Friday, November 01, 2024

 

What’s next for the Nigerian left?

Published 
Photo by Ayanfe Olarinde on Unsplash

First published at Africa is a Country.

The #EndBadGovernance protests in Nigeria, held from August 1 to 10, 2024—with an extension to Independence Day’s #FearlessinOctober—has reignited discussions about a potential resurgence of the country’s socialist left movement. Following a prolonged period of seeming inactivity and a limited role during the historic #EndSARS protests of October 2020—an event that could have offered the left an opportunity to provide ideological direction and leadership—leftist organizations are now reasserting themselves. These organizations did not merely participate in the #EndBadGovernance protests but played a central role in organizing and mobilizing the masses.

In a political climate where mainstream opposition parties have largely receded under government pressure, groups such as Take It Back (TIB)Socialist Workers League (SWL), Youth Rights Campaign, Democratic Socialist Movement, Socialist Labour, and Education Rights Campaign have stepped into the fray. These organizations and other left-leaning groups visibly aligned themselves with the protests, amplifying calls for government accountability and aiming to lay the groundwork for a more structured radical opposition.

During the government crackdown, there was a sweeping action against leftist figures nationwide, including the brief arrest of Kayode Ani, the central chair of the Queer Union for Social and Economic Transformation (QUEST9ja). Several mobilizers from TIB were also arrested and detained for varying periods. Among those detained was Adeyemi Abayomi Abiodun, who works at Iva Valley Books, the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) headquarters. He was picked up by the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) at the bookshop, which had previously been raided in search of its owner, Drew Povey, a Briton accused by the NPF of various criminal activities across Nigeria and Africa. The arrest of Michael Aderamoye Lenin, the pro tem chair of the Youth Rights Campaign, along with six others on the orders of the National Security Adviser, further underscored the left’s significant presence, which was central enough to the protests to be perceived as a tangible threat by the state.

The scale of this crackdown against leftist organizations is reminiscent of the Babangida-era Gestapo-style repression of the 1980s, where authorities not only detained activists but also seized and destroyed literature. The raids on bookshops, surveillance of dissenting voices, and detentions of critical dissent further show that the state did not attempt merely to curb public disorder but to stifle the burgeoning ideological movement at the heart of #EndBadGovernance. For the general left, this level of engagement marks a turning point that starkly contrasts with previous occasions when hesitation and ideological debates often overshadowed solidarity.

However, the impressive turnout for the demonstrations also reflected the influence of non-leftist factions. Organizations like the Arewa Youth Ambassadors, Arewa Consultative Forum (before its later withdrawal), and various community groups from the north mobilized thousands, highlighting the protests’ broad appeal across political fronts due to the generally excruciating economic conditions. Notably, some members of the self-styled “ Obidient” movement overcame previous discouragement and joined the community of Nigerians in solidarity.

The Nigerian left has a longstanding presence on the political scene. In 1960, leftist student and youth movements protested against a permanent British military base in the country, underscoring their early opposition to neocolonial influence. The left also made its mark with the 1945 General Strike, led by the Nigerian Union of Railwaymen, which called for improved wages and working conditions under colonial rule. In the late 1940s, the Zikist Movement—a youth-led leftist nationalist group—organized protests demanding independence, with leaders like Raji Abdallah facing arrest for their revolutionary anticolonial politics. The left’s influence was evident again in the 1964 General Strike, when the Joint Action Committee of the four trade union centers rallied workers for fair wages, underscoring the growing strength of labor movements as a political force.

During the 1980s, leftist groups such as the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) mobilized thousands of students for anti-austerity protests against the Structural Adjustment Programme, which imposed harsh economic conditions on the populace. Resistance to the Babangida regime led to a significant crackdown on leftist thought across the country. In parts of the north, the Nigerian military raided universities, burning Marxist books and expelling left-leaning professors. The brutalization and terror of the regime led to a passive presence of the left in Nigeria’s political space. Although some groups continued pressing for democracy and transition to civilian rule, it wasn’t until the aftermath of the June 1993 elections that building a mass-based and united front against the military became strategically necessary and politically inevitable.

The 1993–1999 anti-military protests, led by the Campaign for Democracy (CD), United Action for Democracy (UAD), and other groups, further underscored the left’s commitment to democratic governance, eventually leading to the end of military rule. Many of these movements were left-leaning based on their opposition to military rule and the adoption of activist tactics, bringing them into solidarity with the broader left, including Marxists, radical liberals, trade unionists, and democratic socialists.

Following the anti-military struggles, much of the Nigerian left faded into civil society and NGO-based activities. The rest of the left rallied forces around the National Conscience Party (NCP), which contested elections and served as opposition in the early 2000s. Much later, in January 2012, the impact of government corruption and proposed subsidy removal sparked the #OccupyNigeria protests, with labor unions and civil society groups uniting in a popular struggle that involved millions of people across the country. These instances reflect the enduring role of leftist movements in shaping Nigeria’s political landscape, continually pressing for workers’ rights, democratic reforms, and broader social change. More importantly, they show that the Nigerian left has been at the forefront of rallying voices to demand systematic change.

The re-emergence of the left as an active political force has been gradual, beginning with the founding of Take It Back in 2018 and its partisan formation, the African Action Congress (AAC), later in the same year. Its establishment and subsequent collaboration with Aminu Kano’s faction of the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) marked a visible re-entry of the left into mainstream politics, with the movement and its political wing advocating socialism and solidarity with the working class.

Drawing lessons from the spontaneity that characterized the #EndSARS protests, the #EndBadGovernance protests were preceded by a vocal campaign on social media, with citizens calling for renewed resistance against President Bola Tinubu’s neoliberal policies. This differs from #EndSARS, which emerged largely as an unplanned eruption of public outrage. Although the brutality of the #EndSARS crackdown made many hesitant to return to the streets, the mobilizing efforts led by leftist organizations signaled a new era of structured, grassroots-driven resistance. This shift from unplanned protests to a more intentional, organized approach has profound implications.

A critical aspect of this shift was the scheduling of the protests from August 1 to 10, reminiscent of tactics used by leftist movements in Latin America, such as Chile and Colombia. Whether this approach was deliberately modeled on these examples or simply the natural flow of circumstances is unclear. Nonetheless, this preplanned time frame provided the organizers and the state with a defined period to prepare, reducing the risk of the protests devolving into uncontrolled disorder. While this strategy did not eliminate the state’s inherent tendency towards violence, the movement’s intentional and well-considered approach illustrated the strategic insight the revolutionary left could bring to large-scale protests.

