[Theory, history and strategic thinking— ‘Take it easy, but
take it’]
[[link removed]]

GLOBAL LEFT MIDWEEK – AUGUST 23, 2023  
[[link removed]]


 

August 23, 2023
xxxxxx
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Theory, history and strategic thinking— ‘Take it easy, but take
it’ _

Antonio Gramsci, partisan of working people. Credit, The Collector

 

* What Next For the UK Left?
* Organizing Informal Workers
* BRICS: Talk Left, Walk Right
* The German Left Debates Putin’s War
* Ecosocialism and Degrowth
* Big Election News From Guatemala and Ecuador
* Lessons From Gramsci
* 1848
* Multipolarity and Anti-Imperialism
* What Was the Third International?

__________
WHAT NEXT FOR THE UK LEFT?
[[link removed]]

_Michael Chessum_ / openDemocracy (London)

The job of the left is to turn the social crisis into a political one
– to make the rich afraid rather than the poor despondent. In the
past year, we have seen the UK’s largest wave of industrial
unrest so far this century, waking whole sectors – most notably the
NHS – after decades of slumber. 

__________
ORGANIZING INFORMAL WORKERS
[[link removed]]

_Kriangsak Teerakowitkajorn_ / Asian Labour Review (Seoul)

Organizing as an informal worker comes with numerous obstacles, but it
is remarkable to witness the resilience and innovative approaches
demonstrated by migrant workers and gig workers in many
countries. These workers’ collective power presents an opportunity
to reinvigorate labor movements on a global scale.

__________
BRICS: TALK LEFT, WALK RIGHT
[[link removed]]

_Patrick Bond_ / Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung (Berlin)

Brave vibrant social movements have emerged in struggles within and
around the BRICS+ countries, including Brazil’s landless, Russian
anti-war activists, India’s diverse people’s movements, China’s
prolific social-justice protesters and Uyghers, Tibetans and Hong
Kongers facing repression, and South Africa’s still-militant
workers, shack-dwellers, public-health advocates and students.

__________
THE GERMAN LEFT DEBATES PUTIN’S WAR

_Jan Ole Arps, Projekt Revolutionäre Perspektive and Ingar
Solty_ / ak (Hamburg)

[Translated by xxxxxx. Read the original German text HERE
[[link removed]].]

How to position oneself on the war in Ukraine? This question has been
dividing the left here for more than a year. At the beginning of June,
the Revolutionary Perspective Project from Hamburg moderated a debate
between Ingar Solty from the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung and ak editor Jan
Ole Arps on this question. The following conversation is based on this
discussion.

_PROJEKT REVOLUTIONÄRE PERSPEKTIVE_: Before we discuss left
positions on the war in Ukraine, I would like to talk to you about the
nature of the war. What is this war about?

_INGAR SOLTY_: First, it is an invasion by Russia in violation of
international law. At the same time, it has become a proxy war played
out in the context of geopolitical rivalries. To make matters worse,
it grew out of a civil war. As for Russia's war aims, I think there
are two. The Russian state has been forced to make social cuts in
recent years because of the failure of its economic diversification
strategy. In particular, the 2019 pension reform was extremely
unpopular. About 80 percent of the population rejected it. There were
mass protests. Putin's foreign policy position that the West is trying
to encircle Russia, in turn, is also shared by about 70 to 80 percent.
Confrontation externally therefore also serves to stabilize rule
internally. In addition, there are security interests. The Russian
government does not want to accept further advances by NATO.

The green-liberal ideology is not convincing: “Look at Putin’s
speeches, they are ethnocentric, Great Russian, he denies Ukraine the
right to exist, this is a war of extermination.” The military
strategy does not allow for that. You don't control a country with a
population of 43 million at the time and more than 600,000 square
kilometers with 190,000 troops. I think the original war objectives
were to bring about regime change and to stabilize the Donbass
militarily. The West also thought that the Ukrainian forces would
collapse within a few days and suggested to Zelensky that he should
flee. Putin probably believed that a quick push on Kiev would see the
government leave the country and create a power vacuum. Then Viktor
Medvedchuk would have been installed as a Russia-friendly president,
guaranteeing Ukraine's alliance neutrality. This policy has failed
miserably. Now Russia is trying damage control: securing land access
to Crimea and the territory it has conquered so far.

