From Racism and Anti-Communism to Global Dominance: On the Use of ICE’s Foreign Policy Provision

By Brian Rome

Republished from Liberation School.

A foreign national spoke out against a country he accused of killing his family. After fleeing that country to escape persecution, the U.S. government arrested him and tried to deport him. The U.S. government was protective of its relationship with the foreign country he criticized and wanted to silence him through deportation.

It used a little-known provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that says the Secretary of State can claim their presence could have adverse consequences for foreign policy. A judge called his case “Kafkaesque,” meaning nightmarish, bizarre, and illogical, but the government was allowed to proceed with his deportation. The story is familiar but not new: it’s what happened to Mario Ruiz Massieu, whom the U.S. government tried to deport in 1993.

This is also similar to the story of Mahmoud Khalil, whom ICE detained on March 8, 2025, under the pretext of the INA’s same foreign policy provision. The U.S. government targeted Khalil because of his principled advocacy for Palestinians and his role as a lead negotiator for Columbia students protesting their university’s investments in Israel. All people in the U.S., including non-citizen immigrants, have the right to free speech through the First Amendment. Khalil, however, is a legal permanent resident. The government is pursuing his unconstitutional deportation to drive fear into the heart of the movement for Palestine. Khalil’s story is not an anomaly but shows how U.S. immigration law is actually a weapon against the people both inside and outside the country.

The country’s first immigration laws were developed in 1790. These laws codified white supremacy and set hard limits on the types of people who could enter and enjoy full privileges of citizenship. In 1952 the original Immigration and Nationalities Act shifted the focus to preventing undesirables who held communist and pro-worker beliefs. The foreign policy provision was enacted in 1990 as an extreme show of force given to the state to target and isolate individuals.

From white supremacy to anti-communism to global dominance, each successive period subsumes what came before, rooted in the interests of the capitalist ruling class: preserving and expanding capital’s dominance over working people and oppressed nations in the U.S. and abroad.

To the roots: White supremacy and the class function of immigration law

Immigration law serves two complementary functions: external exclusion and internal discipline.

Exclusion operates through borders and legal barriers to entry. The government uses race, nationality, and economic class as gatekeeping criteria for particular working-class populations deemed as threats. Pro-communist immigrants, whether from Cuba, China, or Italy, are not allowed to become citizens. Banning entire peoples means that the government can entrench racial demographics and prevent the development of solidarity. If the only Venezuelans one meets are anti-socialist, it is hard to perceive the mass support of the Bolivarian Revolution.

Discipline, on the other hand, works against people who are here. Immigrants fear deportation. To avoid that, they may accept lower wages and keep quiet about violations of their rights as workers. Even when immigrants have legal status, their status is often tethered to their employer or their school. This effectively gives their boss or university the power to deport them. For non-immigrants, employers use the threat of replacement by immigrant workers to accept less and pit workers against each other.

The first such law, the 1790 Naturalization Act, set up an explicit class and racial barrier for citizenship. Only free white persons could become citizens. Free white persons excluded Indigenous peoples, slaves, indentured servants, and anyone not European or their descendants.

Less than 10 years later, Congress enacted its first deportation law, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. This was the first legal connection drawn between U.S. foreign policy and immigration. The U.S. at the time was at war with Revolutionary France. Under this law, the President could arrest and deport French revolutionaries and others deemed “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” The law is still in force today and has been invoked by President Trump to deport Venezuelan immigrants.

The 19th century was marked by European and American colonization and attacks on China in what would be known in China as the Century of Humiliation. China, the country that invented silk, tea, paper, and gunpowder, had been a trading partner with Europe for nearly 300 years. The European market was in high demand for Chinese goods but had little to offer in return. They were forced to pay the Chinese in precious metals, running up a trade deficit. Over time the British began importing opium–the base ingredient of heroin–and began addicting the population.

When the Chinese imperial government attempted to ban opium sales, the colonial powers found their solution: the Opium Wars [1]. They pried open China’s internal markets and flooded the country with opium, overruling China’s attempts to ban opium sales [2]. Ten percent of China’s population became addicted to opium. China was subjugated to Western capital. Many Chinese workers were forced into super-exploitative overseas labor as a result.

Many of these workers ended up in the U.S., where slavery had ended and the construction of the transcontinental railroad demanded massive amounts of cheap labor. Nine in 10 workers on the strategic infrastructure were Chinese [3]. Capitalists not only ruthlessly exploited Chinese workers (many died of overwork before the end of their labor contracts) but also stoked racial prejudices and played off white workers against Chinese workers. When white workers went on strike, capitalists hired Chinese workers as underpaid replacements. Some white workers–aspiring to be capitalists or not seeing themselves as members of the international working class–lashed out against Chinese workers and blamed them for being paid less and working more. In the 1870s, white workers violently expelled and even lynched Chinese workers in their communities [4].

In the wake of this racist hatred the government enacted the Chinese Exclusion in 1882, codifying the “Yellow Peril” myth–the idea that the immigration of Chinese workers constituted an invasion that threatened white society and its values [5]. Building on decades of anti-Chinese laws at the state and local level, the law banned (though did not prevent) the immigration of Chinese workers and made them ineligible to become U.S. citizens.

It remained in force until 1943, when China and the U.S. were both fighting Japan in World War II. Through the law, U.S. capitalists cemented the divide between Chinese workers and white workers, to the detriment of all workers. Expressly based on their race, Chinese workers were banned from legally immigrating to the U.S. and would be subject to deportation if they came anyway. Chinese workers in the U.S. were made permanent non-citizens. The fundamental purpose of this immigration law was not to protect “American” labor but to prevent unity with Chinese workers and cement racial hierarchies.

20th century immigration law: Crushing dissent

By the 1920s, much had changed in the world. Revolution had swept over Russia and for the first time peasants and poor working people ran their own government. Fearing this radical shift, the U.S. unleashed the Palmer Raids—violent mass arrests, beatings, and deportations targeting communists, anarchists, and labor activists. The top priority of the U.S. was to prevent the spread of communist ideas and communists themselves.

The 1924 Immigration Act was written to do just that. Designed by open eugenicists, the law racialized Eastern and Southern Europeans, imposed highly restrictive quotas on their immigration, and all but banned the immigration of Asians. The quotas were pegged to U.S. demographics in 1890–roughly coinciding with the closure of the frontier in the western U.S.–attempting to entrench the dominant position of white people of Northern European descent.

The law racialized Eastern Europeans, who previously were viewed as their own separate nationalities. The U.S. ruling class responded to the Russian revolution through antisemitic and anticommunist tropes like Judeo-Bolshevism. Most Jewish working people at that time were communist. The law’s racialization of Eastern Europeans built on the reaction to the world’s first successful socialist revolution, including antisemitic tropes like “Judeo-Bolshevism” that conflated Jews and Communists, and mass arrests and deportations of suspected socialists [6]. In essence, the law defined who should be considered “American” on racial terms. President Coolidge’s signing statement for the law was that “America must remain American,” and the U.S. State Department describes the law’s “most basic purpose” as “to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity” [7].

Beyond the external exclusionary aspect of the 1924 Immigration Act, it also increased internal repression: for the first time, it authorized deportation of any immigrant who had overstayed or entered without a visa, expanding the class of workers made especially vulnerable in a way that “American” workers were not.

After World War II, the U.S. updated explicit racial quotas with a new focus: ideological control. The 1952 McCarran-Walter Act, also known as the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), modernized the U.S. immigration system while entrenching its racist and ideological foundations. Though it eliminated the outright ban on Asian immigration—a concession made during World War II to align with Asian allies—it maintained strict racial quotas designed to preserve the demographic dominance of whiteness (expanded to include non-Communist Italians, Poles, and Jews). Immigration restrictionists still hoped to achieve “the preservation of whiteness” through the system, reflecting the enduring legacy of the 1924 Immigration Act [8]. But the INA also introduced a new dimension of repression: ideological exclusion. In the context of anti-communist hysteria—fueled by the Soviet Union’s nuclear advancements, the Chinese Revolution and the Communists’ victory, the Korean War, and the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg—the law barred entry to anyone affiliated with communist or “subversive” organizations. This provision was not merely about keeping communism at bay abroad; it was a tool for policing thought domestically.

SUPPORT OUR WORK BY MAKING A DONATION TODAY!

The law’s ideological exclusions mirrored the McCarthy-era purges that targeted communists in government, universities, and Hollywood. Leaders of the Communist Party were prosecuted and imprisoned under the Smith Act, while the INA ensured that foreign-born radicals—or even those merely suspected of socialist sympathies—could be denied entry or deported. This created a chilling effect, reinforcing the internal disciplinary function of immigration law: it discouraged dissent among immigrants already in the U.S., who feared deportation if they expressed views deemed threatening to the state. Even President Truman, despite his Cold War anti-communism, recognized the law’s blatant racism and vetoed it, only to be overridden by a Congress gripped by reactionary fervor.

The INA thus exemplified the dual role of U.S. immigration law: external exclusion (filtering entrants by race and ideology) and internal discipline (suppressing radical thought and labor organizing). Like the Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1924 Immigration Act before it, the law served capital’s interests—this time, by aligning immigration policy with the Cold War imperative of crushing socialist movements at home and abroad.

The 1990 amendment: Suppressing free speech

By 1990, the decline and imminent collapse of the Soviet Union and the rapprochement between the U.S. and China had rendered overt anti-communism obsolete as a justification for repression. At the same time, the U.S. was close to achieving global unipolar dominance. It had weakened the Soviet Union, had overthrown left-leaning governments in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, and was preparing to jealously guard its status as the world’s sole superpower. The U.S. ruling class needed a new pretext for domestic discipline, and an amendment to the INA adding a foreign policy provision fit the bill. The amendment passed with bipartisan support and little debate, reflecting ruling class agreement on foreign policy. The provision allows deportation whenever the Secretary of State declares that a noncitizen’s presence may have adverse consequences on U.S. foreign policy—a term left deliberately vague. A mirror provision also prohibits the entry of any person the Secretary of State deems adverse to foreign policy. In practice, this means the Secretary of State has full discretion to say that anyone’s presence in the country could affect “foreign policy.”

Congress anticipated that the Secretary of State could use the foreign policy provision to punish speech protected by the First Amendment, which has long been understood to apply to citizens and legal residents alike [9]. On paper, the provision includes a “safe harbor” for protected speech, prohibiting deportation based on lawful beliefs or associations. In practice, this protection is meaningless. The Secretary of State can override it simply by declaring a “compelling foreign policy interest,” a standard so elastic it can be met with a rote recitation of the standard in a two-page letter, as in Mahmoud Khalil’s case. This creates a legal black hole: noncitizens can be deported for speech that is perfectly lawful, based on secret determinations they cannot challenge.

The foreign policy provision was further strengthened by the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which stripped lower courts of the power to review most deportations. Instead, immigrants facing deportation must defend themselves before immigration judges, who are part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch, and cannot rule on the constitutionality of the laws they are tasked to enforce. The result is a system where the executive branch acts as prosecutor, judge, and executor of deportation—a system designed to evade accountability.

“Massieu v. Reno:” Foreign policy provision scrutinized

The first major test of the foreign policy provision came in the 1990s, when the Clinton administration sought to deport Mario Ruiz Massieu. Massieu was a former Mexican official who had charged Mexican government officials with responsibility for the assassination of his brother and covering up the investigation. He faced retaliatory criminal charges and death threats in Mexico, so he fled the country and legally entered the U.S. where his family had a home. He was quickly detained by immigration officials. Mexico tried to extradite him but failed in U.S. courts on four separate attempts due to lack of evidence The U.S., close to the right-wing Mexican government at the time, instead invoked the new foreign policy provision and started deportation proceedings.

Massieu fought back and in 1996, in a bizarre irony of history, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, the sister of Donald Trump, delivered a rare but fleeting victory for civil liberties. She ruled the foreign policy provision unconstitutional on three grounds:

1. Its vagueness made it impossible for anyone to know when the Secretary of State could invoke it;

2. It denied targets due process–a meaningful opportunity to challenge the Secretary of State’s determination of adversity to foreign policy; and

3. it improperly delegated legislative power to the executive branch because it provided no standards for courts to assess the Secretary of State’s determination.

Her opinion exposed the provision as a tool of arbitrary repression: it gave the Secretary of State “unfettered and unreviewable discretion to deport any alien lawfully within the United States…because that person’s mere presence here would impact in some unexplained way on the foreign policy interests of the United States,” while “no one outside the Department of State and, perhaps, the President ever knows what our nation’s frequently covert foreign policy is at any given time.”

This victory was short-lived. On appeal, a Third Circuit panel including future Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito reversed the decision on a technicality. The Third Circuit ruled that Massieu had to first exhaust his arguments in immigration courts before appealing back to the Third Circuit, which only then could decide the constitutionality of the foreign policy provision. The decision forced Massieu into a dead end. Immigration judges lack the power to decide whether a law is unconstitutional. Back in immigration court, an immigration judge rubber-stamped the Secretary of State’s determination that Massieu’s presence posed adverse consequences to U.S. foreign policy and ordered him deported to Mexico, despite death threats he had received there. After a years of protracted litigation, he died under house arrest in New Jersey in 1999.

The prosecution of Mahmoud Khalil: Imperialism on the domestic front

In March 2025, ICE detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student at Columbia University and prominent critic of Israel’s ongoing–and U.S.-supported–genocide of Palestinians, under the same foreign policy provision. Khalil, a lawful permanent resident married to a U.S. citizen, had committed no crime—his only offense was organizing protests against genocide [10]. The case against Khalil reflects the internal function of the foreign policy provision–and U.S. immigration law in general– as a repressive tool of the ruling class to defend imperialism.

ICE arrested Khalil in New York, moved him to New Jersey, and moved him again to an immigrant jail in Louisiana, where the government chose to prosecute his deportation [11]. While in New Jersey, Khalil filed a habeas corpus case to challenge his detention in federal district court, arguing that his detention violated his rights to free speech and due process under the First and Fifth Amendments. After Khalil had endured 104 days of detention, the federal district court judge granted his request for release on bail. Still, the government is withholding Khalil’s passport, and both of his cases are proceeding in parallel.

The government’s justifications and evidence for prosecuting Khalil are even weaker than those it invoked against Massieu. No foreign country has requested Khalil’s extradition or has accused him of any crimes. The government is relying on fake tabloids and Zionist doxxing groups like Betar [12], who identified Khalil on January 29 as a target for deportation [13], claimed credit for his arrest, and said it has “already submitted names of hundreds of terror supporters to the Trump administration” [14]. The only connection to U.S. foreign policy is the targets of Khalil’s critical speech: Zionism and U.S. support for Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians. U.S. foreign policy falsely brands people resisting imperialism, Zionism, and genocide as antisemitic and terrorists.

The initial charging document the government issued against Khalil contained only a naked assertion that Khalil’s “presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” [15]. When the immigration judge required the government to submit all evidence that Khalil could be deported, the government submitted only an undated, two-page letter asserting that the foreign policy interest in Khalil’s deportation is “compelling,” along with backwards and unfounded accusations of antisemitism [16]. The letter recognizes that the foreign policy provision’s safe harbor applies, as it tacitly acknowledges that the case against Khalil is based on his “past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful.” Based on the letter alone, the immigration judge ruled that she had no room to question the Secretary of State’s determination and ordered the deportation of Khalil.

Khalil is likely appealing the immigration judge’s ruling to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which will almost certainly affirm the ruling. After that, Khalil can appeal to the Fifth Circuit–known as the most conservative federal appellate court–and the constitutional infirmities of the foreign policy provision can be considered in an appellate court for the first time. Though the government cannot legally deport Khalil until his case is resolved, the government has recently shown a brazen disregard of court orders on deportations [17].

At the same time, Khalil is pursuing his habeas corpus claims in federal district court in New Jersey–the same court that decided Massieu v. Reno and whose rulings are appealable to the Third Circuit. The district court rejected the government’s arguments that Khalil’s case belongs in immigration court alone, in large part because Khalil’s constitutional claims cannot be considered in immigration court [18]. The Third Circuit may need to reconsider the application of the exhaustion requirement it previously articulated in Massieu, given the abundant clarity that it is futile to challenge the constitutionality of the foreign policy provision and the Secretary of State’s determinations in immigration court.

If Khalil were to prevail and win a decision that the foreign policy provision is unconstitutional, the government’s efforts to deport immigrants whose speech it does not like will become more difficult as courts impede deportations under the provision. But even failed deportation cases can serve as repressive weapons–to a large extent, the process is the punishment. It would be cold comfort for detained immigrants to know that after years of litigation, they will not be deported. The only way to deny imperialism that repressive victory is for anti-imperialists–immigrants and non-immigrants alike–to rise up and speak out.

Khalil’s case is not an anomaly. The Trump administration has already used the foreign policy provision against other outspoken students, like Rumeysa Ozturk of Tufts University and Yunseo Chung from Columbia University. While some have been released, many others have not. The threat is not limited to immigrants or legal residents; the government has reportedly considered deporting U.S. citizens to prison camps in El Salvador [19]. The escalation is a deliberate attempt to silence dissent. Already, the government’s use of the foreign policy provision against Khalil and others is blowing back, as thousands have taken to the streets in protest [20]. For every voice the government silences or removes, thousands must emerge in resistance.

The limits of the law and the necessity of resistance

The foreign policy provision is not an aberration but the latest iteration of a bipartisan system designed to serve empire and capital. From the beginnings of U.S. immigration law, the powers to exclude and deport have served to maintain racial hierarchy, advance the exploitation of labor, protect capital, and punish dissent. From the Chinese Exclusion Act to today’s deportations, immigration law has always been a weapon of class war—one that divides workers, shields capital, and silences critics of U.S. imperialism.

Legal challenges, while necessary, cannot defeat this system. The ruling class can count on courts to yield to their executive power, from the Third Circuit’s procedural dodging in Massieu to the Louisiana immigration judge’s rubber-stamping of Khalil’s deportation. Even when judges like Judge Barry rule against the government, the process alone is repressive and the government finds ways to sidestep adverse rulings.

Nor can mere awareness blunt weapons like the foreign policy provision. The only effective counter to this repression is mass resistance. Khalil’s detention has already sparked nationwide protests. Every attempt at deportation must be met with collective action. The struggle cannot be confined to courtrooms or narrowly defined targets of the day—it is inextricably linked to global movements of workers, students, and all people against U.S. imperialism at home and abroad.

As the labor slogan goes, an injury to one is an injury to all. The more the state wields immigration law as a weapon, the more the people must wield solidarity as a shield. Free Palestine and free us all.

References

[1] Ken Hammond,China’s Revolution and the Quest for a Socialist Future(New York: 1804 Books, 2023), 7-8.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Lakshmi Gandhi, “A History of Indentured Labor Gives ‘Coolie’ Its Sting,”NPR, 25 November 2013. Availablehere.
[4] Katie Dowd, “140 years ago, San Francisco was set ablaze during the city’s deadliest race riots,”SFGATE, 23 July 2017, availablehere; “This Day in History: Oct. 24, 1871: Los Angeles Chinatown Massacre,”Zinn Education Project, availablehere.
[5] Sheila Xiao, “The Legacy of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882,”Liberation School, 6 May 2018. Availablehere.
[6] Jarrod Grammel, “The Palmer Raids and the First Red Scare: The Roots of Liberal Anticommunism in the United States,”Peace, Land, & Bread, 25 February 2021. Availablehere.
[7] “The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act),”U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Availablehere.
[8] Andrew M. Baxter and Alex Nowrasteh, “A Brief History of U.S. Immigration Policy from the Colonial Period to the Present Day,”CATO Institute, 3 August 2021. Availablehere.
[9]See Shaughnessy v. U.S. ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953);Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945).
[10] Khalil’s activity can be seen inThe Encampments, a documentary film released a few weeks after he was detained. Michael T. Workman and Kei Pritsker, directors, The Encampments, Watermelon Pictures, 2025.
[11] Devorah Levy-Pearlman, “Fight to Free Mahmoud Khalil exposes the black hole of Louisiana’s ICE jails,”Liberation News, 3 April 2025. Availablehere.
[12] Chloe Atkins, “Government’s Case against Mahmoud Khalil is Reliant on Tabloid Accounts, Review of Evidence Shows,”NBC News, 15 April 2025. Availablehere.
[13] Will Oremus, “Meet the Militant Jewish Group backing Trump’s Deportation Push,”The Spokesman-Review, 29 March 2025. Availablehere.
[14] Joshua Mitts and David Pozen, “In Defense of our Shared Values,”Columbia Daily Spectator, 13 February 2025. Availablehere.
[15] “Notice to Appear,”U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9 March 2025. Availablehere.
[16] “Submission of Documents,”U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9 April 2025. Availablehere.
[17] Teresa Paez, “ICE Deports Legally Protected Maryland Father to El Salvador’s ‘Mega Prison’,”Liberation News, 8 April 2025, availablehere; Nicholas Riccardi and Regina Garcia Cano, “Trump Administration Deports Hundreds of Immigrants even as Judge Orders their Removals be Stopped,”Associated Press, 17 March 2025, availablehere.
[18]Khalil v. Joyce, Opinion, No. 25-cv-01963 (D.N.J. April 29, 2025). Availablehere.
[19] Chris Walker, “White House Press Sec Says Trump’s Seriously Considering Deporting US Citizens,”Truthout, 9 April 2025. Availablehere.
[20] Brian Becker, “‘First They Came for the Palestinian’: Arrest of Mahmoud Khalil Sparks Nationwide Movement,”BreakThrough News, 12 March 2025. Availablehere.

Palestine and the Commons: Or, Marx and the Musha’a

[Pictured: A Palestinian child runs through Nur Shams refugee camp in Tulkarem, West Bank, where violence has been escalating this year. | Palestine 2024 © Oday Alshobaki/MSF]

By Peter Linebaugh

Republished from Journal of World-Systems Research

In 1958 the assistant headmaster did the Bible reading at the morning assembly of the Karachi Grammar School (Pakistan), founded in 1848 by the Church of England. The reading from Acts 17:23 concerned St. Paul’s declaration upon seeing the Athenian monument to an unknown God. “What you worship but do not know—this is what I now proclaim,” at which point I, 17 years old at the time, shouted the answer for all to hear: “Communism.”

As a child of both British and American empires I had come to this rebellious conclusion two years earlier at the Frankfurt Army High School. Based on study of The Communist Manifesto which I conducted in the library of the Officers Club at the I.G. Farben building, I was able to answer this ancient question posed in the Athenian agora by a man from Palestine.

I approach the wars in Palestine neither as an Arabic nor a Hebrew scholar or even as one knowledgeable to other forms of life in the region—olive, almond, fig, citrus fruits, sheep, cotton, or the grains like wheat. I come as a student, with a life-long admiration for the radical, abolitionist, and antinomian traditions: Jesus and the prophets, Karl Marx, Gerard Winstanley, Thomas Spence, Olaudah Equiano, the IWW, Frederick Douglass, Shunryu Suzuki, Elizabeth Poole, Ann Setter, Ivan Illich, Malcolm X, William Blake, Silvia Federici, E.P. Thompson, Robin Kelley, Manuel Yang, Michaela Brennan, Midnight Notes, Counterpunch, and Retort; and then I became an historian of all the above with particular interest in the commons. As Marcus Rediker and I said in the introduction to the Arabic translation of our Many-Headed Hydra, Herodotus, “the grandfather of history,” explained that Palestine lay between Phoenicia and Egypt.

Besides going to Athens, a home of philosophy (philia = love, Sophia = goddess of wisdom), Paul went to gatherings where they had “everything in common” (Acts 4:32). Jubilee was another Biblical thing I could cotton on to because I love its principles of land back, freedom now, no work, debt forgiveness, and rest for revered mother Earth. It all seems to me a beautiful combination of revolution and relaxation. Paul became a follower of Jesus who was thrown out of his hometown and almost killed for proclaiming jubilee right now. He called for rest and forgiveness. The only economic basis of such a thing is the commons. The struggle in Palestine helps us see this.

I believe that the musha’a (community-owned agricultural lands), like similar practices anywhere else in the world, can help us realize a world based on just conditions of mutuality, name it as is your wont: true communism, the cooperative commonwealth, the commons. The renewed thinking of the commons was born of struggles against the new enclosures of the neoliberal era and inspired by the commoning practices of autonomist Zapatista communes in Chiapas and its defense of the ejido. The commons is now understood as a key conceptual breakthrough in orienting visions and pathways to postcapitalist futures. The commons also marks the radical escape from the paralyzing misfires and legacies of modernist state socialisms (Ray 2024, see especially Federici 2019).

