and inability to engage with or initiate conflict apparent in much of the political discourse of the present day, in the same way as many misguidedly assume that involvement in war efforts benefits the economy and further preserve their influence. This can be reflected on when observing historic interregional cultural and religious conflicts evident within Ireland, and their relations with the UK and the EU.

One can notice the clear contrasts between the attitudes of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland with regard to the willingness of the people to engage with these conflicts, as well as their comparatively isolationist motives with regard to their engagement with each other's agenda when reflecting on these observations. This is very effectively summarised through the the claim from a 1974 Provisional pamphlet that "the people of the Six Counties are justifiably angry and bitterly disappointed that their suffering, their hardships, their struggle for survival have been viewed as less important than the price of Guinness in the rest of Ireland". This presents the clear indifference and distaste towards the maintaining of ties with historically socially conservative anti-internationalist monarchist ideals evident within the UK government, which would thus appear to be counterproductive and a significant threat to maintaining republican ideals central to the establishment of their sovereignty and left-wing internationalist presence (as well as in developing their own alternative systems of governance). This sentiment can also be clearly exemplified through the ever apparent sentiment present amongst many republicans that a lack of care for Irish citizens and their individual identity is a fundamental facet to loyalist ideology, this going as far to even questioning as to whether they wanted a free and fair society at all, as was said by Sinn-Fein vice president Maire Drumm on this subject in 1971 when she wondered "if the people of Munster want us to be part of a free Ireland at all", this being in agreement with Martin McGuinness who took it upon himself to illicit the blame on disinterested and apathetic individuals in Southern Ireland when he demanded that southerners 'take some course of action to impress on your cowardly government that unless something is done by them to remove the British Army by force of arms, the people of the 26 [counties] shall be regarded as cowards and traitors with a few honourable exceptions' in 1974. This would thus prove to be of importance in greater understanding the limited importance of loyalism in Irish society in general and how it only served to be of benefit and interest to those supporting individualist anti-internationalist social conservatives who used this agenda to fuel far right and xenophobic agenda, which continued to be apparent and ongoing even at this present time with division and hatred reaching their peaks throughout the decades following the 1970s (and that we can clearly see remaining in light to recent far right attacks and violence in Belfast last week).

What seems even more alarming is the motives for this racial hate and violence that took place especially considering a very small proportion of under 2% of the Northern Irish population are actually migrants, thus presenting this as likely more than just a response and means of acting on the sense of fear and concern demonstrated by far right pressure groups who had fallen victim to narratives placing the blame on uncontrolled immigration supposedly threatening their livelihoods. These events were thus purely unprovoked and unjustifiable racially orientated violence that acts as a mere reflection of limited social progress and active change to society, in spite of political advancements having been seen to have been taking place. It is through event such as this that one can reflect on the clear similarities in patterns of exploitation of power and military interest as had been observed when conflicts between loyalists and republicans in Northern Ireland were at their peak, and ultimately present the interests (particularly in relation to the hugely apparent anti-internationalist Euro-scepticism, militarism, and British nationalism evident in much of present day UK politics) of both of these nations to be fairly similar to each other. This can thus prove to potentially explain the distancing and lack of interest of Southern Ireland in the commonalities of Northern Irish politics, along with providing an explanation as to why the people of Northern Ireland may appear to be considerably more closely aligned with the UK as a part of their identity than the rest of Ireland potentially. These attitudes can thus appear to explain the potential causes of racism in the lead up to last week's attacks.

Comparative analysis of Left-Hegelian and Marxist takes on religious discrimination

        Signs I saw at the 2026 Nakba demo opposing Zionism, antisemitism and islamophobia

In the current political climate wrought with polarisation and division. Far removed from the past primarily economically and historically driven perceptions of certain religious groups popular amongst many 19th century political theorists, current antisemitism and islamophobia is set about with the motives to further develop ultranationalist and neo-colonialist intentions to create a state built with a white supremacist western homogenate as its cultural and ideological basis. This thus acts as merely a means of further making fascism appear somewhat more palatable when overshadowed by the potential for future developmental and socioeconomic proposals, and the core aims of supposed freedom of expression and representation of religious values. It is, however, also important that one reflects upon historic dialect on labour movements and collective attempts to emancipate the people and mobilise in class struggle, considering the emphasis on the cultural and demographic characteristics that remain so heavily embedded in left-Hegelian and Marxist analysis of society, thus extending to religious principles. It is through this that we can in this post unpick and critically analyse historic narratives on this subject, and thus effectively assess their role in influencing present day attitudes and political discourse that have impacted on conflict and division within society brought about through religious intolerances.