_JAN OLE ARPS_: I also believe that Putin probably imagined the
course of the invasion very differently. In 2013/14, since the Maidan
uprising and the subsequent change of government, Ukraine began to
break away from the Russian sphere of influence and orient itself
toward the West; it sought EU membership. The Crimean annexation and
the Russian military intervention in the Donbass were attempts by
Putin to stop this development. They did not work. The Marxist author
Ilya Matveev describes well, in my view, how Putin’s actions since
then have become disconnected from the interests of Russian capital.
Then in 2020 and 2021, there were massive protests in Belarus that put
Lukashenko, Putin’s ally, the ruler there, in severe straits. Just a
few weeks before the invasion, there was an uprising mainly of the
working class in Kazakhstan, which was only ended by the intervention
of Russian troops. What Russia considers its backyard was about to
break apart. Putin wanted to put a stop to this and establish a few
facts on the ground in Ukraine.

Even if different elements play a role in the war – imperialist
invasion, proxy war, defensive war – a leftist stance must not
relativize the fact that Putin invaded without provocation. The
starting point must therefore be solidarity with the population under
attack. Unlike at the beginning of the war, when many on the left were
shocked by their own misjudgments, many have now fallen back into old
positions and are emphasizing the proxy war element in order to be
able to look to NATO for responsibility.

_RPR_: What about the classic imperialist states, i.e. the USA? And
what about China? What is their role in this war?

_INGAR SOLTY_: One cannot understand the war without the U.S.-China
conflict, that is, the major conflict of the 21st century. The USA
became the hegemonic world power after 1945. As such, it also
determined the rules of the game under which capitalism globalized
after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The high-tech rival China is
now the giant challenge. The U.S. is concerned with preventing its
relative decline and containing China's rise.

When people say that the war was provoked by the USA, that is
conspiracy thinking. But it is a “lucky break” for them. They are
the only winner. The U.S. is not only interested in the "longterm
weakening” of Russia, but in the division and weakening of Europe,
in forcing a transatlantic division of labor and new bloc
confrontation against China. That is why the U.S. is putting so much
money into this war. The Ukraine war is the catalyst for a new world
order.

_JAN OLE ARPS_: I would agree with Ingar that the U.S. is currently
the only winner of the war. On that level, I don’t think we have
much of a contradiction.

_PRP_: It has now been over a year since the war broke out. What are
the perspectives on how it will stop?

_JAN OLE ARPS_: I’d like to know that, too. It will probably end
with negotiations at some point, unless unexpected events cause one
side to completely collapse. Putin cannot end this war with a bad
outcome, that would mean his end. And for the vast majority in
Ukraine, life under Russian occupation is far too dire a prospect. As
terrible as it is, I can’t imagine a situation right now where this
war will end soon. It will foreseeably end only if one or both sides
were forced into an adverse cease-fire. That could happen if the
burden of war becomes too heavy for Ukraine – hundreds of soldiers
are already dying every day – or if a major internal crisis breaks
out in Russia. Otherwise, at best, the major powers, i.e., the U.S.,
without whose support Ukraine cannot successfully continue to wage
war, or China, on whom Russia has become more dependent, might be able
to force a cease-fire. But whoever might be capable of ending this
war, it will not be the German left.

_INGAR SOLTY_: I agree with most of what Jan Ole says. The war has
entered a phase where neither side can be victorious without the
collapse of the other side’s front. It is now a bloody war of
position and attrition. Especially on the Russian side, it is the
poorest of the poor from the outermost provinces who are being burned
out so that no one in Moscow and St. Petersburg will notice what a
cruel war this is. On the Ukrainian side, tens of thousands have also
tried to cross the border into the EU to avoid military service and
have been sent back. There are forced recruitments on the open street,
which cannot leave leftists cold. So one is the bloodshed, the other
is the enormous potential for escalation in Ukraine and beyond its
borders, into a nuclear-led Third World War. Russia has already
committed the terrible war crime of destroying energy and water
infrastructure in the middle of winter. And what, for example, does it
mean when the Ukrainian state allows neo-Nazis to enter Russian
territory with NATO military equipment? Then there are the
consequences for the working classes worldwide.

