Wednesday, November 11, 2026

What is imperialism? And is it still ‘The Highest Stage of Capitalism?’

Global capitalism has moved on since 1916, but Lenin’s Imperialism remains a foundational text, one of the most influential analyses of the world order today, writes the Marx Memorial Library and Workers’ School

‘England and the War in South Africa. War and Capitalism, or the Transmutation of Human Blood into Gold,’ cartoon by A Gabriele Galantara, aka Rata Langa in Der wahre Jacob (The True Jacob) satirical magazine, 1899 [Pic: Public domain]

Marx Memorial Library

Recent

Eyes Left/11 November 2026LENIN wrote his Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism in 1916, while living in exile in Switzerland during the middle of WWI. It remains one of the most influential Marxist analyses of international capitalism and continues to shape our understanding of globalisation, international political economy, dependency, and the struggle between the “imperial core” and the global “periphery” of international capitalism.

In his preface to the first 1917 edition (published in April, before the October Revolution) Lenin declares that his pamphlet originally titled Imperialism, the Latest Stage of Capitalism “was written with an eye to the tsarist censorship.”

He, therefore, “was not only forced to confine myself strictly to an exclusively theoretical, specifically economic analysis of facts, but to formulate the few necessary observations on politics with extreme caution, by hints, in an allegorical language.”

Despite this, Lenin’s text was significantly sanitised by its publishers, removing polemics against individuals and diluting his revolutionary terminology.

In the preface to the next edition, published in 1921 with his original text reinstated, Lenin declares that he’d not been able to revise the whole, which had anyway been written to present “a composite picture of the world capitalist system in its international relationships at the beginning of the 20th century — on the eve of the first world imperialist war.”

But the pamphlet is much more than a theoretical analysis of capitalism.

Imperialism had several aims. One was to provide an analysis of a new historical stage in the political economy of capitalism, showing why it appeared more resilient than Marx had predicted but arguing that internal changes could no longer solve its contradictions.

Socialist revolution had become not just historically possible but necessary.

Importantly, Lenin also argues that revolution might begin in relatively “backward” countries (such as Russia), not only in the most industrialised states. This was an important elaboration of insights that Marx and Engels were beginning to develop towards the end of their lives.

The war had created a crisis for the international socialist movement.

Before 1914, most socialist parties affiliated with the Second International had pledged to oppose war. However, when it started many socialist parties supported their own national governments’ war efforts, abandoning international working-class solidarity.

Imperialism insists that the war was an imperialist conflict; a struggle between capitalist powers over colonies, markets, raw materials and investment opportunities.

It also builds on the political economy of Marx and Engels and on Lenin’s own earlier works, including The Development of Capitalism in Russia (1899).  It incorporates the insights of other Marxists, not least Rudolf Hilferding, whose Finance Capital (1910) analysed the merger of banks and industry.

It borrows heavily from the empirical observations of John A Hobson (not a Marxist) whose Imperialism (1902) argued that wealthy elites promoted imperial expansion because of domestic underconsumption and surplus capital.

Lenin rejects the conclusions of both Hilferding and Hobson that imperialism could be reformed and insists that a new, monopoly stage of capitalism, dominated by finance and focused on the extraction of wealth from its colonies is structurally inherent to mature capitalism.

His text overlaps with (but doesn’t mention by name) Rosa Luxemburg whose The Accumulation of Capital (1913) argued that capitalism continually required non-capitalist regions for expansion into external markets, and with Nikolai Bukharin’s Imperialism and World Economy written in 1915 to which Lenin wrote the introduction.

For Lenin, imperialism is characterised by a number of key features, all of which are interrelated.

First, competition leads to the concentration of production. Successful firms absorb weaker competitors, leading to a small number of giant corporations with associated trusts, cartels, and syndicates.

Production in entire industries such as oil, steel, railways and shipping increasingly becomes dominated by monopolies or oligopolies.

This is facilitated by, and results in, the merging of banking and industrial capital.

Ownership becomes interconnected. Investment decisions increasingly determine national policy. “Finance capital” concentrates economic power among financial elites, who gain enormous political influence.

Increasingly, the export of capital — “foreign investment” — becomes more important than domestic production and the export of goods.

Capital seeks higher returns in less-developed regions which offer cheaper labour, land and raw materials. Colonies become economically essential locations for profit and capital accumulation.