In much of Hegel's critique of the rapidly industrialising capitalist society of the 19th century, the support for religious ideals, as was evident throughout this period, was not looked at in a particularly positive light. In fact, they even went so far to condemn and put the blame on religion for many issues, using this to substantiate claims that it was counterrevolutionary and would stop society from effectively moving forward in the future. While this was not specific to any specific religions and unlikely to be intended in a discriminatory manner, the establishment of these ideals can appear to have been an important turning point in the changing of attitudes towards religion, especially with regard to the rise in atheism. 

This is reflected on through Marx's atheism having been set about as a dogmatic cornerstone in his theory, this proving fundamental in the understanding of social and political tensions that had been observed accelerated by violence committed by extreme atheists to eliminate potential threats of conflict amongst differing religious groups, this previously having been supposedly theorised in left Hegelian dialect. However, in spite of this, Marx favoured alternative more sustainable means of resolving religious conflicts as opposed to engaging in direct attacks against individually targeted religious groups. This was largely because he regarded religion as an implicit facet to a larger issue that could be attributed to the aims to further marginalise and exercise superiority as a power over victims supposedly to blame. One can clearly see this through his view that religious discrimination arises due to individual failures and personal struggles causing one to feel they have "not yet found himself or has already lost himself again", so arrive at the point by which they are poised to illicit the blame onto and target certain minority groups whose threat and vulnerability are not properly understood. It is through this that one can identify links to the origins of antisemitism, the rise of the Nazis, and the actions of the IDF in justifying the illegal settler colonial genocidal apartheid state of Israel, so as to thinly disguise fascistic sentiment and attempts to develop a western white colonial ethno-state (essentially fascism in its purest form) as an extreme form of religious fanaticism.

However, from an alternative lens, one can argue that Marx and Engels very much perpetuated antisemitic viewpoints, these largely having arisen from an economic standpoint, and in relation to the supposed socioeconomic and demographic characteristics associated with Jews, in the way that they have described the religion, clearly overlapping with those of the bourgeois and those who would fail and be of limited assistance in bringing about the proposed revolutionary efforts they had devised. This perspective is very well described by Nathan Reich who considers antisemitism as, with reference to Marxist economic theory, a natural response to economic collapse and a representation of the fears and angers of the proletariat. He thus describes these attitudes as being “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”.  This, however, strongly appears to contrast with the general consensus of antisemitism is the fundamental principle that fascism flourishes through, which many are more familiar with. These largely come about through fear and manipulation through group mentality leading to a desire to illicit blame on and persecute minority groups, as well as a desire to make blatant discrimination and fascistic principles on has become further apparent. With fascism essentially being regarded as a form of ultranationalist racial supremacist global imperialism by which individuals on the far right use to preserve and gain influence by, antisemitism appears to be a very clearly fundamental aspect of fascistic narrative and one of its core principles.

When reflecting on the rising islamophobia prevalent during present times at the same time as antisemitism is on the rise, it is important that these are not looked at as two separate opposing issues affecting and representing conflict between both specific religious groups, but rather two forms of evidence for the significance of each other set about with alternate fascistic motives, which serve to further divide and polarise society. This mentality comes into place with the arguments adopted by some that supposed excessive attention being paid on islamophobia merely acting as a means by which to disguise and overshadow the ever present problem of antisemitism within society, an attitude which further breeds division and discrimination within society.

Equally, internal sectarianism and division within individual religions in relation to their differences in practise and their presence in society are also significant factors that should be observed when reflecting on the role of religion in society and the establishment of an alternative form of cultural identity. This was the case with Irish loyalism versus unionism with regard to the dissolution of the Protestant Church and the separation of Northern Ireland from the UK. This has come with much concern with regard to the ability for Northern Ireland to retain its political autonomy and sovereignty in conjunction with Ireland (which would geographically and politically be to their advantage and would give them greater freedom and core international connections, as well as important in preserving their individual high value cultural dimension). This example thus very effectively exemplifies the role of religion in evaluating present and future geopolitics, and in navigating agreements with close allied nations. 