If you ask what can the left do, it is not to wait for Washington or
Moscow to realize at some point that they are not getting anywhere
militarily. We actually have no influence on how many weapons the U.S.
supplies or how much military Russia pulls together to continue the
war. But we do have other options for action. International solidarity
begins with the message: the war must end as soon as possible in the
name of those on whose backs it is being fought, in the name of those
who are being burned in this war, but also in the name of those who
are bearing the costs of the war worldwide through inflation. Even in
Germany, one-third have no savings, and almost two-thirds are using
their entire monthly income to cover current expenses. In this rich
country, the government can at least temporarily cap the price of
energy. This is less true for southern Europe and not at all for
African countries. Inflation hits their working classes unchecked,
which is why they are pushing so hard for negotiations. Extreme
conflicts over distribution will arise, and governments will only
remain in power if they promote ethnicization and confessionalization,
that is, if they protect certain groups at the expense of others. This
is another reason why this war must end as soon as possible, and why
peace politics is a prerequisite of internationalist class politics.

_PRP_: Jan Ole, you represent a different position in the left-wing
debate.

_JAN OLE ARPS_: The consequences and dangers that Ingar describes are
real. But there is more to say about the context. I assume that
capitalist competition systematically drives states into conflict, and
thus ultimately into war with each other. Ingar has already pointed
this out: We had a violent but semi-stable situation in which the U.S.
could decisively determine the rules of the game of capitalist
competition. That time has come to an end, and this increases the
potential for large-scale wars enormously. We are witnessing an
intensified competition for increasingly scarce resources between the
capitals and the states. Add to that climate change, which makes the
pie smaller to fight over. I am therefore convinced that the only way
to stop wars now and in the future is an internationally organized
left that overcomes capitalism. That sounds very far away at first,
but I just don't see any alternative to it. We will not get far by
trying to defend the existing international order. It's hopeless,
first of all, because the upheavals are driven by the dynamics of
capitalism and the ongoing global warming. And secondly, as Rosa
Luxemburg once said: If you build on international institutions, you
defend yesterday’s imperialism against today’s imperialism. From a
communist point of view, this cannot be the solution.

What I would like to see, therefore, is for leftists to start working
on the re-emergence of something like a left-wing international that
can work out joint positions in the first place and derive joint
actions from them at some point. That is my political compass for the
question of what the left should do in international conflicts and
wars. The second compass would be that those who are affected by
conflicts should have a say in their resolution. I know that conflicts
involving major powers are rarely decided by the people it affects.
But in order to work credibly on international networking, the first
step is solidarity with and interest in comrades on the ground. And
because it was about the message: In an imperialist war of aggression,
the message of the left must be solidarity with the attacked, not
understanding for the aggressor. Of course, from our desks in Germany
we can and should think about how the concrete war could be ended. But
we cannot issue slogans without having talked about them with our
comrades in Ukraine.

_PRP_: You’ve talked to comrades on the ground. What is it that they
want? And what are your conclusions?

_JAN OLE ARPS_: The leftists I spoke with emphasize the desire for
self-determination and the horror of living under the terror regime of
Russian occupation. After all, the memories of the crimes in Butscha
and other places are still fresh. There is a great desire to support
the struggle against the invasion, through arms deliveries, but also
through political solidarity. From my point of view, it cannot be
deduced from this that leftists here have to advocate arms deliveries
to Ukraine. However, I think that the discussion about arms deliveries
here primarily follows a need to be able to maintain existing
positions and to keep the disturbing demands of Ukrainian comrades at
bay by labeling them as nationalistic and bellicose.

_PRP_: In the end, doesn’t it boil down to the central question of
how we as a radical left relate to our government supplying weapons?

_JAN OLE ARPS_: I don’t think that's the central question. The
central question is: How do we get closer to an international left
organization? There are many other important questions: How do we
prevent the German rearmament? How do we go against the history
slandering that is going on around this rearmament project? Or against
the peacewashing of NATO? NATO is not a peace alliance, but a war
alliance. What do we do about the German economy’s hunger for
energy? The German export model is based on cheap energy, which used
to come from Russia and has now been bought up on the world market at
the expense of poorer countries in particular, so that German
companies can continue to produce and make profits as before. There
are many possible approaches for radical leftists. There are also very
practical things we can do. We can stand up for asylum seekers,
deserters or conscientious objectors. I am in favor of talking less
about state arms deliveries and more about how we can support our
Ukrainian comrades, for example, in their struggles against the
dismantling of labor rights, in their demand for a debt cut, or by
scandalizing the raids of German companies on the Ukrainian market.

_PRP_: What are your proposals for action for the left, Ingar?