I must write about the musha’a, a Palestinian form of land tenure, or the commons, which the Ottomans, the Brits, and the Israelis attempted to destroy. It includes collective ownership, cooperative labor, and periodic redistribution. These are principles also found in the earliest promulgation of debt cancellation, freedom from servitude, and restoration of land tenures. In addition to jubilee, it was espoused by Enmetena, a ruler of Lagash, around 2400 BC and evolved into general proclamations of amnesty (Hudson 1993). The musha’a was a defensive institution against the fear of taxation and military recruitment by the Ottoman authorities.

Palestine’s planetary significance is threefold: first, there is its geography at the conjunction of three continents, Asia, Africa, and Europe, and the waters among them. Second, there are the extractions from the soil of Palestine, as well as from under it (grains, minerals, oil, and gas). And third, there is Palestine’s significance concerning Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Three big religions, three big continents, and original economies of cultivating the earth, mining the earth, and drilling the earth, making modes of production from the “fertile crescent” to the petroleum present with its terrible planetary perturbations. The struggle for the liberation of Palestine has geographic breadth and historical depth, which explains why it is considered the “soul of the souls of all our struggles.” The whole world has awakened to it.

To introduce the subject further, though at the risk of passing from the contemporary sublime to the ridiculous antique, let us attend to a paper delivered on January 20, 1890, at the Victorian Institute in London by James Neil, M.A. He explains how in southern Palestine the arable soil was apportioned by lot (Quarterly Statement Palestine Exploration Fund 1891). He said,

the persons proposing to work the ground divide into groups, and the chief of each group draws a section of the land proportioned to the number of persons in his group. Each section is composed of lands of various fertility and qualities. These sections are again subdivided by measurement with an ox-goad, or a line called habaleh, the counterpart of the measuring line [as noted in Biblical] Scripture. The farmers, in such regions as possess this custom, prefer this method of communistic division to holding in fee simple.

“Fee simple” is feudal locution, an English legal term for private property: you can use or abuse it, you can bequeath it, you can alienate it, you can sell it, and above all you can exclude others (see Hyde 2010). Roman law refers to fructus, abusus, and usus, or fruits, abuses, and uses. The idea of individual, exclusive land ownership is, according to the historian Andro Linklater (2013) in his book Owning the Earth, “the most destructive and creative force in written history.” The Palestine Exploration Fund was founded in 1865 and carried out surveys and ethnographies of Ottoman Palestine. It was an Anglican operation financing archeologists and clergymen. “We are about to apply the rules of science,” said the Archbishop of York in Westminster Abbey at its founding, “to an investigation into the facts concerning the Holy Land.”

The Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund for April 1891 includes this in its survey of land tenure and agriculture in Palestine:

in Southern Palestine, and in a few other districts, the land is held in common by all the inhabitants of a village, and apportioned at stated times to the individual cultivators according to their ability to cultivate, their standard being the number and power of the cattle used for ploughing. Such lands are known as, musha’a.

In 1865, in addition to the founding the Palestine Exploration Fund, evangelical Christians in England formed the Victoria Institute to defend “the great Truths revealed in Holy Scripture…against the opposition of science so called.” Its leaders were Christian Zionists. The commons and communism were easily linked in the mind of the Church of England. In contrast to jubilee and other sacred Bible texts the 38th of its 39 articles of religion simply states, “the riches and goods of Christians are not common as touching the right, title, and possession of the same.” Let us look at this more closely considering the musha’a and communism.

In addition to Bedouin practices of common pasturage, the musha’a as a village-based agriculture was another version of commons in land, and was collectively owned by the village, whose individual members owned shares (ahsahm) in its use rights. These included the right to sow, to plough, to cultivate, to harvest. The threshing barn, like the land, was held in common. Secondly, the musha’a allowed the redistribution and equalization of ahsahm to different family groups at one- to five-year intervals. These rights were heritable and were determined by the wants and needs of the cultivator.

SUPPORT OUR WORK BY MAKING A DONATION TODAY!

When James Reid spoke of “communistic division” in contrast to “fee simple” what did he mean? The specter of communism haunts not only Europe as Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto (1848), but Palestine too, says James Reid, M.A. to the Victorian Institute. “In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” To what sense were Marx and Engels referring? They mean the employment of property as the means of exploiting others; capital, in other words. Marx elaborated on his understanding of communism years later when his Critique of the Gotha Program was published the very same year, 1891, that James Reid read his paper to the Victorian scholars of empire. Here he repeated the common definition among revolutionaries of 1848 and whose sense originated earlier with Gracchus Babeuf during the French Revolution (Foster 2020: 113): “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.” The principle applies to the musha’a in which capabilities and wants are collectively decided. Communism and commons begin to overlap.

The musha’a evolved over four hundred years under the Ottoman empire, which claimed to own the land as rule for tax purposes on miri land. It arose in the village, not the state, as a system of collective land tenure for cultivators who comprised the vast majority of the population. Efforts to install private property by Ottoman reform, or British mandate, or Zionist occupation met with determined, persistent resistance in “the land-equalizing musha’a village throughout Palestine.” “There was no need for land reform, which only proved destructive to the economy of the fellaheen. It nullified the advantages inherent in the system and, unexpectedly, facilitated the transfer of lands from Arabs to Jews.” (Nadan 2003)

Samuel Bergheim wrote an early description of musha’a for the Palestinian Exploration Fund. From a European banking family, Bergheim bought property in Palestine with title deeds accepted by the Ottomans (Tamari 2022).

When my brother and I bought the lands of a village some years since from its inhabitants, the Turkish authorities recognized us as the freeholders, and gave us title deeds, in accordance with a law on freehold passed by the late Sultan about twenty years ago. Not so, however, [for] the inhabitants of the village, for when we came to portion out the land in plots for cultivation, the villagers protested and refused to accept the new arrangement. They would only have the land in musha’a. (Tamari 2022: 9)

The Bergheim family bought land in 1872; in 1885 Peter Bergheim was murdered. Gezer was also the site of one of the earliest encounters between settler colonialism (the Bergheim estate) and peasant resistance to the imposition of the land privatization code of 1858, in which the communal (musha’a) system was undermined. The murder of Peter Bergheim—banker, settler, and amateur archaeologist—by Abu Shusha peasants highlighted the dynamic relationship between archaeology, early European agricultural settlement, and peasant dispossession of land.

Noura Alkhalili (2017) explains that the musha’a was “a once-prominent Levantine culture of common land.”[1] She describes a major way that the village musha’a, a largely agrarian commons, was transformed in an urban environment following the violence of mapping, titling, buying, and selling which cast people into cities and camps following their expropriation from the land. The transition was catastrophic: the fellaheen became refugees and the refugees became proletarians. The process was aided by the Oslo accords of 1993 and 1995, which banked on neoliberalism’s private property and market relations, and on the neoliberal theory of “economic development.” In Palestine, unlike England, it was more than fences and hedges—it included the thirty-foot separation wall on the West Bank built between 2005 and 2008 after the second intifada. How has the diaspora of the fellaheen carried on these notions of reciprocity, obligation, and mutual aid, whose origins are found in the musha’a, and whose values lie with the family, within the heart of the community, and the breast of every person? How are such principles transferred from the country to the city? What do refugees carry in their heart besides the paltry few belongings in their cart or car? What practices nourish and carry the collective wisdom of survival and resistance? Food, dwelling, security, health care, and water are immediate needs.

Noura Alkhalili, who did her field work in 2013, writes “The fellaheen in Palestine did not need any borders to identity their plots; fig and olive trees were convenient landmarks for everyone in the community.” She also explains how both houses and trees could become private property. Trees were mnemonic too as reminders, survivors. About John Berger, the art critic with a Tolstoy- like love of peasants, it is said that “the medlars and mulberry trees of Ramallah reminded him of the time before the Nakbah when it was a town of leisure and ease.” “As long as grass grows,” is the indigenous saying from Turtle Island. Les Levidow explains that one Palestinian response to the systematic re-engineering of land and the expropriation of Arabs from it, has been the “unauthorized” planting of olive trees. The olive has been a primary cultigen of Palestine for at least eight thousand years.

For Alkhalili, “The fellaheen resistance from below, against the British project of enclosure and commodification of land, was ultimately about the protection of the commons.” She reports from the Shu’faat refugee camp of East Jerusalem and how Palestinian contractors built high rises on musha’a land preventing Israeli’s from using it to build the separation wall. She refers to “the quiet encroachment of the ordinary,” that is, the coming of street vendors and houseless folks. “Enclosures from below are what happen when propertyless subalterns encroach on commons.” They too take steps to privatize property: “a process of class formation has occurred, tied to the individual appropriation of musha’a land,” which raises the question, “Is this rather a form of submission to both prevailing capitalist and colonial systems?” She continues, “While in parts of the world we can witness indigenous and activist movements seeking to reclaim the commons from private ownership, the opposite is happening in Palestine.”

In 1895 Theodore Herzl, author of The Jewish State and founding father of Zionism, confided in his diary, “we must expropriate gently the private property assigned to us….” Jabotinsky’s 1923 essay “The Iron Wall,” as well as Herzl himself, compared the Zionist project to the expropriations of the English and American colonists. Eighty percent of Arab land has been taken since 1948. Among the methods used in this expropriation is digging deeper artesian wells for water. A third of Israeli water supply is pumped from the West Bank. The domestic, municipal, agricultural, and industrial hydrological system is controlled by an Israeli water company (Levidow 1990).

Noura Alkahalili bears close and scrupulous witness to the urban transformation of musha’a under conditions of hostile occupation. Gary Fields (2017), for his part, provides an historical mirror for our reflections. His study is in three parts: English enclosures, Indigenous American conquest, and Palestinian colonization. These are three “cases” of enclosure. English ideas and practices “migrate” to America; English enclosures are in the same “lineage” as Palestine’s. The re-mapping and boundary-making conforms to modernization and territorial ambitions of estate owners. “In each case, systems of landholding deriving from custom and imbued with collective rights of use and cooperative forms of management came under attack by modernizers.” In three parts Gary Fields analyzes enclosure in England from the fourteenth to the eighteenth century. He describes the conquest and reservations of Indigenous people in North America, and finally he describes the Palestinian case or the settler colonialism of the Zionists. Capitalism, colonialism, and nationalism are the terms that are offered in an attempt to generalize from the “cases.” Maps, laws, and fences are the techniques of acquisition and possession. For England it was profit, for America it became race, and for Palestine it was religion. “These three case studies of dispossession offer distinct pathways to modernity,” he writes, and we might just as well say the three cases are three lanes on the same superhighway going in the same direction, namely “modernity,” or perdition.

Fields employs Edward Said’s term “imaginative geography” as a first step in colonization, from which maps and a landscape will be realized. Land rights are rights of exclusion, delimiting mine from thine, to use an old phrase. Under the Ottomans, cultivators of Palestine created “a unique system of communal tenure known as musha’a—gave villagers control over cropping practices and spread the risks of subsistence agriculture.”

With the collapse of the Ottoman empire at the end of World War One, the British were mandated to govern Palestine. The infamous Balfour declaration promised the banker Rothschild “a national home for the Jewish people.” Under the British mandate 70 percent of village lands were still held in musha’a tenure. English land policy was hostile to musha’a. Sir Ernest Dowson, engineer and surveyor, advocated enclosure and partition of common land. He completed the first cadastral survey of Palestine. In 1925 his “Preliminary Study of Land Tenure in Palestine” (Dowson 1931) was in full continuity with the classic advocates of the destruction of the English commons, namely, Arthur Young, John Sinclair, and William Blith. The British succeeded in surveying and entitling 25 percent of Palestine. This weakening of musha’a was a victory for the Zionist movement, as land could now be bought and sold. Even still, by 1947 Zionists had obtained by purchase less than 10 percent of arable Palestinian land—the village and aspects of musha’a still dominated. Ernest Dowson led the work of land registration. He led the cadasters, surveyors who made cadastres, or registers of extent, value, and ownership of property. Their work paved the way for Zionist colonization.

Then again, in the Peel Commission of 1937, the musha’a was identified as a disincentive in face of stubborn resistance. The Arabs regarded the musha’a “as a safeguard against alienation,” to quote the Commission. Perhaps it is this relation to the land in the face of the British Empire that gave to the fellaheen its world-famous character, expressed in the Arabic word sumud, or steadfast.

The struggle is for liberation not for a new state. “The British Mandate’s survey and cadastral and mapping project…sought to centralize power and decision-making away from the indigenous population.… [The] project’s largest obstacle: the musha’, a land-equalizing system managed directly by the peasants themselves” (Quiquivix 2013). “The musha’a was characterized by the periodic redistribution of agricultural plots among peasant cultivators who held claims to parts of the land in the form of shares.” “The continual practice of negotiating land redistribution placed emphasis on relationships, accountability, and affective ties among villagers.”

The fence, the hedge, the wall, the haw-haw, razor wire, barbed wire, brick and cinder block became the means and symbols of this vast enclosing. Such architecture joined law (criminalization of custom) and cartography (theodolite, chains) to destroy communities based on common lands. In England they called such lands “waste.” In America it was called “wilderness.” Or in the language of the Roman empire, Latin, which instead referred to terra nullius or vacuum domicilium. Children sought “vacant lots” for their play, sports, and games. In contrast to the vernacular whose outstanding genius was the poor poet and deep commoner, John Clare, beloved two centuries later in Palestine which is neither a “nothing land” or a “vacant domicile.” The olive, the fig, the apricot, the vine, the pomegranate, the walnut, almonds, oranges, and lemons were Palestine’s fruits. 70 percent of arable land at the time of the nakbah still was held as musha’a.

The musha’a village resembled the English village with its collective decision-making, resource allocation, fruits of open field agriculture, and basket of common rights. Land in England assumed many forms: meadows, woods, fens, heaths, fells, moors, marsh, uplands, as well as arable lands. Each had ecological features particular to it and therefore modes of customary appropriation that also were distinct. The world knows the process thanks to English literature. Robinson Crusoe (1719) is the classic text of individualism, enclosure, possession, and conquest. At the peak of revolutionary movement against oppressors and enclosers—those who sought to close the open fields in the name of profit and commerce (“improvement” they called it)—the radical English poet, William Blake, wrote that “to create a little flower is the labor of ages,” and then again that “improvement makes straight roads but the crooked roads without improvement are roads of Genius.” The English “right to roam” is related to the Palestinian “right to return.” Enclosure brings about odium because it amounts to dispossession, impoverishment, depopulation, forced migration, dearth, nostalgia, sadness, and trauma. The hedgerow materialized enclosure, so did the straight road.

Through struggle, the musha’a will be transformed. Vestiges of mutuality remain today, even in the city and its refugee camps following the violence of war, dispossession, and privatization of land. Violence always accompanies expropriation. Ernest Dowson (1931) himself compared it to the Parliamentary enclosures of the eighteenth century. Lord Balfour in his diary compared the colonization of Palestine to the dispossession of the Sioux, or Lakota people, about which we may learn from Nick Estes and the Red Nation who have raised the world cry, “Land Back!”

Indigenous people of North America cultivated plants with three outcomes: 1.) corn became the mainstay among “the three sisters” (corn, beans, squash); 2.) women tended these crops; and 3.) the village became the basic unit of society. These were undermined by “A discourse of land improvement and property rights—supplemented with notions of savagery and racism—[which] settled upon the landscape…. Checkerboard grid of municipal, county boundaries within which indigenous people were enclosed in reservations. “The most striking…finding in Enclosure, is the enduring influence of ‘land improvement’ as the ideological inspiration for the reimagination of landscape and a driver of the process to enclose and take possession of land.” Maps, laws, and fences are the techniques of acquisition and possession. For England, land improvement meant profit. What did “improvement” mean?

Commoners in England, as with Native Americans, were cast as “savages.” As such they belonged to far-away places (India, America, Africa) in far-away times (B.C., neolithic, feudal). To Arthur Young, the theorist and first comprehensive chronicler of enclosure, commoners were “the Goths and Vandals of the open fields.” Linking commoners of the metropole with Indigenous people of the world in the stadial interpretation of human history and its four stages leading to “civilization” or “modernization;” and likewise linking commoners and Indigenous people against economic “progress,” “improvement,” or “development;” the buzz words of planners, politicians, and policy makers everywhere.

An older study spoke of “stages,” not “cases.” What is the difference? Fields (2017) does not write of work and the continental reorganization of labor, nor of money and the global investment to maximize surplus value. The bourgeoisie produced theories of historical change with economic determinism by describing human history in four or five “stages” of economic growth. William Roberton’s History of America, published in 1777, in the midst of the American War of Independence, developed the “stages” theory of the progress of “mankind” from savagery to civilization. Scotsmen such as Adam Ferguson and Adam Smith produced the sociological and economic theories for the stages—primitive communism, pastoralism, agriculture, and commerce—or in other words, savagery, barbarism, feudalism, and capitalism. Fundamental in each was the technological relationship to the earth as well as class differentiation and patriarchy. Gathering herbs, hunting in the forest, cultivating the soil, subterranean mining, until quantity overcame quality in incessant demonic accumulation. It was a powerful but illusory theory propounding both determinism and inevitability. The dynamic of change from one stage or mode of production to another occurred as revolution.

In 1878, Vera Zasulich attempted to assassinate the mayor of St. Petersburg and served time in prison for it. Three years later in March 1881, Czar Alexander II was assassinated in St. Petersburg. A month earlier Vera Zasulich found herself with a “life and death question” to put to Karl Marx: Can the rural commune (the obshchina) develop in a collectivist and socialist direction, or is it destined by the laws of history to perish as an archaic form? Is it just a phase from the past or is it a seed of the future? Marx’s response was interesting. He wrote four drafts of a letter to her. In the end he sent her a relatively brief reply and no uncertainty in his conclusion: “The special study I have made of it, including a search for original source material, has convinced me that the commune is the fulcrum for social regeneration in Russia.” (Marx 1881) The previous four drafts provide us with an idea of his “special study.”

In his letter to Zasulich, Marx (1881) quoted from Capital, whose first volume she would go on to translate into Russian. He stated that “the expropriation of the agricultural producer, of the peasant, from the soil is the basis of the whole process.” Marx writes her about “all the historical twists and turns” or the “frightful vicissitudes” which characterize such transitions. To her he makes a powerful distinction between the “archaic commune” when communal residence was in a single house, as with the Haudenosaunee or “people of the long house,” when kinship and communal membership considerably overlapped, and production was collective unlike the agrarian commune where the open field was divided into individual strips. Labor and land were collective in the archaic commune, while a dualism prevailed in the agrarian commune, with some collective elements and some individualist elements. Marx warned Zasulich that “to save the Russian commune, there must be a Russian Revolution.” Marx’s view of history is not linear but rather spiral: the past is not dead, and in fact it is not even past. Hence, “the return of modern societies to a higher form of an ‘archaic’ type of collective ownership and production.” He thus links the commons to the commune.

For us too this is the quandary faced in Palestine. Again, events compel us to think of alternatives to privatization. Again, we ask what is communism? For a definition we go again to Karl Marx (1845) who wrote a few years earlier in The German Ideology, “We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.” He puts practice ahead of theory. He says this in a context which rendered the great mass of humanity propertyless, destitute, and wanting. And yet it existed “world-historically.” Years later, in The Critique of the Gotha Program, composed in 1875 and published in 1891, he insisted that “every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programs.”

Protestations against private property did not originate with Karl Marx. They are worldwide, and history is full of them. Here are three examples. In 1794, from England’s oldest settler colony, Ireland, William Drennan (1754–1820), founder of the United Irishmen and coiner of the jewel “the emerald isle,” wrote as part of his defense against sedition:

By attaching the oldest inheritance of the whole people to certain round spots of earth, gives a locality to liberty, inconsistent with its nature: turns legislators into land-measurers and land-measurers into legislators; extending lines of demarcation, on the one side of which privilege is heaped up, and on the other common right trodden down. (Deane et al. 1991: 323)

Or, at the time of colonization of Massachusetts the Indigenous sachem Massasoit of the Wampanoag asked,

What is this you call property? It cannot be the Earth for the land is our Mother nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish, and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?

And we have George Jackson’s questions from inside the Amerikkkan system of mass incarceration: “Who has done the most dying? Most of the work? Most of the time in prison (on Max Row)? Who is the hindmost in every aspect of the social, political, and economic life?”

Idealists seeking reform often return to study life on the planet prior to the privatization of property or the dominion of money and market. Land is the ancient foundation of human society and the grounding of the entire biome.[2] Neither state nor nation; neither imperium (sovereignty, war) nor dominium (borders, property). Instead, omnia sunt communia.

The musha’a evolved with the miri agrarian policy of the Ottomans, which comprised 87–90 percent of agricultural land of the empire. By 1914, the end of the Ottoman empire, the musha’a amounted to 70 percent of total land. It constituted 55 percent of the cultivated land in 1922; 46 percent in 1930; 25 percent at end of Mandate. However, only a fifth of the total land of Palestine had been divided into demarcated units. In 1947, Jewish settlement amounted to 8 percent of land surface in Palestine—by 1947, only 20 percent of land was settled with title. By 2017, Zionist settlement and infrastructure covered 85 percent of the territory.

It was not just law that modern colonists took from the Roman empire of old. Soldierly virtues, honor, fortitude, suffering, wounds, loss of limbs, blindness—were extolled. A huge array of cunning military punishments were passed down. It was a patriarchal affair, teaching the young men and boys how to die, obedience to the state, rape upon Mother earth, and white supremacy with its albifying powers to effect discourse, iconography, and structures of knowledge. “Whiteness” was born in the chromatics of alchemy as “albification.” This is what the young Marx (1843) meant when he wrote, “To have its sins forgiven mankind has only to declare them to be what they really are.” The sin here is theft of land. To forgive this sin is to give it back. But as Caliban said,

This island’s mine by Sycorax my mother,
Which thou tak’st from me.

Was not Sycorax from the Levant? These are remnants of one European empire to another. Yes, true, but just as foundational are the women, whose labor gives life, the preserver of community, the keeper of the hearth; responsible for the reproduction of human.

When it was said by the Romans of the quasi-independent plebeians that the proletarians were good for nothing except having babies, they gave us the word “proletarian,” now understood around the world. It refers to women especially, to aunts and “aunties,” to nannas and grannies, to sisters, and to sisterhood. This is why in South Africa it is said “touch the woman, touch the rock.” Women make the human community—cooking, safety, care, and memory. In any world-system, whether it is called savagery, barbarism, feudalism, capitalism—whatever—you will find women responsible for its reproduction. This is now truer than ever. The extended family, or hamula, was the basis of the village community and the musha’a.

Gary Fields (2017) distinguishes imperium from dominium following a distinction made under Roman law, where imperium refers to the territorial extent of royal sovereignty and dominium refers to the right to possess land within the imperial boundaries. One sticks a flag into the ground, the other erects a fence. Both bring the fort, the border, and violence. Imperium and dominium may parallel the difference between discovery and settlement. What is omitted is the transition from one to the other and the means of making that transition: war, disease, rape, and rapine! Rule by the stick—husbands beating wives, parents beating children, masters beating journeymen, masters whipping slaves, officers flogging sailors, and so on. The former inhabitants whose “discovery” was so heralded by Christian missionaries are “absent,” killed, or if they survive, they become self-alienated and shadows of their former selves poisoned by alcohol, shamed, dishonored, raped, destined to die young.

Christian Zionism is as old as capitalism. It dates from the sixteenth century. In England it reached an important peak at the time of Oliver Cromwell, the great commander of the English bourgeois revolution. Cromwell’s secretary argued that the Jews should go to Palestine. At the same time, after hundreds of years of exclusion, Jews were permitted to return to England under Cromwell. Kinship and commerce linked the Sephardim Jews from Amsterdam to the Mediterranean to the Atlantic. Cromwell asserted himself as an imperial sovereign ready to compete with the other imperial powers and none of these had as great a reach as the Dutch. Cromwell was a bourgeois commander who exerted his people by war. He reduced obstacles to the enclosure of land, invaded Ireland, defeated Spain, captured Jamaica. And he was a Zionist. This was Jihad, Protestant style done in the name of Jahweh.