While a more moderate and liberal argument might regard the presence of religion within today's society as a minor purely cultural facet to a broader sociopolitical landscape, this facet rapidly diminishing in its presence as society continues to advance, it is clear that this is an overly simplistic perspective on the matter with a profound lack of nuance. With Marx and Engels' dialect in mind, the very causes of conflict and sociopolitical instability that abolishing religion, and thus subsequently refusing to support religious freedom, is the exact reasoning behind the rise of religious discrimination within society. The means of achieving revolutionary change is not through the abolition of sectarianism and the reversal of internal division amongst religious societies through developing a sense of homogeneity that would lead to greater tolerance within society, in the same way that this wouldn't be achieved purely through the abolition of religion itself. It is instead through diplomacy and preservation of democratic values to maintain social conscience that discrimination can be avoided, considering that, as observed in this article, this is mainly down to intrinsic corruption and exploitation of prejudiced groups by the individuals within core centralised power overall, as well as the use of these strategies instead of resorting to fear, anger and desire to blame minority groups, which is the foundation of much fascism.

Marilyn Monroe's 100th birthday: Did she have the makings of an unexpected revolutionary?

 

Yesterday would have been Marilyn Monroe's 100th birthday. It is in tribute to the great feminist icon (who shares my love for bright red lipstick!) that I will write this post observing the many ways she shaped the last century's fashion, popular culture, and film, and, most of all, the way that women's presence in society could be regarded, surpassing all kinds of stereotypical ideation demonstrated through the presence of the male gaze, and other huge chauvinist attitudes that were apparent in the film industry in the US during this period. We can thus very clearly consider her as way more than just the perennial stereotype of the heavily sexualised glossy pop icon that she has for too long been portrayed as, and even go so far as to view her as, in her own rights, a true revolutionary and a good comrade.

When reflecting on the ways in which the stereotype of subservience, submission and reliance on men has been considered as an integral aspect of her character, however, we can see this alternate perspective as unfortunately heavily overshadowed. This can be observed through, not only the very obvious ways in which she has been seen to portray primarily young, attractive, gullible, and somewhat vulnerable females who appear unable to think for themselves. This is made apparent through her first husband's description of her as a "sweet generous religious girl" who "liked to be cuddled", as well as a "photographer's dream", clearly embodying the ideals of a patriarchal society in which attitudes such as these to women in society appeared commonplace. However, this would appear to only be a very superficial look at her, and one of her many clever means of demonstrating genuine feminist principles and modelling society of the time with clear distaste. As has been described in a report on Monroe by Joseph Walford of Oxford University, it can be seen that there was a clear sentiment that "If not afforded multi-dimensionality, Marilyn’s roles were never inconsequential" in their ironic and perhaps somewhat satirical representation of a woman's eye view on how heavily ingrained materialism, mass exploitation, and dehumanisation evident amongst the supposedly more easily marginalised groups including women within American society of the 1940s and 50s, these being materialised and illustrated through the "guilty pleasures" of "sexual temptation" and "reproachable materialism", which Monroe clearly embodied within her pieces. This can thus be seen as potentially acting as an implicit representation of moralistic socialism and the need for a more just and equal society built upon the crucial principles of equality of opportunities and fair representation through means other than class, gender and social standing.

While Monroe may not fully embody radical feminist principles as they were presented by Hegel, Marx and Engels which put a class-centred dimension with major emphasis on repression and exploitation through struggle amongst a hierarchical dynamic always to be observed in any relations between men and women, she clearly appeared an instrumental figure in the mobilisation of the masses and an inspiration in encouraging women to fight against oppression. Her ongoing legacy can be reflected through her instantly recognised trademark image which appears as a flagship symbol of iconic glamour and style amongst both the old and the young, and the many reproductions and representations of her pieces. It is through this that one can understand a lesser side to Monroe, and envisage her as a true comrade and sister to us, a side that needs to receive more attention.

