21st Century Fascism: Fascism Today

Ukrainian fascist militia glorifies their Nazi past

By Wevergton Brito

Wevergton Brito is vice president of the Brazilian Centre for Solidarity with Peoples and the Struggle for Peace (Cebrapaz)
 
The fascism of the 21st century took a long time to mature, and its gestation began as soon as the fascism of the past century suffered a politically, ideologically, and historically demoralising defeat in 1945. 
The epithets "fascist", “national socialist” or "Nazi-fascist" once worn with pride, became a disgrace. Even the most brutal right-wingers began to renounce fascism, which had become synonymous with crime. 
The USSR and the communist movement, which were the most important forces in the anti-fascist struggle, emerged politically strengthened from the Nazi-fascist defeat. 
To mitigate this threatening influence, imperialism reacted on multiple fronts. In the ideological sphere, it resorted to all kinds of distortions to conceal the fact that fascism was a capitalist phenomenon, supported by capitalists. The Theory of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt was, in this regard, a valuable asset for the bourgeoisie. However, Hannah Arendt’s convenient theory failed to explain why "Western democracy," supposedly anti-totalitarian, supported until their very last days the two remaining fascist dictatorships in Europe: Franco's in Spain and Salazar's in Portugal (both of which survived for three decades after the fall of the Third Reich thanks to such support). 
Not to mention the support for the Apartheid regime in South Africa, McCarthyism as well as the organisation and financing of military coups in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and many others, of which I will cite just one more example. 
In Indonesia, an anti-communist purge carried out by the military with CIA backing killed, in 1965, an estimated one million people. That’s right: one million people. The massacre installed General Hadji Mohamed Suharto in power, who would rule the country dictatorially with full U.S. support from 1967 to 1998. 
The truth is that fascist ideas have never ceased to be an instrument in the service of imperialism, one way or another. 

Neo-liberalism and the Unipolar Power of the USA

The late 1980s and early 1990s marked the dismantling of the USSR and the socialist bloc in Eastern Europe. It was the time of the temporary triumph of bourgeois ideals. Before that, the bourgeoisie had already been conducting advanced experiments in neo-liberalism – an aggressive imposition of capital aimed at destroying any social control that could create obstacles to unbridled exploitation and speculation on a global scale. 
One of the most important theorists of neo-liberalism, Wilhelm Röpke, explicitly advocated the need for a certain level of authoritarianism to overcome popular resistance to neo=liberalism: “It is possible that my view on a 'strong State' (a government that governs) is even ‘more fascist’ because I would really like to see all economic policy decisions concentrated in the hands of a vigorous and entirely independent State, unweakened by pluralist forces of a corporatist nature…people need to get used to the fact that there is also a presidential democracy, authoritarian, yes, and even – horrible dictum – a dictatorial democracy”. 
The end of the dispute between the socialist bloc, led by the USSR, and the capitalist bloc, led by the USA, with the emergence of the latter's unipolar power, radically changed the conditions of political struggle – to the detriment of the working class. 
The global imposition of neo-liberalism was a powerful expression of the bourgeoisie's ideological victory. From that point on, in terms of social representation, at best, only thematic and atomised organisations (such as NGOs) that played a passive and subordinate role in non-threatening issues would be tolerated. Collective emancipation projects would be a thing of the past. 
However, more than 30 years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, bourgeois democracy is widely discredited. How did this happen? The two main promises made after the fall of the Berlin Wall were never fulfilled. What were these promises? 

First: A World of Peace – With the end of the USSR and the socialist bloc, a world of peace and peaceful resolution of conflicts based on the United Nations Charter would be established, they claimed. Yet, the destruction of Yugoslavia and Libya, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the attacks on Syria, etc., quickly shattered this illusion.
 
Second – A World of Economic Prosperity – Neo-liberal globalisation would bring economic and social progress within everyone’s reach, they asserted. Instead, in capitalist countries, wealth concentration sky-rocketed and phenomena associated with hunger and misery (begging, homelessness, etc.) emerged even in imperialist core nations. 
In 2015, a study by the Economic Policy Institute (USA) found that the purchasing power of American workers had been practically stagnant since 1978. The report introduction stated: 
“The wage stagnation of the vast majority of workers was not caused by abstract economic trends. On the contrary, wages were suppressed by policy choices made in favour of those who hold more income, wealth, and power”.
 
In the USA and Europe, new generations struggle to maintain the standard of living their parents enjoyed, which has profoundly affected the middle classes. This recalls Umberto Eco’s warning: “One of the characteristics of historical fascisms was the appeal to frustrated middle classes, devalued by some economic crisis or political humiliation”. 
Work has become precarious and devalued. Social mobility has drastically declined, and studies by non-Marxist economists, such as the French economist Thomas Piketty, highlight the growing trend toward the formation of a global financial oligarchy. 
On the other hand, especially in Europe, communist parties, which for decades were the main references for the most combative sector of the proletariat and the channels through which anti-system opinion was expressed, either dissolved in the face of the collapse of the socialist bloc or followed the path of transformation into parties of the Establishment. Some changed their names, programmes, and objectives. Others preserved their identities, though in some cases making serious ideological concessions and, in almost all cases, being strongly impacted by the defeat of the socialist bloc. This resulted in a sharp decline in political influence, during a phase of strategic retreat for the revolutionary movement. 
Within the broader left-wing spectrum, social-democratic parties – some of which even retained the designation "socialist" – fully embraced the neo-liberal and Atlanticist agenda. In Portugal, France, and Italy, to name just a few examples, it was social democracy that dismantled much of the welfare state, degraded labour conditions, and blindly adhered to the dictates of NATO and the United States. 
Disillusionment and discontent are gripping the masses. This phenomenon, with its own nuances and characteristics, has been repeated across the globe, leaving part of the proletariat and middle strata without viable alternatives on the horizon, leading to a sense of political and ideological orphanhood, making them easy prey for the falsely anti-system demagoguery of the far right. 
In Italy, in the 2022 election, the "Regioni Rosse" (Red Regions) –  historically the electoral stronghold of the communists of the former Communist Party of Italy – voted overwhelmingly for the fascists of the Fratelli d'Italia (Brothers of Italy) party, led by current Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. The motto of  "Brothers of Italy" is "God, Homeland, and Family," and their symbol is a tricolour flame representing the fire rising from Mussolini's tomb. 
Here, we must highlight the different political developments of European social democracy compared to some sectors of Latin American social democracy after the Second World War. 
While in Europe, social-democratic parties generally became direct representatives of capital and imperialism, in Latin America, many parties of this tradition maintained anti-imperialist orientations and commitments to progressive popular causes. Examples include the Socialist Party of Salvador Allende in Chile and, much later in Brazil, the Democratic Labour Party (PDT) of Brizola, and more prominently, the Workers' Party (PT) of Lula. 
This is one of the factors that may help explain why Latin America became a global bastion of resistance to the hegemonic neo-liberal agenda starting in the 1990s. 
At the beginning of the 1990s, there was only one left-wing government in Latin America and the Caribbean: Cuba. From Mexico to Argentina, neoliberalism was triumphant. However, the neo-liberal project sparked waves of popular discontent. 
Resistance and struggle arose in every corner of the region. After the initial shock of the collapse of the socialist bloc – and despite the various interpretations of the causes and significance of that downfall – the committed Latin American left, with the active participation of communist parties, understood the need to find broad forms of action, demonstrating mobilisation and organisational capacity. 
In 1998, Hugo Chávez won the presidential elections in Venezuela. In successive years, progressive forces won elections in Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Paraguay, Honduras, and El Salvador. 
Public policies were implemented to combat hunger and social injustices. The sovereign integration of Latin America and the Caribbean gained unprecedented momentum, with the creation or strengthening of mechanisms such as Mercosur, Unasur, CELAC, and ALBA. 
For the first time in nearly 100 years – since the early 20th century, when they consolidated continental hegemony – the Americans could no longer treat the region as their backyard. They had to watch as the continent as a whole gravitated increasingly toward China, and to some extent, Russia.
 
