​The Make America Great Again movement has been the single most important development in modern American politics. For its traditional leftist critics, its significance is rooted in its ability to be a unique and modernized version of fascism with American characteristics. Prominent liberal/leftist authors such as Gerald Horne, aligned, with the defunct Communist Party USA, have argued that “the specter of which still looms large today, evinced, most palpably, in the Trump-MAGA movement” is that of “U.S. fascism… the system of U.S. apartheid, aka Jim Crow, or the legacy of anti-Black terror perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan.” 
​
This depicts the epistemic arrogance of the cosmopolitan elite academic writing on the MAGA phenomenon from outside, basing themselves not on going deep into MAGA country, but on abstract clippings from the mainstream liberal press, whose disgust at Trump’s lack of propriety and hegemonic formalism offends their liberal eyes. Their position, which can be classified as Trump derangement syndrome, is the valid conclusion of those who accept the hysterical premises of mainstream hegemonic liberalism. It only sees one dimension of Trump, that of the elites which do lean toward Nazism, not the other dimension, the heart of the MAGA base, which is the discontented working class – traditionally the heart of any sort of communist organizing.

As someone who experienced the initial rise of MAGA in the cosmopolitan ambiance of my former Miami home, I understand where this “leftist” position emerges from. Its foundational understanding of this modern social phenomenon is not the actual MAGA movement, but the caricature of it that is spun by the mainstream liberal media. This media paints the average MAGA supporter as a zealot bigot who supports Trump because of their hate for minorities. The MAGA movement is treated as a “Trump Cult,” and the extreme exceptions of fanatical individuals are painted as the mainstream. For anyone that is outside of the regions where the working class MAGA base is located, the mainstream media narrative will certainly leave you worrisome about this group.

For me, it took living deep in MAGA country, first in Iowa and then in a pro-MAGA part of Southern Illinois, to actually grasp what this political development represents. Far from being simply reducible to a “fascist threat” rooted in the legacies of American white supremacism and bigotry, MAGA represents and organic and spontaneous manifestation of a forgotten working class anger, taking for the first time since the civil rights movement the form of political partisanship. As Haz Al-Din has argued:

In the United States, the MAGA Movement has come to be defined by being the exclusive American form of partisanship. As is well known, the distinction between the Republicans and Democrats, in nearly every election cycle, has never amounted to any real political distinction on the basis of Clauswitzean absolute enmity. Partisanship, that is impassioned political partiality, has made its definite return in the United States solely in the MAGA movement, which has again reintroduced real political enmity and distinction to the belly of the globalist beast itself. Having its origins in a rather accidental confluence of circumstances, in Donald Trump’s presidential election in 2016, the movement has become the host of every possible real counter-hegemonic ideological tendency within the United States.

This movement is not pure. It does not exhibit the advanced form of class consciousness that the working class and socialist movements of the 20th century held. Nonetheless, it should never be that purity of form that we search for. As I have argued in my work on The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism, to expect purity as a pre-condition for work is to resign yourself to paralysis, to make the task of organizing the class struggle impossible. MAGA therefore is not pure and cannot be. Instead, it is the first manifestation, since at least the black freedom movement of the 1960s and early 1970s, of dissident working class and popular power.

The discontent of the MAGA working class base is rooted in the simple fact that the security, stability, and economic wellbeing of the American working class in the era of their parents and grandparents, the era that afforded at least a semblance of reality to the American dream, exists no longer. The American working class, which at one point became what Engels would have called a “bourgeois proletariat,” has lost the economic privileges that came with that uplifting. It has been, as Noah Khrachvik calls it, “reproletarianized.” This was an uplifting that was rooted in three central factors:

1) there was a strong communist and labor movement that won significant concessions from the ruling capitalist class in the lead up and after math of the Second World War;

2) there existed in the Soviet Union a prosperous and viable alternative world order whom the world, for at least a brief period of time, thanked for the defeat of the scourge of Nazism; and

3) the United States had emerged, in the aftermath of the Second World War, as the global imperial hegemon, replacing a role previously occupied by Britain. This afforded it the ability to use the super-exploitation of the Global South, and the super profits that were produced, to give greater economic stability to the national working class and hence pacify its revolutionary potential. 

As the United States entered the decades of the 1970s, the process of reversing these gains for the working class was underway. This marks the era where neoliberalism develops. Neoliberalism is often simply reduced to the policies of privatization, liberalization, austerity, and deregulation that the US imposed on countries of the Global South through structural adjustment programs and the institutions of global finance capital (IMF and World Bank). But these policies, representing a new stage of U.S. imperialism (or super-imperialism), was not simply exported abroad, it was also imposed at home. What came to characterize the existence of the American working class was a condition which tended more and more towards drowning them in debt and making it harder than ever to make ends meet. The neoliberal agenda was not simply something the U.S. imposed, as imperial hegemon, on the rest of the world – it was something it imposed on its own people too.

This was not a simple accident or a wrongful choice of policy, it was structurally necessary to deal and cope with the general crisis of capitalism that emerges in the 1970s. Faced with the effects of the long-term tendency of the rate of profit falling, in the 1970s the American capitalist class was faced with two options, two routes afforded to it to revitalize its rates of profit:

1) continue the growing tendency of financial parasitism and usury through the reinvestment of capital in the FIRE sector, deriving more and more profits from interest rates, land rents, stock buy backs, and financial speculation; or

2) if one sought to continue making profits from productive capital, such capital had to be exported abroad to the Global South where the cost of doing business was much lower, i.e., where buying labor power, land, resources, and technology could be much more affordable. Here the rate of profit is rejuvenated through significantly diminishing the cost of production.

The citadels of American capital took both routes, each of which was conjoined with a loss of opportunity and economic stability for the American working class. These changes have produced modern America, one of the most economically unequal societies in all of human history. It is a society where 80 percent of the people are struggling to make ends meet, living paycheck to paycheck, and drowning in unpayable debts, while the wealthiest few have accumulated their wealth at unprecedented rates.

Today we live in an America where the three richest Americans own more wealth than the poorest half of the population. To put it in starker terms, in America the three wealthiest individuals have more wealth than the 170 million poorest Americans combined. The trajectory we are on suggests that this will only get worse. Today, for the first time in American history, the youngest generations are guaranteed a worse living standard than that of their parents. It is a society in an undeniable sharp decline.

The material stability that working class Americans once had allowed for ideological stability, that is, for a smoother acquiescence to the ruling ideas. If the ruling class demanded zealot anti-communism, the working class provided it. It was a dark time for our class, where the trinkets of comfort we were afforded made many forget about the fundamental antagonism in society – that between the workers and the big owners of capital.

Today, as material conditions have deteriorated, ideological stability has also faltered. Americans are, as we say, “rocking the boat.” The ruling ideas, as well as their corresponding material institutions, are more and more coming under scrutiny. What I have previously called a “crisis of legitimacy” is profoundly with us today. Americans, from all sides of the political spectrum (but especially in the MAGA movement), are not consenting to the agendas of the Deep State (intelligence agencies), big pharma (the pharmaceutical industrial complex), big agro (the masters of the sickening, chemical-filled food we are fed), the legacy media (those who spin the narratives to get the populace to think what the elites need them to think), the educational institutions (those who seek to promote division and factionalism of the poor and working class under the banner of promoting “diversity,”), and the political class (those who represent not the American people, but the banking cartels, investment firms, and big corporations that make up the oligarchs of this country).

No country, irrespective of how fascistic it might be, can survive without a basic degree of consent from the populace. Without hegemony the ruling order quickly collapses. Coercion on its own is insufficient, a baseline degree of consent is always necessary.

Today we are in an America where that baseline of consent is hardly reached. If a crisis of legitimacy this deep had occurred in any society of the early 20th century, a revolution would’ve surely ensued. Such an uprising has been prevented (for now), by the simple fact that although the U.S. ruling elite might appear as idiots, the sheer instinct of class survival has made them smart enough to develop new ways of sustaining stability and hegemony through the collapse of stability and hegemony itself. As I have previously argued, today hegemony is defended precisely through the feigning of being counterhegemonic:

The rulers must, at all times, manipulate the public into seeing them as subaltern, as powerless and waging a crusade against the elites themselves. From conservatives, to liberals, to the various Trotskyite “leftists” and “democratic socialists,” all American politics is coming more and more to take the form of dissidence. It is an aristocracy of capital that survives through the conceit of continuously struggling against itself for power. Like in Kafka’s The Trial, where the court bureaucracy is reproduced precisely by presenting itself as powerless subjects subjugated by the system, the dialectic of American political authority today also takes the form of this feigning of impotence to sustain their systemic omnipotence. Power sustains itself through the pretense of powerlessness.

The institutions and individuals that most explicitly defend the status quo are not the once primarily responsible for the stability of the status quo – it is those who present themselves as dissenters (of a left and right variety) who are coming to play more and more an indispensable role for the status quo. Today all of the American political spectrum has to present itself as politically defeated and fighting an uphill battle for power.

It is this material and ideological predicament – this endless cycle of crisis that is sustained through the structural incorporation of “dissent” into the status quo itself – that produced two significant movements of popular dissent in 2015: MAGA and the Bernie Movement. While some might have now forgotten, in 2015 the class basis for both of these movements were largely the same. Many of the individuals that would have voted for Bernie in the presidential race decided to vote for Trump after the Democratic Party cheated Bernie in the primaries. Both Bernie and Trump had developed movements that could’ve radically transformed American politics, both critiquing the ruling institutions of power, the two-party duopoly, the war machine, and the economic standing of working class America.

So, what made the MAGA movement survive and the Bernie one fade away into various disparate groups? The answer is quite simple: Bernie ended up folding completely into the same Democratic Party establishment that cheated him in 2016 and 2020. Bernie’s pretensions at a “political revolution” were not even symbolically upheld after his defeats. He placed himself in the long tradition of social democracy, where the talk is nice and radical, but the actions always align you with the dominant imperial centers of power. As a young Marxist, this apparent “betrayal” taught be the lesson of how social democrats have always betrayed the working class to side with the powerful – in time showing me that I was duped by the old social democratic trick, not “betrayed.” Today we have a Bernie that only has mean words for the Republican Party and Trump, and ignores almost completely the bipartisan responsibility of the crisis working class families are in. Today we have a Bernie that argues, after almost two years of Zionist genocide of Palestinians, that “Israel has a right to defend itself.”

While Trump never fulfilled the aspirations of the MAGA base in his first term, he at least kept up the pretension of “draining the swamp” and combatting the Deep State. Even though his cabinet was filled with Warhawks like Elliot Abrams, Mike Pompeo, and others, he still signaled to his base a sense of dissidence. For many years this was enough to keep the movement alive, to keep it from dissipating like Bernie’s. His unfulfilled promises, in the eyes of his base, were rooted in the Deep State’s ability to insert a Warhawk cabinet around him. Trump was, for them, not to blame – it was the swamp monsters around him who were responsible. Trump, of course, went along with this narrative, it was what was needed so that he could have his cake and eat it too, that is, so that he can disappoint his base politically but also sustain their support.

It was the sustained vitality of the Trump base (in contrast to the dissipation of Bernie’s) that would lead to the recognition of its revolutionary potential by the new resurgent American Communist movement. In January of 2021, shortly after the famous January six storming of the capital, I mentioned in a podcast that the Trump movement was divided into two spheres:

1) those in the elite who ended up siding with Trump, a sector that also included all of the reactionary “diasporas” from China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. that were pro-Trump because of the formally anti-communist discourse, and

2) the discontented working class base, that could’ve gone to either Bernie (or a more traditional, pro-working class “left”) or to Trump in search of a candidate that represented a break from the dominant political horizon – an outsider who would break with the liberal formalism of the Obamas, Clintons, and Bushes and would actually represent a populist (i.e., pro-American people) agenda. I urged the need for communists to understand the revolutionary potential of this MAGA base, and to reject the liberal-“left” condemnation of them as “fascist.” Communists had to go to MAGA and show them that what they liked about Trump could only be realized through American socialism.

Around the same time, the philosopher and political theorist Haz Al-Din – now the Executive Chairman of the American Communist Party – would develop, in one of the most brilliant essays of modern American political theory, the notion of MAGA Communism, recognizing the objectivity of the working class MAGA base as the foundation for any communist movement in contemporary America. This, far from being a synthesis of Trump and Communism (as liberals libelously claim), is simply a restatement of the traditional communist ethos of going deep into the working class masses, serving as the agents that facilitate the advance of their imperfect spontaneous working class consciousness into socialist class consciousness proper. MAGA Communism, therefore, was always just communism attuned to the contemporary American conjuncture and to what the MAGA movement represented in American politics.

Today, as I have argued before, we are at a crossroads – not just for MAGA, but for the U.S. as a whole. The maneuver that sustained the MAGA base on the side of Trump in the first term will not work in the second. In the decade that has passed, the MAGA base has only been further disenchanted with ruling institutions. Most significantly, they have broken their long-term allegiance to the Zionist entity, who they now see as responsible for the U.S. involvement in the wars in West Asia (the so-called Middle East). While part of the rhetoric on Israel might be upside-down (in the sense that they see Israel influence the U.S. and not the U.S. use Israel as a colonial outpost in the region), it is still an objective rejection of the foreign policy that the U.S. (in their eyes under the influence of Israel) has carried out in West Asia. This term Trump will not have an opportunity to have his cake and eat it too. He will have to decide – does he follow the Deep State agenda and lose his base, or (and this is a Hail Mary) does he switch course and actually rule in a way that satisfies MAGA’s expectations?

As of last week, I was ready to bet everything I had that the former would be true, that Trump would continue to create a rift with his base rooted in supporting policies which MAGA disagreed with. After the first month of his new term, Haz Al-Din and I speculated that this rift was already in motion, that the MAGA base was starting to break from Trump and becoming up for grabs by new political forces.

The two main contenders, of course, would be the so-called Groypers (the modernized American Nazis), led by Nick Fuentes and a few other figure heads (now with the support of Kanye West, whose been for decades a cultural-fashion icon for the American youth) and the American Communists Party, the only Left-wing force in America willing to win over the MAGA base. The battle was going to be more sharply broken up into three forces: the traditional establishment devoid of any popular support, the parts of MAGA that would go with the Groypers, and the parts of MAGA that would go with the Communists.

In terms of the people, this would, in essence, be a battle between the Groypers and the Communists, between modernized American Nazism and American Communism. Each political force would have something that the other lacked: the Nazis, for whom the ruling class will always turn in periods of crisis, would have at their disposal the financial and media resources of the filo-fascists (the fascist-friendly sectors of finance capital), as Jacques Pawels calls them, the Communists, working on a vision of uniting our class and America, would have the upper hand of a unifying principle (as opposed to the Nazi’s racist, tribalist one) and disciplined organization. This would have placed the American horizon in a somewhat homologous position with Germany before Hitler’s rise, where the key players that represented a new direction where the Nazis and the Communists.

However, the last week of Trump political maneuvers has brought more confusion than clarity. In a wild turn of events, some dissident commentators are suggesting that this week Trump decided to repair the developing rift with MAGA and actually listen to the MAGA base. As George Galloway and Jackson Hinkle have noted in their recent conversation, this week Trump has seemingly broken with Netanyahu and Israel, rejecting their machinations for war with Iran, allowed the Houthis to continue targeting Israeli ships (calling the Houthis brave and honorable), cut off contact with Netanyahu publicly over disrespect, fired National Security Advisor Waltz over his close association with Netanyahu, cancelled Secretary of Defense trip to Israel, met with groups from the resistance behind Israel’s back, and, to put the cherry on top, signed an executive order to try to end the price-gauging of the criminal medico-pharmaceutical industrial complex, potentially cutting up to 80% in drug prices. I don’t think any of us had this week of political maneuvers on our bingo cards. Even the formal recognition of a Palestinian state has been floated around.

However, that is Trump, a fundamentally unpredictable X factor that could break with the course and direction of politics at any moment. That is why, even when he has served the interests of the elite, he has been such a thorn on their backs – the ruling elite like the stability of someone who is predictable, and Trump couldn’t be more unpredictable. After all, this is the individual that went from saying he would make the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) disappear, and moments after, be the first U.S. president to step foot in the country. From threatening to obliterate the DPRK to laughing with Kim Jong Un about hoping to look “nice and slim” in the picture, such unpredictability and quick turn of events are always a possibility with Trump.

This could also very well be a political machination, a feigning of a change of course to sustain a deeper continuity of political direction. After all, it is impossible not to see Israel’s genocide in full display. The ruling elite would want nothing more than to pin this catastrophe on a single individual – Bibi Netanyahu – than to admit that this is the logical manifestation of the Zionist agenda. Such a course of events is also very likely. Either way, if Trump ends up actually serving the agenda of his base, that will still deepen the split between the status quo (Democrats, the anti-MAGA “left,” and the anti-Trump Republicans) and MAGA. MAGA would still end up having a left and a right contingent: the Communists which would be pushing toward American socialism as the way to actually Make America Great, and the Nazis, who would be pushing their pseudo-radical and astro-turfed race essentialism and Hitler fetishism on the American masses.

It is essential to remind the American working class and all American patriots that their grandparents fought with the Communists to destroy the scourge of Nazism, and that if today they turn around and willingly accept that which their ancestors were willing to sacrifice their lives to destroy, they would be spitting not just on their lineage, but on America itself, whose ideals have always been much more aligned to the vision of communism than the hell of Nazism.