Society after the Cold War: the peak of Western expansionist capitalism or a period of communist success?

                                       Cold War Propaganda (gabriel-chetcuti.wordpress.com)

With one of the core defining aspects of the aftermath of the Cold War being the significant failures of the US during the Second World War and the Cold War having developed as sense of comparative instability and sociopolitical insecurity, it is clear that they desired change through economic prosperity. This was the core driving force behind their advocacy for globalism through neocolonial and expansionist agenda, so as to achieve this, all the while maintaining mutual symbiotic relations with their core allies, establishing links to resource rich and economically valuable regions that would be crucial in their development, and ultimately avoiding any potential threats with their communist opposition. However, it is only through analysing the tensions remaining between the Eastern and Western Worlds that one can realise this as heavily Western centric perception of these events, and the potential argument that this engagement in globalist agenda was merely a means of substantiating claims of overriding emphasis on the preservation of the US' superpower status to support their own individual ideals.

The US' strong support for capitalism and their own individualist agenda taking centre stage in political and economic decision making after the Cold War is clearly observed when reflecting on the implementation of the Marshall Plan, This was done after the Second World War, and there was seen to be a noticeable rise in support by the US for the principles set about through this agreement during and after the Cold War. This agreement was devised by President Truman on April 3rd 1948 with the key motive that the US provides economic support to assist the redevelopment and rebuilding of economic infrastructure in Europe, leading to the appropriation of $13.3 billion to be directed towards assisting this recovery, through the provision of the required resources and capital to facilitate this to affected European nations. This was also a core turning point in the revival of historic Western colonial globalist agenda in that it in turn reflected the neo-colonial undertones of much of the US' supposed progression in their internationalist agenda.

Equally, similar reasoning and intentions to maintain law and order in a functioning global political system that puts emphasis on peace, stability and security through the preservation of colonialist superpower influence is observed with the establishment of the Bretton Woods agreement and the strong advocacy for this amongst not just the US, but also by many of the recovering European nations. It is important to note the considerable delays in the initiation of this agreement, this having been largely due to there having been significant unexpected economic costs having arisen for these nations when working around the still felt impacts of the Cold War in its aftermath, which led to the expansion and establishment of new forms of polycrises. Equally, the strong economic dominance of the US overall in the management of global financial systems could be argued to have somewhat led to conditions of underdevelopment being further exacerbated and attempts for affected nations struggling to recover and rebuild their infrastructure appearing to have been sabotaged. This is reflected through the US dollar having remained as the dominant global currency and the basis of all international exchange and use of financial action. Greater pressure for these nations to pay reparations to the US in relation to their involvement in the Cold War had also drained a lot of their reserves of income, thus reducing the amount they could invest into this recovery, and that attempts to close the dollar gap having failed had meant that socioeconomic disparities within these regions had been exacerbated. It is through this that one can reflect on the overriding US capitalist influence and its ever present dominance within global political systems, as continues to be the case for much of today's spheres of influence dominated by Western interests.

However, it is also through reflecting on and drawing comparisons with the growth and cultural change observed for Europe during the period of the Soviet union, North Korea and Vietnam, with regard to, not just their presence within the Cold War, but the expansion and redefinition of their spheres of influence and international presence. This appears clear considering the aforementioned failures of the US during the Cold War. The Soviet Union sought to avoid potential invasion by the US and thus preserve independence and individual international presence with the European nations within maintaining their autonomy and sovereignty so as to separate from the US' influence and avoid future neocolonial exploitation. Similar methods of governance and ideals to build society on were adopted by Vietnam, as a means of countering past imperial activity within the region, and liberate all in a struggle against freedom from this form of oppression by the US and Europe. However, it can also be argued that this is not necessarily a truly communist principle as many may have historically referred to it as, but merely a desire for greater stability and security. It could thus be seen that the description of the Vietnamese National Liberation Front (NLF), which facilitated this change, as communist in nature, and that the term communist was perhaps likely a derogatory means of referring to any opposition by the US during this period, if they went against or were a threat to the US' individual aims.

