Blog

  • Millions Protest Trump in Defense of Democracy and Social Justice

    Millions Protest Trump in Defense of Democracy and Social Justice

    Millions of people in 2,600 cities in all 50 of the United States participated in the second round of “No Kings” protests against President Donald Trump’s increasingly authoritarian and inhumane government. [1] I was one, marching in a labor union contingent in New York City. The organizers claimed that at least seven million of us marched and rallied across America, which would make it the largest protest in U.S. history.

    What were we protesting against? According to the protestors’ signs, chants, and comments, people are angry about the cruel and violent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, about Trump’s dispatching the National Guard and active military units to several cities, about the firing of hundreds of thousands of federal workers from their jobs, about the attacks on health, education and housing programs, about the suppression of free speech and academic freedom, and about the racism of policies, such Trump’s changes in the refugee program to favor white people.

    No Kings is organized by a coalition of 200 groups, the most important being Democratic Party groups like Indivisible and MoveOn, NGOS like Public Citizen and the American Civil Liberties Union, and activist network 50501. The latter sparked the broad resistance movement with its call several months ago for 50 protests in 50 states on one day.

    Trump, Vice-president J.D. Vance, and other Republicans have claimed preposterously that the rallies and marches are filled with paid protestors, paid by George Soros, the Jewish billionaire and liberal philanthropist and Democrat. They suggest the protests are organized by “antifa,” a nickname for the broad antifascist movement, which they claim is a violent terrorist organization, though there is no such organization. Asked about the demonstrations, Trump’s spokeswoman said, “Who cares? The rest of America will be watching college football.” But the president couldn’t ignore them and he posted an AI-generated video of himself as a fighter pilot wearing a crown, flying over the demonstrations and dumping shit on them, a demonstration of the contempt in which he holds the American people.

    People carried banners and signs reading “No kings, No tyrants.” In demonstrations everywhere people chanted, “No hate, no fear, immigrants are welcome here.” Everywhere the demonstrations were peaceful, and while those protesting were angry, the rallies often had a celebratory character, celebrating being together in the resistance and fighting for progressive values. While the protests were serious, some also made sure that they were fun. Some protestors, imitating recent demonstrations in Portland, Oregon, dressed up in much larger-than-life animal costumes, the kind that one sees at children’s parties, intended to show how ridiculous it was to claim that these were terrorists’ violent protests.

    For decades the left shunned the American flag, seeing it as a symbol of racism at home and the U.S. wars against Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. But now many protestors fly the flag, reclaiming America for democracy and social justice. One protestor carried a sign saying “Make America America Again,” with a list of what he saw as American values: Free Speech, Science, Free Press, Rule of Law, Democracy, Choice (meaning the right of women to choose abortion), Due Process, and Diversity.

    No Kings was a success, but we need a more militant movement, one with strikes and disruptive protests that can really challenge Trump’s aggressive attacks on our rights and our welfare. [2]

    19 October 2025

  • President Has Six Minutes to Decide on Nuclear War Launch

    President Has Six Minutes to Decide on Nuclear War Launch

    Netflix is streaming a film called “A House of Dynamite” starting on the 24th of October.  Directed by Academy Award winner Kathyn Bigelow it shows what happens when a lone missile with presumably a nuclear bomb in its nosecone is shot towards Chicago. CBS Sunday Morning News did a piece detailing how the movie accurately shows what goes on inside the military’s nuclear war chain of command and among the president and his advisors.

    The bible on public information about nuclear warfare is the 2024 book titled Nuclear War: A Scenario by Pulitzer Prize finalist Annie Jacobsen.  She researched enormous amounts of unclassified documents and interviewed something like 50 former high officials and experts who dealt with nuclear weapons including former Secretary of Defense William Perry (1994-1997).  The book is a “scenario” of a minute-by-minute account of what happens over 72 minutes starting when a missile from North Korea is sent flying towards Washington D.C (spoiler alert – the scenario ends in utter catastrophe).  The missile is detected within 3 seconds after launch.  After 3 minutes of multiple confirmations the president is notified. He then has 6 minutes to decide what counterattack to make.  “The president has no idea that as soon as he is briefed on what is happening, he has six minutes to deliberate and decide which nuclear weapons to launch in response.”  Six minutes.  (p.64)

    While he or she is trying to deliberate a whole host of military, advisors and Secret Service will be calling out for his attention.  Part of his brain is surely in shock.  Jacobsen says he’s surely “underinformed” about nuclear weapons issues. (p.64)  He has not been trained how to respond. Nuclear war military personnel undergo constant drills.  The president does not.  Retired Lt. General Dan Karbler, consultant and actor in “A House of Dynamite”, said in the CBS news segment, “I believe the last president to have participated in one of the exercises was President Reagan,”

    Yet in a sense a path is predetermined.  U.S. policy is “launch on warning”, says Jacobsen.  It means military policy is not to wait and see if the attack is real.  It is not to absorb the first blow.  Instead, the plan is to send off a nuclear response as soon as electronic warnings are confirmed. George W. Bush during his 2000 campaign that “high-alert hair-trigger status is another unnecessary vestige of the Cold War”, but neither he nor the presidents who came after him did anything to change the policy. (p.59)

    Well, what about the anti-missile systems?  The U.S. has spent enormous amounts of money on a system to destroy income missiles.  In a 2023 poll “46 percent of Americans say they are at least somewhat confident” the US missile defense system will protect them. Unfortunately, this is a complete illusion.  “Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD)” as it is called is designed to launch a missile to hit an incoming missile that is traveling around 30,000 miles per hour.  It’s as difficult as it sounds.  Joe Cirincione(who is a national security analyst with 40 years in the field) wrote on his “Strategy and History” Substack, “We have actually sunk $63 billion into … the Ground-based Missile Defense system (GMD). It is part of the $453 billion that the Congress has spent on failed national missile defense systems since Ronald Reagan launched his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in 1983. The best contractors, the best scientists, a fire house of money and…nothing has worked.”

    In tests, many of them scripted to take place under ideal conditions for detection, the interception fails half the time. A pro-missile defense site notes there have been only 20 tests of GMD and the success rate is just 57%.

    After spending $453 billion there are just 44 of these GMD’s operational.  Cirincione states, “The GMD system is so bad that the Department of Defense has canceled both the interceptor program and the kill-vehicle program and gone back to the drawing boards for a new system.”

    There is a complete alternative idea to the fool idea of security through perfection of anti-missile defense. It’s the “Back from the Brink” campaign.  From its website we learn the campaign advocates nuclear bomb abolition and to effect that goal it calls “on the United States to lead a global effort to prevent nuclear war by:

    • Actively pursuing a verifiable agreement among nuclear-armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals
    • Renouncing the option of using nuclear weapons first
    • Ending the sole, unchecked authority of any U.S. President to launch a nuclear attack
    • Taking U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert
    • Cancelling the plan to replace the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal with enhanced weapons

    Now the Left historically pooh-poohs arms control as naïve and believes that total capitalist system overhaul or abolition has to come first.  Yet in the 1980’s nuclear weapons treaties did have a major impact.  Ronald Reagan’s USA and Soviet Union were at each other’s throats but Reagan and Gorbachev made agreements that eventually cut the world’s nuclear arsenal from 64,000 to 10,000 nuclear weapons.  Supposedly a huge influence on Reagan was the film “The Day After” which aired in 1983 and which showed hideous effects of nuclear war on the U.S.  Hopefully we can use “A House of Dynamite” to same effect.   Back in 1983 “The Day After” was shown on national TV and educators spent days in class talking about it.  Let’s get teachers, their unions and others in education to mount a similar effort.

  • Mexico and Israel’s shared thirst for war

    Mexico and Israel’s shared thirst for war

    A person selling helium balloons with a watermelon shaped balloon represents links of solidarity and struggle between the people of Palestine and Mexico. Mezzotint on an engraved copper plate. @ChikaMineral.

     

    Reposted from Ojalá

    Without any clarity on next steps, the leaders of the United States and Israel—who are the most despotic in recent memory, which is saying a lot—stopped the genocide in Gaza by demanding nothing less than unconditional surrender from Palestinians. 

    The dust has barely settled and crucial food supplies are only beginning to trickle into Gaza, but the vultures are already circling: US, Israeli, European and Gulf-owned companies seeking to speculate and profit from the supposed peace.

    “They call it peace, but for the Palestinians, it risks to be Apartheid at its worst,” wrote Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur in the Palestinian territories of the announced truce.

    As the future of Palestine hangs in the balance, the ceasefire in Gaza offers a respite after more than two years of incessant bombing, war and the negation of the basic necessities for human survival. The fate of Palestine is tied up in so many key global issues. It is crucial to understand how Israel’s influence is embedded in international politics, and how much closer it is to us than we think.

    Just a few weeks before the ceasefire, Claudia Sheinbaum described the war in Gaza as genocide. Months earlier, her government officially recognized the State of Palestine and its embassy in Mexico.

    This is a step forward from the previous administration’s stance, which was limited to reaffirming “support for Palestine to become a full member of the UN.” In March, Palestinian diplomatic personnel were granted formal credentials, and the Mexican president posed for a photo with the first Palestinian ambassador to Mexico, Nadya Rasheed.

    But, as in many other matters, Mexican populism can be characterized by token gestures with minimal impact on substantive issues. The rhetoric is often combative, but the actions are measured. The issue of Palestine confirms this pattern.

    Mexico remains very close to the colonialist state of Israel, with which it is a close collaborator. The pro-Palestine movement has organized consistently from Tijuana to San Cristóbal de las Casas to demand an end to genocide and a break in diplomatic relations with Israel, the latter is still far from taking place. 

    Israel has an embassy, a trade office, and four honorary consulates in Mexico. It actively promotes Israeli companies, which export the tools for war with the full backing of the Mexican government and army.

    Thirst, profit, and dispossession

    Mexico established relations with Israel in 1952, and since then, Israel has become Mexico’s trading partner in the Middle East. Mexico, in turn, is Israel’s second-largest trading partner in Latin America, after Brazil.

    Mexico and Israel signed a free trade agreement in 2000. More recently, the president of the Mexico-Israel Chamber of Commerce and Industry highlighted that there was unity and agreement between Israel, Mexican corporate elites and the Mexican government on the issue of tariffs.

    The Mexico-Israel Chamber of Commerce and Industry promotes investment and “Israel’s expertise” in four areas: agriculture and agrotechnology, renewable energy, health and biotechnology, and “security and defense.”

    The role of Israeli companies involved in water-related projects is particularly telling.

    In 2023, we learned of a mega-project proposed by Israeli company IDE Technologies in the form of a desalination plant in Puerto Peñasco, Sonora. Were it to go ahead, the project would pose a serious threat to the Gulf of California and local communities, as the proposal involves piping desalinated water to Phoenix, Arizona.

    We tried our best to think of a more colonial project, but we couldn’t come up with anything that could best this one.

    Although the Peñasco project is on pause, IDE Technologies has strong ties to the Mexican government. In fact, it has already captured part of the national budget: during Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s six-year term, the company built a desalination plant for the Dos Bocas refinery in Tabasco state.

    There are also several Israeli companies engaged in water treatment and desalination in Mexico, including Mekorot, the state-owned water company that has caused widespread concern and protest in Argentina and other Latin American countries. 

    During Enrique Peña Nieto’s administration, Mekorot signed cooperation agreements with Mexico’s National Water Commission.

    Then there’s the investments by Mexican capitalists in occupied Palestine. Orbia, formerly known as Mexichem, stands out: the company has owned the Israeli firm Netafim since 2018. 

    Orbia specializes in drip irrigation for agriculture in arid areas and is the largest of its kind in the world. Its business includes irrigating land stolen from Palestinians in the West Bank, directly benefiting from the Israeli occupation.

    According to a company financial statement, about a quarter of Orbia’s fixed assets are located in Israel (it is not specified how much is in occupied land). Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur in the Palestinian territories, places Netafim among companies profiting from the “economy of occupation.”

    The company “has designed its agritech in concert with

    the expansion imperatives of Israel,” writes Albanese. “Netafim brands itself as a sustainable innovator, while perfecting age-old techniques of colonial exploitation.”

    Experts in armed territorial control

    Countries around the world are customers of Israeli military technology and services, which are tested against the people of occupied Palestine.

    Globally, Mexico is the “most prolific user of Pegasus,” a state-deployed surveillance program owned by Israeli company NSO Group. Pegasus has been used by the Mexican army to monitor human rights activists, journalists, and those investigating crimes against humanity. 

    The Mexican army has been purchasing Israeli military equipment for surveillance since at least 2008. Since the beginning of the “Fourth Transformation” in 2018, the Mexican government has purchased at least $50 million worth of equipment and services from Israeli arms companies, including Elbit Systems, Israel Aerospace Industries, and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems.

    Elbit Systems, Israel’s leading producer of weapons, reports on its website that Mexico is a buyer of its Hermes 900 drones. The company also profits from its role in the border wall and surveillance along the north border

    Elbit also claims to have a military training academy in Mexico that offers “comprehensive solutions for government agencies, the army, special forces, and police.” In October, with pressure mounting with the return of six Mexican activists who were intercepted and deported for their participation in the Global Sumud Flotilla, Sheinbaum denied Israel was involved in military training in Mexico.

    In September, Oaxaca Governor Salomón Jara Cruz presided over a ceremony celebrating the purchase of assault rifles from Israel Weapon Industries and their delivery to state police. During the ceremony, officials stated that the purchase was made through the Secretary of Defense—a claim later denied by the president, who said the contracts were signed by specific states.

    Let us be clear that what Israel practices is not self-defense, it is occupation and genocide. It is far too easy to imagine these rifles ending up being used against the people of Oaxaca who are organizing for their lands and lives.

    Other governments, including some that are far from progressive, have suspended the sale and purchase of weapons with Israel, a minimal attempt to try to curb its killing capacity. But not Mexico. Here, public funds continue to be used to purchase weapons from Israeli weapons manufacturers.

    And the government does so while talking about peace, with a tinge of humanism for good measure.

  • Latin America: The target of Trump’s neocolonial offensive

    Latin America: The target of Trump’s neocolonial offensive

    Reposted from Links

    During its first nine months, the Trump administration has deployed warships and military infrastructure to the Caribbean, blown up small boats accused of drug trafficking, imposed 50% tariffs on Brazilian products — in opposition to the outcome of the democratic trial against former President Jair Bolsonaro and other coup plotters — and exerted extreme pressure on the Mexican government to force it to reduce the flow of Latin American migrants across the border and combat local drug cartels.

    These are just a few elements of the brewing storm, whose explanation cannot be reduced to the strident and unstable personality of the neo-fascist president in the United States. The heinous televised murder of those on the small boats in Caribbean waters violates every international convention, statute and protocol on the tracking down, capture and prosecution of criminals. (No one has proven that those killed by US missiles were not simple fisherpeople, as they were never given the right to a defence.) The attacks are the greatest evidence yet that under Donald Trump, US imperialism is radically shifting its treatment of the macro-region, which it continues to consider its domain.1

    Amid the substantive changes occurring in post-World War II global power relations, the authoritarian US president is attempting to impose the rule that “the United States runs the planet.” Given this, Latin America was always going to be affected. But why are Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela the most immediate targets? While important, the argument that all three governments are, in the eyes of Trump’s neo-fascist hawks, “leftist” is insufficient. In Trumpist terms, this just means any government it views as opposed to it on the political-ideological spectrum, or not a direct and subservient defender of US capital’s interests, regardless of significant differences among them.

    Mexico: So far from God, so close to Trump

    The pressure exerted on the Mexican government is almost self-explanatory, considering the long border it shares with the US, its level of economic dependence (more than 80% of Mexican exports go north), and the power and violence of Mexico’s drug cartels. The aggressive and extortionist rhetoric against Mexico began during Trump’s first days in the White House. He demanded Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum hold back the multitudes of Latin Americans that have historically tried to enter the US by crossing the Rio Grande, or face 25% tariffs if she did not comply with her supposed obligation.

    Sheinbaum responded by sending 10,000 troops to the border.2 Pressure to take tougher measures against the powerful domestic drug cartels — now designated as “terrorists” by the US — was exerted through Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s constant threats of direct US military intervention in Mexico. During her term, Sheinbaum has already deported 26 people to the US accused of belonging to high-ranking drug trafficking groups and arrested more than 30,000 people suspected of being part of criminal organisations (compared to just over 12,000 jailed during the six years of her predecessor). In September, she signed an agreement with the US to suppress arms trafficking from the US into Mexico.

    Still unsatisfied, the Trump administration has threatened higher tariffs if Mexico does not stop importing from China, which it does primarily to supplement its production of automobiles that are largely exported to the US. The Trump administration has not yet ruled out its campaign plans to heavily tax remittances sent by Mexican citizens back home — currently worth about $60 billion or almost 4% of Mexico’s GDP — and carry out drone strikes against drug labs in Mexico. These are just some of the cards Trump has used as key tools for blackmail and threats.

    So far, Sheinbaum has managed to prevent direct intervention in her country, albeit at a high political cost. According to the New York Times, the people around the president, apparently exasperated by the situation, complain that no matter how many concessions they make they can never rest, as the US seems to have no limits on its demands. Sheinbaum and her Morena colleagues, for their part, seem to have forgotten (or never realised) that this is how imperialism operates — even more so the aggressive neocolonialist imperialism of their “partner”, Trump.

    Brazil: An attack that backfired

    Trump’s attacks against Brazil have involved direct interference in the South American country’s internal politics and judicial system. The 50% tariffs on Brazilian exports (only matched by those imposed on India) have no economic justification, even under the crazed protectionist logic of the MAGA hawks: Brazil has a trade deficit with the US and the US market is in dire need of basic “Made in Brazil” goods, such as coffee, oranges and semi-finished steel.

    Trump and Rubio’s explanation for the tariffs was explicit: discontent with the trial (and now sentencing) of their friend Bolsonaro and many of his former aides for an attempted coup in 2022–23, which the Yankees dub a “Witch Hunt.”3 Given their political nature (the tariffs were followed by individual sanctions against Supreme Court judges and their families, whose visas to the US were cancelled), the supposed trade dispute quickly became a major source of confrontation inside Brazil between, on the one hand, the government and democratic sectors, and, on the other, the far right.

    The Bolsonaro family and their supporters seized on the imperialist attack to claim responsibility, took to the streets to demand amnesty for the coup plotters, and kept one of the former president’s sons in the US to lobby for further attacks. To achieve their goal, they leveraged a parliamentary alliance with the traditional oligarchic and pro-corporate right, to urgently pass an amnesty bill while voting for a proposed constitutional amendment (PEC) that would prevent trials and investigations of any kind against parliamentarians and party leaders.

    They miscalculated, underestimating the opinion of the majority: their dual maneuver only fuelled mobilisations. On September 21, hundreds of thousands of Brazilians took to the streets to protest against the “PEC of Impunity” (or PEC of Banditry, as it became popularly referred to) and against any amnesty.4

    The PEC was buried, and with it, the amnesty bill. In fact, the campaign against the tariffs, and its openness to negotiation while affirming democracy as non-negotiable, has led to a surge in support for President Lula da Silva and his government. While it is an exaggeration to claim that genuine anti-imperialism has become the majority sentiment, it is true that opposition to Yankee interference and a sense of sovereignty was fundamental to this victory achieved through mobilisation.

    Venezuela: The central target

    While no nation in the region is exempt from potential threats to its territorial sovereignty, the Latin American and Caribbean country most under military threat right now is Venezuela. Venezuela and its Bolivarian revolution — buried by the authoritarianism and anti-worker/anti-people policies of the Maduro regime — have always been a huge thorn in US imperialism’s side. Today, Trump’s expansionist hawks seek to overthrow Maduro, taking advantage of his government’s enormous internal weakness, and replace him with a far-right alternative subservient to Washington.5

    But what explains the shift in the US’ position, if until now the Maduro government has been negotiating with it since 2018, and just recently once again guaranteed Venezuela would be a reliable oil supplier? The explanation lies in the global realignment taking place, with its new distribution of spheres of influence and power relations under construction. The Trump administration wants a figure of the new international fascist far right — in this case, María Corina Machado — to lead the Venezuelan government. It does not want instability during this reorganisation process, but instead absolute submission under the new framework. Whether it can achieve this is another matter.6

    The issue is that regime change in Venezuela seems impossible without some kind of direct intervention, which would generate a backlash in US public opinion, something that has to be factored into the equation. This makes the situation more complex. That is why they have resorted to talking up the need to militarily combat international drug trafficking: through this they seek to win domestic support for their interventionist policy.7 In any case, the manner in which the US military deployment off Venezuela’s coast has been handled seems to suggest it is not a sustained counterintelligence activity, but rather a large-scale data-collecting operation, seeking to measure the impact of the deployment and future scenarios on the Venezuelan and regional population. This would represent a new phase in the use of advanced technology for war purposes.

    The right-wing Venezuelan opposition, led by Machado — who for the first time addressed online the recent meeting of European libertarian patriots chaired by Italian President Giorgia Meloni — has called for sanctions against Venezuela in the recent past, without considering their effects on the poor. Today, she believes that US soldiers will remove Maduro and place her in power. To this end, she has offered up the nation’s territory and its riches on a silver platter. Of course, Maduro is far from the best example of nationalism or patriotism, allowing US transnational corporations to extract oil under neocolonial conditions unprecedented in the country’s history. But none of this justifies the call to desecrate Venezuelan soil.

    For now, the US administration seems to want to weaken the Maduro government, and is banking on the emergence of internal fissures and Maduro’s removal by local military officials. This would fracture the internal unity of the Maduro regime and open up the possibility of a Grenada scenario, revamped by current technological advances. The question is: what will they do if an internal rupture does not occur?

