Latest post on Left Futures

Jeremy Corbyn isn’t perfect – but he’s the leader we need right now

CorbynAs the new old proverb has it, you can gift the British left its best opportunities in a generation, but you can’t make it take advantage of them.

The hugely-publicised recent bust-ups in Momentum, complemented by Peter Tatchell’s spiteful and vindictive self-promotion stunt over the weekend, highlight an almost palpable death wish that seems to have gripped some quarters of our small world right now.

Jezza is no longer be all things to all leftists. After more than a year at the top, he remains stubbornly wedded to the political influences that shaped him as a politician.

In many ways that’s a strength, but nonetheless disappoints both those that counsel greater boldness, and those that would have him be things he has never been and cannot become.

Somehow oblivious to the perpetual assault Corbyn has faced from the right ever since September 2015, parts of the left – with their usual impeccable sense of timing – have decided to open up up a second front.

I am not particularly clear what some of the Marxist factions involved in the Momentum fight are trying to achieve. Neither, I suspect, are they. They seem hell-bent on fighting a war of manouevre, in a situation where a war of position would better surely be a better strategy.

Meanwhile, Tatchell’s petty charade will hardly have advanced the cause of electoral accommodation between Labour and the Greens, although that may well be by design.

In both cases participants start from a misunderstanding of what Corbynism is, and what it isn’t. For a start, it is not a revolutionary socialist project. Nor does it inherit the early twentieth century radical liberalism that largely elided into the Labour Party before world war two, and which provides an ideological framework for many human rights campaigners to this day.

Indeed, it represents more of a reversion to traditional workaday Labourism than either his boosters or his detractors would like to admit. Consider the actual content of the policy statements, which have yet to stray beyond such allotment plot hardy annuals as publicly owned utilities, building social housing, mildly redistributive but hardly punitive taxation, and old school Keynesian economics centred on infrastructure investment.

So far, so Harold Wilson; all good policies, all badly needed in Britain today, but not exactly a white knuckle ride for those who want to party like it’s 1917. The obvious rejoinder to the dissatisfied is, well, what did you expect?

I voted for Corbyn last year – with ‘no illusions’, as we used to say in Trot-speak – because I wanted to see a break with the disastrous direction of travel that lost Labour the general elections of 2010 and 2015.

As I have previously argued, a reversion to the Third Way would only guarantee certain electoral defeat. That is not to postulate that the Labour left will be able to articulate the ‘Labourism for the left behind’ now needed to secure success, but rather to insist it is the only section of the party even potentially capable of that intellectual task.

But an incidental by-product of Corbyn’s success is that the Marxist left now has a space in which to re-engage intelligently with mainstream politics, in a way it has not been able to do since the 1980s.

Hence the remarkable spectacle of a Labour leader arguing on a Sunday morning television slot last year explicitly that Marxists and Trotskyists were ‘welcome to join the Labour Party’.

Marxists could and should be engaged in constructively strengthening the Labour left in Constituency Labour Parties, where crucial battles are to be fought in the next year or so.

But that is too much like hard work. Instead, all eyes have alighted on Momentum, an organisation launched explicitly as a continuation of the first Corbyn leadership campaign.

To critics who complain that this renders it little more than a stage army under the total control of the evil Jon Lansman, the obvious response is: If you want something else instead, go build it.

That fact remains that Momentum has been remarkably generous in refusing to exclude non-Labour Party members. You would have thought a word of thanks would even be in order, if only for the chance to sell papers to huge numbers of enthusiastic new activists. But no.

I first met Peter Tatchell when canvassing for him as the Labour candidate in the infamous Bermondsey by-election in 1983. I’ve seen him regularly at political events ever since, and we are on cordial first name terms.

I have always admired his work on LGBT+ issues and human rights. His subsequent emergence as a high-profile member of the Green Party has done nothing to diminish that.

Actually, I even agree with him on the issue on the Syria issue. Aleppo really is the Guernica of our time, and I number among those who want to see Corbyn take a clearer stance on the slaughter.

But if all Tatchell really wanted was to extract a statement from Corbyn, he had many far more constructive ways of procuring one than derailing an official Labour event designed to highlight violence against women.

For a start, he could try picking up the phone. His name has sufficient weight to ensure that Corbyn would take the call. If that fails, the Daily Mail will surely accord him abundant space, presumably remunerating him at that publication’s legendary ample rates, to air his beefs.