It will be up to us, the Communists, to present to the American people our vision of socialism. This cannot be a vision of something foreign that will be artificially implanted on our unique histories and traditions, but as the logical and practical conclusions of the values of 1776 and the notion – enunciated by Lincoln and accepted as common sense by our people – that government should be of, by, and for the people. This is, fundamentally, what MAGA’s grievances are rooted in, what their aspirations and desires (for stability and security, for peace, economic prosperity, for a return to an organic American culture not imposed from above by the NGO’s, the Academy, and the media) entail.

Such a reality, thoroughly absent in our current conjuncture, where government is of, by, and for big corporations, big banks, and investment firms, can only become actualized when the working class obtains political power. In other words, only a socialist America will be able to live up to the values of our country. If this simple message cannot be successfully communicated to MAGA and the general American working class, we will be at the mercy of a destiny shaped by Fuentes and the Nazis. Pretty soon we will be in a situation where political actors in America will be forced to choose what political vision they will align themselves with: MAGA Communism or the Nazis. 

​Amidst a world of immaculate suits and presidential mansions, José “Pepe” Mujica opted for a dilapidated Volkswagen Beetle and a humble farmhouse. Toppling conventions with the quiet audacity of someone who had faced down dictators and survived, he was a former guerrilla. The world lost more than just a former Uruguayan president when he passed away on May 13, 2025, at the age of 89. He was a leftist who put his beliefs into practice by supporting Palestine and introducing progressive reforms. Mujica demonstrated to us that the people, not the powerful, could benefit from power through a life forged in poverty, prison, and deep principle. Many people found his story in a fog of smoke and disobedience, and it serves as a reminder to redefine leadership.
 
 
From Guerrilla to Statesman: A Life Shaped by Struggle
 
Born in Montevideo, Uruguay, on May 20, 1935, José Alberto Mujica Cordano came from a modest background. His early years were difficult; after his father filed for bankruptcy when he was seven years old, the family fell into poverty and Mujica was forced to work with his mother in their flower business, a career he carried on throughout his life. Mujica's worldview was shaped by these modest beginnings, which anchored him in the realities of economic inequality and class conflict and themes that are essential to Marxist analysis.
 
Mujica joined the Tupamaros, a leftist urban guerrilla group, in the 1960s as Latin America struggled with social injustice and political repression. The Tupamaros were more than just rebels; they were an expression of class consciousness, opposing a system that put the needs of the working class last and the interests of the elite first. Mujica's participation in this movement represented a direct challenge to the military dictatorship that took control of Uruguay in 1973, ushering in a period of oppressive authoritarianism. Mujica spent 14 years in prison, subjected to torture and seclusion, for his involvement in the resistance. His perseverance and survival during this time are evidence of the unwavering spirit of justice-seekers, a trait that socialist hold in high regard as being necessary for revolutionary change.
 
The leftist idea of flexibility and pragmatism is best illustrated by Mujica's shift from guerrilla fighter to elected politician following the restoration of democracy in 1985. As a deputy, senator, and eventually Minister of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries, he embraced democracy after realizing that armed conflict was insufficient to eliminate systemic inequality. His progressive fervor was not lessened by this change; rather, it was directed toward a new kind of resistance that aimed to change society from the inside out.
 
 
A Presidency of Principle: Socialist Principles and Progressive Policies
 
The election of Mujica as Uruguay's president in 2009 marked a turning point for progressive politics worldwide as well as for Uruguay. Policies that questioned established capitalist conventions and put the good of the group ahead of personal gain characterized his 2010–2015 term in office. From a socialist perspective, these policies were revolutionary in their intent and impact.
 
The legalization of marijuana in 2013, which made Uruguay the first nation in the world to completely legalize and regulate its production, sale, and consumption, was one of Mujica's most well-known accomplishments. This was a direct challenge to the capitalist systems that benefit from criminalization, not just a change in drug laws. In line with Marxist criticisms of capitalism's exploitative inclinations, Mujica aimed to regulate marijuana in order to curb the illegal market, lower crime, and reroute funds toward public health and education. His own statement, "What we want is to take the market from drug traffickers," reflects a desire to return economic power to the people instead of letting it stay in the hands of criminal capitalists.

Beyond drug policy, Mujica was dedicated to social justice. He challenged conservative and patriarchal power structures and increased personal freedoms by legalizing abortion in the first trimester and same-sex marriage. In addition to being progressive, these reforms were firmly leftist in their focus on equality and the overthrow of repressive structures. Mujica personified the socialist idea that genuine liberation must be collective, involving all aspects of society, by standing up for underrepresented groups.

Mujica's personal lifestyle, which contrasted sharply with the extravagance typically associated with political leadership, was perhaps the most striking. Instead of living in the presidential palace, he drove an old Volkswagen Beetle and lived on a small farm outside of Montevideo, donating 90% of his presidential salary to charity. This rejection of material wealth was a living example of Marxist principles and a potent critique of consumerism. "Why do we want so much if we don't need that much?" he famously questioned. This query strikes at the core of socialist philosophy, which opposes capitalism's fixation on accumulation and promotes a society in which necessities are satisfied without going overboard.
 
Foreign Policy and Palestine Solidarity

Mujica's foreign policy, which placed a strong emphasis on solidarity with oppressed peoples and promoted human rights internationally, was a logical progression of his Marxist beliefs. A pillar of his global agenda, his support for Palestine demonstrated his conviction that the fight against oppression is interrelated. When Mujica called the Israeli attack in Gaza "genocide" in 2014, during a time of fierce fighting, the statement sparked a great deal of controversy, including criticism from Israel (MercoPress). This audacious position was not just empty rhetoric; it was based on a profound understanding of the Palestinian people and an understanding that their struggle was a component of a larger struggle against capitalist and imperialist dominance.

Uruguay took decisive action in favour of Palestinian statehood under Mujica's direction. Luis Almagro, the minister of foreign affairs, declared in 2010 that Uruguay would join other Latin American countries such as Argentina and Brazil in recognizing the state of Palestine in 2011. This decision was noteworthy because it was made by a leader whose own history of defying an oppressive government was similar to the Palestinians' fight for independence. Mujica's support for Palestine is genuine and significant because of his background as a guerrilla fighter and political prisoner, which has given him a unique perspective on the value of standing with those defending their rights.

Beyond Palestine, a vision of Latin American cooperation and integration defined Mujica's foreign policy. He believed that addressing common issues like poverty, inequality, and outside influence could be accomplished through regional unity. He demonstrated his ability to overcome ideological differences while upholding his commitment to progressive values through his international engagements, which included meetings with world leaders such as Pope Francis and Barack Obama (EL PAÍS). Mujica's relatable persona, demonstrated in the Vice video titled "Smoking Weed with the President of Uruguay" and talked about life and policy in a way that spoke to audiences all over the world, further increased his image on a global scale.
 
An International Icon of Resistance and Humility

As a representation of integrity and humility in politics, Mujica's reputation grew on a global scale. His straightforward way of living and progressive policies struck a chord with people well beyond Uruguay's boundaries, especially with younger generations fed up with established political structures. I first learned about Mujica through this lens—not from scholarly literature or political analyses, but from the Vice video “Smoking Weed with the President of Uruguay”. Vice correspondent Krishna Andavolu visited Mujica on his farm for this documentary, where they talked about drug policy and philosophy of life while the journalist was smoking marijuana. By showing him as a relatable person who lived by his values rather than as a distant statesman, the video humanized Mujica. It was a moment that perfectly captured his progressive views on individual liberties and his capacity for human connection, which made him a world-renowned figure.

Mujica's struggle against authoritarianism was also emphasized in this video. In addition to being personal tragedies, his experiences of torture and incarceration under the military junta served as symbols of defiance against the right-wing dictatorship. Mujica's fight against the junta was a component of a larger class conflict in which the downtrodden rebelled against a structure intended to uphold elite dominance. Even in the face of overwhelming odds, his tenacity and eventual democratic victory serve as a potent reminder of the possibility of progressive change.
 
The Response of the Progressive World to His Death

Progressive leaders, organizations, and citizens around the world expressed their sorrow and admiration for José Mujica's passing on May 13, 2025. His passing marked the passing of a global icon whose life personified the values of justice, resistance, and humility in addition to the loss of a national leader.

In a heartfelt ode to Mujica, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) called him a “friend” of the Palestinian people and a “champion for Palestine” (Palestine Chronicle). They emphasized his 2014 denunciation of the Israeli attack on Gaza as "genocide" and his steadfast support of Palestinian rights, pointing out that he leveraged his political position to advance the cause of the downtrodden. Mujica was highly respected by those battling for freedom, as evidenced by the PFLP's designation of him as a "living conscience for the oppressed" and a "rare example of revolutionary integrity and purity." The PFLP and other progressive movements found great resonance in his lifelong dedication to standing with the oppressed, which was reflected in his support for Palestine.

Leaders from Latin America also paid moving homage to Mujica's legacy. "We deeply regret the passing of our beloved Pepe Mujica, an example to Latin America and the entire world for his wisdom, foresight, and simplicity," said Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum in her condolence statement. Her remarks emphasized Mujica's function as a regional moral compass, representing principles that cut across national borders. "If you left us anything, it was the unquenchable hope that things can be done better," said Chilean President Gabriel Boric in reference to Mujica's unwavering optimism. The transforming spirit of Mujica's leadership, which encouraged generations to hope for a more equitable world, was encapsulated in Boric's tribute.

"Goodbye, friend," wrote Colombian President Gustavo Petro in a tribute that also served as a plea for greater unity in Latin America. One day, I hope, Latin America will have an anthem. Mujica's own idea of regional integration, in which countries could unite to tackle shared issues and create a shared future, was echoed in Petro's message. Sheinbaum, Boric, and Petro's tributes demonstrate the significant influence Mujica had on his fellow leaders and the Latin American progressive movement.

Mujica's impact was not limited to political figures. He was adored by activists, thinkers, and common people all over the world for his modest way of life, progressive policies, and profound philosophical understanding. He became a beacon of hope for people fed up with conventional politics because of his rejection of material wealth and support for social justice. The progressive community around the world lamented his passing, acknowledging that his life served as an example of the strength of moral leadership.
 
Legacy and Introspection

With José "Pepe" Mujica's death, a chapter in progressive politics in Latin America and beyond comes to an end. His legacy is one of great intellectual depth and real-world application, which is an unique blend that evokes admiration and contemplation. I am reminded as I write this obituary of how his life forces us to reconsider what leadership can entail. Mujica was a shining example of humility, integrity, and an unwavering dedication to social justice in a world too frequently dominated by materialism and self-interest.

Marxist philosophy, which places a higher priority on human flourishing than economic growth, is strongly reflected in his well-known statement, "We are too focused on wealth and not on happiness." Mujica's life served as evidence of this idea, demonstrating that genuine wealth is found in equality, community, and dignity rather than material belongings.

Mujica was more than just a political figure; he was a representation of opportunity and hope. We are reminded that a different world is possible, one in which equality, justice, and humanity triumph over oppression and greed and by his struggle against dictatorship, his progressive policies, his moral foreign policy, and his straightforward way of living.
 
We are filled with a renewed sense of purpose as well as a deep sense of loss as we say goodbye to this extraordinary man. Future generations will continue to be motivated by José "Pepe" Mujica's legacy to strive for a better world in which the socialist principles of equality and justice are not merely theoretical but are actually realized.

Our government’s criminal actions, and its schemes to commit future crimes, are of a nature that’s going to require a new strategy from our popular movements. Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that it’s no longer enough to speak truth to power, because at this point our rulers are acting too brazenly for journalistic exposure to have a sufficient impact. In the last week, it’s become clear just how true this is. The president is posting direct evidence of the U.S. military blowing up crowds of civilians, and bragging about it on the basis that these crowds were supposedly enemy fighters.

This was an extremely weak cover story, and it was easy for observers to clear up that the U.S. had actually bombed a Yemeni tribal gathering. But as far as those in power are concerned, that does not matter. They’re now fully comfortable with sharing proof of war crimes that they would have tried to hide in the past; the imperial system has reached a new stage, where it seeks to go on the offensive without any restraint. And this shows that to fight back against the imperial system, we’ll need to come to a new stage in our revolutionary practice. A stage where journalistic or commentary sources, like my own platform, adopt a role of facilitating mass organization and mobilization.

Exposing power is secondary to the work we must do within the class struggle. That’s always been true, but up until the recent developments in global conflicts, our movements had for a long time been largely detached from the struggle’s practical aspects. The communist movement, at least in the USA, had been just talk; then with the Ukraine war, our geopolitical clash reached a critical stage, and suddenly the world’s socialist orgs had an opportunity to impact history’s direction. If they were to be principled in opposing NATO, and in supporting Russia’s anti-fascist war, then they would be able to truly break from liberal reformism. And a great deal of these orgs failed the Ukraine test; which makes it totally unsurprising that they then failed to combat the Gaza genocide.
Now, as the empire and its proxies expand their offensive, we face another decision point.

We can choose to tail behind the ruling class, de-mobilize on Palestine, and forsake the class struggle; or we can wage the next stage of this fight, refusing to be compromised by reformism and opportunism. So much momentum is building for the global proletarian movement, and we could soon bring about unprecedented workers gains. Pambis Kyritsis, general secretary of the World Federation of Trade Unions, has assessed how much strength we’re seeing emerge from the working masses:

The encouraging and hopeful element in the depressing picture of today’s world, is the fact that workers do not passively accept the neoliberal capitalist, anti-popular, and anti-labor offensive. Millions of workers around the world are choosing the path of struggle to defend their trade union, social, and political rights. With militant mobilizations in every corner of the globe, they are demanding work with rights that ensures the satisfaction of their contemporary needs. The WFTU members or friends are always on the frontlines of these struggles. The response of bourgeois governments to the just popular demands is the sharpening of state repression and authoritarianism…But we also have weapons. Strategically much more powerful than theirs. We have our ideology and our class orientation, our history and our action, our militant spirit, and our moral advantage. But to utilize these weapons, we need good organization, enlightenment, and ideological and political education.

The effort to crush worker struggles is intertwined with the effort to persecute Palestine supporters. This is one reason why the pro-Palestine movement’s only viable future is in organized labor: for our free speech to survive, we’ll also need to preserve the right of the workers to defy their employers. The deportations and disappearances of pro-Palestine activists are partly about making labor defenseless; about establishing a precedent for targeting labor organizers through the same means. In this new phase of repression, the only labor figures who aren’t at risk are the ones which side with capital.

With the White House’s campaign to dismantle unions, there is growing potential for polarization inside organized labor; for the labor elements which support the imperial state to expose themselves, and for the principled elements to revolt. More unions keep speaking out for Palestine, and now they’re voicing solidarity with the students who’ve been targeted by ICE. The anti-imperialist movement, the civil liberties movement, and the other parts of our revolutionary struggle have a significant pull within unions, because the most advanced among the workers are not fooled by ruling class propaganda. The question is whether we’ll be able to build an independent workers force; one that can keep agitating for the revolutionary positions inside the unions, leading and assisting the workers in their struggles, and defending the workers against the crackdown.

This is where we come to the pivotal question in this era of our political practice: how to respond to the state’s efforts at crushing us? How can we keep our operations going as the repression gets worse, and more organizers get subjected to the fate that Mahmoud Khalil has? The history of counterrevolutionary violence shows that to overcome this threat, we’ll need to avoid relying on any wing of the ruling class. It’s the working masses who are our most important friends amid this crisis, and we have to lead the masses towards defeating the state.

——————————————————--

Ernest Mandel, one of the authors of the 1966 book The Catastrophe in Indonesia, diagnosed why Indonesia’s communist party had failed to defend against the previous year’s political mass murder campaign. It was because the party felt it could depend on the allyship of President Sukarno, and on the national bourgeoisie that Sukarno represented. Mandel observed the ineffectual nature of the warnings the party had issued about the coup, which didn’t come with the actions that would have given the people a real chance for fighting back:

These warnings, voiced on the very eve of the country’s counterrevolutionary coup, then already in full preparation, came without any previous or accompanying measures for broad mass mobilizations, without preparation for a general strike, without preparation for arming the masses, without concrete warnings about the impending army coup. The warnings could only heighten the determination of the counterrevolutionaries to strike immediately. They could not create adequate means to prevent or to reply to the counterrevolution. It is not surprising that under these conditions the only response this belated warning evoked was the desperate action of a small group around Lieutenant Colonel Untung and not a mass uprising…they relied on Sukarno instead of mobilizing the broad masses in defense of the revolution and the PKI, not only before the reactionary coup of October 1-2, but even after the coup.

In today’s USA, there are plenty of political actors who want to get dissident organizers to subordinate ourselves towards a certain wing of the ruling class. Among these actors are the leftists who tail after the Democratic Party, and who’ve been trying to build an “anti-Trump” movement. These radical liberals do pose a threat, in that they’re working to advance the NGO infiltration of the pro-Palestine movement. But this element lost its cultural relevance a while ago, when the Obama-style political brand collapsed. At this stage, by far the biggest ideological threat is the “dissident right,” which tails behind the Elon Musk wing of monopoly capital.

The message this element puts forth can be summarized as: “trust the plan.” Which is the same attitude that was held by Indonesia’s complacent socialist leaders: supposedly, the people will be able to gain victory if we put our faith within a specific procedure, one whose success depends on the goodwill of those in power.

