The Peace Of The Cemetery

The Sunday politics shows were, of course, full of self-righteous blather about the role of Trump in bringing peace to the Middle East. Starmer, inevitably, as he acts as Trump's attorney, has claimed that Trump's role has been irreplaceable. That may be true, but not for the reason Starmer, and much of the chattering classes want to suggest. After all, the “deal” agreed is the same that was on offer a year ago, but which Netanyahu rejected. That “deal” is, of course, not a deal at all, but simply an ultimatum given to Hamas. Where Biden provided the weapons for the genocide, but limply set supposed red lines on their use, which were ignored, Trump provided the weapons and said to Netanyahu, “Have at it!”

What “Trump's peace” amounts to is just this. Two men are engaged in a prolonged quarrel. I come along and give one of them a gun, and Carte Blanche to use it. They shoot their opponent. There is peace. On that basis, every arms dealer in he world is a peacemaker, and should be immediately nominated for a Nobel Prize for their efforts. What should happen is that Trump, his regime, and that of Biden and his regime, along with all of those across Europe, such as Starmer, that have armed and facilitated the genocide in Gaza should be arrested, and put on trial for war crimes, alongside the Zionist regime.

What is required is an equivalent of the Nuremberg Trials. The concentration camp guards in Nazi Germany, once the war was over, went to great lengths to hide their role in the industrial scale murder of Jews, and others. But, there has never been a greater, openly documented genocide than that carried out by the Zionist regime, in the huge concentration camp that is Gaza. Not only have the leaders of that regime set out, in clear statements, their intention to carry out genocide, but they have, at each stage, documented their commitment to it. Unlike the concentration camp guards, the individual IDF soldiers have gone to great lengths to place their own individual roles in that genocide on video, distributed for all to see, across the internet. What is more, the leaders of the regimes in the US, and its allies were fully aware of those war crimes, and continued to arm and facilitate the genocide.

The difference is, for now, that Nazi Germany lost the war, whereas the Zionist regime, with its US/NATO backing has succeeded, as it inevitably would, given the hugely superior firepower, in destroying Gaza, just as it has, also, imposed its control over wider areas of the Middle East, as it once again engages in its colonialist expansion, fundamental to Zionist ideology, and the need of the Zionist state to ever increase the size of its geographic territory. Despite the fact that Netanyahu and others have been indicted for war crimes, and the Zionist regime is charged with genocide by the UN and the ICJ, Netanyahu is unlikely to ever face trial, as the US, which has already sanctioned judges for daring to even charge him, will press for all those actions to be dropped. At best, it looks like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are being lined up as patsies, whilst Netanyahu will get support from more “centrist” parties, to get the votes required to push through the “peace deal”.

How long even that lasts, once the hostages are returned, we will have to wait and see. The Gazans face months, over the Winter, of living in a devastated wasteland, in which famine, disease and pestilence will continue to ravage their war torn bodies. There is little prospect of Gaza being rebuilt until Trump believes a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem has been achieved. The surrounding Arab states, also, have no reason to pump the estimated $500 billion into Gaza required for its reconstruction, necessitated by the destruction wrought by Zionism, and its imperialist backers. For one thing, they know that Netanyahu was advised to just sign the peace deal to get the hostages back, because, as was said, they can easily manufacture a new pretext for starting the bombing and shelling again. After all, they have unfinished business in the West Bank, and in the other real estate they have in their sights in Lebanon and Syria.

Zionist/Imperialist Politicians and Media Expose Themselves

The attempt, by Zionist/imperialist politicians and media, to use the appalling murder of Jewish worshippers, by an anti-Semitic jihadist, to ban pro-Palestinian protests has simply exposed their own hypocrisy. The feats of semantic gymnastics they have performed have been Olympian.

Firstly, as I wrote a couple of days ago, we had the condemnation of the jihadist as undertaking an egregious and abominable act against Jewish worshippers, in Britain, who have no connection to the acts of genocide being committed by the Zionist state in Israel, against Palestinians. It was quite rightly pointed out that this was, therefore, an anti-Semitic attack, against Jews for being Jews, and which sought to equate all Jews with Israel, and with Zionism. All absolutely, correct. But, then, we had, immediately after that, demands that demonstrations – called not against Jews, but against the Zionist state's genocide in Palestine – be cancelled, or postponed, in deference to British Jewish communities! Why?

The first absolutely correct premise that British Jews are not synonymous with the Zionist state, and, therefore, in no way connected to the genocidal actions of that state, precludes any connection of demonstrations against that Zionist state being deemed to be protests against British Jews. You cannot argue the former without accepting the latter, without placing yourself in a fundamental contradiction, a reductio ad absurdum. Yet, that is what the Zionist/imperialist politicians and media have tried to argue. Are they really wanting to say that pro-Palestinian demonstrations, and/or demonstrations against the genocide being committed by the Zionist state are, de facto, anti-Semitic demonstrations against British Jews? If so, they can only do so by, also, claiming that British Jews are, indeed, somehow synonymous with the Zionist state, and, therefore, also responsible for its actions!

That is the inevitable logic of their argument, and, of itself, is a thoroughly anti-Semitic argument. Indeed, throughout its history, Zionism, by its own attempts to claim that Judaism and Zionism are synonymous, has been a thoroughly anti-Semitic ideology, and a major contributor to the development of anti-Semitism across the globe. (Some of the most militant Zionists are not Jews, but are Christian Zionists, whose own vile anti-Semitism is explicit.) It implies that you can only be a real Jew if you are, also, a Zionist, and that, wherever you live in the world, as a Jew, you are Israeli, and your allegiance lies primarily with Israel.

There are, of course, those that have difficulty separating one thing from another. For example, in Britain in the 1930's, opposition to Nazism, led some to simply equate Nazism with being German, even though it was millions of Germans who were the first and most affected by it. That didn't stop some, in Britain, simply adopting a hatred of all Germans just for being German! But, would anyone have argued not to hold demonstrations against Nazism, and in support of the victims of Nazism, on that basis? Of course not, though, it is why, it would be better to refer to fascism, rather than Nazism. Its why its better to refer to the actions of the Zionist state, rather than the Israeli state.

The most obvious manifestation of this anti-Semitic, Zionist logic is the fact that, in Britain, thousands of Jews oppose Zionism, and oppose the genocide being committed by the Zionist state against Palestinians. Many of them, indeed, took part in the demonstrations that the Zionists/imperialists sought to ban. The implication is that, these Jews are not, therefore, really Jews at all. It seeks to equate being a real Jew with being a Zionist, and with being, thereby, synonymous with the Zionist state, and its genocide! What greater piece of anti-Semitic ideology could there be than that, as a means of stoking hatred of Jews as Jews?

For the last century, imperialism and supporters of the Zionist state have claimed that they favour a two bourgeois states solution. That is the creation of a Jewish state, and a Palestinian state. Setting aside the reactionary nature of demands for the creation of new bourgeois states, let alone nation states based upon religious or ethnonationalism, what do the arguments over the weekend, actually tell us? We are told that the pro-Palestine demonstrations were, inherently, anti-Semitic, and so should have been cancelled or postponed. But, you can only argue that a pro-Palestinian demonstration is “anti-Semitic”, if, first you equate being Jewish with being Zionist, and if, secondly, you see the existence of a Palestinian state as being inevitably contradictory to the existence of a Jewish state in Israel. Now, as it happens, and as I argued 40 years ago, and ever since, I do believe that, so long as capitalism/imperialism exists, the reality is that a two-bourgeois states solution is a dangerous and reactionary delusion, but that is not what the imperialist politicians and media have claimed.

But, if they were genuine in their belief that a two bourgeois states solution is the way forward, and not simply a diplomatic lie used to pacify the gullible, and enable the colonial rule of the Zionist state to continue, whilst denying political rights to Palestinians, they cannot possibly argue that a “Pro-Palestinian” demonstration is de facto, an “anti-Israel” demonstration, let alone an “anti-Semitic” demonstration, and even less a demonstration aimed against Jews living in Britain! A “pro-Palestinian” demonstration, i.e. a demonstration demanding that a politically independent Palestinian state should be allowed the right to self-determination, and that the occupation of that state by the Zionist state be ended, can only be deemed to be “anti-Israel” if you actually believe that the creation of an independent Palestinian state is irreconcilable with the continued existence of the state of Israel. In other words, it requires that you abandon the pretence that you support a Two-bourgeois states solution. Even, less, as set out above can a pro-Palestine demonstration, then be equated with being a demonstration against British Jews, or Jews per se, especially as many British Jews have participated in those demonstrations.