_INGAR SOLTY_: I agree that one must scandalize the IMF-orchestrated
plundering of Ukraine by Western corporations. But one must also be
clear: Arms supplies prolong the war. More people are dying, although
the borders will probably not be pushed far compared to the current
course of the front. In addition, those who say arms deliveries not
only have no arguments against the rearmament that replenishes the
emptied arsenals of the West. Anyone who says arms deliveries is
ultimately also saying NATO troops and thus World War III. Not because
Russia will necessarily escalate if NATO continues to supply weapons,
but because there are simply not enough people to operate the weapons
and be burned up by Ukraine as cannon fodder. This is also why Western
(military) elites are now becoming skeptical, even secretly
negotiating with Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov and discussing
whether Washington will give Zelensky an ultimatum. Regardless of
whether one thinks Ukraine should decide that, it will be decided in
Washington.

Of course, people want to show solidarity. For Western countries, that
means support for the Ukrainian government. For leftists, it has to be
solidarity with the majority of the population, yes. And it is a
dilemma for international solidarity that many Ukrainian leftists are
also still calling for arms deliveries. But there is a dialectic of
war. At the beginning, a patriotic mood dominates, especially the
opinion-making intellectuals are in favor of it, similar to 1914. But
the more people feel the consequences of war, the more soldiers come
home psychologically shattered, physically injured or dead in a zinc
coffin, the more the willingness to continue to support the war
decreases. It was no different in the First World War: first came
inflation and turnip winter, then the women’s riots against butter
and bread prices, then the strikes in the armaments factories and
finally anti-war revolutions from Ireland to East Asia.

If Liebknecht had acted like that in 1914: What did the attacked
population want when the tsarist troops invaded East Prussia? Did they
want to defend themselves? Sure. Were there war crimes against
civilians? Sure. Were there occupation and territorial appropriation
plans? Yes. At that time, too, the left was divided; opponents of war
were not able to gain a majority. But should Liebknecht have said
because of that: Well, then we must be for war and war credits? Should
Luxemburg have remained silent on the war? If that had been correct,
then the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation would today be called the Eduard
David Foundation. But today, no one knows David anymore, and the whole
world knows Luxemburg. Because she was right. That’s why we have to
endure the contradiction now. It is good to keep up the dialogue with
the Ukrainian comrades. But one must also say: We beg to differ. In
order to hopefully find a common position again at some point.

_JAN OLE ARPS_: In my opinion, the comparison with 1914 is not
correct. Before the tsarist army invaded East Prussia, the German
Empire had already declared war on Russia and France and invaded
Belgium, and the SPD had agreed to war credits. Ukraine, unlike the
German Empire and the Tsarist Empire, is not a great power; it is a
dependent country with a long, cruel history of domination by major
European powers, not least Russia. No great power has attacked
another; Putin has invaded Ukraine because it has moved outside
Russia's zone of influence.

I think for the people of Ukraine there is no good solution, they have
a choice if any between two terrible solutions: to live under Russian
occupation or for the war to go on for a long time and for many more
people to die. Of course, arms deliveries prolong the war because they
enable Ukraine to defend itself against the invasion in the first
place. Without the weapons from the West, that would not be possible;
Ukraine would also be defenseless against the rocket fire. As I said,
this does not mean that leftists should pretend that arms deliveries
are the easy solution. The weapons don’t disappear when the war is
over. And the boosted arms production here will encourage the
emergence of a military-industrial complex in Germany, which is also
necessary for German rearmament. One should not pretend that these are
not serious political problems. But one also cannot hide the fact that
without the weapons no successful resistance would have been possible
and that today there would be nothing for Ukraine to negotiate, only
the possibility of surrendering to the occupation sooner or later.

_INGAR SOLTY_: It is claimed that the refusal to deliver weapons to
Ukraine forces the country to capitulate. But this claim is an attempt
at moral blackmailing. And it is not convincing. Compared to the
volume of US weapons deliveries, the German ones are a drop in the
bucket. How the war proceeds does not depend on German weapons, and
certainly not on left-wing radicals who call on their imperialist
state to send weapons to another capitalist state that is also burning
up its working class.

_PRP_: So no agreement on the question?