None of the above should be read as a ‘Jeremy Corbyn, right or wrong’ stance. Frighteningly, Labour’s current poll standing is at its lowest since the year Tatchell and I first met. At just 25%, activist despondency is more than justified.

Last weekend also saw Diane Abbott express confidence that the Tories’ 17% lead can be closed in the next year. Great to hear it, but the leadership owes it to us to spell out what concrete steps it is going to take to achieve that outcome.

My point is rather this. No, Corbyn isn’t perfect. But every conceivable alternative will be worse for Labour as a whole, and worse for the left in particular. If you are going to be a critical supporter, put the emphasis on the support rather than the criticism.


  1. James Martin says:

    As someone who has been a Labour Party member for more than three decades I think I’ve earned the right to criticise any leader of my party David, but I agree that the main job at hand is still to defend Jeremy against the right-wing both within and without.

    In terms of Momentum, I stopped classing myself as a supporter after the appalling way Jackie Walker was treated, but I think it is wrong to swallow the laughable guff put out by the likes of Owen Jones and Paul Mason about ‘hard left’ threats. The issue is as it has always been, do people want a top down group controlled by one person that acts as little more than a fan club for another person and with a passive form of stay at home democracy, or do they want an activist led movement that actually does something about deselection for coup plotters and with forms representative democracy that are good enough for any trade union you care to mention, but not it seems for Momentum. But you insult our intelligence by throw away lines about going and doing something better if people don’t like it, socialists have been told the same thing for a very long time within the Labour Party by the right wing, and by thinking that Momentum allowing non-Labour members should be seen as a bonus is incredible at a time when thousands of Labour socialists remain purged by McNicol and the unaccountable compliance unit.

    As for Tatchell’s disgraceful stunt that had the hallmarks of being organised by Portman Communications, both he and you are wrong to dirty the struggle against Franco and fascism in Spain by associating it with western-backed al-Qaeda terrorists in eastern Aleppo. You should pay more attention to Robert Fisk about the media manipulation we are being fed about these ‘rebels’ – and then have a look at how people in western Aleppo celebrated the jihadi defeat last night now that they will be spared from what were daily rocket and mortar from those ‘revolutionaries’ in their mini caliphate –

  2. Rob Green says:

    Jeremy Corbyn ditched forty years of Left Labour opposition to the EU and its predecessors just as the policy was about to pay off almost immediately. That told you all you needed to know about the fate of Corbynism.

    By the way well done Tatchell for exposing Corbyn’s neo-Stalinism.

    1. Richard MacKinnon says:

      I know, that was funny. 40 years of being on the wrong side of a really high wobbly fence then when your forced to climb over it with the world watching you get to the other side to be told you were on the right side all along.

      1. Richard MacKinnon says:

        I don’t know who is the funniest, Jeremy The Shadow Prime Minister or Dianne the Shadow Home Secretary, on the Marr Show at the weekend rolling her eyes as she does, looking for the answer, any answer or John The Shadow Chancellor getting all serious about the need for some more borrowing, as if 1500Billion is not enough, John wants to borrow another 500Billion to, wait for it, stimulate the economy.
        Who needs Spitting Images when we have The Labour Party.

        1. John Penney says:

          New readers understandably bemused by MacKinnon’s tiresome , strange , anti Labour, trolling posts need to realise he is a right wing economic illiterate who wakes up in the middle of the night screaming with dismay at the size of the national debt.

          That the national debt, because of wartime expenditures, was actually higher than now (and that is at its present level due to bailing out the banks after 2008) , for most of the , high growth, innovation rich, rising living standards, postwar period up to the 1970’s, now seen by economists across the political spectrum as “the Golden Age of Capitalism” , passes Mr MacKinnon by !