Netanyahu, of course, has no difficulty in simply saying that he rejects the idea of a two bourgeois states solution, and admitting that he sees the creation of an independent Palestinian state as being antithetical to the existence of the Israeli state. Only at the point that the Zionist state has killed all prospect of an independent Palestinian state, or, indeed, any kind of Palestinian state, and increasingly continued existence of Palestinian people, as it proceeds with its genocide, has Britain recognised Palestine, which amounts to a totally meaningless, face-saving gesture, as it turns its attention to the possibility of future war crimes trials, in which it may be implicated. Yet, for the hard-line Zionists even that formal recognition of Palestine, is too much. When the deplorable Lammy went to Manchester, a group of hard line Zionists, took the opportunity to shout him down complaining that, in some inexplicable way, this recognition of Palestine, was itself a contributory factor in leading an anti-Semitic, jihadist to carry out their attack! With that flawed logic, it would be at least as rational to conclude that such a person was motivated to carry out their attack as a result of the Zionist state undertaking a genocide against Palestinians!

The flawed logic and hypocrisy continued with the response to the actual demonstrations. As stated above, the descriptions of the demonstrations have varied, sometimes referring to them as being “Pro-Palestinian”, and sometimes “anti-Genocide”, as well as those dealing with the opposition to the ridiculous banning of “Palestine Action”. What none of those descriptions have been able to claim is that the demonstrations were “anti-Israel”, let alone “anti-Semitic”. That has been left to be tacitly implied with the commentary surrounding the description and reporting, and overtly implied in the demands that the protests be cancelled or postponed. But, the implication whether tacit or overt has no basis in fact or logic. If you purport to support a two bourgeois states solution, then an independent, free Palestine, is a prerequisite for it, and so, why would you oppose a protest in support of such a development, especially as the British government, along with the majority of other other states in the world, now recognises a Palestinian state?

If that is what you believe, you cannot logically argue that a protest in favour of Palestine is de facto, a protest against Israel, let alone a protest aimed at Jews. Similarly, most civilised people across the globe oppose genocide and war crimes, even if an increasingly right-wing polity in Britain seeks to abandon all such civilised behaviour, for example, in abandoning the European Convention on Human Rights. So, how can you, then, oppose a protest against an actual genocide that is continuing day after day, conducted by the Zionist regime? Opposing that genocide, does not equate, even, to opposing the continued existence of the Zionist state that is undertaking that genocide. It only equates to insisting that that state desist in its actions, just as demands that the Russian state desist from its war against Ukraine does not equate to a demand that Russia continue to exist. Even less can it be argued that a protest against an ongoing genocide is in any way a protest aimed at Jews, let alone Jews living in Britain.

Seeming to recognise that they had been caught out in this flawed logic and hypocrisy, the Zionist/imperialist politicians and media changed to a different tack. They moved from demands that the protests be cancelled because of being seen to be threatening to British Jews, to demands that they be postponed, because they would drain police resources that would otherwise be utilised to protect Jewish communities. But, none of the protests have been violent protests. For the number of people taking part, during the whole period of the last three years, fewer people have been arrested than at an average football match. The logic would rather be that to save police resources, all current football matches be postponed! Good luck trying to argue for that one.

Moreover, most of the arrests that have taken place, are not for any kind of violent behaviour, but have been arrests of people for carrying flags or placards. Oddly we do not see the same kind of zealous pursuit of racists and fascists for carrying flags and placards, in a threatening manner, nor for vandalising property by illegally erecting flags, or daubing paint on road signs. If the police and politicians were worried about a real extensive threat to Jewish communities over the weekend, then they would have prioritised their scarce resources to that task, and not to policing and arresting a load of peaceful protesters, opposing genocide.

When it comes to the protests opposing the banning of Palestine Action, the logical gymnastics have been even more absurd. Firstly, it was claimed that because Palestine Action is a proscribed “terrorist” organisation, it was already illegal to protest in favour of it. That is simply not true. It is illegal to support Palestine Action, as an organisation, but it is not illegal to protest against the government's decision to proscribe it, which itself is being challenged in the courts, nor to protest in favour of that ban being lifted, nor is it illegal to protest in favour of the aims of Palestine Action, i.e. to prevent the genocide in Gaza, and the government's facilitation of that genocide by the supply of military equipment. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of all, under the Genocide Convention, to which Britain is a signatory, to prevent such genocide. It is the British government that is acting illegally.

So, if the argument is that police resources are being used to arrest a bunch of peaceful grannies sitting holding placards, and interfering with no one other than a few pigeons in Trafalgar Square, rather than protecting Jewish communities, the question is, do they not have a brain so as to decide which is the most pressing use of those resources? If police resources, week after week, are being used to police and arrest hundreds of grannies and vicars, who have only turned out because the British government, as it becomes aver more authoritarian, has passed a piece of ridiculous legislation declaring Palestine Action to be a terrorist organisation, then, the responsibility for that lies, primarily with the government, which should lift that ban, and secondly with the police for using their resources to implement that ridiculous ban, rather than protecting Jewish and other minority communities.

Protesting against the government's ridiculous ban, does not equate to supporting Palestine Action as an organisation. I do not support Starmer's reactionary Blue Labour, but I would oppose it being banned by some future government. As a Marxist, I do not support Palestine Action, and its petty-bourgeois, individualistic acts of sabotage. Rather, I support the mass action of the working-class to achieve those ends, as with the general strike being organised in Italy. But, that does not mean that I am indifferent to the actions of the state to ban Palestine Action, and that same state if allowed to continue unchallenged, would soon turn its attention to banning any actual mass action by the working-class.

All around the hypocrisy and contradictions of Zionism/imperialism are being exposed more clearly by the day.

US & Britain Revert To Colonialism

Colonialism was the form that imperialism took in the age of mercantilism. Mercantilism was based upon a symbiotic alliance of the landed aristocracy, and the antediluvian forms of capital, i.e. merchant capital and usurers capital. All of these forms appropriate surplus-value via unequal exchange, as against industrial capital, which acts to produce surplus-value, on an unprecedented scale, via the employment of ever greater masses of wage-labour. It was the dominance of this large-scale industrial capital, by the latter part of the 19th century, which created the conditions for an end to colonialism, and the start of modern imperialism. It went together, with the end of the ownership of private industrial capital, as it was expropriated by large-scale socialised capital, and the evolution of bourgeois-democracy from liberal-democracy, to social-democracy.

But, as conservative social-democracy has collapsed, noticeably in the US and UK, in the last 20 years – often termed the collapse of the centre-ground – at least, in terms of the political regimes, which have, now, been dominated by the forces of petty-bourgeois nationalism, in the form of Trump, Toryism and Starmerism, they have, also, now, reverted to those pre-social-democratic forms of imperialism, characterised by colonialism. The ultimatum given to the Palestinians is emblematic of it.

The ultimatum given to the Palestinians, and that is what it is, rather than any kind of “offer”, or peace plan, is to roll over and be taken over by a colonial state. The only choice they have is whether, in the short-run, that colonial state is administered by Donald Trump and Tony Blair, both of whom have big plans to redevelop Gaza as prime beach front property providing them with large amounts of rent, and commercial profit, no doubt, also, with large amounts of interest from loans that will be foisted on the Palestinians to finance any such reconstruction, or, instead, to continue to be starved, shelled and slaughtered for several more weeks/months, by the Zionist state, which will, in any case, at the end of that, occupy their land, and again drive out the Palestinians.

This is what the farcical two bourgeois states solution was always going to result in. As David Ben-Gurion wrote to his son, in response to its proposal by the Peel Commission,

“partition would be a first step to "possession of the land as a whole".

