A lull in Lebanon

Everyone will welcome the ceasefire in Lebanon – not least the people of the south who have bourne the brunt of the Israeli incursion that has cost countless lives of innocent Lebanese civilians and wreaked havoc on the villages and towns of the borderland. How long it will last is, of course, another matter.
The fact that the temporary truce was imposed by the United States shows who ultimately calls the shots in Tel Aviv. And the fact that Donald Trump had to do it to get the Iranians back to the negotiating table shows that the Americans have lost the initiative in this war that they started.
Trump gave them his best shots starting with a treacherous surprise attack followed by the assassination of the Islamic Republic’s leaders in a terror bombing “shock and awe” campaign that the Americans and their lackeys thought would force the Iranians to beg for mercy in a matter of days. But the Iranians gave as good as they got laying waste to America’s ring of bases across the Middle East and giving the Israelis a taste of their own medicine with wave after wave of missile attacks that has left much of Tel Aviv in ruins.
Trump open talked of regime change à la Libya and Iraq. Netanyahu bragged about a future “Greater Israel” that the Zionists believe will stretch from the Nile to the Euphrates. Both conjured up armies of traitors and quislings that they imagined would take to the streets of Tehran to do their bidding and welcome the imperialists with open arms.
But none of this happened. The Iranians stood firm and so did their Arab allies in Yemen, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon – the axis of resistance that refuses to submit to the Americans, the Israelis or and their feudal Arab lackeys.
The Iranians throttled the Big Oil corporations when they closed the Persian Gulf. They watched US imperialism’s allies wash their hands on the American-Israeli offensive in Iran. They ignored Trump’s empty threats of annihilation and they’ve laid down their own terms for ending the conflict – terms that China, Russia and most of the Global South have endorsed as the basis for ending the conflict.
But in Europe the leading members of the European Union have openly refused to join in Trump’s crusade. In Britain the Starmer government sits on the fence, distancing itself from Washington over Iran while still supplying arms to the Zionist entity and allowing the American air-force to use some of the RAF’s bases in operations against the Islamic Republic.
These are volatile times.The old order is being challenged – and not just in the Middle East.
On the street the masses have broken the bourgeois consensus that rarely goes beyond endless “debates” on immigration and the European Union, mealy-mouthed reforms and Atlanticism. The issues of war and peace, imperialism or socialism are, once again, back on the agenda...

One step forward…

 While victory celebrations in Tehran may be premature the sombre faces in the corridors of power in Washington and Tel Aviv tell another story – one of hubris, humiliation and defeat.
Last week Donald Trump ranted and raged against the Iranians. They were going to be wiped out if they didn’t end their blockade of the Persian Gulf and hand over their nuclear plants and oil industry to the Americans. A few days later he’s agreeing to a Pakistani-brokered cease-fire that pivots on the Islamic Republic’s ten point terms for ending the war.
In Washington the blame game has begun. Trump’s friends say their leader was misled by the Zionists and the fools that surround him in the White House. They’re  already pointing the finger at Pete Hegseth, his useless minister of war, and the Israeli premier, Benjamin Netanyahu. Other insiders, mindful of their political futures in the post-Trump world, are telling tales to the mainstream media of a senile old man in the White House whose delusions of grandeur have plunged the capitalist world into a crisis not seen since the height of the Cold War.
No-one can believe a word the US president says. Donald Trump is an incorrigible liar. His agreements are not worth the paper they’re written on. Nevertheless Trump’s minions, led by Vice-President JD Vance, are now in Pakistan for talks with the Iranians. 
The ceasefire, a two-week truce to pave the way for negotiations, is on a knife-edge. The Israelis, who were not party to the secret American parleys with Pakistan, are out to sabotage the peace talks. They’ve stepped up their offensive in southern Lebanon claiming they’re not bound by the terms of the truce the Americans signed up for. The Lebanese resistance and their north Yemeni allies have hit back with a volleys of missiles and drones. 
In Israel they’ve been taught no end of a lesson – getting a taste of their own medicine that has left their capital in ruins and forced hundreds of thousands of Israelis to flee to safety in  Europe and the United States. And needless to say the Strait of Hormuz remains closed to imperialist shipping. 
On the diplomatic front the European powers are rapidly distancing themselves from the United States. France joins Russia and China in blocking an American manoeuvre on the UN Security Council designed to endorse “international” action against Iran in the Persian Gulf while Starmer poses as non-interventionist to curry favour with his old friends in Brussels.
American and Israeli air-power has failed to crush Iran. The Islamic Republic, on the other hand, has destroyed all the American bases on the Arabian peninsula. US troops have been forced to flee to hotels. Others have been evacuated back to the United States.  America’s much-vaunted nuclear aircraft-carriers retreat under fire. Their commando raids are beaten back. The myth of American invincibility has been shattered. The dream of a “new world order” is over.

The view from the Kremlin

Andrei Kelin, the Russian ambassador in London  was interviewed by RIA Novosti, the Russian international news agency, last week

Recently, the UK authorities announced their intention to seize civilian vessels carrying Russian oil. Meanwhile, the United States is easing sanctions on Russian oil amid rising prices. Is London’s plan doomed to failure without US backing? What is London counting on by threatening Russian vessels when it cannot even fulfil its NATO obligations?

The intention to seize civilian vessels linked to our country in British territorial waters, announced by the UK Prime Minister, constitutes yet another deeply hostile move against Russia.
Attempts to cloak acts of piracy in a semblance of legality do not withstand scrutiny. These actions are based on unilateral sanctions that contravene international law. They also grossly violate the letter and the spirit of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
When London claims it is not interested in escalation, this is untrue. In fact, it confirms the UK’s desire to aggravate an already tense situation in maritime security and international trade. This escalation extends to the highly sensitive maritime area of the English Channel, through which more than five hundred vessels – both civilian and military – pass daily. To embark on an exercise involving the use of force there would be not only irresponsible, but also extremely dangerous.
The Labour government’s aim is to inflict as much damage as possible on Russia. This has long been its standard policy. However, attempting to seize a single Russian tanker out of the many allegedly attributed to Russia will do nothing to stabilise sentiment in oil markets. Many will suffer as a result, including end consumers.
Does London have the strength and recklessness to go for it? Probably. It would be wrong to assume that the British can do nothing without the United States. The question is what price London would have to pay for such an attempt. It could be very high indeed.

What might Russia’s response be to military action by London against its vessels, should Britain decide to take such a step?

Any attempt by the UK to seize vessels associated with Russia is regarded as unacceptable and inadmissible. Such a decision will not go unanswered. Appropriate measures are being developed. Let this come as a surprise to the British.
To protect our interests and ensure freedom of navigation, we may employ all available legal, political and other instruments – including asymmetrical ones, and not necessarily in the vicinity of British territorial waters.
In any case, London would do well to carefully consider the consequences of such a step, including how to deal with an unlawfully seized vessel and its cargo, given the inevitable legal action by the shipowner and the substantial associated costs.
The UK Defence Secretary, John Healey, continues to claim that he can see an “invisible hand of Russia” in the conflict with Iran. What role does London itself play in the escalation? How likely is it that the UK is facilitating the deployment of Ukrainian air defence specialists to the Middle East to counter Iranian drones?
The conflict in the Middle East has once again exposed London’s cynicism. The British government pretends not to notice who started the conflict and who committed aggression. It criticises Iran for its retaliatory strikes, acting as though Iran had attacked first. At the same time, it turns a blind eye to war crimes against the Iranian civil population, including the killing of children.
It is often claimed that the UK stands aside from the conflict, providing only minimal “defensive” support to its allies and advocating a diplomatic settlement. But who are they trying to fool? Perhaps only the naïve British public. Allowing the Americans to use British bases to bomb Iran and deploying military aircraft to the region amounts to direct involvement, no matter how much Keir Starmer may try to spin it otherwise. I believe the Iranian leadership has duly taken note of this. In fact, the tragic events in Iran and across the region are, in part, the result of London’s policy, which has aligned itself with anti-Iranian “hawks” in Washington and contributed to the collapse of the JCPOA [when Iran agreed in 2015 to limit its nuclear research programme in return for the lifting of much of the Western sanctions regime]. 
It is now crucial for the UK to set as many countries as possible against Iran. Attempts to foist Ukrainian air defence services to Gulf states as protection against Iranian drones follow the same logic. However, according to reports, there is little demand for these services in the region.