          1. john Reid says:

            hardly anti labour trolling for pointing out that Tatchell ahd a point on Jeremy’s view on the Middle east Aleppo, look at he Morning star today prising fascist take over and tyranny, clearly proving Tatchell isn’t bitter,spitefull or vindictive and as for the above quotes,look at labours poll rating that’s not down to so called trolls,or momentum splitters, thats down to jeremy

          2. Richard MacKinnon says:

            I thought we were on first name terms by now. I feel as if I’ve really got to know you. Its a pity you are so antagonistic toward my opinions. But that in its self tells me; I have you rattled.
            Its not strange for me to be anti Labour. The opposite is the case. Labour has got itself into such a mess it is a risk to the nation should it ever get into power again. I consider it my duty therefore to point out the risk, all be it tiny, that this should happen.
            Risk assessment is all about the evaluation of severity and probability. And as I say the chance of Jeremy, John and Dianne running things is remote but it has to be highlighted because the severity of such a once in, I estimate, 1,000 year occurance would be catastrophic for our country.
            So please John listen to what I have to say.
            P.S. try and stop the rambling 60 word sentences. Try and be more precise in your argument. Shorter sentences would help. Try and be more to the point. That way we have a chance of understanding what you are trying to say.

          3. Rob Green says:

            Penney if anyone is tied to capitalism it is you. After WW2 Britain still had a huge manufacturing and industrial base and an empire. It could afford debts. Now, however, every nation on the planet is facing its own version of the Versailles Treaty courtesy of the bail out of the bankers super rich creditors. McDonnell and Corbyn have gone the way of Syriza and much quicker. They are left spouting Keynesian bullshit and demanding support for the European Single Market.

          4. John Penney says:

            Nope MacKinnon, nobody on here reading your right wing trolling is “rattled” , just bemused as to why you bother. Have a look at the Wikipedia article on the UK national debt, and discover that during the “golden era of global capitalist growth” from 1945 to the mid 70’s the UK National Debt as a percentage of GDP was up to twice what it is today, despite the post 2008 Bank Bailout. Your obsession with government borrowing simply reveals your Right Wing economic illiteracy.

            David/Rob, given your position that no restructuring or reform of capitalism is possible today in any form, and only global socialist revolution offers a way forward, your empty ultraleft slogan-mongering positions you in exactly the same camp as the “there is no alternative to austerity” Tories and Labour Right.

    2. Karl Stewart says:

      The only thing Tatchell exposed was his own obsessive self-promotion. And anyone who supports what he did on Saturday is a right-wing Blairite.

      The so-called ‘Syria Solidarity” movement wants the US and the UK to launch missiles into Syria from the Mediteranean – they’re neocon nutters.

      1. john Reid says:


        1. Karl Stewart says:

          Do you want the US and the UK to launch missiles into Syria from the Mediterannean as idiot Tatchell does?

          1. John P Reid says:

            No but the right wing blairite comparison was silly

          2. Karl Stewart says:

            Response to John P Reid at 11.23pm:

            My “right-wing Blairite” comment was based on the Labour MPs who either affiliate to the so-called “Syria Solidarity” movement or backed Tatchell’s action.

            People such as Ben Bradshaw, Alison McGovern, John Woodcock, or the director of the Progress movement Richard Angell. All Blairites.

          3. John P Reid says:

            WEll at least we both agree the morning star yesterday’s headline praising liberation there, shows that fascism, can be left wing too

          4. Karl Stewart says:

            Response to John P Reid at 11.28am:

            It’s possible to be opposed to the Assad regime and also to be opposed to UK military intervention.

      2. Rob Green says:

        Corbyn needed calling out on his support for the Assad butchery and Putin. By the way it is time to boycott the rancid Morning Star currently describing the slaughter in Aleppo as liberation.

        1. Karl Stewart says:

          …Blairites and their useful idiots…

          1. Rob Green says:

            Putin’s little puppet.

        2. Mike says:

          Some evidence of Corbyn’s “support for Assad’s butchery” would be welcome, but you are unlikely to find any. He has consistently called for an end to the butchery on all sides –

          Also, see

      3. Rob Green says:

        Karl Stewart: what UK military intervention would that be exactly. The beauty of your oh so anti-imperialist approach has been that it actually chimed with Western imperialism’s policy all along. Their and your refrain was Hands off Syria and let Bashar get on with the slaughter. But if there was an intervention by anyone that prevented a genocide why exactly would you oppose it? Is mass murder a socialist principle or something?

        1. Karl Stewart says:

          Sorry I can’t help you David. I’m afraid I don’t have the necessary skills or training.

  3. Verity says:

    I am not sure that we can understand divisions in and around Labour with the use of just couple of group categorisations. The areas for potential divisions seem quite difficult to work out and group. Perusing some of the contributions on the Momentum MV discussion site, I have realised that there were so many members who have not given much thought to what socialism is, with one member even asking, “….do I call myself a socialist’.