    A potential post-US military intervention scenario with a government headed by Machado and former presidential candidate Edmundo González, with their openly anti-worker policies, and confronted by the remnants of the Chavista opposition, would be largely ungovernable. Consequently, the US’ real objective appears to be the imposition of a military dictatorship in Venezuela with its direct assistance, including the establishment of military bases in the country. This would consolidate its regional objectives within the unfolding global reorganisation process.

    The Maduro government is terribly mistaken when it appeals to supposed differences between Rubio and Trump and seeks to assume the role of friendly advisor to the occupant of the White House. What is happening in the Caribbean and with Venezuela is an imperial policy, and cannot be simply put down to a bad moment in US politics.

    On the other hand, the social decomposition in Venezuela is so profound that the possibility of a foreign attack has not sparked the expected reaction from the population. The Maduro government has activated the militias and the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) political apparatus, but the extent of this mobilisation has been much smaller than claimed. The only way to awaken a broad national front in opposition to US intervention would be to reverse the package of measures that the government has implemented, especially since 2018. This would entail: significantly restructuring wages; restoring the electoral registration of left-wing parties to their legitimate leaders and activists; a general amnesty for political prisoners and those from the trade union and social movements; and the redirection of national wealth toward restoring social security and people’s material well-being. Only by taking these five steps can the Maduro government bring about a change in the current catastrophic situation, but that would entail breaking with the program of the new capitalist class that emerged under the oil rentier regime of the past twenty years.

    The Venezuelan people have been the worst affected by the Maduro government’s past 15 years of retreat and acquiescence to the interests of capital. Millions of Venezuelans have had to flee their country to survive, while those that remained have faced the tragedy of losing social security and wages while fearing to speak out under threat of being arrested. The people have already suffered too much to have to face the consequences of a large-scale military operation. The bombs, for the most part, will fall on the poor. Any measure that averts this crisis should be welcomed.

     

    1 “Trump Directs Military to Target Foreign Drug Cartels”, New York Times, 08/08/2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/us/trump-military-drug-cartels.html

    2 “Mexico’s President Struggles to Escape Trump’s Growing Demands”, New York Times, 30/08/2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/30/world/americas/mexico-us-trump-sheinbaum.html

    3 From Trump’s letter to Lula, dated 9/7/2025, announcing the tariffs: “I knew and dealt with former President Jair Bolsonaro, and respected him greatly, as did most other Leaders of Countries. The way that Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a highly respected leader throughout the world during his term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace. This trial should not be taking place. It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY! Due in part to Brazil’s insidious attacks on free elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans (as lately illustrated by the Brazilian Supreme Court, which has issued hundreds of SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to US Social Media platforms, threatening them with Millions of Dollars in Fines and Eviction from the Brazilian Social Media market), starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a tariff of 50% on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States, separate from all Sectoral Tariffs. Goods transshipped to evade this 50% tariff will be subject to that higher tariff.”

    4 “Protests against amnesty and PEC da Blindagem bring together crowds across Brazil,” BBC Brasil, 9/22/2025,https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c20epdl1v26o

    5 In this regard, it is worth reading the analysis by Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia Group, Is the US about to invade Venezuela?, in GZero, 3/09/2025. https://www.gzeromedia.com/news/analysis/is-the-us-about-to-invade-venezuela

    6 “Will the US invade Venezuela? Trump makes the question not seem absurd”, column by Sylvia Colombo in Folha de S.Paulo, 4/9/2025.https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mundo/2025/09/eua-vao-invadir-a-venezuela-trump-faz-pergunta-nao-parecer-absurda.shtml
    7 “US prepares attack options against targets inside Venezuela, says TV”, https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mundo/2025/09/eua-preparam-opcoes-de-ataques-contra-alvos-dentro-da-venezuela-diz-tv.shtml

  • María Corina Machado’s Ignoble Peace Prize

    María Corina Machado’s Ignoble Peace Prize

    Reposted from Venezuela Voices

    Stanley Heller interviews Simón Rodríguez

    In an interview for The Struggle Video News, Simón Rodríguez discusses the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, who dedicated it to US president Donald Trump, in the context of a brutal persecution against Venezuelan migrants in the US, increasing repression inside Venezuela against all forms of dissidence, a bombing campaign against civilian vessels in the Caribbean sea and the growing threat of a military strike against Venezuelan territory.

  • The BRICS and De-Dollarization

    The BRICS and De-Dollarization

    Many perceive the BRICS countries as a counterweight to the dollar-dominated monetary order. However, the facts speak for themselves: at the BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro (6–7 July 2025), no real desire to break away from the US currency was expressed. De-dollarzation remains a distant prospect.

    Many BRICS supporters claim that the bloc is moving towards de-dollarization. Is this really the case?

    Nowhere in the 126-point Rio de Janeiro BRICS leaders’ declaration is there any mention of the term de-dollarization. It makes no mention of initiatives to lessen the role of the dollar. It states that trade in local currencies must be encouraged, but this remains very vague and limited and has nothing to do with the creation of a common BRICS currency. The BRICS countries do not wish to adopt a common currency, and the final declaration of the Rio summit makes no mention of the creation of a common currency.

    Among the leaders of the five founding BRICS countries, only Lula continues to talk about a common reserve currency, and he does so less and less frequently. Putin stopped mentioning it and explicitly stated in 2024 that it was not one of his objectives.

    As proof, here is what Vladimir Putin said at an important public meeting organised by the Kremlin after the BRICS summit held in Kazan at the end of October 2024 and two days after Trump’s election:

    “I have heard a lot of discussion among experts and in journalistic circles that we should think about creating a single currency. But it is too early to talk about this. And we do not have such goals among ourselves.” (Source: Valdai Discussion Club meeting: Vladimir Putin’s answers to participants’ questions).

    Later in the public meeting, he added:

    “We have not sought to abandon the dollar and we are not seeking to do so.”

    And again:

    “Our proposals are not aimed at fighting the dollar.”

    Vladimir Putin on 7 November 2024: “I have heard a lot of discussion among experts and in journalistic circles that we should think about creating a single currency. But it is too early to talk about this. And we do not have such goals among ourselves. (…) We have not sought to abandon the dollar and we are not seeking to do so.

    Putin made these statements in November 2024 in response to Paulo Nogueira Batista, who from 2015 to 2017 was vice-president of the New Development Bank created by the BRICS. One of the questions posed by Paulo Nogueira Batista to Putin specifically concerned the creation of a new BRICS currency:

    “Would you agree that payments in national currencies have certain limitations and that we will gradually, step by step, cautiously move towards a new means of payment, a new reserve currency? President Lula also mentioned this in his statement at the Kazan summit.”

    It should be noted, as mentioned above, that Lula had advocated for a common currency both at the 2023 BRICS summit held in Johannesburg (South Africa) and in a remote address at the 2024 summit in Kazan (Russia). However, it is clear that Putin, who seemed to favour this prospect, has abandoned it. What is the reason for this? Besides the significant challenge of establishing a shared currency among vastly diverse economies across four continents, Putin is also attempting to placate Trump, who has made it clear that any attempt to diminish the role of the dollar would be met with intense retaliation.

    In the same vein, Putin is seeking to reduce the sanctions imposed on Russia following the invasion of Ukraine and is therefore trying to reduce antagonism with Trump. Through mid-2025 (including during a meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska in August 2025), this seemed to have worked, to a certain limited extent. I discussed the points of convergence between Trump and Putin on Ukraine concerning the grabbing of natural resources in an article published on 20 May 2025 entitled “Natural resource grabbing in Ukraine and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Imperial powers on the offensive.”

    However, their relationship could deteriorate at any moment, particularly if Trump posts something controversial, as he did on September 23:

    “After getting to know and fully understand the Ukraine/Russia Military and Economic situation and, after seeing the Economic trouble it is causing Russia, I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form.”

    The future of Putin-Trump relations is difficult to predict. But even if relations deteriorate significantly, the creation of a common currency will remain off the agenda because the other important members of the BRICS are not in favour of it.

    Indeed, India and China, the two largest powers among the BRICS countries, for their own reasons, do not see the point of developing a common BRICS currency.

    So India is opposed to a common currency?

    India has repeatedly stated during internal BRICS negotiations that it does not want a common currency. Then, certainly under the threat of tariff and other reprisals from Trump, it stated its position publicly on the eve of the BRICS summit in Rio (see Republic World, an Indian television channel, close to the government: India Not Supporting Russia in BRICS Currency Plan — Here’s Why). Since Trump implemented his tariff threats in August 2025, the prime minister has made no statements in favor of a common currency.

    Is China also not in favor of a common currency?

    For its part, China considers that the renminbi is gradually but surely becoming an international currency and that there is no point in participating in the creation of a new BRICS currency. The Chinese currency is one of the five currencies recognized for IMF repayments, and China has significantly increased its foreign loans in the renminbi (see the study published by the US Federal Reserve in May 2025: “Chinese Banks’ Dollar Lending Decline”).

    Nevertheless, it is widely acknowledged that if China internationalized its currency, it would lose its power to control cross-border capital movements. Due to financial speculation and the Chinese stock market crashes of the mid-2010s, maintaining and strengthening exchange controls have been essential tools for disciplining members of the ‘unpatriotic bourgeoisie’ of society who regularly engaged in illicit financial flows (IFFs). The NGO Global Financial Integrity estimated illicit financial outflows from China at $258 billion in 2013, prior to the tightening of capital controls in 2016-2017. See https://financialtransparency.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/IFF-Update_2015-Final.pdf Table C page 8.

    What is South Africa’s position on de-dollarization?

    South Africa’s financial elite also campaigned against de-dollarization at the 2023 BRICS summit in Johannesburg, and the SA Ambassador to the U.S., Ebrahim Rasool, also warned, in March 2025,

    “We must avoid actions that cock a snoot at the USA, such as de-dollarization. Not even China is speaking about de-dollarization anymore; Russia certainly isn’t. Not only is it performative, but it’s not practical or economically viable. Even mentioning it could invoke punitive immediate measures.”

    Conclusion

    There has been no collective progress by the BRICS countries as a coalition towards de-dollarization. Behind the rhetoric of a multipolar order, national interests, dependence on international trade and fear of US retaliation are holding back the collective momentum of BRICS countries.

    Lula remains isolated in his advocacy for a common currency, while Beijing, Delhi, Moscow and Pretoria, all favour national strategies. Ultimately, the BRICS of 2025 appear more like a coalition of divergent interests than a coherent bloc capable of transforming the global monetary order.

    Summary

    At the last BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro (6–7 July 2025), no serious concrete progress towards de-dollarization was made. The final declaration makes no mention of the creation of a common currency or a coordinated strategy to reduce the use of the dollar. What they are actually doing is far more modest: settling some trade in local currencies to reduce costs and diminish reliance on the greenback for specific transactions (see part 6 of this series)

    Only Lula continues to raise the idea of a common reserve currency among the BRICS leaders, and he does so infrequently. Vladimir Putin, who had previously shown interest, has clearly abandoned this prospect. In November 2024, he publicly stated that Russia was not seeking to move away from the dollar, thereby seeking to ease tensions with Donald Trump, who was hostile to any initiative that threatened the supremacy of the greenback.

    This caution also reflects internal differences within the BRICS. India has opposed any idea of a common currency, fearing US trade reprisals. China, for its part, is banking on the gradual internationalization of the renminbi while maintaining strict control over capital flows. South Africa believes that a policy of de-dollarization would be economically risky and likely to provoke immediate sanctions from Washington.

    Thus, despite frequent talk in certain circles about the BRICS’ progress in challenging the dominance of the dollar, the political and economic reality shows a lack of willingness to adopt a common currency.

    The author would like to thank Patrick Bond, Sushovan Dhar and Maxime Perriot for their proofreading and advice. The author is solely responsible for the opinions expressed in this text and any errors it may contain.

    First published by the Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt (CADTM).

  • Observations on Class Struggle in Indonesia

    Observations on Class Struggle in Indonesia

    Less than a year after taking office, Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto faced the most militant anti-government protests in years. At the roots of recent street actions at the end of August, 2025 is the country’s incredible inequality and rule by an entrenched political class. Already extreme, the gap between rich and poor is widening. The middle class has shrunk by 16% since 2019, and the elite is becoming ever wealthier, arrogantly so. Unemployment affects millions, while the working poor are being forced to pay higher taxes with less pay and for a longer work week. The average monthly wage for workers in February 2025 was 3.09 million rupiah, less than $200. The country’s unemployment rate hovers at 15%, more for youth, the highest in Southeast Asia.

    Probowo has launched ambitious national projects such as daily meals for millions of students and increases in military spending, forcing him to cut Jakarta’s contributions to regional governments, which in turn have imposed steep local tax increases. Unconcerned with people’s economic stress, the parliament voted themselves a substantial hike in monthly housing allowances, bringing their total monthly income to over 100 million rupiah, more than $6,000. Their income taxes are paid by the central government. As people’s living conditions deteriorate, their response was not long in coming.

    In early August 2025, in Pati, usually a sleepy town in Central Java, people reacted militantly to the Regent’s plan to raise land taxes by 250%. Although Regent Sudewo claimed he would not not back down, citing the central government’s drastic cuts to regional funds, protesters occupied the town square. Boxes of donated of food flooded in to care for needy citizens. After police confiscated all the donations, protesters massed at Sudewo’s office on August 13, tearing down the fence and demanding he meet them. Standing atop a police car, he apologized but once again explained he had no choice. Citizens responded militantly. They threw rocks and bottles at him, compelling him to run for cover and to rescind his new tax proposal.

    No doubt people’s successful revolt in Pati motivated subsequent movements, which kicked off on in late August. Daily demonstrations outside parliament in Jakarta soon became the new norm as people were angered by new tax hikes and lawmakers’ voting themselves extraordinary benefits. Thursday morning, August 28, began as a ‘normal’ day of protest. Labor unions peacefully assembled outside Jakarta’s parliament building to call for higher wages, tax reform, and adherence to existing labor laws. After workers dispersed, students surged around the building, demanding cancellation of politicians’ new housing allowances and dissolution of parliament. That night, as people stayed in the streets, Affan Kurniawan, a 21-year old Ojol driver (an online motorcycle delivery/taxi service) was delivering a food order, when he was run over and killed by a 14-ton police water cannon. A co-worker suffered a broken leg.

    Dismissed from his role as one of the most powerful generals in 1998 for his involvement in the disappearance of pro-democracy student activists, president Probowo claimed to be ‘shocked and amazed’ by the death of the Ojol driver. He urged calm and ordered an investigation into ‘ethical’ issues related to Affan’s death. The sudden eruption of militant actions across the peninsula compelled him to visit the family of the slain driver and to promise them government financial support for their lifetimes.

    Affan’s funeral procession was made up of hundreds of green-uniformed Ojol motorcycle drivers. These marginalized workers daily come face to face with Indonesia’s stark inequality. They routinely pick up meals at luxurious malls and deliver them to middle-class homes. Their financial situation is so precarious that on December 8, 2024, Darwin Mangudut Simanjutak starved to death in Medan as he waited for a customer’s order. The night before he died, he had complained to a friend that he hadn’t eaten because he didn’t have any money. Six months later, on May 20, 2025, thousands of drivers who worked for the Ojol online platform took to the streets in 18 cities. The Indonesia Online Drivers Union reported that at least 12 of their members had died due to fatigue because workers sometimes were on the job 18 hours per day. These drivers represent thousands of others who have also been denied the benefits of the country’s economic development. For years, they have struggled to get improvements to their wages and conditions only to suffer from recent tax increases and wage reductions. They took the lead in the 2025 uprising.

    Despite the president’s appeal for calm, people refused to obey. After Affan’s killing, ‘Pembunuh’ (murderer) graffiti suddenly appeared on the streets of many cities. A leading student organization called on all citizens to join them in the streets, noting that, ‘An institution that should protect has turned into uniformed executioners, trampling the dignity of civilian citizens.’ On Friday, August 29, rallies and protests were organized across the archipelago. The national parliament in Jakarta was surrounded and besieged. More than 45 bus and subway stations were destroyed, as were highway toll booths and carefully selected police buildings. The basement and first floor of a large police headquarters in East Jakarta was heavily damaged by fire. Hundreds of protesters massed outside the headquarters of Jakarta Police’s elite Mobile Brigade (Brimob), the unit blamed for Affan’s death, throwing firecrackers as police responded with tear gas. A determined group of protesters, screaming ‘Pembunuh,’ tried to tear down the gates of the notorious unit, and pulled down a sign from the building’s exterior. The city’s population overwhelming supported the protesters. In one neighborhood where people sought refuge, residents ‘formed a human barricade to keep security forces out. Women jabbed the authorities with brooms to chase them away.’

    The country suddenly erupted in a literal firestorm that spread across the country. Regional parliament buildings were set afire in Martaram and Bandung in West Java. Protests spread to other major cities, including Solo, Magelang, Malang, Bengkulu, Pekanbaru, Medan in North Sumatra, Semarang in Central Java, and Manokwari in Papua. In the country’s second largest city, Surabaya in East Java, people mounted a sustained attack on police headquarters, fighting with fireworks and wooden clubs against tear gas and water cannons. During the battle, they destroyed fences and set police vehicles on fire. In Yogyakarta, people besieged the regional police headquarters for five hours. Several government vehicles, a police service center, and a traffic post were set afire. Water barriers were attacked as well, forcing closure of the northern ring road.

    The next day, Saturday, August 30, people’s anger continued to be expressed. Large buildings containing the regional parliament and city council in Makassar, Sulawesi went up in flames. Three government workers were trapped in the conflagration and jumped to their deaths from the third floor. Another person was mistaken for a police spy and perished after being attacked by a crowd. In Solo, former President Jokowi’s hometown, the parliament building was also torched. Led by Ojol drivers in green jackets and students, a crowd in Cirebon set upon the parliament building, causing a fire in which the parliament building including court documents, chairs and tables burnt to the ground. In Martaram, on Lombok island, protesters set fire to the massive regional parliament, leaving only charred remains. Newspapers reported that the parliament building in Pekalongan, Central Java, was also burnt. In Jambi as well as in Surabaya, the vice-governor’s official residences went up in flames. Across the country, at least 42 buildings, 32 police posts, and dozens of motorcycles, cars and buses were burnt. Altogether, ten people died during the uprising, six from police violence. More than one thousand people were injured and over three thousand arrested.

    At a televised press conference on August 30, the head of the country’s police and the army commander refused to apologize for the murderous state violence. Instead, they blamed anarchists. By dawn on August 31, stunned citizens observed dozens of burnt shells of buildings, charred cars surrounded by rocks, and bottle fragments covering streets in many cities. As television news teams surveyed the damages from the street fights, their headlines uniformly declared, ‘anarchists harm the public good.’ Damages were estimated to be in excess of $54 million.

    Reforms Enacted

    Later on the afternoon of August 30, president Probowo condemned excessive police actions and promised to respect peaceful protests. More ominously, he also warned that some protests could be ‘treason and terrorism.’ He revoked the monthly living allowance MP’s had voted themselves and enacted a moratorium on government paid foreign travel. Political parties subsequently apologized for statements made by some of their members, who were then penalized for their ‘insensitivity.’

    Clean-up crews worked at a feverish pace to clear streets of burnt out vehicles and to repair public transportation infrastructure. Of hundreds of people injured, dozens remained hospitalized, according to Street Paramedics Organization. Negotiations began for release of arrested people and for punishment of police involved in the killing of Affan. One eyewitness to Affan’s murder publicly stated that the Brimob vehicle ‘suddenly sped through the middle of the road without paying attention to the gathered crowd,’ a claim substantiated by video footage. Officials detained seven Brimob officers for ‘ethical’ questions in connection with the driver’s death. Not surprisingly, government investigators waited until September 2 to announce who was behind the wheel when they named Chief Brigadier Rohmat. Also riding in the front was Police Commissioner Cosmas Kaju Gae. Cosmos was expelled from the force and Rohmat will face criminal charges.

    After Probowo rescinded the new housing allowances and declared a moratorium on all-expense paid lawmakers’ foreign trips, at least five lawmakers were sanctioned. Eko was suspended as secretary-general of National Mandate Party (PAN). Apparently the final straw came after people criticized parliament members dancing to celebrate their housing allowance raise. Eko posted a video mocking people angered by the dancing. Ahmad Sahroni was also made to step down from parliament by his NasDem Party, mentioning that his statements ‘have offended and hurt the feelings of the people.’ Another party member, Uya Kuya, was shown dancing over a caption reading, ‘just dance with it, you guys thought that Rp3million a day was a lot.’ She was also suspended.

    New repressive measures have been enacted after Probowo warned that protests could be considered ‘treason and terrorism.’ Three newly created mobile patrols of hundreds of heavily armed police roam Jakarta. The country’s police chief ordered his officers to shoot with rubber bullets anyone who enters Brimob headquarters. The University of Indonesia and many schools suspended all in-person classes and replaced them with online formats for a week. Government employees in Jakarta were ordered to work from home. About a dozen people thought to be ‘key activists’ were rounded up. As the streets quieted, the country returned to business as usual.

    Many NGO’s and think tanks offered advice to the government on how to defuse protests. At first, people’s demands included the arrest of Minister of Culture Fadli Zon because of his denial of 168 rapes during the 1998 uprising, investigation of former president Jokowi for widely suspected corruption, and termination of police chief Listyo. On September 1, a group of social media influencers issued what would become the most prominent set of demands, 17 proposals for short-term reforms to be implemented by September 5 and eight more significant policy changes to be made within the next year. With days, the parliament quickly responded by rubber stamping the already enacted end to housing allowances, paid foreign trips and other perks for MP’s. They insisted that deactivated MP’s would receive no future benefits pending an investigation into their ethics. Finally, they promised to conduct ongoing monitoring of MP’s ethics and to insure ‘meaningful’ public participation in the legislative process. Although swiftly mandated and widely publicized, left out of the government’s response are key issues such as withdrawing the army from civilian functions and insuring ‘fair labor conditions.’ Such political reforms are of little consequence to the poor.