the "end of history" 

 
The victory over the socialist bloc in the late 1980s convinced capitalism that its model of bourgeois democracy was destined to be the mandatory and eternal standard. "It is the end of history," proclaimed one of its ideologues, Francis Fukuyama. 
Such was their confidence that fascist ideas and methods were relegated to a secondary role, as a tactical reserve. Even in the most developed capitalist countries, there was some progress on cultural and social issues that posed no real threat to the bourgeoisie's class power. But that phase, in historical terms, lasted only a blink of an eye. 
A growing challenge to US unipolar dominance, led by the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation, began to take shape, making the emergence of a multipolar world an undeniable reality. In 2009, the presidents of Brazil, Russia, India, and China met in Moscow, and two years later, with South Africa's inclusion, the BRICS bloc was born. 
In 2013, China launched a new proposal for economic globalisation: the "Belt & Road Initiative" also known as the New Silk Road. This project challenges neo-liberal globalisation, which seeks to perpetuate relations of subservience, as it is based on the Chinese President Xi Jinping’s thesis of "shared development for humanity." 
Faced with powerful geopolitical shifts –including movements in Asia, Eurasia, and Africa that began contesting US unipolar power, the anti-neoliberal resistance in Latin America, and the growing discontent of workers and the middle classes in Europe—the "tactical reserve" arsenal of fascism was once again activated. Anti-communist, authoritarian, racist, misogynistic, and irrationalist rhetoric gained new momentum. 
In Latin America, which we will discuss further, the experience of progressive governments was constantly under attack. There were periods of greater stability, but never of a truce. 
What was once hidden in the sewers has begun to emerge, aided by imperialism and the traditional right wing, which, it must be noted, skilfully exploited the limits, mistakes, and shortcomings of the progressive camp. 

The Return of the Big Lie 
 
A close reading of the book in which Hitler laid out his profession of faith, Mein Kampf, reveals that the Nazi leader was deeply fascinated by the use of lies as a mass manipulation technique. According to Hitler, the use of a colossal, absurd lie would always leave the public with some doubt that there must be some truth in a "Big Lie," because no one would be crazy enough to invent such nonsense unless there was some real basis for it. 
Using the pretext of “denouncing” the so-called “Jewish and Marxist lies” Hitler could not conceal what was, in fact, a strategic proposal for his movement and his main propaganda technique, which became known as the “Big Lie” method “… in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper layers of their emotional nature …and thus, in the primitive simplicity of their minds, they fall more easily victim to the big lie than to the small lie…t would never enter their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the audacity to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts that prove this may be clearly brought to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and continue to think that there might be some other explanation” (Hitler, in Mein Kampf). 
And indeed, this method was applied with resounding success by the Nazis, convincing millions of Germans that communism was a Jewish invention and that Germany lost the First World War due to the betrayal of Jews and communists. 
The journalist William Shirer, a staunch conservative, witnessed first-hand the Nazis' rise to power and reports in his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: “Many times in a German home or office, or sometimes in casual conversations with a stranger in a restaurant, a beer hall, a café, I came across the most exotic statements from seemingly educated and intelligent people. It was evident that they were repeating some absurd excerpt heard on the radio or read in the newspapers. Sometimes I was tempted to point out certain truths, but on these occasions, I was met with such a look of disbelief, such shocking silence, as if I had blasphemed against the Almighty, to the point that I understood the futility of trying to reach a mind that had been perverted and for whom the facts of life had been transformed into whatever Hitler and Goebbels, with their cynical disdain for the truth, said they were”. 
Shirer’s account is shockingly relevant today, as it reflects the experiences of any anti-fascist engaging with friends and family who support 21st century fascism, regardless of the country in which they operate, with few exceptions. 
Without a doubt, the Trumpist Steve Bannon and his acolytes have studied this technique. With the rise of social media, the effectiveness of the “Big Lie” has been amplified and deployed on a global scale, with the undisguised complicity of mainstream media when it served their interests. Often, by the time it ceased to be convenient, the damage was already irreparable. The monster had taken on a life of its own. 
Millions of Americans firmly believe that Joe Biden is a communist and that communists rigged the 2020 US election. During the last US election, I saw on TV a Trump supporter declaring to a reporter that Democrats control hurricanes and tornadoes, directing them toward areas with more Republican voters. This claim circulated on social media before the election and was “confirmed” by a Trumpist Congresswoman, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who stated, “Yes, they can control the weather”. Perhaps not even Hitler could have imagined such a degree of insanity. 
(

Trump’s big day

The Trump administration launched a global trade war this week with a tranche of tariffs on most countries – including the United Kingdom. Trump announced a 10 per cent baseline tariff on all imports wherever they come from and higher rates on a number of countries whom he deemed the “worst offenders” in terms of imposing tariffs on American goods. Britain is in the 10 per cent general band. Even the uninhabited Heard and McDonald islands, a remote Australian outpost near Antarctica, is on the basic rate – even though the population consists largely of seals and penguins.
A few,  devoid of any meaningful trade with the USA like Belarus, Cuba, Democratic Korea, Iran and the Russian Federation, get off scot-free. Others were not so lucky. Cambodia tops the list at 49 per cent and Vietnam is second on 46. People’s China gets 34 per cent, pushing their overall tariff to a stomping 54 per cent,
Tariffs are used by the capitalists to boost domestic manufacturers and punish those from other countries whose interests conflict with theirs. A tariff is essentially a tax paid by companies who import goods from the targeted countries. This is then normally passed on to the consumer in higher prices. The Trump administration seeks to “Make America Great Again”, largely at the expense of its own allies, and boost American manufacturing through tariffs and protectionism while using secret diplomacy and economic blackmail to achieve its goals. 
By turning trade into an over-simplistic tit-for-tat game, the Trump administration is dismantling a global trade system based on efficiency, specialisation and mutual benefit and hurting both the US economy and the global economy at large. The idea of “reciprocal tariffs” is particularly misguided. The principle of comparative advantage allows countries to focus on what they do best and trade for the rest. Ignoring this leads to economic inefficiencies. 
Despite Trump's claim that higher tariffs will help bring in revenue for the government and revitalise American manufacturing, economists have warned that such measures will push up prices for US consumers and businesses, disrupt global trade, and hurt global economy.
European Union chief Ursula von der Leyen called Trump's tariffs a "major blow to the world economy"  while People’s China promises counter-measures. China “will take necessary measures to resolutely safeguard its legitimate rights and interests" a Chinese Foreign Office spokesperson told the media in Beijing this week saying that there is no winner in a trade or tariff war, and that protectionism offers no solution.
On the White House lawn Trump said this was “Liberation Day” holding up a board showing the rates he was imposing on different countries throughout the world. He said a “golden age” was coming back the United States.
That wasn’t the view in the money markets of New York and the City of London as shares of the multinational companies tumbled when they heard the news. Crude oil, Big Tech stocks and even the going rate for the US dollar against other currencies fell. Even gold, which hit records recently as investors sought something safer to own, has dipped.
As big brands lose their value in early trading and shares crash on Wall Street many fear that far from heralding a new era Trump’s draconian protectionist measures will simply trigger a trade war and another global capitalist slump.

Resist Nato!