When Oliver Cromwell chopped off the King’s head and inaugurated the capitalist state, he appointed Walter Blith as surveyor of confiscated royalist estates. Blith summed up his years of confiscation with a linguistic sleight of hand worthy of George Orwell’s double-think. In 1649 he published The English Improver, followed in 1652 by The English Improver Improved, which links confiscation, simple robbery, the privatization of the commons with human progress. Land theft becomes agricultural improvement! Therefore, to howl against such robbery is to waste your breath. To resist is to oppose the future. It is to steal your land for your own good. This sleight-of- hand has proved essential to capitalist development, the creed of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Gary Fields (2017) says, “Not only was the musha’a seen as an impediment to local agricultural development and Zionist acquisition but it represented a non- productive use of natural resources inconsistent with European notions of ‘improvement’ and ‘development.’”

As Marx (1852) pointed out, “Cromwell and the English people had borrowed speech, passions, and illusions from the Old Testament for their bourgeois revolution.”[3] A number of Cromwell’s close advisors came into contact with Dutch-based Jews and advocated Jewish resettlement in England (they had been banned from the country since the thirteenth century). Millenarian eschatology (the messiah and the Second Coming), imperialist commercial competition, the Atlantic slave trade, and the colonial settlement of Massachusetts Bay combined. Two Baptists petitioned in January 1649 for Jewish readmission: “That this Nation of England, with the inhabitants of the Netherlands, shall be the first and the readiest to transport Israel’s sons and daughters on their ships to the land promised to their forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob for an everlasting inheritance.” Christian Zionism is inseparable from the imperial beast from the English Revolution to the present.

If, like Fields, we compare the three cases as three “acts” in a drama, the unifying plot is missing. The “cases” have an actual, historical relationship to one another: the enclosures in England led to war and the colonization of Ireland as well as to the creation of North American colonies, each of them a plundering search for new commodities and new means of expropriation and enslavement of labor. Inasmuch as the wealth generated by the eradication of North American indigenous landscapes (the railways, the great plains) led to an insatiable demand for petroleum, the thirst for resources lurks, too, beneath the ravenous appetites in the Middle East (the oil, the pipelines, Zionism). This was the bourgeois revolution (1649) whose effects are on a par with the French (1789) or Russian (1917) revolutions. One would not want to substitute “stage” for “case” to resolve the problem; instead, the issue of interpretation requires an understanding of enclosure that is a necessary feature of the expansion of the system of capitalist relations.

At a theoretical level, capitalism, colonialism, and nationalism are inter-connected; even though imperialism is inherent to capitalism, which obeys the fundamental law, the impulse of the whole system: “Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!” writes Marx. National liberation is inherent to the resistance of colonialism, though it may accommodate easily, as Fanon explained, with capitalism.

This is how the proletariat is created. In those parts of Palestine dominated by tenancy to landlords “the peasant cultivators are a shiftless class…and almost to a man in debt,” according to the reporter to the 1891 Palestine Exploration Fund. This debt inevitably causes him to yield his claim to the land, and in so doing he “becomes a Sherîk-el-Hawa (Partner of the Wind).” One can imagine how a poet might interpret this Arabic figure of speech. Mother Earth has expelled her ancient cultivators, who now disperse through the world, like seeds, to join the various others in the atmospheric diaspora. And there are many winds to pay attention to: the harmata, which blows from the Sahara into west Africa; the El Ñino, which builds from the Pacific Ocean into hurricanes. The power of those partners of the wind will be reflected down the ages in Anglo cultural production, from the painted murals inside restaurants that remind customers of home, to such sublime expressions of wind as Shakespeare’s Tempest or Herman Melville’s Typhoon.

Proletarians can’t rub two coins together. They have no land, no village relations, no subsistence, no wage. This is why the partners of the wind are so important: as proletarians they will carry with them the musha’a, steadfast. Sumud. The rock. To stand confidently, relaxed, firmly—a word akin to “upright,” which also combines social virtue with the physical upright posture of the body. Like righteousness, it is associated with truth, valor, probity, and principle: what do you stand for? It is nothing less than the transition from expropriation to exploitation. “The starting point,” Marx calls it, of the capitalist mode of production. This tearing apart, this separation, this wrenching asunder, the “irreparable break,” or the “metabolic rift.” In that transition from expropriation to exploitation, there’s a pause. Ed Emory (1990: 28), after traveling with migrant workers on the Red Sea observed: “These are the people who wait—wait their turn, wait in line, wait in huddled groups, wait looking through the gaps in the dock gates, wait for some official to deign to notice their existence. Always waiting.” They are, he says, “the people of the earth.”

Returning to the present moment in Palestine, we must add to the formulation “X2” (exploitation and expropriation) a dark shadow to each of its parts: exploitation + extermination, expropriation + extraction. The genocide being perpetrated by the Zionists in Gaza is conjoined with the extraction of land and oil. X2 is brought to X3 by adding “excuses.” The devastation, genocide, poisoning, and plunder of the ruling class is fobbed off in a series of institutionalized excuses: economic development, modernization, social improvement, personal security, and religious salvation. Each of these excuses has its discourse, its militarization, academic setups, racism, and politics. Like all excuses, on their face they seem plausible, normal even; until their shadows emerge as they have in the Gaza war for all the world to see. The global system of empire, war, and slavery has only led to a planetary system of flood, fire, poison, and disease. With these multiple catastrophes we anticipate the despoilation of the earth systems.

Although the prophet Micah promised each of us a fig tree (Micah 4:4), let us forgo archaic prophecies and conclude on a healing note of etymology. Gaza was a textile center and gave its name to a most useful weaving: gauze, the loosely woven fabric of cotton, silk, or linen used as a wound-dressing thanks to its ability to absorb blood and to act as a barrier to its further loss.

We have gone past the point of no return. Nevertheless, we are at a turning point. David Graeber and David Wengrow (2021: 524) write, “we are living in what the Greeks called…Kairos—the right time—for a metamorphosis of the gods, i.e. of the fundamental principles and symbols.” These chroniclers of the first or earliest world-wide human social formations call this “the right time,” the time of transition to another social formation. Gendered, racialized, imperialist capitalism has ruined everything, almost. Who or what among us will bring about the required metamorphosis?

To answer this question, we need not return to the dawn of everything. The musha’a of Palestine may guide our transition from one disastrous world and outlook to another: to the commune and the commons. And their relationship? We recall Marx’s (1881) reply to Vera Zasulich: “It is a question no longer of a problem to be solved but simply of an enemy to be beaten.”

From the Author: Thanks to Andrej Grubačić who invited me to write this for The Journal of World Systems Research, and thanks to Jeff Clark, Joe Summers, May Seikaly, Michaela Brennan, and Silvia Federici for critical encouragement.

Notes

[1] As a geographic designation of the eastern Mediterranean, the term “Levant” derives from the French for “rising” of the sun, and it also once designated in western Europe a right of grazing cattle on common land day and night named “levant et couchant.”

[2] A Greek word of sharing or commons plus a Greek word for life gives us biocoenosis.

[3] The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852).

References

Abu Sitta, Salman. 2010. The Atlas of Palestine 1917–1966. London: Palestine Land Society.

Alkhalili, Noura. 2017. “Enclosures from Below: The Musha’a in Contemporary Palestine.” Antipode 49 (5).

Deane, Seamus. 1991. The Field Day Anthology of Irish Writing. Derry, Ireland: Field Day Publications.

Dowson, Ernest. 1931. An Inquiry into Land Tenure and Related Questions. Iraq: Garden City Press.

Emory, Ed. 1990. “Some Photographs that I was Not Able to Take: Egypt and the Red Sea.” Midnight Notes: New Enclosures.

Federici, Silvia. 2019. Re-Enchanting the World: Feminism and the Politics of the Commons. New York: PM Press.

Fields, Gary. 2017. Enclosure: Palestinian Landscapes in a Historical Mirror. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Foster, John Bellamy. 2020. The Return of Nature: Socialism and Ecology. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Graeber, David and David Wengrow. 2021. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Hudson, Michael. 1993. The Lost Tradition of Biblical Debt Cancellations. New York. Levidow, Les. 1990. “Holding the Green Line: Israeli Ecological Imperialism.” Midnight Notes: New Enclosures.

Hyde, Lewis. 2010. Common As Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Linklater, Andro. 2013. Owning the Earth. London: Bloomsbury. Marx, Karl. 1852. The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.

            . 1881. Correspondence with Vera Zasulich. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/dra)

Nadan, Amos. 2003. “Colonial Misunderstanding of an Efficient Peasant Institution: Land Settlement and Musha’a Tenure in Mandate Palestine, 1921–1947.” Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient 46 (3).

Palestine Exploration Fund. 1891. Quarterly Statement. London.

Quiquivix, Linda. 2013. “When the Carob Tree was the Border: On Autonomy and Palestinian Practices of Figuring it Out.” Capitalism Nature Socialism. 24 (3).

Ray, Gene. 2024. After the Holocene, the Commons. New York: Autonomedia.

Tamari, Salim. Autumn, 2022. “Archaeology, Historical Memory and Peasant Resistance: The Gezer Excavations at Abu Shusha.” Jerusalem Quarterly, 91.

The Empire’s Strategic Failure: How the US-Israeli Assault on Iran Accelerated Imperial Decline

[Pictured: Iran’s Abu Mahdi naval cruise missiles are displayed in a ceremony to mark their delivery to the navy and the Revolutionary Guard navy, in Iran, July 25, 2023 (Iranian Defense Ministry photo.]

By Taha Zeinali and Sara Larijani

Republished from Monthly Review.

The June 2025 US-Israeli military assault on Iran—featuring Israel’s Operation Rising Lion and the US Operation Midnight Hammer confronted by Iran’s defensive Operation True Promise 3—despite achieving short-term tactical victories, represents a profound strategic failure that has accelerated the US-led imperial decline and strengthened global anti-imperialist forces. Rather than cementing Western hegemony, this illegal act of aggression has exposed the terminal contradictions of a declining empire desperate to maintain unipolar control through increasingly aggressive military adventures.

The Unmasking of the ‘Rules-Based Order’

The weaponization of diplomacy as cover for military aggression represents a fundamental breach in the international order’s trust architecture. By launching the aggression after announcing the sixth round of US-Iran talks in Muscat—with full prior coordination between Trump and Netanyahu—the West transformed diplomatic engagement from a tool of conflict resolution into a tactical deception for pre-planned strikes. As one statement argues, “the timing and scale of this attack only underscores the fact that this was a long-planned orchestrated campaign of military aggression, diplomatic maneuver, intelligence warfare, sabotage, and media manipulation, executed with the full complicity and material support of the US and its vassals.” This calculated betrayal, mirroring the WMD fabrications that enabled Iraq’s destruction, has irrevocably shattered the credibility of Western diplomatic initiatives. The strategic use of negotiations as operational cover not only violates basic principles of good faith engagement but also establishes a precedent where any future Western diplomatic overture must be viewed as potential military subterfuge, fundamentally undermining the possibility of genuine dialogue between the West and nations of the global South.

Furthermore, the fraudulent nature of the Western “rules-based order” stands fully exposed in the diplomatic theater that followed the attacks. In a spectacle of Orwellian inversion, European powers rushed to blame the victim while exonerating the aggressor. France’s Foreign Ministry condemned “Iran’s ongoing nuclear program” and reaffirmed “Israel’s right to defend itself,” while the United Kingdom’s foreign secretary called on “all parties, especially Iran, to exercise restraint”—conspicuously omitting any criticism of Israel’s illegal strikes. Germany’s response proved most revealing: the foreign minister “strongly condemned the Iranian attack on Israeli territory” even before Iran’s initial retaliation, while Chancellor Friedrich Merz later declared, “This is dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us…. I can only say, I have the greatest respect for the fact that the Israeli army had the courage to do this.”

This diplomatic reversal—where victims become perpetrators—exemplifies Edward Said’s concept of Orientalist logic in Western discourse: Muslims must always appear as irrational aggressors, even when defending themselves from unprovoked attacks. The United Nations Secretary-General’s weak call for “all sides to avoid escalation” without condemning the aggression and attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is striking, showing how international institutions serve as what Noam Chomsky calls “instruments of the powerful,” using false neutrality to legitimize imperial violence. Notably, in 1981, UN Security Council Resolution 487 “condemned the military attack by Israel on the Iraqi nuclear installation as a clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations” and demanded Israel “refrain from such acts or threats of aggression in the future.”

This blatant double standard crystallized a permanent rupture in Iranian consciousness. Western powers reflexively defending unprovoked aggression while condemning Iran’s defensive response shattered all illusions about their commitment to international law. This betrayal transcended diplomatic disappointment—it exposed Western values as mere rhetorical weapons serving imperial interests. The depth of this shift emerged in Mohsen Chavoshi’s song “Alaj,” released the day of the US bombings, with lyrics declaring, “People! The remedy is in the homeland. The world is mere lip service; this battle is shield against shield. Free souls of the world, settle the matter with the slave masters!”

Nuclear Proliferation: The Empire’s Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

The weaponization of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s technical assessments represents a masterclass in imperial manipulation. The IAEA director’s June report became a strategic weapon for Israeli and Western aggression. One day after the IAEA’s politically motivated comprehensive report accusing “Iran of failing to meet obligations,” the United States and Israel launched their long-planned assault. In this regard, Grossi’s biased verification became stage-setting for military treachery, as Israel and the US used IAEA processes to justify pre-planned aggression, demonstrating how UN institutional and technical bodies become complicit when US-led imperialism weaponizes their “findings.”

Consequently, by allowing its reports to trigger violence instead of preventing it, the IAEA demonstrated that its assessments serve hegemonic interests rather than non-proliferation, which undermines its perceived neutrality in the global South. As nuclear proliferation expert Jeffrey Lewis warned, the attacks “will send shockwaves throughout the world” as nations conclude that “without nuclear deterrence, no nation is safe from Western aggression.”

SUPPORT OUR WORK BY MAKING A DONATION TODAY!

The US-Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, while achieving short-term tactical gains, paradoxically accelerate the very proliferation they claim to prevent through three reinforcing mechanisms. First, by targeting peaceful facilities under IAEA monitoring, the attacks transform a transparent, internationally supervised program into an opaque one beyond Western control, as Iran moves operations underground and ceases cooperation with inspectors—creating the intelligence blind spot the attackers feared. When a peaceful program under international oversight is attacked by the US and Israeli regimes without any consequences for the aggressors, it creates powerful incentives to move facilities underground and disperse them, cease or limit cooperation with international monitors, and accelerate clandestine development. Notably, Iran’s parliament immediately ratified suspension of IAEA cooperation, while other nations watched and learned. Second, external aggression generates unprecedented domestic unity and popular demand for nuclear deterrence in Iran, transforming what was once a debated policy into a matter of national survival across all political factions. Third, military action against a nation complying with international agreements destroys any remaining diplomatic credibility, sending an unmistakable message that compliance does not guarantee security and makes maximum deterrence the only rational strategy. This creates a regional cascade effect where other nations, observing that NPT adherence and IAEA cooperation provide no protection from attack, conclude that nuclear weapons serve “not as a threat, but as a shield”—potentially doubling the number of nuclear-armed states within decades. Thus, strikes intended to prevent Iran’s nuclear weaponization may have “more or less guaranteed that Iran will be a nuclear weapons state in five to 10 years,” according to a former IAEA inspector—transforming prevention into acceleration through a self-fulfilling prophecy of proliferation.

Normalizing Catastrophe: The West’s Moral Numbness

The Western public’s complicity in normalizing attacks on nuclear facilities—acts explicitly prohibited under international law—represents a catastrophic moral failure that will inevitably boomerang against Western interests. This ethical numbness, which is already evident in the silence regarding Gaza’s genocide, has set precedents that fundamentally compromise global nuclear security. By legitimizing strikes on safeguarded nuclear infrastructure, Western states have created a playbook that any actor can invoke, transforming their own nuclear facilities into legitimate targets under the logic they themselves have normalized. The sophisticated drone and quadcopter assassination campaigns celebrated in Western media as technological triumphs have democratized precision strike capabilities in ways that fundamentally disadvantage established powers. The proliferation of small FPV quadcopters capable of penetrating urban areas and infrastructure for terrorist operations—tactics perfected through the Zionist regime’s operations deep within Iranian territory—provides asymmetric actors with cost-effective templates for targeting Western interests. These lethal autonomous systems, applauded when deployed against Iranian scientists, officials, and civilians, will inevitably be replicated by groups planning attacks on Western soil. The technology cannot be contained; once normalized as legitimate warfare, these methods become universally available tools that favor weaker actors against technologically superior adversaries.

This boomerang effect extends beyond tactics to fundamental security vulnerabilities. Western support for indiscriminate quadcopter attacks that kill civilians alongside intended targets has legitimized a form of warfare where the distinction between combatants and non-combatants dissolves. The precedent of attacking nuclear facilities—once considered the ultimate taboo—means Western nuclear infrastructure now operates under the constant threat of similar strikes, justified by the very logic Western states championed. The complicity of Western publics in endorsing these violations of international law has not merely eroded moral authority but created tangible security risks that will haunt their societies for generations.

Manufacturing Consent for Aggression

The systematic media campaign followed the propaganda model Herman and Chomsky documented decades ago. Western outlets consistently framed unprovoked Israeli strikes as “defensive” while Iran was actively negotiating; amplified false claims about imminent nuclear threats despite IAEA contradictions; minimized Iranian civilian casualties (over 600 dead) while emphasizing Israeli military targets; and transformed Iran’s restrained response into “escalation.”

This transparent operation, reminiscent of Iraq WMD deceptions, has accelerated the collapse of Western media credibility across the Global South, driving audiences toward alternative information sources. For the Iranian public, this media blitz definitively unmasked Western journalism’s claimed neutrality as manufactured consent in service of imperial narratives. The brazen distortion of reality—portraying clear aggression as self-defense while casting legitimate retaliation as terrorism—has altered how Iranians view Western information sources. This represents more than media skepticism; it has ignited the emergence of an epistemological break where populations reject not just Western conclusions, but the very frameworks through which the West interprets global events.

The Boomerang of Regime Change Strategy

Beyond targeting Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Israel and the US pursued regime change through targeted assassinations of military commanders and systematic attacks on civilian infrastructure. This strategy fatally misread both the Islamic Republic’s military resilience and Iranian society’s response to external aggression.

The assassination campaign aimed to neutralize IRGC’s retaliatory capabilities through shock and decapitation. Despite successfully martyring numerous top commanders, Iranian missiles struck Tel Aviv less than 24 hours with devastating impact—shattering Israeli and US expectations of a paralyzed command structure.

Israel then deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure, particularly IRIB’s television studios, seeking to create chaos that would trigger popular uprising. This calculated terrorism altogether killed over 600 civilians but produced the opposite effect: unprecedented national unity transcending political divisions. The iconic image of an Iranian presenter continuing her broadcast as bombs fell became a symbol of defiance. Even government critics rallied to defend sovereignty against foreign aggression. As one Tehran professor noted: “They united us in ways our government never could.” The stark choice between opposing one’s government and defending one’s nation dissolved when faced with external assault. Ultimately, the regime-change opposition watched their hopes collapse as the Islamic Republic demonstrated unexpected resilience and Iranians rallied behind the military defenders despite the surprise terrorist assault.

Political Suicide of the Opposition

The opposition’s support for foreign military attacks ultimately proved to be politically fatal. Pro–regime change figures who backed the US-Israeli assault—explicitly or implicitly—found themselves utterly isolated from Iranian public opinion. Their alignment with forces bombing Iranian civilians was widely viewed as treason. Opposition figures who had cultivated international profiles through Western media and funding, Nobel prizes, and cultural awards saw decades of credibility vanish overnight. By calling for regime overthrow while foreign bombs fell on their countrymen, they committed what analysts termed “political suicide,” permanently destroying their viability as political alternatives.

Iran Transformed

The civilian casualties and infrastructure damage also intensified anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment across Iranian society, gaining renewed emotional resonance as direct responses to military aggression. This emotional shift strengthened pro-resistance elements within Iran while discrediting those who had advocated for diplomatic engagement with the West with the hope of normalization of relations.

The regime change strategy thus achieved the inverse of its intended effects: rather than weakening the Islamic Republic of Iran, it consolidated domestic support around resistance to foreign intervention, eliminated viable opposition alternatives, and provided the government with renewed legitimacy as defenders of national sovereignty against foreign aggression.

Despite tactical military losses, Iran emerged politically stronger with enhanced national cohesion. The attacks against a nation actively engaged in negotiations generated widespread domestic support for resistance, strengthening defense forces and the IRGC’s legitimacy as a defender of national sovereignty. Supreme Leader Khamenei’s warning that Iran “will not surrender” to foreign aggression resonated across Iranian society, while the systematic targeting of nuclear scientists and military commanders was perceived as an attack on Iranian civilization itself. The aggression vindicated decades of Iranian warnings about Western imperial intentions.

The Illusion of Air Supremacy

Israel and the United States’ achievement of temporary air superiority through terrorist attacks from within Iran failed to accomplish strategic objectives. As military historians note, translating tactical success into strategic success requires more than what air power can deliver. Despite over 1,000 Israeli sorties, Iran’s nuclear program suffered only temporary degradation. US intelligence assessments concluded the strikes “only set back” capabilities “by months.” Furthermore, the US intelligence apparatus is unable to confirm with certainty how successful the bombing of Fordow was and whether the stockpile of enriched uranium was moved before the strike.

This uncertain outcome validates the historical lesson no imperial power seems capable of learning: air power alone cannot achieve political objectives. From Vietnam to Afghanistan, the delusion that technological superiority translates into political control has repeatedly proven false.

The Myth of Israel’s Impenetrable Air Defense

Iran’s unprecedented missile offensive during Operation True Promise III delivered a decisive strategic blow to Israeli deterrence by exposing critical vulnerabilities in its air defense architecture. Launching over 550 ballistic missiles alongside 1,000+ drones in coordinated waves, Iran demonstrated an ability to conduct saturation attacks that overwhelmed defensive systems despite high interception rates.

The US-Israeli war on Iran exposed the economic unsustainability of imperial military dominance. Israel expended interceptor missiles faster than production capacity, forcing reliance on increasingly expensive US munitions. Iran’s asymmetric response using relatively cheap drones and missiles demonstrated how “the cost-benefit curve is upside down” when “$10,000 one-way drones” threaten “$2 million missiles.” The economic arithmetic of imperial decline manifested starkly in the conflict’s cost dynamics. Israel expended interceptor missiles faster than production capacity, each $3 million Arrow interceptor defeating a $10,000 Iranian drone—what one analyst called an “upside-down cost curve” that guarantees bankruptcy through victory. This mirrors historical patterns of empires exhausting themselves through military overextension, from Rome to Britain.

Iran’s missile offensive revealed three critical realities: sophisticated tactics penetrated Israel’s Iron Dome and Arrow systems, proving that even the most advanced and expensive air defense systems leave critical infrastructure exposed to residual strikes. Iran has weaponized cost asymmetry, as Iran’s inexpensive drones and missiles forced Israel to expend multimillion-dollar interceptors at unsustainable rates. Deterrence erosion occurred as Iran proved it could launch precision strikes from its territory directly at Israeli soil—shattering the myth of Israel’s invulnerability. Iran’s missile offensive shattered Israeli deterrence mythology by demonstrating that sophisticated tactics could penetrate even the most advanced air defense systems. The psychological impact—proving Israel vulnerable to direct attack from Iranian territory—fundamentally altered regional power calculations.

Catalyst of Multipolarity

While providing limited direct military support, China and Russia’s diplomatic solidarity signaled hardening geopolitical divisions. China’s condemnation of “violations of Iran’s sovereignty” and Russia’s denunciation of “absolutely unprovoked aggression” marked the consolidation of alternative power structures. Even traditional US allies called for restraint, revealing cracks in imperial architecture.

The war of aggression represents what critical analysts identify as the “desperate phase” of imperial decline, when dominant powers resort to increasingly reckless military adventures to maintain control. The inability to secure broad international support, domestic American opposition, and the ultimate necessity for hasty ceasefire negotiations revealed the limits of unipolar power projection.