Dark tales from Scotland

by Ben Soton

Silent Bones by Val McDermid, Sphere (Little Brown Book Group) London. Hbk: 2025, 448pp, rrp £22.00. Pbk: 2026; rrp £10.99.

This is  Val McDermid’s latest Karen Pirie crime thriller. Two others, The Darker Domain and The Distant Echo, have already been adapted for television. This, the eighth  featuring DCI Karen Pirie and her team who make up Edinburgh’s Historic Cases Unit (HCU), touches on the corrupt and sordid side of Scottish politics. 

This one, Silent Bones, begins with a mud-slide which unearths the body of a murdered investigative journalist.  Meanwhile the death of a hotel manager, originally believed to be an accident, soon turns out to be suspicious. The HCU soon discover the two deaths to be interlinked. They unearth the cover up of a violent rape at a pro-independence event as well as betting and match fixing scams featuring a shady elite book club called the ‘Justified Sinners’. But the ‘Sinners’ is more like a masonic lodge than a book club where potential members will literally kill to gain admittance.         
The Justified Sinners, a reference to an 1824 novel by James Hogg, is based on the Protestant concept of Predestination. where members of the “elect” can commit any sin they like as they are guaranteed a place in heaven – an obvious swipe at the Calvinist dogma of the Church of Scotland. This could also be a reference to the Epstein Files, where men from elite backgrounds are engaged in criminal and degenerate behaviour including paedophilia. 
Meanwhile DCI Pirie and her team come to life as real characters as their complex personal lives weave into the story.  Both of her assistants, Detective Sergeants Jason Murray and Daisy Mortimer, manage to use their partners in the investigation while Karen Pirie, a single woman in her thirties ends a relationship with her Syrian refugee lover. This backstory is an example of McDermid’s liberalism which views the Assad Government as the epitome of evil whilst portraying the new regime cobbled together from various Al Qaeda affiliates as an opportunity to re-build the country. She overlooks the persecution of religious minorities, not to mention the privatisation of national assets and collaboration with the murderous Zionist state by the new regime.  
The novel also delves into the differences between English and Scottish law. In England, an arrest must be necessary for specific reasons. In Scotland, an officer can arrest if they have reasonable grounds to suspect an offence was committed.
 This is a thoroughly well written, great thriller but is also testimony to the author’s bourgeois liberalism. McDermid sees corruption and degenerate behaviour as something that can be rooted out rather than an integral part of capitalism. We’ve heard that one before...  

Charting the future in China

By Andy Brooks

New Communist Party leader Andy Brooks took part in a seminar on China’s Two Sessions at the Chinese embassy in London in March. This is his contribution to the discussion.

This has been a stormy month. While the millions upon millions of people in all five continents recoiled in shock and horror at the American-Israeli onslaught on Iran plunging the Middle East into the flames of a war that threatens the entire stability of the world another event – in the heart of China – charted the future not only for the Chinese people but for the cause of peace and socialism throughout the world.
There, in Beijing, the annual legislative sessions of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) and the National People’s Congress (NPC) were the focus of discussions on the way forward for the people’s government and the 1.4 billion people it represents.
The ‘two sessions’ are always significant events in the Chinese people's political life, bringing together thousands of deputies and delegates from every corner of the country and all walks of life. Their proposals are aimed at solving everyday issues to build a better life for the people. 
This year marks the commencement of China's 15th Five-Year Plan, a pivotal phase in the country’s medium to long-term development. In a turbulent world threatened by the grasping hand of American imperialism the Plan and the discussions during the Two Sessions give momentum and certainty into global development, charting a steady course for the new journey ahead.
The Chinese revolution that established the people’s government in 1949 has transformed the country that was then the poorest in the world. China has now risen from being a weak semi-feudal, semi-colonial country to become a force for peace in the global arena, with the second largest economy in the world. Productivity gains, innovation and consumption need have become the main drivers of growth.  As a major industrial country, China's manufacturing, innovation and construction will continue to serve the world. As China transforms it shares what it has learned with other developing countries facing similar challenges. And equally the communist party, which led and continues to lead the Chinese people’s march to socialism, is always ready to share its knowledge and experience with the rest of the communist movement around the world.
Marxist-Leninist philosophy challenges the fatalism which is promoted by those who are afraid of change and believe that we can turn back the clock to a past socialist “golden age” that only exists in their imagination.  But  we believe that we make our own history by our actions. The building of socialism is far more than raising production or economic indicators.  It is concerned with the evolution of human thought as well as social and cultural progress.  The failure of comrades in the past to recognise this fact has led to serious setbacks
For many years communists in the imperialist heartlands of Europe and North America looked to what many of them called the “Soviet model”.  Others thought the experience of the people’s democracies in Europe could simply be repeated in their own countries. They sent delegations to the USSR and Eastern Europe but they did not fully understand what they saw. In fact the Soviet Union was a unique state based on Soviet power that could not be replicated in other countries. People’s democracy, on the other hand, in the immediate post-war period, was understood to be the way communists could build united front governments on the road to socialist advance. And in those early days most expected it to be a long road.
However the Soviet communists from Khrushchev’s day onwards used their influence to accelerate the process throughout Eastern Europe sharpening the existing contradictions and social problems that contributed to their downfall – and indeed that of the USSR in the late 1980s.
This isn’t the time or place to look at the Chinese experience except to note that the Communist Party of China took a number of differing roads ranging from the “Soviet model” to the socialist emulation of the Great Leap Forward and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution which all worked for a time but eventually failed. People’s democracy or the people’s democratic dictatorship as it is known in China has proved successful. Reform and opening up has transformed China. Absolute poverty has been eradicated. Measured in terms of real GDP  (the real value of goods and services without such American features as exorbitant medical fees, high rents and legal costs) China is on a par with the USA.  Its mixed economy does have certain risks but the cardinal task of the Communist Party of China is to put people first and ensure that no one is left behind. Over one third of China's major development targets for the 2026-2030 period will focus on resolving the pressing difficulties and problems that concern the people most. 
Democracy is a shared value of humanity and a right of the people of all countries. In China a prosperous society is being created for everyone to enjoy.  And people’s democracy is an instrument to solve problems for the people who are the masters of the country. We see it in the Two Sessions and in the words and deeds of the Communist Party of China.

Defend the Islamic Republic

Millions upon millions have taken to the streets of Britain and throughout the rest of the world to demand an end to the imperialist war on Iran. Donald Trump and the fools he surrounds himself  with talked about   a “decapitation” victory. Benjamin Netanyahu thought his dream of a “Greater Israel” from the Nile to the Euphrates was about to come true. The Americans and their Israeli and feudal Arab lackeys thought that Stealth war-planes, missiles and drones would soon have the Iranians on their knees begging for mercy.  But it didn’t happen. The dream of The Donald died in the smoke of burning American bases and the bombed out  ruins of Tel Aviv.
The leaders of the European Union have wisely spurned Trump’s call for help to break the Iranian blockade of the Persian Gulf. So has Starmer who’s now trying to rebuild the links with his old mates in Brussels while still keeping sweet with the Americans and the oil sheikhs.
The bourgeois media talk about the crisis in the Persian Gulf that threatens Western supplies of oil and gas – and indeed that is a crisis for them, Soaring energy prices could plunge the imperialist world into a slump of 1929 proportions – but re-opening the waterway won’t solve the underlying problems that once again set the Middle East on fire.
The immediate issue is to end the fighting, lift the imperialist sanctions on the Islamic Republic and recognise Iran’s right to control its own economy and develop a nuclear energy programme. But the heart of the matter is Palestine. The legitimate rights of the Palestinian Arabs must be recognised including the right of return for the millions of Palestinians whose families were driven from their homes by Zionist terror in the 1940s and the equally legitimate right of the Palestinian Arabs to self-determination and the independent state they were promised when Palestine was partitioned in 1947. 
UN resolutions have provided the basis for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. First of all Israel must totally withdraw from all the occupied territories seized in 1967, including Arab East Jerusalem and Syria’s Golan Heights. The Palestinians must be allowed to establish a state of their own on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Palestinian refugees whose homes are now in Israel must be allowed to return or, if they so wish, be paid appropriate compensation in exchange. And all states in the region should have internationally agreed and recognised frontiers guaranteed by all the Great Powers.