The #EndSARS protests largely embraced a leaderless, horizontal structure to avoid co-optation, despite the role of TIB in igniting it. However, this approach also led to challenges in articulating unified demands and coordinating mass actions. In contrast, the left’s involvement in #EndBadGovernance introduced a level of structured mobilization that facilitated a more deliberate, ideologically grounded effort. By adopting a clear 14-point demand list from the outset, the TIB offered a blueprint guiding participants toward specific goals. TIB’s founder, Omoyele Sowore, first drafted and publicized this list.

While the 14-point demands were not completely uniform across all fronts of the demonstrations—other groups articulated their own sets of demands—the initiative marked a significant contrast to the delayed formulation of #EndSARS’s five-for-five demands. The latter emerged only with the deepening of contention over several days in October 2020, highlighting the spontaneous nature of the earlier movement. The immediate clarity provided by TIB’s 14-point demand list helped streamline the protest’s focus, making it easier for participants to rally around shared objectives while still allowing space for diverse perspectives within the broader movement.

Additionally, the left’s involvement addressed a deeply ingrained challenge in Nigerian activism—the pervasive distrust of leaders under pressure. In the #EndSARS protests, this fear led to a rejection of centralized leadership to avoid opportunism and potential betrayal, a decision that ultimately limited the movement’s ability to sustain momentum. During #EndBadGovernance, however, TIB leaders challenged this mindset by taking a front-row seat in the discussions leading up to the protests. They identified as one of the organizers and took the initiative to rally a legal team for arrested protesters.

TIB’s work extended beyond legal support; they were instrumental in designing and distributing flyers with information regarding protest updates and convergence points. Additionally, the group held several online conversations using Twitter Spaces to address and rally opinions on the state of the country and the methods for the demonstrations.

Although leftist organizing in the #EndBadGovernance protests attempted to address lingering questions from the #EndSARS era and pave the way for future political activism grounded in ideological clarity, the potential for these leftist groups to transform Nigeria’s political landscape remains a question. Some members of the public have criticized TIB’s commitment to organizational democracy, which raises questions about the effectiveness, structure, and inclusiveness of its decision-making processes. For instance, the 14-point demand list was posted by Omoyele Sowore on his Twitter page, inviting observers to comment on what they would like to add or remove. This method, analysts argue, falls short of a standard deliberative procedure typically expected of social movements, potentially diluting the clarity, urgency, and broadness of support for the demands.

Furthermore, sustaining momentum and translating street protests into broader political influence—and, indeed, the struggle for political power—is no small task. Questions continue to arise regarding the efficacy of leadership structures within the movement. Not all social actors recognized TIB’s leadership during #EndBadGovernance. While TIB’s profile and influence may have been more visible in media narratives and certain regions, there were undoubtedly areas, particularly in northern Nigeria, where their leadership was not as influential or even recognized.

The regional limitations of TIB’s presence were apparent in states like Kano, Katsina, and Borno, highlighting that TIB’s influence was not ubiquitous. The diversity in perspectives and approaches also brought varied regional priorities and approaches to the movement, complicating the overarching narrative of a general united front. Additionally, TIB’s leadership role was amplified by its presence in traditional and social media, where it articulated goals and positioned itself as a voice of the movement. However, this did not always translate to a direct on-the-ground presence in every protest zone. In areas further from major urban centers, the movement’s spontaneity was often guided more by local actors than by TIB.

It also further corroborates the notion that neither #EndSARS nor #EndBadGovernance was absolutely spontaneous or organized. The #EndSARS protests featured various informal and decentralized leadership forms. Influencers, grassroots organizers, and nonprofit groups provided crucial structure, taking on responsibilities related to logistics, security, and media outreach. Local activists created temporary leadership roles to address immediate challenges and navigate the complexities of organizing protests. In contrast, while the #EndBadGovernance protests showcased a more pronounced presence of organized leadership from leftist groups in certain hotspots and media narratives, other fronts maintained an organic momentum driven by local actors responding to their immediate experiences and challenges.

Still, organized socialist left politics holds the promise of igniting social, political, and economic transformation in the country. Nigerian leftists have historically demonstrated a profound commitment to catalyzing the struggle for system change needed for the revolutionary transformation of the country and the emancipation of its long-exploited and oppressed working-class people. The torch of this historical duty is what the TIB, SWL, and other allied organizations seek to light.

Ayoola Babalola is a writer and journalist with a focus on exposing political corruption, human rights violations, and amplifying social movements.

 

Hanna Perekhoda: ‘Russian political elites are openly promoting a global project’


Published 
Hanna Perekhoda

[Editor's note: The following is an edited transcript of the speech and responses to questions given by Hanna Perekhoda on the “Imperialism(s) today” panel at the “Boris Kagarlitsky and the challenges of the left today” online conference, which was organised by the Boris Kagarlitsky International Solidarity Campaign on October 8. Perekhoda is a Ukrainian socialist, member of solidaritéS in Vaud Canton, Switzerland, and a PhD candidate in Political Science (University of Lausanne). Transcripts and video recordings of other speeches given at the conference can be found at the campaign website freeboris.info, from where the below is republished.]

Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to speak. First of all, I would like to be clear. I don't work on the issue of imperialism as such. My topic is related to different expressions of Russian-Ukrainian political imaginaries. I guess I'm here more as an activist and not as a researcher. My analysis has no pretension to be extensive or a scientific one.

It's now a commonplace to say that fossil fuels and the trade of fossil fuels are closely linked to dictatorship, corruption, and militarism. But paradoxically, this is something we do not talk about systematically when it comes to understanding Russian imperialism. 

Let's start with the observation. Since oil and gas extraction doesn't require much labor, the wealth that is produced doesn't go back to the population. Instead, it goes directly into the hands of those who own the fields. In Russia, it's basically a circle of Putin's friends. Gas and oil are practically the only things that bring in real profits in Russia. 

These profits are then redistributed to other areas. A huge part of these profits, of course, goes to a few hundred families of the highest state officials who use it to buy the longest yachts in the world, the biggest palaces, and the most extravagant luxury goods. Some of these profits go to maintain the military industry, the army, the police, in short, all the structures that help keep this small circle of people in power. What is left is generally used to keep the rest of society in a relationship of extreme dependency on the state.

As Ilya Matveev said, this system could continue like that. But there is an ideology shared by Putin's circle, by himself, and we suppose by a few people around him, an ideology that perceives the world in a certain manner, and where Ukraine occupies a central place.