Not even the pretence of even the two bourgeois states remains in the ultimatum given to the Palestinians. The Palestinians are to accept colonial rule by the US and UK, much as was the case a century ago, under the British Mandate. The first time around that resulted in the violent creation of the Zionist state on Palestinian land, and the killing and driving from the land of 700,000 Palestinians, by the terrorists of the Irgun, and Stern Gang etc. The current ultimatum seeks to repeat that process, and finish the job, as Ben-Gurion foresaw. The Palestinians themselves have been given, and are to be given no role in this process, or in even the discussions around the ultimatum they have been given. It contrasts starkly with all of the moralistic nonsense from European politicians and journalists about demanding that Ukraine had to be a participant in any peace negotiations with Russia.

If you are gullible enough to believe that Netanyahu and the Zionist state will, in any case, abide by the terms of this deal, any more than they have abided by any other, than I have an Eiffel Tower to sell you. Once the Israeli hostages are released, Netanyahu is likely to just unleash even more death and destruction on Gaza, and to step up the occupation and settlement of the West Bank. The ultimatum says that no Gazans need leave Gaza, whilst reconstruction takes place. That says nothing about them leaving in wooden boxes as they continue to starve to death, or die from rampant diseases. But, even if that were not the case, its like saying, you can stay here, in this rat infested, swamped tent, whilst all around you Trump and Blair's property developers erect spanking new, luxury buildings where your homes used to be, and which, of course, you will have not a chance in hell of being able to afford to live in yourselves. You might be able to continue to live in some shack, however, because those living in the new properties will need cleaners and other skivvies. It will be a repeat of the kind of gentrification projects that occurred in the dockland areas of Britain under Blair.

To the extent that the Palestinians continue to exist, as a people, in the area, it will only be in the same way that the Native Americans, in the United States, continue to exist. But, Marxists, in the 19th century, had a duty to argue that there was no point in the Native American tribes continuing to fight against a hugely superior force. We certainly did not agree with the reactionaries who, during the 1980's, proclaimed that it was “better to be dead than red”, as they justified the potential for nuclear war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. It is far better that Palestinians, today, are able to live, even if, all prospect of an independent state is gone, than that they should continue to die in their millions in search of a goal that is beyond their reach anyway.

The other bourgeois Arab states have, of course, welcomed Trump's ultimatum, because their hope has been, ever since the Abraham Accords, to benefit from the investment of US capital in the region, and creation of an economic zone, under the tutelage of US imperialism. Trump's insistence that Netanyahu apologise to Qatar for having bombed it, and infringed its sovereignty is part of that process. Meanwhile, Ben-G'vir and Smotrich appear to be being set up as patsies for Netanyahu, Trump, Biden, and the other war criminals. They are the ones that have already been sanctioned by western governments, even though it is Netanyahu that sits at the top of the genocidal regime, and who could not have implemented the genocide without the support of Biden, Trump, Sunak, Starmer et al.

Ben-G'vir and Smotrich have already condemned Netanyahu's apology to Qatar, and look set to potentially leave the government. But, they are likely to simply be replaced by centre-right politicians, facilitating a continuation of Netanyahu's rule, backed by Trump and other western leaders. Ben-G'vir and Smotrich may well, then, be sacrificed on the altar of the War Crimes tribunal in The Hague, whilst its not at all inconceivable that Trump and Netanyahu could be given that illusive Nobel Peace prize! All morally reprehensible and gut wrenching, but the world does not function on the basis of morals, but on the basis of power.

Moreover, if the lives of millions of Palestinians are saved by such a process, it opens the potential for the only real solution to the problems of the Palestinians, and everyone else in the Middle-East. That is a solution based upon class struggle, and not the illusory and reactionary basis of nationalism.

Starmer Recognises Existence of A Still-Born Corpse

Starmer's Blue Labour government has recognised a Palestinian state. He has done so, in conditions where the Zionist state, in Israel, has destroyed Gaza, and continues its policy of genocide against Palestinians, now, also, in the occupied West Bank. The Zionist state has made clear its intention of annexing, at least, the majority of the West Bank, which, in reality, means it will annex all of it, simply formalising its existing rule over it, and the continued violent eviction of the Palestinian population by Zionist settlers, backed by the IDF. In other words, Starmer's recognition of a Palestinian state, is merely, a grotesque, performative action, designed for domestic consumption, to recognise the existence of a still-born corpse.

At any point, in the last 78 years, following the creation of the Zionist state, in Palestine, and, thereby, the creation of the Israeli nation state, British and other governments could have recognised the existence of a Palestinian state. They chose not to do so so, despite, for at least the last 50 years, many of them claiming to be in favour of a two-state solution! A Palestinian nation state did, after all, already exist, unlike the Israeli nation state, which came into existence, only in 1947, by itself, seizing a large chunk of that Palestinian nation state, and violently evicting 700,000 Palestinians. A Palestinian nation state existed, prior to that, as numerous Al Jazeera documentaries have detailed. But, it was not an independent nation state. It was already a colonial state, under the control of some colonial power, notably the Ottoman Empire, prior to WWI, and, then, Britain.

As with most colonies, the question is not whether a nation state existed, or not, but whether that state was politically independent. A nation state exists, where there is a nation existing, within defined national borders, possessing a common language and customs, and an administrative infrastructure. All of that applied to Palestine, both under the Ottomans, and under the British mandate, just as much as it applied to, for example, India, under British rule. The existence of this nation state, however, does not imply its political independence, and the anti-colonial struggles of the 19th and 20th centuries, were precisely about the struggle for the independence of those existing bourgeois states, and not, about the creation of new, bourgeois nation states themselves. It is why Lenin, and the Comintern, distinguished between the national question, and the colonial question.

In terms of the national question, what was being discussed was the creation of new bourgeois states, as national minorities, within existing nation states, sought to separate. The position of Marxism, in relation to that, has always been clear, going back to Marx and Engels. We see it as a reactionary demand, which undermines the unity of the working-class as an international, not national class, and does so, by aligning the workers in each nation with their own rulers, against the workers of other nations. Whilst Marxists in the dominant nation, emphasise that they support the right of any oppressed national minority, to secede, freely, they, nevertheless, continue to argue against them doing so, i.e. argue against them exercising that right. In fact, as Marx set out in his 1850 Address to the Central Committee of the Communist League, we oppose, also, the weakening of the political unity of the existing state, in the form of the introduction of federal structures, too, because that is the first step to the break up of the state itself, and is used by reactionary nationalist, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois forces to divide the workers.

“The democrats will either work directly towards a federated republic, or at least, if they cannot avoid the one and indivisible republic they will attempt to paralyze the central government by granting the municipalities and provinces the greatest possible autonomy and independence. In opposition to this plan the workers must not only strive for one and indivisible German republic, but also, within this republic, for the most decisive centralization of power in the hands of the state authority. They should not let themselves be led astray by empty democratic talk about the freedom of the municipalities, self-government, etc. In a country like Germany, where so many remnants of the Middle Ages are still to be abolished, where so much local and provincial obstinacy has to be broken down, it cannot under any circumstances be tolerated that each village, each town and each province may put up new obstacles in the way of revolutionary activity, which can only be developed with full efficiency from a central point. A renewal of the present situation, in which the Germans have to wage a separate struggle in each town and province for the same degree of progress, can also not be tolerated. Least of all can a so-called free system of local government be allowed to perpetuate a form of property which is more backward than modern private property and which is everywhere and inevitably being transformed into private property; namely communal property, with its consequent disputes between poor and rich communities. Nor can this so-called free system of local government be allowed to perpetuate, side by side with the state civil law, the existence of communal civil law with its sharp practices directed against the workers. As in France in 1793, it is the task of the genuinely revolutionary party in Germany to carry through the strictest centralization.”

In his polemic with the Luxemburg and Pilsudski, in relation to Polish independence from Tsarist Russia, Lenin made clear the reactionary nature of that demand, in dividing the working class.

“See to what monstrous conclusions this monstrous logic leads, even from the viewpoint of the programme demand for Poland’s restoration. Because the restoration of Poland is one of the possible (but, whilst the bourgeoisie rules, by no means absolutely certain) consequences of democratic evolution, therefore the Polish proletariat must not fight together with the Russian proletariat to overthrow tsarism, but “only” to weaken it by wresting Poland from it. Because Russian tsarism is concluding a closer and closer alliance with the bourgeoisie and the governments of Germany, Austria, etc., therefore the Polish proletariat must weaken its alliance with the proletariat of Russia, Germany, etc., together with whom it is now fighting against one and the same yoke. This is nothing more than sacrificing the most vital interests of the proletariat to the bourgeois-democratic conception of national independence. The disintegration of Russia which the P.S.P. desires, as distinct from our aim of overthrowing tsarism, is and will remain an empty phrase, as long as economic development continues to bring the different parts of a political whole more and more closely together, and as long as the bourgeoisie of all countries unite more and more closely against their common enemy, the proletariat, and in support of their common ally, the tsar.”