Huge corporations together with their host nations, “partition the world […] into a handful of usurer states and a vast majority of debtor states.”

As a result of imperialism, oppressor states economically and militarily subjugate whole areas of the world, creating oppressed states.

However, the process is uneven. Economic power shifts, leading to international conflicts.

War becomes built into imperial capitalism, the consequence of capitalist competition over territory and investment opportunities, aided by confected nationalism.

The imperial nations (Lenin uses the term “Great Powers,” today increasingly known as the “imperial core”) become “rentier” states of “parasitic, decaying capitalism.”

Lenin adds that “unevenness also manifests itself, in particular, in the decay of the countries which are richest in capital (Britain).”

The composition of the working class itself changes.

A “labour aristocracy” based on “superprofits” from colonial expansion make it “possible to bribe the labour leaders and the upper stratum of a labour aristocracy.”

This helped explain why socialist revolutions had not occurred first in Britain or Germany, where it made the struggle against imperialism of critical importance for revolutionaries.

In the oppressed countries, imperial exploitation created the possibility of class alliances around the demand for national independence. If these struggles were led by the growing working classes in alliance with the mass of peasants (in what were often largely pre-capitalist societies), they could not only weaken imperialism but interact with struggles in states with more developed working classes.

Finally, Lenin places imperialism in a broader historical framework. Far from being a confected or arbitrary policy adopted by particular governments it arises from the development of capitalism itself.

Imperialism represents a higher and later phase of capitalism; its contradictions creating conflicts between states but also the possibility of international class solidarity.

Today we can see all these dynamics at work albeit in new forms. International monopoly capitalism is simultaneously enormously productive and profitable for its investors but also increasingly unequal and crisis-prone, creating the material conditions for revolution.

Lenin’s Imperialism was hugely influential when it was published and it remains a foundational text; one of the most important analyses of the world order today.

Lenin’s Imperialism can be read online, or downloaded as a pdf from the Marxists Internet Archive on www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/. It will be the focus of the next Introducing a Marxist Classic online seminar on Wednesday November 18 at 7pm. Register on the Marx Memorial Library’s website www.marx-memorial-library.org.uk/ where you can find details of a rich ongoing programme of events and courses. There are links on https://tinyurl.com/FullMarxList/ to an earlier Full Marx Q&A on imperialism (number 77) and to others, on, war, financialisation, superprofits, dependency, the labour aristocracy and much else.

Poll: Most Americans, Including Republicans, Want Congress To Pass Legislation To End Iran War

by Dave DeCamp | November 10, 2026 at 5:06 pm ET | Iran

A new poll from Reuters/Ipsos has found that a majority of US adults, including the majority of Republicans, want Congress to pass legislation to end the Iran war, a conflict that’s been extremely unpopular among the American people.

The poll asked if respondents would support or oppose the incoming Democrat-led Congress passing legislation to end the Iran war, and 71%, including 51% of Republicans, said they would support the effort.

The poll was conducted in the days following the midterm elections, which saw a major Republican defeat, and the war and the increase in the cost of living as a result of it were identified as the major factors in the Democrats’ victory.

USS George Washington conducts operations in the Arabian Sea amid the US blockade on Iran, October 14, 2026 (US Navy photo)

Both Vice President JD Vance and President Trump have acknowledged that the war cost the GOP the midterms, though Trump continues to defend his decision to launch it and continues to escalate the ongoing blockade and sanctions campaign against the Islamic Republic.

The current Congress has already passed a War Powers Resolution directing President Trump to end the war, but it’s been ignored by the administration.

Democratic leadership has threatened to use the “power of the purse” to end the war by potentially blocking funding for the federal government until the conflict ends. The issue could become a major battle before the new Congress is sworn in, as lawmakers must pass a continuing resolution by December 11 to keep the government funded.

If you liked this article, please support Antiwar.com.
We are 100% reader-supported.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.


Araghchi: No Rezaei-Vance meeting planned, US must accept conditions

 By Al Mayadeen English

  • Source: Al Mayadeen
  • 10 Nov 2026 12:01

2 Min Read

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says no meeting is planned between Mohsen Rezaei and JD Vance, stressing that ending the conflict requires Washington to accept Tehran’s conditions.