    The police released nearly all prisoners, keeping several dozen they deemed to have been central to the uprising, and they arrested six more activists thought to be instigators. No action was taken to enact changes to the other 17 demands, such as an end police brutality, the arrest of all officers who perpetuated human rights abuses, and ‘reasonable’ wages. Commissions were formed and meetings with trade unions held, but nothing further has been accomplished.

    Protests continue to take place across the archipelago, but they are largely peaceful. Watched by dozens of police, more than 500 protesters assembled outside parliament on Monday, September 1, in Jakarta, and thousands more rallied in Palembang, hundreds in Makassar, Yogyakarta and Banjarmasin, Borneo. Despite assurances that peaceful protest would be tolerated, many people were not so sure the government would respect free speech. The first to test the waters was the Indonesian Alliance of Women. Dressed in pink, hundreds of women brandished brooms on Monday, September 1 to ‘sweep away the state’s dirt and police repression.’ Soon students staged ‘picnics’ in front of parliament, and civil society groups openly called for reform. Yet other NGO leaders were arrested. More than 40 online ‘provocateurs’ were detained by police during the first week of September. Prabowo also promised to promote all police officers injured during the protests, including those who may have committed unnecessary acts of violence. The 17-8 demands continue to spur daily vigils and protests, but public enthusiasm and government action remain unknown.

    Clearly, recent street actions and looting have stoked fear among the elite and middle class. The uprising has also provided new energy and pride to Ojol drivers and marginalized citizens, a palpable change that could be one of its most important outcomes. Prabowo has already done two important about-faces. Although he had initially canceled a long-planned trip to China to attend a commemoration of the victory in World War 2, he changed his mind on September 2 despite his declaration of a moratorium on officials’ foreign trips. More significantly, he had initially expressed sympathy for Affan’s family, but on August 30, he promised that firm responses will meet ‘anarchist acts,’ damage to public facilities, and looting of public and private properties. Many people live in fear that state violence may become more murderous.

    On September 8, the normally centrist Jakarta Post reveled the deep mistrust that the upper middle class has for the poor. Describing the uprising as ‘vandalism, looting and mob attacks,’ the editors called on ‘labor unions to take a step back and look at the bigger picture of society as a whole rather than focusing on their members.’

    Elite Arrogance Spurred the Popular Response

    After students called for the dissolution of parliament, Ahmad Sahroni, an influential member of parliament, called that perspective ‘a foolish mentality…That kind of person is the most stupid person in the world.’ After Sahroni repeated his remark, he left for Singapore. While he was gone, hundreds of outraged people surged into his private residence. They looted it while soldiers stood by, pleading with people not to burn the house. The army watched as people carried away the bathtub, refrigerator, washing machine, furniture, and expensive designer bags. A watch valued at more than $300,000 was among the appropriated items. Liberated dollars and rupiah were thrown into the air for all to share in the expropriated cash.

    Eko Patrio, another member of parliament and a popular social media influencer, served as DJ for a dance party in parliament after pay raises had been enacted. His outspoken celebration led people to converge on his residence. He engaged the protesters, claiming ‘everybody makes content.’ After he left for China, his residence (one of many he owns in Jakarta) was looted. People also streamed into the houses of finance minister Sri Mulyani and Uya Kuya before taking all their belongings.

    Crass public statements made by leading Indonesian government officials have continually made news. When minister of human development Pratikno was asked by a journalist about a large worm killing a young child, he publicly laughed out loud. Pratikno pointed to his ‘tired eyes’ before breaking into laughter. The five-year-old child named Raya had been diagnosed with tuberculosis. Once in the hospital, a worm began to come out out her nose. After she died, tapeworms weighing approximately one kilogram were found inside her body. The country’s minister of health later claimed infection, not worms, were the cause of death.

    After her house was looted, highly regarded Finance Minister Sri Mulyani, guardian of the country’s financial health for two decades, wrote on her Instagram page that, ‘Law, reason, and civilization seemed to vanish alongside my possessions. The humanity we cling to was trampled without regard. The wounds left behind, the dignity shredded, it’s absurd.’ If she had only known that within days Nepal’s finance minister Bishnu Prasad Paudel would be humiliated, stripped down to his underwear in the streets, and forced to swim away in a river by enraged protesters. If she had a crystal ball, she might have made mention of the absolute poverty so many in Indonesia suffer, of stunted growth of children, of the threats constituted to people on the edge of life by her policies. Instead, on August 13, she bluntly stated that meeting tax obligations is ‘the same as’ Islamic alms giving (zakat) and endowments (waqf). On August 15, she had announced her plan to increase tax revenues by 13.5% in 2026, seen by the poor as an affront while lawmakers joyfully celebrated their increased wealth.

    Looking to the Future

    Within the current constellation of Indonesian party politics, Prabowo enjoys a ‘big tent’ coalition with support from more than 80% of parliament. This huge majority has two salient effects: he has almost unlimited power to steer the country in any direction he chooses, and those who oppose him have limited options other than to take to the streets. Conspiracy theories abound. Did Jokowi and the ‘Soto gang’ sponsor the rally on August 25 in order to boost vice-president Gibran? Are the military taking the side of Prabowo and seeking to channel protests against his opponents (Jokowi’s supporters)? At times, soldiers stood by and watched the looting, even handing out drinks and money to protesters. In the midst of street fighting, who was the army intelligence officer arrested at a gas station in Jakarta? Is there an ongoing power struggle between Jokowi and the police on one side and Prabowo and the army on the other?

    Indonesia’s uprising did not erupt in isolation. Beginning in 2022, Sri Lanka’s youth massively attacked the Rajapaksa government, compelling the president to flee the country, after which his ancestral home and privately held family buildings were destroyed by crowds of angry youth. In 2024, Bangladesh’s Gen Z rose up against the Sheikh Hasina government. After she authorized ‘lethal force’ on protesters that led to more than 1,400 fatalities, Hasina fled to India. A new interim government is led by Nobel-prize laureate Mohammad Yunus. Days after Indonesian protests in August, Nepalese Gen Z youth burnt down parliament and dozens of other government buildings, and won a new interim government led a Sushila Karki, a respected jurist whom they chose.

    All these recent uprisings have similarities in their spontaneous eruption, absence of centralized leadership, distance from existing political parties, prominent role played by students, and attacks on the private residences of politicians. The one-piece pirate flag has been part shared in the symbolic arsenal of people in the streets.Their threat to those in power has yet to run its course.

    Whether or not elite machinations and symbolic reforms will keep the lid on Indonesian protests remains to be seen. In the short run, reforms will certainly placate some people, while others continue to press for more accountability from parliament and reform of police. Will the working poor go back to accept overworked lives of impoverished existence? What is clear is that Indonesia’s economic structural imbalance cannot be maintained without fundamental changes. People debate whether martial law or eradication of poverty is what the future holds. Indonesia is a huge country ruled by nine families, the ‘nine dragons,’ who dance atop a pyramid of millions of people living on the edge of survival. How long that system can be maintained is a question increasingly being asked.

  • Understanding Gaza

    Understanding Gaza

    The Gaza Catastrophe: The Genocide in World-Historical Perspective
    by Gilbert Achcar
    (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2025)

    Gilbert Achcar is a prolific and perceptive socialist intellectual of Lebanese origins whose writings over the last two decades and more have illuminated the most salient issues emerging from the Middle East and North Africa region. He has fearlessly addressed some of the most contentious questions, deploying a consistently humane, rationalist, secular, and materialist analysis. Achcar excels at illuminating the “big picture,” conjoining his broad historical understanding of geopolitics with detailed understandings of the majority Arab region informed by his personal experiences as a political militant. He was a leading member of the Lebanese Revolutionary Communist Group affiliated with the 4th International and is currently a member of the British ecosocialist organization Anti*Capitalist Resistance.

    The subtitle of Achcar’s latest book, The Gaza Catastrophe: The Genocide in World-Historical Perspective, announces his critical method and principal intervention in the debate over Israel’s devastation of Gaza and its meaning. That method was deployed in his previous influential works, The Clash of Barbarisms (2002) which analyzed the post-9/11/2001 world order, and The Arabs and the Holocaust (2010 and 2025) which critiqued both the Zionist instrumentalization of the memory of the Holocaust (in Europe the Hebrew word Shoah, or catastrophe, is more commonly used) and Arab Holocaust denialism. Similarly, his two books on the Arab popular uprisings that erupted in 2010-11 and again in 2019, The People Want (2013 and 2022) and Morbid Symptoms (2016), argue that these region-wide upsurges of mass protest were impelled by the failures of the regimes of capital accumulation and neo-patrimonial governance and marked only the beginnings of the historical process of their unraveling.

    The Gaza Catastrophe is a collection of essays, some written before October 7, 2023, and some since then, that insist that the Hamas-led attack on Israeli military and civilian targets on that day and Israel’s subsequent genocidal retaliation are not anomalous eruptions of violence in the history of Israel/Palestine. Rather, they are a continuation of the historical and political trajectory of the Zionist settlement project and the Nakba of 1948. In addition to this long-term structural analysis, the essays offer a meticulous description of specific events since October 7, 2023, and reflections on Israeli and Palestinian politics.

    Achcar understands the Gaza genocide as a symptom of the decline of the “Atlanticist international liberal order.” As he argued in an interview with Jacobin, that order “has always been fiction.” But the Gaza genocide represents the era of “the decadence of Western liberalism” and “constitutes a watershed in world history.” (2)

    Locally, the genocide was a continuation of what Dahlia Scheindlin termed the “seismic shift” to the right in Israeli society in response to the Second Intifada. (33-34) The November 2022 parliamentary elections brought two messianist-fascist religious Zionist parties into the Israeli government. Their votes in the Knesset (parliament) ensure that Benjamin Netanyahu will not be exposed to jail time should he be convicted in any of his three ongoing trials for corruption as long as he remains prime minister. Consequently, messianist-fascists, in alliance with “ordinary” fanatical right wingers, are the locomotive driving Israel’s policies. Years before October 7 they had been agitating for Israel to annex the West Bank while their settler supporters engaged in pogroms aimed at dispossessing and ethnically cleansing Palestinians from ever-wider areas of the region.

    The most valuable new element in Achcar’s book is the introductory essay (of about 50 pages) written for this volume. Here he presents a careful argument that Israel’s tactics in its attack on Gaza – bombing areas of civilian habitation, denial of food and medical supplies, destroying infrastructure – fit the definition of genocide specified in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide that came into effect in 1951. Moreover, Western powers, especially the United States, have been fully complicit in this crime. He quotes then-Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant’s description of Palestinians as “human animals,” one of many violently racist statements of Israeli political and military leaders that announced their intention to violate the Genocide Convention. (39)

    Already in November 2023 the New York Times had cataloged 18,000 genocidal statements by Israelis on X and reported 286 statements by prominent Israelis potentially inciting unlawful behavior. The Times noted that their, “cumulative effect… normalize[d] public discussion of ideas that would have been considered off limits before Oct. 7: talk of ‘erasing’ the people of Gaza, ethnic cleansing, and the nuclear annihilation of the territory.”

    The roots of Israel’s genocidal operations in Gaza are in the “Dahiya doctrine” implemented during Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon that posits using disproportionate force and “prioritize[ing] damaging assets over seeking out each and every launcher” and “target[ing] economic interests and the civilian centers of power….” (33-35) This is augmented by striving for “zero risk” to Israeli soldiers which “encourages unrestrained fire with no concern for civilians,” as Israeli political scientist Prof. Yagil Levy wrote in Haaretz. (36-37)

    Alongside his systematic criticism of Israeli apartheid, expansionism, ethnic cleansing, and genocide Achcar sharply denounces Hamas’s misogynist and undemocratic political regime, which provoked demonstrations against its rule in Gaza in the summer of 2023. (13-14) He regards Hamas’s military strategy as “plainly irrational,” ironically quoting Yahya Sinwar’s 2018 quip, “Who really wants to confront a nuclear superpower with four slingshots?” (17) Achcar regards Hamas’s reliance on armed struggle as a mystical delusion and politically counterproductive, concluding, “There is no possible vindication for what has been the most catastrophic miscalculation ever in the history of anticolonial struggle.” (24)

    Achcar rejects armed struggle against Israel because it plays in the court where Israel has an overwhelming advantage. Instead, he favors “mass nonviolent struggle…epitomized by the First Intifada.” (17) As early as 2009 he argued that “no rational strategy in confronting the Zionist state is possible without combining the Palestinian and Arab struggle with an effort to split Israeli Jewish society from within.” This entails “[t]ransforming (the Jordanian capital) Amman into an Arab Hanoi” and detaching a significant portion of Israelis Jews “from the Zionist mindset.” (19-20)

    In light of the Trump administration’s weaponization of spurious claims of antisemitism to suppress support for Palestinian rights and assault the entire edifice of American liberal education, the Appendix to the volume is painfully relevant. Drafted by Achcar and Raef Zreik, academic co-director of the Minerva Humanities Center at Tel-Aviv University, and endorsed by 122 Palestinian and Arab intellectuals, the statement on “Palestinian Rights and the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) Definition of Antisemitism” retains its power as a forceful rebuttal to claims that critiques of Israel, no matter how vociferous or fundamental, constitute antisemitism. Originally published in The Guardian in November 2020, the statement remains relevant and a monument to the vitality and moral clarity of leftwing Arab thought despite the domination of the region by kleptocrats and autocrats.

    The kind of Palestinian and Arab liberation struggle that Achcar envisions, and even more so the prospect of winning any significant number of Israelis to support it, may seem fanciful in the shadow of “the first genocide…executed by a technologically advanced state since the final defeat in 1945 of the far-right Axis powers….” (2) Achcar is fully aware that for the foreseeable future, the prospects are grim. The messianist-fascist current in Israeli politics is an emblematic component of burgeoning neo-fascist forces in France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, the UK, the United States, and beyond – countries that have rendered material aid to Israel’s Gaza genocide and suppressed their own domestic oppositions to it. The discrediting of the Atlanticist international liberal order means that even if the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court render verdicts convicting Israel and its leaders of genocide, they will be largely unenforceable.

    Nonetheless, Achcar’s engagement with a wide array of left-wing Arab forces as well as many Israeli Jewish oppositional intellectuals whose arguments he quotes generously, allows him to imagine a different future for the Middle East and North Africa even as the forces that may bring it about are weak and scattered today. No economic-political-cultural formation is permanently fixed. The unresolved issues of economic distribution, growth, and governance highlighted by the two recent cycles of Arab uprisings may once again come to the fore through popular struggle. The increasingly evident decline of U.S. imperial power ensures that there will eventually be significant shifts in the international and regional balance of power. These changes will enable political options that are not visible or considered “realistic” today to emerge.

     

  • Ariella Aïsha Azoulay, The Jewelers of the Ummah: A Potential History of the Jewish Muslim World

    Ariella Aïsha Azoulay, The Jewelers of the Ummah: A Potential History of the Jewish Muslim World

    What if the stories of the people, their possibilities, the world they shared with others, their crafts and skills have been buried under the rubble of imperialism? Then our task would be to remove the rubble and try to find and save what exists underneath. But what if those who destroyed these worlds also removed the rubble, created new worlds and everything now appears clean? The book The Jewelers of the Ummah: A Potential History of the Jewish Muslim World aims to tell the story of a common Jewish Muslim that used to exist in the Ummah, and was destroyed by French colonialism. The author’s aim is to bring in conversation about the colonization of Algeria and the colonization of Arab Jews in order to claim that even though this world is destroyed the destruction can still be refused and the common world can still be reclaimed and revived. In this deeply personal book Azoulay explores empire, family, identity, assimilation, and conversion in order to explore how Jewish and Muslim people were constructed as the enemy of each other in order to serve the invented histories of colonialism and the Judeo-Christian tradition.

    As the title states, this is a book of a potential history of the Jewish Muslim world and not the history of this world. This might make the readers wonder if this book is about a hypothetical scenario of what might have happened, or the author’s wishful thinking of what should have happened, or whether it is an entirely fictionalized version contrary to the “rea” history of this world. For this reason, it is important first to engage with the notion of the potential as it is developed in Azoulay’s work in order to understand the kind of history the author narrates in the book. Throughout the book, Azoulay effectively explains what it means to think in terms of potential history and how we can practice potential history. If there is an ‘imagine if’ in her narrative of these events, Azoulay says, it should not be perceived as the arbitrary thinking of a single creative mind. Rather, practicing potential history through the reconstruction of concrete events is a thoughtful, careful, and often painful process of recovering suppressed facts and possibilities that have been erased by the imperial version of history of what happened to colonized peoples and their shared world.

    It is worth mentioning here, albeit for an audience unfamiliar with her work, that the notion of a potential history is introduced in her previous work Potential History: Unlearning Imperialism wherein Azoulay argues that the world as we know it today is the product of imperial violence. Azoulay, nonetheless, does not only point to the violence inflicted by colonialism and the plunder of other’s worlds but shows how the violence is maintained and reproduced by imperial institutions and practices such as archives, museums, universities, photography, and concepts of human rights and citizenship. These institutions, she writes, were formed to normalize the plunder of these worlds. And as she reminds us elsewhere, “the imperial nature is not only of the institution—it is also of the many disciplines taught within it.” The discipline of history which she targets in this book erases colonial violence and presents the imperial and colonial version of the destruction of diverse worlds as “neutral” presentation of facts. This is why in The Jewelers of the Ummah: A Potential History of the Jewish Muslim World, the author interrogates the Jewish Muslim world in the Ummah and powerfully rejects the narrative that tells us that that this world is over. To refuse to accept that this world only existed in the past is to practice potential history—thus to refuse colonialism and its material and discursive violence that allow the reproduction of the violence.

    Azoulay has written the entire book in the form of letters addressed to her kin such as her father, great-grandmothers, mother, and children and also those she calls her elected kin such as Franz Fanon, Hannah Arendt, Benjamin Stora, Ghassan Kanafani, and Sylvia Wynter among others. The epistolary genre she employs, however, is not just a discursive exercise as she argues in the book, but an embodied effort to revive the lost Jewish Muslim world in the company of others who also rejected the destruction of the Jewish Muslim world. Although there is a long history of the practice of the epistolary genre, these letters are not unidirectional in which the author takes on the task of teaching another something about the world. The effort is rather, Azoulay tells us, to explore an anticolonial language and to inhabit in the space of the letters the Jewish Muslim world that is declared “lost.” Moreover, and precisely because she engages with diverse people from scholars to family members, concepts, objects, and space she transcends the language of expertise in which one teaches another, and rather the effort in her work is collective by bringing forward the people who refused yesterday and the people who are refusing today but also the people, like her mother, who accepted their colonial transformation and how she did not recognize or refuse to recognize the fabricated stories she was made to believe were hers.

    The book begins with a poignant letter she writes to her father, and I have chosen to discuss here the example of the transformation of the central square of Algiers to an aesthetic that fit the French urban syntax. In the letter she considers sixty to seventy postcards and drawings to discuss Djâama el-Jedid mosque in Algiers. Azoulay considers these postcards and drawings to imagine the space not as it appears, but as it once was. The French had destroyed the majority of mosques and synagogues in Algiers but when it was the turn of Djâama el-Jedid mosque an officer realized that if they proceeded with another destruction there would be no spaces left for worship. This realization led the French to not destroy it physically; however, by destroying everything else around it such as shops, other worship places, and streets surrounding it, Azoulay maintains that all that was saved was only the building itself. The mosque, she writes, which now stands alone in the middle of the square, was once surrounded by other buildings, shops, streets, and the people close and around it. The mosque that emerged, though the same, was mediated by the wide field of vision in which the French could display it as an object of their own taste. But the gaze of her ancestors was different from theirs: her ancestors could arrive to the mosque through small alleys and crowded streets. And this arrival offered itself the possibility to diverse communities to meet and greet each other which facilitated diverse groups to live together in a shared space which enhanced a common life despite religious differences. The destruction, in other words, points not only to a material colonization of the land and its wealth but by depriving Algerians, both Muslims and Jews, of their cities, Azoulay shows us that the people are colonized too by being forced to experience their world in the ways their colonizers want them to.

    This way of engaging with photographs is Azoulay’s reconstruction method. When she engages with visual objects and particularly photographs, she explains that she does not stop at what she is told to see, but rather she looks for traces that allow her, and us, to take into account elements that have been overlooked or the narratives that try to determine what we are supposed to see in the visual objects we encounter.

    However, the separation of Muslim Jews from Jewish Muslims was not only achieved by the destruction of the infrastructure. Imperial and colonial violence employs various methods and strategies to assimilate people to imperial forms of belonging and dissociate them from who and what they once were. In order to support this, Azoulay engages with colonial citizenship offered to Jews, the destruction of their shops, crafts and their deprivation from jewelry making, which was a fundamental part of the Arab Jewish identity. In order to understand how we arrived at the massive expulsion of Jews from Algeria we need to consider closely these strategies and practices. First, we need to look at the French citizenship imposed on them which differentiated them from their other companions. When French citizenship, Azoulay writes, was “offered” only a few applied; nonetheless, five years later they were forced to accept French citizenship. This conversion cannot and should not be seen as a free choice, she maintains throughout the book, since their world was destroyed, they had no other choice. By discussing the French citizenship forced on them, Azoulay points to a strategic and planned dissociation of Arab Muslims and Arab Jews. She suggests the term Jewish Muslims and Muslim Jews which for her indicate their interconnectedness which was precisely under attack by colonial practices. She explains this in her letter to her great-grandmother Marianne. Azoulay explains in the letter that she was puzzled by her parents’ decision to name her Marianne after those who colonized their country. The answer, she suggests, is to be found in the disruption of the naming system of colonialism, which was also part of a French administrative system that controlled the colonized by forcing them to register births, deaths, and marriages with the French municipalities. And despite her parents’ obedience, the author was delighted when Marianne herself decided to name her own daughter Aicha (the third and beloved wife of the Prophet Muhammad). By making this choice, Azoulay says that her great-grandmother declares that “Islam is my culture, alongside my Jewish faith, and my Jewishness is also my neighbor’s culture, whose faith is Islam.” Our ancestors, Azoulay writes, who were Arab Jews, Berber Jews, and Muslim Jews before Algeria’s colonization by France did not use to think of themselves as a group apart from Muslim Arabs. It is the French citizenship—among other colonial practices—which attacked the Jewish and Muslim interconnectedness. It is this differentiation of the Jewish Arabs and Muslim Arabs that contributed to the massive expulsion of Jews from Algeria in 1962.