On 18th March 2025 the Bundestag [the German parliament] voted to change the German constitution to allow unlimited debt for military spending. A majority of the “old” parliamentarians, who were voted out on 23rd February, revealed their plans to expand German imperialism by preparing the country for war at the expense of its residents.
The Bundestag has set aside a 500 billion euro special fund for “infrastructure,” meaning the military. Instead of investing in basic needs and public social services like schools, hospitals and smaller initiatives that uphold social welfare, Germany is investing in anti-social warfare.
Although Christian Democratic Union leader and likely next Chancellor Joachim-Friedrich Merz claims this fund is to “defend” Germany from Russian attack and the need for Nato, the German government is playing into the hands of weapons companies seizing the billion-dollar cash-in from the arms race, and US imperialism that has turned its attention to the Asia-Pacific region in its preparation for war with China.
The law is a pathway to weaponise public spending – a service that won’t be returned. Imperialist countries fuel global conflict, colonialism and conquest by supplying weapons, exploiting land and resources and forcing people from their homes. All the while, they use migrants as easy scapegoats to gain votes and at the same time profit off the backs of exploited migrant workers. Out of proportion with the growing inflation, salaries won’t rise, and several sectors are on strike due to burnout of health care workers and loss of public funding. We will not bow down.
Yet military facilities grow. Volkswagen factories’ management are resuming conversations with weapons factory supplier Rheinmetall to repurpose the car factories into military infrastructure for production. These are the same factories once used to fuel the war economy of Germany in the 1930s.
While millions of euros are spent on “defence” the people will suffer. In Berlin and across Germany, cuts to social services, education, health care and welfare programmes leave many people unsupported – especially working people, migrants, women, LGBT people and children.
Rather than seeking solutions to the root causes of violence on the continent, Germany is playing a leading role in militarising the European Union for the benefit of the arms industry.
These cracks in the US-led Nato alliance are an opportunity for the anti-war, anti-fascist and pro-people movements to expose the German parties and Nato for their fundamental role in causing instability and violence across the world, from Palestine to the Philippines.
At the same time as the vote, people gathered across Germany to raise their voices against Germany’s warmongering and further militarization. Let us unite against our primary enemy, US imperialism and its European lackeys.
We oppose Germany’s imperialist expansion of the war machine! We call on all anti-war, anti-fascist and peace-loving people to join the RESIST NATO 2025 Campaign.
The organisations of Resist NATO 2025 are conducting an education and mobilization campaign to mount mass opposition from across Europe and around the world to directly confront the NATO Summit in The Hague, Netherlands, happening this coming June.

Rise and Shine!

 By John Maryon

Originally forming part of a biblical verse from the book of Isaiah that calls for God's light to shine, today it has become an idem to encourage anyone to get up and achieve something. And in the context of the working class to stand up for their rights through class struggle. An essential time to take the path of building socialism and lay the foundations of a beautiful communist society. The New Communist Party of Britain (NCP) is part of that struggle and recognises that complete emancipation from capitalism and imperialism can only be achieved by a revolutionary change.
Our chosen route and rate of progress will be influenced by both internal social and economic conditions and also the international threat from imperialist aggression.  We may face trade sanctions, attempts to cause political instability and “colour revolutions” or direct military aggression.  The British road would have been much quicker when the spirit of revolution was in the air immediately following the Second World War. and before Mrs Thatcher sold off the family silver. These events are history so let us examine the prospects for building socialism in Britain today.
We must through our political work overcome the apathy and servile acceptance by the masses to their deteriorating social and economic conditions. Within a socialist society people would not be left to shiver in the cold, too afraid to turn on their expensive heating.  Bringing back the Electricity and Gas Boards would provide a mechanism to control prices and allow for long term strategic planning that would provide secure and affordable supplies.  Engineers, not marketing men, would decide how to invest and provide the best possible service to their consumers.  Events such as the Heathrow outage would become impossible and energy costs would be a fraction of today's inflated values. State owned utilities are much more efficient and accountable than rip off get rich quick outfits.
Water, fresh air, shelter and food are all basic human requirements. Water and sewage systems were once upon a time in England provided by local councils and paid for through the rates. Public ownership of these essential public services ensured affordable services that were the envy of the world. Millions of pounds wasted on water meters could have been spent fixing leaks. In the good old days we could water our favourite flowers and vegetables with confidence. 
Socialist housing would mean a roof over their head for everyone with rough sleeping just a horrible nightmare from the capitalist past. A National Housing Board should be established to build enough wonderful council houses  for all who need them.  In the Democratic People's Republic of Korea housing is now becoming a free vital service paid for from the profits of State enterprises. This is the power of true socialism.  How unlike Britain where rents are becoming unaffordable and homeowners struggle all their lives to pay the mortgage on a home which may then have to be sold, to pay extortionate fees for private care homes, when they become elderly. 
Education is an investment for the future. A proper socialist government would make education free up to university level and create trade apprenticeships for all those that need them. Every one would reach their full potential and society would flourish.  In Britain today the children of deprived or broken families are not encouraged by the system to make an effort. They remain destined to live a dull, hard life in some dead end job on minimum wage.  To build a successful socialist society we have to enable these children to rise and shine. A full socialist society would overcome the social barriers between so called manual workers and those who occupy white collar professions.  It is important to note that the so called middle class are just better off members of the working class itself. They also serve the super rich capitalists who run their world. 
Those who are fortunate enough to live in a low stress caring socialist society are starting to become more healthy and live longer than we are.  Rebuilding the NHS to the body it was intended to be would provide free full dental treatment, free podiatry care and free prescriptions and full medical and social care for long term sick and elderly. And importantly proper loving care for those mentally ill. Rapid referral would avoid waiting for years in pain for treatment.
We seek a return to a fully funded aftercare service to allow patients to stay in convalescent homes before being returned home to an often cold bleak house without proper food. And of course under socialism, doctors, nurses, ambulance staff and all ancillary workers would be paid properly with secure defined benefit pensions.  New hospitals would be planned well in advance of need and steps taken for proper full funding. No PFI would be allowed. When the NHS was founded in the 1940s it should have been allowed to manufacture its own drugs and equipment, which would have saved a fortune. 
People's China has demonstrated how its people's have been able to rise and shine under socialism.  What, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, it has managed to achieve is amazing, improving the quality of life for over a billion people with infrastructure development and a dynamic expanding economy.  A socialist Britain would recreate a national public owned integrated bus and train network for a safe, green and stress free environment. Socialism would make available large amounts of cheap renewable energy to power a new transport system. 
Socialism is far more than just improving people's standards of living and welfare. Under it's benevolent wing the arts, music, books and films are able to flourish, stimulate, enrich and nurture an ethos of comradeship, harmony and cooperation in opposition to the selfish individualism of western society that leads to conflict and aggression.  The working class may create and enjoy its own culture, one without elitism. 
One may well ask where all the money is coming from to construct and develop our brave new world.  I have a little list.  Major fiscal changes to tax the wealthy and use the money to help the less fortunate in our society. Modest profits from the nationalised utilities and industries would be ploughed back to improve and expand services.  An end to outsourcing by the NHS and other public services would lead to impressive savings. Slashing the obscene levels of military expenditure, and the funding of neo-fascists, would enable billions of pounds to be directed to peaceful construction and building a better life for everyone.  As the economy expands under socialism greater public income would be generated to make tax cuts a reality. We would quit NATO, forget the European Union and join BRICS for expanded trade.  And finally we could join China's Belt & Road Initiative to benefit from infrastructure investment projects. 
Socialism offers a bright future in which we all can excel. With it would come a new spirit of fraternity and comradeship.  Capitalism has little left to offer apart from continued recession, economic decline and endless warmongering.  I know who I am batting for.  Support the NCP and hasten the day we can all rejoice!

