The rest of the blog
Behind the convenient façade of connectivity, online life fractures shared meaning and hijacks lived experience into a hyperreal dataspace optimised for extraction, prediction, and control. Fragmented perspectives oscillate desperately between terminals struggling to capture scarce attention now more valuable than ever.
Karl Marx’s controversial 1844 essay “On the Jewish Question” has sparked heated debate over whether it reflects antisemitism or offers insights into capitalism’s exploitative nature. This essay examines Marx’s inflammatory rhetoric and problematic stereotypes while also considering the enduring relevance of his critique of commodification and alienation.
Our pensions should be invested to build the stable, just future we all deserve. But currently, these funds are financing the very oil and gas giants who are profiting from the destruction of our planet.
From silencing dissent to expanding state powers, the Conservative government is pursuing an increasingly authoritarian agenda that should deeply concern all who value human rights and democracy, argues Simon Pearson. Their inflammatory rhetoric and restrictions on protests, speech, and accountability mechanisms reflect a dangerous slide towards illiberalism.
In this scathing critique, Simon Pearson eviscerates Labour leader Keir Starmer’s recent Chatham House speech on the Israeli action against Hamas, arguing his bourgeois perspective perpetuates imperialist myths and distracts from the radical struggle needed for Palestinian liberation.
The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas has sparked heated debate globally, with some accusing critics of Israel’s actions of being antisemitic. This argues for nuance in understanding the crisis, differentiating between legitimate critiques of state policies and bigotry, and calling for ethical consistency in advocating for human rights on both sides.
The Middle East now stands on a knife’s edge as cycles of violence threaten to engulf the region in widening conflict. But even amid the drumbeats of war sounded by the powerful, hope persists in the solidarity of ordinary people demanding justice and charting a course away from the abyss.
The inexorable march of technological progress casts a shadow over humanity’s future, as artificial minds made for war threaten to surpass and subjugate their mortal creators.
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.
As we approach the anniversary of the start of the Iraq War, there has been a surge in retrospective articles examining the conflict and its aftermath. These introspective pieces provide an opportunity for us to reevaluate the decisions that led to the war, its far-reaching consequences, and the lessons we can glean from this turbulent period in history. By engaging in such reflection, we can better understand the complexities of war and work towards preventing similar catastrophes in the future.
The Iraq War was not just a regrettable event but a calamitous blunder that continues to reverberate to this day. In scrutinising the reasons behind the conflict and its lingering effects, I’ve delved into three recent articles covering the legacy of the Iraq war, two in Foreign Affairs and one from The Atlantic. These articles detail the ideological and strategic forces that drove the US and UK towards invasion, leading to catastrophic outcomes that were both unforeseen and brutal. The war’s impact gave rise to widespread displacement, which in turn became a breeding ground for violent extremist groups. The dire consequences of misguided military interventions serve as a harsh reminder that war always comes at a great cost, and that those in power must take heed of the lessons of history.
My frustration with those on the left refusing active solidarity with the Ukrainian people.