It is through an understanding of the sociopolitical and economic dimension of the ongoing colonial and neocolonial Western superpower influence after the COld war that continued to have a high profile and remain clearly prevalent on much of the international globalist and expansionist agenda of the time, that one can notice the overriding dominance of capitalism in modern society, and its ongoing legacy. It is therefore important that an effective distinction between the core principles of communism and any anti-colonial sentiment (with these not always functioning in a mutual and effective manner alongside each other in society). It can then be clearly concluded that, in spite of the failings of the US in the Cold War, there was arguably no particularly noticeable turning point in the redefinition of communist ideology and its presence in global systems having been observed during this time, and that this merely acted as an opportunity for settler colonial exploitation to only be exacerbated, thus foreshadowing potential future conflict and unlawful abuse and exploitation of international influence.

Overview of Marxism and food: How to eat the rich and why they are tasteless

TRIGGER WARNING: Some mention of disordered eating and mental health appears briefly in this article. If you are likely to be affected by this trigger, feel free to skip the section as appropriate or read no more.

Whether it is in the form of cheap fuel to sustain oneself through a long workday, a nice meal to bond over socially as a family in the evening, or a means of showing off one's decadence and love of luxury through the buying of the finest and most exotic ingredients, food is something we all have the common need of and should act as a given basic right, and so the need for it, the ultimate universal leveller of all classes and groups in society. Its huge variety and the many different forms it takes and cultures it exists in act can help it act as the ultimate visual representation of the unity and diversity of people within society.

Or at least, that's what it should be like and it should be enjoyable for all. Sadly, it has turned into a source of conflict and inequality, an obsession, or a thing that has been turned into a mechanical afterthought and a rigid distraction from one's individual aims in a capitalist society merely to keep the cogs turning and the workplace functioning efficiently, even if potential disregard for one's personal wellbeing and needs is supposedly secondary in importance. As I sit and eat my dinner while typing away at this screen (yet another way of further proving this sentiment), I will further dig into and savour the capitalist undertones of food production. Tuck in dear readers....

According to Max Weber, society is a complex product shaped by humans' social actions (Fuchs, 2020), a sentiment further expanding upon Marx's materialist world view that people would use society and its relative assets to support their own needs and interests, and those of society collectively. This is reflected through the major overriding influence of class in the bourgeois capitalist society of his time, and their ability to exploit and use the resources and material production of the working classes to their advantage. This is not to say, however, that the idealist principles for a true utopian socialist society cannot be considered as having a role in the development of this society, and that social reformation would damage its structural integrity, but that the mutual relations between the different classes within society are merely relations of domination, and thrive off of the collective power of the masses. Structures, in the form they are described here, are built off of repeated organisational behaviours and distinct hierarchy to create an illusion of social and political stability. Indeed, this can appear to in part explain the conflict between the peasant and proletarian agricultural workers and those developing efficient technological means of mechanising agricultural production, with the latter focusing primarily on efficiency and ability to produce a large amount of food to sustain a rapidly growing population, notably with a rising middle class able to consume considerably larger amounts of available food and land. The existence of the mechanised systems of agriculture in question, as well as acting as important industrial ventures to bring in greater wealth to the bourgeois, appear further alienate the proletariat. This is especially true considering their operation relies heavily on maintaining constant capitalist relations within society (Peng, 2020), and assumes that this rising consumption will remain linear so they can continue to provide for it (thus claiming to effectively counter Malthusian economic principles in which society will be unable to function due to there being no suitable means of providing for the surplus population sustainably). This would thus present the implementation of these agroecological advancements in modernised agricultural systems to appear somewhat counterintuitive to the advancement of an evolutionary society ruled in socialist principles, especially seeing as the interests of the peasants which arguably form the foundations of this society are dismissed, and attention is instead diverted to supporting the capitalist interests of the wealthy. Moreover, increased potential for eco-fascism and greenwashing could arise due to the overshadowing of this exploitative ultra-capitalist agenda with comparatively palatable environmentalist principles which these systems also clearly advocate for.