The aggression definitively confirmed that the West seeks Iran’s destruction, not accommodation. No diplomatic engagement or restraint could shield Iran from US-led imperial violence. This brutal clarity accelerates Iran’s pivot toward comprehensive integration with China, Russia, and North Korea—forging an Eastern bloc united against US hegemony. Beyond economic ties, Iran now leans toward full-spectrum military coordination with these powers as an existential necessity, not a policy preference. The defense minister’s immediate post-ceasefire trip to China for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) defense ministers’ meeting signaled this strategic realignment. The war catalyzed stark global polarization: the multipolar order emerges not through gradual transition but through hardening opposing camps—a dynamic Western firepower cannot reverse.

Iran as Vanguard of Global Resistance

Rather than isolating Iran, the attacks enhanced its credibility as the primary force resisting Western domination. The act of aggression validated Iran’s consistent argument that accommodation with imperial powers remains impossible, strengthening anti-imperialist factions throughout the region. Iran’s missile strikes resonated far beyond military calculations, igniting support by peoples across the world horrified by Western complicity in Gaza’s genocide. For millions watching international institutions fail to address the atrocities by the Zionist regime, Iran’s missiles represented the most powerful resistance to Zionist aggression in decades.

This moment shattered decades of Orientalist caricature that painted Iran as a “rogue” and “reactionary” state. Instead, Iran emerged as the most consequential and principled power in West Asia, embodying the aspirations of those who demand justice, dignity, and a genuine end to impunity. Iran’s defiance redefined regional possibilities and exposed the moral bankruptcy of states complicit in ongoing genocide.

Iran’s direct confrontation with both Israel and the US simultaneously—previously considered suicidal—demonstrated a confidence that resonated across the Global South. As one Arab commentator noted, “They did what our governments only dream of.”

Strategic Implications for Forces

The June 2025 aggression, like previous imperial adventures, has accelerated rather than arrested processes of imperial decline. By choosing military confrontation over diplomatic engagement, the US and Israel validated arguments that Western imperialism respects only strength. The attacks have proven nuclear deterrence remains the ultimate sovereignty guarantee; air supremacy cannot achieve political transformation; high-tech militarism has inherent limitations; and imperial violence represents weakness, not strength.

For anti-imperialist forces globally, Iranian resistance provides both tactical lessons and strategic inspiration. The failure of overwhelming military superiority to achieve political objectives demonstrates that sustained resistance remains possible. As historians observe, “Every empire believes itself eternal until the moment it falls.”

The US-Israeli aggression against Iran marks not the restoration of imperial authority but its terminal crisis—a violent spasm of declining empire that has strengthened rather than weakened global resistance to Western domination. In this light, the empire’s tactical victory becomes history’s verdict: a pyrrhic triumph accelerating the very multipolar transition it sought to prevent.

Ghassan Kanafani: A Legacy of Giving and Resistance

[Pictured: A Palestinian girl passes by a mural of Ghassan Kanafani in Dheisheh Refugee Camp, Bethlehem, West Bank, May 12, 2018. (Credit: Anne Paq/Activestills)]

By Mohamad Kadan

"In truth, the only way out of this murky spiral is to believe that giving is acceptable, only for civilized humans... and that taking is undesirable... that living is about offering oneself, with no expectation of return... I am trying now to reach this belief in one way or another, or life becomes, without this belief, something absolutely unbearable..." [1]

— Ghassan Kanafani

I decided to write a text about Ghassan Kanafani to learn about one of his human characteristics: not just being a writer, an intellectual, a thinker, or a revolutionary. Recently, I have delved into the writings of several people who knew Kanafani, and they all agreed that he gave his life for Palestine through continuous giving, not only in the literary field but also by using his literature to provide us with the value of perseverance and endurance. The above quote is from Kanafani’s diary on January 4, 1960, written in haste, but as he describes it, it is as necessary as life. The question I pose in this text is: How does Kanafani want us to know him? What signs did he leave, from his comrades, newspapers, archives, letters, studies, stories, novels, and plays?

In 1952, Kanafani received approval to be appointed as a teacher at the UNRWA schools. His brother, Adnan Kanafani, tells us how Kanafani became a model teacher, spreading enthusiasm and overcoming oppression and defeat inside Palestinian camps. There, he met Mahmoud Falahah, an Arabic language teacher, who attended one of Kanafani’s classes due to his admiration for Kanafani’s exceptional ability to awaken the students’ potential [2].

Kanafani wrote a short story titled "A New Sun," published in the Lebanese literary magazine Al-Adab, the magazine most associated with Kanafani’s legacy. In it, he tells us in his extraordinary language about the decision to leave Damascus for Kuwait, through a letter to his friend Mustafa, who was studying in Sacramento: "The Kuwaiti Ministry of Education signed a contract with you last year, excluding me entirely. While I was going through a period of deep hardship, you occasionally sent me small sums, which you now want to be considered a debt, perhaps out of fear that I might feel diminished. Yet you knew very well my family’s circumstances: that my modest salary from the UNRWA schools was barely enough to support my elderly mother, my brother’s widow, and her four children." He then tells us about Israel's attack on Gaza, his follow-up on it, and whether it affected his daily routine, asking what he could do when they bombard "our Gaza" with fire and bombs. His decision to leave Damascus and teach refugee children made him regretful, directly affecting his writing and the question of giving—how, where, and why. He answered this in his short life by saying that we can give to Palestine from every position, region, and space. In late 1955, he traveled to Kuwait after accepting a job as a teacher in drawing and sports, where he felt an intense sense of loneliness and pain [3].

Kanafani did not flatter people "right and left." On the contrary, you might sometimes consider him self-absorbed, not caring about others' feelings and thoughts, as Fadl al-Naqeeb told us. Kanafani had many layers and was a flexible person. You had to wait and be patient to see him, observe him, and focus on his movements, writing, words, and conversations. Al-Naqeeb adds that he and his "Literature and Life" friends realized Kanafani’s value. Al-Naqeeb went on to study in the United States and received a copy of the story "The Cat" from his first collection, Death of Bed No. 12, which was published in 1957. He greatly admired it, and while exchanging letters, Kanafani told him that only a few had admired this story. As a result, Al-Naqeeb translated it and presented it in one of the English literature courses, where the professor allowed him to read it to the entire class. After the publication of Men in the Sun, Ghassan Kanafani asked al-Naqeeb to write a critical article about the novel. After publishing the masterpiece “Men in the Sun,” Kanafani asked al-Naqeeb to write a critical article about the story. Al-Naqeeb apologized, explaining that he could not fully grasp the essence of the novel, as the gap between reality and fiction was too narrow: “He told me how they had to move from their old home there, and the emotional sadness that accompanied this process, and how they found the letters F.K. engraved on the walls. His father’s name was Faiz Kanafani.” Al-Naqeeb felt that the story Kanafani wrote reflected his past, and that whatever he could write would not do it justice [4].

Kanafani’s wife, Anna Kanafani, also wrote about their first meeting in Beirut in 1961. She had said that she did not understand what had happened with the Palestinians and wanted to visit the camps. He yelled at her, "Do you think our people are animals in a zoo?" He told her that no one would take her there unless she understood the political background, and he explained the history of the Palestinian cause. Two weeks later, Kanafani told her, "Why don’t you stay longer?" She indeed stayed, worked at a kindergarten, was deeply influenced by his ideas, got to know his family, and they married. She recalls his ability to give even under the most challenging conditions, especially in 1967. His mother passed away a week before the June defeat in Damascus, and he was focused on standing strong beside his father and family. Upon returning to Beirut, she saw him for the first time breaking down in tears—was it because of the defeat, or for his mother? This was followed by the death of his friend, the novelist Samira Azzam from Acre, for whom he wrote a eulogy titled "The Promise," to inspire hope for his eternal city, Akka [5].

SUPPORT OUR WORK BY MAKING A DONATION TODAY!

Ghassan Kanafani gave a lot through his teaching career, literary work, criticism, political thought, and revolutionary activity. As we have seen, Kanafani’s fundamental role was in his relationship with his community, building and strengthening abilities, and providing opportunities. Mahmoud Darwish wrote in a eulogy titled "A Gazelle Foretelling an Earthquake": "My friend Ghassan! How many friends have I said goodbye to, but never bid farewell to a phase of my life, except in your final goodbye? The last thing I expected from nightmares was to announce your previous declaration about my existence ten years ago. I was born before that, but you announced my birth. I didn’t tell you: Thank you, I thought life was longer." Here, we see Kanafani’s generosity—he gave birth to resistance poets, directly contributing to creating a concept, practice, and framework for resistance art. Darwish and his companions, such as Samih al-Qasim, Hanna Abu Hanna, Rashid Hussein, Jamal Qawwar, and Hanna Ibrahim, poets from the occupied land in 1948, became part of the Arab intellectual and cultural scene after Kanafani’s writings. Their celebration was "stunningly embarrassing," as Darwish said about the neglect and denial before their birth announcement [6].

Generosity is a defining trait in Kanafani’s biography, and his ability to care for others matured through his relationship with his father, the lawyer and activist from the 1930s, whose legal work was connected to the oppressed and deprived. Anna quotes Kanafani as saying: "When I grow up, I want to be like my father, and I will fight to return to Palestine: my father's homeland, the land that he and Umm S’ad (أم سعد) told me so much about." "My father was a good man. He would buy me anything I wanted, and I still love him, even though he passed away." Kanafani’s concern with class struggle is related to his childhood, and its collapse before his eyes [7].

Kanfani: The Revolutionary

Kanfani's legacy is about his generosity in recruiting and attracting people to the revolution, as he was interested in the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Through poetry and culture, he also covered struggles, dispossession, and their organization. He did publish part of the memorandum of Arab citizens of Israel sent by the Al Ard movement, as Sabri Jiryis was their leader. I interviewed him, talking about his time under military rule, his struggles, and how he got involved with the Al-Ard movement. Later in 1970, he left and joined the PLO in Beirut through Fatah. Toward the end of the interview, I asked if he had ever met Kanafani. He said he did, and a few times, they spoke and had conversations.

He came to me with anger in his face and said, “Someone like you should be with us—the PFLP, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.” I told him, “My brother Ghassan, you’re thinking differently—big ideas, heavy theory, complex stuff. I’m a simple man. Fatah fits me better. It’s not left, not right—it sits in the middle, and that works for me.” I told him, “My comrade Ghassan, I can’t be part of the PFLP. I’m not in tune with the group. I can’t speak about the proletariat, class struggle, or internationalism. I respect Che Guevara and Castro, but I don’t think that model works for us here in Palestine.” Then I shared a story with him—about when I first arrived in Beirut. Naji Alloush, the Arab thinker, handed me his book and asked for my thoughts. Two days later, he returned and said, “Well, what do you think of discussions on the Palestinian Revolution?” I told him, “You made a grave mistake—like many Palestinian leftists—when you wrote that if there had been a Palestinian Lenin, none of this would have happened. That’s a flawed idea to open a book with. [8]

This story tells us about Kanfani's ambition and organization and how he always aims to recruit people for the organization and the revolution. Sabri Jiryis chose another path in the PLO, but they stayed in contact.

It seems that Kanafani regretted his time in Kuwait—or at least, did not find it fulfilling. He once told director Qasim Hawal not to go to the Gulf, especially not to Abu Dhabi, but to settle instead in Beirut. He told him, quite literally: “We just came out of Jordan and founded a magazine. Come with us—starve when we starve, feast when we feast.” This was shortly after the PLO departed from Amman, and it reflected Kanafani’s deep spirit of mobilization and commitment to collective national work. Hawal was one of Kanafani’s comrades from the late 1960s, during the final years of his life and his political engagement with Al-Hadaf magazine. Their meeting in Beirut wasn’t planned—it was one of those fateful encounters. Years later, during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Beirut, Hawal directed a film adaptation of Kanafani’s most famous novella, Return to Haifa. It became the first feature film based on a Palestinian revolutionary novel. Even earlier, after Kanafani’s assassination, Hawal directed a short film titled The Word and the Rifle, which is a tribute to his life and legacy. [9]

Kanafani was a leading political thinker and an active educator of the Palestinian revolution. The 2024 publication Ghassan Kanafani: Selected Political Writings offers a glimpse into the depth of his political analysis—limited to what has been translated into English. In Arabic, his output was far more expansive. He wrote prolifically on socialism, revolutionary theory, the Palestinian cause, and anti-imperialist struggles across the region. His writings were rigorous, his arguments tightly constructed, and his intellectual influence extended far beyond Palestine. As Sabri Jiryis once remarked, Kanafani was doing the heavy thinking. One of the most formative moments in his political life came in 1970, during the Jordanian regime’s campaign—coordinated with other Arab governments—to crush the Palestinian revolutionary movement, its groups, and guerrilla forces. This period sharpened Kanafani’s political praxis and deepened his theoretical commitments [10]. 

Kanafani gave an important lecture at the Beirut conference in March 1968, during a crucial transition in PLO leadership, as armed guerrilla groups were emerging as the dominant force, especially in the wake of the Battle of Karameh against a Zionist invasion in Jordan, by February 3, 1969, Yasser Arafat assumed the presidency of the Executive Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization, at a meeting of the Palestinian National Council held in Cairo. His voice, theoretical framing, and revolutionary thought shaped these changes and fueled the people's will to overcome the 1967 Naksa [11].

His central thesis was to frame the failures of the Arab world and to answer the pressing question: why did Palestinian Arabs lose again in 1967? He introduced the concept of the “language of the blind,” which he defined as: “In the past ten years, what we might call a blind language has emerged in the region. And there is nothing more commonly used in our daily lives today than this blind language. Words have come to mean nothing unless framed vaguely, offering no protection or precision. Every writer now has their private dictionary, using words based on their understanding—an understanding that is not commonly agreed upon. As a result, the words mean nothing.” Kanafani shows how Arab discourse—on democracy, revolution, and change—became saturated with vague language, which paralyzed the power of the people. It silenced youth and barred them from offering new paths to liberation. He emphasized: “The problem was not that we did not know, but that we did not allow those who did know to speak or to act.” From this, he proposed a return to the idea of the party as an organization of the modern world. This reflects Antonio Gramsci’s notion of the “new prince” in Machiavelli’s terms: the party as the structure capable of organizing, mobilizing, and recruiting the revolutionary spirit of youth [12].

Abu Ali Mustafa, the military leader in the Popular Front [for the Liberation of Palestine], said he first came to know of Ghassan through the “Mulhaq Falstin” Supplement of Al-Muharrir newspaper, which reached them in Jenin, in the West Bank, through smuggling. He met him for the first time after the launch of the Palestinian armed struggle following the defeat of 1967. He said:

"In that period, 1967 had arrived, and I met Ghassan face to face for the first time during his first visit to the military bases in the Jordan Valley. He asked me a lot about the interior [Palestinian territories] and the beginnings of the armed struggle... He asked me about the people and the geography and took notes. He asked me what was right and wrong in those beginnings. He asked me about the resources we started with, the organization, the popular mood... about the scenes." [13]

There, in the Jordan Valley, an ethnic cleansing campaign is now underway. Ghassan then told him about his study of the 1936 revolt, comparing it to the Palestine Liberation Organization-led revolution. This time, he said, the people are dispersed and displaced, the land is occupied, and on top of that, the Arab states are conspiring against the revolution—a radical difference. Kanafani was always deeply invested in the question of liberation. He understood how difficult that task was, especially under the conditions we continue to face. But his life—his ideas, his relationships, his roles—offers ways to think about persistence, about resisting through every act and position one takes. In my piece, I wanted to show how the lesser-known, often overlooked fragments of his life reveal so much about what it means to live as a Palestinian and a revolutionary.

Bibilography

[1] Romman Cultural Magazine. Ghassan Kanafani’s Diaries... (1959-1965) (1/2). Link here https://rommanmag.com/archives/18633

[2] Kanafani, Adnan. Ghassan Kanafani: Folded Pages. Kuwait: Nashri Electronic Publishing House, 2003. eBook. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12378936

[3] Ghassan Kanafani. “Shams Jadida [A New Sun].” Al-Adab, no. 2 (February 1, 1957).  https://archive.alsharekh.org/Articles/255/18587/420406

[4] Al-Naqeeb, Fadl. Hakadha Tantahi al-Qisas... Hakadha Tabdaʾ [Thus Stories End... Thus They Begin. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Abhath al-ʿArabiyya, 1983.

[5] Kanafani, Anni. "Interview with Anni Kanafani: I Imagine Ghassan Sitting with Us." Interview by Ayham al-Sahli and Taghrid Abdelal. Institute for Palestine Studies, Arts & Culture Blog, July 20, 2022. https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/1652961 & "Ghassan Kanafani fi Dhikrahu al-‘Ishrīn" [Ghassan Kanafani on His Twentieth Memorial]. Al-Ādāb, no. 7–8 (July 1, 1992).

[6] Darwish, Mahmoud. A Gazelle Heralding an Earthquake: In Memory of the Martyr Ghassan Kanafani. Register of the Immortals, Vol. 2, Central Media Office of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, pp. 200–205. https://palestine-memory.org/ & Kanafani, Ghassan. “al-Adab al-Filastini al-Muqawim taḥta al-Iḥtilāl 1948–1968” Palestinian Resistance Literature under Occupation, 1948–1968. Cyprus: Rimal Publications, 2015. (Published Originally in 1968)

[7] Interview with Anni Kanafani In"Ghassan Kanafani fi Dhikrahu al-‘Ishrīn" [Ghassan Kanafani on His Twentieth Memorial]. Al-Ādāb, no. 7–8 (July 1, 1992).

[8] Sabri Jiryis - Fassuta. Interview Conducted by the Author on 18 April 2025, through Zoom.

[9] Bdeir, Ahmad Naim. “Qasem Hawal Tells Al-Hadaf: ‘This Is How I Lived with Ghassan Kanafani and Knew Him!’” Al-Hadaf, July 8, 2025, link here

[10] Kanafani, Ghassan. Ghassan Kanafani: Selected Political Writings. Edited by Louis Brehony and Tahrir Hamdi. Paperback ed. October 20, 2024. 

[11]  “An Important Document: From the Thought of Ghassan Kanafani – Reflections on Change and the ‘Language of the Blind’.” Originally presented at the “Beirut Seminar” in March 1968. Published in Al-Hadaf Magazine, Special Issue on the 16th Anniversary of His Martyrdom, July 1988.

[12] Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Translated by Quintin Hoare. New York: International Publishers, 1971. "The Modern Prince."

[13] Al-Hadaf Magazine, Year 1, Issue No. 1320, July 2001. https://fada.birzeit.edu/handle/20.500.11889/6552

The Age of Supraliberalism: A Requiem for Neoliberalism, Capitalist Democracy, and the American Unipolar World

By Joshua Lew McDermott

The Death of Neoliberalism, The Birth of the Supraliberal Age

The present political moment is often only fully understood in hindsight. Analysts will one day look back on the Trump era, especially his second term, as marking a point of departure, the world’s entrance into a brave new world. But we don’t have to wait. To change the world, we must understand events as they unfold or, better yet, we must anticipate them given what came before. And the neoliberal age has given way to something new: the supraliberal age. 

Yet contemporary thinkers remain shackled by the norms, concepts, and logics of the past, namely the unipolar world dominated by neoliberal policy and American Empire. 

But the neoliberal age is dead. It had been dying since 2008. Yet the concept still looms large in the intellectual zeitgeist. Neoliberal fascism, authoritarian neoliberalism, post-neoliberalism, late neoliberalism, late-stage capitalism; these are just a few of the proposed concepts for understanding this moment. But these concepts have thus far failed to adequately capture the impetus for and radical nature of the historic break.

Neoliberalism was premised on two fundamental principles: the unrestrained free-market and limited but functional liberal government defined by “good governance,” efficiency, and technocratic elitism. In the supraliberal age, alternatively, the invisible hand has choked the last breaths of life from the already frail liberal polity. A zombified liberalism remains, with government institutions simultaneously rendered impotent in the service of the working class and weaponized to new heights of power and overreach in the service of the elite classes. 

The analysts were right when, in the wake of the global economic crash that began in 2008, they predicted the end of neoliberalism was near. Many assumed, in the wake of Obama’s election, that the system was destined to turn to a multi-racial Keynesian social democracy to save the world economy, the same way the world had done in the 1930s (sans the racial pluralism, of course). On this front they were wrong; financial and industry elites were too entrenched, free-market ideology too self-assured and institutionalized, the financial and tech monopolies too big and too concentrated for reform, the courts too corrupt, the government regulatory framework too brittle after decades of neoliberal onslaught, and the bulk of the American public too virulently racist, reactionary, and anti-socialist to accept even the semblance of pro-working-class policies. What we got instead was the intensification of class warfare, an escalation of essentialist identity politics, and, ultimately, the maturation of neoliberalism’s problems.

It is not just neoliberalism as an economic policy that advocates for free trade and the invisible hand that has died. We have not just reverted to protectionism or to regulation. No, it is more complicated than that. For every restriction on trade thrown up by Trump or Biden, a different sector of the U.S. economy and the American state has been deregulated, disempowered, captured, and/or privatized. As one barrier to free trade is erected, regional integration and imperial domination elsewhere continue to undermine the possibility of national economic sovereignty, especially for the smaller nations. American industry is now more unregulated than at any time since The Great Depression.

Nor is it just that we have descended into fascism. For all its lip-service against the decadence of global finance and capitalism itself, classic fascism did, of course, depend upon the support of Europe’s barons of industry and many of its liberal elites – it decimated organized labor and the socialist movements swiftly, violently, and accordingly. Yet it is also true that the classic fascist regimes did not hold the same abiding faith in the free market as the contemporary right, nor were they demonstrably subservient and beholden to oligarchs in the way that Trump, Biden, Meloni, Macron, Starmer, and the other Western leaders are to the tech, oil, defense, and finance titans of our day. Yet our age does contain undeniable fascistic elements; idiotic nationalism, fetishized militarism, censorship, anti-intellectualism, subservient and corrupt courts, impotent and dysfunctional legislatures, and an unrestrained individual executive. Trump is, in many ways, a conglomeration of Mussolini with a billionaire, a social media celebrity, and a nepotistic CEO. And that combination – the nationalism, fundamentalism, and corruption intertwined with corporate, celebrity, libertarian logic is novel and demands a novel conceptualization of its characteristics, trajectories, and roots.

So if the neoliberal age is rubble and we have not merely reverted back to a fascist one, where are we? We are in the unknown, unchartered waters of history in the making. We are in the supraliberal age, the age where even the appearance of a compatible marriage between capitalism and liberal democracy has withered away. We are in the supraliberal age where the state has not disappeared or weakened, it has transformed into a mere enforcement mechanism for brutalizing dissent, exporting arms, enabling capital accumulation, and facilitating wealth transfer from the working class to the elites. We are in the society of the spectacle, a society where propaganda, celebrity, and self-aggrandizement become a means in and of themselves.  

And while we may just be at the start of the supraliberal age, that we are in it is undeniable.

That is also not to say that liberalism is gone or that liberalism was, fundamentally, better; supraliberalism was always the destiny and true character of the neoliberal era. It is just that the hypocritical and contradictory nature of liberalism is now explicit and manifest in the heart of the imperial homeland, has finally and totally supplanted the remnants of the postwar order that It gave birth to, its free-market fundamentalism finally having displaced any guardrails, even if meager ones, it ever had to reign in the monopolies and oligarchs of the neoliberal age.  

So like the vestigial wings of a flightless bird, the liberal institutions and the rule of law they represent remain merely as ornamental and ceremonial formalities in contemporary America and Europe.

SUPPORT OUR WORK BY MAKING A DONATION TODAY!

The most jarring policies, ideological extremities, material logics, and novel institutions of the neoliberal age that undergirded its inherent contradictions and violent episodes now persist and become the defining features of the supraliberal order of today.

The authoritarian violence imposed by Pinochet and the neoliberal logic of the Chicago Boys in Chile, once thought by analysts to represent only an unfortunate but necessary far-off occurrence in the hinterlands of a U.S.-led world-order, today define the ruling class regimes in the metropole. The oligarchs imposed upon Eastern Europe by neoliberal shock therapy and animated by ethnic and nationalist sentiments enflamed by American interference were not exotic anomalies; they were a foretelling of what was to come in the West. The violent religious fundamentalism nurtured, trained, and armed in the Middle East to displace leftist movements and topple non-compliant regimes has emerged in the American heartland as violent paramilitary, white supremacist, and Christian nationalist actors turn to intimidation, violence, terrorism, and suppression to impose their extremist worldviews on their neighbors.