Listen

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has ruled out any planned meeting between Supreme National Security Council Secretary General Major General Mohsen Rezaei and US Vice President JD Vance, reiterating that an end to the conflict depends on Washington accepting Iran’s conditions.

Araghchi said on Tuesday that military aggression and economic sanctions would not resolve the conflict, insisting that diplomacy requires the United States to abandon its policy of pressure and address Tehran’s demands.

“The solution lies in diplomacy and compliance with Iran’s conditions,” he said.

The Iranian foreign minister also warned that US President Donald Trump would eventually recognize the failure of economic coercion, adding that “it will not be long before Trump realizes that he has taken the wrong path with economic pressure, and that he must use the language of respect and respond to our demands.”

Araghchi stressed that Trump must respond to the conditions Iran presented in its “two-day plan,” confirming that the proposal “remains on the table.”

Rezaei had reiterated earlier today that Washington should surrender to Tehran’s seven conditions, saying that the war on Iran “has already destroyed the US government,” and described Washington as “floundering like a desperate gambler.”

He urged the US administration to “withdraw from the game, stop fabricating false news about imaginary negotiations, and stop denying the new order in West Asia.”

“The time has come to surrender to the seven conditions Iran has announced repeatedly,” he stressed.

Read more: Enriched uranium transfer ‘off table’, US must honor commitments: Spox

Qatar steps up diplomatic engagement

Araghchi’s statements come as regional mediators intensify efforts to prevent the US from restarting its aggression and revive negotiations between Tehran and Washington.

As part of these efforts, Trump met with Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani at the White House. Their discussions covered the latest developments concerning Iran and diplomatic initiatives aimed at ending the conflict.

The meeting highlights Qatar’s continued engagement in efforts to contain tensions, as regional mediation proceeds alongside Iran’s insistence that any diplomatic resolution must take its conditions into account.

Tuesday, November 10, 2026

10 Reasons Hakeem Jeffries Should Not Be House Speaker

 

Dem Leaders DCCC

From left, Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., chair of the House Democratic Caucus. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, (D-NY) and Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.)chair of the DCCC, conduct a news conference at the DCCC after the Democrats took control of Congress in the midterm election, on Wednesday, November 4, 2026.

(Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Voters did not reject Republican extremism just to see Democratic leaders continue pouring billions into wars and corporate interests while families struggle to afford housing, healthcare, and basic necessities.

Medea Benjamin

Nov 09, 2026Common Dreams

Now that Democrats have swept the House, a key question is: Who should lead it?

Hakeem Jeffries is in line to become the first Black Speaker of the House, which would be a historic milestone. But members of Congress must examine Jeffries’ record, his priorities, and the kind of leadership he would bring to this moment.

RECOMMENDED…

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Holds Its Midterm Election Night Watch Party

Petition Calling for House Speaker Other Than Hakeem Jeffries Hits 1 Million Signatures

Democratic Leaders Rep. Hakeem Jeffries And Sen. Chuck Schumer Holds News Conference On Senate Steps

After Blue Tsunami, Progressives Don’t Trust Schumer and Jeffries to Lead Congress

Here are ten reasons why Jeffries should not be Speaker.

1. He has abandoned Medicare for All

At a time when millions of Americans struggle with unaffordable health insurance, medical debt, and the threat of financial ruin from illness, Jeffries has distanced himself from one of the most important progressive reforms: Medicare for All.

Jeffries co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation from 2013 through 2021. But in an August 2026 interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, he said it is no longer legislation he supports or cosponsors. Ironically, he made that statement on the same day a CBS poll found that 90 percent of Democratic voters back the idea.

This reversal puts him at odds with party voters, but also with a majority of Democratic representatives in the House. As of late October, Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s Medicare for All Act had 118 Democratic cosponsors. A “leader” who won’t back what his own caucus and voters want is not a leader.

2. He refuses to break with Israel

Perhaps nowhere is Jeffries more out of step with the progressive base than on Israel.

For decades, Jeffries has been a staunch defender of the U.S.-Israel alliance. At a pro-Israel rally in 2014, during Israel’s military assault on Gaza, Jeffries proclaimed, “Israel today, Israel tomorrow, Israel forever!.” In 2020 he told an AIPAC conference that New Yorkers consider Jerusalem their “sixth borough,” totally disregarding the plight of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation.