(The National Question In Our Programme)

And, that point was made even clearer, by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, in setting out that, as far as Marxists in the nation seeking to separate was concerned, they should emphasise their opposition to any such separation.

“The Social-Democrats will always combat every attempt to influence national self-determination from without by violence or by any injustice. However, our unreserved recognition of the struggle for freedom of self-determination does not in any way commit us to supporting every demand for national self-determination. As the party of the proletariat, the Social-Democratic Party considers it to be its positive and principal task to further the self-determination of the proletariat in each nationality rather than that of peoples or nations. We must always and unreservedly work for the very closest unity of the proletariat of all nationalities, and it is only in isolated and exceptional cases that we can advance and actively support demands conducive to the establishment of a new class state or to the substitution of a looser federal unity, etc., for the complete political unity of a state.”

(ibid)

With the colonial question, however, what is being discussed is not the creation of some new class state, but simply the political independence of an existing class state. Other than in the case of the French colonies, colonial empires did not incorporate the colony into the state of the colonial power. The state in India, for example, operated within India, under British colonial rule. There were no elections of Indian politicians to the British parliament, and so on. So, the question of the existence of a Palestinian nation state, is quite different to the question of whether this state was ever an independent state, which, clearly, it was not. The Palestinians, never reached that level of development to establish such an independent state, and, after, 1947, as the Zionist state arose, as itself, a colonialist and expansionist state, backed by powerful imperialist states, it took over that role.

The two-state solution was always a reactionary, bourgeois delusion, as I described 40 years ago, and was, in fact, used by imperialism to distract from any real solution to the problem. Ben-Gurion was clear what the acceptance of the wording of a two-state solution, proposed by the Peel Commission, actually amounted to for the Zionists. In a letter to his son in October 1937, Ben-Gurion explained that partition would be a first step to "possession of the land as a whole". That is what has now played out. At the point that all prospect of an independent, Palestinian state has, now, been clearly demonstrated to be impossible, Starmer, and others, who have continued, and continue to back the genocide and destruction of Palestine, recognise its existence!

Blue Labour's Government of War Criminals and Genocide Deniers

Blue Labour is a party based on reactionary, petty-bourgeois nationalism. It is no longer a bourgeois, workers' party. Its ideology is no longer the relatively progressive ideology of the bourgeoisie, of large-scale industrial capital, but a throwback to the ideas of the petty-bourgeoisie, a reactionary attempt to hold back the onward march of history. That is why, although it has claimed that the key to all its programs is economic growth, it stubbornly refuses to accept that the one single thing that would facilitate that growth is to abandon the disastrous commitment to Brexit, and to take Britain back into the EU as soon as they possibly could.

Last night, I watched the BBC Four documentary, “The Improbable Mr. Attlee”, and was struck by the similarities of the egregious unforced errors made by that government, and those being repeated, by Blue Labour, today. As with Starmer, the errors made by Attlee, meant that going from a large majority, in 1945, his attacks on workers, continued implementation of rationing, huge wasteful spending on arms, undermined the economy, and led to the return of the Tories in 1951. But, at least, Attlee had won huge numbers of votes, unlike Blue Labour, which only secured a parliamentary majority as a result of the corrupt nature of the electoral system, and a division in the votes for Tories and Reform.

One of the aspects of those errors was the attempt to cling to the former colonial delusions. In the end, reality imposed itself there too, as Britain scuttled from its former colonies, in turn, leading to conditions that fuelled many of the present conflicts across the globe, including that in Israel/Palestine. The attempt to cling to Empire was one reason that Attlee's government wastefully spent money on weapons, and maintaining an army so big that it constituted 10% of the total workforce, at a time when the economy was desperate for workers to rebuild its infrastructure, and provide all of the goods and services for which workers were in desperate need. To put it another way 90% of the workforce was working to produce the goods and services that the 10% in the army consumed, let alone all of the production that went into the military equipment.

The reflection of that was that whilst, in Europe, economies began to recover and grow, this wasteful arms spending, in Britain, undermined economic growth and capital accumulation – expanded negative reproduction – as it sucked in resources and surplus value that should have gone to real capital accumulation. The other manifestation of that, was that as the economy failed to grow, and as surplus value was drained into this destructive military spending, Attlee's government had to try to boost surplus value, which it did by imposing wage controls on workers, and sending in the troops to break strikes for higher wages. It imposed a continuation of rationing, which even meant that an already meagre calorie consumption by workers, fell further still, even compared to the last year of the war.

But, where Attlee's government, like that of Wilson/Callaghan of the 1960's and 70's, was still miles ahead of that of Starmer, is that those earlier governments were still bourgeois workers' parties. They relied upon the votes of the working-class, and their ideology was that of large-scale industrial capital, whose advance they sought to achieve. That is why that government nationalised the core industries vital for the development of capital, although, as the programme documents, the way it did so, was inefficient and bureaucratic. Of course, they could never consider the idea of placng those industries under democratic workers control, and if they had, the ruling class would quickly have removed them. But, nor did they place them under direct government control, instead following the model in the rest of big business of having Boards of Directors appointed, and those Boards, were inevitably comprised of the same personnel as those that littered the boards of the other large corporations.

But, it was still way in advance of the current Blue Labour government, whose world view is that which extends no further than where it thinks it can obtain the next vote, and always sees it by appealing to the worst sections of society, to the basest elements, to all of the racism and bigotry that festers in the swamp of the large petit-bourgeois mass. So, its no wonder that Starmer has found his soulmates in likeminded reactionary petit-bourgeois regimes across the globe, with his early visit to Meloni in Italy, his fawning at the feet of Trump, as he licked his arse, in hope of some favour or possibly just more personal freebies of the kind that have characterised the corrupt nature of the Blue Labour regime, and, of course, in that same camp is the detestable Netanyahu, to whose Zionist regime, Blue Labour owes the favour, of all of the efforts, of people like David Mencer, former Chair of Labour Friends of Zionism, in removing Corbyn.

Blue Labour has been repaying that debt over the last 20 months, as the Zionist regime has engaged in genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, as well as expanding its war of annexation and colonisation in Lebanon and Syria. Not only has Blue Labour continued to supply weapons to its Zionist friends to carry out that genocide, but it has been more than zealous in even denying the right of anyone, particularly Labour members, to point out that what the Zionist regime was engaged in was genocide. In other words, Blue Labour has carried out the biggest act of genocide denial ever seen. Those right-wing crackpots that over the years denied the Holocaust against Jews, were always a small minority, and always ostracised. But, the genocide being committed against Palestinians is happening in real-time for all to see.

As Owen Jones says, in this video, no one has any excuse for not recognising that what has been happening and continues to happen in Palestine is a genocide. The Zionists themselves were open about what they were doing, even though, when it has come to individual atrocities, they have always tried to dress it up as being some kind of error, having first denied it ever happened. Its spokespeople like Mencer, who has been, even when he was Chair of Labour Friends of Zionism, either a blatant liar, or a delusional fantasist, continue to lie about the actions of the Zionist state, having grown used to being able to say any bullshit they like and have it repeated as holy script by western politicians and media. But, even they are now seeing the completion of the Zionists' Final Solution, against the Palestinians in its closing stages, and are turning to a balance of concern over their own futures, as against the need to ensure that the Zionists can continue to do their dirty work for them.

So, its no surprise that 28 countries wrung their hands, and cried crocodile tears for the Palestinians, as they meekly implored the Zionists to stop, knowing, of course, that they will not. Their concerns, of course, have not been sufficient to end arms sales to the Zionist state, let alone to suggest a “liberal intervention” to prevent the genocide, as they did in relation to Libya and Syria. Quite the contrary, not only do the arms sales continue, but Britain and other countries have acted militarily against the Houthis, as they tried to stop shipments to the Zionists, and, of course, as the Zionist state extended its war of annexation to Syria and Lebanon, and launched attacks on Iran, NATO has put its own protective shield around Israel, to enable it to continue such attacks, free from the chance of effective retaliation. And, of course, Blue Labour has ridiculously branded Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation for itself taking direct action to protest at UK arms sales used to carry out genocide.