    The title of the book is the Jewelers of the Ummah. The Ummah is the Islamic nation or community, and the Jews were the jewelers in this broad community. Arab and Berber Jews were mostly those who worked with metalsmiths and made jewels. Muslim Arabs would visit their shops to ask for jewels and their work with these metals allowed them to frequently interact with the Muslim Arabs. Unlike European Jews who were not allowed to work with guilds, Arab Jews could practice such professions in the Maghreb. When the French colonized Algeria, they destroyed their shops in which they were selling their craft or prohibited them from jewelry making. However, this prohibition of one’s craft has wider implications because, as Azoulay maintains, to be dissociated from one’s craft is to be dissociated from who one is and their way of belonging in a world with others. Their work with these precious metals is what also allowed them to be part of and apart from their fellow world-members.” Muslim Arabs would visit their shops to ask for jewels made by them and their work with these metals allowed them to frequently interact with the Muslim Arabs. Depriving the Arab and Berber Jews from producing jewels, not only deprived them of who they were, but also cut across the interconnectedness and conviviality of Arab Jews and Arab Muslims.

    In the letters she writes to Frantz Fanon and Hannah Arendt, the question that preoccupies Azoulay is why these thinkers accepted uncritically that Arab Jews were European Jews. Since Azoulay points to this differentiation of the Arab Jew from the Muslim Jew as the main strategy that led to the destruction of their world and to the expulsion of Arab Jews, it seems very reasonable that she keeps on wondering why these thinkers who have made a major contribution to how she herself thinks did not refuse the Europeanness imposed on her ancestors. In a letter Azoulay writes to Frantz Fanon, she states that his work on colonial disorders is important, but she wonders why Fanon did not see Algerian Jews as colonized people too. When Fanon worked in a clinic in Blida, in Algeria, he placed Algerian Jews who had become French citizens in the same wards as Europeans, and by seeing them as Europeans, Azoulay writes, he could not treat them for their colonial disorders, and these people themselves lacked the language to understand and articulate their disorder.

    Similarly, in the letter she writes to Arendt the same question persists: why did Arendt fell into the trap of attaching “Jews” to “their mother country through their French brethren?” Why did Arendt participate, albeit unwillingly, in the differentiation of Jews from Muslim Arabs that led to their eventual departure and loss of indigenousness in the land? One possible answer to why these thinkers perceived Algerian Jews as European Jews could be that they both relied on European Jews to understand Jewish Muslims, but these European Jews had already been “converted by European institutions,” Azoulay maintains, meaning that they too had been socialized to see Algerian Jews and Algerian Muslims as two separate categories. Or for example in the case of Frantz Fanon, he relied on Jewish interpreters in Algeria, but these interpreters had been converted through the French citizenship and made to forget themselves that they and their ancestors were colonized too. Therefore, they could not tell Fanon that Arab Jews are not European Jews despite being French citizens.

    Although this explanation can provide us with some understanding, a more important common denominator emerges when one carefully reads the letters she sends to Fanon, Arendt, and Benjamin Stora. The answer, as I see it, lies in a particular line where Azoulay writes that “after 132 years of colonization, neither Muslims nor Jews were willing or could completely shed the Frenchness that had become theirs.” In the letter she writes to historian Benjamin Stora, she insists on asking him why, in his work, in which she herself first learnt that Algerian Jews were expelled, Stora does not hold the colonial regime and the main actors who destroyed this world accountable. The reason why the colonized themselves are unable to articulate on colonization and what it took from them, Azoulay argues, is because assimilation through education allows colonizers to ensure that the children of the colonized speak like them, think like them, to make sure that these children will not turn against them.

    The assimilation by France was a crime against humanity she writes that destroyed the forms of belonging that existed before the invasion. This process of assimilating Arab Jews was instrumentalized in order to create a single category of ‘the Jew.’ And if many of us today have a consolidated category of the Jew in our mind this is because of the carefully curated diverse colonial practices and strategies carried out by both a European and a Zionist project. Without the assimilation of the Jewish people, there could never have been a single category encompassing all Jews, which allowed Zionists to invade and colonize Palestine and create a single state for all Jews as if they were ever one homogeneous group seeking a place to live together and which allowed Zionists to construct the Arab as the enemy of the Jew. Assimilating these diverse communities was a European “solution” to their Jewish “problem” because in the Muslim Jewish world there was never a requirement for Jews to assimilate. However, while we read about the conversion and the colonization of the people and the land, Azoulay maintains that these processes should not be accepted as final. If her own mother for example was converted in the human factories of the Zionist colony in Palestine and came to see her daughter as a traitor for refusing that identity, Azoulay in a beautiful line writes that the colonizers “counted on the second and third generation to forget but they didn’t take into consideration that the fourth and the fifth generation might rebel.”

    The last letter of the book addresses the Palestinian thinker and author Ghassan Khanafani. In her letter, Azoulay tells Kanafani about a woman who contacted her to discuss William Shakespeare’s The Tempest. The woman’s name is Tama and visits Azoulay to discuss the story of the Algerian witch Sycorax as developed in the play. Both women, Ariella and Tama, discuss in the company of each other all the colonial elements in the play such as exile, appropriation of Sycorax’s knowledge by Prospero who colonizes the land, murder and/or exile. However, in the letter Azoulay say that she soon understands that Tama is not there simply to discuss Shakespeare’s portrayal of Sycorax, so she asks her what her name Tama means. Tama then reveals to her that the reason she has visited Azoulay is precisely her name. She tells her that the last words of her grandmother on her deathbed were: “I am the one who gave you the name Tama. You will thus be named until the day you learn what your real name is.” She has experimented with many European languages to find out what her name means and it was a Palestinian friend who told her that the Arabic equivalent of the name Tama is Saffiya. She tells Azoulay that when she heard the name Saffiya her heart started beating because she remembered her grandmother and her father arguing and mentioning the name Saffiya.

    At this point, the reader finds out that Tama is a character invented by Azoulay. Azoulay herself tells Kanafani, whose book Return to Haifa inspired her to invent Tama, a character who does not exist in the original book. In Kanafani’s book Return to Haifa, Said and Saffiya are a Palestinian couple who were forced to leave Haifa and were unaware of their son’s Khalid fate who was left behind. Khalid, named Dov by his Jewish parents, was told the truth of his Palestinian origin. Dov (Khalid) cannot accept that he is Palestinian and when he had his daughter Tama (Saffiya) he never revealed to her their origin. Nonetheless, Tama manages to find out the truth about her name and thus of her origin. This invented character by Azoulay brilliantly shows how colonization produces people severed of their identities, ancestral land, and family ties and is the culmination of her anti-colonial language. Here the children of the colonized people, both Tama and Azoulay, in the company of each other deconstruct colonial thought and reclaim their pre-colonial forms of belonging.

    This is a brilliant work, published at a critical moment when we are witnessing the Palestinians’ genocide by the Zionist colony in Palestine. Azoulay offers a nuanced narrative on how people who lived together for two millennia mainly in peace were converted into other identities which constructed the Arab as the enemy of the Jew. She tells us about the borderless community on the Maghreb and how colonial projects destroyed these worlds and how they also instrumentalized the destruction to invade and destroy Palestine. Most importantly she deconstructs the notion of “the Jew” by showing in the book that Jews have always been diverse communities. It is the language and strategies of European and Zionist colonialism that have transformed these communities to one single unified category. In The Jewelers of the Ummah: A Potential History of the Jewish-Muslim World, Azoulay succeeds in telling the story that has waited so long to be told: that Arab Jews and Muslim Jews were never each other’s enemies but lived together in communities based on care and mainly in peace.

    To conclude: the book is about conversion, colonization, potential history, and the refusal of colonial language and thought in order to claim that destruction can be and is still opposed. In the way I read it, this is also a book of a feminist coalition of refusals uttered by the women she addresses in her letters such as grandmothers, great-grandmothers, thinkers, and strangers she never encountered. A powerful decolonial language of refusals uttered by Marianne, Julie, Aicha, Ariella, Sycorax, Miriam, Tama, and Saffiya and we the readers who have the honor of learning these intimate stories should remember that the space of the letter is open and declares itself a hospitable place for all of us to visit, to claim our own anticolonial languages, join their effort, and add our names.

  • Slavery Is What the So-Called “Shari’a Status Code” Seeks to Impose on Women in Iraq

    Slavery Is What the So-Called “Shari’a Status Code” Seeks to Impose on Women in Iraq

    The Code grants men sweeping privileges in matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody, while stripping women of these rights almost entirely. It treats women as perpetual minors under guardianship.

    (more…)

  • Transformation Towards a (more) Socially and Ecologically Just Future

    Transformation Towards a (more) Socially and Ecologically Just Future

    From the Organizers

    In the conference volume Anarchist Visions of Society, published in 2023, we compiled concrete concepts for a more just, democratic, and non-hierarchical society. At this upcoming conference, we aim to discuss paths toward such societies. To explore the diversity of these approaches together, we seek to bring together perspectives and participants from academia, activism, and civil society.

    Venue: Vienna, with online streaming.

    Dates: Friday, October 3 to Sunday, October 5, 2025

    Languages: German and English.

    Care team: susanne.stoelner@gmx.at, matthias.nemeth@students.boku.ac.at

    Conference Coordination and Management: Utta Isop, Josef Mühlbauer, Susanne Stölner, Thomas Stölner, Michael Wissgott, Uwe Bittlingmayer

    Supporters: VHS Vienna, PH Freiburg, Student Union (ÖH) BoKu, Empowerment for Peace, Vienna Institute for Philosophy with Children, an.schläge (The Feminist Magazine), Contraste (Newspaper for Self-Organization), espero (Libertarian Magazine | New Series), Editorial Team of Graswurzelrevolution (for a nonviolent, stateless society), University of Graz.

    Conference Program

    Friday, October 3, 2025 | 9:00 AM – 8:30 PM

    • 9:00–9:30 – Arrival / Registration / Music (Main Hall)
    • 9:30–10:30 – Welcome / Conference Goals / “How do we get from here to there?” (Main Hall)

    1. Introduction

    • 10:30 – Musical Interlude (Main Hall)
    • 10:30–11:30 – Reading and Lecture with Ilija Trojanow (Main Hall)

    2. Revolutionary Pathways: What revolutionary approaches respond adequately to today’s challenges?

    • 11:30–13:30 – What do various revolutionary perspectives (Castoriadis, Pankahyttn, Benjamin, Marx, Hindrichs, Bloch) contribute to shaping transformations toward a socially and ecologically just future?

    Panel Discussion with Uwe Bittlingmayer, Birge Krondorfer, Alice Pechriggl, Anna Rosenberg, and Florian Telsnig (Main Hall)

    • 13:30–14:30 – Lunch Break
    • 14:30–14:45 – Artistic Interlude (Main Hall)
    • 14:45–17:45 – World Café: What current paths are we developing to dismantle power, violence, and hierarchy? What steps are we taking toward a more socially and ecologically democratic future? With: Black Voices, Lea Susemichel, Susanne Stölner, Cornelia Stefan, Mathilde Schmitt, Ivana Nenadovic, Utta Isop, Heide Hammer, GemSe, Chantal Bamgbala (Main Hall)
    • 17:45 – Music (Main Hall)
    • 17:50–18:20 – Plenary Summary (Main Hall)
    • 18:20–19:50 – Dinner
    • 19:45–20:30 – Final Event – Theatre performance by Dada Zirkus

    Saturday, October 4, 2025 | 9:00 AM – 8:30 PM

    9:00–9:15 – Welcome / Arrival / Music (Main Hall)

    9:15–9:45 – Morning Activity – Theatre of the Oppressed, TdU Vienna (Main Hall)

    3. Direct Action and Civil Society: How do direct action and grassroots organizing contribute to transformation?

    10:00–12:00 – Anarchist Anti-Militarism: Against All Wars. Slide Lecture and Discussion with Bernd Drücke (Room assignment based on registration)

    10:00–12:00 – Theatre of the Oppressed with Joschka Köck (Room assignment based on registration)

    10:00–12:00 – Queer-Feminist Panel: Where do queer-feminist initiatives intersect with social and ecological justice? With: Black Voices, Lea Susemichel, Mathilde Schmitt, Alice Pechriggl, Ivana Nenadovic, Birge Krondorfer, Utta Isop, Heide Hammer, GemSe, Chantal Bamgbala (Main Hall)

    12:00–13:30 – Lunch Break

    13:30–13:45 – Artistic Interlude (Main Hall)

    4. Education and Consciousness Shift

    Which educational processes are necessary to unlearn imperial modes of living? How do we move toward ecologically meaningful everyday practices?

    • 13:45–15:30 – Panel Discussion: Petra Isepp (Alternative Economy), Thomas Lehnen (Prefiguration), Ivana Nenadovic (Between Utopia and Practice), Peter Seyfert (Murray Bookchin) (Main Hall)
    • 15:30–16:00 – Coffee Break
    • 16:00–17:00 – Parallel Sessions (Room assignment based on registration): Josef Mühlbauer: Civilian-Based Defense; Gerhard Senft: The Commune as the Cell of Social Life;Peacegang: Clown Army; Alexander Behr: Workshop: Money for the common good: financing models for socio-ecological; transformation and Marlene Engelhorn’s ‘Good counsel for redistribution’; Roman Kiefer: A-Strategies Against Elon Musk
    • 17:00–18:30 – Performance and Talk with Konstantin Wecker (Main Hall)
    • 18:30–19:00 – Summary of the Day’s Sessions (Main Hall)
    • 19:00–20:30 – Dinner

    Sunday, October 5, 2025 | 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM

    • 9:00–09:15 – Welcome / Arrival / Artistic Interlude (Main Hall)

    5. Gradual or Evolutionary Change (Reformism): What reformist approaches can currently be discussed in terms of democratization and ecological transformation?

    • 9:15–12:15 – Panel: Lottocracy, Citizens’ Assemblies and Council Democracy – What do these approaches contribute to a more socially and ecologically just future? With Utta Isop, Jason Chrysostomou, Heide Hammer, Pedro Jacobetty, and Maria from Peoples Platform (Room assignment based on registration)
    • 9:15–12:15 – Deep Democracy: Interactive Talk and Workshop with Maria Wiprich
    • 9:15–12:15 – The Triad of Political Struggle. The Practice of Change – Changing Practice (workshop) with Anna Rosenberg, Gerhard Wogritsch, Mark Ant
    • 9:15–11:15 – Thomas Friedrich: Critical Social Analysis
    • 9:15–11:15 – Uwe Bittlingmayer: Working on the Habitus or Flipping the Table? Pierre Bourdieu and the Possibilities of Progressive Social Change
    • 12:15–13:45 – Lunch
    • 13:45–14:00 – Artistic Interlude (Main Hall)

    6. Current Transformation Topics: Anti-Fascism, Digitality, Agrifood, Philosophy

    • 14:00–17:00 – Workshop 1: Robert König: Digital Anarchism
    • 14:00–17:00 – Workshop 2: Gerlinde Krehn: Philosophizing as Part of Transformation
    • 14:00–15:30 – Jens Kastner: Anarchist Anti-Fascism
    • 15:30–17:00 – Paper Lantern Collective: Community Music
    • 14:00–15:30 – Mathilde Schmitt: Staged Reading: Agrifood and Gender Perspectives
    • 15:30–17:00 – Anna Fünfgeld: Emancipatory Transformation Against the Far Right
    • 17:00–17:30 – Summary: Workshop Results and Discussion (Main Hall)
    • 17:30–18:00 – Farewell and Next Steps (Main Hall)

    Conference Fee:

    A contribution of €45 is requested, which will help cover part of the catering costs. Due to limited food options near the venue, we aim to provide a shared meal space.

    We would also like to offer our speakers travel reimbursements and modest honoraria – please support this by donating to:

    Thomas Stölner, GLS Bank, IBAN: DE89430609674034061600

    If the fee is a barrier to your participation, email us and we’ll register you without charge.

    Catering: All meals will take place at the conference venue.

    Accommodation: For accommodation, we are relying on your hospitality in the Vienna area. We strive to make it possible for everyone to participate in the conference and hope that the conference itself will contribute to the transformation of our world into a more hospitable and just place. Please indicate your accommodation options when registering. We will then forward them to those who are interested.

    Registration at: www.uttaisop.at/anmeldung

    Information: https://uttaisop.at/tagung-transformation-in-eine-sozial-oekologisch-gerechtere-zukunft

    Questions and further information at: thomas.stoelner@gmx.de

    1 Anarchistische Gesellschaftsentwürfe. Zwischen partizipatorischer Wirtschaft, herrschaftsfreier Vergesellschaftung und kollektiver Entscheidungsfindung (Anarchist social models. Between participatory economy, non-hierarchical socialisation and collective decision-making), edited by Thomas Stölner, Gözde Okcu and Uwe H. Bittlingmayer, Münster:

  • Awful Court Decision Says Jews and the Israeli Flag are the Same

    Awful Court Decision Says Jews and the Israeli Flag are the Same

    An appalling decision by federal judge Trevor McFadden was filed on August 4.  In short it ruled that pulling on an Israeli flag draped around a person’s neck was not simply a minor assault, but “racial discrimination” because the “Star of David” symbolizes the “Jewish race.”

    The idea that Jews are a “race” makes one’s skin crawl.  To read that word in the judge’s decision is extremely distasteful, but let’s get into that later. The case that McFadden considered was a call for a protective order by Kimmara Sumrall against 73 year-old Palestinian American Janini Ali.  Sumrall alleged that Ali grabbed the Israeli flag that Sumrall was wearing and momentarily choked her.  She was granted an order that Ali stay 3-yards away from her.  Here are two key sections of the judge’s decision:

    Purposefully yanking on an Israeli flag tied around a Jewish person’s neck to choke them is direct evidence of racial discrimination. The Star of David—emblazoned upon the Israeli flag—symbolizes the Jewish race. Star of David, Encyclopedia Britannica (2025) (“The yellow badge that Jews were forced to war(sic) in Nazi-occupied Europe invested the Star of David with a symbolism indicating martyrdom and heroism.”).

    Ali did not have reason to think Sumrall was herself affiliated with the Israeli government. Rather, it is much more likely that she was intentionally attacking a Jewish person wearing a Jewish flag as a symbol of her racial heritage.

    This is staggering. Jews sometimes wear the six-pointed star on a neck chain as a point of pride in their religion or ethnicity, but wearing the flag of Israel is something very different. It’s an ostentatious way of showing solidarity with Israeli government and actions, in particular the war it’s waging on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Sumrall was quite obviously a strong supporter of the actions of the state of Israel. There’s nothing in the court decision that shows that Ali even knew that Sumrall was a Jew.

    Now if Ali had spotted someone with a Jewish star on a neck chain and yanked the chain, the case could be made that the act was anti-Jewish.  But there is no reason at all to think that whatever pulling, yanking or choking took place was anything other than Ali’s disgust at support for Israeli government actions. Her feelings likely were similar to a Black person seeing a protest by someone wearing a Confederate flag or a Ukrainian seeing someone wearing the colors of Russia.

    Let’s talk about symbols.  The judge says the “Star of David” symbolizes the “Jewish race.” Smithsonian had a article in 2016 about the six-pointed star explaining that its association with the Jewish religion goes back only to the 1800s. Danny Lewis writes in that article, “For thousands of years, Jews typically used the menorah, a seven-armed ceremonial candelabrum, as a symbol of their faith.”  Jews still use that menorah symbol today.  That the six-pointed star has anything to do with the religious figure King David is dubious. It wasn’t talked about until the Middle Ages in mystic literature.  Back in 1949 in a thorough article in the Jewish magazine Commentary, the scholar Gershom Scholem noted the six-pointed star “is not to be found at all in medieval synagogues or on medieval ceremonial objects.”

    The Israeli flag is another symbol. For an increasing number of Jews it is something deeply offensive. In 2022,over a hundred Jews, some quite prominent, signed a call for Jewish institutions to take down the Israel flag from synagogues and Jewish centers. The claim by this judge that the Israeli flag and Judaism or Jews are identical is wrong and impertinent.

    What Ali allegedly yanked on was a country’s flag. It a symbol of a state notorious for major international crimes of apartheid and genocide. Its prime minister has been indicted by the International Criminal Court.  If there was an assault, it was likely motivated by moral outrage at murderous actions, not religious bigotry.

    Now let’s talk about race.  The notion that certain nations or ethnicities have common physical characteristics and mental abilities is bogus science from a century ago. As everyone knows that theory had catastrophic results for Jews. The Nazis used “race science” claims to brand Jews as sub-humans and attempt their extinction. As the site MyJewishLearningexplains, “People who identify as Jewish include individuals of enormously diverse geographic origins and physical appearances, making the idea that Jews could easily be designated a race in the sense of shared physical or biological characteristics implausible.”