It would not be an easy task to summarize why Ukraine ended up occupying this central place in the Russian political imaginary. But if we can roughly summarize Russian political elite’s imaginary, we obtain a following narrative. Ukraine is a part of the Russian nation because they have a primordialist conception of nation. A distinct national identity of Ukrainians was deliberately created by the Western enemies of Russia and by their agents (Vladimir Lenin was agent number one, he created Ukraine and he did it to divide the Russian nation). By doing that, all these enemies of Russia aimed to prevent Russia from taking its rightful position as a leading imperial power in the world.

Ukraine is seen as a pawn in a zero-sum game. If there is an independent Ukraine, Russia cannot become a great power.

According to this worldview, only great powers have true political sovereignty. This is an important point: the way sovereignty and agency are understood in this ideology. For those who hold this worldview, those who have the capacity to act are not mobilized human communities, like nations or classes, nor even the elites who represent these communities. Only the leaders of the so-called great powers have real agency. They are the only real sovereigns. According to Putin, the world has only two such sovereigns: himself and the American president.

Seeing the world through the lens of this ideology, which is a closed system, like any ideology, Putin is sincerely convinced that every emancipation movement in the world is ultimately a plot led by the United States against Russia. Whether in Syria or other countries, it is perceived as an act of aggression by the global hegemon against the aspiring hegemon.

The war against Ukraine was a political choice. It was conceived, let us not forget, as a short, victorious war in which there would be no resistance. Let's keep this fact in mind. It was imagined as a rapid overturning of the balance of power, with the aim of imposing a new, lasting status quo — a status quo that would allow these two leading great powers, Russia and the United States, to establish exclusive zones of influence, in other words, to create colonies where they could exploit populations and natural resources without limits or regard for any norms or rules, whether environmental protection or human rights.

Through this war in Ukraine, which may appear local, Russian political elites are openly promoting a global project, and they conceive it in these terms. Essentially, they argue: "You see, international law doesn’t work. So what do we do? Let’s admit that the only law that truly exists is the law of the strongest. Let's just be honest and make it official."

The risk of accepting this logic is very high, especially today, as we witness Israel destroying Gaza and the complicity of the United States, along with the paralysis of many other countries in the face of this total disregard for all rights and laws. It is the clearest evidence that, indeed, international law doesn’t work. We are witnessing an enormous crisis. The need to maintain the current international structure seems practically useless.

The problem is that in a world where these structures disappear abruptly, those already in positions of weakness – states like Palestine, Ukraine, Armenia, to name just a few examples – and political forces in a position of weakness, such as the international left, will be among the first to lose in this struggle where only pure force and power matter. The authoritarian, productivist right that Putin represents, as well as many other politicians in other countries, is determined to completely erode these international structures and prevent the emergence of any alternative mechanisms that could limit their supremacist, polluting ambitions.

Ultimately, any act of aggression, however remote, if normalized, has implications that should concern all of us. The military victory and rise to power of a reactionary, militaristic state like Russia inevitably mean the rise of reactionary, militarist, fascist forces in other countries, and vice versa. When the victims of aggression are not defended, in any part of the planet, it emboldens the countless psychopaths in power to resolve their problems of political legitimacy through war. And right now, they face many problems of political legitimacy, given the rising inequalities, among other issues.

I would like to say a few words about the conference itself.

I want to thank the organizers for this initiative and for what they are doing, because any act of solidarity is precious in these times. We need to maintain the practice of solidarity.

I also want to say that I don’t know Boris Kagarlitsky personally and I don’t share most of the analysis I’ve seen from him. But I support your initiative of solidarity because he is a political prisoner.

As someone originally from Donetsk, as was mentioned, my friends and family there have lost a lot — some lost everything, some lost their lives — because of the Russian occupation of our region that began in 2014. I must say I was deeply upset at that time to see how many Russian left intellectuals and activists, including Boris, completely missed the point of what was happening in the Donbas. 

Many downplayed or failed to recognize the role of the Russian state and army, often being inattentive to the fact that without direct Russian involvement, this war in Donbas would never have happened. This was openly acknowledged by people like Igor Strelkov, who complained that the locals in Donbas didn’t want to separate from Ukraine or fight against Ukraine. The Russian army, he said, had to do it for them. 

In 2014, I was very young, but even then, I was surprised to see how many leftists projected strange fantasies about class struggle onto what was, in reality, a Russian intervention. That’s why it should not come as a surprise that many Ukrainian leftists are reluctant to express their solidarity.

As for me, my position is simple: nobody deserves to be subjected to the torture of a Russian prison, which is one of the worst places you can imagine. I truly hope that political prisoners and prisoners of conscience are released as soon as possible, especially those like Boris, who opposed the military aggression of their country. But I also want to stress that there are left activists who had the courage to stand against this, not only in 2022, but already in 2014. For all these long years, they have been in Russian prison. I’m speaking of people like Daria Poludova and Igor Kuznetsov.

Most of the victims of repression in Russia today are ordinary people who had no significant involvement in political activity. Many now face long prison sentences for expressing opposition to the war on social media, even if their posts reached only ten people. They are imprisoned for that, and they don't have social capital or international friends. Sometimes we only learn about their existence and courage after their deaths in prison.

A huge number of prisoners are random Ukrainian citizens who went to occupied territories for personal reasons, such as visiting dying parents. They are being held hostage in Russia, accused of terrorism. They are tortured, humiliated, and used for propaganda purposes. An even larger number of prisoners are Ukrainians from occupied territories, with a significant number being Crimean Tatars. Since 2014, tens of thousands of people have been kidnapped, most of them disappearing forever. Many are killed without trial. This has been the reality in occupied territories for years, while in Russia, most people were living in a period of so-called "blissful times," to use the expression that was mentioned today and that Boris Kagarlitsky referred to in his letter.

Finally, we must not forget that repression is severe in Russia and in Russian client states like Belarus. In Belarus, it's a real slaughter, but it mostly goes unnoticed.

To conclude, let's be clear: victims of repression in Russia and Belarus need support and active, practical solidarity. In Ukraine, we also see cases of completely arbitrary accusations, such as accusations of collaborationism. Please check the project "Graty" to learn more and support their work, as they make these cases known and help the victims. Regular donations to initiatives like OVD-Info or the Association of Relatives of Political Prisoners of the Kremlin can also make a difference. It's crucial to support progressive movements that still operate in Russia, like the Feminist Anti-War Resistance. 

But what would make a real difference, in my opinion, is to support those who fight against the source of the problem, not just against its consequences. I mean the Ukrainian army and especially anti-authoritarian and left soldiers that have chosen to risk their lives to fight Russian imperialism. So please donate to Solidarity Collectives.

I’ll stop here. I hope we have some time for questions.

Responses to questions

Thank you. I really appreciate all your questions and comments. I’m sorry that I won’t have time to respond in detail, as I also want to hear the other speakers who will follow, and I think it would be disrespectful to take their time.