When reflecting on this issue, the clear paradoxical nature of this logic regarding the revolutionising of agricultural production in relation to the principles of agroecology is clearly evident in that, the principles of agroecology are built on the logic that there are always the sufficient land and resources for producing food, but that the rising  consumer demands under capitalism and the mechanisation and use of comparatively less sustainable methods of agriculture (i.e. through deforestation, use of chemical fertilisers, and the creation of monocultures as opposed to polycultures). These are all principles that would clearly be advocated within the socialist schools of thought. This rising consumption can also be very much attributed to globalisation and Westernisation having led to the increased consumption of meat and processed foods, both of which putting a greater strain of land and water available for this, thus leading to comparatively more unethical methods of production being adopted than prior to capitalism. With meat production, for instance, this would not have become the exploitative practise it is today, also featuring unnecessary additions to the final product to assist this if less of it needed to be produced quickly and effectively to provide for rising global demands. Indeed, it was the most natural thing to function on a diet consisting primarily of meat (and many still would do in certain environments by which limited other food is abundant, such as with the Inuits or small scale hunter gatherer societies), usually hunted, and it was purely due to evolution through natural selection allowing for the digestion of dairy and plant matter that humans evolved to adapt to a diet more similar to today's diet. It is for this reason that one should not consider meat consumption and the likes as inherently evil, unnatural and unsustainable, and should instead be diverting their attention to dismantling capitalist systems and revolutionising society, as well as reducing their consumption of these products in general, as opposed to greenwashing and pushing capitalist agenda through an alternative completely plant based diet assisted by the ironically capitalist means of marketing and facilitating this (i.e. through consumerist means of marketing alternative products, these often being comparatively more expensive to use).

Moreover, this extends to the argument that when linking back of the heavy marketing of lifestyle and health, much of this also extending to diet, it can be seen that maintaining good health is a process that involves spending vast amounts of income and supporting capitalist principles. The rise of disordered eating as a byproduct of insecurity around food, lack of control, and pressure to appear in a certain way due to a combination and accumulation of multiple physical and mental health issues further acts as a reminder of this, and something that capitalism fails to help people recover from (especially considering that many underlying factors leading up to these issues do largely stem from capitalism). I for one, as a former eating disorder sufferer, who still struggles somewhat with forming a healthy relationship with food, know this is something rarely easy to treat and something that you can feel you never lose entirely, largely because of these issues and how heavily ingrained they are within current society. 

This attitude fails to make any attempt to recognise the major issues faced by many low income people in poor physical health (namely poverty, poor standard of living, lack of available green spaces and places to exercise, and the knock on consequences of poor physical and mental health) as issues brought about by capitalism, and that this is what is mainly at fault, as opposed to laziness and inability to take responsibility for one's own health through eating healthily (the strategy which many capitalists monetise and thrive off of in expanding potential economic ventures). It is without doubt that the working classes are often put at the most unfair disadvantage in this regard, with what has been coined as the "Glasgow Effect" being an excellent example of this. This principle is based off of observations that comparatively deprived urban areas with a predominantly white British working class population generally have the poorest health and standard of living (Swift, 2023). This is largely caused by the failure of capitalism in achieving economic growth through the outsourcing of previous core industries for areas in the UK such as Glasgow. This has meant that a considerable loss of income and rise in unemployment, therefore leading to inability to invest adequate funds into improving the standard of living for the people, and exacerbating socioeconomic disparities evident between the wealthiest and poorest members of society. In the case of Glasgow, there has been reported to have been a rise in unemployment by 4.7% since 2022 (above the Scottish average of 3.1%), and a rate of economic inactivity (as in neither employed nor seeking work) reaching 25.5% (ONS, 2023). Because of this, it can be clear why many residents of these deprived areas of the UK face significant inequalities regarding their health and quality of life, with life expectancy for those in deprived parts of Glasgow being 54 versus 82 for less deprived parts of Glasgow for these reasons, according to a 2008 report by the World Health Organisation (WHO). While many of these affected families struggle with poor access to high quality and nutritious food, merely putting them to blame and incentivising them to make improved choices is not a solution to the issue, and only serves to act as a rigid distraction from the flaws of an unequal society and the underlying issues posed by the prevalence of capitalism.

