The rest of the blog
Farage wants you to believe he can fix the country. But he broke it. From Brexit to “civil disobedience,” his politics turned crisis into currency. Now he wants to cash in. Don’t buy it.
The Labour government has not criminalised violence, it has criminalised resistance. Holding a flag, wearing a slogan, even whispering “Palestine” is now suspect. But dropping bombs on children? That’s fine. If that sounds like justice to you, you’re already lost.
They gutted final salary schemes. They tied your future to the stock market. Now they want to gamble what’s left on the promise of growth that never comes. Rachel Reeves calls it “unlocking capital.” What it really means is handing over your pension to the very firms that gutted the economy in the first place.
There’s no housing to fall back on. No council flat, no affordable rent, no hope of owning. Just a threadbare pension pot and a government asking you to work longer, save more, and expect less.
Farage isn’t offering a plan, this is performance. His “law and order” blitz isn’t costed, credible, or connected to reality. It’s the politics of punishment as spectacle: build more prisons, shout louder, deport faster, sentence longer. No thought to the broken justice system, no answers on prevention or rehabilitation. Just another culture war front for a party with no economic programme and no interest in governing.
While Israel levels Gaza, the Labour government arrests pensioners in Liverpool for carrying a leaflet. Yvette Cooper calls it national security. But what we are witnessing is the suppression of solidarity, the silencing of dissent, and the transformation of protest into a punishable offence. A government that will not name a genocide is quick to jail those who do.
Moral capital was never just sympathy, it was a strategy. It allowed Israel to present itself as victim and victor, past sufferer and present enforcer. But capital is not infinite. What was once a shield has become a smokescreen. And in Gaza, that smokescreen has lifted.
The world is watching a nuclear-backed state starve and bomb a captive population, and still we are told this is security. But what happens when the story no longer convinces? What remains when the history runs out? Only the force. Only the ruin. Only the lie that it was ever anything else.
The President has weaponised billion-dollar lawsuits to silence reporting, chill satire, and punish dissent. After ABC and CBS paid out millions, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert was cancelled days after mocking a Trump settlement. Now he’s suing Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal over a sketch linked to Epstein. This isn’t about truth. It’s about fear, and who’s allowed to speak.
Gaza isn’t a failure. It’s strategy. Empire burns what it can’t control. Mélenchon and Ali don’t moralise. They name it. Oil, siege, war with China. Read it if you’re done with delusion.
We’re not charting a path to industrial autonomy but rebranding our submission to market forces, only this time with China as scapegoat and Trump’s America waiting in the wings.
With Elbridge Colby whispering war into Pete Hegseth’s ear, the Trump administration has replaced strategic ambiguity with a doctrine of confrontation.
The left’s long struggle against empire has often been distorted by its own blind spots, nowhere more so than in the contradictions of campism, where opposition to Western imperialism too often becomes an excuse for silence, or worse, complicity, in the face of other empires.
In an era of escalating global tensions and the rise of new geopolitical powers, the debate over the alignment of socialist movements has become increasingly pressing. The slogan “neither Washington nor Moscow” is more relevant than ever. This article argues that adopting this stance is crucial for preserving Marxist principles and resisting the phenomenon of campism, where socialist movements align uncritically with one global power against another. By embracing this slogan, we can safeguard the integrity of our struggle.
Some on the modern left have engaged in ‘apologism’ for oppressive regimes, whether whitewashing Stalin’s crimes or reflexively supporting authoritarian “anti-imperialist” states. This post argues that defending past and present authoritarianism fundamentally contradicts core progressive principles of liberation, democracy, and human rights.
As the world continues to shift towards a new global order, the competition between the United States, China, and Russia has become increasingly apparent. While some may argue that conflict between these powers is inevitable, others question the effectiveness of Marxist alternatives in a world that is dominated by state capitalism and imperial tendencies. In this article, we will explore the complexities of the US-China-Russia relationship and examine the limitations of Marxist ideology in addressing the challenges of our current political and economic landscape.
Using Guy Debord’s concept of the spectacle to examine imperialism.