Even as Israel’s genocide in Gaza sparked worldwide outrage, Jeffries continued to resist calls to end U.S. military support.

In July 2026, 103 House Democrats voted to cut $3.3 billion in military aid to Israel, including the party’s second-ranking House leader, Katherine Clark. But Jeffries joined 97 other Democrats and nearly every Republican in voting to preserve the funding.

In a May 2024 60 Minutes interview, when asked whether Israel’s bombing of Gaza had been indiscriminate, Jeffries said no. By then, nearly 35,000 Palestinians had been killed. When the interviewer pressed him, saying, “You seem reluctant to criticize Israel at all,” Jeffries responded, “I’m dealing with the facts on the ground.”

Jeffries has also refused to cosponsor the Block the Bombs Act, which would restrict transfers of some of the deadliest offensive weapons to Israel, including 2,000-pound bombs, bunker busters, precision-guidance kits, and tank and artillery rounds. As of November 2026, the bill has 82 Democratic cosponsors and the endorsement of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Caucus Chair Greg Casar has pledged to push for a floor vote if Democrats regain the majority. Yet Jeffries has not signed on, and as Speaker, he would have enormous power to determine whether the bill ever receives a vote.

While Jeffries has acknowledged that U.S. policy toward Israel needs to change, he continues to support Israel’s military superiority and joint missile-defense programs. He has also refused to condemn Section 219 of the NDAA, which would further integrate U.S. and Israeli military research, technology, and production.

Ironically, both Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have recently suggested that the U.S. should stop giving Israel nearly $4 billion a year because “Israel doesn’t need it.” Whether or not we believe them, it is striking that we have yet to hear a similar call from Hakeem Jeffries.

3. He has failed to champion major cuts to the obscene Pentagon budget

At a time when Americans are struggling to afford basic necessities, Trump is demanding a staggering $1.5 trillion military budget—an increase of nearly $600 billion, or 66 percent, over the previous year’s base funding. Yet Jeffries has not made substantially reducing Pentagon spending a central priority of Democratic leadership.

Yes, he has opposed funding for Trump’s war in Iran but he is a staunch advocate of continued U.S. military aid to Ukraine and has sharply criticized Trump for failing to provide sufficient support. He said “America is stronger when Russia is weaker.” In September 2026, he pledged that Democrats would continue backing Ukraine “until victory is won,” signaling his commitment to greater U.S. involvement and military assistance instead of a commitment to a diplomatic solution that would end that terrible war.

Jeffries is also an enthusiastic defender of the aggressive alliance NATO, which should have dissolved when the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. He has called NATO “the most successful military and diplomatic alliance in the history of the world.” NATO, at Trump’s insistence, has called for all members to dramatically increase their military budgets to 5 percent of their GDP (the US is presently at 3.1 percent).

Jeffries’ ties to the military-industrial complex are particularly troubling. During the 2026 election cycle alone, Jeffries’ campaign reportedly received approximately $212,000 from military PACs.

Democrats cannot simply promise better healthcare, affordable housing, quality education and climate action while supporting a massive military budget. Real change requires shifting resources from weapons and war to the needs of ordinary people. The next Democratic Speaker must be prepared to challenge the military-industrial complex.

4. He continues to accept pro-Israel lobby money

Jeffries’s position on Israel cannot be separated from his longstanding political relationship with the AIPAC lobby.

At a time when AIPAC funding has become toxic and so many Democratic candidates rejected AIPAC money, Jeffries has maintained his ties to the organization.

According to Track AIPAC, Hakeem Jeffries has received more than $1.5 million in campaign contributions from AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby groups over his congressional career. During the 2026 election cycle alone, his campaign received nearly $300,000 in contributions from pro-Israel PACs.He has also taken five AIPAC-sponsored trips to Israel since arriving in Congress.

Following the November elections, AIPAC publicly celebrated Jeffries as one of the candidates it supported.

How can congressional Democrats be led by someone so closely tied to AIPAC, a lobby increasingly toxic to their own voters?

5. His Backroom Dealings with Jared Kushner Raise Serious Questions About His Judgment

At a time when Americans are demanding investigations into the Trump family’s financial dealings, Hakeem Jeffries chose to sit down privately with Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and influential adviser.