Defend the right to protest

Palestine Solidarity Campaign director Ben Jamal and Stop the War vice-chair Chris Nineham have been found guilty of breaking the Public Order Act this week. Though their punishment – they were fined and conditionally discharged – was not severe they shouldn’t have been in court in the first place. These were clearly trumped up charges designed to stifle the massive Palestinian solidarity movement that has swept the country in recent years. The two campaign leaders have made it clear that they will appeal and so they should. This is an attack on civil liberties. It affects us all. The verdict raises huge concerns about any further powers granted to the police through the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently progressing though parliament. It confirms the view that these proposed increased powers represent a seismic threat to democratic freedoms.

In Search of Gerry Healy

by Dermot Hudson 

My Search for Revolution & how we brought down an abusive leader : Clare Cowen, Troubador Publishing Ltd 2019, 200 pp, rrp £19.99

About a month ago I was walking around Ipswich when I came across a charity shop actually giving away free books. The title of this book caught my eye. It turned  out to be a book about the scandal in the 1980s around the Workers’ Revolutionary Party(WRP), a Trotskyist party, which led to the WRP splitting into eight factions – yes eight factions!
 I vaguely recall reading about the implosion of the WRP in 1985  so the book excited some interest in me. The Cowen book is basically an expose of the WRP and a narrative of the events around the expulsion of Gerry Healy, the founder and leader of the WRP.
This self-published tell-all account was written by Clare Cowen, a WRP full-timer (of which there were 100 at one time) and a member of the party’s leadership.
When I first became interested in politics in my youth during the mid-1970s the WRP’s main claim to fame was its support from the glitterati that included the famous actress Vanessa Redgrave and her brother Corin and  a host of other celebrity members. In those days the WRP was possibly the biggest Trotskyist party in Britain. It was certainly the most sectarian – though that was challenged by rivals that included the Socialist Workers Party and the International Marxist Group then led by former student leader Tariq Ali.
The WRP’s ascendancy on the Trotskyist left was in part due to the huge amount of money they had not just received from the Redgraves but other wealthy members of the WRP including the author of this book, Ms Cowen.
Clare Cowen herself was not from a poor working-class background. She was actually from a bourgeois family – in fact a White Zimbabwean whose family had black servants and owned gold mines. Some of Ms Cowen’s money was used to bankroll the WRP and if I read it correctly some of the WRP’s companies and properties were partly owned by her. To me the book not only illustrates the bankruptcy of Trotskyism but the dangers of what happens when revolutionary movements get mixed up with people from wealthy backgrounds who always see things differently to a worker.  
Sects like the WRP grew after 1956 when Khrushchev's attack on Stalin opened  the door to Trotskyism as well as modern revisionism. The old revisionist CPGB failed to deal with Trotskyism. They simply labelled different Trotskyist groups as “ultra left” (even though most Trotskyist groups in the UK actually existed as entryist factions, like the Militant Tendency, within the reformist Labour party) . Little did  the burnt-out revisionists of the old CPGB realise that trailing behind left social-democrats with their third-rate “Euro-communist” drivel actually drove many young people out of the party and into the arms of the likes of the WRP.
The WRP tried to organise the unemployed through its “Right to Work “ marches. It had a trendy youth section called the Young Socialists. The WRP was, unlike the old CPGB, a very disciplined party that demanded hard work from its activists and not paper members sitting at home.
The real power in the WRP, however, rested not with the Redgraves or people like Clare Cowen but with the founder, leader and guru of the WRP, one Gerry Healy. Healy, a renowned ranter, once described as having a “Hitlerite” speaking technique, liked to pose as a master of Marxism. But in the last years of his life Healy became a supporter of ‘perestroika’ and ‘glasnost’ Gorbachovite revisionism. This may be viewed as bizarre but it can be argued as appropriate because Trotskyism is really a form of revisionism.
Curiously the WRP, despite proclaiming to be “revolutionary “ and implying by their name that they were for proletarian revolution, actually began as a sect inside the Labour party believing in the parliamentary road to socialism and standing candidates in general elections. Like the CPGB modern revisionists who dumped the Daily Worker and launched the Morning Star, the WRP rebranded their Workers Press as Newsline.
Healy and other Trotskyists continually denounced what they called “Stalinist bureaucracy “ but Healy ran the WRP in an extremely bureaucratic fashion with a huge full-time staff plus his own security . In fact reading between the lines it was clear that the WRP was run like some of the worst capitalist companies; Healy was overbearing, pushy and authoritarian. He bullied staff, sacked people he did not like and even had his own BMW. In the capitalist corporate world bosses sleeping around and demanding sexual favours is common. This is exactly what Healy did. Healy had sexual relationships with his secretary Aileen Jennings and the author of this book, Clare Cowen. Although both women remained in these relationships for a long time  it was also alleged that Healy had sexual relations with dozens of other female WRP members. 
By the 1980s the WRP’s luck was running out. Its dominance of British Trotskyism was challenged by the likes of the SWP and the Militant Tendency. The WRP was overstretched and ran into financial trouble .Rows over money erupted. It was then Aileen Jennings and Clare Cowen  who decided to spill the beans on the scandalous activities of Healy and the rest is history .
Although the book is a great account of the workings of a Trotskyist faction Ms Cowen has not broken with the tradition it comes from. She repeats Trotskyist anti-Stalin propaganda. Cowen also criticises the WRP for some of the better positions that it took like support for the Libyan Jamahuriya and Baathist Iraq and the defence of the Iranian revolution. Cowen also repeats some of the dafter claims about the WRP such as it having 10,000 members in the 1980s (it was about one tenth of that)! I was myself disappointed because I had expected to find an account of the split between the WRP and Royston Bull who founded the International Leninist Workers Party(ILWP) and later briefly rose to fame in Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party.  But all mention of Royston Bull and his ILWP is omitted.
To conclude, although the book is a good read for those who like a bit of scandal, it fell very short of offering any serious insight into the WRP and the bankruptcy of Healyism.