    The notion of “race” is questionable, but racism, prejudice against people believed to be part of some physically defined group, is, of course, alive and well. “Racial discrimination” is a bedrock of U.S. law.  In 1987, an antisemitic act led to the U.S. Supreme Court decision Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb.  The court ruled that Jews can claim protection from racial discrimination determined by a 1982 law because when the law was passed Jews were considered a racial minority. In 2018 a U.S. magistrate as an article in Haaretz explained “concluded that Jewish citizens have been treated as a racial or ethnic group entitled to the law’s protection against employment discrimination”.  The ADL, then not completely wedded to the far-right, had some misgivings. David Barkey, senior counsel for the Anti-Defamation League, said the lawsuit raises a “’sensitive issue’ for the Jewish community, given that Nazis and other far-right extremists have perpetuated the anti-Semitic concept that Jews belong to a biologically inferior ‘distinct race’.”  In 2025 the ADL had no reservations about Judge McFadden’s finding about the Jewish star and the “Jewish race”.

    Let Jews who reject hate and fascism show that the innumerable crimes done by Israelis under flags and uniforms bearing this star do not represent us. Jews should consider going further than merely taking down the Israeli flag from synagogues. They should contemplate abandoning the six-pointed star as a symbol of Jews altogether.  I understand the counterargument, “The Nazis made us wear the star.  Let’s spit in their faces and wear the star as our symbol.” Yet Israel has sullied the “Jewish star” beyond measure. Its planned starvation, its humanitarian aid death-traps, its torture prisons and its ever-growing appetite for land are done under the aegis of the six-pointed star.

    Netanyahu, Herzog, Smotrich, Ben-Gvir and the other louts have the six-pointed star in a fanatical embrace. After all the tens or hundred-thousands of killings done by their war machines carrying that emblem I don’t see how to reclaim it as a proud symbol.

    If we need a symbol let’s go back to the menorah.

     

  • The Gog and Magog Complex: On Iran/Israel Endless War

    The Gog and Magog Complex: On Iran/Israel Endless War

    The cradle of monotheism, the Middle East, has always been the scene of clashes between deities who, in order to reign undivided, have continually forged enemies for themselves. Not even Trump’s attempts to reunite the sons of Abraham could untie the Gordian knot where faith and blood are inextricably bound. In this land haunted by the ancient sacrificial figures of the end of the time, it remains unclear who is Gog and where is Magog, according to the biblical account, or who is Gog and who is Magog, according to the Qur’anic account.

    This article examines the specificities of the “Twelve-Day War” between Iran and Israel, uncovering its underlying logic and key characteristics.

    The Ambivalence of Partisan Wars

    If the Middle East remains mired in endless wars, it is partly because stasis—internal discord, at times fratricidal—and external war are so deeply entangled that, even in the absence of active war, the constant threat of it has become a primary tool of governance. From their very inception, both the State of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran were forged in war—each in its own way, and each continuing to draw legitimacy from it.

    Without retracing the warrior origins of the State of Israel in the colonizations and the terrorist actions of Zionist armed group prior to 1948,[1] it is nonetheless essential to recall that the very founding of the Israeli state is inseparable from a war of extermination against the Palestinian people. From the very beginning, as Deleuze pointed out, the goal was to act as if Palestinians had never existed: “Israel never hid its objective from the outset: to empty the Palestinian territory. Even more, to act as if the territory had always been empty, destined from the beginning for the Zionists…. It is a genocide, but one in which physical extermination is subordinated to geographic erasure.”[2]

    As for the Islamic Republic of Iran, one of its ideological forerunners was the Fedayeen of Islam, an Islamist terrorist group active in the 1940s and 1950s. Closely affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, the group called for the re-Islamization of society and its purification from Western influences. Its founder, Navvab Safavi, orchestrated several assassinations of intellectuals and political figures of the time.[3] The Islamic Republic later institutionalized this logic of terror at the state level, waging an internal sacrificial war against Iranian society to purge it of Western or heterodox influences, and an external war to export its ideological and military model to other Islamic countries wherever possible. In its hostility toward the “absolute enemy,”[4] the Islamic Republic mirrors other Islamist movements in the region—Sunni or Shiite alike.

    A War Against People

    The Twelve-Day War was a peculiar kind of conflict, one from which all parties emerged claiming victory. The Islamic Republic celebrated the resilience of Iranian society and touted its strikes on some Israeli targets as a triumph, while the Israeli government emphasized its military superiority, the precision of its operations against strategic sites, and the successful elimination of senior IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) commanders.

    Beyond the propagandas, this war has an undeniable achievement for both sides:  the interstate war between Iran and Israel serves to obscure another, more insidious war. Not merely a war amid populations, where the boundary between soldier and civilian collapses. Not even a war with populations, where states conscript youth—willing or not—into their struggles. Rather, it is a war against populations. This war against people unfolds in two directions. On one hand, it involves the deliberate targeting of civilian and urban infrastructure. During the twelve-day conflict, the Israeli army struck thousands of sites across Iran, including residential areas where IRGC generals resided. According to Iranian authorities, 1,064 people were killed[5]  and thousands more wounded. On the Israeli side, 29 people were killed by Iranian missile strikes, including four women from the same family.

    On the other hand, this war casts a strategic, if temporary, shadow over the other conflicts that both the Israeli government and the Islamic Republic continue to prosecute. For Iran, it is the internal war against women, migrants, and non-Persian or non-Shiite populations— and by extension, against Iranian society as a whole. For Israel, it is the relentless campaign of ethnic cleansing that grinds on under the machinery of occupation, crushing Palestinian lives and futures.

    During the Iran-Iraq War, Ayatollah Khomeini famously declared that “war is a blessing.” As paradoxical as it may sound, there was a strategic truth behind the statement. The twelve-day war represents not a new conflict, but a continuation—and escalation—of a longstanding confrontation. The Islamic Republic seized upon it to impose an atmosphere of heightened securitization: massive deployment of riot police in the streets, a proliferation of checkpoints, and a sharp intensification of repression. This militarized suffocation of public life is nothing new. It resurfaces whenever the regime is confronted by protest, particularly in peripheral regions like Kurdistan and Baluchistan.

    In fact, in this war, the Islamic Republic took its revenge on Iranian society itself. A renewed purge of alleged “spies” has begun. The regime’s execution machinery is once again in full motion. In June 2025 alone, at least 98 peoples were executed in Iran,[6] including on charges of espionage for Mossad, following expedited and opaque trials. In a climate of heightened paranoia, any form of dissent risks being labelled as “Zionist” or collaboration with foreign enemies. Meanwhile, under the pretext of national security, the Islamic Republic has expelled over one million Afghan immigrants—both legal and undocumented—on the pretext of espionage and collaboration with Israel.

    If there is one red line not to be crossed for the Islamic Republic, it is the one drawn by the hijab—a garment that has become a political frontier, rendering women’s bodies a contested territory of ideological control. The hijab embodies the regime’s obsessive drive to preserve the interior of the community sealed, pure, and protected from the gaze of the outsider.[7] Women who defy this mandate are not merely seen as disobedient citizens, but also as infiltrators, suspected agents of foreign influence or as victims corrupted by external powers.

    While another Israeli strike on Iran remains likely, the long history of this conflict has made one thing abundantly clear: after 45 years of saber-rattling and calculated provocations, both regimes have learned that it is far more profitable to brandish the threat of war than to fully engage in one.

    The Use of Force

    The Iran-Israel war is marked by a particularity: it is being fought between two states that share no common border, separated by over 1,100 kilometres at their closest point. This distance largely renders infantry operations obsolete, instead placing strategic emphasis on air power, long-range missiles, drones, and covert infiltration—technologies and tactics that allow for remote, high-impact operations.

    What has positioned Israel in a place of strategic superiority is precisely its technical and military edge. The targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists—carried out with booby-trapped vehicles and motorbikes—date back to the early 2010s. But following October 7, Israeli retaliations and operations against Iran took a more assertive and escalatory turn. The assassination of Ismael Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31, 2024—the day after Masoud Pezeshkian’s inauguration—the precision strikes on Iranian military infrastructure, and deep infiltration into Iran’s high-ranking intelligence apparatus have only fueled Israel’s military hubris.

    Having lost—or seen significantly weakened—its traditional allies such as Assad and Hezbollah, who once served as buffer zones, the Islamic Republic has increasingly retreated into ideological rhetoric. In an October 2024 speech, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei addressed Muslims worldwide in Arabic, issuing a tepid and dated call for resistance and Islamic awakening—an uninspired echo of Sayyid Qutb, one of the key ideologues of the Muslim Brotherhood. In military terms, Tehran has only one card left to play: the threat of production of nuclear weapons. Indeed, the law of the strongest in the Middle East has a double side-effect. On one hand, Israel—widely acknowledged as the region’s only nuclear-armed state—continues to refuse accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), while Iran’s uranium enrichment program has been under strict surveillance by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), subject to recurring sanctions and international negotiations since 2006.

    On the other hand, as in the case of anti-piracy wars—where maritime insurance firms emerged as the primary beneficiaries—the real winners in the region’s climate of perpetual insecurity are arms manufacturers. The Islamic Republic periodically threatens closure of the Strait of Hormuz—a critical maritime chokepoint through which approximately 21% of the world’s oil supply transits—in the event of a major escalation with U.S. forces or their regional allies. Between 2020 and 2024, Qatar and Saudi Arabia—after Ukraine and India—ranked among the world’s top arms importers,[8] reinjecting a substantial share of their petrodollar revenues into American and European markets.

    A Chronic War

    Israel’s military force in its conflict with Iran is not aimed at territorial conquest, but rather at the mastery of time. In this war, hypersonic missiles traversing extra-atmospheric space and swift aerial strikes illustrate a shift in recent wars: privileging speed over spatial conquest, thereby diminishing the strategic significance of geography. Not only the vast distance between these two non-contiguous countries appears almost nullified, but the disparity in size between them becomes also irrelevant. The acceleration of armaments enacts what Paul Virilio characterises as the very essence of modern warfare: the obliteration of terrain. Through its ability to strike across the entire Iranian territory, the Israeli air force expands the battlefield to such an extent that the very notion of land dissolves. All terrain becomes non-terrain[9]: without obstacle, the air force crosses and penetrates every point. Geography cedes to topology, where war is waged through an infinite array of potential trajectories.

    This acceleration paradoxically unfolds within the long durée of the conflict. The war did not begin in April 2024; it stretches back across decades. Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, hostility between Israel and Iran has been marked by proxy wars, sporadic strikes, targeted assassinations, and the persistent threat of retaliation or even annihilation. The ambivalent zone of “neither peace nor war” in which these two countries operate requires a careful calibration of escalation and de-escalation, aiming to pre-empt and outmanoeuvre the opponent’s next move. It is a temporality governed simultaneously by speed and duration—a dual regime of time where surprise and rapidity must coincide with strategic foresight and long-term endurance.

    In fact, unlike the Iran-Iraq War, one of the longest wars of the 20th century, which had a clear beginning (declaration of war in 1980) and end (peace treaty in 1988), the conflict with Israel is part of a fluid and indeterminate temporality. For Israel, war—not only with Iran and its proxies but also with the Palestinians and certain Arab neighbours—is a structural backdrop, embedded in a fragmented timeline marked by temporary truces, to the point where the boundary between peace and war has become blurred. In this light, whether in Israel’s annexation of Palestinian territories or Iran’s imperial expansion via the Axis of Resistance, the central issue appears to be the territorial conquest through the mastery of time.

    This chronic war—never formally declared, never definitively concluded—functions as a strategy of uncertainty that benefits both regimes. If Israel temporarily opts for de-escalation with Iran, it is to redirect its military aggression toward the Palestinians, while stretching its confrontation with Iran over the long term to gradually erode Iranian strength. The ongoing debates over the extent to which Israeli-American strikes have delayed Iran’s nuclear program should thus be understood within this ambiguous temporality—one that the time-stretching logic of this conflict actively sustains.

    The terrain is further shaped by a temporal logic in another, more religious sense. The annexation of Palestinian territories is grounded in a messianic vision of the land promised to the State of Israel. The Iranian-Israeli conflict entrenches also over time, since it is animated by an eschatological horizon. This war is a prelude to the final war at the end of time, a war that prepares for the coming of the Messiah in the eyes of some Jewish currents and, in the eyes of the Shiites, the reappearance of the hidden Imam, al-Mahdi. Within this temporality, both defeats and victories are provisional, subordinated to the greater promise of a final triumph—the triumph of the righteous over evil.

    The Battle Between Good and Evil

    Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has described the siege of Gaza as a war against “human animals,” while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to frame the fight against Hamas and Iran as that of civilization against barbarism. On the other side, Khomeinist rhetoric refers to Israel as the “Little Satan” and the United States as the “Great Satan,” presenting both as inherently hostile to Islam. Within this ideological framework, the struggle against Israel and, by extension, American imperialism, is cast as a cosmic battle between ḥaqq (truth) and bāṭil (falsehood). The Axis of Resistance—an alliance fortified under the Islamic Republic, particularly after the fall of Saddam Hussein—is conceived as the antithesis to the “Axis of Evil,” a term coined by George W. Bush in 2002 to designate Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.

    This polarization has fueled a global form of campism, in which everyone is expected to take sides. Such a dualistic worldview, deeply rooted in the region, revives ancient myths. The age-old struggle between good and evil, unfolding across time and culminating in eschatological redemption, is a central motif in the cosmology of pre-Islamic Iranian religions, which in turn have significantly influenced Jewish messianic tradition. Whether the Islamic Republic were to collapse or Israel were to embrace a secular future, this messianic conception of war seems fated to persist.

    Joel C. Rosenberg interprets the conflict between Iran (backed by Russia) and Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, specifically chapters 38 and 39 of the Book of Ezekiel.[10] These passages describe Gog, king of Magog, leading a coalition of nations in an invasion of Israel—an event portrayed as a prelude to an apocalyptic war. In this narrative, Israel is ultimately saved by a dramatic divine intervention, ushering in the final triumph of good over evil, the rebuilding of the Third Temple, and the dawn of a messianic era marked by universal peace.

    Interestingly, the Gog and Magog episode also appears twice in the Quran, under the names Yajuj and Majuj,[11] two agents of chaos and terror, corrupted by Satan, and restrained behind a barrier erected by the legendary king Dhul-Qarnayn. While Islamist discourse draws less frequently on this particular apocalyptic image, it has been always casting Israel as a disruptive force within the Muslim ummah. In both Judaic and Islamic eschatologies, Gog and Magog symbolize a final cataclysmic confrontation with foreign invaders—one understood not merely as a future prophecy but as an archetypal struggle endlessly replayed throughout history.

    And yet, as Nietzsche once remarked, enemies tend to resemble each other. When each side proclaims the inevitability of its own ultimate truth, it cannot exist without an adversary onto whom it projects absolute evil. A strange mirror effect emerges in this conflict, where the enemy reveals a reflection of oneself.

    [1] Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate, New York, Henry Holt & Co, 2000.

    [2] Gilles Deleuze, “Grandeur de Yasser Arafat,” in Deux régimes de fous, Paris, Minuit, 2003, p. 222.

    [3] Cf. Farhad Kazemi, “The Fada’iyan-e Islam; Fanaticism, Politics and Terror,” in: Said Amir Arjomand (ed.), From Nationalism to Revolutionary Islam, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 1984. pp. 158- 176.

    [4] Carl Schmitt, Theory of the Partisan; Intermediate Commentary on the Concept of the Political, translated by G. L. Ulmen, New York, Telos Press Publishing, 2007, pp. 89-95.

    [5] https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/516098/Israel-aimed-to-collapse-Iran-but-united-us-instead.

    [6] https://www.iranhr.net/en/articles/7701/.

    [7] Behrang Pourhosseini, “Refaire la révolution en Iran,” in AOC (Online Magazine of Ideas),  https://aoc.media/opinion/2023/01/04/refaire-la-revolution-en-iran/.

    [8] Mathew George, et al., “Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2024,” SIPRI Fact Sheet, March 2025, p. 6, https://www.sipri.org/publications/2025/sipri-fact-sheets/trends-international-arms-transfers-2024.

    [9] Paul Virilio, Vitesse et Politique, Paris, Galilée, 1977, p. 62.

    [10] Joel C. Rosenberg, Epicenter 2.0: Why the Current Rumblings in the Middle East Will Change Your Future, Illinois, Tyndale House Publishing, 2008.

    [11] Surah Al-Kahf (verses 93 to 98) and Surah Al-Anbiya (verse 96).

     

  • Women in the Shadow of Global Fascism: The Narrative of an Afghan Girl & a Truth Which Knows No Boundaries

    Women in the Shadow of Global Fascism: The Narrative of an Afghan Girl & a Truth Which Knows No Boundaries

    For the past four years, I have been breathing in a country where the sky is constantly collapsing on women’s heads. As an Afghan girl, I welcome each sunrise not knowing whether I will see sunset on that day. In the ominous shadow of the Taliban, being a woman is not only a limitation but a crime, a crime whose punishment is exclusion from social and human life.

    Every time I hear that the Taliban have arrested women for reasons such as “not wearing the hijab” or “insubordination,” my heart aches. When I leave the house, the mandatory hijab is not only covering my body but also acting like a chain around my neck and mind. Security is meaningless even at home. The silence of the evening is broken with the thought that “tomorrow might be my turn.”

    This nightmare is not personal. It is collective. Hundreds of thousands of women in Afghanistan today are experiencing this anxiety and repression. We are stuck in a trap that gives us no escape route and no courage to endure. But I have to say that this hell was not built by the Taliban alone. It is the direct product of dealmaking by great powers: The U.S., NATO, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Russia and China. Each have turned our country into a chessboard with their economic and military interests. A chessboard in which women’s lives and freedom are merely a worthless pawn.

    This catastrophe is not just the story of Afghanistan. Fascism, regardless of its appearance and language, is an enemy of women’s freedom and equality, whether in the form of religious fundamentalists in Kabul or the new rulers in Washington D.C who use the language of hatred and discrimination to pave the way for violence and inequality. The rise of Trump in the U.S. was a global warning siren and not merely a domestic crisis. When a woman loses her right to control over her own body, the echo of this defeat also reaches Afghanistan, Iran, Palestine, Syria . . .

    The history of women’s struggles has shown that fascism and authoritarianism can only grow when silence and complicity take over. This silence, whether in the form of indifference of nations or conciliationism among rulers is the oxygen that keeps the flames of authoritarianism alive. Women in the U.S., Iran, Palestine, Kurdistan, Turkey, Ukraine, Russia, Chile, Spain, South Africa, Afghanistan and many other parts of world have learned through struggle and resistance that emancipation is not a gift from above. Freedom has to come from below, from the heart of the streets, from the voices of women, and from courage and solidarity.

    I am still here, in a country that wants to silence me and forget me. But every day, even if no one hears my voice, there is a flame inside me that says “no.” This “no” is not only directed at the Taliban but at any system that marginalizes women whether in the name of religion or under the cover of fake democracy.

    Our emancipation is intertwined with taking charge of our own destiny. No foreign power, even with the claim to freedom, will liberate us. Just as fascism has no borders, our struggle also needs to be global, a network of women and men who rise up against domination, inequality and violence in all parts of the world.

    I am an Afghan girl but my story is the story of all women who are struggling in today’s world for the right to breathe, make decisions and live. So long as this struggle continues, fascism will not become everlasting.

    Azadeh Omid

    If you would like to send contributions to Afghan girls to promote their access to online education, please contact Frieda Afary at fafarysecond@yahoo.com

  • American Leftists and Solidarity with Ukraine

    American Leftists and Solidarity with Ukraine

    How does American exceptionalism play against solidarity with Ukraine among the American left? Is it possible to combine an anti-militarist position with support for Ukraine? Ilya Budraitskis discussed these issues with Tanya Vyhovsky, a Vermont state senator and member of Democratic Socialists of America.

    — You are probably the only American politician of Ukrainian descent with progressive views, and this combination seems rather unusual in the American context. Tell us a little about your background, your path to activism, and work in the Vermont State Senate.

    — Yes, absolutely. It has been noted by many that it is a somewhat unusual combination of characteristics. I was born into a working-class family. My dad is Ukrainian — his father was from Ukraine, and his mother was from Hungary. She actually left Hungary when she was 15, during the revolution in 1956. I spent a lot of time with my grandmother while I was growing up, because my parents were very young. So, a lot of the conversations that we had around the dinner table, I think, were profoundly different from the conversations a lot of my American peers were having — particularly in terms of understanding what fascism looks like, and what it is like to live under occupation. Both she and my dad really raised me with a strong set of values that everybody deserves to have their basic needs met. And I think those kinds of leftist values were really instilled in me from an early age. I did not really know what they were, that that is what it actually was. It was just so core to how I grew up — in our conversations, how we discussed and talked about what was happening in the world. I also think one of the unique parts of my upbringing, different from most Americans, was that I traveled a lot. I got to see other places and see that there are other ways of doing things in the world.

    When I finished university — this was before the Affordable Care Act — I was deemed uninsurable by my workplace’s health insurance because I had preexisting conditions from my childhood. And that is what really pushed me to become a community organizer. I plugged in here in Vermont with the Vermont Workers’ Center and the “Healthcare is a Human Right” campaign. I did a lot of community organizing there, which started to put me in contact with other community organizers and helped me find some real language around what my beliefs and values were. I have also spent my entire professional career in human services and really started to recognize how much our systems were failing people. And I think that eventually led me to run for office, doing it from a community organizer standpoint. I am one of those who look at the government’s structures and frameworks here and really across the globe and want them to work for everyone.

    And it is not usually people like me who are elected in office. It is not usually working-class renters, people who are struggling with the same day-to-day things that the majority of people are struggling with. There is not usually a seat at the table for them. So, there was kind of a wide, winding path that brought me to this point. But I think, again, it comes down to the core values of people who raised me and spent a lot of time with me when I was young, developing my sense of the world and what is important. It has since allowed me to connect more globally with leftists, with Ukrainian leftists, and with people who really share my view that a better world is possible, but only if we stand together and fight for it.