_JAN OLE ARPS_: On the question of where radical leftists should
start, I think we are talking on different levels. It is a justifiable
position that a continuation of the war does not have much chance of
success for Ukraine and that an earlier end, regardless of the
conditions, will prevent more suffering. But then one should have this
discussion with the Ukrainian comrades and also listen to their
arguments. Otherwise, the left will give up its claim to be
internationalist, and make politics primarily for itself. I repeat
this again, because it is my central point, and I want this to be
understood: If we don’t work with priority on international
organizing, all the slogans are worthless. For a year and a half we
have had the opportunity to make progress here. It hasn't happened,
and I don't understand why. It is a blatant political failure and a
declaration of bankruptcy for internationalists.

_INGAR SOLTY_: You yourself admit that wars are not ended from below.
Or rather, only when those at the bottom no longer want to fight as
those at the top demand. Therefore, you cannot avoid the question of
arms deliveries and negotiations that prolong the war. This is
crucial, also in the interest of the international alliance from below
that you want. As I said, if this war goes on much longer, we will see
catastrophic state collapse in Africa. European asylum laws have
already been tightened, the extreme right in Europe is on the rise.
This is another reason to say loudly: this war must end as soon as
possible. And force the state to take up the peace proposals from
Brazil, Africa and China and mediate negotiations. Even the former
head of the Munich Security Conference, Wolfgang Ischinger, says that
the government must jump on this bandwagon, reflecting the fact that
the majority of the population does not follow the opinion published
in the media, and is in favor of negotiations. These are good starting
conditions. I think it would be wrong not to want to take a position
on this.

_PRP_: Is your contradiction ultimately that between a more
geopolitical-analytical view and a more movement-political view?

_INGAR SOLTY_: I am also for a consistent internationalist class
politics from below. But the possibility of this in all countries
depends on the world order and the question of the new bloc
confrontation. You say we can’t prevent the upheavals. What you say,
Jan Ole, would mean, if I understand you correctly, that we keep an
equidistance to the Chinese state and to the NATO states, as in: They
are all imperialist, and we only make solidarity with small groups of
struggling workers in China, in Russia, in Ukraine. But at the same
time, the conditions under which these small groups fight are
deteriorating everywhere when there is a bloc confrontation. I
exaggerate: A new bloc confrontation means deindustrialization in
Germany. Deindustrialization means the end of IG Metall, that is, of
the most powerful groups of employees. The end of IG Metall and
industrial value creation means the end of the welfare state, and its
end means the end of democracy. Then the AfD will be at 60 percent
here.

Politically, I am with Engels, who said before his death that if we
prevent the world war, then socialism is unstoppable, because then the
contradictions unfold internally and are not concealed by outside
factors. Of course, we do not currently have the strong movements that
dream of socialism, but we know about the inside-outside dialectic.
The new Cold War ideology is “democracies vs. autocracies,”
mirrored by “developing countries vs. neo-colonialists.”
Authoritarianism, however, comes not from without but from within: The
new bloc confrontation will be accompanied by de-democratization,
illiberalization and de-civilization all over the world, worsening the
conditions for class politics, and it will escalate the climate
catastrophe. That is why the struggle against the new bloc
confrontation, and for what I call in _The New Bloc Confrontation:
High Technology, (De-)Globalization, Geopolitics_
[[link removed]],
the “new New Ostpolitik”, is in my view the main task of socialist
politics today.

_JAN OLE ARPS_: That's too restrictive for me: If this happens, this
happens. These are all settlements that you make. But that’s not my
main objection. It’s that we shouldn’t confuse our role. As
leftists, we can’t afford to look at the world’s conflicts through
the eyes of the great powers. We want to change the state of affairs.
If we as a left do not try to become capable of action for our own
project, we can pack up. At the moment, we can only show solidarity
with our comrades and see how we can work together. If we first align
our positions with the domestic political structure or the scenario of
a new bloc confrontation, we lose the basis for an internationalism
from below. And that is our only hope, given the dynamics of
competition and war that have been intensified by the climate crisis.

This must also be our measure with regard to German domestic policy,
for example on the issue of energy supply and inflation: Our political
proposals cannot aim to stabilize the status quo, which is based on
cheap energy for the German economy to produce and export so that
there is something to distribute in the German welfare state. This
model destroys the ecological basis of life. Instead, we must fight to
roll back the fossil fuel infrastructure and channel funds into less
ecologically destructive areas, ultimately for climate reparations and
the ecosocialist restructuring of the economy. That would be
internationalist class politics. And, of course, we must fight to
ensure that this is not paid for by the lower classes, but by the
insane profits made by fossil fuel companies and other capital
holders, even during the war. Inflation is based in good part on these
extra profits. This is the contradiction we must emphasize, not the
return to the status quo at the expense of the people and our comrades
in Ukraine and elsewhere.