Strategy for the class struggle

back in the day

by John Maryon

For the working class to successfully advance towards socialism it requires an understanding of most effective tactics for the class struggle. It is important to learn from the lessons of past generations but also we must adapt  to the reality of today's modern world. Arguments that took place over a century ago should not hold back the formation of joint actions and alliances. We must look at the world through the eyes of a new generation.
The victory of the 1917 Russian revolution was followed by the active promotion of a Communist International. Initially the strategy aimed to ride the revolutionary wave by building communist parties worldwide. In Britain the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) was established in 1920. Following the First World War the revolutionary wave abated and the strategy was changed to reflect the new conditions. It was an initiative that aimed to encourage joint action with other working class parties. It was going to be a lengthy process to overcome the reformism and class collaboration of the social-democrats. This tactic became known as the United Front. By 1928 a new strategy was adopted to advance a more revolutionary struggle to take advantage of the severe capitalist crisis by advocating a more militant approach. It encouraged the formation of strong trade unions. There was an attempt to expose the treachery of social democracy which had betrayed the workers and had  increasingly co-operated with imperialism.
With the rise of fascism it was the communists who led the struggle against the new menace and it doing so gained great respect. The Bulgarian communist leader, Georgi Dimitrov, realised the seriousness of the situation and proposed the creation of a new alliance, which he called the Popular Front. It reflected the new situation in which a number of communist parties had become mass movements. Communists with both right-wing and left wing social democrats now often shared the same prisons. Unfortunately a number of communist parties now saw their role as taking the  parliamentary option and the revolutionary road was abandoned. In Britain the CPGB  was to adopt this approach and in doing so abandoned its revolutionary vanguard role. It adopted an increasingly revisionist position under the illusion that participation in bourgeois democracy offered a way forward. It effectively denied a revolutionary approach in which the working class would seize power and take control of its own destiny. 
As Western European communist parties, following the Second World War, adopted a left social-democratic position they started to lose respect and purpose. They failed to learn the lessons of history in which it had been the great revolutionary leaders like Lenin, Mao and Kim Il Sung who had successfully led their people to socialism.
For today we may look back at the strategies that have succeeded and those that have not. We cannot stick to one fixed tactic but must adapt and change as conditions alter. Social democracy no longer pretends to be socialist and in practice presents itself today as yet another bourgeois bandwagon that in practice cannot achieve anything. 
No revolution can succeed without working class support.  But the working class in Britain is demoralised and confused with limited aspirations. They have been conditioned into meekly accepting a few crumbs from the rich man’s table. They vote for liberals, social democrats and reactionary populist parties. 
The anomalous named 'Your Party' is left social-democratic and contains many sincere well-meaning people who are opposed to imperialist wars and see the need for a more fairer society. However they are not revolutionary, have not embraced the scientific teachings of Marxism and not grasped the essential concept that a class struggle is necessary to defeat the forces of reaction that blight all of our lives. 
A so called Popular Front alliance is full of dangers. There cannot be a successful alliance between communists and social democrats in a bourgeois parliament. History shows that communists may be used by the bourgeoisie and then dumped when it suits them. Bourgeois democracy is a cruel illusion. When the inevitable break comes it splits the working class. The Popular Front transfers the class battle from the streets and workplaces to a bourgeois parliament that is totally ineffective.
It is important to note that a popular front government may be in government but not in power. Lenin pointed out that an alliance implies that the bourgeoisie no longer have the ability to rule alone and that then is the time for revolutionary change. Social democracy offers only tinkering with a failed system, based upon exploitation, that is well past its sell-by date. We need a radical change to challenge the power and oppression of Imperialism. 
A true communist party is always to be found where the battle is the hardest. One that is committed striving for unity of the workers in the class struggle to achieve full state power rather that a sham bourgeois parliament. A United Front alliance between revolutionary and reformist parties remains the only viable policy until a revolutionary situation develops.

The edge of the precipice

Guns blaze to the roar of drones and rockets as the flames of war spread across the entire Middle East. The Iranians are throttling the Western energy market with their blockade of the Persian Gulf. Americans and their Israeli lackeys are intensifying their attacks on a broader range of industrial and economic targets in Iran. The Islamic Republic is paying them back in kind with devastating missile attacks on Israel and America’s feudal Arab puppets in the Gulf. And Trump’s response has been a mixture of meaningless peace offers coupled with the usual threats that he thinks is what negotiations are all about that has spiralled the price of oil and gas that has raised the spectre of an energy crisis not seen since the October 1973 oil crisis . No wonder there’s panic in Westminster and the other chancelleries of Europe. 
Who is fanning the flames is clear to all. Whether the American president is senile or clinically insane is, of course, a matter for medical opinion. Whatever, those behind him – those sections of the American ruling class that represent manufacturing, Big Oil and the high-tech industries clearly thought they knew what they were doing when they gave the nod to the treacherous attack on Iran that has plunged the Western world into economic chaos.  
Though grovelling to the Americans comes as second nature to the leaders of Western Europe the  Spanish have become outright opponents of Trump’s war and the French, Germans and Italians are washing their hands on the American-Israeli onslaught. 
Of course the real opposition to the war is from masses on  the street and the leaders of the Global South. As a responsible major power, People’s China firmly stands on the right side of history. China's foreign minister has continued his diplomatic efforts to end the fighting and  promote de-escalation and peace. The special envoy of the Chinese government on the Middle East crisis has visited the region to help ease tension. China has also voiced principled positions at platforms such as the UN and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, defending international fairness and justice. 
China has always advocated harmony and believes that strength of force does not equal strength of reason. It insists that hotspot issues should be resolved through equal dialogue and political solutions - a reflection of historical clarity and long-term vision.
Keir Starmer, to his eternal shame however, wants it both ways. He aligns himself with  Franco-German imperialism to get better terms for the UK’s realignment with the European Union while crawling to Trump by allowing American war-planes to use British bases for their operations against the Islamic Republic. No-one’s fooled by this. The Europeans take no notice as they don’t think he will remain in office after the regional and local elections in May. On the other hand Trump, with his strange and childish comments on social media, does little to mask his contempt for the Prime Minister.
Starmer likes to wave the flag and claim he’s ‘standing up for Britain’. He could start by cancelling the King’s visit to the United States in April.

Turning the screws on Labour

Unite the union has decided to cut its donations to the Labour Party by 40 per cent. Labour will lose over half a million pounds from one of its major affiliates – and all down to the Starmer government’s refusal to intervene in the year-long Birmingham bin strike that was triggered by the Labour-run council’s move to cut the bin workers’ wages.
Unite general secretary Sharon Graham told striking members that "we're pushing back on one of the most vile attacks on workers we have seen in a long, long time.
"And the joke about this - it's not an attack from Rupert Murdoch, not an attack from Amazon. But an attack from a Labour council, under a Labour government. Labour should hang their heads in shame. They're an absolute disgrace”.
She’s right, of course. But punishing Labour is one thing – changing its course is another. Though Sharon Graham was the outsider who upset the grandees apple-cart when she won the race for the top job in her union in 2021 on a left platform it was still a battle of the bureaucrats. She only differs from the other full-timers that she defeated in showing more deference to rank-and-file militancy than her predecessors. But generally her faction differs little from all the other “left” factions that run most of our unions today. Their leaders see themselves as “professional negotiators” rather than workers’ leaders. They see mass action as a last resort and then only as a bargaining factor. None of them want to assert real control over the party the unions still largely fund. All they want from Labour is a bigger piece of the action.
That, some say, is how it’s always been. It’s not for nothing that the cartoonist David Low portrayed the TUC as a “cart-horse” in the 1950s. But there were exceptions. The post-war Communist Party of Great Britain helped draw up the constitution of the electricians’ union – in the days when local stewards could call strikes and every strike was “official”  from day one unless later deemed “unofficial” by the Executive.
By the 1970s the old communist party, with its staid Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Union Rights,  embraced the view that the highest form of life was that of a full-time official. It was easily eclipsed by “rank-and-file” movements led by the left social-democratic posers in a variety of self-styled Trotskyist fronts. Those that climbed up the greasy pole of the union apparatat soon sold out. Their grass-roots organisations came and went. But that’s not to say the method was wrong. Look at the Anti-Nazi League of the Seventies. It has evolved into the anti-fascist and anti-racist mass movement that confronts the Faragists and the likes of the man who calls himself “Tommy Robinson” on our streets today.
This is what we need to get back to in the unions today – building a united front with all left forces ready to build a genuinely rank-and-file movement and willing to take on the employer for higher wages and fight for peace and socialism.

The Chosen Men return!

 by Ben Soton

Sharpe’s Storm by Bernard Cornwell, Harper-Collins. Hbk: 2025, 368pp, rrp £22.00. Sbk: 2026, 368pp, rrp £9.99. Audio: 628 minutes, rrp £17.99.