The lying speeches of Blue Labour Ministers are gut wrenchingly awful, and the performance of the media are no better, which continues to repeat the lies of the Zionist state about October 7th and UNWRA being comprised of card carrying members of HAMAS and so on. But, Owen Jones is wrong in thinking that these creatures will be held to account, and face the dock. Short of a widespread international socialist revolution, that is not going to happen. The Zionist regime, as Merz admitted a few weeks ago, has been doing western imperialism's work for it. Those that commissioned that work, in western governments are not going to put themselves in the dock.

Nor should we simply wait for such an event to happen. If we do, we make it all the less likely. The backbench Tory MP, Kit Malthouse, at least, appealed to Labour MP's to call the government to account. There is not much chance of that either, but socialists, via the trades unions, and even still via, their individual membership of the party, as we approach the annual conference, do have the opportunity to call these reactionary scumbags to account. Starmer must go, and all those Blue Labour MP's that stand behind him must be sent packing too. We need to rebuild the labour movement from the ground up, to rejuvenate and democratise the unions, and to use that as the driving force back into the Labour Party itself, to get rid of the ideology of Blue Labour, and to get rid of all those MP's elected to represent it. It needs to be ripped out root and branch.

Social-Imperialists Have Led Workers To Disaster - Part 6 of 6

History has repeated itself. The social-imperialists sold the workers into the bondage of US/NATO imperialism, as their only saviour against Russian imperialism, the underlying but unstated reality, of course, being that US imperialism would, at some point, demand its pound of flesh from Ukraine's workers themselves, as Trump is now setting out. Indeed, I pointed out, some time ago, that the, now, fundamentally misled and demoralised workers of Ukraine, will not just be easy pickings for western exploiters, but also, for Russian and Chinese exploiters. Trump's deal does not exclude the possibility that the Ukraine's mineral resources might actually be dug out of the ground by Russian or Chinese based companies, but that the US will still get 50% of the revenues from them having done so, as payment for all those weapons that the social-imperialists misled Ukraine into believing were being offered freely and generously by rapacious western imperialists! Had they not read how US imperialism acted in that respect, in relation to WWI and II?

Of course, the “anti-imperialists” have been no better. In the Middle-East, they have sought to align themselves not with the workers of the region, as the means to provide a solution, but have simply repeated the error of those that backed the Zionists. The only difference is that they seek to back a different bourgeois nationalist horse, i.e. a Palestinian rather than Zionist horse. And, having sought a bourgeois nationalist solution, they inevitably align themselves with all sorts of anti-working-class, reactionary nationalist movements, and states to that end. Their solution does not lead to a revolutionary, proletarian conclusion, via the process of permanent revolution, but, inevitably, limits itself to a simply bourgeois nationalist solution that pits Palestinian and other Arab workers against each other, rather than against the real enemy, the Arab and Jewish ruling classes, and the imperialist powers that stand behind them. It is the same approach as that used by the likes of Rosa Luxemburg and Josef Pilsudski, in relation to Polish independence, attacked by Lenin.

“See to what monstrous conclusions this monstrous logic leads, even from the viewpoint of the programme demand for Poland’s restoration. Because the restoration of Poland is one of the possible (but, whilst the bourgeoisie rules, by no means absolutely certain) consequences of democratic evolution, therefore the Polish proletariat must not fight together with the Russian proletariat to overthrow Tsarism, but “only” to weaken it by wresting Poland from it. Because Russian Tsarism is concluding a closer and closer alliance with the bourgeoisie and the governments of Germany, Austria, etc., therefore the Polish proletariat must weaken its alliance with the proletariat of Russia, Germany, etc., together with whom it is now fighting against one and the same yoke. This is nothing more than sacrificing the most vital interests of the proletariat to the bourgeois-democratic conception of national independence. The disintegration of Russia which the P.S.P. desires, as distinct from our aim of overthrowing Tsarism, is and will remain an empty phrase, as long as economic development continues to bring the different parts of a political whole more and more closely together, and as long as the bourgeoisie of all countries unite more and more closely against their common enemy, the proletariat, and in support of their common ally, the tsar.”

(The National Question In Our Programme)

When the Zionists in Israel, now, state openly to Palestinians, “who is going to save you, now”, they speak only a brutal and brutish truth of where the bourgeois nationalist solutions sought for the Palestinians, and advocated by social-imperialists and “anti-imperialists” alike, have led that benighted people. The response to the question of the Zionists should have been, "the revolutionary proletariat, including revolutionary Jewish workers will save us, and themselves", but the collapse of the global socialist movement into petty-bourgeois moralism and nationalism has made that impossible. Imperialism, and its poodle, the United Nations, was never going to save the Palestinians, and nor were the bourgeois Arab States for whom the Palestinians were also an encumbrance and inconvenience, as they sought to further their interests and alliances with imperialism, and so, necessarily with the Zionist state, as its proxy. The workers in Ukraine can expect no better outcome.

Back To Part 5

Social-Imperialists Have Led Workers To Disaster - Part 5 of 6

Inevitably, as Marx and Engels wrote, in relation to the European “non-historic peoples” in the 19th century, and as Lenin and Trotsky wrote about such small nations in the 20th, the Palestinians turned to other more powerful states, creating yet again divisions within the global working-class along national lines, and causing them to fall in behind the ruling classes of those states, lines and divisions themselves determined by imperialism. The reality of the supposed Two Bourgeois States solution was always that it could only be brought about, not only over the heads of the workers in the Middle-East, but also over the heads of the ruling classes of Israel and Palestine, and the surrounding states. It would require US imperialism, probably in conjunction with EU imperialism to impose such a solution on those ruling classes, and they had no reason to do that, rather than continuing to support the Zionist state as their proxy, and have it implement their agenda in the region.

The same is true in relation to the imperialist solution imposed from above on Ukraine. In the 1930's, Trotsky noted.

“Only hopeless pacifist blockheads are capable of thinking that the emancipation and unification of the Ukraine can be achieved by peaceful diplomatic means, by referendums, by decisions of the League of Nations, etc. In no way superior to them of course are those “nationalists” who propose to solve the Ukrainian question by entering the service of one imperialism against another. Hitler gave an invaluable lesson to those adventurers by tossing (for how long?) Carpatho-Ukraine to the Hungarians who immediately slaughtered not a few trusting Ukrainians. Insofar as the issue depends upon the military strength of the imperialist states, the victory of one grouping or another can signify only a new dismemberment and a still more brutal subjugation of the Ukrainian people, The program of independence for the Ukraine in the epoch of imperialism is directly and indissolubly bound up with the program of the proletarian revolution. It would be criminal to entertain any illusions on this score...

The worker and peasant masses in the Western Ukraine, in Bukovina, in the Carpatho-Ukraine are in a state of confusion: Where to turn? What to demand? This situation naturally shifts the leadership to the most reactionary Ukrainian cliques who express their “nationalism” by seeking to sell the Ukrainian people to one imperialism or another in return for a promise of fictitious independence.”

(Problem of the Ukraine)

Back To Part 4

Forward To Part 6

Social-Imperialists Have Led Workers To Disaster - Part 4 of 6

When the working-class and its leadership fail to insist on their independence from the ruling-class, and cease fighting for its own interests, by subordinating itself to the interests of the ruling-class, based only on some moralistic conception of backing the lesser-evil, that is the inevitable result. It disqualifies itself from any say in the historical process, and as the workers in Ukraine will, now, find, as I predicted at the start of the conflict, will have fatally undermined themselves in the struggle that follows. What is more, as the world hurtles towards WWIII, and the extinction of humanity, the working-class, everywhere, has also been fundamentally undermined, by the moralising, and class-collaborationist policies of the social-imperialists, most disgracefully some of whom call themselves Trotskyists.

As Trotsky had noted in some of his last writings,

“... the facts of every passing day demonstrate to us that Zionism is incapable of resolving the Jewish question. The conflict between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine acquires a more and more tragic and more and more menacing character. I do not at all believe that the Jewish question can be resolved within the framework of rotting capitalism and under the control of British imperialism.”