21st Century Fascism: Reflections for Debate

  by Wevergton Brito

Vice President of the Brazilian Centre for Solidarity with the Peoples and Struggle for Peace (Cebrapaz) 
 
Nazi-fascist ideas were so powerful, so influential, and caused so many traumas and disasters in the 20th century that they continue to strongly impact today's far-right currents. One of these strands has once again taken command of the world's leading imperialist power, the United States, under the leadership of Donald Trump. 
However, the legitimate concern for theoretical rigour raises an important question: is it correct to label the most significant elements of the modern far-right as fascist? 
Clearly, not all conservative or right-wing movements can be lumped into the category of fascism. Such a mistake would lead antifascists to commit tactical errors, such as failing to exploit contradictions that could weaken and isolate the enemy, distancing them from potential temporary allies. Nevertheless, it is vital to correctly understand what we are facing; otherwise, there is a risk of adopting insufficient measures. 

What is fascism?
 
The core definition of fascism, as formulated by the International Communist Movement and particularly by Georgi Dimitrov in his famous report presented at the 7th Congress of the Communist International in 1935, remains strikingly relevant. It was summarised in the Short Philosophical Dictionary (Rosental & Iudin), published by the Soviet state: "Fascism is the most reactionary and openly terrorist form of the dictatorship of financial capital, established by the imperialist bourgeoisie to crush the resistance of workers and all progressive elements in society. The rise of fascism is proof that the bourgeoisie can no longer impose its interests through the routine means of normal bourgeois democracy". 
For Brazilian Marxist Leandro Konder, in his book Introduction to Fascism (1977), some of the main characteristics of fascism include: anti-communism, charismatic leadership, authoritarianism, militarism, chauvinism, massive propaganda,irrationalism, and the use of violence as a political method. 
Greek theorist Nicos Poulantzas, on the other hand, argues that the defining aspect of fascism is the existence of a politically mobilised mass base, differentiating it from other authoritarian expressions such as military dictatorships, which rely on occasional mass support, or Bonapartist dictatorships, which also depend on a charismatic leader and have a mass base but do not evolve into an organised social force. 
Even considering the most well-known definitions of fascism, it is almost impossible to separate fascism from contemporary far-right movements, as we inevitably find in their platforms and/or practices some – if not all – of the essential elements of fascism. The only significant exception today is anti-Semitism, which has become residual among fascists, largely because Israel has become one of the global capitals of the far right. 
From a political standpoint, attempting to separate the most significant elements of today’s far right from 21st-century fascism – or, as some prefer, neo-fascism – is a futile effort. The modern far right and fascism are, at best, Siamese twins, connected by the brain and the heart, both born from the same “bitch” as Brecht would put it: capitalism in its imperialist stage. 
What we are facing today, embodied in the leadership of Donald Trump, is 21st century fascism. A fascism that does not dare to speak its name, yet fascism nonetheless, as it possesses all the essential attributes of classical fascism. This will be explored in this series of three articles. 
Expecting today’s fascism to be identical in every respect to what we might call the “original” fascism reflects a schematic mindset, one that Lenin had already criticised: "The phenomenon is always richer than the law…and therefore, any law is limited, incomplete, and approximate”.
Let us turn to history to understand, in broad strokes, how this phenomenon has evolved up to the present day. 

Yesterday’s Fascism

 
The term “fascist” gained prominence in 1919 when Benito Mussolini created his armed militias, the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, a merger of two groups that had referred to themselves as "fascists" since 1915. The Fasci Italiani di Combattimento later gave rise to the National Fascist Party, which seized power in 1922. 
The word fascio (plural: fasci) means "bundle," referring to the fasces – an ancient symbol of power in the Roman Empire. This symbolism was part of Mussolini’s mythological narrative to make Italy relive the grandeur of Ancient Rome. 
Mussolini had been a socialist activist before radically changing his stance at the outbreak of the First World War. He enthusiastically supported Italy’s participation in the war and increasingly adopted a virulent anti-Marxist, chauvinist, and reactionary position. 
The “founding fathers” of fascism, Mussolini and Hitler, clearly defined the foundational purpose of fascism: the fight against communism. 
Mussolini declared that anti-communism was the soul of fascism, but he did not consider that sufficient. To mobilise the masses, he cynically argued, it was necessary to create a myth: "Denying Bolshevism is necessary, but something must be affirmed. We created our myth. A myth is a faith, it is a passion. It does not have to be a reality....our myth is the nation, our myth is the greatness of the nation!"  
What was happening in Italy was closely followed in Germany by Adolf Hitler, a young man with a deeply prejudiced and conservative mentality. In 1921, he assumed the leadership of a party founded the previous year: the National Socialist German Workers' Party, abbreviated as NAZI from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische in German. 
Hitler idolised Mussolini and Fascist Italy. It was a beacon to follow. In 1925, he enthusiastically stated in his book Mein Kampf that "the struggle being waged by Fascist Italy against the three main weapons of Judaism...the banning of secret Masonic lodges, the persecution of the internationalist press, as well as the constant battle against international Marxism, on the other hand, the constant consolidation of Fascist doctrine, will enable, over the years, the Italian government to increasingly serve the interests of its people without fear of the Jewish hydra". 
In the context of the great economic crisis triggered in 1929, known as the New York Stock Market Crash or the Great Depression, the fascist movement gained momentum worldwide, and Hitler rose to power in 1933. 
Dimitrov characterised Nazism as follows: "The most reactionary form of fascism is the German type. It has the audacity to call itself National Socialism, despite having nothing in common with socialism. Hitlerian fascism is not just bourgeois nationalism; it is brutal chauvinism. It is a system of government based on political banditry, a system of provocations and torture against the working class and the revolutionary elements of the peasant masses, the petty bourgeoisie, and intellectuals. It is medieval cruelty and barbarism, unbridled aggression against other peoples and countries". 
In Hitler’s case, the mobilising myth of national greatness was combined with the myth of the "Jewish conspiracy" widely spread through the first "fake news" produced on an industrial scale: the book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which allegedly revealed Jewish plans for world domination. The difference between him and Mussolini was that Hitler genuinely believed in his myths. 
The Nazis' antisemitism was far more virulent than that of Fascist Italy, which only adopted anti-Jewish laws 16 years after Mussolini came to power, and even then, due to some degree of German pressure. However, aside from a few nuances (such as this one), Hitler shared almost everything with the ideology of Italian fascism: the concept of Lebensraum (spazio vitale in Italian) to justify the invasion of sovereign countries, as well as fierce anti-communism. Marxism, for Hitler, was the "weapon" of Judaism: "Over the brain and soul of decent people, the fear of Judaism, the weapon of Marxists, gradually descends like a nightmare." (Mein Kampf) 
The rebirth of Germany was only possible by eradicating Marxism: "Invincible, however, seem the millions who oppose national resurgence due to political convictions, invincible as long as their Marxist ideas are not combated, torn from their hearts and minds." (Mein Kampf) 
So why the red colour in the Nazi flag? Hitler himself responds with unusual cynicism (cynicism, by the way, is one of the timeless characteristics of fascism): "The red colour of our posters was chosen by us after precise and deep reflection, with the aim of provoking the Left, of enraging it and inducing it to attend our assemblies; all of this, if only to allow us to come into contact and speak with these people." (Mein Kampf) 
This also indirectly reveals why the word "socialism" was in the name of his party, which 
becomes clear in another passage of the same book: "Only the red colour of our posters made them flock to our meeting halls. The bourgeoisie was horrified that we had also adopted the red of the Bolsheviks, suspecting behind this some ambiguous attitude. The nationalist circles of Germany whispered among themselves the same suspicion, that deep down, we were nothing but a kind of Marxists, perhaps simply masked Marxists or, rather, socialists… How many good laughs we had at the expense of these idiots and cowards". (Mein Kampf) 
Revealing once again the genesis of his ideology, Hitler, as early as 1925, foretold the defeat of Bolshevism, saying that Germany "casts its gaze to the lands of the East": "Destiny itself seems to indicate the direction to us. By abandoning Russia to Bolshevism, fate has stripped the Russian people of the educated class that created and ensured its existence as a state. The organisation of a Russian state was not the result of the Slavic political capacity in Russia but a marvelous example of the efficiency 
of Germanic elements as state-builders within an inferior race." (Mein Kampf) 
In other words, according to Hitler, by expelling the "educated class" from power, the communists purged Russia of its "Germanic elements," making it an easy prey. 
Exactly 20 years after the publication of Mein Kampf, in April 1945, the Nazi leader, then confined in his bunker, with the Red Army of the "inferior race" occupying almost all of Berlin, confided in his followers, lamenting not having secured an alliance with England, as such an alliance would have allowed him to fully pursue "the objective of my life and the reason for the rise of National Socialism: the extermination of Bolshevism".