    — According to recent polls, more than half of Americans believe that support for Ukraine, including military aid, is necessary. At the same time, the majority thinks that the war should end through negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, with the participation of the US. However, it is clear that attention to the war has declined significantly against the backdrop of the ongoing genocide in Gaza. How would you assess the dynamics of American society’s attitude toward Ukraine and its right to resist aggression over the past three years? And what role have Trump’s months of unsuccessful attempts to mediate a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia played in this?

    — I think you are right that this kind of attention has declined. One thing I have noticed, with pretty much every issue, is that the American’s attention span is short. I remember — it must have been March of 2022 — organizing with a small network of Ukrainians living here in Vermont, along with our federal delegation, to do a rally and an event at the State House. People were like, “Oh, we should push it out till it is warmer.” And I — very cynically, but unfortunately, correctly — said, “You know, people are not going to be paying attention to this when it is warmer.” Like, right now, all eyes are on this because it just happened, but there will be a next disaster that draws people’s attention away. And I think that is exactly what we have seen happen as the focus shifts to the next crisis.

    I also think that, yes, we should be talking about the genocide in Gaza. We need to be talking about all of these things. I would argue that, in some ways, there is genocidal behavior happening in Ukraine that we are not talking about. The Russians are kidnapping Ukrainian children and trying to take away their Ukrainian identity. Stories about political prisoners who are beaten for speaking Ukrainian — those are genocidal actions and an attempt to take away culture and identity. And I do not want to get into the sort of Olympics whose suffering is worse. I think we have to be able to talk about all of these things. If we are truly going to stand in global solidarity for a better world, we have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

    We have to be able to recognize that there is a genocide in Gaza and that the Ukrainian people deserve to defend their sovereignty. Those things can be true at the same time.

    What I think has happened in the months since Trump took over is that a lot of Americans have actually recommitted to their support for Ukraine. They saw that disastrous meeting where Donald Trump attacked President Zelensky. And what it really did was remind people that there is this war going on and this horrific partnership between Putin and Trump, as the world marches toward global fascism and global authoritarianism. So, I actually think that, in some ways, that has brought the issue back to the forefront, back to the surface, more so than it really had been for the past three years. And it is still really complex. I think there has been a large, organized movement to keep the Palestinian struggle at the forefront of people’s minds, which has not existed as much and has not been as unified, when it comes to keeping the Ukrainian struggle at the forefront of people’s minds.

    — From the very beginning of the full-scale war in Ukraine, a significant portion of the American left has effectively repeated Putin’s narrative, according to which the Kremlin’s aggression is actually a form of self-defense by Russia against the threatening imperialism of the US and NATO, while Ukraine is in fact a Western colony, whose power is, moreover, in the hands of neo-Nazis. This primitive explanatory scheme, based on an extremely superficial understanding of both the Ukrainian and Russian political situations, has proven to be very persistent and is largely unaffected by factual arguments. What do you think these attitudes are related to? And is it possible to change them in any way?

    — So, I think there is probably a mix of factors that bring this attitude into leftist spaces. It is incredibly difficult to break through them. What we know from sociological studies is that when people believe something that they have been propagandized to believe, giving them facts actually tends to make them dig in even deeper rather than bring them out of it. What is far more effective is connecting on some personal level or some moral level and then helping connect that to the issue. It is possible, though probably not for everyone. I think there are some individuals who are going to stand on that hill and stay on that hill, but I do not think that everyone who has been propagandized in that way is a lost cause. I think it is about how we connect with people — how we help change that narrative, help them understand the history, and help them understand what is going on by connecting them to real people who are on the ground, who are there, who are experiencing it, who are living it.

    The last three and a half years have been an incredibly painful experience as a Ukrainian-American leftist in leftist spaces. Certainly, I think some minds have been changed, and there have been spaces where I — because it is personal to me — have been able to connect with people and help them to see me as fully human, and through that connection, begin to look more deeply into their understanding. There have been other people with whom I have just had to say, “No, I cannot do this.” I do not have the emotional energy or capacity to engage in this. And that varies from day to day, from moment to moment — how much capacity I have.

    I think the more we talk, the more we connect, the more open we can be, the more capacity we have to change that.

    I also think that some of these beliefs are grounded in American exceptionalism.

    But on the other hand, there are people who believe that anything the U.S. does is bad. If the U.S. is supporting this, it must be bad, it must be imperialism. This view is overly simplistic and fails to recognize that what we are actually seeing is Russian imperialism.

    While I hold no illusions that the United States was supporting Ukraine for altruistic reasons, I do recognize that what Russia was doing was imperialism and the occupation of a sovereign nation. That is always wrong. So, I think there is a lack of nuance and understanding. And I think that, in some ways, this is intentional. I mean, the United States has for many decades disinvested from civics education and from building the critical thinking skills that help people see that nuance. It is almost a sort of reactionary stance. There is the American exceptionalist view that everything America does is amazing. And then there is this sort of reactionary left-wing view that, no, the absolute opposite must be true. These positions exist without recognizing that, actually, most of human experience exists in the gray area, not at the extremes.

    The messaging about neo-Nazis has been particularly troubling. I mean, all of it is troubling, but this is especially concerning — because it is so deeply rooted in a misunderstanding of what these words even mean. Yes, there are Nazis in Ukraine, but there are Nazis in the United States, too. In fact, some are in the White House. When I look at the numbers of how many of those far-right Nazis in Ukraine ran for office and won — it is zero, by the way — versus how many are sitting in office in the United States, I think we, as the left, have to do some reflection. There are Nazis everywhere.

    — In fact, there are a lot of American Nazis who support Russia and admire Putin.

    — Yes, certainly. And actually, I have been reading through some speeches by Russians who have been arrested and are political prisoners for speaking out against Putin. Many of them name the Nazis in Russia who are in power. So, it is just such a false narrative, grounded in no real understanding of what imperialism is or what fascism is.

    Sure, there are some Nazis in Ukraine, but the Ukrainian people do not deserve the occupation and imperialist fascism just because some people identify with far-right views. And to your point, there are far more of those people in positions of power here, in the United States, who actually support Russia. So, the factual basis of these arguments is just frustrating to me sometimes, because of the mental gymnastics you have to go through to make absolutely any logical sense of them.

    — One of the most difficult issues related to the war in Ukraine is the problem of military aid. On the one hand, Ukrainian cities are being barbarically bombed every day, and the Russian army continues its offensive regardless of casualties, making further military supplies vital for Ukraine. On the other hand, left-wing and progressive forces have traditionally opposed the U.S. military intervention in other countries and the strengthening of its military-industrial complex. Is it possible to combine an anti-militarist position with support for Ukraine today, especially with demand for the US government to continue this military aid? 

    — I think this is one of those spaces where people refuse to live in the gray area where reality is. I would consider myself an anti-militarist, an anti-war peace advocate. But I also believe that allowing an imperialist aggressor to take over a country does not lead to peace. In fact, it is going to produce growth of militaristic actions. If imperialist Russia is able to go in and take away Ukraine’s sovereignty, there is no world in which they stop there. We already know this. We know this from 2014, when Crimea was annexed. Then we were like, “Okay, as long as you stop there.” But, of course, they did not, and they will not.

    And so, I think this sits in this sort of nuanced space. “No, I don’t want war,” versus simply saying, “Sure, you can come in, attack, and take the sovereignty of this nation” does not produce lasting peace. If Russia were to stop fighting in this war, the war would be over. If Ukraine stops, there is no more Ukraine. And those are different spaces that you stand in. And sure, I would love to live in a world where there was no war, but that is not the world that we live in. And asking a sovereign nation to give up its land, to be occupied, to once again live under the oppressive occupying force of another country — that is not peace.

    I mean, we see that again, and this is what we have been asking the Palestinians to do for over 70 years: to live under occupation, to be occupied by another military power. It does not produce peace. It has not produced peace in Gaza. It will not produce peace in Ukraine. It will not produce the global peace that we need. And so, when I think about how to advocate for giving Ukraine the support it needs to end this with a Russian military defeat, that, to me, is a better path toward actual global peace. And then, of course, we have to go in and begin doing the relational repair work, doing the solidarity work, and doing the work to ensure that the Russian people can also overthrow their fascist government.

    But I do not see allowing Ukraine to fall as a movement toward anti-militarism. I see it as a movement toward anti-democracy.

    — We have already discussed this briefly, but Ukraine and Gaza are currently the scenes of two of the bloodiest and most genocidal conflicts of our time, but it is extremely difficult to imagine a single movement of solidarity with the Palestinian and Ukrainian peoples in America today. What parallels do you see between these wars? And how can this be brought to the attention of American society?

    — I see a lot of parallels, and, of course, they are not exactly the same. I think it is really challenging to walk that line because when you are under attack, it is difficult to see the pain and horror of anything else that is going on. So, I think about that, and certainly, it does exist. I have had the pleasure of sitting and spending time in solidarity with people from Gaza who recognize the similarities between what is happening in Gaza and what is happening in Ukraine. Certainly, nowhere is a monolith. I am not going to say that is how everyone feels, but I have had that privilege of actually having those conversations with people from Gaza. But I do think that comparing is tough to do because there are differences.

    Of course, I think anytime we get into the sort of the ‘trauma Olympics” — who’s got it worse — we are destined to fail. So, I think it is really about sitting with people, really connecting with people, and understanding them. Where are our similarities? Where can we stand together? Where do we need to center one thing or another? It is the same thing, I think, that happens in the left and in larger movements, at least in the United States, and maybe globally. Generally speaking, as we get siloed into our issue, we tend to be like, “Oh no, nothing else matters,” instead of recognizing that actually, when we unite across those issues and fight for things that maybe do not directly impact us, we are stronger, and we have the power to actually win big, global victories.

    And so the parallels that I see — I think we have named some of them already. The Palestinian people have, for 75 years, been occupied by an outside imperialist, Western-funded nation. And I think that is one of the spaces where it becomes difficult for the left, because the U.S. has done so much to fund Israel. But we have done very little to fund Russia. It goes back to that same idea: if the U.S. is funding it, it must be bad, and if the U.S. is not funding it, it must be good. It is just overly simplified. Ukraine has, for centuries, fought for its freedom. At this point in time, it has not been the same length of occupation. Crimea was annexed in 2014. That is not 75 years, and it is not the whole country. There are differences, but there are also very real similarities. In both instances, the Palestinian people deserve sovereignty. They deserve not to be occupied. They deserve not to have people starving them or bombing them. And when I look through Ukrainian history, there is a history of Russia doing very similar things with the Holomodor, with what is happening right now, with the annexation of Crimea. So, parallels? Yes. Exactly the same? No.

    You know, I think another big difference is that Israel was sort of artificially created by the West — in my most cynical view — as a way to open a door into the Middle East for Western forces. And in my least cynical view, it was created as an ethno-state. I do not know that ethno-states are ever healthy. That is not the case with Russia. Russia is not an ethno-state, and it was not created in that same way. So yes, there are definitely differences.

    As for how to bring this to the attention of American society — I mean, I think we just have to talk about it. We have to have conversations with people. We have to be willing, when we are able, to take the bold, possibly unpopular stance. I certainly have, with the platform that I have, stood in public spaces, made those parallels, and been called names for it. And that is fine.

    If people want to be nasty to me because I see those parallels and want to name them, I have the privilege of being able to do that. I have the privilege of being able to say, “No, I disagree with what the government is doing” or “I disagree with what this political party is doing.” Not everyone has that.

    So, I think we just — the message has been so strong — we cannot stop talking about Palestine. We cannot stop talking about Ukraine.

    — In recent years, some American leftists and trade union activists have shown solidarity with Ukraine not only by issuing statements, but also through practical actions — delivering humanitarian aid, organizing delegations to Ukraine, helping refugees, and so on. In your opinion, how should such solidarity campaigns develop — not only with Ukraine as a whole, but foremost with the Ukrainian working class, trade unions, and the Left movement? Why are such campaigns significant for Ukraine, and why are they meaningful for American society and American left progressive movements themselves?

    — I think they are meaningful for global society, because they allow us to connect in a grassroots way that envisions a world where everyone has their needs met. I certainly cannot think of a single country where it is happening right now. Well, certainly, there are some that I think do it better and some that do it worse. But I think the American left, and probably the global left, is woefully behind in recognizing and accepting that, whether we like it or not, the world is globalized. The fascist, imperialist, capitalist forces are globalized. They are looking at the exploitation of workers and the planet as just a means to make more money. The only way we defeat that is solidarity and connection. I am not saying that people should not still be doing this, but it is no longer going to be enough to organize our workplace into its own little union.

    That is really important, and you should organize your workplace into a union if you are able to do so. But it will not be enough unless we are also organizing globally, because the oligarchs and the fascists are connected around the globe. So, that is why I think it is meaningful. Not just for American society, but globally, for the future that we can live in. In terms of why it is particularly important in Ukraine — we have seen this time and time again, and it is already happening in Ukraine — a war is used by vulture capitalists to buy up land and resources and ultimately to occupy a country that then never is able to bounce back. The austerity gets worse and worse and worse over time. So, I think it is particularly important to be connected now with the Ukrainian left, the working class, the trade unions — to be thinking about a leftist future for Ukraine after this war. It is not about going back to what it was, because you cannot, and not about going toward what so many countries are coming out of war with, which is actually something worse. But instead, to take the opportunity of this horrific thing that has happened to rebuild Ukraine and to make it better — Ukraine that is grounded in the needs of the many Ukrainians, that is grounded in worker’s rights and anti-corruption, and is grounded in a future that every Ukrainian can believe in. I think there is hope in that, and I have found so much hope in connecting with the folks who are there on the ground, trying to do their work, recognizing that now is the time to do that, not when the war is over. Solidarity means doing everything we can to prevent what is happening — and that is critically important. I think it is really critically important for the American left, which is part of why it is so frustrating to me because we do have an alternative here.

    We have an alternative to what we have seen over and over: the U.S. goes in, takes the resources it wants, and leaves. We have an alternative: to go in, as American leftists, to build solidarity and something different from Ukraine to the United States, and say, “No, no more of that.”

    — Thank you. I want to add one more question about the American political situation. Right now, we are facing a very dangerous moment as the U.S. is seeing attacks on basic social and political rights coming from the Trump administration. We are also witnessing a continuing decline in support for the Democratic Party, which has no clear strategy on how to resist the current administration. Of course, you have your own vision and perspective, especially because you were endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America. Also you are connected to the broader leftist movement. What is your vision of the current situation, and more specifically, what do you think the strategy for resistance should be? 

    — Absolutely, I mean, the current situation, as you have framed it perfectly, is dangerous. It is leaning fully into authoritarianism and fascism. It is creating chaos and fear, which are the point. Moreover, it is creating despair, which again is the point. These are symptoms, not the actual problem, which is the material conditions of everyday people. We know this from history. We know that when Hitler rose to power, it was because everyday Germans were struggling, were not able to put food on their tables, were not able to meet their basic needs. People in despair are easier to propagandize and weaponize. What I see in the U.S. is that Donald Trump, and those called by Trump, have said, “Yes, we see your despair. We hear about your struggle.” What happened is the Democrats’ fault. I cannot really call them the left party, which in most places in the world would be the center-right party at best. What they have failed to do is offer any hopeful alternative. In fact, they have also failed to even acknowledge the problem. But I have to show the whole scene. The right is saying things like, “Yep, I know things are bad, and it is the immigrants’ fault,” while the democrats response is, “No, it is not really like that. Listen to what economists say. The economy is great! Look at the stock market!” They won’t even acknowledge that there is a real problem for people.

    And when I think about the path forward, I believe the left is the only path forward. It is the leftist movement that meets people’s needs, creates mutual aid networks, and ensures everyone can put food on their table — that is the only way we defeat fascism. And that is going to take a whole organization to fill the vacuum, because there is no unified leftist political mechanism in this country. This is a byproduct, of course, of the two-party rule system. There are lots of laws and rules that make it extremely difficult to build such a movement in the limited time we have. Electoral politics alone will not save us. The system is structured to maintain power in the hands of the people who currently have power. And I think it also takes a lot of inside and outside organizing work.

    I am the only socialist in the Senate, and I have won socialist policy there, not because I convinced 29 other people to be socialists, but because we were able to frame it pragmatically and to mobilize enough outside pressure to make inaction impossible.

    We know that is true throughout history. I mean, the president who signed the Civil Rights Act was a segregationist. He did not suddenly stop being a segregationist. There was so much public outcry that it became politically impossible for him not to sign it into law. I think we have to work with one foot in the door of those structures, but with a lot of feet outside the door to move the political narrative back left. We know that is what people want. The election results showed us that that is what people want. The ballot initiative wins show us that that is what people want. And we have to start working in a more unified way to make it politically impossible not to go in that direction. Because frankly, what Donald Trump is peddling is faux populism. What we need is real leftist populist policy that works for everyday people without the nationalist, fascist underpinnings of where we are actually heading.

    I mean, if I have an image of my perfect world, my perfect world is this sort of socialist world in which everyone has their basic needs met, in which the government is doing what I believe its job is — making sure that people are not harming one another.

    Because we live in a world where corporations are harming people, and no government in this world fully meets those responsibilities. So, I think it is time we stood together and made them.

    This article was originally published by Posle.Media

  • Impressions of Mexico—Some Delightful, Some Disturbing

    Impressions of Mexico—Some Delightful, Some Disturbing

    The sign in front of the city hall says, “I Love Zapopan,” a city of 1.3 million n Jalisco. It is covered with leaflets with the faces and names of some of the tens of thousands of the disappeared.

    For many years I’ve written articles and books about Mexico, historical studies and political analyses. This is neither. This is merely a reflection on my impressions after having spent a few days in Guadalajara and a week in Mexico City, talking with old friends. While these are just impressions, I bring an experienced eye.

    I began my observation of Mexico when I was eleven years old, back in 1956. I grew up in a California town that bordered Tijuana and I crossed the border every week or two with my grandfather to get haircuts, to fill up his car with gasoline, and to buy meat and Coca Cola (all cheaper than on our side of the border.) Some of my fellow high school students lived in Tijuana. My visits to Tijuana continued through my high school and college years when I went to the bars and discovered the leftist bookstore El Día.

    In 1971, a friend and I traveled to Mexico City, just a couple of days after the Corpus Christi or Halconazo massacre that killed dozens of students and left hundreds wounded. We went to the university, UNAM, but found it occupied by the military, but we also found there an advertisement for a meeting of the electrical workers union and the Democratic Tendency in the unions, and we went to the somber meeting. On that trip I also went to El Sótano bookstore and picked up Adolfo Gilly’s great Marxist history of the Mexican Revolution. I began to study and write about Mexico in the 1980s, traveling throughout the country to do research and eventually visiting every state, In the late 1990s, I and my family lived in Mexico City, while I also visited the Zapatista rebels in Chiapas. All of that, of course, was a long time ago.

    Back in Mexico

    Now I’m just back from a visit, my first in several years, seeing and talking with old friends of various views, left, right, and center. I spoke informally with about ten friends in Guadalajara and Mexico City: a couple of labor organizers, a person who works as a writer and translator for the Morena party, a historian of Mexico, a retired occupational health physician, an employee of the Mexico City transit system, a small businessman, and a former leftist who is now a politician of the conservative National Action Party (PAN). Some would call themselves revolutionary socialists, some progressives, and one has clearly become conservative. And all are concerned about what’s going on: the threats from Trump and the United States, the drug cartels continuing violence, and while none liked the old order of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) or the PAN, several have doubts about the ruling party, Morena.

    Mexico City was as beautiful as I remembered it: the Historic Center with the National Palace and the Cathedral on the Zócalo. The La Condesa neighborhood, Parque México and Parque España. I marveled at billionaire Carlos Slim Hélu’s impressive Soumaya Museum and saw around it what one friend called “the Slim empire,” that is, the surrounding high-rise office and apartment buildings. When Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the founder of the Morena party and the predecessor of President Claudia Sheinbaum, was mayor of Mexico City, he and Slim formed a partnership to modernize the city. Slim, for years the richest man in the world before Elon Musk took the title from him, was an important AMLO ally when he was president. And Slim is now a powerful and influential Sheinbaum supporter.

    As I was gazing in wonder at the Slim real estate empire that had so transformed the Polanco neighborhood, new developments were taking place. U.S. President Donald Trump was threatening a military invasion of Mexico, supposedly to fight the cartels. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum’s administration was being accused of harboring drug cartels, and in the state of Tamaulipas on August 6, Ernesto Vásquez Reyna, a representative of the Attorney General’s Office was murdered by a cartel. He is just the latest victim, there are others every day, with 400,000 killed and 100,000 disappeared since the drug war began almost 20 years ago in 2006. And the cartels’ business and its murders have continued with virtually no change under former Morena president Andrés Manuel López Obrador and not enough change under Claudia Sheinbaum.

    A U.S. Invasion of Mexico?

    Trump says he may send U.S. troops to Mexico. He’s out to reassert U.S. domination of the Americas, from Greenland to Panama to Brazil. Sheinbaum says she won’t permit it. “The United States is not going to come to Mexico with the military. We cooperate, we collaborate, but there is not going to be an invasion. That is ruled out, absolutely ruled out,” she said. Her vehemence is understandable. The United States invaded and made war on Mexico from 1846-48 and took half of the country’s territory. During the Mexican Revolution, the U.S. sent the navy into the Port of Veracruz in 1914 and in 1916 sent General Pershing with an expeditionary army into Chihuahua. And throughout the twentieth century the United States exerted enormous economic and political influence in Mexico. As I’m writing this on August 8, The New York Times published this: “President Trump has secretly signed a directive to the Pentagon to begin using military force against certain Latin American drug cartels that his administration has deemed terrorist organizations…”  I have a grandnephew in the U.S. Marines; could he be going to kill or die in a war in Mexico?