The embarrassing contradictions of the liberal capitalist system are no longer able to be exported abroad or glossed over with ideology; in the supraliberal age, the brutality comes home and intensifies. In the process, the entire geopolitical economic order is transformed, starting with America.

The Neoliberal Age

The foundations upon which the neoliberal era was erected can be traced to the U.S.’s emergence from World War Two as the world’s clear economic and military leader, a position the U.S. used to give itself, and its vassal states in Europe, commanding control in the new international governance and financial institutions such as the U.N. Security Council and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Apart from U.S. domination of the international institutional system, the postwar era was defined by robust welfare states in the West that were erected thanks to class struggle and assented to by elites to head off the attractiveness of socialism to workers. The era also saw successful anticolonial movements throughout the Third World (led often by socialist and communist parties), rising competition for Western industry due to an industrializing world, and the entrenchment of powerful trade union movements in the Western democracies.

Throughout this period, the U.S. (and its allies) attempted to assert its dominance, undermining radical elements in the anticolonial movements and using all means necessary to prevent the emergence of an economically independent third world that would challenge the existing order. However, given countervailing dynamics, and along with the oil shocks of the day, the contradictions of the postwar Keynesian order came to a head; the economic boom years devolved into crisis. In response, the U.S. ruling class leapt at the chance to again remake the world order even more to its liking. The new system it constructed was built in response to the power of labor domestically and socialist and anti-imperial resistance internationally, e.g. neoliberalism.

Neoclassical economic theory, tied to a contradictory ideological commitment to liberal governance, would become the justification for U.S. economic policy and imperial dominance of this new era. The birth of neoliberalism was cemented with the transformation of the Breton Woods Institutions into technocratic neoliberal machines as the new Washington Consensus imposed free trade and austerity policies around most of the globe (often in return for predatory loans or political support for corrupt regimes) to bolster U.S. dominance and transnational capitalist class power (a transnational capitalist class that was, nonetheless, always beholden to the mighty dollar and the U.S. banking system).

The U.S. also abandoned the gold standard in the shift from the postwar to the neoliberal era, giving it the ability to use the dollar, the global reserve currency, to fund an immense and meaningless national deficit in the face of deindustrialization and impose brutal unilateral sanctions on adversarial nations. In the new era it also doubled down on its training of paramilitaries, funding of proxy wars, and destabilization efforts around the globe in the name of combatting socialism (and subsequently drugs and terrorism). It financialized its economy to procure a fictitious economic growth in the face of the decline of American manufacturing, working class living standards, and declining economic dominance. The rest of this history of this era is more-or-less well known today: the Chilean Coup and the larger Dirty Wars in Latin America, the Wars on Terror, the deregulation of industry, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, the crushing of the labor movement, the passage of NAFTA, the intensification of globalization, the explosion of consumer debt, the opioid epidemic, the rise of inequality, declining living standards in the West, etc. etc.

The Eleven Features of Supraliberalism

The past does not disappear, it echoes. But as it echoes, it is transformed and molded to fit the realities of the present moment. Accumulative quantitative change eventually reaches an inflection point, and qualitative ruptures occur.

Despite the obvious democratic deficiencies and hypocrisy of U.S. claims to upholding liberal values like human rights, equality, transparency, democracy, a free press, etc. in the neoliberal era, the claims could nonetheless be made with an air of plausible deniability and sincerity that, at the very least, provided a semblance of ideological cover. In the supraliberal age, not only are such claims objectively absurd, but such values are actively maligned – if not in rhetoric then cynically in practice.

Supraliberalism is defined by eleven features, all of them emergent from the trends and ruins of neoliberalism and all of them intertwined, inseparable, and mutually reinforcing: First, the return of multipolarity in the global sphere. Second, the implementation of pragmatic hodgepodge of free-trade and protectionist policies enacted by, and for, the benefit of the oligarchy of the various multipolar blocs. Third, the rule of economic elites and the end of any form semblance of legitimate democratic government. Fourth, the private sphere and the state become indistinguishable, the capture of the regulatory state finalized and total. Fifth, postmodern, post-truth identity essentialism (of both supposed progressive and reactionary varieties) becomes the defining inter-and-intrapersonal worldview of the age. Sixth, the total militarization and securitization of society. Seventh, the commodification of all aspects of life and nature as they become subject to market dynamics. Eighth, a blowback of the violence once reserved for the hinterland of empire deep within its metropoles. Ninth, the dominance of tech/platform capitalism and the normalization of its social engineering and surveillance appetites. Tenth, the intensification and leveraging of the climate catastrophe for the benefit of elites. And eleventh, a fundamental anti-communist, anti-socialist, and anti-humanist ideology that underlies and justifies it all.

1. Multipolarity: It is not just that we have entered a new multipolar world, but that is certainly an important piece of the puzzle. For all the superficial similarities to the interwar period or to the imperial competition and arms race of the early 20th century, 2025 is not 1910. Nor does the New Cold War promise to be a meaningful battle of ideologies, socialism vs. capitalism, like the Old Cold War. No, the supraliberal age will be defined, first and foremost, by neo-imperialist global blocs competing for the loot of a permanent global periphery defined by urbanization-without-industrialization. It remains an open question if the class struggle within China can and will revitalize an actual socialist character that could, hypothetically, give meaning and direction to the New Cold War. The first real hope for a socialist resistance to the American supraliberal bloc lies in a new non-aligned movement and whether the leftist governments of Latin America can solidify their positions and overcome the contradictions of their present part-way socialism. The second real hope lies in new anti-capitalist struggles emerging victorious across Africa, Asia, and even within the metropole itself.

2. Cynical Free Trade: To an extent, the free trade of neoliberalism was always free-trade for me, not for thee; free trade for the working class and small nations, protectionism for elites and for the critical industries of the metropole. In the supraliberal age this is truer than ever: protectionism becomes widespread and celebrated as a backlash to neoliberal free trade agreements that decimated the working classes of the world. But the question becomes: protectionism for who and to what end? Protectionism for the oligarchs, of course. Protectionism for the entrenchment of nationalist, anti-working-class elites like Trump, Musk, and their ilk. Now that behemoth America cannot compete on the unfair grounds with the developing world like it once did, thanks to the rise of China, it turns its back on the ideolog of Free trade; Chinese technology and EVs must be stopped at all costs in the name of national security. But make no mistake: free trade continue to be forced down the throats of countries in Latin America and Africa and American workers will be expected to compete with the working classes of the international order as their meager unions and welfare protections are finally stripped away.

3. Oligarchy: The supraliberal age is oligarchy manifest. The supposed genius and merit of oligarchic influencers like Elon Musk, Mark Cuban, and Sundar Pichai become the animating logic of popular culture and popular politics. Citizens United is just the tip of the iceberg in the role of moneyed interests will play, both publicly/proudly and clandestinely/nefariously, in the supraliberal age; any semblance of republican elections free of the corrupting influence of money are a thing of the past. Democracy, in any meaningful sense, is dead.

4. Regulatory Captured: The supraliberal age is also defined by the total capture of the regulatory state by industry. Not only that, but the dividing line between private industry and the state disappears; in its place, a Frankenstein emerges, an abomination comprised of corporate and public mixture of arms, legs, eyes. The Chevron Environmental Protection Agency is legitimized, the Department of Labor is managed like the Chamber of Commerce, the courts and justice itself becomes the subject of power and ideology. Every function of government is run as a business for the profit of private stakeholders. 

5. Identity and Cultural Essentialism: The postmodern displacement of universality, humanism, and truth becomes absolute in the supraliberal age; identity essentialism and the death of truth reach their apex, with one’s nation, culture, and race/ethnicity becoming the undisputed measure of morality, truth, and individual character. This aspect has supposed progressive and reactionary wings, but the underlying logic remains the same: identity is everything. Anti-intellectualism, identity politics, cultural literalism, fundamentalism, outrage, and puritanism reign. 

6. Militarization and Securitization: In the supraliberal age, all aspects of social and political life become militarized and securitized. Economic policy is a matter of national security; the border is a matter of national security; education policy is a matter of national security. Municipal police are armed and trained in the logic and practice of occupying militaries, consumer culture and capital accumulation themselves become the end goal of military conflict. Everything is war, and war is about making money.

7. Commodification: The trend of the commodification of all aspects of life, human, social, natural, becomes intensified to previously unimagine levels in the supraliberal age. Animal life, nature, human intellect, love, empathy, spirituality; all become subject to the profitizing logic of the market. A mother holds her child after giving birth – a fee is charged. You send your love a poem which is then shared to social media and monetized. You attend church and your tithing is used to invest in real estate ventures. You call your father on Father’s Day and your call data is recorded, leveraged, and sold to an advertising firm. The ecosystem itself is given a dollar amount, human and animal life measured in terms of dollars. Alienation, isolation, and objectification become the beating hearts of our social existence.

8. Blowback: A defining feature of the supraliberal age in the United States is the boomerang of America’s previously exported wars, war crimes, austerity, genocide, authoritarianism into its own living room. America itself becomes the criminal narco-state, the kleptocracy, the military dictatorship, the religious fundamentalist regime it once used to control Mexico, Colombia, Indonesia, Afghanistan. Protestors are treated as enemy combatants, environmental activists as terrorists, labor unions as violent heretics.

9. Social Engineering, Ubiquitous Surveillance, and the Worship of Tech: In the supraliberal age, the tech industry and technology generally, especially information and communications technology, become the saviors of the world, the panacea to all social problems, the utopian horizon. The world will become unlivable? Technology will take us to distant stars. People can’t afford to eat? Technology will devise a pill to give us all necessary nutrition. Under supraliberalism, the power of technology begats more powerful technology; our social interactions, our sense of self, our political sensibilities become filtered through the algorithms of communications technology. Our thoughts and dreams are anticipated and summarized with Artificial Intelligence programs before we even express them. Technology is used to commodify us and to train us: buy this now, buy this then, here is a news headline for you, here is your favorite genre of music. Our personalities are no so much born of our volition as given to us from on high, from the Gods in the Cloud.

10. The Monetization and Leveraging of the Climate Catastrophe: In the supraliberal age, the climate crisis becomes the climate catastrophe. The warnings of disastrous ecological future become the present reality. Why was this not avoided? Because it was profitable, and it because it could be leveraged by the ruling class to cement and entrench their rule. Los Angeles burns and the real estate private equity firms descend; New Orleans sinks and the French Quarter gentrifiers circle like sharks. Mark Zuckerburg is safe in his bunker in the cool mountains. The segregation and securitization of elite life is completed. The rich watch the last forests burn from their golden helicopter.

11. Anti-communism: The supraliberal age is defined by an ideological madness which is, first and foremost, anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-Marxist. In the supraliberal age, all kinds of dissent, protest, and personal eccentricities are acceptable in the name of personal and market freedom: the freedom to shop, the freedom to discriminate, the freedom to worship God, the freedom to kill anyone deemed a threat to your property. What cannot be abided, though, is an organized, radical, and effective movement of the people against the logic of capital accumulation and the rule by elites. Thus, a rabid anti-communism abides. And not just anti-communism in the sense of the vilification of any and all real-world attempts to supplant or even just to reform capitalism, whether domestically or internationally, but an anti-communism which reviles, crushes, and mobilizes against communism as an idea and an ideal; communism as a rationally planned democratic society wherein social class has been eliminated – this is the true enemy and only sustained bogeyman of the supraliberal age. Any violation of elite sensibilities – be it religious heresy, gender nonconformity, feminism, racial justice, etc., is but a manifestation of the deeper and more nefarious sin of Marxism.

Only the Working Class 

The only force on Earth capable of challenging the dystopia of the superaliberal age is a united and broadly defined working-class (aka all those not aligned to profit or benefit from the ongoing and coming destruction). United, only they have the power to overthrow the supraliberal ruling class and the society they have built for their benefit. Only they have the power to arrest the climate crisis with rational, eco-responsive policies and technologies. Only they have the power to end inequality and immiseration forever with humanist, universal policies that equitably share the abundant resources produced by the cumulative history of human labor, knowledge, and sacrifice. Only they, as a class, can provide the vision and the practice for achieving a new kind of society – one that is not a utopia, but an actual and concrete effort that learns, develops, and evolves over time. Only they can imagine and implement a society wherein not just human beings but all living beings, even nature itself, is afforded value. A society driven by rationality, cooperation, and equality. In short: working class revolution is our only hope.

It remains to be seen, of course, if the ravages of supraliberalism will give way to such an attempt and vision. But that we have no other choice if we are to save the planet, our own humanity, and civilization is clear.

Alligator Alcatraz Was Already Here

By Aaron Kirshenbaum and Grace Siegelman

In the middle of the Big Cypress National Preserve in Ochopee, Florida, and almost dead center of the Florida Everglades, surrounded by alligators and pythons, is the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport. For years, plans to expand the airport’s infrastructure have been stalled in an attempt to preserve the surrounding marshlands and a critical freshwater source. On July 3, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, per the request of President Donald Trump and Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Kristi Noem, used emergency powers to seize the abandoned airport and open Alligator Alcatraz, named for Trump’s twisted fantasy to reopen the deadly Alcatraz Island in the San Francisco Bay. The makeshift prison is currently capable of detaining up to 5,000 migrants (with capacity expected to double) and celebrated for being inexpensive due to its ‘natural’ barriers.

Recent news reports have documented the horrific conditions: tents that provide no protection from rising summer temperatures, maggot-infested food, little access to clean drinking water, flooding near electrical cables, and bedding. Prominent environmental organizations like the Center for Biological Diversity have sued Noem for the environmental impacts the detention center will have on the surrounding marshlands, water sources, and sacred land of the Miccosukee and Seminole tribes. Five Florida state lawmakers have also sued Governor DeSantis over being denied entry into the detention facility.

We must break down the divisions between movements to fight against Alligator Alcatraz and to prevent similar facilities from opening in the future. This facility is the natural culmination of decades of build-up of the war economy, of the prison system, and of policy prioritizing money above human needs. Its opening is activating environmentalists, anti-war advocates, and immigration organizers alike. Alligator Alcatraz is a catalyst for us to stand together to call for the destruction of detention centers in the US and the divestment from militarism here and everywhere.

SUPPORT OUR WORK BY MAKING A DONATION TODAY!

The funding sources for this detention center are absurdly symbolic. In a statement to the Associated Press, Noem stated that the facility was projected to cost $450 million. Yet leaked documents reveal that the total grant awarded to the project is worth $608 million —  all from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

FEMA is the same organization responsible for providing emergency relief after natural disasters, like the recent catastrophic flooding in Texas — and like the type that could emerge from this facility, contaminating the drinking water of the eight million people served by the aquifer adjacent to Alligator Alcatraz. Recent cuts have resulted in an inadequate early warning system in states like Texas, which left residents helpless during the catastrophic and deadly flooding. This prioritization of a war-economy budget over a people’s economy turns all areas impacted by the militarism-induced climate crisis into sacrifice zones of human and ecological life.

The timing of the opening coincides with President Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, which gives tax breaks to the U.S.’s wealthiest five percent and $150 billion to further militarization here and abroad, all while cutting social programs like Medicaid, SNAP benefits, and student loan assistance.

This sacrifice of life is the function of prisons, the build-up of which emerged through disinvestment in the public sector as a catch-all solution to social issues. Instead of investing in schools, housing, education, or jobs, local and federal governments elected to build prisons as a way to contain poverty and extract people from their communities — in turn extracting their time, their autonomy, and the money that otherwise could have gone toward their lives, instead throwing it into brutality, confinement, and militarization of the police to enforce this financial arrangement.

The same answer rings true whether you are talking about Alligator Alcatraz. U.S. funds and intelligence aiding the Israeli bombing of Palestinian hospitals, homes of doctors and lawyers, or U.S. taxpayer dollars being stripped from education, housing, and healthcare. The United States government is not in the business of sustaining life, but rather sustaining profits, control, and more profits. Our money is being used to illegally detain thousands of people every day for existing, and Alligator Alcatraz is a jarring example of what is already here. Thirteen thousand people have died in U.S. prisons due to summer heat waves in the past twenty years. Nearly half of the drinking water in U.S. prisons is contaminated with forever chemicals; like Alligator Alcatraz, most prisons and jails are built on abandoned industrial sites linked to disease, cancers, and death. Prisons are especially vulnerable during natural disasters. Last October, for instance, several prisons were not evacuated in Hurricane Milton’s Zone A Evacuation Center. Additionally, during Hurricane Katrina, hundreds of incarcerated folks were left locked in prison for four days without food and water while their cells flooded with water and other elements.

Whether it be prisons, FEMA-funded ICE detention facilities, or increased funding for the Pentagon, the extractive motivation is always the same. We need to approach prisons as a form of militarization at home — taking people out of their communities, not to extract their labor in the prison in most cases, but so that the State can extract their lives and “save” resources outside of the prison. This facility is funded for a PR campaign, and condemns those incarcerated to an early death. This murder is accelerated by the climate crisis, which has been accelerated by our warmaking, all for the sake of continuing to extract labor and resources across the world.

Whether it’s the over 800 U.S. military bases leaking toxic chemicals and jet fuel, prisons and cop cities, or ICE detention facilities, our targets are the same, and the reasons for their funding are a common thread. These deadly facilities are being built on sacred indigenous land, decimating the health and water sources of local communities, and extracting the lives of people who our economic and political systems have discarded.

Alligator Alcatraz, Alligator Auschwitz, is a brutal reminder of the daily happenings here in the belly of the beast. Trump and Congress continue to find pay cuts in government spending for life-affirming resources while piling money into starving and incarcerating its own people and funding the ecocide and genocide of people outside its borders. Our money is being filtered away from the things we need most and toward systems that will kill us and the planet. We cannot allow our struggle against all forms of domestic and international militarism to be siloed.  We must push forward and never look away.

If we want an end to ICE detention centers and deportations, if we want our money invested in things that matter to our survival, we must cut the one trillion-dollar war budget today. Find out how to get started in your local community now.

Aaron Kirshenbaum is CODEPINK's War is Not Green campaigner and East Coast regional organizer. Based in and originally from Brooklyn, New York, Aaron holds an M.A. in Community Development and Planning from Clark University. They also have a B.A. in Human-Environmental and Urban-Economic Geography from Clark. During their time in school, Aaron worked on internationalist climate justice organizing, educational program development, and Palestine, tenant, and abolitionist organizing.

Grace Siegelman is CODEPINK's Engagement Manager. Grace completed her Master's Degree in Women and Gender Studies and Bachelor's Degree in Peace, Justice and Conflict Studies at DePaul University. She has been organizing for over 6 years in Chicago. Her organizing and research focus on prison and police abolition, queer theory, gendered violence and anti-war efforts. She has led youth campaigns on Ban the Box, a national movement to remove the question of criminal history from college applications and led letter writing and education initiatives to incarcerated survivors of domestic violence. Her writing can be found in Common Dreams, CounterPunch, LA Progressive and more.

Hard Truths About the US Labor Movement: An Interview with Chris Townsend

By Michael D. Yates

Republished from Monthly Review.

hris Townsend has been organizing workers, conducting political work for labor unions, and teaching young workers to organize for almost all his adult life. He is, as we say, “the real deal.” While most of us opine and pontificate about labor, Chris does the dirty work. He organizes. His contributions over several decades have played a key role in rebuilding the United Electrical Workers (UE), rekindling new organizing and campaigning in the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), helping to initiate what has become the Starbucks movement, and contributing in countless other ways to the work of the labor movement. He declares without hesitation that, “the workplace in the United States is a dictatorship,” and proposes dramatically expanded union organizing as one antidote. Chris is also a committed socialist, someone who understands that the labor movement must be much more than just disconnected and isolated labor unions, politically adrift, organizationally stagnant, and taking blows from all sides. Organized labor must return to its roots, when bringing capitalism to an end was the ultimate goal. —- Michael D. Yates

Michael D. Yates: Chris, how and when did you first become active in the labor movement?

Chris Townsend: I joined the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) in Tampa, Florida, just after I got out of high school. I grew up in Pennsylvania, and in 1979 the economy was at a dead stop. Every mill, mine, railroad and other employer had a layoff list a mile long. A young kid like me had zero chance of finding any job. Mass unemployment was a scary thing to see when hundreds of people would line up for a handful of jobs. I was on my own and took off for Florida where I had an Uncle I could stay with. He said there were at least a few jobs down there. I got hired as a sanitation worker and I found out that the ATU was organizing the entire municipal workforce of the City of Tampa. I fell into it by accident. ATU took the lead because for twenty years they had represented the bus operations which were eventually run by the city. By the time I arrived the public sector had been allowed to officially organize through a State of Florida process. The organizing drive included over 3,600 workers in every city classification, from Accounting Clerk 1’s to Zookeeper 2’s, and everything in-between. I jumped into the union with both feet, doing just about everything you could think of. Some of the old-timers who ran the local were Cuban Americans, but they were communists and sympathizers who had fled the Batista regime. The Cuban Revolution was their political North Star so to speak. These guys trained me and put me to work. I was a volunteer organizer who did anything they needed me to do in just about every corner of the city. I became a shop steward for a while, then was elected to the local Executive Board in late 1981. Somehow, I got nicknamed, “the kid,” and I hated it. There were lots of other young workers there, but I guess at 17 and 18 and 19, I was the youngest who was that active.

MY: Did you move to the left before or after your entry into the labor movement?

CT: I became a leftist in high school, by listening to shortwave radio and reading. One of the things I read was Monthly Review, it was carried by the Franklin and Marshall college library. They put it out with the newspapers and magazines, and their library was open to the public. I saw my future prospects declining day by day under the Nixon regime, then Jimmy Carter. I figured out bit by bit that this “system” we have is not our system, it’s the bosses’ system. It robs people, oppresses people, torments people, and crushes them. And it does not hesitate to massacre on a gigantic scale when it wants to. The U.S. genocide on Vietnam was sickening. When our puppet regime in the South finally collapsed at the end of April, 1975, we all saw it on live TV. It was the way that we abandoned and just ditched most of our supporters and hangers-on in the final bug-out that ironically convinced me that I was a socialist. If these people were dumped so fast, why on earth would I think that these same ruling forces would ever help me if I was in a jam? This rotten boss system is in it for the money, the power, the bloodlust. They don’t give a damn about workers.

Once I learned about the class system, the class struggle, and class interests, my loyalty became crystal clear. I owe my allegiance to my class, the working class. Period. I’m lucky I learned that when I was young. I suppose there are more complicated ways to become a Marxist, but that was mine. I didn’t need to read Marx’s Capital to realize as a worker that I was at the bottom, always at the mercy of the boss and his gang. I have read plenty of socialist literature over the decades and it doesn’t take a 400-page textbook to explain all this to a worker. I thought then, and I still think, that the constant tendency to grossly overthink these basic realities is one of our greatest and most debilitating diseases on the left. As I turned left, I was also pushed along by Carter’s revival of military draft registration, which I flatly refused. My family also lived twenty-four miles from the Three Mile Island nuclear meltdown in March of 1979. Seeing the nuclear industry in cahoots with our government and endangering everyone for their superprofits just put me over the top. I also read Lenin’s article, “The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism” about that time, and the door opened for me. Every worker needs to read that short article.

MY: You worked for many years with the United Electrical Workers (UE). Tell us about this time in your life. What is special about the UE? What lessons did you take from your work there?

CT: I was recruited to work for UE in 1988. I joined a squad of organizers who were assigned to try to organize the plastics division of General Electric (GE). There was no bigger, more powerful, or more anti-union corporation than GE. UE was the original union that organized huge portions of that conglomerate in the 1930s. But by the time I joined UE, the combined forces of GE, Westinghouse, Congress, the FBI, the CIO, the AFL, practically all the Democrats and Republicans, and the news media had thrown every punch there was to try to kill them off. While enormous damage was done, they failed to completely liquidate UE. It really is a “rank and file” union, a “democratic” union, a “militant” union. The salaries of union leaders and staff are very modest. Militance is encouraged, not crushed. New organizing is a top priority of the union, not just an afterthought. Political positions are arrived at democratically, by the members. I saw all that up close. Go to the UE web page and read their Constitution. That’s the document that mandates how the union is run. You won’t see anything like it anywhere else, sadly. UE represents today a living fragment of William Z. Foster’s TUEL (Trade Union Educational League), the TUUL (Trade Union Unity League), and the early CIO. There were other unions similar to UE in many ways, but they were the unions wrecked and destroyed by employer and state repression in the 1940s and 50s. The business unions were also eager to feast on the wrecked left-led unions, but UE and ILWU managed somehow to survive.