It’s a mechanistic way of thinking about political struggle, where somebody believes everything will simply fall into place if we stay on a predetermined path. And as our rulers keep going on a rampage, it’s becoming clear that not too many people are willing to embrace this kind of thinking. This is what I saw when I found a recent Tucker Carlson interview with Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Special Envoy to the Middle East. Witkoff tried to present Trump’s uncritical appeasement of “Israel” as being the guaranteed route to peace; and he avoided answering Carlson on the question of what Israel’s long-term plans for occupation are. Witkoff insisted that if we can just get rid of the “terrorist” groups which are resisting Zionism, then all countries will normalize with the Zionist entity, and “peace” will be achieved. This level of lying was too much for the majority of viewers to overlook; the video’s comments were filled with people who saw how absurd these arguments are.

Across the ideological spectrum, the people are realizing the malign nature of their government. They’re seeing that our rulers are determined to carry out an ethnic cleansing, and to destroy entire countries for the sake of protecting this crime’s perpetrators. They see more and more opponents of this plan being disappeared, putting everyone’s freedoms under threat. They’re also experiencing the economic catastrophe that’s come about from Washington’s war provocations. A consciousness shift has occurred; there already is a widespread mass will to fight back against these schemes. Now we must give the people the means to overcome the crackdown’s next stage, and overthrow their imperialist dictatorship. We will need a collective, mass organizational force, one that can keep going forward no matter how severe the repression gets.

The parts of the U.S. communist movement that have broken from liberalism are making good progress in building this force. The American Communist Party has been meeting the practical needs of the masses, and leading the struggles of the workers, in ways that have gained it great momentum since its founding last summer. And given the African People’s Socialist Party’s success in beating federal charges, the ACP will be able to defend itself should the state target its members in the same way. There will come a point, though, when the ruling class runs out of patience for years-long legal efforts, and tries to destroy us through swift violence.

There are forces in our government that don’t want to wait another moment until they can attack freedom in unprecedented ways. Forces that are even more dangerous towards liberty than the Trump officials behind the ICE detentions. In the long term, the Trump wing is not the biggest threat we’re going to face; the even bigger danger comes from the liberal wing, which is right now planning its revenge. There is a growing conflict within the ruling class, and though we can take advantage of this conflict, it’s leading the most aggressive and powerful elements of the bourgeoisie to carry out recriminations. Recriminations that will be vastly bigger than the Russiagate censorship, which was how the liberal monopolists reacted to Trump’s first term.

They’re much madder now, because the tariffs have broken the neoliberal doctrine’s cultural grip. The guardians of the traditional liberal order see this as unforgivable; and their wrath isn’t even mainly directed at Trump himself. Their biggest fear is that the people will take advantage of the possibilities Trump has helped open up, and replace neoliberalism with socialism. As the ACP’s chairman Haz Al-Din has written:

TRUMP TARIFFS ARE THE BIGGEST ASSAULT ON NEOLIBERAL ECONOMIC DOCTRINE in American history. They have begun a REVOLUTION in economic thinking. Regardless of your views on them, they have now opened the door to all manner of heterodox, unconventional economic theories that lack 'expert' approval. The institutional academic 'experts' are reeling, crying, panicking. They are broken and humiliated. It is good to see them brought down, broken, and trampled underfoot popular political will…There must be immense short-term sacrifices to make our country industrially self-reliant. It is time to stop plundering developing countries, and work ourselves to make our country great…While the neoliberal 'experts' lie defeated on the ground with a boot on their neck, the door is open to begin advocating construction of Socialism with American Characteristics. Trump will not do it. What America needs is a mass popular movement that will push this revolution to its conclusion, toppling the neoliberal hegemony entirely.

This development has empowered the people, while driving the most zealously liberal elements of the deep state insane. Or rather more insane than they already were; we can’t forget that they tried to assassinate Trump twice, which could have sparked a civil conflict and vastly accelerated the country’s collapse. These two attempts failed because they weren’t organized by the dominant parts of the deep state; only by certain rogue actors, who were willing to defend neoliberal dominance at any cost. As the security apparatus mobilizes to crush the people, it will be much more unified. When these forces next hit back, they’ll hit back in ways we can’t imagine. We can guess large parts of how the counter-attack is going to look, though, and we must prepare accordingly.

——————————————————--

There are dozens of countries that the U.S. empire has invaded, destabilized, and kept under dictatorships or occupations; therefore, we can look at these countries to get a sense of how our ruling class will treat us. We can study Indonesia, and Palestine, and Yemen, and Iraq, and numerous other cases. It’s essential for us to study these things, and to take seriously the prospect that our government will apply the same methods from these foreign projects to the United States itself. There’s another aspect of this history, though, that we can’t afford to overlook. This is the part where the U.S. government has used psychological tactics, from propaganda to actual mind control, in order to proliferate ultraviolent mindsets among Americans.

These types of manipulation don’t just have the potential to mobilize anti-communists towards violence. They can also draw members of the struggle into the same perilous state of mind, where somebody has been persuaded to wantonly use violence or promote violence. There’s a difference between this kind of foolish behavior, and doing something like voicing support for Luigi Mangione; when communists support Luigi, or Hamas, or anyone else who’s used violence to combat oppression, it’s for principled reasons. Our class enemies want us to use the idea of revolutionary violence in an unprincipled way, and embrace ultraviolent practices that will alienate the masses from us.

Great numbers of the masses already support Luigi; that’s part of why we should support him. If a group that claims to represent the masses starts embracing behaviors which are objectively anti-social, though, and entertaining elements which don’t have the proletariat’s interests in mind, then this group lose. The danger is that in our desire to fight back against the state’s violence, we’ll fall into these self-destructive habits.

One of these habits is the act of fetishizing gang culture, and acting like the lumpenproletariat’s interests are synonymous with those of the workers. Another one is the glorification of drugs, which is quite prevalent within the New Left. Another one is to simply say things that you cannot say, and make threats of terrorism. The ACP has fostered a culture that firmly rejects all of these left-wing deviations, so in that area our movement has already won. But there are plenty of ostensibly communist orgs in this country that absolutely help cultivate such dangerous stupidity. It’s within the PSL’s membership where we’ve seen individuals who are willing to post some of the most explicit threats of violence that ACP has been subjected to. Though the left has become irrelevant in terms of its potential for mass pull, its ultraviolent elements continue to pose a security threat, and we need to pay close attention to this danger.

As we keep building this movement, and working to keep ourselves safe, the strategy we must adopt is one of maintaining a balance. A balance in all areas of how we think and act, where we avoid falling into any counterproductive pitfalls. It’s easy to react to something you experience in a way that ends up hurting you, at least if you haven’t yet been trained in how to stay grounded. Both the left-wing and right-wing deviationists have done this. And as our ruling class reacts to today’s crises by spreading ever-more chaos and fear, many people will be susceptible to this error. But when one has come to understand the nature of this conflict, and the role that revolutionaries have within it, they can gain clarity in what their task is. And they can stick to this task, via the guidance and support which a party provides.

What we are fighting against, in strategic terms, is the effort by our rulers to bring civil war upon the USA’s people. A civil war in which chaos and violence become ever-more prevalent, and the people are made into the victims of this engineered insanity. Our class enemies are mobilizing all the different ultraviolent societal elements, from radical liberals to neo-Nazis to criminal elements, as part of a project to terrorize and paralyze the masses. They see that the system is collapsing, and they want to inject reactionary violence into this process so that any revolutionary effort gets thwarted.

Part of this involves manipulating leftists into exacting violence against their fellow organizers; part of it involves recruiting alienated men into assassination efforts, like happened with the 20-year-old who put a bullet through Trump’s ear. Whichever elements the feds are targeting with this manipulation, the goal is to bring strategic chaos, which the state hopes it can manage.

We can make this project backfire, but we must be willing to change our tactics as the conditions keep evolving. We cannot be mechanistic, which means we can’t treat the chaotic events our society is experiencing as simply being all bad. It’s quite possible that the killing of Brian Thompson will be an early part in an American Years of Lead, where the country experiences a series of political attacks. Should a Years of Lead come, we won’t be able to stop it from happening; we’ll only be able to take advantage of it, and rally the masses as it further disrupts the liberal order.

Another development that we can’t overlook the value of is the tariffs, which have come precisely because the ruling class thought it could create managed chaos. Trump was allowed to win because the elites wanted to enact radical reforms, ones that could save the system. Now that they’ve gotten these reforms, it’s come with costs they didn’t anticipate, and the country’s revolutionary progress has been accelerated. It doesn’t matter that Trump has backed down by temporarily pausing most of the tariffs; there’s no reversing these gains they’ve brought for our cause.

Now the elites are going to unleash hell upon this country’s working class, pursuing even greater economic shock policies and carrying out an ever-more violent purge. We can overcome these attacks, but we can’t let the enormity of our task lead us to lose our balance. We will outmaneuver our class enemies, if we can navigate the next crises with flexibility. Like our allies abroad have done, we have to turn the tools of our enemies against them; this is how we must respond as the onslaught gets directed towards us.

Republished from Rainer’s Newsletter

​Pope Francis, who passed away on April 21, 2025, at the age of 88, was a figure of profound complexity, embodying both the contradictions of his time and the potential for transformative change within the Catholic Church. The socio-political changes in his home Argentina influenced Jorge Mario Bergoglio's viewpoint as the first Jesuit to become pontiff and the first Latin American pope. Pope Francis was an unexpected ally in the fight for social justice, especially because of his outspoken support for the Palestinian cause and his sharp criticism of global capitalism and neoliberalism.

​Despite having Catholic roots, his pontificate upended the status quo and served as a ray of hope for progressive ideas in a sea of conservatism. This article explores Francis's legacy, criticizes his early silence during the Argentine dictatorship, examines his progressive contributions—including opening up to the People's Republic of China and political engagement with individuals like Fidel Castro and contrasts his approach with that of his predecessor, John Paul II, whose anti-communist stance during the Cold War sided with Western interests.
 
Early Days of Silence
 
During Argentina's Dirty War (1976–1983), a time of severe state repression under a military dictatorship, Jorge Bergoglio's early career took place. An estimated 30,000 people went missing as a result of the regime's targeting of academics, labour unionists, and communists who were thought to be dissenters. Bergoglio was accused of collaboration as the leader of the Jesuit order in Argentina, especially in the abduction and torture of two Jesuit priests, Orlando Yorio and Francisco Jalics. Critics, particularly human rights campaigners and the Madres de Plaza de Mayo, felt that his silence throughout this period amounted to tacit support for the junta.
 
Nonetheless, the story is not biased. According to some reports, Bergoglio spoke with junta authorities to arrange the priests' release and helped others flee persecution in order to work behind the scenes to defend people. He visited her to show concern for priests working in slums, according to Alicia Oliveira, a friend and former Argentine judge who remembered him as being extremely critical of the dictatorship. These contradictory reports show how complicated his activities were at a very dangerous moment.
 
The Constructivist Lens: Contextualising Silence
 
From a constructivist approach, Bergoglio’s silence must be interpreted within the socio-political setting of Argentina in the 1970s. The dictatorship and the Catholic Church, a significant institution in Argentina, were closely linked, with some priests publicly endorsing the government's anti-communist campaign. Conservative Christians who supported the junta and economic interests frequently vilified communism and socialism as the "work of Satan." The Church leadership, especially the Vatican under Pope Paul VI and subsequently John Paul II, saw liberation theology, a movement that attempted to reconcile Christian teachings with Marxist critiques of structural inequality as heretical.
 
The limitations of Bergoglio's surroundings are reflected in his lack of engagement with liberation theology during this time. He worked as a Jesuit leader in an environment where open disagreement may result in persecution for both himself and the people he was responsible for. Despite criticism, his cautious attitude was perhaps a practical reaction to the oppressive environment. However, his exposure to the injustice and poverty of Argentina's slums, along with the emphasis on the poor in liberation theology, sowed the roots that would eventually grow into his papacy's progressive objectives.
 
Progressive Ideals and the Gospel as Communist
 
Pope Francis changed the tone of the Catholic Church when he took office in 2013, focusing on compassion, humility, and helping those who are less fortunate. He broke with the opulence of his predecessors by choosing to live in a modest Vatican guesthouse instead of the Apostolic Palace and by dressing simply. He denounced the "economy of exclusion and inequality" in his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, saying, "Such an economy kills". This critique of capitalism resonated with Marxist critiques of systematic exploitation, presenting Francis as a critic of global economic processes.
 
Francis deviated significantly from the Church's conventional position by being inclusive of the LGBTQ+ population. A change toward pastoral care over judgment was signaled by his 2013 statement, "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?". His words encouraged discussion and acceptance, which was in line with progressive movements that supported equality, even if he did not change Church teaching on homosexuality.
 
Communism and the Gospel: A Sociological Interpretation
 
In a 2022 interview, Francis made one of his most striking claims: “If I see the Gospel in a sociological way only, yes, I am a communist, and so too is Jesus”. This provocative statement reflects a sociological interpretation of the Gospel that critiques wealth accumulation and emphasizes communal welfare. Scholars like Terry Eagleton contend that Jesus' teachings, in particular, his exhortations for wealth redistribution, charity, and a rejection of material excess, reflect the class struggle and egalitarian tenets of Marxism. According to Eagleton, the early Christian communities as they were portrayed in the Acts of the Apostles shared resources to make sure no one was in need and lived in a manner reminiscent of socialism.
 
This connection is further highlighted by Francis's involvement with liberation theology. While he originally distanced himself from its Marxist features, labeling them as “ideological exploitation,” he subsequently welcomed its focus on the poor. His 2013 encounter with Gustavo Gutiérrez, a major liberation theologian, and his integration of issues like land, work, and housing into his World encounter of Popular Movements, reflect a reconciliation with the movement’s basic concerns. Francis was an appealing figure for Marxists looking for partners in the struggle against tyranny because of his nuanced approach, which enabled him to combine traditional Christian ideals with revolutionary social philosophy.
 
Constant Assistance to Palestine
 
One of the most notable aspects of Pope Francis's pontificate, especially in the latter years, was his dedication to the Palestinian cause. He was praised by activists for his persistent demands for peace in Gaza and his direct interaction with Palestinian people, which was in line with Marxist criticisms of occupation and imperialism. Francis called for a ceasefire, the release of hostages, and assistance for a "starving people that aspires to a future of peace" in his final public speech on Easter Sunday, April 20, 2025, from St. Peter's Basilica. He also denounced the "deplorable humanitarian situation" in Gaza. This message, which was read by an assistant because of his deteriorating health, demonstrated his constant attention to the suffering in the area.
 
Francis, who was hospitalized with pneumonia in early 2025, called the lone Catholic church in Gaza every day throughout Israel's war operation, giving prayers and solidarity. Israel responded diplomatically to his vocal condemnation of Israel's conduct, which included a statement in November 2024 urging the international community to look into whether the campaign amounted to genocide. With his support for Palestinian self-determination, Francis was able to establish himself as a moral voice opposing what many Marxists perceive to be imperialist aggression.
 
The Catholic Right and Conservative Critics
 
Conservative Catholics strongly opposed Pope Francis's progressive views, especially in the US, where a traditionalist movement became stronger while he was pope. Clergy and lay critics were among his detractors, accusing him of confusing fundamental beliefs like marriage and sexuality and of assuming an authoritarian leadership style while posing as humble. His economic criticisms and his use of inclusive terminology, such as referring to transgender people as "daughters of God" in 2023, were viewed as breaking with precedent.
 
Notable opponents included U.S. conservative media sources like EWTN, which exacerbated opposition, and Cardinal George Pell, who anonymously wrote a report calling Francis's pontificate a “disaster”. In response, Francis criticized his detractors' "backward" views, saying that holding onto tradition while denying doctrinal progress was a "suicidal attitude”. In contrast to his critics' dogmatic views, he emphasized the Church's function as a "field hospital" for a suffering world.
 
Diplomatic Overtures to China
 
Pope Francis’s efforts to improve relations with the People’s Republic of China are equally noteworthy. Since taking charge in 2013, Francis has expressed a desire to visit China and has taken concrete steps towards fostering better ties. The preliminary agreement on the appointment of bishops in China, agreed on September 22, 2018, was a historic step. This accord, while not creating official diplomatic relations, provides for a collaborative procedure in which China selects bishops and the pope has the ability to appoint or reject these suggestions.
 
The 2018 accord, characterized by Vatican officials as "not political but pastoral," seeks to reconcile the Catholic Church in China by guaranteeing bishops are in communion with Rome while still being recognized by Chinese authorities. Following the deal, Pope Francis accepted seven Beijing-appointed bishops, eliminating censures against those consecrated without papal authority. The arrangement has been extended several times, the most recent being in October 2024 for four years, suggesting that coordinated efforts are being made to maintain this sensitive partnership. 
 
Despite these limitations, Pope Francis' approach represents a long-term engagement and dialogue strategy aimed at establishing a Catholic Church presence in China that respects both religious freedom and national sovereignty. This approach stands in stark contrast to earlier popes' more hostile views, especially John Paul II, who played a key role in the demise of communist governments across Eastern Europe.
 
Conclusion
 
Pope Francis' papacy, which ended on April 21, 2025, changed the Catholic Church's role in a divided world. His progressive perspective, centered on compassion, economic critique, and solidarity with disadvantaged people like Palestinians and the LGBTQ+ community, challenged the Church’s conservative orthodoxy. Francis connected Christian ethics and revolutionary social philosophy by participating in liberation theology, establishing engagement with China, and applying a sociological lens to the Gospel, winning both acclaim and ire. His early quiet during Argentina's Dirty War is still debated, but his subsequent acts indicate a pragmatic growth molded by sociopolitical circumstances. In contrast to John Paul II's anti-communist campaign, Francis' legacy is a nuanced, inclusive ecclesiology that positions the Church as a moral counterbalance to global imbalances and a beacon for progressive development in the face of enduring conservative resistance.

