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.