After four years in the field as an organizer, UE sent me to Washington, DC, to run their Washington Office. It was quite an assignment for a guy like me. No other union would have ever, I mean ever, selected a guy like me to staff their political action work. That’s another UE “difference”. Being “just a worker” really meant something. For twenty-one years I conducted the federal and state level political work of UE, its political education work, and I also kept a big hand in organizing and bargaining. As the political staffer I still participated in new organizing, independent union affiliations, strike struggles, and bargaining. I joined the General Electric UE bargaining committee at that time. During this assignment I was also able to work closely with Bernie Sanders. The AFL-CIO had banned him, wanted to oust him from his House seat, but he was extraordinarily supportive of our UE locals in Vermont, and our new organizing. We were happy to work with him, and I had five or six years where UE was practically the only union who would deal with him in DC. I am considerably to the left of Sanders, and it was always fun for me when I was introducing him to a UE group as “My conservative friend from Vermont.”

In those years UE was grappling with the need to diversify from being a strictly manufacturing union. Plant closings and layoffs were draining away tens of thousands of members, and new organizing in factories was at a low ebb. Where it remains today. We continued to try to organize in manufacturing, but practically all the results were found in other sectors. When I retired from UE in 2013 after twenty-five years, we were already a majority non-manufacturing union. There was no alternative.

Today, UE has experienced a major rebirth with the addition of more than 35,000 workers in the higher education field. We first organized graduate and research workers in 1996 in Iowa, and today UE is composed of workers in seven different industrial sectors with the higher ed grouping now the largest by far. And I have to point out that today, in mid-2025, UE is once again larger than the IUE, the right-wing union started in 1949 with the sole goal of destroying UE. The dwindling IUE fragments merged with the CWA about twenty years ago. They have rejected significant new organizing, and it was sometime in the past two or three years that UE passed them up. I wish that the tens of thousands of IUE victims, now gone, could see this day.

UE is known today for lots of things, its left character perhaps one of the most widely known aspects. But the really amazing thing is that UE has survived and is rebuilding. Most embattled unions just fold up and merge with another union, never to be heard from again. We were determined to survive and preserve as best we could the member-run and left principles of the union. All serious labor students should examine UE for its history, its character, its methods of bargaining with and dealing with employers, and its political stands. If you are in a union today, looking at our current moment, I would say that you had better study how UE suffered immense blows for decades and has still somehow survived. And now grown again, without resorting to gimmicks like union mergers that get labeled as “new organizing.” UE defies convention, and they prove over and over again that there really is an alternative to the failing business union model that we are all saddled with today.

MY: You have belonged to and worked for other labor unions, and you have been a successful organizer everywhere you went. You have also trained many organizers. Give readers a rundown of your organizing activities, including recently through your union organizing schools. How is it that you have succeeded? What is your secret, so to speak? Why are workers receptive to what you do? Why aren’t there many more of you out there, because if there were, we might now see our labor movement being revitalized?

CT: I have belonged to four unions over forty-six years in the labor movement; ATU, UFCW (United Food and Commercial Workers), SEIU, and UE. All very different kinds of unions. My short time in UFCW was as a successful salt, and my brief stint at SEIU was characterized by my jerking the local union forward by restarting its new organizing and adding almost 500 new members. In 2013 I retired from UE and rejoined ATU after a break of twenty-nine years since I had been a member in Florida. Larry Hanley, a bus operator from New York City and a force determined to revitalize ATU, was elected ATU President and recruited me to start his mobilization department and restart their new organizing. My time at ATU was a whirlwind. I kicked new organizing into gear and today ATU is at its largest membership ever in 133 years. Almost 10,000 new members have been added by winning more than 235 campaigns in the U.S. and Canada. And we built a campaign apparatus that now allows the union to conduct bargaining support and strike struggle, and to defend transit workers from political attacks.

Almost one-third of that organizing success has been in the South. The AFL-CIO is well aware of this success, but they sit camped-out today in several southern states, claiming to “organize.” They should take a look at ATU’s experiences in the south, but they won’t. They are busy spending a lot of money, organizing little, and diligently carrying on the AFL-CIO tradition of organizing failure. In my time at ATU we also engineered one of the greatest victories against transit privatization when we defeated the privatization of 175 bus operators here in Washington, DC. And won their return to the public transit agency. We did this after an 84-day strike in 2019, in Lorton, Virginia, of all places. We followed an initial game plan devised by ATU President Larry Hanley, myself, and my co-worker Todd Brogan. Big ATU Local 689 in Washington, DC, was won over after initial resistance. Hanley’s bold goal was to try to win a reversal of privatization someplace and then launch this movement in other places to combat and turn back the spreading privatization cancer in the transit industry. But he passed away before the final success of the campaign, and his successor regime immediately abandoned any notion of continuing this work. Today it’s as if this remarkable victory never happened. When I decided to retire from ATU in 2022, this was one of the reasons. The post-Hanley leadership is quite content with privatization. Business union lethargy and small-mindedness comes in many flavors, always at the expense of the rank-and-file.

My most remarkable feat at ATU was when Larry Hanley, myself, and longtime organizer Richard Bensinger started a union organizing school in late 2017. We needed a means to train ATU leaders and local officers to expand the new organizing program. Bensinger raised the idea of the training work being done in the context of a multi-union collaboration to encourage “salting” as an organizing tool. Each participating union could rely on the overall experience of the volunteer collective as they engineered their own campaigns. A number of unions including ATU were able to organize new shops through the school, and in 2020, even under the cloud of the pandemic, Bensinger and the Workers United, Rochester, New York, Joint Board launched what became Starbucks Workers United. Salts were recruited and deployed to three Starbucks stores in Buffalo, New York, where the first three NLRB elections were won in later 2020. As of mid-2025 more than 600 Starbucks stores have been organized through NLRB elections. It is still amazing for me to think about how that drive is in large measure an outgrowth of the homemade organizing school that we had constructed under the ATU umbrella. I worked to get William Z. Foster’s collected works, American Trade Unionism, back into print to use with the school. Nearly a thousand copies of Foster’s book have been used with the Starbucks workers and in 250 other workplace campaigns since then.

What is even more amazing than the historic success of the Starbucks movement is the near complete lack of interest in this actual upsurge by the rest of the labor movement. The AFL-CIO is thoroughly disinterested in listening to the details of how the school, the salting, and the early campaign was put together. I have personally spoken to the top leaders of 15 unions to try to coax them to sit for an hour and listen to how the school was started and how the salting was conducted. No takers. This same near-total lack of interest goes for the academic labor programs and the labor nonprofit world. You might think that the story of how one of the most successful campaigns in recent decades was started would be a curiosity. Not at all. I have, thankfully, had considerable success with young workers, some local unions from a variety of unions, and left organizations who have listened to the story of how we started the organizing school and by extension the Starbucks movement. Through probably 125 different Zoom sessions and meetings, I spread the story and have promoted Foster’s book. Many of the participants go on to attend one of the organizing schools I run, or teach at, and dozens have become volunteer salts in campaigns in ten different industries.

MY: Following the previous question, the labor movement continues to lose ground and most unions do little organizing. Nor do they do anything to educate their members, especially to teach workers the truth about the political economy in which labor has to operate. Yet, some academics and popular organizations and magazines continue to claim that there is taking place a resurgence of the US labor movement. Every strike, every time a “dissident” wins high office in a union, every new contract is greeted with unadulterated joy and a sign of good things to come. What is your assessment of the US labor movement? Why, given that the facts do not match this optimism, do we keep seeing what we might call “the good news only” school of reporting and commentaries?

CT: We have slid into a period in our labor movement where decline, decay, stagnation, and timid leadership have become formalized. The “leadership” today in many unions is at best an administrative layer: functionaries carefully tending to the decline, keeping things on-track as we are pushed towards oblivion. There are examples to the contrary, but not very many in my experience. Our left and labor press also suffers during this period, as increasing numbers of writers come forward who have virtually no substantial experience in labor work. We have to be careful not to blame the inexperienced, especially in an era when getting any real experience is difficult, and sometimes impossible. But we should not excuse the editors of these publications, who dutifully cram all sorts of “good news only” stories into the publications. We have folks writing articles and even entire books on new organizing today who have organized few, if any, new workers in their own careers. I use the example of someone with a car repair issue; How many of us take our cars to the shop and then tell the service manager to assign the least experienced “mechanic” to fix our problem? That’s patently absurd when we think of it that way, but this is today how labor staffs most of it organizing work, and it certainly applies to how many of our left writers are selected. And to top off this problem, there seems to be little to no curiosity or desire to go out and find the people who are, or who have, done the difficult organizing work. And really debrief how they are actually winning the campaigns they are. Our movement leadership just puts the “organizer” hat on almost anyone, offers little guidance and even less training, and then hires another crop of “organizers” when they quit—or are fired.

This state of labor journalism also doesn’t inform very well. Who is Liz Shuler, the head of the AFL-CIO? Of course, that’s a trick question, since she is one of the absolutely least experienced labor “leaders”—ever— at her level. She was given the top spot in the labor movement with virtually no trade union experience to speak of. Writing about that I suppose might explain a lot of how we got into the jams we are in, but god forbid we would say something unkind about “the first woman” to run the labor federation. The reality is there are 10,000 women unionists out there, toughing it out in the shops, winning grievances, leading, bargaining, striking, and organizing. But none of those things are requirements for holding the top spot in the labor federation today apparently. Any one of them could outrun Shuler.

Everyone oohs and ahhs when some new progressive looking or sounding labor face pops up, but who are they? What have they actually done in their labor careers? Half of the labor articles written today are just fluff, tiny episodic reports on the passing of resolutions, quickie advertisements of one-off events with little context for readers, or labor travelogs repeating the obvious. I blame the editors—if there are any—for this low-calorie offering. Of course, let’s not let the unions off the hook. Their reporting and writing, if it exists in any substantial way at all, is frequently an embarrassment. No substantial reporting or researching is produced by most unions. The web sites are bare minimum on content. This history of unions who have struggled for more than 100 years are covered in two paragraphs—maybe.

I am a vigorous promoter of labor books and deeper reading on our rich history of labor movement struggle, and I’ll say that 95 percent of the books I sell and promote are completely unknown to the readers. The unions, with only a few exceptions, do nothing to educate their members in any significant way. And there is certainly no discussion about the disasters we are experiencing, and no explanation about how the Democratic Party has systematically participated in our destruction—by literally setting the stage for Trump. Union conventions and meetings are few and far between today and cut to minimum to allow a platform for the incumbent leaders only. And let’s not forget the generous socializing and casino time. The money spent on any one major union Convention these days could double the new organizing of dozens of unions. This is a disaster in so many ways, and one not to be minimized. It is no wonder that we have lots of members wandering around in a daze, or if they are not in a daze they might actually think that we are moving forward because they read an internet blurb about some incidental win someplace. The facts are that organized labor in the United States continues to be ground-down across all fronts. We cannot face our many crises for many reasons, including that there is little understanding of the real gravity of our situation.

MY: Needless to say, there are many unions that could use new leadership, However, those who champion union dissidents almost never ask themselves, change for what? The same goes for organizing. Cesar Chavez and the UFW leaders had periods of success, and they taught others to organize. But then what? What about building a radical labor movement as a goal, even as you fight for better working conditions, better pay, shorter hours, etc.? How can we avoid creating institutions and elevating leaderships that, in the end, refuse or fail to challenge the most critical foundations of capitalist society? Capitalism tends to create and shape, in effect, the people and institutions it needs to reproduce itself. How can this be challenged?

CT: Many top labor leaders are largely content, smug, immune to challenge in most cases. They construct staff and crony machineries to stay in office. They make 2-3-4 hundred thousand dollars year upon year, and pretty soon they are millionaires. They will do anything, and I mean anything to keep those jobs. Even the better labor leaders all strike me as overwhelmed, isolated from outside ideas, and just plodding forward reacting and not leading. Grinding away until their own retirement arrives. The so-called “Change-to-Win” movement of twenty years ago was led by some of the labor millionaires. Whatever that was, it was a monumental fizzle. We all had to witness that huge multi-year uproar just to re-learn that highly paid leadership and staff regimes are incapable of self-reform. There is more political life at the local level, and for the honest elements and the left that is where time must be spent. We need the left to dive-in and learn how these unions really work and then run for office. Staff jobs at a certain level can allow for influence, but not nearly enough to really alter the disastrous course of things. We also need to reach the “center” elements in the labor leadership, that large layer that is uneasy, worried about the decline, have some basic trade union principles, and are willing at times to put their support to attempts to correct course. The path to power in these unions has always been a principled left-center alliance. The members overwhelmingly support change, forward motion, and frequently even hard struggle. But the conservative elements, the corrupt elements, the self-serving elements in the leadership want to hang on to that power and money. And we won’t build the momentum needed to drive those elements out of the unions by running around yelling about political issues remote from the workplace, passing endless resolutions, or by not doing any of the work required. Our unions are in desperate need of a revival of new organizing and recruitment, something the existing leadership largely wants to avoid at all costs. If they even think of it at all. The members instinctively see the need to bring the unorganized into the unions, not to do them a favor but to defend our weakening situation. A center-left alliance in the union is the only path forward for the required new organizing. I run new union organizing schools regularly and there is huge and expanding interest out there from workers. The problem is that most of the unions are inward-focused, some are asleep, and most are structured to ignore outsiders such as the unorganized. And when was the last time that left elements raised the call to “organize the unorganized!”? Never.

The same goes for what we ultimately want from this labor movement. What do we want at the end of this ordeal? A slightly better deal in this rigged game? Or how about “A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work?” the old AFL beggary? What the hell does “fair” mean, anyway? Don’t we want something bigger, something to upend this rotten system? It astonishes me how timid, how narrow, and how docile the unions are. How will we get through the coming 80 percent of Trump’s term with this mindset? By trying to reason with unchecked corporate power? Relying on suspect judges and failed Democrats? We better think harder about the need to not just challenge this system, but replace it.

MY: As one example of the struggles of a prominent union today, you and I have had correspondence about the state of the United Auto Workers union. How do you explain its current difficulties? Shawn Fain, the union president, has been a hero of the social democratic left. According to The Nation’s president, Bhaskar Sunkara, who also owns Jacobin magazine, has declared Fain “labor’s greatest voice,” and he applauded Fain’s support for Trump’s simple-minded tariff policy. Yet, Fain is now accused by some of running the UAW in a dictatorial manner, with not much to show for his leadership in terms of new organizing and member education. What is your take on all of this?

CT: The UAW was delivered to its current dilemma on account of a federal government takeover and a leadership election that was compelled by government decree. The ideological corruption of runaway “labor management cooperation” eventually created a corruption rot that permeated entire layers of the auto union leadership. Is the U.S. government the best force to address a mess like that? Of course not. But like in many unions there was zero chance that the membership would ever find the means to get things cleaned up. And let’s note that the federal government control mechanism is paid for by the UAW members, another price to be paid by the membership for the miserable leadership of past decades. Millions and millions of dollars each year are paid out for this government monitor. Imagine this; the corruption gets found out and is prosecuted, and the “remedy” is for this federal government to meddle for as long as they want, and it’s all paid for by the members!

Shawn Fain was elected several years ago in this huge mess, and he defeated the old guard – but just barely. He takes over running a union afflicted with all sorts of corruption, a staff where many had been associated with all that, and with a membership that has never, ever, in living memory had to face playing much role in running their union. I think he did as well as could be expected with the Big 3 auto negotiations and strike in his very first months, and the union was able to organize the VW plant down south. These are significant things for any labor leader today. As for the left media and all of its chatter on the union, I would dismiss most of that out of hand. Most of these writers have no experience running a union, nor do very many of them have any idea of the dynamics in this – or any union. A few of them who thought Shawn Fain was some sort of far-left force are just lost in their own fumes. The intrusive and perpetual federal monitor rarely even gets mentioned. His job is to run around and collect incidental complaints and grievances, and then report it all as something substantial. This is ludicrous. One thing the federal monitor – or the left reporters – will not investigate is the fact that the UAW has lost 80% of its membership in the last 50 years. All in just the time I have been active in this labor movement. Is that an issue we need to consider? Or is it some ridiculous he-said-she-said jotted-down by the federal monitor, so he can allege some sinister activity is afoot? We have to consider the unaccountable roles of these federal monitors in any thinking we do about the state of the auto union today.

Yes, I have some opinions about how Fain has operated, of course I do. But I am rooting for the union to get back on something like a sustainable and relevant course, so the UAW can play a far larger role in a positive way. We need that. We need the UAW to get back heavy on the organizing front. But I don’t see that yet. I see some odd staffing decisions and not a lot of results, at least so far. I would counsel Fain to not get roped-in to the staff-driven habit of commenting on everything. So far as Trump’s tariff frenzy, let’s get a few things down for the record. Tariffs are a federal tax on imports to supposedly protect domestic manufacturing. One problem is, what is “domestic” manufacturing? And we all know— Shawn Fain most of all knows—that the “domestic” companies like the rest will lie, scheme, collude with competitor companies and governments, and do anything to squeeze more profits. That is how the U.S. auto industry was reduced to the fragment that it is today. Trump has made so many claims on tariffs that it’s safe to say that nobody knows where it is at. They are on, off, up, down, this is his deliberate style of bamboozling. The fact is it will be months and years before this calms down and it will be possible to see their real impact. Brother Fain is also in an epic jam. Democrats have imposed free trade for forty years. Look at the obvious destruction visited on our manufacturing sector. How many jobs lost, fifty million in fifty years maybe? Then along comes Trump, and he tells the working class he is going to reverse that. If you want to know how Trump was elected twice just read the last page of Karl Marx’s speech on free trade from 1848.

Can our auto industry be defended and rebuilt? And if it is rebuilt, even a little, will it be organized, or unorganized? And doesn’t the UAW have to deal with Trump’s tariffs no matter their opinion of them? A too-big section of UAW members support Trump. Or they did for last year’s election. Is the union addressing that? How? And as for the “reform” forces in the UAW, the two opposing trends have fallen out, the organization which was a part of the election of Fain is now dissolved. Where does all this go now? There are a lot of questions here. It is time for all of us to spend more time considering the entire puzzle here with the ongoing UAW story, as opposed to falling for cheap internet click bait based on the federal monitor’s skullduggery. That’s good counsel on a lot of things.

MY: When the left-led unions, which included the UE, were disastrously expelled from the CIO in the late 1940s, the US labor movement lost its most progressive forces. Those that favored the extension and deepening of the best features of the New Deal, organizing workers in the South, and promoting international working-class solidarity. There has been no recovery from this. You have always maintained your radical, communist, and anti-capitalist principles, whether it has been playing your role in building a left bloc in the unions, resurrecting the organizing thinking of William Z. Foster, or relentlessly promoting new and expanded union organizing. Global solidarity has been strikingly absent from the labor movement ever since the expulsion of the left-led unions. Which, by the way, had the most progressive collective bargaining agreements. Why is it that today’s AFL-CIO is, to put it bluntly, so politically backward?

CT: William Z. Foster observed 100 years ago that the U.S. labor movement was small, weak, industrially scattered, and politically backward. Yet he saw that it possessed immense possibilities for forward movement—if it could be stirred to action. I see the identical situation today. He also observed that, “The left wing must do the work.” I have been a mostly out-of-the closet communist in my many years in labor, although I was always careful. You have to be. I want people who work with me to know that the largest part of why I have been successful, and have made whatever contributions I have, is because of my underlying Marxist understanding of how things really work. I find it curious that so many leftists manage to exclude “communism” from their list of approved beliefs, yet in case after case they have to confess that it’s the communist movement that must be credited for so much. They harken back to the 1930s and the explosive growth years of the communist movement, yet refuse to adopt the same methodologies for their work today. They daydream about those decades of great working-class advance, and then apply the same loose, fuzzy, and unscientific methods in their struggles that communists reject. This is not a specific U.S. defect, but we do face it. And in my opinion, it’s why our left today is incapable of crystallizing out of the several million people who would hold communist or socialist views any organizational form that possesses coherent structure or power. Our movement is also weakened, and finds its vigor and discipline sapped, by an addiction to a myriad of identity politics. And with the bulk of the left today unconnected to workplaces we have little contact with the working class that is all around us. Everyone wants to glory in what divides us, but rarely does anyone care to explain what it is that unites us—the class system, and the class struggle. As for the AFL-CIO, last year the federation paid a consultant lots of money to dream up a new slogan. They came up with, “It’s Better In A Union.” Now they are driving around the country in a big bus emblazoned with the same label. I presume AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler and Secretary Treasurer Fred Redmond, with assorted staff and functionaries are out meeting members in different places. Ok, the members appreciate a visit from the top brass, but since “it is better in a union,” what is the Federation doing to reach out to the more than 100+ million workers who are unorganized? Who labor increasingly for dictatorial bosses. Who work with few, if any, benefits. Working to pay for their health care. Have no retirement pensions. But who overwhelmingly support unions, as public opinion polls have shown for years? Well, the AFL-CIO does virtually nothing to organize the unorganized masses. That’s the job of the affiliate unions. What if they refuse to do it? Then it doesn’t get done, like it has not gotten done for many decades. The union bigs will however talk about one thing on their bus trips, which is “Elect Democrats!” Never mind that this corrupt and collapsed Democratic “Party” is in large measure what delivered Trump to us not once, but twice.

MY: One final question: There can be little doubt that the United States is moving steadily toward fascism. Yet, organized labor has done little to actively resist what has been and will be a disaster for workers. The presidents of two labor unions, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Workers (AFSCME), recently quit the Democratic National Committee (DNC), presumably in protest against the weak response of the Democratic Party to Trump’s predations. Now, we might ask why any union president would be a member of the DNC. But beyond that, these two labor “leaders” have salaries well in excess of $400,000 a year. And to the best of my knowledge, neither ever organized a single worker. I couldn’t find any evidence that either one has endorsed Zohran Mamdani for Mayor of New York City. The AFL-CIO hierarchy has shown little intention of a no holds barred battle with Trump and his legion of fascists. Seriously, how can this be?

CT: When I retired from UE in 2013, in my final Convention report as their Political Action Director—for twwenty-one years—I told the members point-blank that Obama had already been overthrown. His governance was no longer his own. He was a stuffed-suit giving speech after speech, but the big moneyed interests, military and intelligence agencies were clearly operating to suit themselves. I mention that because Trump now returns to power in that environment where many of the firewalls and safety valves that might protect our weak democratic processes are already shut off. For labor, what have we done so far to resist? Wrung hands with Democrats, paid for an endless stream of lawsuits, posted things on social media, and… what else? We have lost at least half a million union members in the federal service alone. When is the new organizing and recruiting program to be launched? It doesn’t exist. It’s not coming. Not from this labor leadership. As for the Washington, DC, tempest in a teacup recently when the AFT and AFSCME union leaders quit the Democratic National Committee (DNC), I expect they will be back shortly. Labor has nothing without the Democrats, and that’s the way the Democrats like it. The New Jersey and Virginia elections this November may provide a Democratic Party boost, but Trump couldn’t care less. He obviously plans to expand his unilateral war on working people, and the courts are going to allow it. This guy is governing like any crazy boss that the unions see all the time. Bosses who ignore the contract and do illegal things. Because they know that it is unlikely that you will rise up. They know that time is on their side, not our side. They control most aspects of the situation. So just like when this happens in a union context, we need to reconsider our entire position, our response, our tactics. We need union leadership who will consider bold responses, militant responses, tactics that defy conventional wisdom.

My last thoughts are again on the dire need to mobilize the unorganized, to move them to organize, and put them in direct confrontation with the employers. Bringing new blood into the unions will act as a catalyst in many ways, it will destabilize the ossified unions and open the door to a possible revitalization. Enormous new openings for the left are in sight, if we choose to move into that territory. But our current left is largely allergic to workplace and union work. We are instead drawn over and over and over again into harmless and feel-good projects far removed from the shops, garages, stores, and offices. If we see the trade union realm as the means to confront the economic powers while at the same time reaching the masses of working-class people, we might make progress in rebuilding a substantial socialist movement.