NEW YORK, March 6 (RTSG) – The Federal Reserve in Atlanta is estimating a GDP shrinkage of -2.5 percent in the first quarter of 2025. While most outlets, including the Blue Chip Consensus, say that growth will remain relatively stable this quarter, Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow has given an ominous estimation of the health of the economy that has shocked both investors and consumers.

New indicators reported that consumers spent less than expected during the uncomfortable January weather and that exports were weak, which led to the downgrade. Prior to last week’s consumer spending report, GDPNow had been indicating growth of 2.3% for the quarter. This coincides with many other variables that might suggest that the economy is entering a slowdown.

The Commerce Department released a report saying that personal spending fell 0.2% in January, falling just below the Dow Jones estimate for a 0.1% increase. However, fully adjusted for inflation, spending fell 0.5%. As a result, that managed to remove a full percentage point off the expected contribution to GDP, down to 1.3%, according to the GDPNow calculation.

More concerning, however, were numbers coming out of the labor market as unemployment claims rose to 242,000, matching early October 2024’s numbers, causing concern among some investors.

Among the major drivers of GDP growth, including consumption, investment, government spending, and net exports, only government spending is remaining relatively stable, despite Elon Musk’s new “Department of Government Efficiency” promising to cut jobs and tighten spending. The U.S. House recently signed off on Trump’s proposed tax cuts and budgetary cuts bill which, if implemented, would sharply decrease government spending by $2 Trillion and loosen tax regulations by $4.5 Trillion.

​He’s the name on everyone’s lips. Whatever you think of him, at just 24 years old, Jackson Hinkle is a bonafide political force. Host of The Dive and co-founder of the Institute for a Free America, the California native boasts an impressive following.
 
Late last year, Hinkle — thanks mostly to his pro-Palestine content — became the world’s most viral Twitter personality. The self-described communist garnered a whopping 3.5 billion impressions in just one month. Elon Musk, Twitter’s megabillionaire owner, only managed 3.1 billion despite rigging the algorithm to promote his posts.
 
When not posting about Palestine, Hinkle tweets in support of other anti-imperialist struggles. Most recently, Hinkle has emerged as a prominent opponent of American efforts to coup Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro. Hinkle even visited the coastal nation to monitor the latest presidential election and interviewed its besieged executive.
 
While international commitments send him to far-flung corners of the globe, Hinkle remains committed to building the American Communist Party. As a member of its Executive Committee, Hinkle has been central to the launch of this budding political organization. While still in its infancy, the American Communist Party has already begun cleaning and clothing communities. It has even started developing relationships with other anti-imperialists throughout the world.
 
The Party’s International Secretary Chris Helali recently met with Nicaraguan ambassador Mauricio Lautaro Sandino Montes at the World Anti-Imperialist Platform. And the Party’s Secretary of Education, Carlos Garrido, met with the vice president of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela last month. Given Hinkle’s centrality in the party, his contacts in Yemen, Russia, and elsewhere may also develop connections with it. The American Communist Party has 13 chapters in the United States and Canada with more soon to come.
 
Hinkle is not just a social media presence but does anti-imperialist work on the ground too. Given that, you might expect the Left to uniformly embrace him. But opinions are divided. Detractors see Hinkle as more enemy than friend. Socialism Done Left, a popular creator of political explainer videos, has called him a “conservative [grifter]” for his attempts to court Republican voters. Progressive YouTube streamer Vaush even went so far as to compare Hinkle to neo-Nazis.
 
Hinkle’s defenders are no less forceful. They see him as a principled and savvy media operator, and a standard bearer for their foreign policy aims. For example, The Midwestern Marx Institute said those opposing Hinkle “side with the forces of empire.” Similarly, RTSG — a leftist research collective — considers Hinkle authentic, committed, and willing to sacrifice for righteous causes.
 
Now, Hinkle is of course far from perfect. Given the accelerating climate catastrophe, his environmental views — for example — are sometimes wildly errant. Hinkle calls himself “pro-fossil fuel” despite the need to “keep it in the ground” to avoid apocalyptic global temperature rises.
 
Yet this doesn’t justify abandoning him. The campsite rule provides a useful guide to assess whether Hinkle’s environmental views should be disqualifying. It asks if the person’s influence is a net positive. The rule gets its name from campsite signs that urge campers to leave the grounds better than they found them.
 
Undoubtedly, we’re all flawed. But the campsite rule counsels that, if the figure left the world better than they found it, you should support them. It’s a fundamentally utilitarian but fairly ironclad premise.
 
Despite erroneously promoting fossil fuels and calling environmentalism “anti-human,” Hinkle passes the campsite test. Hinkle’s ecological views are a vanishingly small part of his public presence. The bulk of his advocacy is anti-imperialist, exposing American empire and promoting those fighting to dismantle it. Hinkle’s fans know and love him for that, and may not even be aware of his environmental stances. Just as many leftists revere Joseph Stalin despite his affinity for oil drilling, they should support Hinkle.
 
Yet much of the Western Left seems content to purity test and summarily discard Hinkle for his least savory views. That is misguided as it risks letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Even if you grant that Hinkle has some bad takes, most are good. That’s especially true of the ones about he’s most vocal about — supporting economic independence and opposing exploitative neocolonial powers.
 
While those are the perspective he foregrounds, critics often fixate on Hinkle’s supposed social conservatism. Yes, he seemingly isn’t a rigid adherent of Western gender or sexuality theory. In fact, he appears to tolerate if not celebrate governments that endorse more traditional cultural values like Russia and China.
 
It’s understandable why leftist critics might reject what they see as Hinkle’s traditionalist streak. But it’s telling that they focus on Hinkle’s social views and not his foreign policy. The reason is simple. An unnerving number of Western leftists either don’t care enough about imperialism or, worse, believe State Department lies.
 
Too many professed socialists in the imperial core have drank the proverbial Kool-Aid. On issues from the Russo-Ukrainian conflict to airstrikes in Yemen, they sound just like John Bolton and Victoria Nuland. Vaush and his ilk seemingly take pride in being NATO’s biggest cheerleaders. Somehow the communists of the West cheerlead the world’s foremost anti-communist alliance. It’s no wonder they don’t credit Hinkle for his anti-imperialism; they’re on the opposite side of the struggle.
 
That’s no accident. For decades, elites have sought to sow within the Left the seeds of its own demise. In 1950, the CIA created the Congress for Cultural Freedom — a covert anti-communist civic organization. The Congress for Cultural Freedom operated in a smattering of countries throughout the West, and 35 globally.
 
It pushed intelligentsia — including ostensible progressives — to denounce socialist experiments, pulling the public away from Marxism and toward colonial capitalism. The Congress for Cultural Freedom dissolved in 1979. But an unfortunate number of Western leftists still follow its playbook.
 
Jackson Hinkle is not one of them. He’s an unabashed anti-imperialist stalwart, and even shines a light on the clandestine actors who seek to thwart his movement. Because Hinkle’s advocacy is comprised of overwhelmingly constructive positions, his impact is — on the whole — positive. He’s moving things in the right direction. Therefore trying to cancel Hinkle is actually anti-progressive. Western leftists harm their political ends Hinkle is helping advance by preferring to sacrifice that progress for purity’s sake.
 
Other critiques are more targeted and specific to Hinkle’s tone of commentary. Some contend that he jettisons nuance, painting the world in a Schmittian black and white of good versus evil. They see Hinkle’s adoption of conservative buzzwords like “deep state” and “cabal” as regressive and divisive — unbecoming of a political analyst. But there are a few points here.
 
First, Hinkle is still quite young. He hasn’t been on the far Left for very long. Like many young radicals, he began as a garden variety progressive before his recent political maturation. In other words, Hinkle is just 24. Give his skills of political analysis time to develop. They are already far beyond his years. Greater nuance will come and early signs are apparent to anyone who listens to his Rumble show The Dive.
 
But perhaps Hinkle isn’t a conventional political analyst. Maybe he’s better thought of as an agitative propagandist. Hinkle’s Twitter feed is one of forceful and repetitive political slogans that unambiguously express where his followers should stand. That is the essence of agitative propaganda. And the numbers don’t lie: Hinkle is one of the most effective digital propagandists on Earth. The movement needs people like him as revolutionaries of old recognized.
 
Yet by far the biggest problem Hinkle’s leftist critics have with him is his promotion of “MAGA communism.” Founded by fellow American Communist Party Executive Chairman and content creator Haz Al-Din, the apparent oxymoron consists of two basic premises. First, MAGA communists believe the irreverent movement behind Donald Trump held the potential to radicalize the American Left and Right. Second, they observe that many Trump fans detest the status quo and therefore might be open to communist ideas. MAGA communism was fundamentally an attempt to court Trump’s working-class base, rather than writing them off as a “basket of deplorables.” To that end, MAGA communists used patriotic imagery typically monopolized by the Right to woo Trump’s nationalistic base.
 
And that elicited the ire of many. Progressive author and academic Alexander Reid Ross dubbed MAGA communism “a deranged fringe movement.” Sam Seder, host of the left-wing Majority Report radio show, called it “word salad.” Others are even harsher. Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks suggested MAGA communism is akin to Nazism, coopting socialist rhetoric for fascist aims.
 
The criticism seems a bit hysterical when you consider that MAGA communism largely just synthesizes longstanding, formerly uncontroversial leftist ideas. Start with the idea that the Trump movement could create space for a more radical Left. Hinkle and his ilk were hardly the first to say this. It was the primary reason cultural theorist Slavoj Žižek, to many’s surprise, endorsed Trump in 2016. Even the late socialist commentator Michael Brooks, who ultimately endorsed Hillary Clinton, echoed the view. He said the rise of Trump and Bernie Sanders strengthened his conviction that the status quo could be broken. While Žižek faced backlash for endorsing Trump, his belief that MAGA could help catalyze a radical Left was widely shared. Yet Hinkle’s fellow leftists attack him for believing the same thing.
 
Similarly, Hinkle caught heat for believing the Left should try flipping Trump voters instead of dismissing them. But those same critics lauded Sanders for entering the lion’s den of Fox News to present his case to conservatives. In 2019, Jacobin magazine — America’s largest socialist publication — denounced the idea that most Trump voters are “an irredeemable monolith.” And it stressed the need for leftists to try reaching them. Hinkle merely shares this view. Unlike Jacobin, however, he has gotten seemingly endless flack for it — unjustifiably so.
 
MAGA communism isn’t a flavor of fascism, as Kasparian suggests. It’s merely a mode of outreach to anti-establishment conservatives. Hinkle is pulling people toward leftism — not Trump. Proof of this is that — especially as of late — Hinkle relentlessly criticizes the former commander in chief. Hinkle calls him “Zion Don” and “disgusting” for his pro-Israel exploits and has likened Trump’s genocide support to Nazi apologia.
 
But that doesn’t stop critics from attacking Hinkle’s use of patriotic symbols like the flag and other mainstays of Americana. This practice too was not just historically uncontroversial but a strategically obvious way for the Left to broaden its appeal. For example, renowned social scientists Karen Stenner has long called for leftists to adopt unifying symbology. In The Authoritarian Dynamic, Stenner advocates championing the pledge of allegiance and other patriotic practices to keep reactionaries at bay. What felt like common sense from the ivory tower suddenly became toxic when Hinkle said it.
 
Perhaps that’s unsurprising. After all, it’s easy to hate Hinkle, who’s a confessed provocateur. He admits to phrasing things in inflammatory ways for clicks. But he’s far from the only one doing that. Controversy and intrigue are the keys to survival in this saturated media market. Hinkle’s simply doing what it takes to elevate his message, which is a generally positive one. In that respect, he’s hardly unique.
 
Yet, in other respects, he absolutely is. Hinkle’s aesthetic isn’t that of the typical Western leftist. Between his movie star headshots and shirtless gym selfies, Hinkle doesn’t look especially bookish. He doesn’t wear flannels or don spectacles. Nor does he have the sort of beard that is oddly ubiquitous among white men on the American Left.
 
Hinkle’s leftism is virile and manly. Andrew Tate and his acolytes tell men to reclaim their masculinity by being sexist, materialistic degenerates. Hinkle is an antidote to this toxicity, telling men to instead reclaim their masculinity by being fiercely anti-imperialist. In other words, Hinkle speaks to disaffected young men and channels their frustration into productive causes.
 
For a long time, leftists have urged their side to do just that. Vaush and Kasparian did an entire segment condemning the leftist folly of ceding alienated young men to the Right. Hinkle doesn’t fall into that trap. Rather, he couples traditional masculinity with a compassionate politics — thus demonstrating that you can simultaneously be tough and kindhearted. Hinkle is precisely the sort of positive masculine influence the Left sorely needs. Yet the musclebound, cigar-smoking commentator who dates models seldom if ever gets credit for that.
 
Just looking at Hinkle, you’d probably guess he’s a conservative. He looks like your high school bully, and was himself homecoming king. That Hinkle superficially resembles the out group might reflexively bias some leftists against him, at least partly explaining their disdain.
 
But it’s incumbent upon them to overcome that base instinct. The popular criticisms of Hinkle lack teeth, and his impact is overwhelmingly positive. Hinkle achieved fame promoting exactly the sort of anti-imperialist positions necessary to overturn capitalist hegemony and build a better world. It’s an inspiring story — a dose of optimism in a political context that provides no shortage of reasons to despair. We should celebrate — not hate — Hinkle’s rise, and hope that more Hinkles will soon emerge.

Author

Youhanna Haddad is a North American Marxist of the Arab diaspora. Through his writing, he seeks to combat the Western liberal dogmas that uphold racial capitalism. You can contact him at [email protected].

T​he last few days have seen the U.S. ramping up its war on domestic political dissent in multiple ways, with U.S. lawmakers petitioning the Biden administration to crack down on anti-genocide protesters it suspects of foreign influence, and a journalist critical of U.S. foreign policy coming under the crosshairs of Washington’s increasingly weaponized Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

The FBI has raided the home of former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, a vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy toward Russia.

Consortium News reports:

• Federal agents removed Ritter’s electronic equipment and numerous boxes of paper files from his Albany, N.Y. area home Thursday on suspicion that the former U.N. weapons inspector is violating the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act.
• In a video posted to his Substack page, Ritter said that normally in alleged FARA violation cases the authorities send a letter to the subject of the inquiry informing them of the investigation. They do not send numerous F.B.I. agents to the door with a warrant to search and remove potential evidence.
• The warrant, a copy of which Ritter posted, only called for electronic devices to be removed, but the agents, whom Ritter said acted professionally, also removed boxes of paper United Nations files from his days as a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s. As Ritter says in the video, U.N. documents are never classified and could have nothing to do with the alleged FARA case against him.
• ‘So the idea that, this is normal procedure is absurd in the extreme. I’m not a foreign agent. What I am is a journalist. And this is how we need to couch this entire thing. What the F.B.I. did yesterday, what the United States government did yesterday, was a frontal assault not only on free speech, but a free press,’ Ritter said in the video.

​The U.S. has been getting increasingly aggressive in using FARA to suppress political speech that is critical of U.S. foreign policy, with dissident voices being increasingly targeted by the Department of Justice on accusation of circulating unauthorized ideas in collaboration with governments like China and Russia.

This coincides with a report from Ken Klippenstein about a letter sent to the White House by 22 members of Congress demanding that protesters against the U.S.-backed genocide in Gaza be investigated for any unauthorized affiliation with foreign governments, and severely penalized if any ties are found to “the Iranian regime”.

Klippenstein writes:

• Last Thursday, 22 members of Congress sent a letter to the Biden administration demanding the investigation and criminal prosecution as well as financial ruin of Gaza war protesters, whom they claim have received funding from Iran. ‘We write today regarding recent revelations that certain anti-Israel organizations in the United States have received funding from the Iranian regime,’ the letter begins. The revelation originated in a recent statement by Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, on top of statements by FBI director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco that Iran is trying to influence public opinion.
• The letter goes on to call for the Justice Department ‘to criminally prosecute and pursue civil forfeiture actions against any individual or entity that violates the law by receiving funding from the Iranian regime.’ It ends by urging ‘the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and Treasury to make public all available information, without compromising sources and methods, regarding Iran’s funding of these pro-Hamas organizations so that the American people can see who these groups truly are.’

​Klippenstein notes that the letter demands a list of individuals and organizations that have received direct or indirect support from Iran or any of its “affiliates”, copies of banking information on “anti-Israel groups” believed to have received sanctioned funding, and information regarding what “severe monetary penalties” will be imposed on those found to be in violation.

The U.S. empire has been doing everything it can to restrict the flow of inconvenient information as public opposition to its criminality swells at home and abroad. Propaganda, censorship, the war on the press, banning TikTok, consolidating the collaboration of Silicon Valley with U.S. government agencies, police crackdowns on campus demonstrators, and quashing political dissent are all outward manifestations of the agenda to manipulate the way the public thinks about what’s happening in the world.
​
The leaders of the U.S.-centralized empire understand that real power lies in the ability to control not just what happens in the world but what people think about what happens, because doing so allows them to act however they want to act without the risk of revolution. Our task as ordinary members of the public is to weaken their control of the dominant narratives in our civilization, and wake the public up to the truth of what’s really happening under the rule of this tyrannical power structure.