  imperialism without a mask
 
Another common point between Mussolini and Hitler: both rose to power with the support of massive movements and the enthusiastic backing and financing of the economic and political elites of Italy, Germany, and other parts of the world. Nazism, for example, garnered the admiration of the magnate Henry Ford, who became one of the financiers of the Nazi party and was decorated by the German government with the Order of Merit of the German Eagle on 30th July 1938. 
Regarding international politics, fascism has innovated in relation to other forms of expansionism. The Europeans sought to justify colonialism as an expedition to convert pagans to Christianity and civilise the savages. Manifest Destiny, the ideology behind US expansion across the Americas, conveyed more or less the same idea: that Americans, as legitimate Anglo-Saxons, were destined by God to civilise the continent. Fascism, on the other hand, virtually dispensed with global legitimising justifications. The invasion of territories previously belonging to free peoples was justified solely by Italy’s and 
Germany’s particular interests in securing their spazio vitale and lebensraum period. 
This is precisely how one of the most famous historians of Nazism, Joachim Fest – a conservative of the old school – defined it: “What made Hitler a new phenomenon in history was the fact that he never had any civilisational notion. The world’s conquering powers – from ancient Rome to the Holy Roman Empire, Napoleonic France, or the British Empire – always claimed, however tenuously, the promise of peace, progress, and freedom for humanity. Hitler, on the  contrary, abandoned any ornamentation in his conquest and expansion of power, considering it unnecessary even for mere theatric”. 
Recently, Donald Trump simultaneously threatened the sovereignty of three allied countries: he wants to take the Panama Canal from Panama and Greenland from Denmark. As for Canada, Trump wants the entire country. The American magnate also made no pretense, justifying annexation simply, in his own words: “We need them for our economic security”. 

Dream on Starmer!

The way Starmer tells it wages are growing faster than prices. “Jobs up. Inflation down. Interest rates down. NHS waiting lists down. Houses and infrastructure unblocked. Free breakfast clubs rolling out. National Living Wage increasing. National Minimum Wage increasing. Defence spending increased. Two million more NHS appointments delivered. Housebuilding to be at the highest level in 40 years. People to be £500 a year better off. The Tories blocked change for Britain. My Labour government is delivering it”. The reality on the street is another story. Homelessness, poverty and despair.

The Labour government wants to slash £6.4 billion from benefits spending by the end of the decade by making it harder to claim personal independent payments and cutting universal credit. The number of children living in poverty in the UK has reached a record high of almost 4.5 million. Charities say cuts to disability and incapacity benefits announced by the Labour Government will “push more disabled people into poverty and worsen people’s health”. Government estimates suggest welfare cuts will plunge thousands more children below the poverty line by the end of the decade. Oxfam, for example, said the figures were “as damning as they are heartbreaking”. Silvia Galandini from the charity said “it is morally repugnant that children, disabled people and carers are the ones who are taking the hit. It is unconscionable that the government is cutting social security while wilfully ignoring the huge potential revenue of a tiny tax on the super-rich, one that is overwhelmingly backed by the British public”. 
We’re in for another round of austerity – to pay for more missiles and nukes and above all to prop up end-game capitalism in Britain and the rest of Europe.
Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Independent bloc in Parliament says people did not elect a Labour government to push 50,000 more children into poverty. But “ever since this Labour government was elected, they have chosen to balance the books off the backs of the poor”.
Meanwhile Starmer and the Brussels cabal are running round Europe promoting their “coalition of the willing” in a last ditch bid to get a seat at the peace conference where the future of Ukraine will be decided. But as far as the Americans and Russians are concerned there’s only going to be two seats at the bargaining table. And they’re reserved for Trump and Putin.

Who killed Kennedy?

Well we all know it was Lee Harvey Oswald. The real question is why? Gunned down soon after his arrest Oswald took that secret to his grave. 
The story has been retold in a legion of books, documentaries and Hollywood movies over the years. We’ve all heard about the “grassy knoll”, the “missing witness” and the “second shooter”. But we still don’t know all the answers.
If it wasn’t the action of deranged madman we have to ask who actually benefitted from Kennedy’s death. If it was a conspiracy it was clearly one hundred per cent successful. Kennedy was killed and the assassin silenced two days later.
Many hoped that the release of the last batch of secret Kennedy files by the Trump administration would finally end the speculation around the assassination of JFK. But they didn’t. The documents only seemed to confirm the report of the official 1964 Warren Commission that concluded that President Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald and that Oswald acted entirely alone. 
Whether the assassination was the act of a lone sniper – and that’s certainly the view of Donald Trump  – or indeed part of a wider plot will nevertheless continue to fire the countless conspiracy theories that claim that vested capitalist interests, the Mafia, the CIA, Castro or even the Soviets were behind John F Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas on 22 November 1963. 

We can’t stop now!

Thousands are being massacred in Gaza, and the Western world remains silent. Israel has treacherously broken the ceasefire. For the last two weeks, Israel has completely blockaded Gaza, using starvation as a weapon of war as it continues to kill Palestinians with impunity in the occupied West Bank as well as the beleaguered Palestinian enclave. And now, with the blessing of Donald Trump the Zionists have resumed their genocidal assault on Gaza.  
The Israeli war-machine has killed at least 45,000 Palestinians in Gaza and displaced more than 90 per cent of Gaza’s population. Palestinians in Gaza are facing imminent famine. Yet our political leaders still refuse to call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, and for Britain to stop arming Israel. 
All we get are weasel words from Starmer. His Foreign Minister, David Lammy told the House of Commons on Monday that Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip was “appalling and unacceptable” and “a breach of international law”. The next day it was watered-down by Downing Street. Starmer’s spokesman Dave Pares refused to repeat that line, telling reporters that  “our position remains that Israel’s actions in Gaza have a clear risk of breaking international humanitarian law”. Shameful nonsense.
Hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets in London and all over the country to demand a halt to Zionist aggression and call for justice for the Palestinian Arabs. As Israel’s genocidal assault continues we must keep on taking action until the Palestinians win their fight for freedom. We can’t stop now!

Tax the rich instead

Opposition to Labour’s new austerity programme is growing. “Slashing disability benefits is a cruel political choice that will cost lives” says Jeremy Corbyn. The former Labour leader says none of the cuts announced are necessary and the government should tax the super-rich instead. Diane Abbott dismisses Sir Keir Starmer’s claim that the cuts in benefits had a moral purpose. “This is not about morality,” she says. It is “about the Treasury’s wish to balance the country’s books on the back of the most vulnerable and poor people in this society”. And the Greens tell Starmer that millions were struggling in “a deeply unfair, unequal economic system” while billionaires got ever richer. Why put the burden for tackling the crisis on the elderly, children, the sick and disabled “rather than on the shoulders of the super-rich with a wealth tax”. 
The Starmer government pleads poverty to justify means-testing the pensioners’ winter fuel benefit. It won’t pay compensation to the three million or so women born in the 1950s who were not properly informed about the state pension age increase. But it can find plenty to fuel the proxy war against Russia and pay for Trident and the rest of our so-called nuclear deterrent.  
The Labour biggies and the ruling class that they serve maintain that capitalism is the only game in town. And it is – but only for themselves. Capitalism, in the final analysis, is simply a system designed to perpetuate the rule of the landowners, industrialists and capitalists to ensure that a tiny handful of parasites can live the lives of Roman emperors off the backs of millions upon millions of working people. There is only one solution to the capitalist crisis – socialism! 