In August 2026, reports revealed that Jeffries had met with Kushner to discuss possible cooperation on housing, immigration and affordability. Yet Kushner, who holds no official government position, continues to wield influence over U.S. foreign policy while maintaining lucrative financial relationships with Gulf governments through his investment firm.

House Judiciary Committee Democrat Jamie Raskin has already launched an investigation into Kushner’s foreign financial entanglements, demanding documents and communications about his dealings with foreign governments. So why was Jeffries meeting with him behind closed doors?

With Democrats taking control of the House in January, they need a speaker committed to untangling the dirty web of corruption committed by Trump and his inner circle.

6. He Has Elevated Warhawks to Key Foreign-Policy Positions

You can tell a political leader’s priorities by whom they put in power. And Jeffries’s choices speak volumes.

In August 2026, Democratic leaders elevated Rep. Jared Moskowitz, one of the House’s most outspoken pro-Israel hawks, to the top Democratic position on the powerful House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa. Moskowitz has been an unwavering defender of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, continued U.S. weapons shipments, and Israel’s brutal military operations in Lebanon. He has also openly supported both Israeli attacks on Iran and Trump’s 2025 bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, and initially opposed congressional efforts to prevent the 2026 war before later backing War Powers restrictions.

With Democrats in control of the House, Moskowitz will be positioned to chair the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, wielding significant influence over congressional oversight and policy toward Israel, Palestine, Iran, and the entire region.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Wesley Bell, two other staunch defenders of Israel, were added to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Bell had defeated progressive Rep. Cori Bush in 2024 after massive spending by AIPAC’s super PAC. Progressives are still steaming over the role of Wasserman Schultz in undermining Bernie Sanders during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary.

The backlash to these appointments was immediate. Rep. Ro Khanna warned, “Don’t put Israel hawks out of touch with our voters in charge of our Middle East policy.” The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the appointments as an insult to voters and an attempt to shield Israel from accountability for its actions in Gaza.

7. Jeffries Represents the Democratic Party’s Dependence on Corporate Money

The Democratic Party claims to fight for working people, but Jeffries remains deeply connected to the wealthy corporate interests that dominate Washington.

His campaign has benefited from millions of dollars in contributions associated with Wall Street, pharmaceutical and insurance companies, real estate interests, Big Tech and military contractors.

These financial relationships raise a fundamental question: How aggressively will Democrats challenge corporate greed, Wall Street speculation, soaring healthcare costs and the military-industrial complex when their leader maintains such close ties to these powerful interests?

Progressive Democrats have demonstrated that grassroots organizing and small-dollar fundraising offer an alternative to corporate PAC money.

The Democratic Party cannot credibly promise to take on corporate power without confronting the influence of big money within its own leadership.

8. He has defended the Democratic establishment against progressive challengers

Jeffries has a long history of protecting entrenched Democratic incumbents against progressive challengers.

In 2020, he backed longtime pro-Israel congressman Eliot Engel against Jamaal Bowman, who defeated Engel in a stunning primary upset. In 2022, Jeffries traveled to Chicago to campaign for veteran Congressman Danny Davis against young progressive organizer Kina Collins, who came within seven percentage points of victory.

And in 2026, Jeffries backed Dan Goldman, Adriano Espaillat and Shri Thanedar against progressive challengers Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Donavan McKinney. All three incumbents lost their primaries, and all three challengers went on to win in November.

This pattern is no coincidence. In 2021, Jeffries joined forces with centrist Democrats Josh Gottheimer and Terri Sewell to establish Team Blue PAC, designed to protect Democratic incumbents against primary challengers.

While voters are demanding a new direction, Jeffries has repeatedly sided with the establishment candidates they rejected.

9. He Wants to Reform ICE, Not Abolish It

As ICE agents terrorize immigrant communities, separate families and carry out violent raids, the question of how to dismantle Trump’s cruel mass-deportation machinery has become increasingly urgent.

Jeffries has condemned ICE’s brutality and demanded greater accountability. But he has stopped short of calling for the abolition of ICE or the dismantling of the Department of Homeland Security, insisting instead that these agencies can be reformed.

Contrast that with Rep. Delia Ramirez’s groundbreaking Reimagining Safety Act, which would abolish ICE, dismantle DHS and establish a new Department of Community Safety, redirecting resources toward housing, healthcare and community well-being. Her legislation challenges the very definition of national security, arguing that real safety comes from meeting people’s needs, not militarizing their communities.