Author

Caitlin A. Johnstone is a rogue journalist; bogan socialist; anarcho-psychonaut; guerilla poet; utopia prepper. You can read Caitlin’s articles on Medium, Steemit and at her website. Caitlin is proudly 100 percent reader-funded through Patreon and Paypal. Follow her on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to her mailing list.

Originally published: Caitlin A Johnstone Blog

All around the country normal working-class Americans are asking themselves one question: why? Why is it that I am struggling to make ends meet at the end of the month? Why is the price I paid for the same groceries a couple years ago doubled today, while my wage or salary has stagnated? Why is it that I was forced to go into drowning debt for getting sick, daring to get an education, wanting a home for my family? Why are the politicians on my screens so keen on waging war on half the world with our tax dollars, but so averse to investing any money on the people and the country’s decaying infrastructure? Why is my day pervaded by stress when I drop my children off at school, not knowing whether they can be the next victim of the horrendous shootings all too common in our country? Why do none of the people who govern the country seem to care about the desperate and deteriorating conditions of those like my family, neighbors, and co-workers?
​
Poor, indebted, and desperate, the American working class has begun to organically question the assumptions of the ruling capitalist order. While they have been generationally fed the idea that America is the greatest country on earth, where freedom, democracy, and equality reign, today the desperation they experience in their everyday lives has made critical reflection necessary, spontaneous though it might still be. Can there be any real equality between those in their class and those that benefit from their toil, indebtedness, and instability? Can there be any freedom for the men and women enchained for life to a debt they owe a major bank? Can there be freedom and equality for the millions of children going to sleep hungry every night in America, or the 600 thousand homeless wandering around in a country with 33 times more empty homes than homeless people? Can there be any democracy in a system where the people who control the major corporations, banks, and investment firms hold power over the state, using it to enforce their will, I.e., the accumulation of capital, as the bottom line and most supreme value in all social relations?

What has emerged, then, is a serious crisis of legitimacy. Faith in the ruling institutions of the capitalist class is rapidly diminishing. Only 11 percent of the American public trusts the mainstream media, the main ideological institutions of the capitalist ruling class. The politicians which enforce the interests of the owners of big capital aren’t doing much better, with just 19 percent of Americans holding that their elected representatives actually represent them. It is clear to the American people, albeit in a form that is still abstract and embryonic, that the media is simply there to manipulate them into consenting to the agenda of the ruling class — twisting facts, lying, and removing context to invert reality on ongoing world events. It is evident to them that their so-called representatives are in reality the representatives of their exploiters, oppressors, and parasitic creditors.

Out of this general and spontaneous rejection of the current state of affairs has arisen various different forms of dissent in the American working class. Some were mobilized by the Bernie Sanders movement in 2016 and 2020, seeing in it the potential for a genuine political, although not social, revolution which could guarantee the basic rights afforded in social democracies but absent in our country. In the same years, some were captivated by Donald Trump and his call to Make America Great Again (MAGA), which for many working-class folks in the country signified a striving to return to an age long gone, where their parents and grandparents could secure comfort in life and a high standard of living with a normal working-class job. Others have taken various apolitical routes, showing antipathy in the face of a political arena where they rightly observe that, as of right now, they have no ability to change anything.

While others are certainly present, these three have been the major channels for working people to express their discontent in the ruling order. Many, many flaws are evidently present in each route. But they all share a common rational kernel — the rejection of the status quo, and in the first two, the faith and willingness to work towards changing it. As it currently exists, however, one route leads to paralysis in the face of the task of constructing something new, while the other two have led to fake prophets being elevated as embodying the interests of the people, while they, in reality, have merely expressed more novel and disguised ways of upholding the same ruling order. We are in the period where it becomes evident that the hopes of 8 years ago are hollow, that a new way of framing and articulating discontent must be sought.

For us, only a communist party can live up to this task. A communist party is, after all, fundamentally the vehicle for the most advanced detachment of the working class to win the faith of the critical mass and guide their struggles to the finish line — the conquest of political power. It is a communist party which has the potential of giving these different forms of dissent some coherence, unity, and direction. Coherence arises out of the systematic understanding of the ills individuals face — ills which are not individual moral failings but systemic in character. Unity is premised on this coherence, on the understanding of our commonality of interests and our shared source of discontent. And direction arises out of the previous two — only when we can coherently understand the social order upon which our troubles are based can we see that in its own contradictions there’s a way forward. In the correct understanding of the problem, we find the premises through which the solution can be sought. When the decaying capitalist system we have before us is comprehended so too is the fact that working people — the producers of all value in society — have it within their power, as a class, to build a world anew in their own image. Once this recognition of our shared fundamental reality is achieved and the varied forms of dissent unified, then the steps forward will show themselves in the process of a struggle clear about its direction.

Lamentably, the historical communist party in our nation has shown itself incapable of living up to the task of the organization which bears that name. It has sought class collaboration in the era where class struggle is an imminent reality. It has sided, under the cynical auspices of ‘fighting fascism,’ with the Democratic Party whilst such organization has sent hundreds of billions in U.S. taxpayer money to neo-Nazis in Ukraine for a proxy war against Russia. It has supported this party through its murderous funding and equipping of the Zionist entity’s genocide in Palestine. It is a “communist” party which objectively has supported fascism and class collaboration under the justification of fighting that which they precisely support. Fascism, for them, is simply the social conservatives who disagree with the more liberal social values recently accepted by the forces of hegemony. For them the fascist threat emanates from our conservative co-workers and not the capitalist state that uses both parties to fund war and genocide. But what can be more fascist than supporting, financing, and equipping a genocide carried out by a white supremacist apartheid state?

The “communist” party USA spits on the legacy of Stalin, Dimitrov, and the great anti-fascist fighters of the world communist movement when it cites them tongue in cheek to support the fascistic American state. It forgets that, as Michael Parenti wrote “the fascist threat comes not from the Christian right or the militias or this or that grouplet of skinheads but from the national security state itself, the police state within the state.”[1] These are the forces which enforce the “open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital,” central to the Marxist understanding of fascism, elaborated in the brilliant work of Georgi Dimitrov.[2] The “communist” party USA operates, therefore, with an idealist and anti-Marxist understanding of fascism when it ignores the role of fascism as a form of capitalist governance in periods of crisis. It reduces fascism to a problem of ideas in the mind, and it’s unable to see how, as a form of capitalist governance in crisis, it’s been present here in both parties all along. The basic understanding of the spurious dialectic of Democrats and Republicans, of the unending and performative back-and-forth used to mask the continuity of the imperialist state and serve its continual reproduction, is completely lost on these “communists.” They side with one side of the capitalists, imperialists, and fascists. In doing so they don’t actually fight against the ‘fascist threat’ they so often invoke but reinforce it. They feed into the spectacle of American politicking; they become complicit in its operations.

But errors in party lines are amendable when the operational method of a communist party is upheld. Democratic centralism, when actually present, gives the party the potential to rectify — to improve its understanding of the situation and its failings. It allows the slippages into social chauvinism, opportunism, and ultraleftism (so evident in the cpUSA) to be reeled in and corrected. But here too, the “Communist” Party USA has completely violated its obligations. Ample evidence has shown that at the 32nd National Convention party democracy was thwarted, and democratic centralism tossed out the window.[3] And when those courageous cadres sought to rectify this usurping of the party — this coup of the American working class’s historic organization by a small clique of lifelong bureaucrats — through constitutional means stood up to share a petition requesting the democratic consultation thwarted at the convention, all real communists were purged, often expelling whole clubs themselves. The evidence has been documented and made public. As was made evident, the ruling clique of the cpUSA, then, has completely destroyed party democracy in order to defend its support for class collaboration with a party that supports Nazis and carries out genocidal wars on native peoples.

But no amount of fettering the class struggle would achieve their desired stoppage of the movement of history. An organization of the working class, grounded not in middle class professionals and bureaucrats but in the working class itself, guided by Marxism-Leninism and not the purity fetish, was bound to arise. On July 7th of 2024 this organization was born. It’s birth, as Executive Chairman Haz Al-Din noted, was itself a triumph in deed, not merely in word.[4] It brought together a broad group of different communist forces, stemming from those which were unconstitutionally purged by the cpUSA, to carry forth the struggle together, to reconstitute the American Communist Party our people so desperately need. It is bounded not by abstract and pure doctrines, but by the living science of Marxism-Leninism, which sees truth in the deed, in practical results and organizational achievements. Our standard of success will not be the construction of theory built off of the purest abstract ideas. Our standard of success will be our capacity to fulfill the role history has assigned to the American Communist Party, namely, to provide the coherence, unity, and direction that can get our people out of the perpetual crises which have pervaded our decaying capitalist mode of life, and establish in its place a society of, by, and for working people — Socialism.

Notes

[1] Michael Parenti, America Besieged (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1998), 119.

[2] Georgi Dimitrov, Against Fascism and War (New York: International Publishers, 1986), 2.

[3] Our Institute has a whole playlist discussing the 32nd National Convention and interviewing around a dozen purged members. You can watch the six videos in that playlist here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk7JuLxXsW8&list=PLxhlh6ux6zSnGUbwuHGusdJTTyYkNie_C&pp=gAQBiAQB

[4] First address to the public from Executive Chairman Haz Al-Din:
https://x.com/ACPMain/status/1815807197806248215

“The gradual crumbling that left unaltered the face of the whole,” writes the German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel in his Phenomenology of Spirit, “is cut short by a sunburst which, in one flash, illuminates the features of the new world.” What he has described are the nodal points where, after the contradictions within totalities intensify, conditions are created for great ruptures for qualitative leaps into new worlds.

This is what multipolarity signifies. It is a geopolitical revolution, a qualitative leap into a radically new world. It is premised on the intensification of the contradictions inherent in the Western imperialist system, especially the unipolar form it took since 1991 when it had free reign to dominate the world after the fall of the Eastern socialist bloc. That was a time when the West proclaimed, laughably, that we had arrived at the “end of history.” The subject for this proclamation, of course, was Francis Fukuyama – but he spoke on behalf of the arrogance and hubris of the Western world as a whole. The West’s short-lived fantasy of the end of history has itself come to an end. As Vladimir Putin said in a seminal speech of September 2022, “The world has entered a period of a fundamental, revolutionary transformation.”

In proclaiming the end of history, the West showed an ignorance of the best insights its thinkers have provided to the world. How absurd is it that the civilization that gave birth to Heraclitus and Goethe and Hegel and Marx could come to naively accept such a static and historical position? It was Heraclitus who taught us that “everything flows and nothing abides” and that “everything gives way and nothing stays fixed.” It was Goethe, speaking through Mephistopheles in Faust, the greatest work in the history of German literature, who wrote that “all that comes to be deserves to perish wretchedly.” The unipolar world, dominated by the US and its NATO junior partners, came to be in the last decade of the 20th century. But, as Mephistopheles might have predicted, three decades later, we are seeing it perish wretchedly.

We are in a period of transition where the drive, as Pepe Escobar has written, “towards a multipolar, multinodal, polycentric world” is evident. Putin, in his speech at the recent St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), called it a “harmonic multipolar world.” Here too, Putin is developing insights that should not be foreign to the West. “The world’s virtue,” wrote the great Pythagoras, “is harmony.” It is one that contains within it a relational complementarity between the many. It is a world, as Mexican economist Oscar Rojas has written, where nations and civilizations can function as Free Associated Producers – sovereign, unhindered by external powers seeking to unilaterally impose their will on the world.

Putin is also here following in the footsteps of the insights developed by China’s civilizational state, as Zhang Weiwei calls it, which has always emphasized “building a harmonious society” and a “harmonious world” (the latter popularized by Hu Jintao), phrases developed from the ancient Chinese concept of taihe (overall harmony). It is a worldview in line with China’s constitutional commitment to “work to build a community with a shared future for mankind,” a frequent expression used by Xi Jinping and top Chinese leadership. This future is premised on developing a world that breaks from the unilateral imposition of one nation’s will over another and instead centers itself on win-win relations between sovereign nations and civilizations.

The expansion of multipolar institutions such as BRICS+, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Eurasian Economic Union, and others are beginning to build the skeleton for the new world. The proposals for a new BRICS+ payment infrastructure and an “apolitical, transactional form of cross-border payments,” called The Unit, which is “anchored in gold (40%) and BRICS+ currencies (60%),” signifies significant steps toward de-dollarization – an integral component of breaking US global dominance and building a multipolar world.

As an American, I inhabit a world that is crumbling wretchedly. While I look cheerfully upon the development of the new world (what I have called a post-Columbian, post-1492 world), I recognize that it is the elite of my country, those who our politicians represent, who are fighting tooth and nail to preserve their global system and abort the birth of the new world.

The leaders of the West are right to assume that they are fighting an existential struggle. However, they’re wrong in postulating that what is at stake is "democracy" or Western values and civilization. Instead, what is actually at stake is their colonial and imperialist dominance over the whole world. What is actually at risk of perishing wretchedly is not the West per se, but the system – erected more than 500 years ago – which elevates the accumulation of capital to the level of supremacy, over and above the community, the individuals and families, and civilizational traditions. It is the system that brought forth the genocide of the natives, the enslavement of the Africans, the looting of the world, and the impoverishment, oppression, and indebtedness of working people within the West itself, it is this system, which stands as a vampire sucking the lifeblood of humanity, which is finding an end to its reign.

Where does this leave America? Where does this leave Americans?

​We must recall the famous words of Peruvian indigenous politician Dionisio Yupanqui, uttered in his 1810 speech to the Cortes de Cádiz, “A people that oppresses another cannot be free.” The American people have not been benefactors of the global dominance of their imperialist government. For all their government’s talk of democracy, freedom, and government of, by, and for the people, what the American people have actually experienced has been an oligarchy, dictatorship, and government of, by, and for the owners of big corporations, banks, and investment firms. The so-called representatives of the American people have, all along, been in reality the representatives of the exploiters, oppressors, and parasitic creditors of the American people.

What we have seen, as American political theorist Michael Parenti has written, is how the American empire has “fed off the republic.” In the words of Tupac, the American hip-hop sensation, the imperialist state has always had money for war but never to feed the poor. There are always hundreds of billions that can be scrambled for Neo-Nazis in Ukraine and for the Zionist entity to continue its genocide in Palestine, but never for infrastructure, for fighting poverty, illiteracy, and ignorance, and for guaranteeing housing and healthcare – there is never money for lifting the living standards of the hard-working people upon whose backs and labor the existence of the country is premised.

If multipolarity means an existential threat to the American elite, what does it mean for the American people? Quite simply – HOPE.

The real enemies of the American people are those who wish to colonize Russia, China, and Iran… those who sanction a third of the world’s population and who seek to loot the resources and super exploit the labor of foreign lands. It is those – currently being defeated by Russia and the Axis of Resistance in multinodal frontlines – who send our countrymen abroad to lose limbs, scar their souls, and sometimes return in caskets, all to murder people whom they had more in common with than the filthy parasites who sent them there and who profited from their misfortune.

The real enemies of the American people are those who keep us poor, indebted, and desperate, and it is this same enemy – and the system they’re a personification of – that the multipolar world is challenging.

The interests of the American people, therefore, are in line with the interests of the Russian struggle against NATO encroachment, of the Axis of Resistance’s struggle against the Zionist entity, and of China’s struggle against US encirclement, delinking, and provocations in Taiwan.

The interests of the American people, in short, are aligned with the bourgeoning multipolar world. It is in the interests of America to be a pole in the multipolar world.

America, as a young civilizational project, is in many ways similar to China. China’s ancient (yet highly modern) civilization emphasizes, as Zhang Weiwei writes, the “Confucian idea of unity in diversity.” But so does the American project, at least its best parts – the parts the people are most fond of. The Confucian idea of unity in diversity is captured in E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one), the motto of the United States. Here we find an acknowledgment of the importance of pluralism that is contained within monism, that is, of particulars that are contained within a totality through which they obtain their meaning, and reciprocally, influence its general trajectory.

The premises for accepting America as a pole within the multipolar world are, therefore, already present in the values the American people accept as common sense. We would be a part of that complementary many, of that multiplicity, which would both be conditioned by the new relations of a multipolar world but reciprocally capable of playing a constructive role in its development.

This could be the future the American people are incorporated in once the world dominated by their parasitic leaders is brought down. However, this transition will never be offered to us by those same interests who threaten humanity with a global holocaust via a third, nuclearized, World War to sustain their decrepit hegemony and global power.

America’s incorporation into this bright new future can only be, as was our revolution in 1776, a product of a deep struggle against the old, decaying world of our oligarchs and political class. It is a world that has to be won by the fighting spirit of the American people. As the cleavage in our country between the elite and the people becomes more pronounced than ever before, it will be the forces that can give the people’s varied forms of dissent some coherence, unity, and direction, which will ultimately win out. Only then can America be incorporated as a constructive partner in the building of a multipolar world. Only then, when our society is actually of, by, and for the people, will the impetus of global dominance be squashed, and America find itself as a participant in building a community with a shared future for mankind.