    I must admit to being surprised that Momentum had not recruited that many home grown socialists. But then I thought, well given the state of retreat from the influence of socialist activity over the last two decades this obviously reflects the reality we face. Perhaps we did not come face – to – face with it so starkly. For myself I am really pleased that we can have conversation with someone new, and thankful that they have the courage and honesty to ask that question. But nevertheless this indicates to me that those who demand that the organisation, ‘looks like them’, have missed the point about its value as a mobilisation of large numbers of people. There are plenty of socialist groupings in and around Labour not all of them have to become mimics or replicas of those same outfits. Taking a for instance, Jackie Walker is a leading member of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC), why it the vision so limited that she cannot see the pointlessness of attempting to convert Momentum to an existing organisation. She and others can pursue their ultimate missions with the LRC and the Labour party. Why should they insist on the old formulae of delegate conferences, caucused national committees rather than the looser and less socialist committed, OMOV type Momentum organisation? What is the point of the recreation of what we already have. The others groups are always free to recruit. It is in this sense that I agree with the author here who says, “If you want something else instead, go build it”, except that they already have their other organisations, as well as more than enough enough time to insist that anyone else’s models an exact match to the one I am spending less time with.

    However we organise though, we do have to recognise problems about the little effective of Socialist influence in the Labour Party. Akehurst is at the moment so comfortably content with the ‘moderate’s grip on Party, policy and organisation. It is perhaps this unstated reality that drives some on the left to insist that all ‘left’ fringe activity has to be displaced with the ‘socialist drive’, whatever that means in the current context.

    Corbyn and John McD. have been expected to do far too much. We need others beyond them two, to develop a lead within the Party outside of Parliament and Government challenge, not the same two doing everything each time. However ‘my’ opinion should not mean collating every activity to ‘that it which I engage in’, and call Socialist development and activity.

    1. John Penney says:

      Many good points, Verity. I think the explanation for why the absolutely tiny, but well organised, Left grouplets act as they have around the “delegates versus OMOV” issue is very, very, simple. The tiny Left grouplets (who are incapable of growing beyond the hermetically sealed Far Left ideological bubble by their own proselytizing) took immediate advantage of the atomised membership of Momentum nationally, with very few organised in branches, or even aware who was a member in their own area , to themselves establish “local Momentum groups” , mainly in London and the bigger conurbations. Whilst the overwhelming majority remained atomised, and still do. The Left grouplets then essentially “elected” themselves as the “delegates who now massively over-represent the tiny Far Left on the NC. So the mutually warring grouplets of circa 3,000 Far Lefties in total (given that the SWP, SP and CPG are not in Momentum) ,have captured a major voice in a Momentum now totalling over 20,000.

      Why would they bother ? It’s simply what the Far Left ALWAYS do – to always massively destructive effect for the organisation entered. In the Momentum case the apparent belief of the tiny grouplets that they can, by winning these disproportionate Delegate positions , “hijack the driving cab of the political vehicle” and steer it away from mild Left Reformism towards a “revolutionary” political role, is particularly ill-founded. As you have noted, it is clear from the proposals and comments on MxV alone that the dominant political viewpoint amongst Momentum’s members is various forms of ” Left radical liberalism” rather than even “Bevanite socialism” – never mind revolutionary socialism !

      The problem with trying to hijack a “political vehicle” by subterfuge and manoeuvre, when most of the “passengers” don’t have any intention of journeying down that “revolutionary road” , is that the “passengers” will simply “step off the bus by the back door”.

      It needs to be said though that it is not actually the primary fault of the Far Left Grouplets that Momentum is in this pickle. That is “what they do”, a la that old fable of “the fox and the scorpion”. The core fault lies with the Corbyn/Lansman circle that knows the Far Left grouplets and “what they do” only too well , but still left Momentum members atomised for over a year , to the advantage of themselves as a self appointed “leadership” group initially, and a few Far Left grouplets in the longer term .

      The grouping that hasn’t benefited from this “rival undemocratic leaderships” pincer movement is the majority of Momentum’s 20,000 members, and the task of creating a truly open, democratic, radical Left ginger group within the Labour Party, to take on still organisationally totally dominant Labour Right.