_INGAR SOLTY_: We saw impressive strike movements in Western Europe
this spring. Nevertheless, even the most powerful groups of workers
have at best only been able to compensate for inflation. The trade
union movement is therefore forced to defend the living standards of
the working class through the detour of foreign policy – the
prevention of war and bloc confrontation as the main drivers of
inflation. Even the climate movement can no longer avoid this
question. If the new bloc confrontation comes, we can forget about
averting the climate catastrophe. There will be minimal chances for
this only with China. So we need a new climate multilateralism,
completely new institutions. As an anti-capitalist left, we cannot
keep saying we’re below the level of the state, purely at the level
of the movement. In other words, in the dramatic escalation of world
order conflicts that we are currently experiencing, issues that have
long been treated separately are suddenly converging: social, peace
and climate issues. We can only move out of the political defensive
with the unity of the workplace, the street and parliament – state
power. On the street, I see the main task in actively creating the
convergence of the trade union, peace and climate movements from the
structural convergence of social, peace and climate issues, and in
directing all efforts towards preventing the new bloc confrontation.

__________
ECOSOCIALISM AND DEGROWTH
[[link removed]]

_Paul Fleckenstein and Gareth Dale_ / Tempest (Brooklyn)

Degrowth has contributed to Marxism’s environmental awakening over
the last couple of decades. But unlike those who see economic growth
as the product of psychological or cultural factors, or of untheorized
industrialization, Marxism can—and should—theorize the growth
paradigm as a core ideology of capitalist society, a complex myth
that lends democratic clothing to the accumulation drive.

__________
BIG ELECTION NEWS FROM GUATEMALA AND ECUADOR

* CENTER-LEFT LANDSLIDE
[[link removed]]
  / Americas Quarterly (New York)
 
* RUNOFF AMID BLOODSHED
[[link removed]]
  Marc Becker / NACLA Report (New York)

__________
LESSONS FROM GRAMSCI
[[link removed]]

_Mark Engler and Paul Engler_ / Waging Nonviolence (Brooklyn)

Gramsci tells us that power is everywhere, and that holding office is
only valuable as part of a larger movement strategy to rally hearts
and minds around a genuinely progressive vision. He encourages
movements to pursue wide-ranging interventions, but always to unite
them as part of a common program to transform society.

__________
1848
[[link removed]]

_Neal Ascherson_ / London Review of Books

A new political generation, formed by the events of 1848, came to
power in their aftermath. The terms liberal, conservative and
socialist, once tentative, became hard and permanent, and began to
define political parties. Liberals and some radicals learned to plan
and work constructively under reactionary regimes. Socialism found its
feet.

__________
MULTIPOLARITY AND ANTI-IMPERIALISM
[[link removed]]

_John Smith_ / Green Left (Sydney)

There is no peaceful capitalist way out of this crisis. And neither
the rulers of China nor of Russia, or of any other government — with
the extremely important exception of the revolutionary government in
Cuba — are pointing to a socialist solution to the crisis facing
humanity.

__________
WHAT WAS THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL?
[[link removed]]

_Brigitte Studer_ / Jacobin (New York)

No organization in modern history was as transnational in its scope as
the early Communist International. The men and women who worked for it
had to travel across borders and forget about any kind of settled life
as they sought to promote a global revolution. It formulated a new
political grammar, a distinctive set of rules for a new form of
collective, radical engagement.

* United Kingdom
[[link removed]]
* Labour Party
[[link removed]]
* informal workers
[[link removed]]
* organizing
[[link removed]]
* BRICS
[[link removed]]
* the Left
[[link removed]]
* Germany
[[link removed]]
* Ukraine
[[link removed]]
* Russia
[[link removed]]
* Vladimir Putin
[[link removed]]
* Ingar Solty
[[link removed]]
* Jan Ole Arps
[[link removed]]
* Ecosocialism
[[link removed]]
* degrowth
[[link removed]]
* Guatemala
[[link removed]]
* Ecuador
[[link removed]]
* Antonio Gramsci
[[link removed]]
* 1848 revolutions
[[link removed]]
* imperialism
[[link removed]]
* Communist International
[[link removed]]
* multipolarity
[[link removed]]
* anti-imperialism
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]