Maybe just a few points. One of them is about the extreme right in Ukraine, etc. I find myself in a kind of paradoxical situation. When addressing the Ukrainian public as a leftist, we want to emphasize how dangerous it is to normalize nationalism in the context of war. What is happening now in wartime Ukraine is also the search for internal enemies, with Russian-speaking Ukrainians being presented as one of the sources of the problem. There is this narrative: "Putin invaded us because you, Russian-speaking Ukrainians, exist; you gave him a pretext to invade our country." The longer the war goes on, the more difficult it becomes to navigate this situation, which is becoming increasingly dramatic.

At the same time, when I speak to an international audience, I want to clarify: do not confuse the cause with the consequence. Before the Russian invasion in 2014, practically no such problem existed in Ukraine. It was a Russian discourse aimed at fueling internal conflicts, using the Russian-speaking population as a tool for their own political purposes of subjugating Ukraine. Ukrainian elites within the country also used a divide-and-rule strategy to secure their own portion of the Ukrainian economic pie, further fueling this nonexistent antagonism between Russian speakers and Ukrainian speakers.

Living in Ukraine, I can tell you that these are largely invented problems, but they became more real after the Russian invasion started. As for the alleged cases of violence against “Russians” in Donbas prior to 2014, I can say they never existed. I don’t know where this information comes from.

I also want to point out that one doesn’t need to romanticize or create illusions about a society to defend its right to exist and defend itself against the aggression of an imperialist state. We must not create illusions about what Ukrainian society represents. It has its own significant internal contradictions. It has its own extreme right, just like any society in the world today, including in the West. In fact, compared to some Western countries, Ukrainians are not as retrograde as one might think.

Unfortunately, we don’t have enough time, and I apologize for that. I’d like to conclude by saying that while we may have different analyses of certain details of the situation, we can also find common ground where we can engage together in practical solidarity. In these times, practical solidarity with the victims of aggression and with those who risk their lives to oppose the war is crucial. I hope that our collaboration will continue, and that together we can make a difference in what seems to be a quite desperate situation.

Thank you.




Ukraine Socialist Solidarity Campaign Statement On U.S. Elections

October 30, 2024
Ukraine Socialist Solidarity Campaign Statement on 2024 U.S. Elections

Millions of voters have been looking for a way to keep Trump and his MAGA horde out of the White House. They want to stop Project 2025, male supremacy, white supremacy, homophobia, transphobia, ethno-nationalism, science denialism, Putin apologetics, and ridiculous conspiracist ideas that are the basis for MAGA. All socialists should welcome that. There is only one candidate that can keep Trump out of the White House this year – Kamala Harris. The Ukraine Socialist Solidarity Campaign (USSC) endorses the following points:The Republican Party of today is fundamentally different from what it was in the past. They are openly working to turn the United States from a multi-party bourgeois democracy into an authoritarian single-party regime. This makes the GOP qualitatively different from today’s Democratic Party, which is not advocating a single-party authoritarian regime but rather maintaining the status quo, as flawed, genocidal, and unjust as that is.
The Republicans are openly taking aim at, and vastly stepping up repression, disabling, and death of, multiple oppressed groups/identities in ways far more dangerous than either party did in the past.
The Trump/Vance team is politically connected and theoretically aligned with multiple far right authoritarians around the world.Socialists and the left in general on principle must defend all historic left political gains represented in democratic rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to vote.
Socialists and the left in general must play a central role in helping build a movement to stop the GOP, MAGA, and the Thiel/Silicon Valley neo-reactionary “NRx” New Right.

Behind the MAGA base stand strategists like Mike Flynn and Stephen Bannon and behind them are the billionaire fascistic ideologues, first and foremost Peter Thiel and Curtis Yarvin (who are the sponsors of JD Vance). They openly advocate strong man and even fascistic rule. In their world, anybody who doesn’t “contribute” is simply done away with, and the government is under total one-person authoritarian control. They even advocate eugenics.

Trump and his party do not hide their intention to steal this election so the Trump regime can take power. This amounts to an overthrow of a basic democratic right – the very right to vote in public elections. The MAGA base openly advocates violence and retribution if their candidate is not “elected”.

It is an insurmountable contradiction for the so-called left to first minimize the differences between today’s Democrats and the MAGA Republicans and then turn around and call for organizing to resist MAGA. That is why the “left” is doing nothing serious to build a resistance.

In addition to the Trump regime taking power, the MAGA base openly advocates violence and retribution if their candidate is not “elected”. No one knows what will happen at BIPOC voting polls in November and after.

Harris and the Democrats are not talking about it much, other than Biden’s too little too late proposed SCOTUS reforms, but they know that the MAGA campaign intends, through it’s manipulation of the state electors, to throw the electoral results to the SCOTUS, who will appoint Trump as supreme leader.

To repeat: The only candidate who can keep Trump out of the White House is Kamala Harris. However, we must have no illusions in Harris and the Democrats:Harris, like the rest of her party, is committed to arming and supporting Israel. This means participating in Israel’s genocidal crimes against humanity. Any support for Harris, if it is serious about liberation, must at the same time oppose her and her party’s support for Israel. At the same time, we should note that Trump would be far worse for the Palestinian cause.
The Biden/Harris administration has been extremely hesitant to arm Ukraine. That country should have been getting and should now get all the arms it needs, when it needs them, and with no strings attached. We should insist that Harris reject Biden’s unjustifiably cautious, go-slow approach to supporting Ukraine. Stop sending arms to Israel, send them to Ukraine instead!
Within the labor movement many union leaders argue that we must not go on strike during an election because that will harm the Democrats. We reject that idea, especially now. Any labor struggle increases the class consciousness of workers, tends to bring them together, and puts all capitalist politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, on the defensive.
The election of Democrats in 2024 will slow down but not stop MAGA. That movement arose out of the contradictions of capitalism itself. What is needed is an independent movement of the working class, a movement that mobilizes workers and the oppressed in the streets, the work places and even in the unions to oppose the MAGA movement, starting with the MAGA threats to overturn this year’s elections. Such a working class movement could and should ultimately lead to the development of a mass working class party.