​Last month, I went to Cuba as part of a 20-person delegation to deliver USD 60,000 in critical life-saving cancer medications and medical supplies to two pediatric hospitals there. This delegation was organized by Hatuey Project, a volunteer-run organization that regularly brings medical and humanitarian aid to Cuba. As part of the 10-day trip, we met with representatives of different Cuban organizations, institutions, and even members of Parliament. Through these exchanges, we learned about how the people of Cuba are engaged in its ongoing revolutionary process, their project of building socialism, and the impacts of US policy on everyday life.
​
Here are three key lessons I drew from our delegation.

1. All of Cuban society has been impacted by the US blockade

The US blockade on Cuba, in place since the 1960s, is an act of economic warfare. The political motivations behind it have been clear since the very beginning: to make life so miserable on the island that the Cuban people will direct their frustrations against the Communist Party and overthrow it, making way for US business interests to take hold again. This has been US policy toward Cuba for over 60 years.

As representatives we spoke to emphasized, there is no sector of society that the blockade does not touch. Conditions are now worse than ever: The blockade has led to extreme shortages in food, flour, and fuel. Electrical blackouts are becoming more and more frequent.

Meanwhile, farmers cannot grow food on a mass scale, because the blockade denies them the pesticides, fertilizers, and equipment to do so. Many have relied on countries such as Mexico donating tractors, hoes, and other farm supplies.

When receiving our medical delivery, a doctor at a children’s hospital in Santa Clara relayed to us that medicine is what is most needed and yet most affected by the blockade. The blockade not only prevents crucial medications from reaching the island, but also the raw materials and science and technology needed to produce them. And as the most effective cancer treatments are often US-produced and doctors do not have access to those, they often seek alternative treatments that are not as effective. This has an obvious impact on survival rate.

The doctors also lamented that fuel scarcity makes it extremely difficult for families of patients to travel back and forth from their homes to the hospital. On top of that, food scarcity creates even more hardship for these families. As we came to understand, the blockade doesn’t just affect individual things in isolation; it creates overlapping crises with which everyday Cubans must contend.

This is the cruel price that the Cuban people continue to pay for their socialist project.

2. Cuba shows us that another world is possible

Cuba is an example that a future exists beyond capitalism, and that future is worth fighting for.

Cuba’s government represents a democracy virtually unknown to us in the United States. On our last day, we met with several members of Parliament, or the National Assembly of People’s Power—the country’s highest political body. Unlike in the US, these government representatives do not receive a salary nor do they represent any groups with certain political interests. Nor do they have election campaigns or receive campaign funding.

As one member of the Assembly told us, “Policy is not a business. It’s a responsibility of the revolutionary project we have built.”

Popular consultation between government officials and community members is an important democratic principle in Cuba. Every new potential law is debated and refined through this process, including the new Families Code passed in 2022. The high level of political participation among the Cuban people can likely be attributed to their faith in this democratic consultative process.

And in spite of the blockade, Cuba mobilizes what scarce resources it has in service of its people, especially its most vulnerable. We were constantly in awe with how much Cuba did with so little. At the hospitals we visited, our delegation—accustomed to navigating the byzantine for-profit US healthcare and insurance systems—was immensely impressed at the dedication of staff to provide comprehensive and quality care to patients despite the extreme hardships brought by the blockade.

We also visited the Quisicuaba Agricultural Camp in Artemisa Province, an assisted living center for the homeless, as well as the elderly who need support in their later years. Since landlordism was abolished in Cuba after the revolution, the conditions which drive homelessness there are different than in the US In Cuba, homelessness is usually caused by mental health issues, alcoholism, or loss of family support, rather than eviction.

Quisicuaba provides residents with accommodation, clinical and psychological treatment, three meals a day, along with workshops and daily programming. There is a farm on the camp where, together, residents grow bananas, sweet potatoes and cassava, along with livestock. The camp fosters a community setting among residents, and its primary goal is protection and rehabilitation in order for them to be reincorporated back into society. Assisted living centers like Quisicuaba are subsidized by their provincial governments.

Meanwhile in the US, over half a million people experience homelessness with no government support, and faced with the substandard conditions of most homeless shelters, they often choose to remain on the streets rather than seek refuge. This is an unconscionable reality of living in the US—our government spends billions of dollars on war and to bankroll Israel’s genocide in Gaza while homelessness skyrockets, people can’t afford basic necessities, and infrastructure crumbles.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Cuba shows us that another world is possible, one that centers humanity and dignity of life over profit.

3. We must firmly reject despair in fighting for this new world

Yet despite the hardships created by the blockade, we were struck by how warm the Cuban people were toward us, the pride they exuded when talking about their revolution, and their steadfast commitment not to kneel to US policy. One of my favorite parts of the delegation was a trip to the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, a research institute in Havana.

The scientist we spoke to there recalled that one of the proudest moments of his life was contributing to Cuba’s COVID-19 vaccine. They named that vaccine “Abdala,” after a poem written by Cuban national hero José Martí in which the titular character defends his homeland of Nubia against Spanish occupiers. Martí wrote that poem during Cuba’s Ten Years’ War against Spain. At the forefront of people’s minds is their struggle for sovereignty and national liberation, always.

The scientist told us, “When your idea is correct, you must fight to the end.”

This was a key takeaway for me as someone living in the US, especially given the level of cynicism and pessimism among some sectors of the Left here. The US blockade has now been in place for over 60 years. Most Cubans alive now have lived their entire lives under blockade. If the Cuban people remain so determined to defend the gains of their revolution, if they maintain their sense of revolutionary optimism even under the most severe of conditions, what excuse do we have to feel despair about what we are up against? About fighting US imperialism?

I believe that type of pessimism is a luxury afforded to us, but we must reject it. Despair is a shirking of our collective responsibility as those living in the heart of empire. Our own government has robbed the Cuban people of so much over the course of centuries, from occupation to the current blockade. It is our responsibility to combat the vicious policies of the US. Only when US imperialism is overturned will countries like Cuba be allowed to breathe and develop to their full potential. We do this first and foremost through getting organized, so that we can build capacity to weaken imperialism from within. That is a responsibility we all share as those living in the belly of the beast. We owe it to people in places like Cuba.

​In the first week of June 2024, the Palestine office of the World Health Organization (WHO) released figures about the atrocious attacks on health care facilities and workers in Gaza since October 7, 2023. Thus far, according to the WHO, the Israelis have attacked 464 health care facilities, killed 727 health care workers, injured 933 health care workers, and damaged or destroyed 113 ambulances. “Health care,” the WHO’s Palestine office argues, “is not a target.” And yet, during the past seven months, health care workers have faced relentless attacks by the Israeli military. Each of the stories about the deaths is heartbreaking, the names of the dead are too long to list in any article (although a group called Healthcare Workers for Palestine did read the names of their dead colleagues as a protest against this war). But some of the stories are worth reflecting on because they tell us about the commitment of the workers and the great loss to humanity from their murder.
​
Dr. Iyad Rantisi, who was 53 years old, ran the Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahiya, which lies in the northern part of Gaza. There are many Rantisis in Gaza, but they are not native to that part of Palestine. Like many Palestinians who live in Gaza, they have roots in other parts of Palestine from which they had been expelled in the Nakba of 1948; the Rantisis come from the village of Rantis, northwest of Ramallah. 

On November 11, 2023, during the Israeli military assault inside northern Gaza, Dr. Rantisi was taken into custody at an Israeli military checkpoint when he tried to leave northern Gaza for the south, following the orders of the Israeli military. Since then, his family had not heard anything about his whereabouts. Now, months later, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that he was taken to the Shikma Investigation Center of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), which is inside the Ashkelon Prison. Dr. Rantisi was tortured and then killed six days into his detention. His family was not informed of this until the Haaretz report. Then, Dr. Rantisi’s daughter Dima wrote of the death of her father, a social media post that she paired with photographs of him in medical scrubs performing surgery on a patient.

Dr. Adnan Al-Barsh, also 53, trained in Romania before he returned home to Gaza to head the orthopedic department at Al-Shifa Hospital. He has a reputation of being a very loved doctor, whose office was crowded with his diplomas (from Jordan, from Palestine, from the United Kingdom). When the Israeli military attacked al-Shifa, Dr. Al-Barsh was forced to leave his post, but he did not leave his work. He first went to Kamal Adwan Hospital, where Dr. Rantisi worked, and then to Al-Awda Hospital in the area east of the Jabaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza, which was also attacked several times by the Israelis. On December 18, 2023, the Israeli military raided Al-Awda and took Dr. Al-Barsh and other hospital personnel into custody. Included among those arrested was the manager of the hospital and another very popular doctor, Dr. Ahmed Muhanna. On October 15, 2023, Dr. Muhanna made a video—which went viral—in which he pleaded to the world for help and for an immediate ceasefire. It is now reported that on April 19, 2024, Dr. Al-Barsh was killed by the Israelis in Ofer Prison. Tlaleng Mofokeng, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, said, “Dr. Adnan’s case raises serious concerns that he died following torture at the hands of Israeli authorities.”

Dr. Hammam Alloh, age 36, was killed when an Israeli missile struck his home near his ward in Al-Shifa Hospital on November 12, 2023. Trained in Yemen and Jordan, Dr. Alloh was Gaza’s only nephrologist, a kidney specialist. Concerned about his patients who were on dialysis, particularly with the lack of electricity and the constant attacks, Dr. Alloh—who was known as “The Legend” during his residency in Jordan—refused to leave the hospital. On October 31, Dr. Alloh was asked why he did not abandon his post and go to southern Gaza. “If I go,” he replied calmly, “who would treat my patients? We are not animals. We have the right to receive proper health care. You think I went to medical school and for my postgraduate degrees for a total of 14 years so I think only about my life and not my patients?” This was the caliber of Dr. Alloh. Less than two weeks later, when he left his post to have a rest at home with his parents, his wife (pregnant with a child), and his two children, the Israelis struck his home. He died alongside his father.

At the International Court of Justice in January 2024, the Irish lawyer Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh made the closing arguments for South Africa’s claim of genocide against Israel. In the course of her statement, Ní Ghrálaigh showed an image of a whiteboard with the following written on it: “Whoever stays until the end will tell the story. We did what we could. Remember us.” These lines had been written by 38-year-old Dr. Mahmoud Abu Najaila, who worked as a physician for Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) at Al-Awda Hospital in northern Gaza. On November 21, 2023, the Israeli military bombed the third and fourth floors of the hospital, where Dr. Najaila worked with Dr. Ahmad Al-Sahar and Dr. Ziad Al-Tatari. All three of them were killed.

On her LinkedIn page, Reem Abu Lebdeh, a physiotherapist who was an associate trustee on the board of MSF’s UK branch, wrote, “Such a devastating loss for the medical community and humanity.” These doctors, whom she knew, she said, “were true embodiments of selfless service and humanitarian dedication, tirelessly saving lives in the most urgent conditions.” Then a few weeks later, sometime in December, the Israelis attacked a residential area in Khan Younis and killed Reem Abu Lebdeh, whose own messages of solidarity now sit on the web like Dr. Najaila’s whiteboard note: Remember us.

​The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre once called Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara the “most complete human being of our age.” Today, 96 years after his birth, it is still difficult to find a better example of the socialist human being than the one who proclaimed courageously with his unforgettable last words, “Shoot, coward! You are only going to kill a man!” Che was for Fidel Castro “the most extraordinary of [the] revolutionary comrades;” a man with an infectious character who organically lifted those around him to emulate his revolutionary virtues of “altruism,” “selflessness,” and the “immediate [and] instantaneous willingness” he had towards “carrying out the most difficult missions” for the socialist struggle. Although carried by a Herculean courage and a spartan attitude in the face of difficulties, in the speech Fidel gives in memory of Che he says that it is
​
In the field of ideas, in the field of feelings, in the field of revolutionary virtues, in the field of intelligence, apart from its military virtues, where we feel the tremendous loss his death has meant for the Revolutionary movement.

The bourgeois Ideologues who serve as the theoretical and rhetorical mouthpieces of the capitalist ruling class will pile garbage on the reputation of any historical figure who successfully advances the struggle for socialism, Che Guevara is no exception. As he had already eloquently noted in a 1961 speech in Santa Clara, “it is the nature of imperialism which bestializes men, turning them into wild blood thirsty beasts willing to behead, to kill, to destroy the last image of a revolutionary, of a partisan, of a regime that has either fallen under its boot, or still fights for freedom.” However, Che lived his life in a way that made him exceedingly difficult for the bourgeois imperialist media to criticize. How can you, after all, criticize someone who fell defending “the cause of the poor and the humble of this Earth,” and that, as Fidel noted, did so in such “an exemplary and selfless way” that “not even his most bitter enemies dare to dispute?”

Che believed that a necessary component in the construction of a socialist society is the creation of a ‘new socialist man,’ free of the selfish and individualistic traits that are common among individuals existing within capitalist relations of production. For Che, every revolutionary should strive to exemplify the new socialist man in their actions, through being honest, hardworking, incredibly studious, and willing to labor for the good of the collective society. This marks a radical transition away from the capitalist notion of growth centered on an individual’s accumulation of capital and commodities, and towards a socialist notion of growth centered on human flourishing – towards a notion of the human being as the unique expression of the ensemble of relations they are embedded in as individuals dialectically interconnected to the social. As Che told the Union of Young Communists (UJC) in a 1962 speech, “the young communist must strive to be the first in everything…to be the living example and mirror through which our companions who do not belong to the young communist see themselves.” This meant that young communists must

be essentially human. To be so human you become closer and closer to perfecting the best attributes of being human. To purify the best attributes of man through work, studies, and the exercise of continual solidarity with our people and all people around the world. To develop to the maximum his sensibilities, to the point of feeling anguished when a man is assassinated in another corner of the world, and enthusiastic when in some corner of the world, a new flag of freedom is raised.

Che himself became increasingly disciplined as he got older and serves as a shining example of the socialist virtue-ethic he hoped would shape the next generations of Cuban communists. Since his death, generations of young Cubans have exerted themselves in the process of constructing the new socialist human being through the maxim: “pioneers for communism; we will be like Che.”

For Che, the transition to socialism could not just be reduced to changes in political economy, a fundamental transformation of the human being through the development of socialist culture was necessary. As Michael Löwy notes, Che held “the conviction that socialism is meaningless and consequently cannot triumph unless it holds out the offer of a civilization, a social ethic, a model of society that is totally antagonistic to the values of petty individualism, unfettered egoism, [bourgeois] competition, [and] the war of all against all that is characteristic of capitalist civilization [and] this world in which ‘man eats man.’” Not only was it necessary to raise the intellectual and cultural life of the mass of working people by developing “a consciousness in which there is a new scale of values,” but this transformation should not be limited to the ideological-political superstructure; it must also embed itself in the economic foundation of society through what he prescribed as the need for “a complete spiritual rebirth in one's attitude toward one's own work.” As Vijay Prashad notes, “it was this new moral framework that motivated Guevara’s agenda to build socialism… if a new society had to be created, it had to be created through a new moral fiber.”

Like any successful historical revolutionary, Che stressed the importance of reading and intensive study. Guevara himself was known to read incessantly throughout the entire course of his life. As a young boy playing soccer in Argentina, he would read Marxist theory while waiting to play on the bench, especially when horrific asthma attacks would pull him from the games. As the Cuban guerrillas waged their revolutionary struggle in the Sierra Maestra, Che would teach classes on Marxist economics and philosophy to the revolutionaries who would be tasked with managing Cuban society after the gangster dictator Batista was toppled. When he was in Africa at the forefront of anti-colonial struggles, he was reading none other than G.W. F. Hegel. In this manner, in the germs of the Cuban revolutionary process Che had already planted the seeds for the creation of the new socialist man, and the elevation of the people’s intellectual and moral life. The embryo of the proclamation Che made in Socialism and Man in Cuba, to have ”society as a whole…converted into a gigantic school,” was already being realized even under the extraordinarily difficult circumstances guerilla warfare entailed.

Che understood that the education of the Cuban masses had very practical implications for the long-term success of the Cuban revolution. When he was young, he had thought the US empire was controlled by evil wizards and dark princes who wanted to rule the world and cared not who they slaughtered in order to do so. It was after reading books like Vladimir Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism that Che came to understand that it was capital who perpetrated the violent imperialism he saw all around him in Latin America, rather than a diabolical cabal of evil wizards. It was the will of capital which dictated the murderous actions of the American Government in Guatemala, from which Che barely escaped with his life. If the people of Latin America could be made to understand this, it would be far more difficult for the US imperialists to convince them that it’s in their benefit to reinstate capitalist relations of production – which the US often tries to do via propaganda and other techniques to foment color revolutions.

After six decades of internationally denounced sanctions and hybrid warfare on Cuba, the blood soaked hands of the American empire have been unable to overthrow the construction of socialism in the country. Even in the periods where the U.S.’s warfare on Cuba has produced the most formidable of challenges in attaining the necessary materials to ensure the subsistence of the Cuban people, the mass of Cubans have brazenly continued the revolutionary process, with the slogan of their Bronze Titan Antonio Maceo engraved on their chest – “Whoever tries to take over Cuba will only collect the dust of their blood-soaked soil, if they do not perish in the fight.”

The Cuban people, in the face of a battle against Goliath, have understood the proclamation the revolution’s Apostle José Martí had made in Nuestra America – that “Barricades of ideas are worth more than barricades of stone,” that the revolutionary ideals Cuban socialism strives for are infinitely preferrable than the hardships Goliath’s war might provide. It is in part these revolutionary ideals and ethics embedded in Cuban culture and consciousness which have allowed a socialist nation with limited resources to survive right under the nose of the U.S. empire; while other projects with far more resources and material potential went down the road of capitalist restoration, plunging millions of people into poverty and conditions unseen since before the October revolution. It is in great part thanks to the emphasis Che laid in the construction of a new man, of a new culture and set of ideals and practices, that the Cuban revolution continues to be a beacon of hope for revolutionaries around the world, and a thorn in the nose of imperialists who would want nothing more than to pillage Cuban resources, superexploit Cuban workers, and use Havana as the sin-city vacation spot they once did.