    Reading the newspapers, it appears that Sheinbaum’s government may be compromised by the fact that senator, Adán Augusto López Hernández, a former interior minister and governor of Tabasco State, a member of her Morena party and close associate of former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, is accused of ties to the drug cartels. He says he has no such connections, but neither Mexico’s House of Representatives (Cámara de Diputados) nor the media is satisfied. My old friend, now in the PAN, says, “When the PRI was in power, the party leadership reached an agreement with the cartels, that set the limits of their activity. Ironically when democracy came and López Obrador became president, that top-down centralized control of the cartels was ended and every politician from municipal president to governor to congressperson could make their own deals.” Another friend, a long-time leftist intellectual, agrees that the cartels now have influence from top to bottom. My friend the historian, a progressive, says, “We citizens know the government is tied to the cartels.”

    Will Morena Be the New PRI?

    I had the impression even before this visit, that López Obrador and Sheinbaum were reconstructing the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) that ruled Mexico from 1929 to 2000 and then for a couple of terms afterward under Felipe Calderon and Enrique Peña Nieto. The PRI in its heyday controlled virtually every political office, the labor and peasant organizations, and the army, and also forged alliances with business. Mexico was a one-party state, something like the Soviet Union, only with a capitalist economy and state rather than one with a bureaucratic ruling class. While there was more freedom of the press and latitude for protest, still the state-party dominated all.

    Similarly, Morena controls the executive, legislative and now also the judicial branch of government. Under AMLO’s presidency (2018-2024), wages increased and there was a labor law reform that was adopted in 2019, and the “labor chapter” of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement, which included a “Labor Rapid Response Mechanism.” Napoleón Gómez Urrutia, president of the Mexican Miners Union, became a Morena senator, and other union leaders became congress people, tying the unions to the new party. Yet labor organizers that I spoke to on this trip, one an old friend and the other a new acquaintance, say that workers still don’t universally have the right to unions of their own choosing, that is, to join independent unions not controlled by the employers or the government. Getting an independent union remains a big fight that may not be successful

    One of my friends says that Morena is divided between the institutional and the reform factions, and predicts a conflict in the near future. Some compare Andrés Manuel López Obrador to Plutarco Elías Calles, Mexico’s president from 1924 to 1928, the man who created the PRI and the power behind the throne during the terms of three other presidents. AMLO, they suggest, though no longer president still really runs the country, because of the cabinet he bequeathed to Sheinbaum and through his control of the congress. Morena may not yet be the new PRI, but it may be on its way.

    Well, it was interesting to visit Mexico again, but as so often in the past it was also disturbing. While the clusters of modern high-rise buildings in various parts of the city are impressive, still one-third of the country’s people are poor, working poor. The informal economy amounts to a quarter of the total. The president of my country, Donald Trump, talks of taking military action in Mexico. CIA drones already fly over Mexican territory looking for drug cartels that are active and powerful in several states. Many of those I talked to have no confidence in their president, Sheinbaum. No one that I spoke to expressed much hope at the moment in social or labor movements, even those who work in them. AMLO’s Morena absorbed or substituted for the old left. What I think of as the left, social movements demanding radical change, doesn’t seem to be very significant now. Yet, as we know, new movements will arise in Mexico, as they always have, to challenge the status quo and to demand democracy and justice.

     

  • A Who’s Who of Bolivia’s Tumultuous Elections

    A Who’s Who of Bolivia’s Tumultuous Elections

    The official inflation rate in Bolivia—which is a “modest” 18.5 percent year-over-year—increasingly resembles the contrived script of a grotesque political soap opera. The number is scandalous not because of what it reveals, but because of what it tries to hide. Like a bad daytime TV actor, it performs without conviction.

    In reality, inflation in Bolivia is much higher than the official rate. Bolivians feel this in the price of the imported products—including medicine—that are still available; in the drastic reduction in the availability of public transportation and in food prices, which rise weekly. Some items, including basic foodstuffs like rice, now cost twice as much as they did a year ago.

    Gas stations have become altars in our national drama: everyone competes for the last dregs of subsidized diesel, including the agro-industrialists and mining company workers, who devour subsidies. Like any good catastrophe, the crisis presents “opportunities:” developers clear land as a new refuge for capital, creating a promise of profits for the fortunate few who benefit from dispossession.

    Those who live on Bolivia’s minimum wage—which increased 10 percent this year—are barely surviving. The 85 percent of Bolivians who work in the informal economy don’t even have that statistical consolation. 

    Meanwhile, the market for the parallel dollar—a street oracle—has taken control of the economic narrative. It goes up and down like a fever: from the official 6.9 Bolivianos per dollar to the street rates: today at 16, tomorrow 20, later, who knows?

    The truth is that the Boliviano has lost nearly 60 percent of its value since March 2023. That translates into a brutal hike in the cost of living, insufficient incomes, savings going up in smoke, and other, apparently non-economic consequences like a rising rate of high school dropouts.

    Campaigns and crisis 

    Amid this collapse, in which President Luis Arce Catacora has distinguished himself only for his ineptitude, and in which Vice President David Choquehuanca seems to inhabit an alternate cosmic-pachamama-infused reality, Bolivia is in campaign mode. This is not just any election campaign: it features low-budget TikTok videos, recycled soap opera actors—almost all of them from the 1990s—and a political narrative that offers no redemption but promises dire consequences.

    The familiar neoliberal script has returned: slash the state, deregulate the market, assume massive debt and hope that lithium, soy, and gold will do the dirty work.

    In its death throes, the “left-wing” Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) survives only in hollow speeches. We are told over and over, almost as dogma, that shock therapy is the only way forward and that the reins on savage extractive capitalism must be loosened even further, as if we were not already far enough adrift. All of this is once again presented as inevitable.

    Bolivians find ourselves in a fiercely contested and fragmented electoral contest, with a wide array of pro-government and opposition candidates. Like many other regions of the world, voters are inspired primarily to act against one side or candidate, rather than in favor of an idea or political project. The first round of elections will occur on August 17. If our general confusion translates into the national vote, and everything suggests that it will, we will return to the polls for a second round on Oct. 19, 2025.

    Let’s take a look at the cast of this presidential tragicomedy, from the most pro-government presidential candidate to the most oppositional.

    Eduardo Del Castillo

    Del Castillo was Minister of Government. Now he is at the top of the MAS ticket. He is a technocrat of repression, a mini-leftist Bukele, and a puppet of the Arce Catacora camp with no charisma whatsoever.

    Del Castillo is the nemesis of Evo Morales, whom he essentially accuses of being a drug trafficker. He promises no change in course or fundamental renewal: his candidacy is the sterile extension of a failed project, where governance is confused with the inertia of power. However, even as a “socialist” candidate, Del Castillo proposes substantial cuts to the state’s budget, which he euphemistically calls “optimization.”

    With no project and no soul, his candidacy is irrelevant, sustained only by the institutional machinery that pushes him forward.

    Andrónico Rodríguez

    Evo Morales’ favorite son, Rodríguez, is now on the verge of becoming Brutus—that is to say, of betraying his father.

    Young, handsome, and discreetly silent, Rodríguez is president of the Senate, and he’s made a career out of one unique virtue: no one hates him. He is a virtuoso in the art of never getting his hands dirty.

    Rodríguez presents himself as the MAS “renewal” candidate, although his proposals fluctuate between continuity and modest symbolic ruptures. He has suggested cutting back the state and seeks to appeal to the business sectors and informal mining cooperatives that support him.

    His team seems to have come out of a local crime thriller: there are links to drug traffickers, allegations of sexual harassment, and public defense of femicides. Hardcore supporters of the now moribund MAS support Rodríguez, which has allowed him to secure the highest polling numbers among the candidates to date.

    Eva Copa

    Copa is the mayor of El Alto, the country’s second-largest and poorest city.

    A former MAS senator, Copa is now running with her own party, MORENA, but she has no proposals on the table. Her candidacy seems more like an attempt to gain visibility than to help Bolivia move forward.

    Jorge Richter, a former spokesperson for Arce Catacora, joins her on the ticket. He is infamous for changing allegiances as often as he changes his jacket: he was formerly the spokesperson for Manfred Reyes Villa but now hopes to reinvent himself as a centrist operator and as Copa’s vice presidential candidate.

    Samuel Doria Medina

    A longtime businessman and center-right candidate, Doria Medina opposes the MAS. His total—truly total—lack of charisma plays against his multimillion-dollar family fortune, which he uses to attract allies and build teams of technicians.

    A minister in the 1990s, Doria Medina is an ally of the agro-industrial right in Santa Cruz and the old mining industry. An admirer of Bukele and a friend of thrice-failed Peruvian presidential candidate Keiko Fujimori, he would sell his soul to the devil to sit in the president’s chair.

    Doria Medina’s platform combines stale technocracy with empty promises to resolve the crisis in 100 days and to reorganize the Bolivian economy so that it resembles the agro-industrial, elite-controlled department of Santa Cruz. He commands the largest share of the fragmented opposition vote.

    Manfred Reyes Villa

    Reyes Villa is the four-term mayor of Cochabamba and a former military officer, who was “exiled” from the MAS due to corruption cases. His father was Interior Minister during one of the country’s bloodiest dictatorships, and he has a history of vociferous misogyny and loyalties to far-right presidents of the 1990s.

    Today Reyes Villa promises to rule with an “iron fist” and suggests he can perform miracles, such as sell gasoline without subsidies at a lower price than it costs on the international market. Even so, he’s attracted part of the traditional right, especially in his stronghold of Cochabamba.

    Jorge ‘Tuto’ Quiroga

    Quiroga, with his educated demeanor and republican nostalgia, represents the far right. In the 1990s, he served as vice president under Hugo Banzer, the little-man general whose hands were stained by dictatorship. Today, Quiroga presents himself as a modern statesman, although he lives off a state pension provided to him by the regime that he helped sustain.

    He proposes taking a massive loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), blowing up what’s left of the state, and “individualizing” Indigenous and peasant communal lands and handing them over to the market, where they can be sold.

    Quiroga is an ally of the far right in Santa Cruz, and his recipe for eastern Bolivia is straightforward: “Make it Paraguay.” This is code for more deforestation, more concentration of wealth and more inequality.

    Quiroga presents all this in the language of digital modernity, even though he seems to forget that the technological divide excludes half of Bolivia—especially in rural areas—from the future he promises. He is Samuel Doria Medina’s main competition for the opposition vote.

    The Uninvited Guests

    There are several other candidates, but most are not seriously in the running, mainly because there is no political party willing to rent them their name (parties sell their political initials to the highest bidder).

    Among the uninvited guests is Jaime Dunn, a former Wall Street financial analyst, who presents himself as a sanitized Milei: a libertarian in a suit who exudes subdued rage and promises efficiency. There’s also Chi Hyun Chung, an evangelical pastor of Korean origin, who is proudly misogynistic and punitive, and who says he wants to “put Bolivia to work” with the Bible in one hand and a whip in the other. In 2019, he won a disturbing nine percent of the vote. 

    But no figure weighs more heavily on this election than Evo Morales. Once the MAS´ historic leader, he became the declared enemy of his successor, Arce Catacora. He’s transitioned from being a romanticized caudillo to a political threat.

    A decision by the Constitutional Court forced Morales out of the race. He promises to retaliate by getting his supporters to set up road blockades across the country, even if doing so fuels violence and results in deaths among his allies and police. Self-exiled in Chapare, he rants compulsively on loyal radio stations, denouncing conspiracies with a quasi-religious fervor. Each appearance leaves Morales more isolated, closer to caricature than myth. He is wanted on charges of pedophilia: a public truth that no one denies anymore.

    Marcelo Claure is another key figure in this election. Claure is a Bolivian tycoon, who cannot run for office due to a lack of residency in the country, but who, from the United States, promises—like so many before him—to do everything he can to dislodge “socialism” from power.

    Claure announced that he will sponsor the opposition and has already financed a forum at Harvard with leading presidential candidates, representatives of the economic elite and well-groomed influencers. The goal was to consolidate the idea that only shock therapy will save Bolivia from becoming “the next Venezuela.”

    At Harvard, absurdity became doctrine, especially for those elites who are still ashamed of the country that birthed them and who continue to plunder it. Although Claure dresses like Steve Jobs, he is more like Elon Musk: obsessed with lithium, enamored with easy solutions and a fervent admirer of Milei and Trump.

    His unofficial slogan—“Make Bolivia Great Again”—raises a disturbing question. When does he think Bolivia was great? Was it during the hyperinflation of the 1980s? Or was it before during the golden age of enlightened plundering?

    Voting for collapse

    The real drama of this election is not about who wins, but rather the fact that no one is proposing a plan to prevent the collapse. We are only allowed to choose how it happens: an orderly collapse, a quick collapse, a privatized collapse, or a collapse in the name of sovereignty. But there will be a collapse nonetheless.

    There is no discussion of national projects or reflection on deeper issues, such as plurinationality or the meaning of the state. Public debate seems to have been reduced to a menu of immediate “bailouts,” as if everything will fall into place once the crisis is averted.

    The candidates talk about the administration of ruins, while hoping against hope for miracles.

    Of course, in this vacuum, what does find fertile ground is the articulation of agendas tailored to the tastes of the economic power groups that are already discreetly lining up behind the candidate of the moment. If the future doesn’t matter, the present is all business.

    Do we want to get ourselves into debt with the IMF up to our necks? Or would we rather give away our resources to China and Russia in exchange for half-built factories? Do we want subsidies without a planned budget or a free market without a safety net? More land cleared? Or to hold out for the discovery of increasingly elusive gas?

    These questions are absurd. But today, in Bolivia, it seems they are the only ones left on the table.

    This article was originally published in Ojalá.

  • 81 Years in the Shadow of the Bomb

    81 Years in the Shadow of the Bomb

    Eighty-one years ago this week, on August 6 and August 9, United States dropped two atomic bombs  on Japan, the first on Hiroshima and the second on Nagasaki, killing an estimated 200,000 human beings and poisoning and sickening many others. The bombs were dropped unnecessarily since Japan had already been defeated; the islands could have been conquered with traditional strategies and weapons, but the bombs were dropped as a demonstration of U.S. power and a threat to the Soviet Union. Within four years, however, the Soviet Union also had the bomb and not long after so did other nations. Ever since we have lived with the threat of planetary annihilation.

    Now Trump has once again reminded us of the threat of a nuclear war. Last week former Soviet president Dmitry Medvedev and Donald Trump threatened each other and all of us with the use of nuclear weapons, Trump sending two nuclear summaries “to appropriate regions,” that is, closer to Russia. Eighty years later we still live with the threat of the destruction of all life on our planet.

    Five years ago, I wrote an essay titled “A Life in the Shadow of the Bomb,” which I have now expanded some. I republish here, sure that my experience was shared by many others of my generation, and subsequently other generations. I publish it to encourage us to find a way to prevent nuclear war.

    A Life in the Shadow of the Bomb

    I am a child of the atomic age. The atomic bomb, that is, the threat of nuclear war and mass destruction, has been in my consciousness — sometimes in the background but frequently in the foreground — nearly all of my life.

    I was born on August 9, 1945 at the Lying Inn Hospital of the University of Chicago, the day that the second atomic bomb was dropped in Japan on the city of Nagasaki, killing tens of thousands of people. My birthplace, the U of C, was also the birthplace of the atomic bomb, which had been conceived there a couple of years before. Enrico Fermi and other scientists in the Manhattan Project carried out the first chain reaction on December 2, 1942 in a secret laboratory hidden in the university’s football stadium. Of course, when I let out my first shriek at the shock of birth and the awakening into life, I knew nothing of any of that.

    I first became conscious of the issue of nuclear war when I was eight years old. My parents had moved to Whittier, California, where my father was to manage a Co-op Grocery Store. The local public elementary school that I attended held “duck-and-cover” drills and we students had to get under our desks and put our hands over our heads. We were told this would protect us in the event of a nuclear attack. A duck-and-cover public service announcement of the era shows, among other scenarios, an elementary school class much like mine. I don’t remember ever discussing this with my teacher or my parents at the time, though I am sure that it is from that time that I began to experience the vague and chronic nuclear anxiety that so many of us of my generation felt and still feel.

    In 1957 Norman Mailer, after describing the post-war period in America, wrote about that vague anxiety in his famous essay “The White Negro”:

    It is on this bleak scene that a phenomenon has appeared: the American existentialist — the hipster, the man who knows that if our collective condition is to live with instant death by atomic war, relatively quick death by the State as l’univers concentrationnaire, or with a slow death by conformity with every creative and rebellious instinct stifled (at what damage to the mind and the heart and the liver and the nerves no research foundation for cancer will discover in a hurry), if the fate of twentieth century man is to live with death from adolescence to premature senescence, why then the only life-giving answer is to accept the terms of death, to live with death as immediate danger, to divorce oneself from society, to exist without roots, to set out on that uncharted journey into the rebellious imperatives of the self.

    Obviously, I was too young to understand those ideas, but those feeling of existential angst and rebellious attitudes would come to me later.

    Throughout my elementary and secondary school years, first in Chicago and later when I lived in San Diego County, television frequently carried news or programs about the U.S. Strategic Air Command (SAC), a special force of bombers carrying nuclear weapons. We were told that SAC would deter war, but that if it failed to deter, American bombs would obliterate the Soviet Union, as was explained in the film “The Power of Decision” and other U.S. Air Force publicity into the 1960s.

    The military also publicized the U.S. Army’s defensive Nike Missile system deployed in and around cities throughout the country. I remember seeing Nike Missile bases in Chicago along Lake Shore Drive when I returned to visit my father’s family in the early 1960s. The Nikes we were told would defend us from incoming Soviet H-bombs.

    There were also TV shows and films about civil defense and fallout shelters. Some of these suggested that every suburban family should have a well-provisioned underground fallout shelter where mom, dad, and the kids could ride out the storm until the radioactive dust settled. New York, which had a population of 7.7 million, had 18,000 such shelters in 1963 and the Department of Defense had plans for 34,000 more. Where I now live in Brooklyn I occasionally see the yellow and black fallout shelter signs of the 1950s posted on some apartment buildings. Cities all over the country had the shelters. When the TV and radio told us or the alarms went off, we were all to hightail it to the shelter and wait for the all clear that would surely come.

    A small percentage of shelters were fortified underground bunkers stocked with emergency supplies, but these were rare and primarily built for high-ranking government officials. The majority of shelters, including nearly all those that were visibly marked, were known as “community shelters,” and by all accounts, they offered little special protection.

    Many of the New York City shelters reportedly became overrun with rats as big as dogs.

    At the time of the Berlin crisis in 1961, President John F. Kennedy told the country in a nationwide televised speech on July 25, that, “in the event of an attack, the lives of those families which are not hit in a nuclear blast and fire can still be saved if they can be warned to take shelter and if that shelter is available.”

    The president went on say: “We owe that kind of insurance to our families and to our country. … The time to start is now. In the coming months, I hope to let every citizen know what steps he can take without delay to protect his family in case of attack. I know you would not want to do less.”

    Though I do not remember it, in all likelihood I saw Kennedy make that speech, since I watched the national news every evening as we all did then. I was fifteen years old. Did I believe it? I don’t know. Talk of nuclear war and civil defense had by then become normalized, so I suppose I did.

    At the time people discussed, analyzed, and even wrote poems about bomb shelters. One of the questions — the Noah’s Ark question — was whether or not one would have to defend one’s shelter gun-in-hand from neighbors who had had not had the foresight to prepare for the hard rain that was gonna fall.

    But by the time I was in high school, I was aware that all of the duck-n-cover and fallout shelter stuff was nonsense. In part that was because I had read the 1950 book Hiroshima Diary: The Journal of a Japanese Physician by Dr. Michihiko Hachiya, director of the Hiroshima Communications Hospital, who in his diary described the destruction and suffering caused by one A-bomb being dropped on his city.

    One H-bomb could take out the entire city of San Diego. Images of the A-bombs and H-bombs I’d seen in those films destroying actual Japanese cities or test sites with buildings built to be blown apart, were burned into my brain, sometimes actually worrying me, but more often just hovering in the background contributing to a lingering uneasiness.

    Giclee Print, , large

    The 1959 film “On the Beach” (based on Nevil Shute’s novel of the same name) imagined a Third World War in 1964 that because of a mistake or accident brought about global nuclear annihilation. The spectacular cast–Gregoary Peck, Ava Gardner, Anthony Perkins, and Fred Astaire–draws us into the human drama as hope gives way to despair and in the United State and around the world people take suicide pills. The film was as compelling as it was depressing.

    I was a junior in high school during the Cuban missile crisis in the fall of 1962 when it was learned that the Soviet Union had installed missile bases on Cuba that could carry nuclear warheads to the United States. Now, we learned, Soviet bombs were only 96 miles from the United States. President Kennedy demanded their removal. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and President Kennedy who negotiated the crisis held the fate of the world in their hands. For a couple of weeks, every night on television there were discussions of the dangerous developments and images of nuclear bombs. John F. Kennedy spoke to us through the TV, telling us we were on the “abyss of destruction.” Many people thought we might all be incinerated. When it ended, we were advised that we had escaped the “most terrible threat of holocaust since World War II.” When, we wondered, would it happen again?

    When I was in college, I read Kurt Vonnegut’s book Cat’s Cradle, a darkly comic book about the bomb, about science, technology, and morality. In the book, the dangers of the A-bomb are paralleled by those of the fictional substance ice-nine which has the capacity to turn all water to ice. The book had a big impact on those of us living in the 1960s.

    During the period from my high school graduation in 1963 until I finished college in 1968, nuclear war was not at the forefront of my consciousness. We all had other things on our minds. The television, that had been bringing us images of the civil rights movement through the early 1960s now brought us the Black urban rebellions and the anti-Vietnam War movement. Coming from a socialist, pacifist family, I had registered as a conscientious objector upon my graduation from high school in 1963 and for the moment had a draft deferment as a college student. The possibility of being called up and sent to kill or die in Vietnam pushed the more abstract idea of nuclear war further back into the recesses of my mind.