And,

“The attempt to solve the Jewish question through the migration of Jews to Palestine can now be seen for what it is, a tragic mockery of the Jewish people. Interested in winning the sympathies of the Arabs who are more numerous than the Jews, the British government has sharply altered its policy toward the Jews, and has actually renounced its promise to help them found their “own home” in a foreign land. The future development of military events may well transform Palestine into a bloody trap for several hundred thousand Jews. Never was it so clear as it is today that the salvation of the Jewish people is bound up inseparably with the overthrow of the capitalist system.”

(On The Jewish Problem.)

In fact, Jews themselves arrived at the same conclusion. Despite all of the racist laws in Israel to give Jews ethno-religious privileges, only 40% of the world's Jews live in Israel, with as many living in the US. Increasingly, it is not Jews that provide the support for Zionism and its project in Israel, but Christian-Zionist zealots seeking The Second Coming, and Armageddon, and, in the US, they play a significant role within the Republican Party, along with other racists and white nationalists.

The social-imperialists abandoned class politics, and the primacy of proletarian struggle, in relation to the resolution of the problems of Jews, not only in favour of a reactionary, bourgeois nationalist solution – Zionism – which was no solution at all, and has, in reality fermented even greater anti-Semitism, the more so as the Zionists equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, but have done so, in relation to the consequence of that non-solution – the denial of rights to Palestinians. Having established the new, bourgeois Zionist state at the expense of the Palestinians, the social-imperialists then have sought to inadequately compensate the Palestinians for that consequence, by offering them the prospect of a bourgeois state on just a part of Palestine, in other words, again a bourgeois nationalist solution. But, unlike the bourgeois nationalist solution offered by Zionism, the bourgeois nationalist solution offered to Palestinians has had no chance of being fulfilled. The Palestinians have not had the backing of powerful international forces, be it at one point the USSR, and later US imperialism, that the Zionists have enjoyed.

Back To Part 3

Forward To Part 5

Social-Imperialists Have Led Workers To Disaster - Part 3 of 6

It was impossible to establish the Zionist state in 1948, in Palestine, without it being “at the expense of another nation.” And, the attempt to create such a state by those violent means, could have no other result than to divide Palestinian and Jewish workers, and create the conditions for such division and violence to persist, including the extension of that division in the working-class to the working-class in the surrounding Arab states. Who benefited from that? Not only the Zionist ruling caste, resting upon the Israeli ruling-class, but, also the Arab ruling classes in those surrounding states, who could use Zionism as a convenient bogey, so as to distract from the real enemy of the workers in their own country.

“Social-Democrats must moreover bear in mind that the landowners, the clergy and the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations often cover up with nationalist slogans their efforts to divide the workers and dupe them by doing deals behind their backs with the landowners and bourgeoisie of the ruling nation to the detriment of the masses of the working people of all nations.”

(Lenin - (Resolutions of the Summer, 1913, Joint Conference of the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. and Party Officials)

And, of course, the other beneficiary was US imperialism, which not only kept the working-class divided (not only in the Middle-East, but also in the imperialist heartlands where Zionism had considerable influence within labour movements), but, also, obtained its own heavily armed encampment through which to channel its activities. As the then Senator Joe Bidden put it, “If Israel did not exist, the US would have had to create it”! Indeed, Israel largely is the creation of US imperialism, for all intents and purposes a vassal state dependent upon it, for its existence. As I noted several years ago, Ukraine's dependence on US imperialism would have the same consequence, as NATO used Ukrainian workers blood and bones as grist in the mill of its global imperialist conflict with Russian~Chinese imperialism. As with much else, Trump has simply said it out loud as he now demands his own pound of Ukrainian flesh in the form of control over vast quantities of Ukrainian minerals, and revenues.

It is also no coincidence that the favoured “solution” to the question of Palestine is the mythical “Two-State Solution”, which could only have come into existence itself if the Palestinians agreed to similarly play the role of vassals to US imperialism, though, even with Fatah, in the West Bank, largely prostrating themselves in that manner, and acting as the contracted police force of the Zionist state, it has taken them no further forward, as the process of annexation of Palestinian land and property, and extermination of Palestinians as a people has continued. For social-imperialism, the two-state solution, the creation of two new bourgeois states – Israel and Palestine – is the logical manifestation of its subordination of workers' interests to those of the bourgeoisie, with the workers being removed from any role other than as cheerleaders or cannon fodder for the solutions formulated by the world's ruling classes, which in reality means the solutions to be provided by imperialism.

And, that is most clearly being seen, now, not only with Trump's proposals for Gaza, but, also, in his proposals for Ukraine. The moralistic whining and whimpering of social-democrats and liberals that there can be no peace negotiations without the EU and Ukraine at the table is simply an exposition of their bankruptcy. Trump and Putin have carved up Ukraine between them, just as Trotsky described, in the 1930's, happened to Ukraine, and as happened in many more places, such as the carving up of China. When the wolves gather to rend the flesh of the lambs, they do not engage in discussion of it first with the lambs! Defeated Germany was excluded from the negotiations between the other imperialist powers, at Versailles, who, having carved up the world between them, simply told Germany that the war would resume unless it agreed to their terms. The same happened when, after WWII, the US, USSR, and Britain carved up the world between them, in their talks at Potsdam and Yalta, satirised in "Animal Farm", by Orwell as the pigs and humans, at the end of the book, sitting around the table together.

Back To Part 2

Forward To Part 4

Social-Imperialists Have Led Workers To Disaster - Part 2 of 6

As Owen Jones and others have extensively shown, western media, let alone the totalitarian, Zionist media inside Israel itself, has systematically covered up the atrocities committed by Zionist settlers, and by the IDF, day after day, both before and after October 7th, the most obvious atrocity that began the process being that of the violent creation of the Zionist state, itself, in 1948, which led to more than 700,000 Palestinians being forced from their land and homes, many of whom were driven to become refugees in Gaza, Lebanon and Jordan, and who are refused the right to return. As Marxists, we do not act as moralists seeking to right historical wrongs such as that, but seek to act in such a way as to best further the interests of the working-class in the conditions of today, and, invariably that means seeking to build the greatest possible unity of workers across national borders. Indeed, those national borders, in the age of imperialism, are an anachronism, a fetter on the rational development of capital itself, let alone the goal of creating international socialism.

As Lenin had put it,

“As the party of the proletariat, the Social-Democratic Party considers it to be its positive and principal task to further the self-determination of the proletariat in each nationality rather than that of peoples or nations. We must always and unreservedly work for the very closest unity of the proletariat of all nationalities, and it is only in isolated and exceptional cases that we can advance and actively support demands conducive to the establishment of a new class state or to the substitution of a looser federal unity, etc., for the complete political unity of a state.”

(The National Question In Our Programme)

Consequently, although Marxists could never have justified the creation of the Zionist state in 1948, we deal with the reality of its existence. To seek the destruction of that state by the same kinds of violence that saw its creation, would be as reactionary as that act of creation itself, simply winding the film of history in reverse. The question, for Marxists is always focused on the agent of change, and the only progressive agent of change is the working-class, a class which itself has no nationality, because it is a global class, fighting a global capitalist/imperialist ruling class. We seek the destruction of the Zionist state, only in the same way that we seek the destruction of all other capitalist/imperialist states, not at the hands of some other class state, or exploiting class, but at the hands of the revolutionary proletariat.

The project of Zionism, as a reactionary, racist and colonialist ideology could never be supported by Marxists, precisely because it places race and nationality above class, and focuses on the former rather than the latter as the basis upon which the fundamental divisions of society are based, and which must form the axis around which history is driven forward. So long as that is the case, then all such struggles will lead to class being subordinated to race and national identity, and consequently, the objective reality of the unity of the working-class as a global class, and of the actual fundamental antagonism – the contradiction between capital and labour – will become secondary. It means that the working-class will be repeatedly divided on the basis of race and national identity. The struggle for its own interests will repeatedly be postponed until some future date, after it has already weakened itself via a popular front with its real enemy, the bourgeois ruling-class.

As again, Lenin put it,

“That is why the proletariat confines itself, so to speak, to the negative demand for recognition of the right to self-determination, without giving guarantees to any nation, and without undertaking to give anything at the expense of another nation.”