NHS England goes…

 

...in a reform of the health service that they say will cut bureaucracy and save money that will be better spent in delivering front-line services to the frail and infirm. Sir Keir Starmer said “I don’t see why decisions about £200 billion of taxpayer money on something as fundamental to our security as the NHS should be taken by an arm’s length body, NHS England. And I can’t, in all honesty, explain to the British people why they should spend their money on two layers of bureaucracy. That money could and should be spent on nurses, doctors, operations, GP appointments. So I’m bringing management of the NHS back into democratic control by abolishing NHS England. That will put the NHS back at the heart of government where it belongs, free it to focus on patients — less bureaucracy with more money for nurses”. Whether that actually happens when the NHS returns directly to the “democratic control” of the Department of Health and Social Care is, of course, a matter of opinion.
Hugh Alderwick, the Director of Policy at the Health Foundation, said “Abolishing NHS England is a watershed moment in how the English NHS is governed and managed – and ends a 12-year experiment with trying to manage the NHS more independently from ministers.
“There is some logic in bringing the workings of NHS England and the government more closely together – for example, to help provide clarity to the health service on priorities for improvement. And – in reality – it is impossible to take politics out of the NHS.
“But history tells us that rejigging NHS organisations is hugely distracting and rarely delivers the benefits politicians expect. Scrapping NHS England completely will cause disruption and divert time and energy of senior leaders at a time when attention should be focused on improving care for patients”.
The unions were equally unimpressed. PCS general secretary Fran Heathcote said “technology has a part to play in improving public services and enhancing our members’ job satisfaction, but we are also clear that it cannot be used as a blunt instrument to cut jobs. Better public services and better front-line delivery will require human beings making empathetic decisions, not automatons incapable of understanding people’s needs”.
Only time will tell whether this will end the shameful sight of patients left for days in hospital corridors due to the shortage of beds or better pay for nurses and the other medical staff that keep the NHS going. What is certain is that around 9,000 jobs will be axed at NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care as part of the changes – and that is largely what lies behind the Prime Minister’s decision.

Wakey, Wakey!

By John Maryon

A humorous exclamation from the 1940s. The catch-phrase of Billy Cotton’s band in the 1950s. A gentle expression softly whispered into the ear of a sleepy recruit by a benevolent Sergeant-Major.  Such a call is needed today and it is the working class that needs to wake up.  To start to think and become aware of the true reality of the modern world. 
It is important to overcome the anaesthetising effects of constant bourgeois propaganda, lies and half truths pushed every day by TV, popular internet sources and newspapers.  All made palatable with a diet that includes bland trivia, affordable alcohol and an excessive dose of big money sport.
The reality is that Britain has a prime minister who is one of the worst warmongers in Europe and the country is heading towards becoming a failed state.  Decades of government incompetence, a lack of long term investment and planning and also an eager role of playing lackey to the USA have all taken their toll.  Faced with irreconcilable contradictions imperialism is in its terminal crisis.  And there can be no doubt that it is the workers who are intended to carry the burdens of it's failure.
Continued austerity, collapsing public services, inflation, a  falling value of wages and benefits, increasing taxation and job losses are the symptoms of the crisis that has created poverty and anxiety in Britain. Ways must be found to make workers aware of their exploitation and the reasons behind it.  To wake up and come to realise that fundamental change is necessary.  Marxist philosophy, enriched and adapted to suit specific conditions, has enabled workers and peasants to achieve real freedom and growing prosperity in many parts of the world.  It has demonstrated that ordinary people from a humble background can reach for the stars.  Socialism has allowed formally down-trodden workers to flourish and reach their full potential without the exploitation of and subjugation to a parasitic elite ruling class.  The guiding principles of Marxism, with adjustments to reflect the history and culture of Britain, can bring socialist values to enable everyone to become masters of their own destiny. 
Socialism made possible Sputnik 1,  put the first man and woman into space and made it possible for the Soviet Union, the world's first workers’ state, to grow into a powerful force for peace. The USSR was able to play a major role in assisting countries break free from colonialism.  Socialism in People's China facilitated the transformation of a poverty-ridden largely peasant society into an industrial powerhouse on a scale that the world has never seen.  Socialism in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has enabled its people, against overwhelming odds, to build a successful modern industrial state. Socialism has given hope to oppressed peoples everywhere. It's what we need in Britain today. 
A cross-party alliance of UK politicians remain in denial about the seriousness of the country’s economic position.  They still exist within a colonial mindset. A Rule Britannia day dream in which they imagine Britain is still all-powerful, remains influential and continues to rule the waves. Any problems are blamed on others, which the media then demonise.  The UK Parliament, which they regard as the 'mother of parliaments' and a model for the world to copy, has become little more than a chamber for the living dead. 
Long gone are the days of stimulating debates resounding in the House as after the shouting the whips then tell anxious members what to vote for. It is no wonder that a majority support keeping the Ukraine tragedy going with no genuine proposals for peace. 
To tackle Britain's economic problems fundamental action for change is required.  Not ineffective half measures or tinkering by social democrats of a system well past its sell by date.  We need decisive action to put forward a real socialist alternative based upon a full Marxist analysis. The New Communist Party of Britain has clear policies for the peaceful, sustainable and stable development of Britain. A number of it's proposals now follows. 

Defence: It is said that the British army now has more horses than working tanks.  If this is the case anyone who wanted to attack the UK would already have done so while a significant response would have been limited to a slow motion charge of the light brigade.  Defence spending serves the military industrial complex creating huge profits for companies and associated warmongers.  Defence spending, £53.9 billion in 2023/24, will increase massively under proposals by Sir Keir Starmer with his commitment to increase the amount to 2.5 per cent of nominal GDP in an obvious attempt to appease Washington.  The NCP's priorities include drastically cutting military expenditure and using the money saved to secure the future of the NHS, investing in Britain's future and  increasing social welfare spending to eliminate poverty.  And importantly to work tirelessly for peace with sincere diplomacy. 

Nationalisation: Old photographs taken in the late 1940s say it all.  Miners are shown standing outside a pit admiring a new sign.  "This Colliery is now managed by the National Coal Board on Behalf of the People".  Winston Churchill, at the onset of World War One, had recognised that for a secure and reliable source of oil without being ripped off he needed to take a majority stake in the Anglo Persian Oil Company.  Full public ownership of energy companies and utilities is still essential today.  While private companies focus on profits to announce at the next AGM, public institutions can look ahead to plan and invest long term for an affordable and secure future.  Privatisation has been a disaster for Britain.  The NCP is fully committed to full democratic public ownership. Not state capitalism in which temporary ownership enables public money to be spent bailing out a failing industry.   We seek worker participation on the governing boards to protect their interests and promote good service above profits.  I believe also that it would be a good idea to establish a National Housing Board to oversee the building of badly needed council houses which could be financed by the issue of government bonds. 

Taxation: It is the working class, the ordinary people, who are being made to carry the can for the failure of capitalism.  Cuts to welfare benefits and vital public services have contributed to growing poverty in Britain today. Young families are turning to foodbanks for support while the elderly fear for their future. Meanwhile the wealthy elite who control our lives are laughing all the way to their tax havens.  The NCP would tax the rich with hard hitting fiscal policies that would redistribute wealth to the workers who with their hands and brains created it. 

