Accelerationism
Trump, Land, Dugin
Trump is not Land’s monarch nor Dugin’s tsar. He is their degraded symptom: the parody of a fascist synthesis of technology and tradition, replayed in the register of meme stock and casino populism.
The rest of the blog
Trump is not Land’s monarch nor Dugin’s tsar. He is their degraded symptom: the parody of a fascist synthesis of technology and tradition, replayed in the register of meme stock and casino populism.
From PwC’s colour-coded attendance dashboard to HSBC’s biometric checkpoints and the rise of Algorithmic Affect Management, the new wave of “bossware” represents less an innovation than the latest stage in capital’s long history of making workers legible. What began with the factory bell and the punch clock now extends to our faces, moods, and keystrokes.
Zarah Sultana’s interview in Sidecar captures the anger at Labour’s complicity in genocide and austerity, but it risks becoming another broad reformist project, haunted by the ghosts of Corbynism—vulnerable to sect capture, parliamentary illusions, and the same popular-front logic that has historically disarmed the working class.
Nigel Farage’s TikTok wunderkind wants us to imagine a Britain that never fought Hitler, kept its colonies, and models itself on Bukele’s prison state. This is not contrarianism; it is fascist nostalgia dressed up as common sense.
Alexander Dugin calls the Trump–Putin summit in Anchorage “splendid,” insisting the US and Russia must find an “understanding as superpowers.” The problem is that this fantasy of bipolar order flatters two declining states while obscuring the real forces shaping the 21st century.
With armed red-state troops patrolling a blue city, Trump is not protecting Washington; he is rehearsing the mechanics of civil war.
Every August, the right reheats its old contempt for higher education. Their complaint is not about debt or “Mickey Mouse” degrees, it is about closing the gates of knowledge, keeping universities for the dominant class and consigning everyone else to warehouses and call centres.
BRICS condemns the bombing of Gaza and strikes on Iran with the language of international law, civilian protection, and sovereignty. But when it comes to Ukraine (a country invaded by one of its founding members) the silence is deafening. This isn’t a blind spot. It’s the logic of bloc politics. BRICS positions itself as a voice for the Global South, an alternative to Western hypocrisy, but it has its own double standards. Anti-imperialism loses its meaning if it only runs one way. The emerging multipolar order may be less Western, but it is not necessarily more just.
Russia is at war with Britain. The US can no longer be trusted. And our government’s response? First aid classes and cadet training. If this is what cohesion looks like, we are in real trouble.
This is how Putin wages war: deliberate strikes on civilian centres, on housing, schools, power stations, hospitals.
As Putin wages a war without end, Britain prepares for conflict in the only way it knows how, by cutting everything except the military.
Donald Trump claimed he would end the war in Ukraine on “day one,” yet 54 days into his presidency, the conflict rages on, because his so-called peace plan is nothing more than a capitulation to Putin’s imperial ambitions.
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 a world where Trump’s transactional imperialism jeopardises peace, NATO’s legitimacy is in crisis, and Britain’s dominant class chooses arms over welfare, can workers forge a genuine alternative? This article explores why confronting militarism demands international solidarity and socialist transformation.
Donald Trump has returned to power, and his vision for American dominance is clearer than ever. His latest move, demanding $500 billion in rare earth minerals from Ukraine, exposes the raw, extractive logic of his administration.
In this blog post, I delve into the complex dynamics of the Labour Party’s response to the war in Ukraine and challenge the oversimplified critiques presented by Kevin Bean in his Weekly Worker article. I emphasise the importance of a nuanced approach, party unity, and pragmatism, exploring the diverse perspectives within the Labour left and their contributions to the broader political discourse.
My frustration with those on the left refusing active solidarity with the Ukrainian people.