That’s where we are at, in my opinion. Thanks for asking.

MY: Thanks, Chris. I hope readers will take the truths you have told to heart and begin to do the work that needs to be done. Private sector union membership as a proportion of wage laborers was more than twice as high 100 years ago than it is now. And the public sector unions are now under ruthless attack. The future looks bleak, unless reality is faced. We owe you a great debt of gratitude for trying to open our eyes.

The South Caucasus After the Dance

By Ibrahim Can Eraslan

There is an ongoing debate among internet users from the South Caucasus nations about the origin of the Sabre Dance, one of the most iconic sequences in Soviet composer Aram Khachaturian’s 1941 Gayane Ballet. Some argue that it reflects Armenian motifs, given that Khachaturian was ethnically Armenian. Others insist that no such Armenian dance tradition exists. It is indeed true that Khachaturian was Armenian, born and raised in Tbilisi—now the capital of Georgia—and later educated in Moscow[1]. Thus, he was a Soviet artist, and if the Sabre Dance signifies anything, it is the fraternity of the peoples of the Caucasus. This explains why so many see themselves reflected in it.

However, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, this region—where peoples and cultures were historically intertwined—plunged into bloody instability. The same nations that once danced together in Gayane turned on one another. As in many other post-Soviet countries, imperialism rapidly asserted itself in the region, bringing with it various propaganda apparatuses, mafia-capitalist networks, and fierce competition over natural resources.

While regional nations still maintain deep ties with Russia—including widespread Russian-language fluency—these historical connections do little to simplify the present complexities. The most recent episode in this unfolding situation began with a police operation in Yekaterinburg, targeting a group connected to the Azerbaijani diaspora, known as the Seferov brothers. According to Russian authorities, they were operating as a criminal organization. Over the years, multiple incidents—including murders and illegal alcohol sales—had occurred around their restaurant.[2]

Following this, Azerbaijan conducted its own raid on the Baku office of Sputnik, the Russian state media outlet, based on similar allegations.[3] It is important to note that, much like in Yekaterinburg, none of the Azerbaijani charges were based on newly discovered evidence. This clearly suggests that the operations are political in nature. While some argue over the technicalities—such as the fact that the individuals arrested in Russia are Russian citizens and therefore the issue is not international—such legalistic distractions obscure the political character of the events. In summary: Russia claims it is cracking down on organized crime, while Azerbaijan accuses Russia of targeting its nationals.

Notably, one of the first leaders to contact Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev after the incident was Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky. This raises questions about the evolution of recent tensions.[4]

However, relationships weren’t always bad. When Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Azerbaijan, he stayed at Aliyev’s residence.[5] This gesture carried many meanings—trust, fraternity, continuity. After all, Ilham Aliyev's father, Heydar Aliyev, was appointed Deputy Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers in 1982, rising to become the Soviet Union’s “third man.” The last decade has seen significant shifts in the South Caucasus. Though this article does not focus on Georgia or Armenia, recent developments—European Union-aligned protests in Georgia (which some describe as a “color revolution”), Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan’s visit to Turkey, internal disputes involving the Armenian Church, and now the Azerbaijan–Russia confrontation—all reflect a pattern.

The real rupture in Azerbaijan–Russia relations likely occurred in 2024, when a plane traveling from Baku to Grozny was reportedly downed, with suspicions pointing to Russia. Since then, Azerbaijan has awaited an apology, and subsequently shut down the Russian cultural centers known as Russkiy Dom—key institutions in countries where Russian embassies operate.[6]

During the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Russia refrained from providing direct military aid to Armenia, a move interpreted by some as tacit approval of Azerbaijan’s military operations. It was also seen as a response to Pashinyan’s pro-Western orientation. Armenia, in turn, suspended its membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).[7] While Azerbaijan may have viewed these developments favorably, it is significant that Putin hosted both Pashinyan and Aliyev after the first war—and that these meetings were held in Russian, underscoring Moscow’s symbolic role.

However, a new phase began when Azerbaijan started receiving support from Turkey and Israel. Since then, Putin has not hosted any more trilateral meetings. Russia increasingly found itself sidelined. Pashinyan’s Western alignment strained relations with Moscow, while Aliyev—buoyed by military victory—deepened ties with Turkey and Israel, effectively replacing Russia's role in the region. After the full retaking of Karabakh, the presence of Russian peacekeepers lost its rationale.

SUPPORT OUR WORK BY MAKING A DONATION TODAY!

Where is Azerbaijan turning its gaze?

The fact that Azerbaijani fuel is transported to Israel via Turkey helps clarify matters[8]. The Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline also offers a potential alternative to Russian energy routes. The European Union's renewed interest in Central Asia is not coincidental—it is directly tied to its broader strategy of sidelining Russia in all strategic domains. And we must remember: the ultimate target of this project is China.

The political landscape of post-Soviet countries often takes shape around being “pro-Russia” or “anti-Russia.” This has been evident in Moldova, Central Asia, Georgia, and Armenia. In Armenia, recent events include not only Pashinyan’s confrontation with the church but also the arrest of Karapetyan—one of the country's wealthiest figures, a Russian citizen, and someone outside the traditional ecclesiastical elite. But Azerbaijan does not fit into this binary pattern. There is no pro-Russian opposition figure or faction that can be mobilized internally. This is due to both Azerbaijan’s internal political dynamics and its external alliances.

Power in Azerbaijan is not easily challenged. Ilham Aliyev is not only the son of Heydar Aliyev but also the victor of the Karabakh War, with no significant rival in sight. Thus, while it is reasonable to speak of coup plots by pro-Russian forces in Armenia or pro-European uprisings in Georgia, such frameworks do not apply to Azerbaijan. As a result, Russia has turned to one of the few tools available in its arsenal: intervening in criminal networks and informal economic circuits linked to Azerbaijani actors within its borders. This is where the heart of the story lies.

Has the encirclement of Russia in the South Caucasus begun?

The region is a crucial corridor for energy transit and holds potential as a logistical hub via the Black Sea in the Belt and Road Initiative. After the Soviet collapse, the region roughly split into two camps: Turkey–Azerbaijan and Iran–Armenia. But the 2008 Georgia crisis, NATO’s Black Sea partnership with Georgia, and the color revolution that brought Pashinyan to power have complicated this landscape.

Azerbaijan, for a long time, resisted being drawn into this encirclement. The main reason was persistent Western pressure over the Karabakh issue.

What changed this equation?

The logic is simple. For decades, European development depended on three key factors: cheap energy from Russia, market access to China, and surplus labor from war-torn Yugoslavia and peripheral regions like Turkey. After Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, Europe’s industrial sector has suffered from energy shortages. Meanwhile, the Chinese market is no longer as accessible—Chinese goods are more affordable and digitally advanced than their European counterparts. While some have proposed a new India–Europe trade corridor, when it comes to energy, the South Caucasus presents itself as a viable alternative.

It must be emphasized: Azerbaijanis and Turks speak mutually intelligible Turkic languages and belong to the same ethno-linguistic family. This makes their cooperation natural. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s public appeal to the people of Iran, and the presence of 30 million Azerbaijanis in Iran*[9], also deserve attention in this context. Pashinyan’s visit to Turkey should be interpreted in this light—and we must not forget that Turkey possesses NATO’s second-largest army after the United States.

Thus, Azerbaijan occupies a position that somewhat diverges from the typical post-Soviet portrait. Its potential role in transporting Central Asian energy to Europe, its ability to leverage ties with NATO-member Turkey, its relevance to Iran due to its large Azerbaijani population, and its energy relations with Israel all place Azerbaijan in a key position—perhaps even a decisive one.

Today’s Russia is not the Soviet Union. The Gayane Ballet is no longer performed. Once, this dance embodied the harmony of fraternal Caucasian peoples. But now, the dancing has stopped, and only the sabres remain.

The essential question is this: will those sabres be turned against imperialism, or will they become instruments of a new imperialist project to expand markets and exploit labor?

Notes

[1] https://www.therightnotes.org/aram-khachaturian.html

[2] https://mash.ru/news/207599/

[3] https://report.az/hadise/din-in-sputnik-azerbaycan-agentliyinin-ofisinde-emeliyyatdan-fotoreportaj/

[4] https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/prezident-ukrayini-proviv-rozmovu-z-prezidentom-azerbajdzhan-98773

[5] https://president.az/en/articles/view/66701

[6] https://azerbaijan.rs.gov.ru/news/priostanovleno-2/

[7] https://www.specialeurasia.com/2025/03/10/armenia-csto-analysis/

[8] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/azerbaijan-maintains-oil-sales-israel-despite-turkish-backlash-says-report

[9] I used an Azerbaijani source because I couldn't find a complete bibliography. In other words, whether it is a completely accurate number or not can be compared within the framework of different sources, but here, Azerbaijan's claim will be important within the scope of various future claims. As a result, Azerbaijan may enter into a process based on its own claim.

Capitalism, Fascism, and the First American Dictatorship

By Jeremy Cloward

“Neither blindness nor ignorance corrupts people and governments. They soon realize where the path they have taken is leading them…Most see their ruin before their eyes; but they go on into it.”

 - German historian Leopold von Ranke

Introduction: Capitalism & Fascism

Capitalism generates two classes – the working class and the owning class. Either you own the productive forces of society or you work for someone that does. Profits are “made” in a capitalist economy by the owning class paying the working class less than the value of the product the working class produces. The business or industry may differ but the method of capital extraction is always the same. It is a zero-sum game with basic arithmetic explaining the dizzying heights of wealth that the owning class has been able to extract from what is often the grinding labor of the working class. When fascist states develop in a capitalist economy, historically the state has always come down on the side of the owning class. Conversely, while fascist regimes have advanced the class interests of the owning class – namely, capital accumulation – the very rich have used their class power to help carry out the policy aims of the ruling class. Which has always included the destruction of any kind of political opposition or attempt at economic gain by the working class.

The Historical Examples of Chile & Argentina

This was certainly true in Chile during the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet (1973-1990). With the secret support of the CIA and the Nixon Administration as well as the obvious support of the business classes of the US and Chile through their massive “investments” in the Chilean economy, Pinochet and his traitorous officers ordered the outrageous bombing of the Chilean “White House” La Moneda with the democratically-elected socialist president of Chile, Dr. Salvador Allende, still inside the presidential palace. The attack led both to the death of Allende – one of the brightest figures ever to grace the political stage in the history of the world – and the collapse of his emerging socialist government. After taking power, the Pinochet regime ripped away all of the productive forces of the Chilean economy from the working class and poor. Including more than 350 factories as well as the powerful mining and copper industries which had been primarily owned by US corporations before they had been nationalized under Allende which were then returned by Pinochet to the US and Chilean owning classes.

The Pinochet regime then went about reorganizing the Chilean economy along neoliberal lines (i.e., slashing the social welfare state, privatizing state-owned enterprises, deregulation of commerce, and growing the military in general) as developed by the “Chicago Boys” which was, if nothing else, the exact type of politico-economic theory that was hoped for to be imposed on the Chilean economy by the US and Chilean rich. To fully lock-in his rule and the owning class’s place back atop the politico-economic and social order, in the days immediately after the coup and in the years to come, Pinochet brutally repressed all dissent through arbitrary arrests, torture, murder, and “disappearances” of tens of thousands of Chileans with the full support of the US government.

A similar story took place in Argentina from 1974-1983 when a military junta took power and waged a Dirty War against the Argentinian people as part of Operation Condor which was a program initiated by Pinochet and backed by the US to destroy leftist opposition throughout Latin America. In following the brutal example set by Pinochet, the junta in Argentina, led most prominently by General Jorge Rafael Videla, initiated a state-sponsored war on Argentinian-leftists with its own abductions, torture, murder, and disappearance program which they carried-out with merciless cruelty. Today, the junta’s rule remains one of the most brutal examples in Latin America of the terrible achievements of Operation Condor for Argentina’s near unmatched record of human rights atrocities. Which included, among other horrors, throwing leftist opponents and “dissident nuns and mothers” from helicopters and planes into the ocean to be disappeared for all-time.

A number of multinational corporations worked with the Videla regime in carrying out its “terror campaign”. Most notably, Ford and Mercedez-Benz. In assisting Videla and his officers with their nearly unspeakable repression program, Ford assisted the junta by providing the military with a list of workers to kill, how to identify them, an incarceration center on its grounds, and the company’s head of security to torture workers that the military had arrested. In fact, the regime’s death squads car of choice during its Dirty War was the Ford Falcon which it used to disappear people off the streets of Buenos Aires.

Nazi Germany of the 1930s & the United States Today

In Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler’s time, it was Porsche, General Motors, Prescott Bush (i.e., the Bush Family patriarch), Deutsche Bank, and Mercedes-Benz who did business with Hitler, including weapons manufacturing, loaning funds to help build Auschwitz, and developing his touring car. While in the US today, it is the pathetic looking “tech-leaders” of Amazon, Meta, and Tesla who helped bring Donald Trump to power and then stood side-by-side each other and him on inauguration day. In fact, the titans of commerce of nearly every significant sector of the American economy, from the oil industry to the NFL, lined up behind Trump to get him reelected in 2024 by spending hundreds of billions of dollars on his presidential campaign.

Why? Because, they agreed with his views on abortion? No. Instead, because they agreed with his views on capitalism and stood to benefit from his deregulation of almost everything as well as their appreciation for his decidedly hyper pro-business personal and political history. A thoroughly frustrated American working class may have been fooled by his antics for the last eight years but the American rich never were. They knew a class-confederate when they saw one. No matter how grotesque he may appear in manner or as the living embodiment of the economic system they rule over, he is still better than the alternative – a rational president (i.e., Kamala Harris or Joe Biden) who would have placed some guardrails on the never-ending pursuit of the accumulation of capital by the American owning class.

Moreover and just as telling, there is not one politically significant difference between Nazi Germany of the early 1930s and the United States today with the exception of Adolf Hitler having vastly more talent than Donald Trump and Hitler receiving less of the popular vote for president in Germany in 1932 (i.e., 36.8%) than did Trump in the US in 2024 (i.e., 49.8%). Indeed, consider the following:

Rule by decree by a convicted felon; dismantling the state to concentrate power in the hands of the executive branch; arrests and deportations of “undesirables;” white supremacy and segregation; undermining women’s rights as well as a civil sexual assault conviction against Trump (though not Hitler); anti-LGBT, anti-communist, and anti-immigrant policies which include a national registry for “unfavored groups” (i.e., Jews in Germany vs. undocumented workers in the US with the IRS now working with ICE to identify migrant workers for deportation); anti-union and anti-working class policies; ultra-nationalism; forcing institutions such as universities to adopt the regime’s racist ideology including the suppression of dissent; attempting to control the arts; book banning or book burning; the ever-present and extreme-valuing of the military; and each regime’s contempt  for science, the Truth, the rule of law, the people in general, and most importantly, democracy itself.

SUPPORT OUR WORK BY MAKING A DONATION TODAY!

Yet, unbelievably, the whole world is staring down the destructive power of an American regime that is potentially worse than the hell the Nazis and Adolf Hitler brought to Earth eighty years ago with their initiating of a world war that brought about the deaths of some 80 million people. However, the German military of the 1930s was not even close to possessing the military power of the United States today – the most powerful military in the history of the world – with troops stationed in over 150 countries and a nuclear arsenal powerful enough to bring about the sudden sixth mass global extinction of virtually every living thing on the planet. While the Nazi’s motto may well have been, “We will rule the world or bring half of the world down with us,” the Trump regime can actually do it.

Indeed, in just the first 100 days with the fate of the world in his hands, Trump has begun to dismantle the republic by destroying nearly every federal department, program, and agency from the Department of Education to the Environmental Protection Agency. He has cut tens of billions of dollars from the social welfare state for the poor, children, minority groups, the sick and disabled, and the very old. All the while firing tens of thousands of federal workers. And, like a mob boss, extorted law firms to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars that have been deemed political enemies and who must now work for him for free.

At the same time, Trump is threatening to expand the empire – and distort it – to heights never seen before in American history. His imperial aims now include taking by force if necessary, Canada, Greenland, the Panama Canal, and the Gaza Strip. What’s more, almost unbelievably, he has now sided with North Korea and the murderous dictator of Russia in the United Nations against the West; sanctioned the International Criminal Court; withdrawn from the WHO, the Paris Agreement, the UN Human Rights Council, USAID, and continues to threaten to pull the US out of NATO. Doing so would guarantee a global realignment of power creating a US vs. the world state of affairs with new international alignments that may not be easy to predict nor be beneficial geo-politically for the United States. Finally, he has imposed chaotic global tariffs on nearly every country in the world, with the notable exception of Russia, which make no sense to any thoughtful person. Taken all together, the decisions made by this shockingly ignorant, thin-skinned, and impulsive ruler who is unable to admit to making a mistake make clear the Caligulan madness (and stupidity) the whole world is now facing.

The Psychological Component & Neoliberalism

If Hitler was an intelligent psychopath with a dark charisma as most historians agree, then Trump is a destructive psychopath who is unable to learn as many psychiatrists have concluded. In fact, the noted Yale expert on violence, psychiatrist Dr. Bandy X. Lee, has commented that his mental pathology is easy to predict and not difficult to know. What is it? To destroy. To force a death spiral. For her there is no real political ideology coming from him so much as a “dangerous” disorganization of the mind. Moreover, Lee argues that not only does Trump exhibit “dangerousness” but is unfit for almost any job and much less the president of United States, as “he could not meet the most basic criteria for [mental] fitness for making decisions” which real political leadership is based almost solely upon. Indeed, for Lee, the US and the world are not facing a political problem so much as a public health problem where an individual with a highly disordered mind has been placed in a position of power and whose symptoms have now spread to weak-minded, childhood-traumatized, and societally stressed individuals.

The creation of a significant number of these socially stressed people are not only largely from the American working class but have been made so as a result of 45 years of the societal stresses of neoliberalism that have been imposed on the United States, western society, and in fact, the world in general. Worse still, the United States is experiencing the most extreme formulation of neoliberalism the world has ever seen with the consequences not entirely predictable. But to even speculate, one cannot help but imagine a dystopian future that may not benefit anyone except the rich and powerful. For instance, we may find in a coming American society that is not so far off, “social unrest” which has been created by the Trump regime through its destruction of the republic which is then suppressed by the state and key sectors within the US owning class. As things stand now, those in line to benefit the most from future government contracts to control segments of American society who are out-of-step with the Trump regime are the tech industry for surveillance and identification of “unfavored groups,” the private security and transportation industries for the arrests and deportations of undocumented immigrants, and the prison-industrial-complex to incarcerate political opponents and migrant workers.

The Institutional Creation of the Dictatorship and a Dark Future?

Yet, what is just as dangerous as Trump’s personality disorders (whatever they might be) and the ongoing impact of neoliberalism is that he is the beneficiary of the most important case to ever come before the once highly-respected Supreme Court in Trump v. United States (2024). The case addressed the question of “presidential immunity” in the overturning of the presidential election of 2020. In Trump, the Court held that, “the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” With those words, these great practitioners of law from the best the Ivy League has to offer, shot a poison bullet right through the heart of what was already the staggering American republic, elevating the presidency to that of a ruler without restraint.

Indeed, the Court created an American dictatorship that is protected by the institutional powers of that institution itself. Now with the complete acquiescence of the Trump-Republican dominated congress there is no need for a “Reichstag fire.” With the final check, the courts, which he ignores, who or what is to stop him from anything including imprisoning, torturing, murdering, or disappearing US citizens whom he considers to be political enemies as was the case in Chile, Argentina, or Nazi Germany? The current regime is already arresting and deporting foreign nationals with legal standing who oppose the politics of this mad king by daring to call the massacre in the West Bank by the US-backed Israeli government, a massacre. As well as deporting some who are not “political” at all.

In fact today, in trying to bring that future dystopian society into existence, the Trump regime now wants to contract out “round-ups” of undocumented workers to corporations and run the program like “Amazon Prime.” This, of course, would enormously increase the amount of people that the regime can return to decidedly poor or violent countries for what is still no discernible reason at all. Will the arrests of American citizens be next? Certainly, it is the hallmark of a tyrant if there is one. What horror or atrocity could come afterward? Will we have our own “Kristallnacht” carried out by some of the regime’s loyalists against our own scapegoats? If the US continues down this dark path, will it finally fall into the abyss of mass murder? We don’t know. But if we are to look to Nazi Germany as our guide down this Dantian-road into Hell then the final outcome is only too clear. Without question, driven by his basest instincts, the powers of this (or any) dictatorship are tailor-made to go wrong for a criminal like Trump.

The Way Forward…

The ruling and owning classes of any society can never be trusted. If for no other reason, it has always been the rich and powerful who have sent everyone else to their deaths against the sword and the machine gun for their benefit. When the political power of the state and the class power of the rich bind together and slip into fascism, then the true enemy of the people, if not obvious already, becomes clear – the owning class and the state, itself. In a capitalist-fascist state there is no turning back. There is no redemption of the social order without an outright removal from power of the ruling class and rich.

This has always been true in history as was the case in Chile, Argentina, and Nazi Germany. The collapse of the government and prosecution of the criminals that ran the state (i.e., Pinochet in Chile, Videla in Argentina, and the Nazi politico-military high command at Nuremburg) was required to restore any kind of faith in government. Even if none of these societies ever moved economically farther to the left than the progressive fiscal policies made possible by the new liberal states that had replaced the fascist regimes. This was not possible because the owning classes were never removed from power in any of these societies that emerged from the ashes of the collapsed or defeated fascist governments.

With the truth of today now staring us squarely in the face maybe we can all see the coming death of our republic – if it hasn’t died already with our mad dictator on the loose now saying that he thinks he can run for a third presidential term. Regardless, hopefully we can all see what has to be done – the death of the dictatorship and the restoration of the republic. Only formulated in a way unlike it has ever existed. A true republic governed by the people and for the people; by the working class and for the working class. Not merely a return to the outlines of the republic that was founded by the ruling class and the rich of the late 1700s with its built-in social, political, and economic inequalities which have brought us to this hour in history. Instead, today the American republic requires that we respond in a totally original manner with a complete reorganization of the state, economic system, and society where each is rooted in justice and complete equality. It is the only way forward.

For this to happen the American working class needs to awaken to its class position within the national capitalist order, and in fact, the global capitalist economic system itself. In so doing, it will then understand not only its class interests but the true dimensions of its class power and see that the political concerns of the working class have nothing to do with the politics of a billionaire president or any of his class in the United States or the world over. Once done so, the American working class can then take aim at bringing to an end an economic system, and its most horrifying political overlord, fascism, which from their inception promised to reap only a bitter harvest for the many while providing power and riches for the very few.

Indeed, they will emerge from the “motor force of history” as the new creators of a better society for all. It will truly take a Herculean-effort to do so but one that is not without historical precedent. However, if we deny it or choose not to do anything about it instead of facing the painful truths made clear by the dark light shining from this new American dictatorship, then our downfall is inevitable. For certain, our country will be just one more nation on the pages of history that rose and fell according to what should be the timeless maxim of all countries – “In the end, all nations get the government that they deserve.”

Jeremy Cloward, Ph.D. is a political science professor and author living and working in the San Francisco Bay Area.  He has taught at the junior college and university level for the past 19 years and is the author of three books and multiple articles that have been published in the Oakland Post, the Hampton Institute, Socialist Worker, Project Censored, and the East Bay Times. His college-level American politics textbook, Class Power and the Political Economy of the American Political System, is now in its third edition and has been endorsed by the progressive author Michael Parenti, the director of Project Censored, Mickey Huff, and the professor and former Central Committee member of the Black Panther Party, Phyllis Jackson. The book is currently being marketed to a national audience of political science professors throughout the country. In addition, Dr. Cloward has run for public office on three separate occasions (Congress 2009, 2010, and City Council 2012) and has appeared in a variety of media outlets, including FOX and the Pacifica Radio Network (KPFA).  Today, he continues to remain involved in the politics of peace, justice, and equality for all.

Where Do We Go From Here: The Future of Black Studies

[Photo credit: The Washington Post/Getty Images]

By Kemuel Benyehudah

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on April 17, 2019.