Conclusion: The Ukraine Socialist Solidarity Campaign was the first Ukraine solidarity group in the world to support Palestine. We are the only Ukraine solidarity group that openly advocates uniting all struggles against oppression and far right authoritarianism. Such struggles should not stop at the borders to the United States. Our support includes stopping Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, despite the fact that Ukraine’s present government is led by the neoliberal Zelensky. It also includes when the defeat of authoritarianism means putting or keeping a capitalist politician in power, (such as Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma/Myanmar, despite the fact that she participated in the murderous repression of the Rohingya people) because we recognize it is better to live and organize

Socialists should support and join any movement to stop MAGA both during and after the 2024 elections. That is not limited to but does include keeping Trump out of the White House in 2024. The only candidates who can stop the MAGA Republicans from gaining office are the Democrats, and the Ukraine Socialist Solidarity Campaign advocates voting for them. That is especially so since the only two “left” candidates (Jill Stein and Cornel West) apologize for Putin and advocate establishing the conditions which will lead to the victory of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Such a victory will encourage a wave of reaction and authoritarianism around the world, including in the United States. It will be easier for the working class to build its own movement under capitalist democracy than under the right wing authoritarianism that Trump would install.

For a more in depth argument, see this presentation by Cheryl Zuur, co-chair of the Ukraine Socialist Solidarity Campaign.

 

Prioritising anti-US imperialism, Maduro’s Venezuela and the complexities of critical solidarity: An interview with Steve Ellner

Published 
Venezuela Uncle Sam

Steve Ellner is an Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives and a retired professor of the Universidad de Oriente in Venezuela. He has recently written a series of articles in Monthly ReviewScience and Society and Latin American Perspectives arguing in favour of the left prioritising the struggle against US imperialism. In this broad-ranging interview with Federico Fuentes for LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal, Ellner lays out his views on anti-US imperialism, how this should factor into the left’s appraisal of China and Latin America’s Pink Tide governments, and what this means for international solidarity activists.

In recent articles, you say the left needs to prioritise the struggle against US imperialism. Why is this the case?

The basic contradiction of capitalism is at the point of production, the contradiction between the interests of the working class and those of capitalists. That is fundamental to Marxism. But any analysis at the world level of the relations between nations has to place US imperialism (including NATO) at the centre. In my articles, I question the thesis on the left that there is a convergence of China and the US as imperialist powers.

The debate regarding China often centres on how one defines imperialism. How do you define imperialism? Is US imperialism the only imperialism that exists?

John Bellamy Foster points out that [Vladimir] Lenin explained imperialism as “ multifaceted”. I would add that it has two basic heads: the political-military element and the economic one. On that basis, Foster questions the validity of two opposite interpretations of imperialism.

One tendency is to equate imperialism with the political domination of the US empire, backed of course by military power, which was the view put forward by Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin. They overestimated Washington’s political ability to preserve order and stability in accordance with US economic interests. Of course, what they wrote over a decade ago appeared to be more accurate at the time than today, given declining US prestige and global economic instability.

At the other extreme are those left theorists who focus on the dominance of global capital and minimise the importance of the nation-state. They view progressive governments in Latin America as incapable of defying global capital, and Washington as the custodians of transnational capital, rather than as a defender of a range of interests, including US geopolitical and economic interests. The prime example of US economic interests is defence of the hegemony of the dollar. Paradoxically, a prime example of the geopolitical factor is weaponising the dollar in the form of sanctions, which induces nations to create mechanisms to sidestep the dollar for international transactions. The end result is the weakening of the dollar as an international currency, which is exactly what is happening.

I argue that this position, which mainly focuses on transnational capital, is somewhat misleading. In my exchange with William Robinson in Latin American Perspectives, I noted the importance of his work on transnational capital and globalisation, which I have long admired, and its political implications today. Robinson takes issue with my reference to territorial-based imperialism, saying Lenin’s theory of imperialism is “class-based”. But it is both. I am not saying that Lenin’s concept of imperialism is applicable today in all its aspects, but I disagree with Robinson’s denial of the territorial aspect of imperialism, both in Lenin’s writings and today, for various reasons.

First, in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin attributes World War I to the clash between European superpowers in dividing up territories now known as the Global South. What could be more territorially based than that? Second, there is a whole body of Marxist literature — [Antonio] Gramsci, [Louis] Althusser and [Nico] Poulantzas being the most important theoreticians — that questions the simplistic notion that the state consists of the dominant class, namely the capitalist class or dominant fraction of it, dominating and determining everything else. The interests of transnational capital do not trump everything else because the state is not the exclusive instrument of any one class fraction. In addition, the cause-and-effect relationship of structure and superstructure is complex, a la Althusser. That is to say, the economic interests of the transnational class do not override political, geopolitical and military considerations, which sometimes collide in the short run with economic interests.

In the long run, of course, economics and geopolitics are intricately linked, if not inseparable. Robinson and others address geopolitics, but they do not assign it the weight it deserves. In effect, transnational capital subsumes other key factors, such as their discussion of BRICS [Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa]. If geopolitics is not relegated to a superficial superstructure but considered a basic element of imperialism, then China cannot be thrown in the same category as US imperialism. How can you place the US, with its 750 overseas military bases, in the same general category as China, which has one? Washington’s military deployment throughout the world, its use of sanctions and its justification for interventionism on the basis of R2P [right to protect] or “humanitarian interventionism” have no equivalent in Beijing’s relations with the rest of the world and the South in particular.

How do you reconcile your position on the need to prioritise US imperialism with the US’ declining global influence and China’s concurrent rise?

Marxists agree that everything is in flux, and that is the case with US world hegemony. But [Karl] Marx and [Friedrich] Engels also polemicised against the utopian socialists of their day, whose futuristic visions blinded them to the reality of the present. In essence, Marx and Engels said you cannot impose the future on the present. Thus from a Marxist perspective there are two components: the dialectics which analyses the transformations embodied in the present that cast light on the future; and the importance of timing, which means there is a right time and place for everything.

With regard to US influence, sure it is in decline. But the US is hardly a paper tiger. The Gaza conflict symbolises this reality. The US and its proxy, Israel, have not achieved a military victory in Gaza in spite of the billions of dollars invested in the conflict. You might draw the conclusion that Gaza is more evidence of US decline, just like Vietnam and Afghanistan. But look at all the destruction in human lives, personal traumas and property. There is no need to go into detail about how US power in its military expression, as well as its regime change capacity and use of economic blackmail, have such a potent and destructive impact. There is no qualitative comparison with other superpowers, the Ukrainian conflict notwithstanding. And it is misleading to say “the Chinese are almost there” and will soon be just as imperialist as the US. This may eventually happen, but it is not a foregone conclusion.

I believe you raised this issue of not mixing the future and the present in your recent articles…

Yes, I did, and in different contexts. First, with regard to writers who are jumping the gun by overstating the importance of the transnational state. The transnational state is not displacing the nation-state, even while the nation-state has lost much of the fiscal leverage it had during the years in which Keynesian economics was in vogue. It has not lost its military capacity, which the transnational state nearly completely lacks. Extrapolation into the distant future is no substitute for analysis of the here and now.