(The Right of Nations to Self-Determination)

Back To Part 1

Forward To Part 3

Why Are Supporters of Palestine Deluding Themselves?

Supporters of Palestine and the Palestinians are deluding themselves. Repeatedly, we hear comments such as Netanyahu has failed, because Hamas has not been defeated, that a ceasefire has, now, been agreed, in which large numbers of Palestinian hostages are being released from Zionist gaols, and so on. To see in this any kind of victory for Palestine or for the Palestinian people, let alone for the working class of Palestine, or the broader region, is wilful self-deception.

First, of all, as I set out at the start of the Zionist genocide in Gaza, the aim of Netanyahu was never the defeat of Hamas, or release of hostages. That provided a useful justification for the actual purpose of the Zionist onslaught, which was to flatten Gaza, eviscerate the West Bank, and further extend its annexation, as well as to open up new wars of annexation in Lebanon and Syria. The ludicrous, and reactionary attack carried out by Hamas on October 7th, simply facilitated it. It was to enable the latest phase of the Zionist project to create a Zionist state stretching “from the river to the sea”, or a “Greater Israel”, as it is described using ridiculous biblical foundations. In turn, that project fulfils the strategy of US imperialism to create the geo-strategic conditions for a Middle Eastern politico-economic bloc, as set out in the Abraham Accords, with other US clients, such as the Gulf States, Jordan, and Egypt to counter the growing influence of China.

This is nothing less than a 21st century equivalent of the genocides committed against Native Americans, and aborigines in Australia, in the 19th century, to clear the way for the seizure of their land, and more rapid economic development, which their continued resistance frustrated. Those that justified the project of Zionism, either at the time, or later, including those who did so on the basis of the cover of arguing for the illusory, two-bourgeois states solution, bear responsibility for all of the inevitable wars between that expansionist Zionist state, and its neighbours, all of the death and destruction, the creation of conditions in which all sorts of reactionary, nationalist ideologies, medievalist clerical-fascist ideologies, and divisions between the working-class of the region, could thrive. Its no wonder that some of those that are responsible for that are willing to delude themselves, once more, into believing that a peaceful, progressive solution for Palestinians might, now, open up, with a rebuilding of Gaza, arising out of the ceasefire.

But, on the other side, those that adopted an equally reactionary nationalist stance of supporting Hamas, or likewise, Hezbollah are also responsible for those same divisions and so on. Not for nothing did Lenin and the early Comintern argue that our goal is not national self-determination, but the self-determination of the working-class, as an international class. Not for nothing did they set out in the Theses on The National and Colonial Questions, that communists only give support to bourgeois-national struggles where the revolutionary proletariat plays a leading role, and where, therefore, the possibility of permanent revolution exists. Not for nothing did they specifically warn against the reactionary role played by the khans, clerics and so on, and of Pan-Islamism.

That is true, whether that support for those reactionary nationalists takes the overt and crude form of groups such as the SWP and its various splinters, or the more subtle form of that of the CPGB/Weekly Worker, which continually confuses and conflates the question of support for an abstract right of self-determination of nations, with the support for the concrete struggle being waged by reactionary, nationalist organisations and governments. It is simply a continuation of the Popular Frontist strategy of the Mensheviks and Stalinists, which has repeatedly led the working-class into disaster, as with Stalin's support for Chiang Kai Shek, and the KMT government.

In fact, as Owen Jones has set out, from the start of the Zionist genocide, in his videos, you did not need to look hard for the real agenda of Netanyahu and his government, which makes Jones' own  repeated refusal to face the facts of what is going on even more puzzling, and illustrative of that self-deception. From the start, the Zionist regime, from top to bottom, made open statements about their intention to exterminate the Palestinians in Gaza, men, women, children, babies and their property and livestock, with full biblical rhetoric in citing Amalek. That is what they proceeded to do, with no concern about hostages, or whether, in that process, Hamas managed to protect itself, in large part, or whether, as a consequence of the genocide, other similar organisations would be created to take its place. On the contrary, despite the fact that the majority of hostages were released as result of negotiations, rather than military operations, and despite the continual demonstrations inside Israel, the Zionist regime, repeatedly obstructed negotiations, and continued with its genocide, backed to the hilt by US, UK and EU imperialism.

We have large headlines in western newspapers, on Monday, rightly stating that we should “Never Forget”, the Nazi Holocaust that slaughtered six million Jews, and yet the sickening, gut-wrenching hypocrisy of those headlines, and of those newspapers, and other media organisations, is that they have forgotten, when it comes to standing up against the very genocide happening in front of their eyes, in Gaza, a genocide that they have not only permitted, but actively encouraged and provided cover for.

For the reality is that Netanyahu, and the Zionist regime have not suffered any kind of defeat, or failure. In fact, Netanyahu, who was facing electoral defeat, would probably win an election, tomorrow, and, on that basis, rather like his friend Trump, would also sweep aside the legal challenges he faces, too. And, Netanyahu's friend Trump, also spells out that reality more clearly. Trump is truly a moron, but one benefit of that is that he simply blurts out what his intentions are, as with his desire to seize Greenland, and the Panama Canal, and now his desire to clear Gaza, sending its population to Jordan or Egypt, to make way for its annexation by the Zionist state, and the development of Gaza's “prime beach front”, no doubt including the erection of Trump hotels, casinos, and golf courses! As with the open statements about their intentions, given at the start by the Zionist regime, we should take Trump at his word, a word that has been openly seized upon, by Smotrich, and others.

If we take the other supposed victory of the Palestinians, it is the release of large numbers of them held in Zionist gaols. But, anyone with any sense knows that, having flattened Gaza, much of Lebanon, and having eviscerated any capacity for the Palestinians to fight back, the current ceasefire, is merely a means of the Zionist regime completing its victory. As soon as the remaining hostages are released, the bombing and shelling will resume. Indeed, the shooting, bombing and shelling have never actually stopped, the occupation of Lebanon and of Syria has continued, in defiance of the terms of the deal, and, no sooner than the ceasefire, inevitably collapses, the Zionist regime will simply round up even more Palestinians from the West Bank than it has released! It has given UNWRA until Thursday to cease operations in Gaza.

The willingness of supporters of Palestine to delude themselves that what has happened is anything short of a disaster for Palestine, let alone the idea that it is some kind of defeat for the Zionist state, stems from their own impotence, other than to issue one pious wish after another. It is the result of seeing the world as some kind of morality play, a struggle between good and evil, in which, ultimately good wins out in the end. Unfortunately, its not just bourgeois liberals that have adopted that world view, but the vast majority of “the Left”, including those that proclaim themselves to be Marxists. For actual Marxists, history is not a morality play, but the consequence of class struggle, determined on the basis of material conditions, which unfolds according to objective social laws.

On that basis, its impossible to describe what has happened in Palestine as anything other than a disastrous defeat for the Palestinians, but more importantly for the global working-class, whose political leadership has been found missing in action once more, and in criminal dereliction of its duty.

Trump Wins, Neoliberalism Is Dead

As I predicted, on Sunday, Trump has won the US Presidential election, and his Trumpist Party looks set to sweep the Congress too. Already, he has received the fawning congratulations of his co-thinkers in the British Blue Labour government, who have been pursuing their own Trumpist, reactionary petty-bourgeois nationalist agenda, based around Brexit. As their own reactionary fantasy about a Blue Labour Brexit inevitably collapses around their ankles, destroying any shred of credibility of their claims about growth, they will, no doubt, as Bojo and Truss before them hoped, now be desperate for Trump to offer them some kind of trade deal, to save their blushes, as Trump sees it as a means of also further subordinating Britain, and undermining the EU. That is also a goal of his ally Putin in Russia too, already, facilitated by Blue Labour's Brexit agenda, in support of Putin's greatest strategic success, so far.

It spells the death of conservative social democracy (neoliberalism) that has, in reality, only existed in zombie form since 2008, kept on its feet only by the repeated attempts to slow economic growth, so as to hold back the demand for capital and labour-power, and so, hold down interest rates and wages, combined with a tidal wave of liquidity, pumped into worthless financial and property assets to keep their prices inflated, following the reality imposed on them in the 2008 global crash in those asset prices. It is a perfect example of a situation in which the ruling class could no longer rule in the old way, and the masses were not prepared to be ruled in the old way, but, with the working-class, as the nascent ruling-class, but lacking any consciousness of its historic role, and severely misled, it has resulted in the only way it could, by the rise of the political fortunes of the reactionary petty-bourgeoisie, which has itself grown in size by more than 50% since the 1980's.