Globalization, immigration and intermarriage have led to contemporary black identity becoming more complex. Black Studies emphasis on the nationalist perspectives in the discipline may be causing it to limit broader discussions around the black experience. Shockley and Cleveland (2011) exhorts black students to connect to a “larger struggle” rooted in Afrocentrism, but they don’t describe the benefits of looking at three emerging trends. The discipline faces the following challenges: 1) How to maintain relevance within an increasingly neoliberal higher education culture? 2) How to meet the needs of a black student body which has seen its interethnic diversity grow? 3) How to respond to declining Black Studies degrees awarded and subsequent threats of defunding? This paper critically examines the aforementioned three trends which are changing black identity.

To address these trends, this paper posits a conceptual framework utilizing epistemic privilege, inquiry, and multiplicity. Kuhn (1962) argued that a “paradigm shift” occurs when the persons in the field agree on the conceptual model to solve a particular problem. In the past the discipline of Black Studies relied on foregrounding whiteness for analysis and integration from the margins (Butler, 2011). Whereas today, the field is faced with addressing the growing state of hybridity among black students. Glick (2012) argued that “contemporary identity studies cannot adequately speak to the challenges that have begun to emerge” (p. 520). Due to these rapid changes occurring in the black community, this paper proposes a reconceptualization of the field of Black Studies to address this rising emergence..

Why must new black voices rise from the margins in higher education and be heard?

On any given day, multiple conversations are taking place in higher education related to the diverse experiences shaping black students' lives. Often, these experiences originated in black students communities and then moved to academic disciplines for validation. However, some  experiences have not been properly documented and catalogued in the records of higher education. Harding (2004) a feminist scholar argued that the conditions of “oppression and marginalization” occur in academic disciplines when there is “unequal access to epistemic resources” to theorize and explain phenomena (p. 348). Black Studies emerged as a critique of higher education’s oppression of black epistemic privileges during the civil rights era (Okafor, 2014). However, for many black students living in the post-civil rights era, the Black Studies nationalist framework offers constraints which may make the discipline unappealing. One which stands out, is a perceived lack of sensitivity towards the cultural, social, and historical differences of black students in higher education. 

According to Giroux (2004) “despite the growing cultural diversity of students in higher education, there are few examples of curricular sensitivity to the multiplicity of economic, social, and cultural factors bearing on students’ lives” (p. 101). Black students falling outside of the historical lineage of the Black Studies discipline may not see themselves in the traditional scholarship and may choose not to enroll because of this reason. When considering the growing neoliberal agenda of modern universities today, declines in Black Studies degrees earned is a vector that the discipline can ill afford (Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 2014). According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2011 - 2015) the number of Bachelor’s degrees awarded in Black Studies fell by 37% percent between 2010-11 and 2014-15, while the number of master’s degrees dropped by 32%.

This is problematic since mainstream disciplines rarely apply sustained critical inquiry into systemic racism and the historical forces that have shaped black identity (Jones, 2011). More to the point, supporters of Black Studies argued that racially neutral stances are examples of institutional racism (Phillips, 2010). According to Rojas (2007) black scholars have argued that institutional autonomy is necessary if black students are to be afforded the opportunity to make deeper meaning about their lived experiences. However, if black students do not have access to “critical communities” that provide them with opportunities to unpack their experiences, then it may be difficult for them to form bonds of trust and solidarity outside of their insider groups (Bettez, 2011). Adding to this point, Douglas and Peck (2013) said that the black diaspora includes many subcultures within it, and should not oversimplify all people of African descent within one narrative. As such, honoring “difference” would provide an opportunity for a more robust discussion of blackness in higher education. In the section below, we will look at the particular set of historical circumstances which Black Studies was situated within, and discuss how this differs from the post-civil rights era.

Historical overview of Black Studies during the civil rights to the post-civil rights era

Before we can enter into a meaningful discussion around Black Studies, it is important to briefly look at the field from an historical context. After the Plessy vs. Ferguson Supreme Court ruling in 1896, de jure segregation barred black people from higher education. Until the civil rights era, segregation left black people with very few tertiary options except for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (Allen & Jewell, 2002). The pre-civil rights era didn’t close until the Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954 ended de jure segregation (Smith, 2014). Yet, even after this legal victory, black students’ experiences were still mostly excluded from the dominant higher education curriculum.

According to Rogers (2012) “students developed and first presented the Black Studies idea to a group of professors in 1966” (p. 22). However, Martin Luther King’s assassination in 1968 helped motivate a conviction in black students to challenge the status quo in higher education (Rojas, 2007). Following this tragic event, the San Francisco State student strike in 1968 was one of the first legitimate attempts to integrate Black Studies into higher education. The documentary Agents of Change (2016) argued that Black Studies’ institutionalization at San Francisco State was the Brown vs. the Board of Education moment for black students in higher education. Although San Francisco State’s student strike helped integrate the discipline, it also brought the ire of conservatives.

Ever since, Black Studies has been constrained by limited funding opportunities, and an existential preoccupation with fighting back racist practices that pose a threat to the black community.  This historical tradition of defining black students within the context of community arose from demand for a more inclusive curriculum (Pellerin, 2009). Rogers (2010) claimed that the field should retain its connection to the black community, but he doesn’t fully elaborate on who constitutes the community. However, federal, institutional, and neoliberal policies today are complicating the notion of a fixed idea of black community. Meaning, these aforementioned policies are stretching the black community into a more expansive type requiring more border crossing. Hollinger (2006) explored “community” in another way and argued that it became a way of establishing circles of “we” and “they” or who is in and who is out (p. 189). Although Hollinger is not a traditional scholar in Black Studies, his ideas on “suppression of diversity” amongst ethnic “blocs” provides useful perspectives for re-thinking Black Studies mindsets and traditional policies.

SUPPORT OUR WORK BY MAKING A DONATION TODAY!

Intermarriage, immigration, and globalization of higher education

As mentioned earlier, there are three trends expanding black identity in the United States. These trends are immigration, intermarriage, and the globalization of higher education. Each of these trends have worked separately and together to expand the notion of the black community. In the sub-sections below we will more closely analyze each trend, and discuss further how each is complicating our traditional constructions of blackness.

Intermarriage

According to Wang (2015) “fully a quarter of black men who got married in 2013 married someone who was not black. While on the other hand, half a quarter of black women married outside of their race.” Anderson (2015) also argued that black immigrants are more likely to be married than native born blacks. Cokely et al. (2015) said, black students are not a monolithic group, but are part of multiple ethnic groups who increasingly identify as biracial or multiracial. Considering these trends, not only are black students diversifying in terms of identity, but they also display distinct levels of educational achievement (Page, 2007). In order to better accommodate interethnic stratification occurring out in the black student population, higher education will need to address these shifts. As higher education continues to become more global, and admit more international students these trends will only continue to grow. This is important to note as higher education learns to better integrate more students of color in the future.   

Immigration

During the Civil Rights era, the black population was less ethnically diverse according to the Pew Research center (2015). According to Anderson (2015) “black immigrants are a diverse group with notable differences in demographic, economic and geographic characteristics, often tied to the regions of their birth countries.” As recently as 1980, only 3.1 % of the black population was foreign born (Kent, 2007).  However, during the post-civil rights era, U.S. immigration policy has caused changes in the black population. The passage of The Immigration act of 1965 and subsequent revisions in 1976, 1980, 1986, and 1990 have led to a tripling of immigrant blacks between 1980 and 2005 (Kent, 2007). According to Trostle and Zheng (2014) “the Census Bureau projects that by 2060, 16.5% of America’s black population will be foreign-born (p. 11 ).” The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, “loosened” and afforded opportunities for family reunification and skilled labor (Kent, 2007, p. 6). Whereas, the U.S. Immigration Act of 1990 increased the number of immigrants from underrepresented nations (Anderson, 2015). Many recent immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean (where this writer’s mother hails from) benefited from these policies (Kent, 2007). The story here is that U.S. immigration policy has not only changed black identity today, but will also do so in the foreseeable future. This is important to note because black immigrants are also more likely than U.S. born blacks to have a college degree or to be married (Anderson, 2015). Therefore, higher education must account for intra-racial differences and not construct all black students as a monolithic identity group.

Globalization of higher education

According to Kent (2007) “higher education has been a favored route for Africans coming to the United States” (p. 9). Education and social mobility is strongly favored by not only immigrant black students, but also by most immigrant students who leave their countries of origin. As a result, Massey et al. (2007) argued that black immigrants are more likely to be overrepresented in the most selective schools. This phenomenon has caused some tensions with U.S. born blacks who argue that foreign born blacks are benefiting from affirmative action policies instead of the descendants of slaves which the policy was designed to redress (Kent, 2007). For this reason (Cokely et al., 2015) said, “addressing only the traditional barriers to higher education is no longer sufficient given the emerging challenges related to the conflation of black ethnic groups and the increasing numbers of biracial and multiracial identification” (p. 48). Hence, in order to more fully capture the diverse narratives of black students in higher education, proposed below is an interdisciplinary framework addressing these trends.

Reconceptualizing Black Studies in higher education

Applying interdisciplinary frameworks would allow Black Studies to move away from the white/black binary and conduct further self examination of the discipline’s scholarship. Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality provide useful frameworks for critically analyzing race relations but not so much for analyzing growing black hybridity. Munoz et al. (2008) argued that “transdisciplinarity” or interdisciplinary scholarship provides ‘fertile ground’ to ‘explode the arbitrary categorical restraints of discipline” (p. 297). In order to respond to these constraints, scholars will need to look outside of their disciplines for inspiration to create new theories. Some of the popular conceptual frameworks for analyzing racial oppression of the “black community” – such as CRT, intersectionality, and disability studies  – fall short in accounting for black students' complexity due to an overreliance on structuralism. To move beyond structuralism and its essentializing tendencies, a more self-reflexive approach is needed in Black Studies (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2002). Making such a move would allow students to engage in critical inquiry with themselves, the Black Studies discipline would provide them with a framework to find their voice in the higher education curriculum. The frameworks proposed for dealing with black identity in the post-civil rights era is epistemic privilege as emerged from Women's Studies, inquiry as influenced by critical theory, and multiplicity as presented by realist accounts of identity.

Identifying epistemic privilege in Black Studies

According to Kotzee (2010) epistemic privilege advantages members of marginalized social groups to describe their oppression. This is because the oppressed “have a systematically clearer view on political reality than their oppressors” (p. 274). As is the case, black students emerging from intermarriage, globalization, and immigration also should have the privilege to assert their knowledge claims and push back on grand narratives of blackness. Borrowing again from Women's Studies, Janack (1997) argued:

“Members of oppressed groups, including all women, have a perspective on the

world that is not just different from the perspective available to members of the

ruling class, but is also epistemically advantageous” (p. 126).

For the purposes of this essay, “ruling class” is defined as the gatekeepers of the Black Studies discipline in higher education. Esteemed black scholars should use their academic power to improve the lives of all black students no matter from where they hail.  Feminist scholar Alcoff (2013) writes that epistemic privilege was appropriated from Marxist thought as a means of empowering the socially marginalized. As such, Black Studies must use its privileged position within the academy to once again empower the marginalized, and not only serve the interest of the neoliberal plutocracy. Meaning, Black Studies must prioritize the black student community’s empirical needs and resist higher education’s tendency to reify black students into racialized stereotypes. Further probing and inquiry is needed to better understand their individual needs.

Inquiry

Structuralism is heavily valued in the civil rights tradition of Black Studies, including higher education. Meaning, the higher education industry’s preoccupation with race in the aggregate often ignores and loses the opportunity to study nuance. Therefore, critiquing and going beyond the white/black binary dominance in education research requires critical inquiry within the discipline, and critical engagement with sister disciplines. For example, Crowley (1999) argued that the construction of the oppressor/oppressed binary within Women’s Studies had to be reconfigured in order to prevent “undertheorization” about the experiences and knowledge about women. Black Studies will need to make a similar move to prevent marginalization of phenomena happening amongst black students.

According to Douglas (2017) inquiry or “searching” involves three interrelated concepts which are research, “mesearch” and “wesearch (p. 22). Mesearch involves interrogating the inner core of who you are; while wesearch searches involves asking questions about what is needed for those we serve; research investigates available research (p. 22). Douglas (2017) said that asking questions would help black students to harness their story, as well as engage in critical dialog with other students bringing their personal histories into the classroom. Therefore, the discipline should accept that some of the questions posed by students will not lead to support of the traditional framework, but to questions of problematizing. Problematizing will help black students to better understand their positionality and relationships and to choose frameworks which makes sense when trying to understand their experiences in the world.

Moving from intersectionality to multiplicity

Intersectionality was coined by Crenshaw (1989) to provide a deeper understanding of how race, class, and gender worked together as an interconnected system of oppression on people of color. However, intersectionality was conceived in the 1980s before recent societal trends started to make a more visible mark in the black student population. As such, Hames-Garcia (2011) said we should rethink our “overextension” of intersectionality, and instead used “multiplicity as a theory of identity rather than a theory of oppression” (preface, 11). As mentioned earlier, waves of new black narratives have entered the conversation, therefore accommodating and integrating these perspectives are crucial for establishing greater solidarity within the discipline, and with students.

According to Choo and Ferree (2010) intersectionality has been essentialized as a framework to study oppression. Whereas, multiplicity is described as the self in relation to social identity, because understanding the self only as the sum of discrete parts is inadequate (p. 5). Borrowing from Hames Garcia, black students must steadily find the commonalities, connections, and similarities of their experiences to “coexist within a complex multiplicity” (p. 34). Meaning, mutual bonds of trust and respect must be re-affirmed within the discipline to ensure that all black students are made to feel welcome to express their right to generate knowledge.

Discussion and Implications of the Counter-Public

If the field hopes to survive, it will require building not only interethnic coalitions but also cross-racial allyship built on mutual dialog and solidarity. According to Chavez (2011) “a significant function of rhetoric within contexts of movement activity is to generate coalitions” (p. 2). As Chavez discussed, these multicultural coalitions can function as “counterpublics” to support black students scholarship and activism on their campuses. Adding to the ideas on counter publics mentioned earlier, Frazer (1995) said:

“Historically…. members of subordinated social groups - women, workers, peoples of color, and gays and lesbians - have repeatedly found it advantageous to constitute alternative publics. I have called these “subaltern counterpublics” in order to signal that they are parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counterdiscourses.” (p. 291)

During the civil rights era, institutionalization of Black Studies brought the conversation from the margins and into the center of the academy. Whereas today, Black Studies is resisting displacement from the center of higher education and subsequent banishment back to the margins. To prevent this from happening, Black Studies must widen its appeal to the black students in/outside of higher education. According to Douglas and Peck (2013) references to blackness must remain diligent in not reducing or oversimplifying black people. Rebranding and expanding the field as welcoming to a community of heterogenous voices of African descent will require an active ground up strategy recruiting Black students from wider backgrounds into an active counter-public.

Fraser (1992) said counterpublics are ‘‘spaces of withdrawal and regroupment’’ and operate as ‘‘bases and training grounds for agitational activities directed toward wider publics’’ (p. 124). Black scholars and students should work together to identify the issues in the mainstream higher education publics that require scholarship to support their activist goals. Some of the issues that black students and scholars can begin to map as areas of concern are: 1. increasing student enrollment rates in Black Studies, 2. meeting the diverse needs of students in higher education by generating relevant scholarship and 3. Challenging grand narratives which attempt to dehumanize black students and essentialize them as stereotypes and monolithic communities. 

Reconstituting the field of Black Studies as a site of resistance and praxis during the post civil rights era will require multi-vocal scholarship (Bakhtin, 1995). By multi-vocal scholarship, I mean a more democratic inclusive accounting of black experiences. A multivocal discipline would allow for multiple narratives which include a broad range of student perspectives. This type of participatory practice might increase demand for the discipline, and act as a bulwark against further possible defunding (Rhodes, 2011). As higher education continues to supply less funding for humanities education programs like Black Studies, students and scholars of all backgrounds will need to advocate for its existence. To this point, Shockley (2011) said fragmentation along the border lines of black ethnic identity politics risks imperiling the viability of Black Studies to solve modern black problems.

In order to move beyond these institutional constraints, black scholars will need to make the case that the traditional civil rights framework is no longer sufficient to move the field of Black Studies forward or to serve its expanded community needs. Santos (2015) said “rearguard theory” is “craftsmanship rather than architecture, committed testimony rather than clairvoyant leadership and intercultural approximation to what is new for some and old for others” (p. 44). One way to validate this idea is to empower black students to make knowledge claims grounded in their own unique experiences and not in the high towers of the academy.

Conclusion

Black studies needs to be reconceptualized to meet the changing needs of the black student population in the post-civil rights era. Globalization, immigration, and intermarriage are trends that are changing black identity, and can no longer be ignored. Innovating new conceptual frameworks in the post-civil rights era is necessary for ensuring that a fuller picture is provided of black students' experiences in higher education. Otherwise, disregarding these trends pose an ominous future for the field of Black Studies and black students in higher education. 

References

Alcoff, L., & Potter, E. (2013). Feminist epistemologies. Routledge.

Allen, W. R., & Jewell, J. O. (2002). A backward glance forward: Past, present and future

 perspectives on historically Black colleges and universities. The Review of Higher

Education, 25(3), 241-261.

Anderson, M. (2015). A Rising Share of the U.S. Black Population Is Foreign Born, Pew

Research Center, http://www.pewsocialtrends. org/2015/04/09/a-rising-share-of-

the-u-s-black-population-is-foreign-born/.

Anderson, M. (2015). 6 key findings about black immigration to the U.S., Pew Research

Center, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/09/6-key-findings-about-black-i

mmigration/

Bakhtin, M. (1995). Heteroglossia in the Novel. Bakhtinian thought: an introductory reader,

195-224.

Bettez, S. C. (2011). Critical Community Building: Beyond Belonging. The Journal of

Educational Foundations, 25(3/4), 3.

Biondi, M. (2011). Controversial blackness: The historical development & future trajectory of

African American studies. Daedalus, 140(2), 226-237.

Butler, J. E. (2011). Color-line to borderlands: The matrix of American ethnic studies.

University of Washington Press.

Chávez, K. R. (2011). Counter-public enclaves and understanding the function of rhetoric in

social movement coalition-building. Communication Quarterly, 59(1), 1-18.

Choo, H. Y., & Ferree, M. M. (2010). Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: A

critical analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of inequalities.

Sociological theory, 28(2), 129-149.

Cokley, K., Obaseki, V., Moran-Jackson, K., Jones, L., & Vohra-Gupta, S. (2016). College access

improves for black students but for which ones?. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(5), 43-48.

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist

critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. U. Chi.

Legal F., 139.

Crowley, H. (1999). Women's Studies: Between a Rock and a Hard Place or Just Another Cell 

in the Beehive?. Feminist Review, 61(1), 131-150.

Dawson, F., (producer) & Ginzberg, A. (producer). (2016). Agents of Change. [Documentary]

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction. NYU Press.

de Sousa Santos, B. (2015). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide.

Routledge.

Douglas, T. R. M. (2012). HBCUs as sites of resistance: The malignity of materialism, Western

masculinity, and spiritual malefaction. The Urban Review, 44(3), 378-400.

Douglas, T. R. M., & Peck, C. (2013). Education by any means necessary: Peoples of African

descent and community-based pedagogical spaces. Educational Studies, 49(1), 67-91.

Douglas, T. R. (2017). My Reasonable Response: Activating Research, MeSearch, and WeSearch

to Build Systems of Healing. Critical Education, 8(2).

Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually

existing democracy. Social text, (25/26), 56-80.

Fraser, N. (1995). Politics, culture, and the public sphere: Toward a postmodern conception

(pp. 287-312). Cambridge University Press.

Ginsburgh, A., & Dawson, F. (2016). Agents of Change. USA. Social Action Media

Giroux, H. A., & Giroux, S. S. (2004). Take back higher education: Race, youth, and the

crisis of democracy in the post-civil rights era. Macmillan.

Glick Schiller, N. (2012). Situating identities: towards an identities studies without binaries of

difference. Identities, 19(4), 520-532.

Hames-Garcia, M. R. (2011). Identity complex: Making the case for multiplicity. U of Minnesota

Press.

Harding, S. G. (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political

controversies. Psychology Press.

Hollinger, D. A. (2006). Postethnic America: beyond multiculturalism. Basic Books.

Janack, M. (1997). Standpoint epistemology without the “standpoint”?: An examination of

epistemic privilege and epistemic authority. Hypatia, 12(2), 125-139.e

Jaschik, S. (2015). What the Protests mean. Inside Higher Education.

Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. (2014). Black Enrollments in Higher Education

Continue to decline. retrieved from https://www.jbhe.com/2016/11/

black-enrollments-in-higher-education-continue-to-decline-2/

Jones, R. (2011). From Ideology to Institution: The Evolution of Africana Studies. Color Line

 to Borderlands: The Matrix of American Ethnic Studies, 113-149.

Kent, M. M. (2007). Immigration and America's black population (Vol. 62, No. 4).

Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau.

Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2002). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research.

Ethnography and schools: Qualitative approaches to the study of education, 87-138.

Kotzee, B. (2010). Poisoning the well and epistemic privilege. Argumentation, 24(3),

265-281.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Kunnie, J. E. (2016). Black Studies in the 21st Century: Resistance to Colonization,

Globalization, and Genocide. Journal of Pan African Studies, 9(10).

Massey, D. S., Mooney, M., Torres, K. C., & Charles, C. Z. (2006). Black immigrants and

black natives attending selective colleges and universities in the United States.

 American Journal of Education, 113(2), 243-271.

 Muñoz, V., Garrison, E. K., Enke, A., Freedman, D. A., Hart, J., Jones, D. L., ... &

VanHooser, S.E. (2008). Transpedagogies: A roundtable dialogue. Women's Studies

 Quarterly, 288-308.

Okafor, V. O. (2014). Africology, Black Studies, African American Studies, Africana Studies,

or African World Studies? What’s so Important about a Given Name?. Journal of Pan African Studies, 6(7), 209-225.

Page, C. (2007). Black immigrants collect most degrees, but affirmative action is losing

direction. Chicago Tribune, March, 18.

Pellerin, M. (2009). A blueprint for Africana Studies: An overview of 

African/African-American/African

Phillips, M. (2010). Black studies: Challenges and critical debates. Western Journal of Black

Studies, 34(2), 273.

Rhodes, D. (2016). Chicago Tribune. Black studies struggle at state universities under current

fiscal climate

Rogers, I. H. (2012). The Black Campus Movement and the Institutionalization of Black

 Studies, 1965–1970. Journal of African American Studies, 16(1), 21-40.

Rojas, F. (2007). From black power to black studies: How a radical social movement became

an academic discipline. JHU Press.

Shockley, K. G., & Frederick, R. M. (2010). Constructs and dimensions of Afrocentric

education. Journal of Black Studies, 40(6), 1212-1233.

Shockley, K. G., & Cleveland, D. (2011). Culture, power, and education: The philosophies

 and pedagogy of African centered educators. The International Journal of Critical

Pedagogy, 3).

Smith, H. (2014). Brown V. Board: The Racial Meridian: Racial Segregation in the US Public

Education System Before and After Brown V. Board of Education 1954 (Doctoral

dissertation, Department of History, University of Utah).

Spencer, R. (2004). “Thinking about Transcending Race.” In “Mixed Race” Studies,

edited by Jayne Ifekwunigwe, 219–223. New York: Routledge.

Stewart, J. B. (2015). Black/Africana Studies, Then and Now: Reconstructing a Century of

Intellectual Inquiry and Political Engagement, 1915–2015. Journal of African

American History, 100(1), 87-118.

Stepler, R., & Brown, A. (2015). Statistical portrait of Black Immigrants in the United States,

1980–2013.  Pew Research Center. http://​ www.​ pewhispanic.​ org, 5, 12.

 Trostle, J. & Zheng, K. (2014). The State of Black Immigrants retrieved on April 30th, 2017

http://www.stateofblackimmigrants.com/assets/sobi-background-sept27.pdf

U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. (2011).  Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2011, Completions component.

(This table was prepared June 2012.)

U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. (2012).  Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2012, Completions component.

(This table was prepared July 2013.)

U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. (2013).  Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2013, Completions component.

(This table was prepared September 2014.)

U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. (2014).  Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2014, Completions component.

(This table was prepared January 2017.)

U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. (2015).  Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2011, Completions component.

(This table was prepared June 2012.)

Wang, W. (2015). Interracial Marriage: Who Is ‘Marrying Out’?. Pew Research Center.