  4. John P Reid says:

    Admittedly the Mail did praise Oeter on his citizen arrest of Mugabe , but I notice the Thor in Twitter is simeine who praised the old labour left for wanting out of the EEc, yet here Diane Abbott calls all brexiters racist

    1. John P Reid says:

      That should have been author, not Thor

  5. James Martin says:

    Rob, although you come across as a bit of a simpleton to put it mildly (the Blairite jibe against you is probably very accurate), answer these questions about Aleppo please (they are not difficult): Why is it that the Kurds, one of the most oppressed peoples on the planet, in their very large Aleppo communities did not join with the ‘rebels’, but in fact spent years fighting for their lives against them and cooperating in that fight with the Syrian army (which they still do today)? Why is it that the Palestinians, one of the most oppressed peoples on the planet, in their very large Aleppo refugee camp did not join with the ‘rebels’ but were in fact attacked by them and their camp nearly overran until they managed to fight them off and join with the Syrian army, who they fight with to this day? Why is it that none of the Christians and other minorities in Aleppo were in the ‘rebel’ area but were forced to seek shelter and safety in the western part of the city where they were protected by the Syrian army? And while you’re at it, please tell me what your beloved FSA ‘rebels’ did with the famous ‘Yellow Man of Aleppo’ after they had humiliated and tortured him when they captured the old city, the poor harmless bloke hasn’t been heard of since:

  6. Bazza says:

    Perhaps Momentum needs to split into 2 Momentum Groups – one Labour Momentum for Labour members only – a polar opposite of those worshippers of the Neo-Liberal great men and women of history in Labour – the appalling Progress (funded by Sainsbury’s and Khazakistan Gold) and Momentum Supporters where all those who aren’t aware that you will never win working class/working people to your ideas by being dishonest – can meet.
    Interestingly the most revolutionary fantasists seem to be middle class (who have never endured poverty) and the poorly read tiny minority of the working class (Trotsky, Trotsky and Trotsky).
    I’ve been going to more Labour meetings to try to get a branch set in its ways to get out there and to fight for working class/working people on bread and butter issues and joining with another (very good branch) there were 16 of us doing a street stall on the NHS then I leafleted my estate -I told a working class women we were the Labour Party fighting for the NHS and she said: “About bloody time!”
    Then 12 of us were out on anti-austerity and talking to a white working class young lass she said yes they make us pay and we agreed while it is tax cuts for millionaires – a good dialogue!

  7. Bazza says:

    Stop press just heard this Tory Govt is to shift funding per pupils from schools in cities to posher Tory areas (who already have greater advantages) – every thing this Tory Govt does is about class whilst pretending to be for working people and putting the CON into CONservative!
    See how continuously Mediocre May’s Masque of Pandora slips!
    Joan Maynard an old Leftie MP from many years ago used to say: “The Tories don’t preach class politics, they are too busy practising them!”
    £50m to the Tories from hedge funds before thé last election and £145m of tax cuts for hedge funds thanks to the Tories and Lib Dems!
    Labour needs to keep up its days of action and have CLP open meetings on topics (when we have rigorously discussed and agreed policy) to further engage with communities every 3-6 months up until the next election!

  8. Peter Rowlands says:

    The article is right to point out that Corbynism is nothing more than pre Thatcher mainstream social democracy, albeit of a more timid kind, and it is a measure of how far society has moved to the right that many young people attracted to Corbyn see what he proposes as something semi revolutionary. It isn’t, but it is quite right, for a reason the article doesn’t give, namely that our electoral system is such that Labour cannot be more left wing than this and maintain substantial representation. This also explains why there isn’t a substantial socialist party here as well as Labour, as there is in most European countries, because they have PR.
    I agree with John Penney about the destructive role of some of the far left. I can remember, in 1978/9, the Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory which I was active in was summarily taken over by the group around Socialist Organiser, which I believe the AWL is directly descended from. Plus ca change….>