It is through an effective analysis of the structural flaws of the current unequal UK society that one can observe the clear need for true socialist change through true revolutionary influence. Food should be seen the way it is, as a basic right and a universal leveller enjoyed and required by all to act as a compulsory means of pleasure and fulfillment which helps bring others forward in enabling positive societal change, as opposed to something exacerbating division and that instils an unjustified sense of fear amongst the people purely down to the way capitalism has had it become viewed.

The importance of strike action, unionisation and workplace mobilisation: the legacy of the 1926 general strike

Happy Workers Day, comrades!

Today on Workers Day upon marching through London on the annual May Day march, exactly a century after the monumental nine day general strike that took place in 1926 in response to unjust working conditions and poor pay, the striking inequalities many workers have to face, along with the rise further major concerns of violence and the physical and emotional stress and vulnerability of workers (which would in turn influence their performance and ability to gain the most success and satisfaction from their work) still remains a pressing issue for today's society, even after its supposed social and economic advancement over the course of this period. In a world governed by image and pressure to function effectively in a material and consumerist led society in which capitalism takes centre stage, the current mental health crisis can prove to act as another means of developing new means of monetising wellbeing and self-fulfilment through creating marketing opportunities for medication, psychotherapy, health and fitness, and lifestyle, making it seem as though maintaining a good physical and mental state to optimise productivity within the workplace is down to the individual themself and their ability to take responsibility for their own health through this. What this mentality neglects to consider is that this is merely the fault of capitalism and the exploitative systems that this creates. It is through this that one can realise the only way of reducing this issue and bringing about change is through the same tried and tested method that has been in practice for as long as capitalism and the need for so-called efficiency within the workplace have. Marx's theory on alienation can appear to remain ever important with this regard. That method is class struggle.

The 1926 strike proves to perfectly substantiate this sentiment. This was when the Trade Union Congress (TUC) called for strikes to take place at the time of conflicts arising amongst mining  regarding the nationalisation that had taken place for these companies, something that caused mass outcry amongst private owners of mines, which advocated the use of methods popular under lucrative capitalist systems. These included a 13% wage cut and 8 hour workdays. Such was the anger at this change that 1.5 million other workers went on strike in solidarity with the miners. This lasted for 9 days with negotiations being made with the government for proposed improvements to society. These, however, were unsuccessful. In spite of this, this movement stands as an important turning point for revolutionary ideas within the workplace, and for encouraging strike action and unionisation as methods of mobilisation within the workforce as ever popular strategies for the present day.

Undertow by Suzanne Vega: Reflections on my favourite revolutionary anthem

It's widely accepted that the greatest music is born out of struggle and deep feeling for something. And so can be instrumental in effectively conveying hope, fear, and desires for revolutionary change in a simple yet eloquent manner, and act as instrumental anthems for the people collectively striving for this. Undertow by Suzanne Vega is no exception and exemplifies this sentiment perfectly, according to my interpretation of the lyrics.

While the meaning of this song is ambiguous and probably not written by Vega for this reason, I’d always considered it as a commentary on the means by which to gain liberation and peace from oppression, along with the confused and conflicted nature of ongoing war and conflict being supposedly set about to do this. The misguided aims of those hoping to achieve stability through advocating extremism fall short leaving only the fear, hopelessness and sadness of the oppressed and the oppressor to unite them (“at first I thought only tears could make us free”). The means by which this supposed liberation is observed through ironically war and oppression is through pain hence “From the point of a needle, from a diamond, from a bullet in flight”. Physical suffering and hardship being apparent in both a literal form with starvation, homelessness and loss of livelihood is clear to observe appearing to be debilitating and crushing hopes and aims, costing lives and potential change as can be reflected on with the line "and instead I found this hunger made me weak" as opposed to being supposedly "sleek" and attractive individuals or machines for assisting both the war effort and the fight for liberation as is observed in one verse.