In conclusion as capitalism fails it is time for the working class to turn off their televisions and start to think freely for themselves.  To wake up to reality and start to fight back. To organise, become involved, join a trade union and support a genuine political party committed to Socialism based upon Marxist philosophy.  We cannot rely on the Labour Party with its long history of betrayal and class collaboration to achieve success.  Building Socialism requires the vanguard role of a proper Communist Party such as the New Communist Party of Britain with its full commitment to Marxism.  

Arise ye starvelings from your slumbers!

Free Palestine – Boycott Israel!

by New Worker correspondent

Coca-Cola will no longer be served at the Glasgow Film Theatre (GFT) after objections from the staff. Workers at the Glasgow Film Theatre have led demands at the charity-run cinema to show support for the Palestinian Arabs amid the ongoing genocide in Gaza as staff and well-known figures from the arts called for the venue to support a boycott of Israeli goods. Coca-Cola does business in Israel and owns vineyards in both the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Golan Heights through a subsidiary.  
Last week, Unite members at the cinema announced they would not be handling any goods on the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement’s list. Coca-Cola products are part of that list. 
An open letter from the Unite Hospitality branch was published last week calling for the theatre to adhere to the BDS movement’s boycott list and endorse the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). The branch’s stand was backed by Ghassan Abu-Sittah, rector of the University of Glasgow, and film director Ken Loach, who, of course, supports an academic and cultural boycott of the Zionist entity. 
The branch deplored “GFT’s failure to agree to endorse BDS and PACBI. For over a year our members have petitioned the board on numerous occasions to agree to scrap financial and cultural ties to the Israeli regime which has plausibly committed genocide, and continues to practice apartheid in the occupied territories and Jerusalem”.
 It also declared that “we recognise the contradiction of an institution that is willing to profit financially from the screening of popular Palestinian films and documentaries while refusing to cut ties with the apartheid regime which so often appears as the antagonist in them”.
 The branch’s industrial officer Yana Petticrew added that: “Our branch would like to convey our unwavering support for our members and friends at the GFT in their service boycott of BDS-listed items and products”. 
 Campaigns officer, Max McCluskey, said “our members understand that the same CEOs profiting from your can of coke, your extortionate food and energy bills, the privatisation of our NHS, and the political capture of our elected politicians through lobbying and pressure, are the same ones lining up to invest in Trump’s barbaric plans for ethnic-cleansing in the Gaza Strip. Cultural venues like the GFT have a moral and political duty to divest from such regimes and commit to a cultural output that is starkly opposed to them. The modern global economy connects workers across the world financially, socially and politically”.
 In response the GFT said “We understand the significance of the issues raised and the depth of feeling raised by members of our communities. The Board and Executive are reviewing the detailed points and requests submitted by staff with the necessary due diligence, essential legal review and consultation required to ensure that we meet our charitable obligations”. 
 Cinema goers desiring a tooth rotting drink can always make do with Irn Bru. And if any of them like rum, it should be Havana Club, not Bacardi!

Topsy-turvy land

The Halifax Forum’s Anti-Democratic Agenda

by Roland Boer

An organisation of supposed statesmen and intellectuals was formed in the city of Halifax in Canada with the aim of reigniting and overthrowing the people’s government in China.
This so-called “Halifax Forum” held a meeting in Taipei, the capital of the breakaway Chinese province of Taiwan, last month with both open and closed sessions to discuss issues of “security” and “democracy”.
To begin with, this gathering of the representatives of the parasite class was clearly a provocative move, since the island of Taiwan is recognised internationally as an inalienable part of China. It is clear that despite all the nice “buzz words” the Halifax Forum promotes, it actually supports separatism, extremism, and terrorism.
However, let us have a closer look at what the Halifax Forum claims to be. Initially established on a Canadian initiative (hence “Halifax”) it has on its board of directors and team people from Canada, the USA, various countries in Eastern and Western Europe and one or two from African countries. No one, it seems comes from China, Australia, or New Zealand.
Further, the funding of the Halifax Forum is revealing, since one of them is NATO – the aggressive military alliance led by the USA that has attacked countries such as Yugoslavia (and dismembered it), Afghanistan, and more recently Russia. NATO is, as we know, facing a crisis, with the USA at the time of writing disdainfully casting aside “old Europe” in its direct suing for peace with Russia in relation to Ukraine.
While the Halifax Forum boasts such funding – and there are others – it claims to be “non-partisan” in its promotion of “democracy”. Readers will know that “democracy” here stands for Western political systems imposed on countries against their will and indeed against their historical logic. In other words, they try to promote capitalist democracy and refuse to recognise the superior form of socialist democracy practised in People’s China. Indeed, if one looks at the “Halifax China” page, one sees the lies and distortions concerning China that have become common in some corners of the West. We are led to the following conclusion: since the Halifax Forum takes an anti-China stance, it is in essence a partisan and ultimately anti-democratic organisation.
However, there is a deeper problem that is endemic to Western approaches: they think that the political system determines everything else. Thus, if they can change a political system in their favour, they think that they have solved the problem. This is topsy-turvy. Why? It is the economic system that determined and shapes in complex ways the political system. Real and qualitative change takes place through socioeconomic transformation, as we see with China’s revolution, socialist construction, and reform. Suitable political structures emerge as a result.
In socio-economic terms, we note the following: that the island of Taiwan’s derivative and imbalanced capitalist approach has led to economic stagnation is clear; that it relies on the mainland for its economic survival is also clear; that it will in due time normalise relations with the mainland is the path of history. The Halifax Forum’s inverted approach simply tries to delay the reality of Chinese compatriots across the straights coming truly together once again.

Half the Sky

This weekend working people in Britain and throughout the rest of the world paused to mark the struggle for equal rights and the ending of all discrimination against women that is re-affirmed every year on 8th March International Women’s Day. 
International Women’s Day was launched by the United Nations in those heady days of 1977. Back in the 1970s the imperialists were on the defensive. The Israelis got a bloody nose from the Arabs in the October war of 1973. Then, for the first and only time, the Arabs and the OPEC oil cartel used their oil wealth to screw concessions from the imperialists. In 1974 the pro-Western Emperor of Ethiopia was overthrown, the Portuguese empire collapsed and Yasser Arafat addressed the United Nations General Assembly in an epic call for Palestinian rights. The Americans were kicked out of Vietnam soon after. 
It was a decade of optimism and liberation and the holiday was widely celebrated throughout the Global South as well as Cuba, the Soviet Union, People’s China and  the people’s republics of Eastern Europe. It was also celebrated in the West as mass movements and trade unions took up the call for equality and women’s rights in the United States and Western Europe.
In the people’s democracies and other parts of the Global South the day is still genuinely celebrated to mark the end of feudal concepts and the emancipation of women who Chairman Mao famously said “hold up half the sky”.  But it barely goes beyond the inevitable commercialisation used to sell goods to the “women’s” market in the imperialist heartlands these days. Trade union bureaucrats and mainstream bourgeois politicians all pay lip-service to its aims but they rarely go beyond their usual attempts to woo the “women’s” vote while
women’s issues are reduced to the “woke” demands of the middle strata gurus that serve the ruling class in the mass media. 
They’ll elevate the problems of petty-bourgeois women in breaking through the “glass ceiling” of bourgeois society while routinely ignoring the problems of inequality, homelessness, unemployment, domestic violence, drink and drugs that hit working class women the hardest.
Many of the issues affecting women naturally also impact on men and the fight for equality for women is a crucial part of the class struggle. Inequalities sow divisions in the class when unity and solidarity are most needed.
The emancipation of women can only be achieved under socialism. Or as Lenin put it “it is precisely the Soviet system, and the Soviet system only, that secures democracy. This is clearly demonstrated by the position of the working class and the poor peasants. It is clearly demonstrated by the position of women…the working women’s movement has for its objective the fight for the economic and social, and not merely formal, equality of woman. The main task is to draw the women into socially productive labour, extricate them from "domestic slavery", free them of their stultifying and humiliating resignation to the perpetual and exclusive atmosphere of the kitchen and nursery”.