This is the kind of bold, visionary leadership that offers a fundamental alternative to simply “reforming” an out-of-control immigration enforcement system that is terrorizing immigrant communities.

10. He Has Failed to Champion Bold Climate Action

As devastating wildfires consume entire communities, record-breaking heat waves threaten lives, and floods and droughts wreak havoc across the country, the climate crisis demands bold, urgent leadership—not business as usual.

Yet Jeffries has refused to endorse the Green New Deal or champion demands to halt the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure and eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the oil and gas industry. In 2022, when more than 70 House Democrats publicly opposed legislation to fast-track fossil fuel projects, Jeffries declined to join them.

More recently, he has distanced himself from calls for a moratorium on new AI data centers, even as a powerful grassroots movement is sweeping the country, with communities organizing against these energy-guzzling facilities that drain water supplies, drive up electricity bills, strain power grids and threaten the environment.

Jeffries supported the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean-energy investments, but he has not embraced the more ambitious climate agenda advocated by progressive lawmakers and community groups.

At a time when climate disasters are destroying homes, livelihoods and entire communities, the Democratic Party needs leadership with the urgency and ambition to confront the climate crisis.

A Democratic Majority Deserves Progressive Leadership

More than any single vote, contribution, or appointment, the problem with Hakeem Jeffries is the establishment politics he represents—politics that protect the powerful, accommodate corporate interests, and offer timid reforms when the country is crying out for transformative change.

Voters did not reject Republican extremism just to see Democratic leaders continue pouring billions into wars and corporate interests while families struggle to afford housing, healthcare, and basic necessities.

And the grassroots are making their voices heard. In just a few days, more than one million people have signed a petition demanding new leadership. Congressional offices are being inundated with calls, and several incoming Democrats—including Melat Kiros, Claire Valdez, Chris Rabb, and Adam Hamawy—are withholding support for Jeffries.

The Speaker of the House holds enormous power. That power can be used to confront the military-industrial complex, challenge corporate money and AIPAC, stand up for immigrants, and put human needs ahead of endless wars. Or it can be used to protect the very system that has brought us to this crisis.

That’s why we need a new generation of leadership willing to fight for real change.

Sign the petition demanding new leadership. Call your member of Congress at 202-224-3121.

Monday, November 09, 2026

Labour’s message to UK voters: Israel is more important than your needs

 

Tom Blackburn

MEE, 9 November 2026 12:18 GMT

In response to ‘Zionism is racism’ motion, Burnham’s party is set to break local cooperation deals with the Greens

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham speaks to the media in St. John’s, Antigua and Barbuda, on 4 November 2026 (Kin Cheung/AFP)

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham speaks to the media in St. John’s, Antigua and Barbuda, on 4 November 2026 (Kin Cheung/AFP)

The UK Labour Party has signalled its intention to break local co-operation deals with the Green Party over the latter’s “Zionism is racism” motion, passed at the Greens’ conference last month.

Eleven power-sharing agreements with the Greens look set to be terminated, including in Stafford and Warwick councils, where local Green parties have refused to renounce the motion, as demanded by Labour.

Hundreds of thousands of people could be affected as their local councils lose working majorities, with the Labour leadership’s diktat forcing its council groups to either find alternative coalition partners or govern as minority administrations.

Several local coalition agreements have already been ended, with councils being run without a majority in places such as Derbyshire, Havant, and Lewes. Sheffield’s Labour-Green joint administration, which governs over half a million people, is holding on after the two groups reached a last-minute deal on 4 November.

The Labour Party, it appears, has decided that ideological conformity on Israel is more important than the needs of residents.

New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch

Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters

The arrogance of this move is striking. Labour spent the best part of three years backing Israel to the hilt, both militarily and politically, as it inflicted genocide on Gaza, only latterly expressing reservations after coming under increasing domestic and international pressure. Now it presumes the right to lecture the Greens about standards of morality and political hygiene, as if it has any claim to the moral high ground.

This also risks backfiring on Prime Minister Andy Burnham personally, given his attempts to put clear daylight between himself and his predecessor, Keir Starmer, on Palestine – for example, by offering an apology for Labour’s handling of Gaza, and imposing limited (and “symbolic”, according to UK diplomats themselves) sanctions on illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

The decision to break local coalition arrangements with the Greens over the Zionism motion has undone much of that carefully calibrated positioning in one fell swoop.