By studying the emphasis Che laid on developing the new socialist human being and the new socialist culture, we give ourselves the ability to understand the success of Cuban socialism more concretely. Additionally, for those of us in countries currently fighting for the seizure of power by the working masses, studying Che’s life and work reminds us of the necessary role the intellectual and moral leadership of the revolutionary vanguard plays in disarticulating working people away from bourgeois hegemony, and towards the new set of socialist ideals, passions, desires, and ethical life necessary for the attainment of a society free of alienation, oppression, exploitation, and war.  

​The enormous scale and horrific nature of Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the persistence and determination with which Israel has carried out these crimes with "ironclad" U.S. backing is mindboggling. As of May 28, 2024, the U.S. backed Israeli genocide has thus far taken the lives of at least 36,096 people. Not included in that tally are thousands more likely dead under the rubble. A further 81,136 people have been injured during this vicious assault on Gaza (Stepansky and D’Amours 2024; Batrawy 2024). The unbridled brutality continues in complete disdain for every humanitarian principle, international law, and the highest courts. It is necessary to review some basic facts:
           
Roughly, half of Gaza’s population is under the age of eighteen (Mohammed 2023). Israel imposed a brutal economic siege on Gaza in 2006 that has been in place ever since. In 2018, around 1.4 million Gazans were classified as refugees (Muhasen n.d.). Prior to the current genocide, 81% of Gaza’s population was classified as living in poverty, unemployment stood at around 46%, 95% of the population did not have stable access to clean water, 63% of the population was food insecure, and the unemployment rate was 46% (UNRWA 2023).

Israel flagrantly violates the laws of war with frightening regularity. From October 2023 to March 2024, Israel conducted over 1,000 attacks on healthcare workers and facilities in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, in complete violation of the Geneva Conventions (ReliefWeb 2024). Israel has fired missiles at ambulance convoys (Al Jazeera 2023), and bombed multiple hospitals in Gaza. Satellite images show that Israeli bombings have destroyed six hospitals in Northern Gaza, ten in Gaza City, one in Deir el-Balah, and seven in Khan Yunis (AJLabs and Sanad Verification Agency 2024). Between the Al-Aqsa Flood attacks on October 7, 2023 to April 25, 2024, Israel killed 220 humanitarian workers (Knickmeyer and Santana 2024). This does not include any killed in the ongoing attacks on Rafah that have displaced hundreds of thousands of people once again. It is almost impossible to keep a tally of Israel’s daily atrocities; every report of the number of people killed is surely an undercount, while every day adds many new victims to the toll.

The US-supported IDF has displaced the entirety of Gaza repeatedly. The IDF has bombed Gaza’s sanitation systems, regularly engages in torture, bombed refugee camps, bombed hospitals and ambulances, used starvation and thirst as a weapon against the entire population, committed multiple massacres, used internationally proscribed weaponry, bombed residential homes, and produced widespread psychological trauma to all Gazans- and to all of us who love humanity and stand with Palestine.

Further, Israel “has obstructed ambulance crews from assisting injured civilians, leading to some patients bleeding to death” (ReliefWeb 2024). Israel has destroyed bakeries, and greenhouses while simultaneously preventing the delivery of food, water, medicines, and fuel (ibid). Israel has bombed the areas where they send refugees killing those that they have displaced, and have attacked and massacred civilians as they wait for humanitarian assistance (Cordall et al 2024; Al Salchi and Baba 2024). While on a completely new scale, these atrocities are not new but part of a long and disturbing pattern of Israeli violence. Israel has a long history of attacking Gaza’s healthcare and sanitation systems. During the Cast Lead invasion of Gaza in 2008-09, Israel damaged or destroyed 34 healthcare facilities, and bombed sewage treatment plants, housing, and water treatment plants (United Nations General Assembly’s Human Rights Council 2009; Canadian Medical Association 2009).
           
The United States and Israel are doing this to a trapped population in a five by twenty-five mile strip of land for decades. It is impossible to imagine what Gazans have lived through for the past decades, and terrifying to even glimpse what they are currently experiencing. Gazans have been subjected to regular bombardments, and been shot at for the most minimal protest. The people of Gaza have suffered multiple murderous Israeli invasions: in 2008-9, 2014, 2021, 2022, in addition to having suffered the extremely violent repression of the Great March of Return in 2018-2019. During the Great March of Return, the IDF killed an estimated 214 Palestinians and Israeli snipers shot approximately 7000 Palestinians, including many in their knees imposing life-long crippling injuries. Due to these atrocities, 154 Palestinians suffered amputations. In addition, the IDF fired tear gas canisters and other forms of gas at protestors. In total, the IDF injured approximately 36,100 Gazans, around 8000 of which were children (Medical Aid for Palestinians 2024; Martin 2019).

It is abundantly clear that Israel is committing genocide. It is clear that Israel is engaged in trying “to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” in this case the Palestinians, fitting the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Just days after October 7, 2023, more than 800 scholars signed a public letter warning of a potential genocide (TWAILR 2023). After Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s announcement that Israel would cut off all food, fuel and water to Gaza and as Israel had begun bombing Gaza’s civilian infrastructure, Holocaust and genocide scholar Raz Seagal (2023) described Israel’s actions as a “textbook case of genocide”. Israeli leaders have been open about their intentions to starve the population, to create a catastrophe for Gazans that would lead to “zero population in Gaza” (TWAILR 2023). In January, Law for Palestine (2024) compiled a database of over 500 statements from Israeli decision makers, army personnel, journalists, and former governmental officials clearly demonstrating genocidal intent, dehumanization, and intent to harm civilians. These declarations further demonstrate the intention to impose collective punishment and forcibly displace the people of Gaza.

This ongoing genocide is happening as the whole world is watching in spite of the millions protesting, International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings, and United Nations statements demanding that this must stop. Even though the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, the genocide continues unabated. The US and Israel continue to shred international law, while seeking to advance the aims of settler colonialists and military industrial firms, at the expense of the most basic and universal ethical principles. 
           
During the Nakba of 1947-1948, Israel carried out multiple massacres, erased entire villages and expelled approximately 750,000 Palestinians from their land. In Deir Yassin, Al Tantura and Al Dawaymeh (along with many others) Israel wiped out the villages inhabitants (Pappe 2006). Since then, Israel has brutally oppressed the people of Palestine with the goal of maintaining a Jewish majority in an ethno-nationalist state (Abuminah 2014). This intensified in 1967, through and beyond the Oslo accords as Israel utilized a “matrix of control” to grab more land, and repress Palestinians (Halper 2014). The litany of crimes against humanity is too long to review here.

In a more just world, racism, imperialism and colonialism would not be tolerated. In such a world the Israeli and US genocidal war criminals would have long ago been arrested, tired, convicted, and sentenced for these horrific atrocities. What we are watching in Gaza is unfiltered brutality, caught on camera, often by bystanders, although sometimes posted and shared by the perpetrators themselves.

It is difficult to comprehend those who do not empathize with the people of Gaza. In the first three months of the genocide alone, between October 7, 2023 and January 7, 2024, over 1000 children in Gaza had their limbs amputated, many without anesthetic due to Israel’s bombings (Save the Children 2024)! A common characteristic of genocides is that the victims are systematic dehumanized. In this case, in addition to dehumanization, Israel’s US sponsored genocide of Palestinians has been facilitated by the erasure of Palestinian history, the whitewashing of the history of Zionism in particular and imperialism in general, and the covering of Israel’s crimes with false accusations of anti-Semitism. The latter set of accusations have risen to an extreme level of absurdity as they are commonly directed at Jews who stand in solidarity with Palestine.
 
What must be done?

Settler colonialism creates an insoluble antagonism between the settlers, and the colonized population that is forcibly displaced to make room for the settlers. The religious cover and the insidious manipulation of historic Jewish suffering in Europe exacerbate the Israel-Palestinian case. Zionism exploits the Jewish suffering produced by the anti-Semitic pogroms of the late 19th and early twentieth centuries and the Holocaust to advance its goals. Zionism insidiously tries to transfer the weight of European anti-Semitism onto the heads of Palestinians to rationalize Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing. The extreme ethno-nationalism that has flourished in the Zionist project, the continued growth of Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank, and the further sharpening of the settler-colonized antagonism has led us to the present moment. These processes must be stopped.

Although a two state solution along the pre-1967 borders has the support of much of the world, and if given full sovereignty and security guarantees for a contiguous Palestine would be far better than the current situation, it is clear that this does not address the core discriminatory, and aggressive nature of the Israeli state itself. Israel has worked hard to make the two-state solution unviable by consistently encroaching upon Palestinian territory (Halper 2014). It is critical to consider alternatives in light of these events to consider alternative solutions. The peoples of the region must forge a new reality through a thorough and complete dismantlement of the repressive, supremacist, imperialist, colonialist, and apartheid characteristics of the state called Israel.  

Israel must be transformed into a place were full equal rights exist for Palestinians and Jews. This means that a single, inclusive state that is in complete conformity with international law is the only realistic and ethical solution. For this to happen, those responsible for war crimes and the crime of genocide must be tried, sentenced and punished. A new inclusive and anti-racist society must be constructed. There must be an immediate end to home demolitions, administrative detention, Jewish only roads, a dismantlement of the apartheid wall, and investigations into and prosecution of Israeli war crimes.  If these steps are not taken, the continuation of the settler-colonized antagonism and the accompanying apartheid-like system and genocidal violence will likely continue.

A key problem before us is that international law has no enforcement mechanism for powerful, imperialist states who violate it, even when they commit the most egregious of crimes. International law risks losing its relevance if Israel and the US are able to continue to pursue this genocide. Another layer of responsibility for the present situation lies in the effective inability of past and present leftist, socialist, communist movements to establish a truly internationalist world order where global production would be geared to human need and not to the enrichment of the few. The development of international socialist governance would have long ago abolished economies based on militarism. It is difficult to address humanity’s pressing problems in the context of global capitalism and imperialism that produce astronomical inequalities of income, wealth and power.

We all have a duty to stand up for Palestine and stand firmly against genocide. We must follow the examples of the brave students and professors around the country and countless millions around the world that have protested and shown their solidarity. We must learn from the Palestinians themselves who have consistently resisted the systematic destruction of their people. Countries such as Yemen, South Africa, Cuba, Colombia, and Bolivia have demonstrated solidarity with Palestine, as have countless organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace, If Not Now, and Students for Justice for Palestine. Ending this genocide is a necessary step for humanity. It is impossible to move to a sane, less violent, anti-imperialist and internationalist world order, if we cannot stop genocide when it occurs in our midst.
 
Free Gaza! Free Palestine!
 
Works Cited:
 
Abunimah, Ali. 2014. The Battle for Justice in Palestine. Haymarket Books. Chicago.

AJLabs and Sanad Verification Agency. 2024. “Satellite images reveal the destruction of hospitals in Gaza”. Al Jazeera. April 18, 2024. Accessed online: May, 16 2024. 
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2024/4/18/satellite-images-reveal-israeli-destruction-of-hospitals-in-gaza

Al Jazeera. 2023. “Israel air strike on ambulances kills 15, injures 60, Gaza officials say”. Al Jazeera. November 3, 2023. Accessed online 5/18/2024 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/3/several-killled-in-israeli-attack-on-ambulance-convoy-gaza-health-ministry

Al-Sachi, Hadeel, and Ana Baba. 2024. “An Israeli airstrike killed 45 Palestinians in an encampment for displaced people”. NPR. May 27, 2024. Accessed online 5/30/2024 https://www.npr.org/2024/05/27/nx-s1-4982690/rafah-encampment-israeli-airstrike-hamas 

Batrawy, Aya. 2024. Why the U.N. revised the numbers of women and children in Gaza. N.P.R. May 15, 2024. Accessed online 5/15/2024 https://www.npr.org/2024/05/15/1251265727/un-gaza-death-toll-women-children

Canadian Medical Association. 2009. “Gaza’s health care system crippled before - and after.” Canadian Medical Association Journal. March 19, 2009. Accessed online. 4/8/2024 
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/cmaj/180/6/608.full.pdf

Cordall, Simon Speakman, Mohammed R Mhawish, and Mat Nashed. 2024. “When Israeli soldiers shot at hungry Palestinians.” Al Jazeera. March 5, 2024. Accessed online 4/9/2024 
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2024/3/5/the-blood-was-everywhere-inside-israels-flour-massacre-in-gaza

Halper, Jeff. 2014. Obstacles to Peace. Re-Framing the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. The Israeli Coalition against Home Demolitions. Jerusalem.

Law for Palestine. 2024. “Law for Palestine Releases Database with 500+ Instances of Israeli Incitement to Genocide- Continuously Updated.” January 4, 2024. Accessed online 5/30/2024 https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-database-with-500-instances-of-israeli-incitement-to-genocide-continuously-updated/

Martin, Abby. 2019. Gaza Fights for Freedom. Documentary. United States.

Medical Aid for Palestinians. 2021. “Not just a painful memory: Continuing to treat the Great March of Return’s gunshot wounds”. MAP Medical Aid for Palestinians. April 8, 2021. Accessed online 5/17/2024.  
https://www.map.org.uk/news/archive/post/1215-not-just-a-painful-memory-continuing-to-treat-the-great-march-of-returnas-gunshot-wounds

Mohammad, Linah. 2023. “Children make up nearly half of Gaza’s population: Here’s what it means for the war” NPR. October 19, 2023. Accessed online: 3/28/2024 https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1206479861/israel-gaza-hamas-children-population-war-palestinians#:~:text=The%20current%20war%20in%20Gaza,47.3%25)%20are%20under%2018.

Muhaisen, Tayseer. N.d. “Palestinian Refugees in the Gaza Strip, 1948-1967: The Political and Social Remodeling of a Cramped Palestinian Space” Interactive Encyclopedia of the Palestine Question. Accessed online 5/17/2024: https://www.palquest.org/en/highlight/22188/palestinian-refugees-gaza-strip-1948-1967

Knickmeyer, Ellen and Rebecca Santana. 2024. “Chef José Andrés says aid workers killed by Israeli airstrikes represented the ‘best of humanity” AP. April 25, 2024. Accessed online. 5/7/ 2024 
https://apnews.com/article/memorial-world-central-kitchen-workers-gaza-israel-fd668fad5de83377c129ab832d699c70

Pappe, Ilan. 2006. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld Publications. Oxford.

Relief Web. 2024. “Press Release: A Disturbing Trend: Over 1000 Attacks on Health Care in the oPt since 07 October 2023”. OCHA Situation Report. March 28, 2024.

Save the Children. 2024. “Gaza: More than 10 Children a Day Lose a Limb in Three Months of Brutal Conflict”. January 7, 2024. Accessed online 5/30/2024 https://www.savethechildren.net/news/gaza-more-10-children-day-lose-limb-three-months-brutal-conflict#:~:text=Many%20of%20these%20operations%20on,World%20Health%20Organization%20(WHO).

Segal, Raz. 2023. “A Textbook Case of Genocide: Israel has been explicit about what it’s carrying out in Gaza. Why isn’t the world listening?”. Jewish Currents. October 13, 2023. Accessed online. 4/9/2024 
https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide

Stepansky, Joseph and Jillian Kestler-D’Amours. 2024. “Israel’s war on Gaza updates: ‘Rafah is on fire”. Al Jazeera. May 29, 2024: Accessed online 5/30/2024 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/5/29/israels-war-on-gaza-live-tent-cities-attacked-as-tanks-roll-into-rafah#:~:text=The%20UN's%20World%20Food%20Programme,on%20Gaza%20since%20October%207.

TWAILR. 2023. “Public Statement: Scholars Warn of Potential Genocide in Gaza”. TWAILR. Third World Approaches to International Law Review. October 17, 2023. Accessed online: https://twailr.com/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/

United Nations General Assembly Human Rights Council. 2009. “Human Rights in Palestine and other Occupied Arab Territories: Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict” Human Rights Council Twelfth Session.. A/HRC/12/48. 
​
UNRWA. 2023. “Where We Work”. United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Accessed online. 3/28/2024. https://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/gaza-strip
​

Author

Isaac Christiansen is an Associate Professor of Sociology in Midwestern State University. He obtained his Master’s and PhD in sociology from Iowa State University in 2010 and 2015, respectively. His research and interests include topics related to health inequalities, imperialism, Marxist political economy, and socialist development. He is currently finishing his first book “Global Social Problems: Inequalities of Power and the Pursuit of Social Justice” which is expected to be out later this year. He has previously published in World Review of Political Economy, Nuestro Tiempo, International Critical Thought, The International Journal of Cuban Studies and CounterPunch.

​The recent (apparently) accidental death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash, along with Iran’s prolific foreign minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, has prompted much speculation and discussion about what changes in Iran’s political power arrangement may occur. How will this affect the nation of Iran itself? What are the prospects of the Resistance Axis against Zionism that Iran leads? As is often the case, the discussion in both the mainstream media and even many progressive/left media traffic in cliches and superficiality, even going so far to make Chicken Little proclamations that the Islamic Republic will imminently fall due to the death of some of its leadership. This mistakes the true pillars of power in the Islamic Republic of Iran to be individual clerics and politicians (rather than the foundational institutions these leaders stand on).