An example of the global focus which plays down the nation-state is Immanuel Wallerstein’s theory that the 1968 counter-hegemonic movements from Columbia University to Mexico City and Czechoslovakia were what he called a “ single revolution”, in which local conditions were not fundamental explanatory factors. In reality, 1968 was hardly a world revolution, and in all three cases local conditions were the main drivers. One thing is the “demonstration effect”, whereby revolutionary events in one country influence politics in another country. But this is quite different from a simultaneous world revolution. Here, Wallerstein was “jumping the gun”, in that a futuristic vision of world revolution was imposed on the present.

Second, the same tendency of imposing the future on the present can be seen with those who view Pink Tide governments through the lenses of Gramsci’s theory of passive revolution and conclude that they have betrayed their movements’ original goals. These writers claim that what they call the Pink Tide’s “project” condemns those nations to a return to the oppressive social relations of the past. It may well be that Pink Tide alliances with certain business sectors that opposed regime change attempts supported by other business sectors may end up allowing a fifth column to penetrate and take complete control of those governments. But, as I argue in my Monthly Review article, what is going on in these countries is highly dynamic, making the future of Pink Tide governments hard to predict. For instance, the degree to which US imperialism suffers major blows will leave Pink Tide governments in a better position to move in the opposite direction, the direction of socialism.

In this sense, the state in Pink Tide countries is more like a battleground, as Poulantzas described, than a dual state process in which the new state displaces the old state or the old state eradicates the fledgling new state. For Marta Harnecker, both processes — the battleground of the old state and the dual state phenomenon — took place simultaneously under Chávez. In any case, this complexity is misrepresented by the determinism displayed by passive revolution writers, who argue that with governments coopting social movement leaders and granting concessions to business interests, the bleak future of the Pink Tide is inescapable.

Finally, the debate over the multipolar world slogan also involves the issue of the present and the future. Those on the left who question the progressive content of the slogan tend to conflate the two. In the future, a multipolar world may well lead to the kind of inter-imperialist rivalry that led the way to World War I. But we are in the present, not the future. In the present, the multipolar world is designed to counter US hegemony and US imperialism, which is without equal anywhere in the world.

Given all this, what are the ramifications for the US left of prioritising the struggle against US imperialism? Why should the left focus on foreign policy issues, as you argue, when workers are often more concerned with domestic politics?

Even in the sphere of US domestic politics, there are pragmatic reasons why the left needs to place greater emphasis on imperialism. The distinguishing features that separate “liberals” or centre-leftists from the left are issues related to foreign policy.

Take Bernie Sanders, for example, who I would label a liberal or centre-leftist. Following Israel’s invasion of Gaza, Sanders at first refused to call for a ceasefire, then only called for a “pause” in the fighting. As a result, he came under heavy attack from progressives and the Arab-American community. When Sanders entered the 2016 presidential race (if not earlier), he made a conscious decision to downplay foreign policy and instead stress domestic issues. He also chose to be very circumspect about what he said about US adversaries such as [the late Venezuelan president] Hugo Chávez and Cuba. This was not because he was less interested in foreign policy or has limited knowledge about those issues. Rather, as a veteran politician, he knew where the ruling class draws the line on what can be tolerated. The fact a politician such as Sanders, who calls himself a socialist and advocates fairly important pro-working-class reforms but is not anti-imperialist, was not ostracised or demonised is telling. It shows the ruling class prioritises imperialism over strictly economic demands; that it is more inclined to declare war on anti-imperialists than those who call themselves socialists.

Anti-imperialism is one effective way to drive a wedge between the Democratic Party machine and large sectors of the party who are progressive but vote for Democratic candidates as a lesser of two evils. This tendency is a major obstacle for the US left in its efforts to build an independent progressive movement. Many people reason: “I can’t vote for a third-party candidate because the danger that the right — and now with [Donald] Trump the far-right — will control the White House is too daunting.” They are right to an extent. The Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party on domestic issues, though some on the left deny this. Trump lowered corporate taxes from 35% to 21% and he screams “drill, baby drill” as a panacea to the energy crisis. The Republicans are vehemently anti-union, favour capital punishment and want to criminalise abortion. That is why it is so hard to convince voters to support third-party candidates who address their real needs.

But foreign policy is a different story. There may be differences between the two major parties at a given moment (Trump is slightly better on Ukraine than [Kamala] Harris, at least rhetorically), but as a whole both parties are equally bad. That is exactly why the Democratic Party, and liberals in general including the liberal media, shy away from foreign policy issues. If you listened to the Democratic Party convention in August, at best 2% of the speeches by speakers referred to foreign policy. And that 2% focused on the bogus issue of the need to defend US national security. The two decent things that President [Barack] Obama did — the thaw in relations with Cuba and the Iran nuclear deal — were dropped by [Joe] Biden, with no references to them at the convention. The discourse at the convention may have had an element of rationality with regard to values, and some issues of substance such as ethnic diversity, reproductive rights, etc, certainly in contrast to the Republicans, but when it comes to foreign policy it is completely irrational. The cornerstone of its narrative on the need to intervene abroad is national security. Yet there is no country in the world that threatens the US, militarily or otherwise.

The left’s message has to stress that you cannot have both guns and butter, and that the Pentagon is the number one polluter on the planet. We have to devise slogans that demand politicians (including liberal ones) and the corporate media address these issues.

Another reason why anti-imperialism needs to be emphasised is that it provides progressive governments in the Global South with breathing space. This allows them the chance to move forward with their progressive agenda in a democratic setting, and to deepen their nation’s democracy. In the case of Venezuela, such breathing space may have changed the course of events at a time when US aggression had a devastating effect and limited the government’s options. From Cuba and Venezuela to the Soviet Union, the Pentagon’s strategy has always been to force adversary governments to allocate immense resources to their armed forces in order to undermine their consumer economy, knowing full well that no country can match the US on the military front.

Does prioritising anti-US imperialism mean the left should turn a blind eye to the shortcomings of governments under attack from US imperialism?

No, they should not. Some on the left say otherwise. They say the left in the Global North should not criticise progressive Global South governments and that its sole duty or role is to oppose imperialist intervention. But criticism of errors is essential and nobody can, or should, question the right of anybody to formulate criticisms. However, those who are critical need to seriously consider the knotty issue of how and when to criticise anti-imperialist governments or other governments under attack from US imperialism.