Clear dividing line

Whatever the rhetorical differences under Burnham, the fundamental line in the sand remains the same: criticism of Israeli government policy is permissible up to a point, but challenging the ideology of ethno-religious supremacism that underpins it – Zionism – is beyond the pale.

One thing the Green Party’s motion has done is to draw a clear dividing line. On one side are the Greens, who despite some internal disagreement, have adopted an explicitly anti-Zionist and anti-genocide position; on the other is Labour, still so tied to Israel that it is prepared to tank its own councils rather than sully itself (perish the thought!) by remaining in local coalitions with Green groups that refuse to repudiate the motion.

This is especially revealing when set against the common accusation that supporters of Palestinian national liberation are “obsessed” with the issue.

Labour has made its choice. It is up to the Greens to ensure that voters understand it

In fact, it is Labour that has chosen, perversely, to make adherence to Zionism a litmus test of political purity, even to the point of putting it before the interests of the people it purports to represent – thus jeopardising local services, rather than tolerating an avowedly anti-Zionist coalition partner.

There is a glaring contrast between the energy with which Labour rushes to defend Zionism, and its lethargic response to growing far-right agitation at home. In recent months, the nationalist group Patriot Platform has blockaded the port of Dover; lifeboat charity volunteers have been targeted by fascists for rescuing migrants in the Channel; and in Greater Manchester, Burnham’s old stomping ground, multi-tenant properties and even ordinary family homes have been attacked.

There is no equivalent zeal from Labour in confronting any of this.

Accusations of antisemitism have become a magic button, which the political establishment thinks it can press to destroy challenges from the left. The Greens now find themselves on the receiving end of this treatment, despite being the only British political party with a Jewish leader in Zack Polanski.

Fostering illusions

There is nothing inherently antisemitic about anti-Zionism, and anti-Zionists are typically at pains to distinguish between Zionism and Jewish people; rather, it is Zionists themselves who are always eager to collapse the distinction.

Zionism cannot be placed beyond political contestation or criticism. Its defenders might insist that, theoretically, there are benign variants of Zionism, and that it cannot be considered monolithically racist. But the real-world historical record – one of large-scale ethnic cleansing and mass murder over eight decades – is what counts.

Zionism is, and has been from its inception, a settler-colonial project privileging one ethno-religious group, namely Israeli Jews, over the Palestinians who had lived on that land for millennia prior to the onset of Zionist colonisation.

UK Green motion on Zionism: Why we need to change the conversation

Read More »

Liberal Zionism, to which the Labour Party still clings, has played a uniquely pernicious role. It has helped to sustain illusions that the Zionist project can somehow be reformed and humanised, while singularly failing to actually do so.

By fostering such illusions, it has bought time, which the Israeli state has used to seize more territory, build more settlements, and displace and kill more Palestinians, culminating in the Gaza genocide. Its aggression and covetousness also extends into occupied southern Lebanon and Syria.

The Greens are in the right, morally as well as politically, and should resist the temptation – along with the demands of certain party grandees, signal-boosted by the media – to capitulate to the smears and row back on the Zionism motion.

Labour has committed what may well prove to be a serious miscalculation, and an act of political self-sabotage – all in defence of Zionism. Even many voters who understand little about Palestine are likely to question why Labour is destabilising their local councils over a foreign policy dispute.

What really sticks in the craw is Burnham’s hypocrisy and opportunism, having come to power promising a break with Starmerism – only to, like Starmer, make support for Zionism an effective red line. His carefully worded apology and sanctions are now shown for what they are: public relations exercises, not a genuine change of course.

Labour has made its choice. It is up to the Greens to ensure that voters understand it.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Tom Blackburn is a writer from Manchester. A founding co-editor of New Socialist, he has written for publications including The Guardian, Tribune and Jacobin.

An Electoral Victory Is Not Liberation: The Fight Against Gangster Capitalism

 

electoral victory

Defeating authoritarian politicians at the ballot box does not dismantle the systems of power that made their rise possible.