This is Bernard Cornwell’s 24th novel in the Sharpe series – set in 1813, as the British army along with their Spanish and Portuguese allies advance into France during the Napoleonic wars. Most of the Sharpe novels are set during the war with France when Britain was aligned with the absolute monarchies of Prussia, Russia and Austria. So I wouldn’t imagine the Sharpe saga, with its glorification of war, especially a conflict where this country was arguably on the wrong side, to be especially popular on the left.           
What of the character Sharpe? Richard Sharpe was born around 1780 in poverty, becomes involved in crime.  In the television series, Sharpe, played by Sean Bean, is a Yorkshireman; in the original novels he is a Londoner.  He eventually joins the army and begins a successful military career.  So successful that he is given a commission by Arthur Wellesley, the first Duke of Wellington.  This gives him both strength and vulnerability.  On the one hand he is Wellington’s man, giving him a degree of protection. But he lacks the wealthy connections of most other officers and therefore Wellington can easily break him as he could make him.  
For this reason Sharpe is often given dangerous missions; in the case of Sharpe’s Storm Admiral Sir Joel Chase.  has been tasked by Wellington to overview the river Ardour, check its bridges and examine the possibility of getting warships down it. This is made increasingly difficult as the events take place during a storm.  Although Sharpe is admired by the military top brass, he still manages to make enemies amongst junior officers from the ranks of the gentry. In this story Sir Nathaniel Peacock, a man who obviously bought his commission and with limited experience, is a liability.  Peacock continually reminds Sharpe of his social superiority; which Sharpe is able to brush off with a degree of humour and sarcasm.
The idea of Sharpe is based on the notion that the ruling class, which may contain a few bad apples (anyone who has watched the news recently knows that it is more than just a few), is fundamentally good, recognises talent and is willing to occasionally bring in new blood.  This positive view of the ruling class explains why the series is popular on the right.  Sharpe, although a fundamentally decent individual, has absolutely no concept of class loyalty. Meanwhile the character also has deep insecurities; which emanate from the knowledge that he may never be fully accepted.  Thus accepting the limitations of meritocracy. Sharpe is ultimately a mercenary for his own ruling class.

Stop the drift to war

It didn’t take long for Starmer to switch from blocking the Americans from using  British bases to attack Iran to permitting it and now actively collaborating with US imperialism and Zionist Israel in their onslaught against the Islamic Republic. He can count on the Faragists and Tories to back him while Tony Blair, who can barely show his face in public in Britain these days, thinks we should have gone in with Trump from the start.

This shouldn’t surprise us. Farage thinks he’s Trump’s mouth-piece in Britain while crawling to the Americans is almost compulsory for Tory and Labour leaders who drone on and on about “partnership” and the “special relationship” to justify British imperialism’s slavish support of American power throughout the world. 
But on the street millions upon millions have seen through the lies of the bourgeois media. They want no part in Trump’s crusade. This is the message that must be heard throughout the labour movement as well. Stop the bombing! End the War!

Every cloud...

This week we saw a minor victory for free speech when the High Court ruled in favour of the Guardian journalist Owen Jones in the Raffi Berg libel case. Jones, best known for his book Chavs –The Demonising of the Working Class back in 2011, launched his career as a man of the left but soon gravitated to the centre to join the prominenti of the mainstream media. He did, however, attract the ire of the Zionists when he accused a BBC journalist of pro-Israeli bias in December 2024
.
Jones' article cited BBC journalists who accused BBC news online editor Raffi Berg of fostering a culture of 'systematic Israeli propaganda'.  But the court rejected Berg's lawyers' core argument that Jones' reporting presented him as "a rogue journalist and editor who deliberately disregards and breaches the duties of accuracy and impartiality".
Jones' piece in Drop Site News quoted BBC staffers saying Berg "reshapes everything from headlines, to story text, to images" and "repeatedly seeks to foreground the Israeli military perspective while stripping away Palestinian humanity". Jones said that "facts unfavourable to Israel have been stripped out of Berg’s reports" and that he played a "crucial role" in "conduct that imperils the integrity of the BBC".
Berg instructed Mark Lewis of Patron Law, previously a director of UK Lawyers for Israel, as his solicitor. His legal team says that Owen’s piece strikes "at the claimant’s professional reputation as a journalist and editor" and has led to "an onslaught of hatred, intimidation and threats", including death threats. 
Nevertheless the judges ruled that the article by Jones expressed an opinion, and indicated the basis for that opinion through examples of Berg's journalism and editorial role. The ruling is central to determining whether the case is to be pursued.
Berg will now need to show that Jones did not genuinely hold the opinion he expressed in his reporting, or demonstrate that the opinion is not one an honest person could hold on the basis of any fact that existed at the time of its publication. It will be interesting to see if Berg decides to take this any further...

The view from the Donbas

Boris Litvinov, Theo Russell & Andy Brooks

by Theo Russell

Members of the New Communist Party and International Ukraine Anti Fascist Solidarity recently held an online meeting with Boris Litvinov, the Secretary of the Donetsk Region of theCommunist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF). The meeting was also joined by Gedrius Gebrauskas, the general secretary of the Communist Party of Lithuania, who is currently living in exile in Moscow. We publish here a summary of the main points which were discussed.
Boris Litvinov, the Donetsk communist leader,  said that though recent initiatives have led to talks on the Ukraine conflict the war continues unabated. On the US-Russian peace talks there are currently plenty of delegations meeting in various places, creating the illusion that the Americans want peace. But while Trump says he won’t send troops to Ukraine, he’s happy for the Europeans to pay for weapons to send to Ukraine to continue the war.
The leading European states dream of endlessly prolonging the conflict, with the aim of doing away with Russia. The European media spreads the idea that Russia is preparing to invade Europe, and the EU representative for foreign policy, Kaja Kallas, has made the ridiculous claim that in the past 100 years, Russia has attacked at least 19 countries, “some as many as three or four times”. 
We need to explain that Russia isn’t preparing to attack anyone. But Ukraine is our concern. It was part of the Soviet Union. It is our problem and we need to solve it. Let Europe solve their own problems with the United States!
We hope to convince the European countries to stop sending money and weapons for the war.
We still don’t understand why the European states blew up the Nord Stream pipeline and cut off Russian energy.
On Western claims of about a million Russian casualties let’s be clear. There are victims on both sides in any war. But when we return 1,000 body-bags to Ukraine, Ukraine sends us 80 in return, and this is the normal ratio in such exchanges. War is very complicated, now with modern systems such as drones, and inevitably the war will carry on. 
 Zelensky is a criminal. His latest demand is for 1.5 trillion US dollars to cover Ukraine’s budget for five years. If Europe continues to send money to ther Kiev regime, a global catastrophe, including the possibility of a nuclear conflict, becomes highly likely.
We want to see a just settlement of the Ukraine crisis. We also want conflicts elsewhere in the world to end in Palestine, Iran,  Lebanon, Yemen and Sudan. This is our main concern.
Andy Brooks, the NCP general secretary. said that the primary contradiction in the world today is between United States imperialism and the rest of the world it seeks to control and exploit. President Trump may not want world domination but he does want to divide the world into spheres on influence – with the lion’s share in American hands –  in line with the wishes of the dominant sections in the USA – manufacturing, big oil and the tech giants. As with Biden, the aim is still to control the world market in energy, and to challenge any country which tries to establish genuine economic independence.
Europe believed that Russia would lose quickly in 2022 and that the sanctions against Russia and against Russian oligarchs would create the possibility of a change of leadership in the Kremlin. This they believed would enable British and Franco-German imperialism to exploit Ukraine in partnership with the Americans. This did not happen.
Trump’s 22 point “peace plan” for Ukraine includes total American control of Ukraine’s mineral resources and the current US-Russian talks cover economic projects which completely exclude Europe. 
These talks are secret. Now we oppose secret diplomacy, which was banned by the UN after 1945, and we still don’t know what is happening in the US-Russian talks, which are by-passing the United Nations. What does seem clear is that Trump’s goal is to take 70 per cent of Ukrainia’s assets for himself leaving the 30 per cent of liberated territory for Russia and nothing for the Europeans.
For our part we hope that a future settlement will recognise the legitimate right of the people of the Donbas and southern Ukraine to join the Russian Federation and that the democratic forces in Ukraine will be given complete freedom of expression. 
Boris Litvinov said our mission is to help people to open their eyes. The capitalist part of our state wants to join the US dollar system, but there is another section which is patriotic. This section includes capitalists and left forces. We recognise that we need to protect our country’s national interests , even in alliance with capitalist forces.
Now Trump is hoping to impose a digital currency on the world. When this happens and a new international situation comes about, the European states need to choose what to do. If they decide to ally with Russia, China, India, Brazil and the other BRICS states, then there will be no space left for the Americans and the dollar will collapse.
We feel sorrow for the people of Ukraine. They are being used as cannon fodder to achieve the future aims of the United States. Many Ukrainians have fled to find a better life and there are not many people left to continue fighting. Now the Western countries are talking about sending troops to Ukraine. That means you too will have coffins returning – who will be responsible for this madness?