The cowardly, craven BBC

Hundreds of film, TV, and media professionals, have condemned censorship and racism after the BBC removed a documentary about the children of Gaza. In a letter to BBC executives, they criticised the decision as “racist” and “dehumanising”, blaming pressure from pro-Israel groups. Billed as “following the lives of four young people trying to survive the Israel-Hamas war as they hope for a ceasefire - a vivid and unflinching view of life in a warzone” the documentary has now been pulled by the BBC.
Gary Lineker and Miriam Margolyes are among more than 800 media figures who have condemned the BBC's decision to pull a documentary about children's lives in Gaza. 
The BBC says it removed Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone from iPlayer while it carried out "further due diligence" after discovering that the young narrator was the son of a Hamas official. Zionists, including the Israeli ambassador Tzipi Hotovely, had written to the BBC asking how a child with alleged family ties to Hamas was allowed to be the focus of a documentary about the lives of ordinary Palestinians.   
The open protest letter published by Artists for Palestine UK criticised what the signatories said was a "racist" and "dehumanising" campaign targeting the documentary. It called on the BBC to reject efforts to have the film permanently removed or “subjected to undue disavowals” saying that surrendering to efforts to stop its return to iPlayer would indicate “racialised smears against Palestinians outweigh journalistic ethics and public interest”.
The signatories also warned against intrusive scrutiny of Abdullah Al-Yazouri, a 14-year-old  child who narrated Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone. His father, Dr Ayman Al-Yazouri, served as Gaza’s deputy agriculture minister – a civil service role concerned with food production.
“​​Almost half of Gaza’s population are children. What they have experienced over the past 17 months is something no child deserves to ever go through” said Liam O’Hare, an award-winning documentary producer/director who signed the letter. “As journalists and filmmakers we have a duty to help tell their story and that’s what this film did so brilliantly. The BBC cannot allow a politicised campaign to succeed in silencing the children of Gaza.”
Artists for Palestine UK (APUK) is a growing network of artists and cultural workers standing together in support of Palestinian liberation and for a just resolution for all in Israel/Palestine, including Palestinian refugees. 
The campaign that was launched in 2015 believes that those who work in the arts have a responsibility to consider the impact of their work when engaging in a situation of radical inequality.
APUK says that the arts are of particular significance where a people’s history, cultural heritage and future are under constant threat of erasure and it believes that the arts have an important role to play in connecting audiences with Palestinian experience. It opposes all forms of racism, including anti-Arab racism, Islamophobia and antisemitism.
“The UK film and TV industry will no longer be intimidated by those whose sole mission it is to censor the voices of the many who are defending the rights of children, the marginalised and those in desperate need. All stories have the right to be told and journalistic scrutiny should not be at the whim of those who deem certain lives unequal,” said letter signatory Nada Issa, an award-winning producer/director and journalist who is part Palestinian and Lebanese. We whole-heartedly agree.

Tales from a heroic age

by Ben Soton

Odyssey: Stephen Fry, Penguin London 2024, 416 pp, pbk rrp £10.99

Odyssey by Stephen Fry is the latest translation of Homer’s epic poem. The original, believed to have been written sometime in the eighth century BC, was probably written in an archaic form of Ancient Greek, probably Doric. Suffice to say there have been numerous translations of The Odyssey; some in poetic form others in prose.
The Odyssey has had an immense influence on Western literature. The Aeneid by the Roman Virgil has numerous similarities with The Odyssey; both stories originate in the Trojan War. James Joyce’s Ulysses (Joyce uses the Roman name for the hero Odysseus) is also based on it. In modern science fiction the famous words from Darth Vader to Luke Skywalker, “Luke I am your father”, has its origins in the meeting between Odysseus and his son, Telemachus, while the term “odyssey” is often synonymous with any epic journey.
Odyssey by Stephen Fry differs little from previous translations of Homer’s account of the king of Ithaca’s return from the Trojan war. His desire is to return to his wife Penelope, whom he has been parted from for twenty years and his son Telemachus, who was little more than a babe in arms when he left. Penelope is continually pestered by suitors who she manages to outwit who want to marry her and take the throne. Time is running out and few believe Odysseus to be alive. Meanwhile in his attempt to return home Odysseus, faces Cyclops, sea monsters and is continually shipwrecked.
Fry’s translation, which is written in prose format and reads more like a novel, differs slightly in that he makes passing reference to the Trojan prince Aeneas. Aeneas fled from Troy, put to the torch by the victorious Greeks, and his descendants eventually founded Rome.
Whilst Odyssey ends with the defeat of the suitors, other translations continue with further stories. For instance the E V Rieu translation of 1946 describes the brutal killing of the disloyal female slaves of his household who had sided with the suitors. Fry makes no mention of this, even in the prologue, making this translation more sympathetic to Odysseus.
The problem with the story is that so little is known about the original author, Homer. Some scholars even doubt his existence and attribute the work to a number of different writers. Perhaps Homer, assuming he existed, simply played an editorial role.
Nevertheless the Odyssey is still a timeless work of literature. It has inspired numerous translations, television series, feature films and will continue to arouse curiosity for many years to come. On that note Odyssey by Stephen Fry is well worth reading and will make a worthwhile addition to any bookshelf.

Between a rock and a hard place

Keir Starmer’s off to Washington next week to win support for a European plan to send 30,000 British and European Union troops to Ukraine as “peacekeepers” if and when a truce is agreed to end the Ukraine war. Though this force would allegedly be there to guarantee Ukraine’s independence its real role would be to preserve the British and European Union’s economic interests in a post-war Ukraine that Donald Trump clearly sees as no more than an American protectorate.
The war-lobby that reflects the most venal and aggressive sections of the British ruling class has gone into top gear with Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat worthies all urging Starmer to “stand up” to Donald Trump. The Atlanticists who used to hail American presidents as leaders of the “free world” have closed ranks with those who look to an alliance with Franco-German imperialism to bleat on about “betrayal”.
“It's time for Starmer to stand up for Britain and our allies in Europe” says Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey. Former Tory defence secretary Gavin Williamson says that “we cannot let fake news and a false narrative become accepted. That has to be rebuffed at every moment. And if that causes some people offence, well, that's their problem”. And Tony Blair’s former spin doctor, Alastair Campbell, calls Donald Trump a “pathological liar, a narcissist” who is “concerned only about himself, his wealth and his power” in the Independent last week.
None of this is likely to sway those now at the helm of US imperialism. The initiative to start high-level talks between the Russian and American foreign ministers  in Saudi Arabia was not the whim of The Donald or a tiny clique of American oligarchs but a decision that reflects the needs and demands of the wing of the American ruling class that wants to cut its losses in Ukraine to enable them to strengthen their grip over the Middle East in their bid to control the entire global energy market. 
In reality there never was a “free world” and the “special relationship” the British bourgeoisie upheld was largely a figment of their own imagination. They feign suprise at Trump’s moves to build detente with the Russian Federation but the Trump camp made no secret of this in the run-up to the US presidential election last year. The simple fact is that Starmer and the rest of the pack in Europe didn’t think Trump would win. 
As we’ve said before secret diplomacy is rarely the best pathway to peace. But both the Russian and American sides are clearly working towards a win-win agreement over Ukraine. If that ends the war with a peace settlement that recognises the rights of the Crimeans, southern Ukrainians and the people of the Donbas to live in the Russian Federation well and good. It will clearly benefit the Ukrainian and Russian people.