Take, for instance, Hamas’ actions on October 7 and Israel’s subsequent invasion of Gaza. The pro-Palestinian solidarity movement is divided between activists who disagree with Hamas’ incursion and others who defend it on grounds of the right to resist. Those in the first category face a dilemma. They have a legitimate position, which those in the second category should respect in the name of unity. But it would be damaging to the cause, for example, to criticise October 7 at a rally protesting Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Referencing October 7, albeit passingly, would dampen the enthusiasm of protesters. There are other reasons why the solidarity movement may want to avoid any passing reference to October 7. Doing so may run the risk of playing into Israel’s hands by implying that both sides are equally responsible for a conflict that has brought such immense suffering to the Palestinian people. Another reason is that passing references can simplify and decontextualise Hamas’ decision and the strategy behind it.

One way to look at it is to consider that freedom of speech is not an absolute principle — it depends on the circumstances. In certain situations, such as wartime, there are limitations. The same can be applied to strategic decisions by solidarity activists regarding criticisms of the governments they are defending.

What about a country such as Venezuela, which is not engaged in a military war with US imperialism and where there are clearly different approaches towards its government on the left?

Venezuela has been in a war-type situation for many years. Prior to Chávez, no Venezuelan economist would have imagined that if the country could not export oil the government would survive for more than a week. That is exactly what the sanctions are all about. On top of that you have had assassination attempts against the president, months of violent regime-change disturbances, an invasion by mercenaries from Colombia, an attempted coup, and abundant evidence of sabotage, including through cybernetics — the latest documented in Anya Parampil’s book Corporate Coup. These were all engineered or actively supported by the US. The coup attempt in April 2019, for instance, went hand in hand with the Trump administration’s explicit call on the Venezuelan military to overthrow Maduro.

Some left analysts fault Maduro for taking off the gloves and not abiding by the norms of liberal democracy. In some cases, the criticisms are valid but they have to be contextualised. Furthermore, how liberal is US democracy? And the US is hardly being threatened by a foreign power, the ludicrous Russiagate scandal notwithstanding.

The issue is that often criticisms are seen as “aiding” US imperialism’s campaign against Venezuela. Are there no limits when it comes to muting criticisms?

You have to draw a line in the sand. Electoral fraud, for instance, is unacceptable. Furthermore, no criticism should be vetoed, it is just a question of context; that is, under what circumstances do you formulate the criticism. In addition, we have to recognise that certain situations constitute grey areas in which left analysts cannot be certain of all the facts. In those cases we can only make educated guesses and need to recognise there are important gaps in what we know that cannot be easily filled. The left has to make an effort to define these grey areas to distinguish what we know for certain.

For instance, after the first sanctions were imposed on Venezuela with the Obama executive order in early 2015, and then scaled up by the Trump administration which called for a military coup, one grey area was the Venezuelan military. There was no way for an analyst who lacked inside information to really know what options Maduro had. The calls for a military coup by the world’s foremost military power undoubtedly strengthened the hands of Diosdado Cabello, the number two man who has close ties with the military and does not have Maduro’s leftist background. It is easy to say Maduro should have responded to the threats by radicalising the process, which is what several Venezuelan Trotskyist parties advocated. Maduro went in the opposite direction by making concessions to the private sector. As a result, he lost the backing of the Communist Party of Venezuela.

There were some on the Venezuelan left who told me at the time that the Chavistas should have given up power so as not to be identified with the terrible economic conditions resulting from US sanctions. That position underestimates the importance of state power. Lenin recognised this. What would history have been like had Lenin relinquished power in response to the extreme hardships caused during the period of War Communism?

But what if, in the name of holding onto state power, electoral fraud is committed? How should the left deal with this?

As I said above, electoral fraud needs to be ruled out, and for various reasons not just ethical ones. But in the case of Venezuela there are complex issues. Those who claim that fraud was committed on July 28 need to factor them into their analysis.

For example, a victory for the opposition would most likely have resulted in a bloodbath against the Chavistas and others as well. The candidacy of Edmundo González was deceptive because he was a mere puppet; the real candidate was María Corina Machado. Some analysts pointed to González’s conciliatory tone, but he was not and is not calling the shots — everybody knows that. If you look at Machado’s statements over the years, you will see her plan was to “neutralise” Chavismo, a euphemism for Pinochet-style repression that goes beyond the organised left.

Recognising how formidable the challenges facing the Chavista leadership are can help break down the divide between those on the left who claim fraud was committed and those who do not. One key question is the following: is there a significant area of convergence — or unity — taking in those who validate the official results of July 28 and those who question them. I believe that, as tenuous as that coexistence may be, there is a potential that needs to be encouraged.

Several factors would bolster such a relationship. First, recognising that the violence and destabilisation following the July 28 elections was in large part undertaken or promoted by organised domestic and external political actors, as the Maduro government has documented in some detail. Second, questioning the official results should not imply accepting the results announced by Machado-González. Discrepancies in their statements regarding the number of voter tally sheets in their possession and the total lack of transparency in the opposition’s presidential primaries last October are just two of many reasons why their pronouncements should not be taken at face value. And third, a convergence of Maduro supporters and left critics should be based on recognising certain positive features of his government. His foreign policy tops the list, but there is more. As harsh as the criticisms of his domestic policies may be, the claim that Maduro is a bona fide neoliberal is untenable. Left critics point to the government’s failure to fulfil Chávez’s plea of “ Commune or nothing.” Nevertheless, the government has provided the communes with a degree of support, in the context of a rank-and-file impetus. Its record on this front is mixed, but it has positive aspects, as Chris Gilbert points out in his recent book on the subject.

I am not saying the issue of the July 28 elections should be swept under the rug or placed on the back burner. But the discussion should not get in the way of the larger issue, which is US imperialism and recognising that the Maduro government’s errors have to be contextualised. Its errors, to a large degree, are erroneous reactions to US imperialism. That, however, is not to minimise the gravity of the errors or to absolve leaders of responsibility for committing them.

Where does this leave us more generally? There will always be certain issues that we cannot be too sure of. Does this mean we can throw certain issues into the too-hard basket?

I am certainly not proposing a post-modernist philosophy, or that there are many truths. No, there is only one truth and we should strive to know what it is. But at the same time, we should attempt to determine grey areas, where we recognise we cannot come up with definitive conclusions because not all the facts are clear. In situations like this, we should be especially tolerant of opposing views on the left. This is what Mao called “the correct handling of contradictions among the people.

I am also not saying that July 28 is one of those “grey areas”. But I am saying that much of what led up to July 28 consists of grey areas. One example that I gave was the situation within the Venezuelan armed forces, which may have limited Maduro’s options. For this reason, I am in favour of greater tolerance between pro-Maduro Chavistas and many of their left critics — as difficult as that may be.