In the following essay I intend to make the argument that Iran’s system has a deeply grassroots character built on mass working class support, which makes its political system extremely difficult to dislodge- despite the best efforts of the US Pentagon and the CIA, the Zionist entity, the Gulf monarchies and their Wahabbi/Salafi proxies. It can be argued that Iran is not only anti-imperialist, but socialist, a rare model of Islamic socialism that has not existed elsewhere since Libya’s model of Islamic socialism was destroyed in 2011.

How Iran’s unique economy developed

First, some historical context is necessary. In its 2,500 years of history, Iran/Persia has never had an economy that could be considered a free market. The state has always played a dominant role. From the ancient Persian Empire onwards a powerful, centralized monarchy ran what could be considered a ‘palace economy’ whereby the great bulk of resources went to the king and his officials, who redistributed resources as they saw fit. In essence, the palace planned the economy (this system also existed in ancient Egypt, Babylonia and China).

This system had a nobility, but they never had the same power or status that the feudal nobility possessed in medieval Europe. The Persian emperor was so vastly wealthier than all the nobles put together that they were completely subordinate to him. The emperor was also obligated to protect the serfs from the worst abuses of the nobles, and “Debt Jubilees”, in which the emperor canceled the debts of peasants to their lords, were a tradition.

Iran/Persia got its first exposure to the global capitalist system with the rise of the petroleum economy. Oil was discovered by British speculators in Abadan in 1901, and 13 years later British capitalists acquired effective control over all major oil production in Iran, a monopoly they held for 37 years via the Anglo Iranian Oil Company. For 2/3rds of a century Iran’s oil production was dominated by foreign imperialists: first the British until the 1950’s and later the US from the 1950’s until the 1979 revolution. As bad as this exploitation was, it was largely confined to this one industry. Since petroleum was fairly disconnected from the rest of Iran’s economy, foreign exploitation of that commodity did not have the same debilitating and deforming effect on the countries overall economic development that, for example, the British cotton industry had in Egypt and India, which meddled deeply in those countries' food production. Iran was never formally colonized, meaning it kept much of its traditional economic structure and social cohesion intact.

The Pahlavi Ancient regime

The Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran’s last monarch who reigned from 1941 to 1979, was a brutal US backed autocrat. Nonetheless, some of his policies unwittingly set the stage for Iran’s revolutionary economic system today. Desiring to turn Iran into a great modern power, the Shah enacted a series of reforms between 1963 and 78 that radically altered Iranian society, known as the “White Revolution” (white being the color of the monarchy). These included major land reforms in the countryside, where the rural estates of big landowners were broken up and redistributed as small plots to the peasantry. This completely upended the rural feudal order. The Shah did this not out of benevolence to the peasants but to break the power of the traditional landed nobility, who he compensated by granting them ownership of businesses in the major cities.

The Shah also reinvested some of Iran’s massive oil revenues into the country's manufacturing base outside the oil sector, kick starting an industrial revolution in the country. He imposed trade barriers and tariffs to keep out foreign competitors and protect local Iranian industrial capitalists. Paved roads and railways connecting the major Iranian cities were built for the first time. Urbanization accelerated and the modern working class exploded in numbers (the urban population went from 7.2 million in 1960 to 18.2 million in 1979, which was 33% to 50% of the total population in two decades). Iran produced virtually no steel in 1960, by 1977 it was producing as much steel as Britain.

But the fruits of this modernization and development in the 1960’s-70’s did not reach the overwhelming majority of Iranians, and this is what doomed the monarchy. In 1973 85% of all private industry in Iran was owned by only 45 families. The Iranian capitalist class was tiny and completely dependent on the Shah for contracts and favors- the Shah preferred it this way, as he wanted to be sure no one amongst the Iranian bourgeoisie became potential rivals. Thus, the Iranian capitalists had no political independence from the monarchy.

Iran’s middle class was somewhat larger, about 5% of the population, or around 2 million out of 40 million people total. Many were culturally liberal and adopted Western fashions and trends. But 95% of the Iranian people remained deeply exploited, impoverished and highly religious workers, farmers, artisans and small shopkeepers. They grew to resent the monarchy’s rampant corruption, the neglect of the urban and rural poor, the Shah’s alliance with Western imperialist powers and disrespect for traditional religious and social norms.

The Shah, obsessed with centralizing power around himself, had systematically weakened and reduced the size of two classes which had a vested interest in defending his regime, the landed nobility and the urban bourgeoisie. He also alienated much of the middle class with his refusal to make liberal political reforms and his personalized, autocratic rule. He wound up with millions of enemies and only a handful of allies.

These tensions came to a boiling point in 1978-79, when the working-class majority, in alliance with nationalist minded petit bourgeois and Islamic clergy, rose up in their millions against the monarchy.

Thus, the revolution in Iran quite swiftly destroyed the political power of the Iranian bourgeoisie, who were expropriated or fled the country when the monarchy collapsed. In 1979 state power passed from the hands of the monarchy which ruled in the interests of a handful of capitalists and aristocrats to a vanguard of Islamic clergy whose base of mass support rested on the impoverished working class/peasant majority. The centrally planned economy which was already in place was redirected in service of the Iranian people and nation as a whole instead of a small elite.

What is important to recognize is that while the Islamists, liberals and Marxists who took part in the revolution against the Shah had different ideas regarding what path Iran would take following the deposing of the monarchy, there was significant cross pollination in terms of their ideas. Shia populism, representing a dissident strand of Islam that had often been at odds with the wealthy and the powerful in the Muslim world over the centuries, had common ground with many aspects of socialist thought.

A notable example of this was the political and religious development of Mahmoud Taleghani, a leading intellectual influence on the Iranian Islamic Revolution and a lieutenant of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Taleghani was imprisoned alongside Iranian Marxists under the Shah and frequently engaged in debates and discussions with them. While rejecting Marxism on the grounds that he found historical materialism incompatible with Islamic faith, he took their arguments seriously and socialism heavily influenced his ideas. In Taleghani’s famous book “Islam and Ownership” he argued in favor of collective ownership of natural resources in the national interest, saying this was in line with Quranic teachings. Taleghani was even called ‘the Red Mullah’ for this reason.

In the economic policies implemented by the leadership of the Islamic Revolution since 1979, conceptions of social justice, the uplifting of the poor and an opposition to usurious financial speculation at odds with healthy national development have helped shape Iran’s economic institutions.

How do these state institutions of Islamic socialism operate in Iran? Let’s examine them in turn.

1. The Bonyads

One aspect of Iran’s post 1979 economy which is very non capitalist is known as the Bonyads. These are Islamic charity organizations, essentially run as cooperatives, which are responsible for providing social services and welfare to Iran’s working classes. They are usually administered by religious clergy. Although they receive state funds and subsidies, they are not directly state run and make the day-to-day decisions as to how funds are allocated and spent. Eighty percent of Bonyads are estimated to run at a loss yet continue receiving state subsidies because their function is social, not profit driven. Twenty to thirty percent of Iran’s entire economy consists of these Bonyad enterprises. One of the more famous Bonyads, the Mostazafan Foundation of Islamic Revolution, is the single largest holding company in the entire Middle East. It consists of the Shah’s expropriated personal properties.

The Bonyads employ up to five million Iranians, causing Western business outlets and pro neoliberal Iranian opposition groups to complain that these organizations are ‘overstaffed’, bloated and inefficient. In a capitalist framework, having large institutions devoted to reducing unemployment as an end in itself makes no sense, but under the religious and economic justice priorities of the Bonyads it makes perfect sense. In Islam “zakat”, or charity is one of the Five Pillars of Faith for any true believer. Iran is unique in that it took a practice that was normally the prerogative of individuals to carry it out and made it a central duty of the state to subsidize and promote.

2. The Basij

This is another component of Iran’s revolutionary system and how the government is connected with the working masses. The Basij is often incorrectly described as only a pro government militia. Although that is one of its functions, it doesn’t come close to describing the actual picture.

The Basij were first created during Iran’s 1980-88 war with Iraq, where local councils were set up on a community, village and neighborhood level to defend the Islamic Revolution from foreign invasion and internal counterrevolution. When the war ended in 1988, the Basij took on many other functions besides military, community service, education, health clinics, infrastructure construction/repair, and disaster relief. Their mandate is to serve the Iranian masses. Joining is voluntary, and the only requirement for joining is that you agree with the principles of the Iranian Islamic Revolution.

Today the Basij councils have 17 million members. Each council has a “base” at a neighborhood or village level. Approximately 60-80,000 of these bases exist nationwide, with as few as ten people or as many as 100+ assigned to each base. Their recruits are overwhelmingly drawn from the working class and the poor. Half the Basij are youth, and one third are women. Basij are not only Muslims- there are also Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Basij as well.

A required part of becoming a member of the Basij is ideological, religious and political education. Members are expected to take classes in the Quran, studying the works of key thinkers of the Iranian Revolution (for example, Ayatollah Khomeini, Morteza Motahhari, Ali Shariati, Mahmoud Taleghani), the struggle in Palestine, ethical codes of conduct, and other subjects. The Basij are under the direct command of the Supreme Leader of Iran and answer to no one else.

One of the appeals of the Basij is access to higher education, 40% of undergraduate university positions and 20% of graduate school positions are reserved for Basij members, making it attractive for working class people to join.

When you look beyond the ideology espoused, the structure and function of the Basij is almost identical to that of the Communist Party apparatus that existed in the USSR and which still exists in China, Cuba, Vietnam and the DPRK today. The Supreme Leader of Iran, the Guardian Council and the religious clergy in the holy city of Qom function as the politburo/party vanguard, while the Basij councils are the equivalent of the soviets in Russia or the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution in Cuba, which keep the leadership rooted in the working masses. Whether the ideology is Marxism Leninism or Shia populism/Islamic socialism, the institutions themselves are very similar.

One cannot possibly understand how the Islamic Republic has held together for 45 years in the face of war, sanctions, imperialist encirclement, and ethnic separatist terrorism if one doesn’t recognize the popular and working-class backbone of the Iranian state.

3. Iranian Revolutionary Guard

It might seem strange to include them in an analysis of Iran’s economic system, but the Revolutionary Guard are key players in Iran’s planned economy. They directly own and control much of Iran’s vital infrastructure outside the oil industry- roads, natural gas, railways, even banking. Many of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard were Basij militia in their youth, and thus have been heavily vetted as patriotic and committed to the ideas of the Islamic Revolution. The purpose of them managing Iran’s infrastructure is Iran’s national security above all else.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are important to mention because Western media coverage often talks about Iran’s state run assets being ‘privatized’, especially during the tenure of President Ahmadinejad (2005-2013), when in reality most of these so called privatizations transferred state run enterprises (under the purview of the Iranian parliament) to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. So, Iranian assets were moved from state control to state control- not privatization at all, not in the neoliberal sense anyway.

So, between the Bonyads, the officially state-run sector, and enterprises run by the Revolutionary Guards, the majority of Iran’s economy is either directly controlled by the state or subsidized by it.

In conclusion, the lesson to be taken from this overview of Iran’s economy is that whether you can technically label Iran’s economy as socialist or not (despite the many controversies over what socialism is), it is crystal clear that it is NOT a neoliberal or free market system. The main purpose of this economic model is to 1) Ensure the economic sovereignty and national security of Iran and 2) Provide a safety net for the working classes and rural poor who are the main base of support for the Islamic Republic. It is not about enriching individuals.

Even allowing for corruption where unscrupulous individuals misuse such institutions to enrich themselves (a problem in every socialist system including the USSR and China), it is a very difficult environment for a conventional bourgeoisie to grow, much less flourish. The arch neoliberal heritage Foundation ranks Iran in terms of ‘economic freedom’ (openness of its markets) in the bottom ten, along with the DPRK, Cuba, and Venezuela.

Contradictions and Ongoing Challenges of Iran’s Islamic Socialism

Obviously, the threat of a direct military confrontation with Zionism is dominating the headlines, as is ISIS terrorism (the heinous attacks on the memorials for General Soleimani that killed over 100 people this January comes to mind). But the biggest vulnerability of the Islamic Republic are the class contradictions arising from within Iran itself. Without resolving these contradictions, Iran cannot continue to be the effective leader of the Resistance Axis and the player in the emerging multi polar world it aspires to be.

In certain ways, the Islamic Revolution is burdened by one of its greatest successes: the expansion of its middle classes. In 1979 only 5% of Iran’s population was middle class, now over 34% is. This was not a mere accident, but a result of government policy. In the wake of the Iran Iraq war, the government provided university scholarships for millions of family members of veterans of the conflict; In effect, Iran’s version of the GI Bill. This gave many working-class men and women access to a university education for the first time and allowed them to enter the middle class. In a twist of irony, this very class created by the Islamic Revolutionaries has largely come to turn against the Islamic socialist system.

Liberals and even many Marxists ignore the class dimension of these clashes in Iranian society. This class conflict is best represented and explained by the two main parties in Iranian politics. There are the Reformists (as represented by President Khatami who was in office from 1997-2005) and President Rouhani (served 2013-2021), and the Principalists (represented by President Ahmadinejad when he served 2005-2013), and Raisi (who served from 2021 until his death in 2024). The Iranian middle class tends to vote for the Reformers, the working class tends to vote for the Principalists. There are of course exceptions, but these are the general trends.

The Iranian middle class tends to desire more personal freedoms and resents the conservative religious laws enforced by the clergy. As aspiring entrepreneurs, they feel stifled by the large public sector, and demand privatization of the state-run enterprises/the bonyads. Many are also unenthusiastic about Iran’s commitment to the Palestinians and other anti-imperialist causes, feeling that these constitute an unnecessary drain on Iran’s resources.

By contrast the working class/rural poor majority, roughly 2/3rds of the population, feels differently. They support maintaining the state sector (since they materially benefit from it), and since they are extremely religious, tend to view cultural liberalization as creeping Western influence.

The two camps have come into increasing conflict with each other. The West funds, encourages, and carries out information warfare in support of the Reformist camp, since they see them as more likely to destabilize and bring down the Islamic Republic.

In 2009, President Ahmadinejad won re-election, and the Reformers cried fraud, mobilizing a largely upper middle-class movement known as the Green Movement. Working class Principalists supporters, Basij activists, and police fought against them in the streets and dozens were killed, and thousands arrested. Western and Iranian exile media gave overwhelmingly positive coverage to the Green Movement.

The same playbook unfolded in 2021-2022. In 2021, another Principalist, Raisi, won Iran’s national elections. The next year, the same middle-class forces that supported the Green Movement seized upon the death of Mahsa Amini to kick start mass protests against the government- protests which became violent. Hundreds were killed by the police and security forces as well as by the protesters themselves (the exact numbers of those killed and the circumstances of their deaths is hotly disputed). There was also an ISIS terrorist attack on a Shia shrine at the same time as the protests, further contributing to the destabilization.

How can these contradictions in Iranian society be resolved? The harsh US sanctions on Iran give encouragement to the Reformist/middle class tendencies, who believe that if Iran relaxes its anti-Western posture, drops its anti-neoliberal and anti-imperialist policies (especially its support for Palestine), the sanctions will be lifted and the new prosperity from trade with the West will boost the middle class. This was the logic of President Rouhani's nuclear deal with the Obama administration in 2015. While it did initially succeed in increasing Iran’s trade with Europe, the Trump administration pulling out of the deal and assassinating General Soleimani in 2020 proved the Principalist arguments against the agreement correct, and badly damaged the credibility of the Reformist camp.

By contrast, the late President Raisi’s strategy has been to turn to the rising Chinese/Russian economic bloc for economic support instead, working around the US sanctions and not compromising on the Islamic Republic's anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist principles. It seems likely that with time, prosperity coming from trade via the Belt and Road will help create a different middle class, one that has access to the consumer goods and opportunities it desires, but one that is also loyal to the Islamic Revolution and turns to the East instead of the West for inspiration.

Therefore, the notion that the Iranian system is a house of cards in imminent danger of collapse is in error. Given the deep well of support and legitimacy the system has with the majority of the population, a rapid collapse is unlikely barring a nuclear conflict or some equivalent catastrophe. Hopefully, the turn towards the BRICS and multipolarity will be continued by whoever Raisi’s successor is in a prudent fashion to resolve Iran’s external and internal contradictions. Iran’s upcoming Presidential elections on June 28 will provide more clarity on the path forward, but a continuation of the path the late Raisi took is likely, due to the factors outlined in this essay.

Sources/Further reading:

Kevan Harris, A Social Revolution: Politics and the Welfare State in Iran(University of California Press, 2017)

Razmin Mazaheri, Socialism’s Ignored Success:Iranian Islamic Socialism(PT. Badak Merah Semesta, 2020).

Vali R. Nasr, The Shia Revival(W.W. Norton, 2006).

Mahmoud Taleghani, Islam and Ownership(Mazda Publishers, 1983).

Woman, Life, Fiction: Exposing the Lies Behind Iran’s 2022 Color Revolution.(January 8, 2024) RTSG publications. https://rtsg.substack.com/p/woman-life-fiction

Graphic of social gains of the Iranian Revolution:

Author 

​Marius Trotter is a writer residing in Massachusetts. He comments on history, politics, philosophy and theory. He can be reached by his email [email protected]