That's not to say that Trump's election win means that the petty-bourgeoisie will now rule. As Marx set out in The Eighteenth Brumaire, they, like the peasantry, are too amorphous, to form a ruling class, which is why they always require a Bonapartist, like Trump, to whip them into line. But, also, as witnessed time and again, their electoral successes, can also, never translate into anything solid, and they too, become demoralised and disappointed, as their hopes are again dashed, as reality imposes itself upon them. The petty-bourgeoisie do not, and cannot control the state, and that state will continue to represent the interests of the ruling class, as Trump, Truss and Johnson found over the last few years, and as, in the past, was found by Allende.

Already, the ruling-class, as it did in response to Truss's 2022 Budget, has hit US Bond Markets, pushing up interest rates that have been rising significantly, already over recent weeks. With headline inflation having fallen over the last year, this rise in nominal interest rates, means a much larger rise in real rates. The US Ten Year has risen by 14 basis points to 4.43%, at the time of writing, whilst the 2 Year has risen by 7 basis points to 4.26%. The 30 year has risen 18 points to 4.62%. The latter is important as its the basis of US mortgages.

The sell-off in bonds has been accompanied by a rise in shares, but, ultimately, as US interest rates rise this rise in share prices, reflecting simply a shift of speculators money from bonds to shares, will also be reversed. Rising interest rates/bond yields, in conditions where there is no likelihood of rising profits, and so no likelihood of being able to drain even more into the payment of dividends, means that the only way higher yields on shares can be sustained is via, a significant fall in share prices. And, given Trump's stated policies of protectionism, huge tariffs on trade with virtually everywhere in the world, meaning a further huge rise in the costs to the US economy, much as with Brexit, there is no chance of any significant increase in US profits, other than via a move of large-scale US capital to elsewhere in the world, a result seen also with Brexit, and the opposite of what Trump has promised.

As with Brexit, the impact of that will fall on workers and the petty-bourgeoisie, particularly the poorest sections of those classes, many of whom, living in similar deprived and backward conditions, cast into despair by the failure of bourgeois-democracy, imperialism, and of social-democracy to provide them with any hope, as Trotsky, described in the 1930's, will have been the ones that turned to the likes of Trump. Unfortunately, as seen with this video posted by Owen Jones, even now, the potential socialist alternatives, also, have no clue either in understanding the current reality, or offering any progressive solutions.

The representative of the DSA, interviewed by Jones, for example, saw the aspects of Harris' politics that were “progressive”, as being her claims that “inflation” in the US was down to “monopoly profits”, and proposals to deal with it by breaking up monopolies, imposing price controls, and other such reactionary, utopian, petty-bourgeois policies.

I have dealt with the reactionary notion that inflation is a result of “monopoly”, in response to such claims by Michael Roberts, as well as setting out the roots of those kinds of ideas in the writing of Proudhon and Duhring. The reality is that the inflation of recent years, is the result of the huge amounts of liquidity/money tokens thrown into circulation by central banks, and handed to households to compensate them for the ludicrous and irrational lockdowns imposed on them, in response to COVID. Those lockdowns, of course, were supported and called for by the likes of social-democrats, including Michael Roberts, and large sections of the “Left”. The inflation is a direct result of the policies they advocated, not of monopoly. Indeed, the monopolies remain, but, as economies have grown, whilst the amount of additional liquidity has shrunk, the inflation has fallen. Go figure!

Similarly, the monopolies, like all large-scale socialised capital, is, objectively, now, the collective property of the working-class. As Lenin, set out, also in Left-Wing Childishness, it is the most progressive form of capital, and basis of the next stage of human social development, i.e. of Socialism, so why on Earth would a socialist want to break it apart?

“they reveal their petty-bourgeois mentality precisely by not recognising the petty-bourgeois element as the principal enemy of socialism in our country...

A hundred and twenty-five years ago it might have been excusable for the French petty bourgeoisie, the most ardent and sincere revolutionaries, to try to crush the profiteer by executing a few of the “chosen” and by making thunderous declamations. Today, however, the purely rhetorical attitude to this question assumed by some Left Socialist-Revolutionaries can rouse nothing but disgust and revulsion in every politically conscious revolutionary. We know perfectly well that the economic basis of profiteering is both the small proprietors, who are exceptionally widespread in Russia, and private capitalism, of which every petty bourgeois is an agent. We know that the million tentacles of this petty-bourgeois hydra now and again encircle various sections of the workers, that, instead of state monopoly, profiteering forces its way into every pore of our social and economic organism...

“. . . Try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landowner-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way. You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!

“. . . For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly.

“. . . State-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs. ””

The oligopolies are socialised capital, the collective property of the workers, the programme of socialism does not involve braking up the workers property, but ensuring their rightful, democratic control – even bourgeois-democratic rightful control – over their own property, and to end the usurpation of that control by its creditors/shareholders. Progressive social-democracy moved in that direction in the 1970's, prior to its political defeat at the hands of conservative social-democracy, as it confronted the challenges posed by the crisis of overproduction of capital, after 1974. Even a return to that progressive social-democratic agenda, would represent a step forward compared to the utter confusion, and pointing in the wrong direction by social-democracy, and the “Left”, today.

Trump's win, means that the fate of Palestine, and of the Palestinians is sealed. A large part of Trump's base, as with that of Blue Labour, is closely connected with Zionism. In this, Trump's Zionism ties in with the interests of US imperialism to exterminate the Palestinians, and establish a large Zionist state, “from the river to the sea”, which will also involve the annexation of further territories in Lebanon, and Syria, and potentially Jordan, though the role of the Jordanian regime in supporting western imperialism over decades, might offer it some hope. Lebanon is well on the way to being flattened, as Netanyahu promised, in similar manner to Gaza. The further settlement of the West Bank will intensify, as will the genocide against the Palestinians within it. An offensive against Syria, is likely in 2025, annexing further land, in addition to the Golan Heights.

On the other hand, Trump's election probably, though not necessarily, spells the end for Zelensky's corrupt regime. Forces in Ukraine are likely to look for his rapid removal, with other Ukrainian oligarchs taking his place, and suing for peace with Putin, on the basis of facing the reality of having already lost Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. They will look to rebuild their unnecessarily shattered economy, resulting from NATO's proxy war, by inviting in that same imperialism to rape its natural resources, and cruelly exploit its workers who were misled into supporting their own ruling class, and whose leaders, thereby, as with the social-imperialists in the West, have disgraced themselves. Trump may well make possible that exploitation, in conjunction with the Russian oligarchs, as he seeks to draw Russia towards the US, and away from US imperialism's main competitors, China and the EU.

Similarly, as Trump uses his influence within the ranks of Blue Labour to draw Britain away from the EU, at the same time as drawing Russia towards the US, the EU will be incentivised to consolidate more rapidly, as happened, also, after Brexit. It will be facing, itself, Trump's tariffs, as his trade war develops, and with it having followed a similar path with its tariffs on China, and having subordinated its own interests to US imperialism, in relation to the boycott of Russian energy and so on, it may be led to reverse course on those policies. The EU has a clear incentive, itself, to form closer links with Russia, and other economies on its own borders, as well as to remove its tariffs on China. That is particularly the case in respect of Germany, for which China has been a significant export market for its high end manufactures.

In the end, Trump and the petty-bourgeois agenda can offer no way forward. His election, much as with Brexit, is both an indication of the fact of the failure of conservative social-democracy (neoliberalism) over the last 40 years, as it contented itself with the fantasy of producing wealth out of thin air, via speculation, and the inflation of asset prices, whilst its abandonment of real capital accumulation meant a 50% growth in the size and social weight of the petty-bourgeoisie, it is also a sign of the rapid decay of the ruling-class, and of US imperialism, but in conditions where, as yet, the nascent ruling-class, the working-class, has not yet become conscious of its role. The need to build resistance to the onslaught coming from Trump and the reactionary petty-bourgeoisie, is part and parcel of creating that revolutionary consciousness.