Leading to emancipation through mass uprising and collective strength amidst this struggle being seen to act as a greater force against the oppression (“I am friend to the undertow, I take you in. I don’t let go”). Holding onto and refusing to release and set free all pain and suffering as that is what strengthens them and brings them to fight harder. As well as the opening line of “I believe right now if I could I would swallow you whole” exemplifies this. The “I would leave only bones and teeth, we could see what was underneath, and you would be free then” is about the souls and the true sense of life and worth of the oppressed remains yet gets sucked away. This then extends to the depth of this emotion literally hitting close to the bone (“salt wearing down to the bone. Like sand against the stone against the shoreline”). This could also be linked onto the perceived hunger and the intense stress to one's form that this poses as observed in another verse

The “against the stone against the shoreline” part also somehow makes me think of the line “from the river to the sea”. This feeling seems to thus break down walls and barriers allowing for narrow rivers to flow effectively to freedom and safety to reach the shoreline to the sea- a free flowing vast expanse and moving water carrying one away from the threats they leave behind and bringing all land together.

I think of this as hugely poignant and powerful song with really profound meaning that can be applied to so many times of conflict and the unendurable nature of crisis. It thus acts as a reminder for us to fight more and to not keep our true strength and desire for freedom within the inside of us, regardless of its original meaning. It’s something really beautiful in its own right that has stayed with me and always been on my mind when observing the seemingly endless and unjustifiable events that act as a catalyst for further revolutionary change,

What is the role of banks and financial institutions in a true revolutionary society?

With a true revolutionary communist society being loosely considered on a superficial level as a society without any classist hierarchy and emphasis on the collective power of the general masses in the running of society, it would appear that the dismantling of capitalist-led systems through which repression and preservation of these ideals is observed is an important priority in achieving socialist revolution. The aims of the banks would thus appear somewhat counterintuitive and a direct hindrance to effectively bringing about revolution, which begs the question: can they possibly exist in a true socialist society and, if not, what could take their place?

When observing the fundamental means by which revolution can take place, it would seem absurd to disregard and refuse to acknowledge the presence of capitalism in society and its existence in the transition (considering socialism would feature the use of the income and products of their operation to the advantage of the lower classes, and hugely value these provided they are used and distributed equitably). As such, it would be clear that gradual progress towards a true revolutionary socialist society through bringing about reforms through the modification and removal of specific structures of power that perpetuate capitalist ideals using available and accessible means. These are most likely to be those gained through capitalism. While it may seem illogical to view socialism as not inherently anti-capitalist for these reasons, it would be arguably a lot more sustainable to view revolution as a gradual ongoing process than one achieved through mass purge of all individuals and institutions responsible for perpetuating vaguely capitalist or counterrevolutionary ideals. This logic can therefore be effectively applied to the question of the banks, in that once revolutionary aims have been achieved and the hierarchical systems ruled by wealth and ownership of capital have been overthrown, thus rendering banks unnecessary and a rigid distraction from a reformed socialist society, then foreshadowing their gradual dissolution. While it could perhaps be argued that the banks do have an important role in providing a concentrated supply of wealth to distribute equitably amongst the poor, this would likely only be apparent prior to the complete transition, in that the poor would only exist due to exploitation under a classist hierarchical system governed by the individualist capitalist interests of the bourgeois leading to a sense of alienation (and therefore a need for mass uprising and revolution against this) being apparent. When this system is abolished, there will be no need for this due to the aims of equitable distribution of wealth having been achieved, along with complete class consciousness for the true liberation of the working classes. This would, therefore, mean that income kept by the banks would now belong to society collectively to support reforms that could benefit them and continue the ongoing transformation of society in a continual state of revolutionary permanence. Moreover, as opposed to the funding of infrastructure and growth oriented projects (often with limited regard for environmental sustainability and the general wellbeing of the people, with these principles clearly appearing counterproductive in the eyes of capitalist investors) advocated by the banks currently, greater attention could be made to fund projects dedicated to improving society for the working classes and maintaining future sustainability and revolutionary goals would appear a comparatively better alternative means of using the collective assets of society. If banks were to still exist (most likely in the periods during the transition to a revolutionary society), these would most likely take the form of cooperative banks led and owned by their members, who would have the greatest role in assisting their operations, as opposed to large individualist and elite capitalist led corporations which is the form that many banks currently take. Democratic organisation within communities and the use of cooperatives with regard to proposing more ethical and transparent use of finances would thus prove to act as a comparatively more sustainable potential solution to a society currently reliant on assets from banks, once the core revolutionary efforts succeed.

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