    After graduating from San Diego State College in 1968, I went for one semester to the Library School at the University of Chicago, returning to the place of my birth, the place of the bomb’s birth. One day, walking through the campus I came upon Henry Moore’s magnificent sculpture “Nuclear Energy,” located more or less on the site where the bomb had been developed. It seemed to me to depict both the atomic bomb and the human brain that conceived it. It appeared to be a tribute to the wonder of human intelligence and to its folly, to our genius and to our stupidity. Moore declined to say exactly what it represented or the source of the imagery.

    Moore, who was British, was himself an opponent of the bomb.

    When the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) was launched in 1958, Moore was among its founder members. He had already sponsored its predecessor the National Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons Tests (NCANWT). He also supported disarmament groups local to his home in Perry Green such as the Hertford Group of Nuclear Disarmament, which he donated to in 1959.

    Such was Moore’s involvement in the CND that the critic John Berger proposed that his Falling Warrior, 1956–57 (LH 405) be used as their emblem, and a CND sponsored exhibition be held of the sculpture and its preparatory maquettes and working models. The exhibition was never held nor the emblem adopted, however, CND imagery would prove important to Moore.

    In any case, Moore’s sculpture moved me as it had moved others.

    The following year I returned to San Diego and attended the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) to study Literature with Fred Jameson, the literary critic, and occasionally sat in on classes of Herbert Marcuse, the Marxist philosopher. I find it interesting that I don’t remember any discussions of the issue of nuclear arms in those years at UCSD where (despite its implosion at the 1969 convention) SDS — Students for a Democratic Society — was still active on our campus protesting the Vietnam War and there was also a Third World Coalition of students of color protesting racism, while professors and graduate students discussed Marx, Freud, and Sartre day and night. There may have been some anti-nuclear discussions, but not that I remember. Perhaps because Richard Nixon became president and we had entered into a period of détente with the Soviet Union, the bomb became less of an issue. In any case, it was at that time that, after reading Sartre, that I came to think of myself as an existentialist; and perhaps it was living with the anxiety of the bomb, that brought me to that conclusion, as Mailer had suggested a dozen years before that it would.

    I left graduate school in 1971, and once again returned to Chicago as part of the International Socialists’ labor-organizing project, becoming a steel worker for a short while and for several years a truck driver, active in helping to organize Teamsters for a Democratic Union. We on the left — or at least in my part of the left — were well aware of the issue of nuclear warfare, but it seldom came up, since we were focusing on more immediate issues: civil rights, the Vietnam War, and workers’ struggles for a decent life. We on the far left at that time were all engaged in party building, but our various parties, which opposed the U.S. war in Vietnam, only occasionally took up the issue of the atomic bomb.

    Because I had grown up in a pacifist family, I was aware of the anti-nuclear weapons movement, of organizations like the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, better known as SANE, that had been founded in 1957. In a big city like Chicago where I lived throughout the 1970s and into the early 1980s, one occasionally saw anti-nuclear-weapons activists demonstrating. Some came from the Quakers and the Unitarian Church or from some liberal Jewish Temple, some from the War Resisters League, while others were gray-haired idiosyncratic socialists. Occasionally there were some students, but the Peaceniks, as they were known, tended to be mature people, older folks. Compared to the young people in the streets demanding civil rights or protesting the Vietnam War, the peace and anti-nuclear movement seemed somewhat quaint. Of course, some of these folkloric Peaceniks were heroic draft resisters who had gone to prison for their beliefs and others became founders of the anti-Vietnam War movement. Another group, Women’s Strike for Peace seemed to be made up mostly of older women in the 1960s, but by the 1970s it had been transformed by the new feminism so that it combined the exuberance of the emerging women’s movement with the sense of urgency to end nuclear weapons.

    In 1970 the nuclear powers negotiated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and they said lead to nuclear disarmament. The non-nuclear states agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons and the nuclear state agreed to help them with the peaceful us of atomic power for energy. But Israel acquire nuclear arms around 1970, India in 1974, Pakistan in 1998, North Korea in 2006. The treath was a failure.

    The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (1987), supposedly banned U.S. and Soviet ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. Both sides violated the treaty.

    After the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the START treaty was intned to imit the deployed strategic nuclear warheads and delivery systems between the U.S. and Russia. Once again both sides violated the treaty.

    The problem with treaties was that none of the great powers trusted each other and we didn’t trust them either. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was adopted by the United Nations on July 7, 2017, it officially entered into force on January 22, 2021. Today U.S President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin both openly threaten to use nuclear weapons.

    It was in 1980s that the anti-nuclear movement suddenly took off. It was not nuclear weapons or nuclear war that so unexpectedly made things nuclear a big deal, it was the nuclear power plant accident at Three Mile Island in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, that led to a partial meltdown in a nuclear reactor releasing radioactive gases and iodine into the atmosphere. Local anti-nuclear power groups that had existed in various parts of the country prior to the Three Mile Island accident began to mobilize to shutdown nuclear reactors and to organize many local protests and a couple of large scale national demonstrations of between 100,000 and 200,000 people in late 1979. These demonstrations around nuclear power melded with the movement against nuclear weapons.

    Then too, there is the fact that the era of U.S.-Soviet détente had ended and another Cold Warrior had been elected president: Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s anti-Communism was enough to make people worry about nuclear war, but his occasional off-hand remarks about using tactical nukes or fighting an actual nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union in Europe added to our anxiety.

    Then too the left took up the issue. In 1980, the great British labor historian E.P. Thompson, author of The Making of the English Working Class, who was also an anti-nuclear arms activist, published his pamphlet Protest and Survive. It was originally a parody of a British government civil defense pamphlet called Protect and Survive. The large English and European anti-nuclear movements, of which Thompson was a spokesperson, had reverberations in America. Another landmark of the anti-nuclear movement at the time was writer Jonathan Schell’s important The Fate of the Earth in which he argued that a nuclear war might destroy all human life and make the planet uninhabitable. We on the left now had a couple of tomes to educate us and provide a direction.

    All of this came together in 1982. I was working as an I.S. staff person and was in New York City on June 12, where I joined the demonstration that day of one million people in Central Park calling for an end to the nuclear arms race; at that time it was the largest political demonstration in U.S. history. Throughout the 1980s the anti-nuclear movement with its slogan — “Never Again” and brandishing Peter Kennard’s horrifying poster (left) — grew, and spread, and became more militant with thousands being arrested. It was about this time too that the Greenham Commons Women’s Peace Camp, protesting the British government’s installing nuclear cruise missiles at the Royal Air Force base there, caught everyone’s attention. Women chained themselves to the fence and many were arrested, and it lasted almost twenty years. The 1983 television film The Day After, about ordinary people and their experience of the the outbreak of a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union, was seen by 100 million people in 39 million households and also contributed significantly to the anti-nuclear arms sentiment at the time.

    In the mid-1980s, my wife Sherry Baron and I moved to Los Angeles where she did public health research at UCLA. I found work with Jobs with Peace, a remarkable campaign mounted by a number of unions and community organizations. Informed by the idea that the Cold War ought to be wound down, Jobs with Peace called for a transition from an economy based on military production — which in Los Angeles meant the aerospace industry producing fighters and bombers — to an economy based on production for society’s needs. The national Jobs with Peace Campaign was associated with SANE/Freeze, so one can say it formed part of the anti-nuclear movement. My work with Jobs with Peace had me knocking on doors in the harbor towns, Wilmington and San Pedro, talking with working class people about the need to make a transition while preserving union jobs, and the response was generally very good.

    In the late 1980s my wife Sherry and I moved to Cincinnati where she had gotten a job with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), part of the Centers for Disease Control and soon we were raising two children. The city was conservative, a political backwater for the left and busy with our family, our involvement in politics declined until the police killings of Black men led to a rebellion there in 2001. Involved in organizing protests against racist police, the bomb was in the background.

    Still, we read the newspapers and followed international events and joined the movement against the first U.S. war on Iraq. I remained a socialist, now in Solidarity, a group formed by the merger of the I.S. and another two groups. We were aware of the tensions in the Middle East and that they might possibly lead to nuclear war and concerned about it, but once again there were other developments competing for our attention. The terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in September 2001 meant that Sherry spent a lot of time in New York City looking into the health affects on first responders and other workers in the area of the explosions as well as creating programs to help them. Once again a more immediate challenge pushed the nuclear question down on the agenda. Then there were the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we joined the protests against those wars, which terrible as they were, did not seem likely to lead to nuclear war.

    Some people believed that with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 there would be a “peace dividend,” since the United States would no longer have a mortal enemy. The government could spend less money on the military and more on social programs. And perhaps, said the optimists, it would be possible to phase out nuclear weapons. But that did not happen, though with the fall of the Soviet Union the anti-nuclear movements declined, perhaps because people believed war was now more unlikely. But nuclear weapons didn’t go away. As I am sure you know, at least nine nations have nuclear weapons and though five (the U.S., Russia, China, U.K. and France) have signed a treaty to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to other nations and promised — someday — to destroy their current stockpiles — there is no evidence that the number of nuclear weapons is being reduced. Four other nations — India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea — also have nuclear weapons but have not signed the treaty. Japan and Iran both appear to have the capacity to make a bomb, but have not done so.

    Now Turkey and Saudi Arabia want the bomb too and the Washington Post suggests that 2020 could be an “especially dangerous year.” What year, I wonder, has not been? In 1947, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists began to publish the “Doomsday Clock” indicating how close the scientists thought the world was to nuclear war and destruction. In January of this year they announced that we were 89 seconds from Doomsday. We must be even closer now.

    I have been and remain skeptical of the notion that the world’s governments, run as most of them are by groups of political gangsters who serve capitalist moguls, would ever take any step that limited or reduced their power by curtailing nuclear arms. Only a powerful international movement that seeks to change our economic and political system will make possible the elimination of nuclear weapons.

    So, we continue to live with the fear that a nuclear war might be triggered by some incident in the Middle East or in Punjab, in Ukraine or who knows where. And we continue to wear the button with the peace symbol that was created in 1958 by Gerald Holtom for the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).

    Of course now we have the overriding issue of global warming, and pandemics like COVID-19 and perhaps next H1N1. And as in the past, current issues, like the rise of right wing parties throughout the world, push the danger of nuclear warfare into the background once more. Even though those parties’ ambitions may trigger another world war, this time an atomic world war.

    But here it is, August again. I will turn 81 in a few days and so will my age-mate the atomic bomb. You and I will continue, as we know, to live in the shadow of the bomb until we create a movement to rid ourselves of it.

  • Mass Deportations from Iran:  Afghan Women Caught in the Grip of Violence and Inhumanity

    Mass Deportations from Iran: Afghan Women Caught in the Grip of Violence and Inhumanity

    Afghan refugees,a population of 4-5 million who have lived,worked &raised families in Iran for decades,are being deported en masse.

    (more…)

  • Labor’s Partisans: Book Review

    Labor’s Partisans: Book Review

    Putting the movement back in the labor movement,” is an expression that you hear regularly at union events. The sentiment speaks to the idea that labor needs to be aspirational, visionary and connected to improving the lives of everyday people through collective action. The anthology Labor’s Partisans: Essential Writings on the Union Movement from the 1950s to Today, edited by Samir Sonti and Nelson Lichtenstein, provides a useful primer to the struggle to keep labor moving through the writing and activism of Dissent Magazine.

    Dissent was created in the 1950s, the heyday of union density in the United States. Its contributors decided on a magazine rather than a journal as a means of signaling the intended popular audience, rather than a narrow academic focus. 

    One of the throughlines of Lichtenstein and Sonti’s collection of Dissent articles is the tension in labor between those who believe in “bread and butter unionism” and the advocates of unions being a means for social transformation. The bread and butter unionists focus narrowly on improving pay, benefits and working conditions. Most other considerations slip away in this model.  In contrast, socially conscious unionism, or social unionism, thrives on the democratic ideals of fair representation and advancing justice in society, especially for those furthest from it. 

    Bread and butter” unionists are fine with a consolidation of power within unions to advance narrowly defined member interests. Social unionists believe that the unions themselves must be representative of the members they serve in order to create the kind of power needed to not only bargain and uphold a good contract, but to build the kind of power needed to make sure that working people have a seat at every table where decisions are made.

    The way unions operate often mirror the social trends of the era.  Times of social upheaval open the door to union reform, conservative retrenchment can breed bureaucratic malaise within unions. As Irving Howe writes in one feature, “You can always measure the level of democracy in any country by the freedom its workers have to organize unions of their own choosing” (78).  Recognizing this pattern underlines the importance of the Dissent writers and their effort to nourish the democratic spirit unions that can at times lay dormant.

    Labor’s Partisans reminds us that even when things look bleak in our unions and society, transformation is possible.  Not shying away from describing what happens when power within unions calcifies provides readers with a glimpse of the resilience of rank and file movements.

    Heartbreak and resilience appears most prominently in the story of the coal mining union reformer Jock Yablonski. In 1969, attempting to create a democratic union for coal miners, Yablonski ran against entrenched Association President Tony Boyle. Infamously, the campaign ended with the murder of the insurgent Yablonski. Following an extensive investigation, it was found that Boyle was behind the hit. 

    Reeling from the loss of a brave leader, rank and file members of the United Mineworkers of America, formed the caucus Miners for Democracy.  The caucus went on to narrowly win the 1972 UMA presidential election in a rematch against Boyle by a margin of just under ten percent. Freed from Boyle’s stranglehold, enacted a number of democratic internal reforms, including measures to create more representative voting within the union. Still, without Jock, who had been a catalyst for change, the upstarts faced an uphill battle.  With many of the initial rank-and-file stepping into governance, the nascent caucus fizzled, as did their environmentally oriented campaign positions (286).

    The inclusion of Jock’s story in this collection reminds the current democratic insurgents of the sacrifices of prior generations, as well as the great promise of worker led reform. Yablonski may be a distant name for labor activists born after the 1960s, yet his willingness to fight for rank and file workers brought about one of the first democratic movements in labor history.

    As the founder of the Association for Union Democracy, Herman Benson explained of the grassroots movement, “there were courageous local leaders and rank and file activists without whom nothing would have been possible. There were pro labor professionals who came forward to help…We saw in action the often-sought ‘alliance between intellectuals and labor.’ It worked” (106). Creating a dynamic where leaders can rise from the “shop floor”, aided by movement friendly lawyers, activists and academics, fuels the democratic project, first within unions and then across society.

    The tumultuous history of labor proves that no form of progress can be taken for granted.  Advancing union democracy, labor backed environmental reform or socially conscious programs of any kind are difficult challenges–both in terms of initiating and sustaining. That’s why rank-and-file visionaries have even launched campaigns from outside the positions of power in union halls, including the teachers in Milwaukee in the 1980s (Schurmer, 296) and more recently in West Virginia (Jaffe, 302-308) . While there has been disagreement between the reform wings of progressive unionism, there is much more that binds these efforts together.  From Benson and Yablonski to Milwaukee and West Virginia, and so many places in between, these stories remind us of the sacrifice of the movement for rank-and-file power and the perilously imperfect pursuit of dignity on behalf of working people.

    Along these lines, Labor’s Partisans presents a compelling case for why we need rank and file democratic reform movements with unions based on longstanding scholarship. Scholars of labor have linked union member agency with union health. David Moberg, in his chapter “Hard Times for Labor,” cites Michael Goldfield’s The Decline of Organized Labor in the United States,concluded that unions with a strong tradition of rank-and-file combativeness generally have fared better in their organizing than more conservative or autocratic unions” (156).  

    Labor’s Partisans provided a timely assortment of examples showing how the fight for working people has seized the moment to build unions that work, even in the most difficult of circumstances.  Unabashedly, the collection proclaims that to be a movement, the labor movement must recommit itself to promoting and practicing democracy for the social good.  This makes it an important read for reform minded unionists and allies of a robust labor movement today.  

     

    Citations

    Benson, H. (2025). Labor Leaders, Intellectuals, and Freedom in the Unions. In S. Sonti & N. Lichtenstein (Eds.), Labor’s Partisans (pp. 99–106). The New Press.

    Early, S. (2022, December 14). What Today’s Labor Reformers Can Learn From a Rank-and-File Coal Miners’ Victory 50 Years Ago. In These Times. https://inthesetimes.com/

    Jaffe, S. (2025). West Virginia Teacher Walk Out. In S. Sonti & N. Lichtenstein (Eds.), Labor’s Partisans (pp. 302–308). The New Press.

    Lichtenstein, N., & Samir Sonti. (2025). Labor’s Partisans. The New Press.

    Goldfield, M. (1992). The decline of organized labor in the United States. Univ. Of Chicago Press.

    Moberg, D. (2025). Hard Times for Labor. In S. Sonti & N. Lichtenstein (Eds.), Labor’s Partisans (pp. 153–166). The New Press.

    Schirmer, E. (2025). After Act 10: How Milwaukee Teachers Fought Back. In S. Sonti & N. Lichtenstein (Eds.), Labor’s Partisans (pp. 291–301). The New Press.

  • Excerpts from At the Edge of Everything: Collected Poems

    Excerpts from At the Edge of Everything: Collected Poems

    NP editor’s note: At the Edge of Everything was reviewed for New Politics by Kevin Van Meter and is available through Common Notions Press.

    “[George] Caffentzis’ poetry is generated from the experience of the different worlds that have shaped his life: the world of the Greek community of which he was part, of his childhood trips to Greece, of his father and uncles’ Cube Steak diner in Brooklyn, of the radical groups he later joined, and later his years teaching in Nigeria. Throughout them runs the desire for a different world and staunch refusal to compromise with the injustices of the past and the present.” 

    – Silvia Federici, from the Preface, September 2024 

    To the Cube Steak

    To the Cube Steak

    place of many encounters

    drunken sailors looking for a fight

    my father and I in the cellar

    mixing whiskey with water

    and packing the bribe for the precinct

    ensuring the cops would come

    when the sailors pulled the knives.

    Uncle Spiro in the corner

    cursing the priests and the politicians

    “No politics in this place”

    screams my mother.

    “Here we can only have

    Food and drinks.”

    To George, from Silvia

    [January 2024]

    Osiris Among the Dragonflies 

    Wives, Comrades, Enemies and Children

    Scattered,

    All scattered

    As crumbs along the Nile.

    And finally by the sea in Maine

    Alone,

    I hear the Taygetus stream

    Still flowing

    Down,

    Through gleaming rocks

    Dark pools and still,

    Not knowing that they wait,

    Are dragonflies,

    Bluer than memory,

    Hovering over the rush.

    [1991]

    Going to Nigeria

    (for John)

    On a hot May night

    you too tense to study the Law

    and I too sick with Posthumous Notes,

    we walked by Jamaica Pond,

    firefly fragrant in the lamppost light,

    trying to breathe a calm

    off the black water.

    As we walked

    there slowly rose,

    a dry stench of fear

    fear of others

    twisting every bend.

    We are all now citizens in Murder.

    Another spring is passed.

    The burning smell

    of Harmattan begins.

    The fear lingers.

    [1984]

    Self-Portrait

    Coffee bottom

    Lemon rind and

    Flecks of glass

    Smashed

    on the taverna floor,

    Pissing in my pants

    And dancing

    Dancing with nothing

    But coffee bottom

    And now you say

    I’m somber.

    My prick is crooked

    After so many erections

    Squashed in my pants:

    Rising from you

    At the alarm

    And stuffed down

    To go to jobs

    To unemployment halls

    To this and that,

    And so you say

    I’m somber.

    Never homeless,

    At the bottom of every cup,

    So bitter you will drink only

    When you’ve forgotten me,

    Distracted

    And ready for the

    Accidental.

    So finally

    You call me somber.

    [1978]

    A Tale of Memory and Forgetting

    I.

    I thought memory was dust to me,

    each move making a cloud

    so I could hardly see

    what was before me.

    The dust will get so dense

    one day,

    there’ll be no point in motion.

    Nothing seen, smelled, tasted or touched

    but more motes and moments of my old self.

    Then it will be time to die.

    I now watch the waves

    off Mt. Desert Isle

    through the spindrift

    of ten thousand fragments

    of memory.

    Not just other seas,

    but the black water

    of the Niger Delta creeks,

    and the cicadas

    rasping in the heat

    of the summer fields near Sparta.

    Is there no small rain of oblivion,

    no cloud burst of forgetting

    to drench myself in?

    A forgetting so strong

    I’ll not even remember this poem.

    Will I ever be fresh again?

    II.

    And then,

    just as I made the wish,

    these faces rose

    like steam whirls

    from the dry earth

    at the break of Harmattan

    to question me.

    My mother was first,

    angry beyond words and action,

    She wanted to know

    why I,

    want to forget her?

    Other dead shimmer,

    my father among them,

    far in the distance of my flesh,

    demanding an explanation.

    Are they to be forever

    erased from me?

    Lovers smile from different directions,

    confirmed again

    in their estimation

    that men like me

    never stop being children,

    especially as they become old.

    But beyond them all

    far back on the horizon

    huge clouds are forming

    from the smoke

    of the students bodies’ at Lubumbashi,

    killed and burned,

    from the cold fog

    enveloping the bare toes of women

    walking through the stone streets

    of San Cristóbal at dawn,

    from the gazes of eyes

    on death row

    heavy clouds,

    accumulating pain, hatred and desire,

    Roll down

    dark with rain

    to wash away

    even this age.

    [2006]

    Poem for Sol Yurich

    Thebes is nothing like you envisioned it, Sol.

    I barely noticed it as the train passed it.

    Thebes is now a small town in a plain of wheat

    and grapes;

    The IMFers of Tirisias’ time and our own

    Would think nothing of it

    While you have grown wide in death

    Reaching to the horizon and filling every molecule

    In between.

    Speak to me, Sol

    About Thebes, Oedipus and the burning of the

    Bank of America,

    Speak to me. . .

    So I can hear

    the dry liberating bitterness of your voice

    once more

    Until you too step

    Beyond the edge of things.

    [June 1, 2013]