The Madness of King Trump

Rambling speeches, delusions of grandeur, unhinged threats to friend and foe alike,,,and now a demand for “unconditional surrender” as his offensive against Iran falters in the first week of open combat. The Iranians have crippled the American military network across the Middle East, cut off the Persian Gulf to all Western shipping while giving the Israelis a taste of their own medicine with daily drone and missile strikes on Tel Aviv and other cities across the Zionist entity. America and Israel’s “achievements” so far have been the killing of 165 school-kids in an air-raid last week and the sinking of an Iranian frigate in the Indian Ocean.
Trump’s team initially believed that they could wipe out the Iranian leadership and force the Islamic Republic to beg for mercy in a matter of a few days. Their treacherous attack in the midst of negotiations to end the crisis neither shocked nor awed the Iranians. They killed some but not all the Iranian leaders. They destroyed some but not all of Iran’s stockpile of drones and missiles.
The Iranians, enraged at the death of their Supreme Leader and many others in the leadership vow to fight on no matter what the Americans or Israelis throw at them. Their Arab allies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, north Yemen and the Palestinian resistance are joining in to help them. The Iranians have cut off the Persian Gulf and the Yemenis are blocking the Red Sea to all Western shipping. The spot oil price is soaring. The stock markets of the imperialist world are jittery amid fears that a massive hike in the price of oil on the open market will trigger another global slump. The longer the war goes on the more likely that will be, And even the Americans are now talking about a five or six week campaign.
In Britain the Tories and the Faragists are predictably rooting for a Trump triumph. So are Starmer & Co and the ageing Blairites he surrounds himself with. Jeremy Corbyn warns that “we cannot let Keir Starmer drag this country into another illegal war. That’s why I tabled a Bill to require Parliamentary approval for the foreign use of British bases” – a view supported by the Greens, the Bennite rump on the Labour back-benches and beyond.
Starmer’s bid to allow the Americans to use British bases for their war effort has been blocked by four Cabinet ministers, led by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband.  
Starmer is still trying to appease The Donald and the feudal Arab oil princes who invest in Britain but depend on American guns to keep them on their thrones. But wiser counsel has prevailed in Europe. None of the members of the European Union, apart from the Baltic States which are little more than American protectorates, have shown any enthusiasm to join the Trump crusade against Iran. And Spain’s social-democratic government has taken a more principled position, refusing to allow the United States to use its military bases for attacks on Iran and condemning the strikes as unjustified and outside international law.
And this is what Britain must also do. The mass movement, the millions who’ve marched for Palestine are now demonstrating to stop any British involvement in imperialist aggression, stop the bombing and end the cycle of violence that threatens to plunge the entire world into flames. Stop bombing Iran! Stop Trump’s war!

The Shape of Things to Come

The Green victory in the Gorton & Denton by-election was a slap in the face for all the major parliamentary parties. Labour lost a seat it’s held for a hundred years. Reform came a poor second  and the Tories lost their deposit trailing behind just a few hundred votes above the Liberal Democrats, the Monster Raving Loonies and the other also-rans. 
Trumped by the Greens the Faragists put their failure down to the “Muslim vote” while the Starmer crowd blame left “extremists” for making the common course with the Greens that led to Labour’s downfall in Manchester. But at the end of the day Starmer & Co got the kicking they so richly deserved because voters were sick of the lies of the false prophets of all the mainstream bourgeois parties in Britain today.
Jeremy Corbyn, one of those “extremists” that Starmer doubtless had in mind, welcomed the Greens’ stunning victory and said his supporters “will work constructively with the Greens, because there is only one way we can bring about real change: together”.
On the other hand Richard Burgon, one of the few left social-democrats still in the Parliamentary Labour Party says the “blame for Labour’s defeat lies squarely with Keir Starmer and his clique”.
He says “they put factional interests over having the candidate best placed to win, Andy Burnham. If Labour is to be the “Stop Reform” party, then the leadership must stop treating progressive voters with contempt - and start appealing to them.
“That means a return to real Labour values - through policies like a Wealth Tax, public ownership of energy and water, and an ethical foreign policy that are all popular with the public. And it means ditching the approach of trying to ape Reform and kicking the left, that has alienated so many people who have voted Labour previously”.
We’ll see. The Greens deservedly got a massive protest vote this time round but their “eco-socialism” is only a rehash of the stale left social-democracy we see time and time again within the European Union that the Greens much admire. 
Angela Rayner and Andy Burnham wait in the wings to pick up the pieces when Starmer inevitably goes. They uphold the NHS. They talk about public ownership. They pay lip-service to the old Bennite social-democratic tradition. They support the union bureaucrats at the helm of the labour movement. But that’s as far as it goes – and as far as it will ever go as long as the careerists and time-servers remain in charge. We, as communists,  want real change. We have to put socialism back on the working-class agenda. 
We must keep up the fight against the whole capitalist system in Britain and throughout the world. The struggle for peace and socialism must begin anew – in the unions, amongst the rank and file and on the street. It must start now...

Stone Age stories

 by Ben Soton

Circle of Days by Ken Follett, Grand Central Publishing; 2025, hbk  608pp rrp £25. pbk rrp £10.99.

For years Ken Follett has long been a master of both contemporary and historical fiction.  His latest novel, Circle of Days, takes us back to ancient Britain – a time after the development of agriculture but before writing reached these shores. The building of Stonehenge is a major aspect of the book; a monument still standing just a few miles outside Salisbury in Wiltshire, the area referred to as the Great Plain. 
This is the first major novel set during the prehistoric era since Bernard Cornwell wrote Stonehenge in 2000. The two novels present very contrasting views of the period. Cornwell’s novel portrays a society with an existing hierarchy; Circle of Days is set in a more anarchic world with competing and sometimes conflicting communities – farmers, herders, ‘woodland folk’, flint miners and a caste of priestesses.  Follett paints a world of conflict. 
The farmers are the emerging and most powerful group with an element of the story focussing on the age-old rivalry between them and the herders – the basis of the Cain and Abel myth. Meanwhile the woodland folk, obviously the remnants of  the hunter-gatherer society, appear to be doomed. The novel shows the different attitudes and cultures of the rival groups.  Women within the farming community are seen as property of their men whilst the woodland folk practice a form of free-love. The priestesses are an overwhelmingly lesbian grouping; while being the only ones who can count.
 Follett, who is not a Marxist, is painting a picture of an emerging class society. It is widely known that farming triumphed over hunter-gathering and herding, eventually leading to class-society and the rest is history. The author, who has always favoured class compromise, predictably sides with those in the various communities who favour compromise and negotiation. As the story develops, we see tit-for-tat warfare between the rival groupings; which includes the burning of the forest by herders and attacks on grain stores by woodlanders. 
The building of the henge takes place in the later stages of the novel; its construction is the idea of Joia, a priestess who sees it as a means of uniting the rival groupings and bringing more people to the Great Plain. Its construction is opposed by Troon, the leader of the farmers with designs on domination over the region.  As Joia builds the Henge he builds an army.  However are these not two sides of the same coin?  Standing armies and megaliths are both features of a class society; with warriors and priests (in this case priestesses) becoming part of the new ruling-class. 
This is pure Follett; delving into the personal and often the sex lives of the key characters. It has a strong resemblance to his 1989 novel Pillars of the Earth, set around the building of a cathedral in 12th century England. Both novels are based on the premise of ‘Build it and They Will Come’.  As a novel set in pre-history much of the story is down to the author’s imagination; however it is a fitting tribute to those who built Stonehenge.       
  

Uneasy lies the head...

 Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is the first member of the Royal Family to be arrested since Charles Stuart was held by the New Model Army at the end of the First Civil War in 1646. Charles remained in custody before his trial and execution in 1649. The Republic of England, or Commonwealth as it was styled in English, was proclaimed soon after. Oliver Cromwell, the MP for Huntingdon who was the leading Parliamentary commander during the civil war,
later became head of state, the Lord Protector, a post he held until his death in 1658. 
Andrew’s arrest is not going to bring down the House of Windsor nor is he likely to share the fate of his loathsome predecessor. Nevertheless the high-life of the former prince that revolved around Jeffrey Epstein, a degenerate American brothel keeper who supplied young girls to prominent politicians and businessmen on both sides of the Atlantic, has brought the Royal Family into disrepute not seen since the Abdication crisis of 1936.
In those days the bourgeois parliament and the leaders of the Church of England believed that Edward V111’s morals and his sympathy for Nazi Germany made him unfit to head the Anglican church let alone an Empire that spanned a quarter of the entire world. These days Andrew’s antics have merely embarrassed our current king, who’s clearly washed his hands on his errant younger brother.
The monarchy, of course, is part and parcel of British bourgeois democracy. During Elizabeth 11’s long reign they built up a cult around the House of Windsor based on two powerful myths – the first being that the Royal Family are paragons of virtue and the second that they have no power at all in the modern British state. Neither is true.
The first is blatantly obvious. The second ignores the nature of the bourgeois state and the role of the ruling family that heads it. To be sure, the Westminster parliament is a sovereign assembly that can pick and chose monarchs – it got rid of James 11 in 1688. It forced Edward out in 1936. The monarch is, on the face of it, a figurehead, But at the end of the day it is absurd to think that the House of Windsor, one of the richest families in the world, has no power at all.
New voices are now questioning the role of the monarchy – a natural feature of the early days of British communism. There were also outspoken republicans in the social-democratic movement like Tony Benn and Ken Livingstone. Even some right-wing social-democrats like Willie Hamilton, the Fife MP who branded the royal family gold-plated scroungers joined in the calls for the monarchy to be scrapped. But republicanism was barely, if ever, mentioned during the post-war decline of the revisionist Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB). Calls for a democratic republic were said to be “divisive” given the supposed popularity of the monarchy amongst the working class and irrelevant in the forward march of labour that was conjured up in the British Road to Socialism.
Our position, from the day we were founded is clear. The New Communist Party calls for the abolition of the Crown, the House of Lords and all titles of nobility. They serves no democratic purpose whatsoever. 

A just decision

 The High Court has ruled the Palestine Action ban unlawful.Three judges led by Dame Victoria Sharp, president of the King’s Bench Division, concluded that the decision to ban the group was unlawful. However, the ban will remain temporarily in place to allow the government time to appeal.
On 5th July last year membership of or public support for the Palestine Action campaign became a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The pro-Palestinian direct action network was placed on the list of proscribed organisations, categorising it alongside internationally recognised ‘terrorist’ groups.
Over 2,700 people have been arrested since the ban took effect, most under section 13 of the Terrorism Act. More than 500 individuals, including members of the clergy, pensioners and military veterans, have been charged.
The court upheld the challenge on two of four grounds. Judges found that the proscription represented “a very significant interference” with the rights to freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and association. They also ruled that the decision of the then Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, was inconsistent with her own stated policy.
Though Dame Victoria Sharp described Palestine Action as an organisation “that promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality” she said that “the court considered that the proscription of Palestine Action was disproportionate. A very small number of Palestine Action’s activities amounted to acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 Act.
“For these, and for Palestine Action’s other criminal activities, the general criminal law remains available. The nature and scale of Palestine Action’s activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale, and persistence to warrant proscription” .
Or as Jeremy Corbyn put it: “we knew the proscription of Palestine Action was absurd and immoral. Now, we know it was unlawful too. Today’s ruling is a vindication for all those who had the courage to oppose genocide – and a day of shame for those in our government who enabled it”.
The judgement resolutely rebuffs the Starmer government’s attempts to criminalise political dissent and activism aimed at stopping material support for genocide. This is a historic ruling. For the first time an organisation banned under the Terrorism Act has successfully challenged its proscription in court.
Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori said this was a monumental victory.  “We were banned because Palestine Action’s disruption of Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems, cost the corporation millions of pounds in profits and to lose out on multibillion-pound contracts.
“We’ve used the same tactics as direct action organisations throughout history, including anti-war groups Keir Starmer defended in court, and the government acknowledged in these legal proceedings that this ban was based on property damage, not violence against people. Banning Palestine Action was always about appeasing pro-Israel lobby groups and weapons manufacturers, and nothing to do with terrorism”.
The ruling, and the court victories of the previous weeks in the Filton cases, show that the Government’s actions were not only immoral but unlawful.
We call for the dropping of all charges against those who have been linked to this unlawful proscription and other cases of protest against British complicity in Israel’s genocide, including the organisers of the national marches for Palestine facing criminal charges. 
We call for the resignation of police commissioner Mark Rowley, as well as former Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and current Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood. And above all, we call for the resignation of the head of the whole rotting edifice, Sir Keir Starmer. 

Stop the escalation of aggression against Cuba!

joint statement of communist & workers parties on Cuba

 We firmly condemn US imperialism’s new escalation of aggression against the sovereignty and

independence of Cuba and against the rights of the Cuban people.

The US President’s Executive Order calling Cuba an «unusual and extraordinary threat» against its

security is merely creating, based on a pack of falsehoods, a cynical pretext by US imperialism to

try and prevent the supply of fuel to Cuba and to step up the economic, financial and trade embargo

which it has imposed for over six decades, in an attempt to cause maximum harm to the Cuban

people’s living conditions.

This escalation of US aggression against Cuba, which is accompanied by the threat to impose

arbitrary coercive measures of an extra-territorial nature, represents yet another unacceptable and

blatant violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter and of international law, an affront

to the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace and a threat to world

peace and security.

The new threshold of US aggression and blackmail against Cuba is part and parcel of the broader

plan by US imperialism to impose its domination on Latin America and the Caribbean, in the spirit

of the Monroe Doctrine, a plan which also includes the recent military aggression against Venezuela

with the kidnapping of its President, Nicolás Maduro, and the threats against Colombia, Mexico and

other countries in the region.

Imperialism’s aggressive onslaught is a threat, not just to the sovereignty and rights of the Cuban

people, but also to other peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean and to all peoples of the

world. This onslaught represents the greatest threat to world peace and requires a firm and persistent

resistance and struggle by the workers and the peoples, for sovereignty, rights, peace and

internationalist solidarity.

In hailing the example of courage, determination, peace, cooperation and solidarity provided by

Cuba to the world, we demand an immediate end to all threats and hostile steps by the USA against

Cuba, including an end to the cruel, criminal and illegal blockade, thus fulfilling the demands of

numerous Resolutions of the UN General Assembly.

We express our solidarity with Socialist Cuba and call for the broadest international solidarity in

defense of its independence and sovereignty and of the rights of the Cuban people, including the

right to decide their future, in peace and free from foreign interference and pressure.

Cuba is not alone! Cuba will win!