  9. Richard MacKinnon says:

    You never counter my argument. Your argument is to name call and repeat other peoples thoughts or figures. For example, take your last reply to me; first you call me a right wing troll (whatever that is). John I’ve never voted Tory in my life. You seem to not like what I say but you you never try and counter argue or explain why I’m wrong. Instead you tell me to “Have a look at the Wikipedia article on the UK national debt, and discover…………..”
    John, I dont need to look up Wikepedia because I know the figures. I know that we are 1.5 trillion in debt. I know we, the Uk with a Tory government are still borrowing 80billion/year and that the interest we pay on the 1.5t is about the same as our borrowing. (it is comparable to living off credit cards). I know John McDonnell wants to borrow another 500b. I know this is the economics of the mad house.
    You seem to be able to ignore these basic facts and instead you ridicule me as “a right wing economic illiterate who wakes up in the middle of the night screaming with dismay at the size of the national debt.”
    I dont wake up in the middle of the night but I do know the debt is unsustainable. Also I know instinctively, as I have said in the past that it is immoral to borrow money that you have no intention of paying back. I dont know if this is right wing thinking or not, I dont care. I know its wrong. It is wrong because it burdens future generations with our debt, our inability to sustain ourselves.
    Tell me why I am wrong but stop the name calling. I will not be bullied. Im here to stay. The present day Labour Party has the potential to wreck havoc on our country if it ever got into power. You are an advocate of that party.

    1. Rob Green says:

      Don’t bother with Penney he is a complete fraud. He blathers left tripe but is completely in thrall to the capitalist system. He’s an opportunist.

    2. Rob Green says:

      Britain has absolutely no means for paying this debt and neither does America for paying theirs. Both are hollowed out husks with barely any manufacturing or industry left that has not fled to China in search of cheap labour. The bankers have imposed a global Versailles. Capitalism as a functioning economic system is no more. It can no reproduce itself and without a working economic system to underpin their rule the elites have only violence available to them. That is the meaning of the slaughter in Aleppo and that is the meaning of Trump. It is socialism of barbarism. Let the likes of Penney and John McDonnell piss around with Keynesian fantasies. Everybody else, prepare for war. Socialism or barbarism. Socialism or a New Dark Ages. Socialism or death.

      1. Richard MacKinnon says:

        I cant agree with you regarding capitalism. I think it is still alive and healthy. I think China and India know how it operates far better than us. They laugh at us when they read about our politicians out bidding each other for a higher minimum wage. They understand that politics has no place in the market place. They laughed at Gordon Brown when he bailed out the failed banks. A bail out he had to borrow money to undertake. They scratched their heads at that one. Propping up failed banks that had gone burst with money he didnt have? Hard to beleive when you think about it now but then again we are talking about Gordon Brown here. China and India were happy to lend it but they could not understand why a UK chancellor a Labour chancellor would do such a thing.
        Capitalism will never die its just that others understand it better as in; ever be in debt.
        It is an unfortunate fact that the new power houses of capitalism are the same countries the British Empire raped and pillaged for 300 years. The pay back is going to be long and painful. These ancient regimes will make sure of it.

        1. Richard MacKinnon says:

          please read ‘ever be in debt’ as ‘never be in debt’

        2. Rob Green says:

          I am afraid that is fantasy. Pax Americana is collapsing but China will not be replacing the US as the new global hegemon and neither will anybody else. The violence of this dissolution is going to be great indeed and of course pointless. There are no possible political economic arrangements that can replace the current ones and give capitalism a new lease of life. Collapsing spending in the rich West is screwing China and India just as much as the West’s indebtedness is screwing it. World conflagration is indicated. The epoch of war and revolution is back on. There can be no more proxy wars. The big powers are already butting up against each other. Our only hope is the world proletarian revolution. We could start with a Russian Spring which might be one of the unintended consequences of Trump’s election that Putin is celebrating so hard. He needed the US and NATO bogey men to prop up his foul rule at home. No doubt the wretched Morning Star will dub any such thing a CIA plot.

  10. Richard MacKinnon says:

    I seriously dont know what you are talking about. Are you a Jehovah’s Witness that used to be in the Biedar Meinhof Gang before you saw the light?

    1. Rob Green says:

      No my friend. You only have to think about it a little bit to realise I’m right. 86 individuals now control more personal wealth than 3.5 billion people. These are levels of monopolisation that feudal monarchs could not even dream of. The amount of capital investment needed to achieve just one per global growth is absolutely astronomical but the problem is monopoly though needed simply snuffs out production. Capitalism has come to the end of its life. It really is not that difficult to understand. Beyond US-sponsored globalization capitalism simply cannot go and globalization is unravelling fast as the class struggle ramps up in each nation. If you think that capitalism could establish a new world order out of the ashes of Pax Americana then you must be tripping. Just the amount of violence required just to establish such a thing alone precludes the possibility.

© 2021 Left Futures | Powered by WordPress | theme originated from PrimePress by Ravi Varma