Does prioritising US imperialism mean we cannot extend solidarity to, for example, workers striking against Brazilian and Chinese capitalists, to pick two examples of governments in conflict with US imperialism?

Certainly not. The left needs to support workers’ struggles against companies owned by Brazilian and Chinese capitalists, or those of anywhere else for that matter. That is a dimension no one on the left can downplay.

But its importance should not eclipse the geopolitical dimension. The importance of geopolitics is underrated by those who accuse solidarity activists of being “ campist” or belonging to the “ Manichean left,” an unfortunate term used by Robinson in a recent article, and which I take up in the Science and Society symposium. Robinson invokes the term to refer to honest revolutionaries, such as Vijay Prashad, simply because they praise the Chinese leadership. In doing so, Robinson fails to underscore basic distinctions between the Chinese state, state capital and political leaders, on the one hand, and Chinese private capital on the other. In the same breath, he slams solidarity activists such as CODEPINK, even though that organisation is rather neutral on the internal politics of other countries. Leftists, and solidarity activists in particular, have the right to prioritise anti-US imperialism without being accused of Manichaeism. The use of the term should be left to the McCarthyites on the right.

Similarly, the term “campist” is applied to leftists who supposedly reduce all conflicts to the clash between US imperialism and its adversaries, specifically Russia and China, and prioritise the struggle against US imperialism. It is assumed that they are blind to exploitation by capitalists who are outside of the US camp and that they blindly support all US adversaries.

Take the case of the Ukrainian conflict. Few leftists defend Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but most leftists do not align themselves with Ukraine’s side in the conflict. One exception is Howie Hawkins, the Green Party’s presidential candidate in 2020, who used the term “campist” to criticise a recent statement arguing that NATO provoked Russia into invading Ukraine. Hawkins makes the accusation without indicating whether or not the authors of the statement defend [Vladimir] Putin’s decision to invade. A big chunk of the anti-war movement does not approve of Russia’s invasion, and even suggests territorial ambitions are at play, but believes NATO deserves the greater part of the blame. That position may be open to debate, but it is a far cry from being “campist” or located in the pro-Russian camp.

Hawkins takes issue with “partisans of states” that challenge Western dominance and support multipolarity, claiming they see China as leading the way. The pro-China “campist” category assumes that Cold War II is a rerun of Cold War I, when Communist parties were aligned with, and loyal to, the Soviet Union. But Chinese Communist leaders, unlike those of the old Soviet Union, are not for the most part exporting any model. And not many on the left defend the Chinese model per se. Those who praise China are mainly praising its foreign policy, which is based on the principle of defence of national sovereignty. Talk of “campism” is a throwback to the Cold War when leftists were told they had to balance criticism of US policy with criticism of the Soviet Union. The price you paid for refusing was getting called a “fellow traveller,” at best.

That said, there are people and groups on the left who align with China, not only because of Beijing’s foreign policy, but because they are attracted to the Chinese model. We have to take off the blinders to objectively analyse the Chinese case. I am not an expert on the subject, but I know enough to say that what is happening in China is as important for the left to analyse as it is complex. Attacking China supporters through the use of shibboleths reminiscent of the old Cold War gets in the way of much-needed, open and honest debate.

There can be a problem though when prioritising US imperialism leads to a kind of “lesser evil” politics in which genuine democratic and worker struggles are not just underrated, but directly opposed on the basis that they weaken the struggle against US imperialism. Is there ever a case when geopolitics should trump solidarity and the rights of others in struggle?

No. One does not negate the other. But the issue you raise can be viewed from a broader perspective. The organised left in the Global North is divided in three categories. Some leftist activists form part of the anti-imperialist movement; others, who identify as orthodox Marxists, prioritise the working class; and others are social movement activists involved in struggles around racism, immigration, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ issues, etc. The banners of all three reinforce one another, as intersectionality brings together different oppressed groups.

At the same time, there are discrepancies and tensions between these activists. This is natural and inevitable. If the post-Marxists and post-modernists are correct about one thing, it is that social and political movements for change in contemporary society are more complex, at least on the surface, than was the case 100 years ago. That said, there is much room for debate to determine priorities and strategies. For example, a number of articles in Jacobin criticise the identity politics of some social movements for viewing class as just one more identity. Another example is the works of the Italian Communist Domenico Losurdo, who viewed anti-imperialism as the main driver of leftist advances beginning in 1917.

In my recent articles, I take issue with anti-Pink Tide writers who see worker and social movement mobilisations as practically the only driver of progressive change, while leaving anti-imperialist governments largely out of the picture. But my articles also call into question the validity of an exclusively geopolitical focus. We are not quite in a situation like World War II, when Communists promoted a no-strike policy for the labour movement. The exclusively geopolitical focus falls short in many situations. For instance, it may justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, without considering political options available to Russia as a response to NATO expansion and threats. Also, the logic behind the exclusively geopolitical focus is to place [former Iraqi leader] Saddam Hussein in the same anti-imperialist category as Chávez, since both were subject to Washington's regime-change schemes, without considering domestic factors that clearly differentiated the two.

My main point is on the need to be realistic. Much open discussion is needed and should be welcomed. But we are not going to arrive at a blueprint or even a synthesis because societal contradictions are just too profound. We can, however, aim for common denominators based on common assumptions.

One of those assumptions is that anti-US imperialism has to be prioritised, though of course not as the only priority. Take the debate around BRICS and the banner of a multipolar world. Some leftists recognise the importance of BRICS in undermining Washington’s weaponisation of the dollar in the form of sanctions against Cuba, Venezuela, etc, while questioning the goal of multipolarity as a long-term strategy. Maduro and many of his staunch defenders see it as a fundamental tool in advancing toward socialism. Those are differences that we can live with. But I do not see any easy reconciliation with those who completely deny the importance of the multipolar world slogan and who lash out at the Maduro government for being a pro-neoliberal sellout. These writers tend to argue that US imperialism is not the only bully on the block. This may be the case, but it is certainly by far the most dangerous one.

This discussion has been quite clarifying. Is there anything else you would like to add?

Sure. Certain policies and actions by anti-imperialist governments and movements in the Global South are unprincipled or blatantly incorrect and need to be criticised in no uncertain terms. Others are less black and white and involve complex issues. With regard to the second category, the left should not overemphasise criticisms; it needs to contextualise them and should be careful as to when and how such criticisms are formulated. Distinguishing between the two categories requires serious consideration. The use of simplistic terms such as “Manichean left” and “campist” impedes much-needed objective analysis and belies the complexity of what probably will be a relatively long path of socialist transition.

Steve would like to thank Andrew Smolski for his useful insights regarding the issues raised in this interview.