Solidnet Parties

1. Communist Party of Albania
2. Algerian Party for Democracy and Socialism
3. Communist Party of Argentina
4. Communist Party of Armenia
5. Communist Party of Australia
6. Communist Party of Austria
7. Party of Labour of Austria
8. Communist Party of Azerbaijan
9. Democratic Tribune Bahrain
10. Communist Party of Bangladesh
11. Communist Party of Belarus
12. Workers Party of Belgium
13. Communist Party of Brazil
14. Brazilian Communist Party
15. Communist Party of Britain
16. New Communist Party of Britain
17. Communist Party of Canada
18. Communist Party of Chile
19. Colombian Communist Party
20. Socialist Workers' Party of Croatia
21. AKEL – Cyprus
22. Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia
23. Communist Party of Denmark
24. Egyptian Communist Party
25. Communist Party of Finland
26. French Communist Party
27. United Communist Party of Georgia
28. German Communist Party
29. Communist Party of Greece
30. Hungarian Workers' Party
31. Communist Party of India (Marxist)
32. Communist Party of India
33. Tudeh Party of Iran
34. Iraqi Communist Party
35. Kurdistan Communist Party -Iraq
36. Communist Party of Ireland
37. Workers' Party of Ireland (Official)
38. Workers' Party of Ireland
39. Communist Party of Israel
40. Communist Refoundation Party – Italy
41. Italian Communist Party
42. Communist Party (Italy)
43. Jordanian Communist Party
44. Communist Party of Kazakhstan
45. Kuwaiti Progressive Movement
46. Party of Communists of Kyrgyzstan
47. Lebanese Communist Party
48. Communist Party of Luxembourg
49. Communist Party of Malta
50. Communist Party of Mexico
51. Popular Socialist Party - National Popular Socialist Political Group – Mexico
52. Popular Socialist Party of Mexico
53. Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova
54. New Communist Party of Netherlands
55. Communist Party of Norway
56. Communist Party of Pakistan 
57. Palestinian Communist Party
58. Palestinian People's Party
59. Paraguayan Communist Party
60. Communist Party of Peru – Patria Roja
61. Philippine Communist Party (PCP-1930)
62. Portuguese Communist Party
63. Romanian Socialist Party
64. Communist Party of the Russian Federation
65. Russian Communist Workers' Party
66. Communists of Serbia
67. South African Communist Party
68. Communist Party of Spain
69. Communist Party of Peoples of Spain
70. Communist Party of the Workers of Spain
71. Communists of Catalonia
72. Communist Party of Sri Lanka
73. Sudanese Communist  Party
74. Communist Party of Swaziland
75. Communist Party of Sweden
76. Communist Party (Switzerland)
77. Swiss Communist Party
78. Syrian Communist Party (Unified)
79. Syrian Communist Party
80. Communist Party of Turkey
81. Communist Party of Ukraine
82. Union of Communists of Ukraine
83. Communist Party of Uruguay
84. Communist Party USA
85. Communist Party of Venezuela

Other Parties

1. Argentinian Communist Party
2. Patriotic Union – Colombia
3. Political Movement Citizen Revolution Ecuador
4. Socialist Party of Egypt
5. Party of Popular Alliance Egypt
6. Nepali Communist Party
7. Workers Democratic Way – Morocco
8. Federation of Democratic Left – Morocco
9. Democratic Front for Liberation of Palestine
10. Palestinian Popular Struggle Front
11. Popular Front For The Liberation of Palestine
12. Galician Nationalist Bloc
13. Union of the Galician People
14. Swiss Party of Labour
15. Party of Popular Will Syria
16. Socialist Party of Yemen 

Motown: Lessons from 50 years of struggle

by Chris Mahin

Motown and the Making of Working-Class Revolutionaries: The Story of the League of Revolutionary Black Workers: Jerome Scott and Walda Katz-Fishman ,University of Georgia Press, September 2025, 216 pp; pbk: rrp £31.95, hbk rrp £124.95

This is a moving account of one of the most important organisations in the United States during the late 1960s written by Jerome Scott and Walda Katz-Fishman. Scott was a leader of the League of Revolutionary Black Workers (LRBW) who helped organise a walk-out to protest unsafe conditions at Chrysler Corporation’s Detroit Forge plant. That wildcat strike at a strategic factory shut down Chrysler production throughout the entire world for one week. Walda Katz-Fishman is a revolutionary and scholar who received her Ph.D. in sociology from Wayne State University in Detroit. Since the late 1970s she has worked closely with veterans of the LRBW and she helped coordinate the League’s oral history project.  
Motown is  the product of 50 years of struggle and almost a decade of preparation. In December 2015, veterans of the LRBW began planning a history of the organisation. The need for such a history became increasingly urgent as some of the LRBW’s most important leaders began to die. In 2016 and 2017, the authors took part in videotaped interviews with more than 40 people.  Motown includes extensive excerpts from those interviews.
The result is both an extraordinary collective memoir and a detailed history of Detroit. This book recounts how the leaders of the Black workers’ insurgency in Detroit in the 1960s found their way to Marxism and how they used it as a guide to understand the profound changes which have swept the world since.  
In the interviews, former members of the LRBW recount the horrific conditions in the auto plants, the challenges the League faced, and the long struggle to build other revolutionary organisations after the LRBW split in 1971. To their credit, the people interviewed do not simply reminisce – they reflect deeply on what the hard-fought battles of the 1960s mean for today. They are frank and self-critical about mistakes that were made – particularly about the way women were treated in the LRBW. They are brutally realistic about how different the economic and political conditions are today,
the Motor City
Part One includes a detailed historical materialist analysis of the auto industry and Detroit. 
From the first quarter of the 20th century until the 1970s, Detroit was the leading producer of motor-cars in the entire world. The city earned its nickname – “The Motor City” – or simply “Motown”. Detroit’s diverse proletariat included Black workers whose families had fled the Jim Crow South; white workers who had travelled up the “Hillbilly Highway” from the Appalachian Mountains; workers from Mexico; Arab workers from Palestine, Yemen and other parts of the Middle East; and workers from many other parts of the world. 
In the 20th century, Black auto workers were concentrated in the most dangerous and difficult jobs, enduring racist mistreatment and unsafe conditions.  The car workers’ trade union in the United States – the United Auto Workers – was run by a clique of right-wing social-democrats who had conducted witch-hunts against communist trade unionists during the 1950s.  
In July 1967, police brutality against Black workers sparked the massive Detroit Rebellion. In 1968 Black workers walked out of Dodge Main – a factory of 10,000 workers. They created the Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement (DRUM). Soon, Black workers at other factories were forming Revolutionary Union Movement (RUM) groupings. Eventually, these formations combined into one umbrella organisation – the League of Revolutionary Black Workers. 
In mid-1971, the LRBW went into crisis. Some of its top leaders wanted to expand into other cities. Many LRBW members in the factories questioned that approach. They wanted to deepen the LRBW’s involvement in the day-to-day struggle in Detroit. 
On 12th June 1971, the LRBW split in two. After some of the most prominent leaders left, the members who remained – workers based in the factories -- discussed what to do next. Resolved to continue the struggle, they knew they needed to step back and assess – and study. In the LRBW, the top leaders had read some Marxism, but there had never been a full-fledged education programme for the entire membership. Determined to change that situation, the LRBW cadre who remained after the split reached out to revolutionaries in California. They ultimately established contact with veteran Marxist-Leninists who had taken part in the fight against revisionism within the Communist Party USA during the 1950s and were now part of the Communist League. 
What followed was a year of intense discussion and study. At first, some of those from the LRBW were wary of joining a multi-ethnic organisation. Detailed discussions of Lenin and Stalin’s writings on the national colonial question were extremely helpful. The revolutionaries from the LRBW ultimately joined the Communist League. That decision helped set the stage for a Congress of Marxist-Leninists which founded the Communist Labor Party of the United States of North America in 1974. Later, former LRBW leaders were also instrumental in creating the League of Revolutionaries for a New America in the 1990s.

Today...

...Detroit is no longer the epicentre of world auto production. Globalisation and automation have changed that. Today, former LRBW members are involved in the fight against homelessness and poverty and against the growth of fascism in the United States. 
Part Four of the book looks to the future. One key lesson is the dialectical relationship between theory and practice. Every person interviewed for this book spoke with great feeling and gratitude about the education they received in the LRBW and the organisations that succeeded it – Marxist political education. All stated emphatically that they would never have been able to continue as life-long revolutionaries without that education. 
Ultimately Motown is about how revolutionaries adapt without betraying their principles. It’s the story of how young people were forged into revolutionaries while working in the crucible of a very dangerous industry. At a moment of crisis, those revolutionaries had to step back to study and assess – in order to return to the practical movement and fight with greater clarity in a changed environment. 
Since its publication in September 2025 Motown has attracted considerable attention from young revolutionaries in the United States. Hopefully, the hard-won lessons in this collective memoir will help that new generation as it steps forward to continue the fight for a new world.

Motown is available on the Liverpool University Press website at https://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/