With the Democratic Party’s landslide victory, a day of reckoning appears to have arrived for Trump and the far-right, white nationalist forces that have turned cruelty into a governing principle and hatred into a political language. Something has broken in the machinery of fear. The old fascist ideas, the politics of racial hatred, and the relentless assault on human dignity have encountered a moment of resistance. Too much suffering, too much misery, too much authoritarian violence. Too much blood in the streets, too many deaths, screams, and a deafening silence. Enough is enough, at least for the moment. The Trump regime has exposed some of the darkest impulses of political life, resurrecting the ghosts of a past that should have taught us where the glorification of state violence, racial cleansing, the crushing of dissent, and organized cruelty inevitably leads. Its legacy is written in the expansion of the carceral state, the staggering investment in prisons and punishment, the unleashing of masked agents of repression across the country, and the unapologetic embrace of a language of racial cleansing that strips entire populations of their humanity and destroys lives and civil liberties.

paris riots copy

France’s Student Uprising: A Generation Revolts Against Capitalism

Read More

Yet the celebrations now dominating liberal and mainstream media risk turning this electoral victory into an exercise in historical amnesia. Trump’s defeat is being hailed as a crushing repudiation of the far right, as though the political conditions that made his rise possible have suddenly disappeared. Missing from this triumphalist narrative is any serious reckoning with the Democratic Party’s own complicity in creating those conditions. From Clinton to Obama, Democratic administrations embraced neoliberal policies that deepened economic inequality, strengthened corporate power, weakened working-class institutions, and helped create the social and political landscape in which authoritarianism could flourish. Nor can the party’s leadership escape responsibility for its support of Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza, its exporting of horrendous military weapons, and its broader allegiance to a colonizing authoritarian order, sustained through violence and dispossession. A party so deeply implicated in the machinery of neoliberal capitalism cannot be entrusted with dismantling the very structures of power it has helped legitimate and preserve.

For a fleeting moment, democracy may be able to breathe again. But breathing is not liberation, and an electoral victory is no substitute for dismantling the gangster capitalist order that breeds authoritarianism, feeds on human suffering, commodifies every aspect of life, and makes fascism an enduring possibility. The forces that produced Trump did not emerge overnight, nor will they disappear with an election. They are embedded in institutions that concentrate wealth, manufacture fear, normalize inequality, and transform human misery into a source of profit and political power. Trump may be defeated at the ballot box, but Trumpism cannot be defeated without confronting the economic, political, and cultural foundations of a system that turns greed into virtue, cruelty into policy, racism into a badge of honor, and human disposability into a governing principle.

invaders

When Words Become Weapons of Racial Terror

Read More

Unless those foundations are dismantled, the nightmare will return, perhaps wearing a different mask. The serpent’s egg, to invoke the haunting metaphor associated with Ingmar Bergman, has not been destroyed. It lies beneath the surface of seemingly democratic societies, nourished by the dark and volatile forces of a capitalist order that breeds inequality, authoritarianism, and organized cruelty. Brecht understood that fascism could not be confronted without exposing the capitalist relations of power that give rise to it. The serpent’s egg remains embedded in the political, economic, and cultural machinery of gangster capitalism, waiting for the conditions under which it can hatch again. Fascism may suffer an electoral defeat, but the serpent survives, sustained by the very system that gave it life.

There is another historical lesson that cannot be buried beneath the celebrations of an electoral victory: the need to recover the spirit of the Nuremberg trials. Nuremberg established a principle that must never be forgotten. Those who organize, authorize, and carry out state crimes cannot hide behind the authority of government or the excuse of following orders. The Trump regime has left behind a record of actions demanding criminal investigation, from the killing of people aboard boats in international waters, including attacks that legal experts have warned may constitute war crimes, to the abduction, imprisonment, and deportation of people in violation of fundamental rights and due process.

The Democratic Party has a responsibility to ensure that these abuses are investigated and that those responsible, from Pete Hegseth to Stephen Miller and others who directed or enabled such policies, are held accountable wherever the evidence establishes criminal responsibility. There can be no reconciliation purchased at the expense of justice, no national healing built on organized forgetting, and no democratic renewal that grants impunity to those who turned the machinery of the state into an instrument of terror. The lesson of Nuremberg is not that history repeats itself in identical forms, but that crimes committed under the cover of state power must be exposed, judged, and punished through the rule of law. Without accountability, the promise of an electoral victory in the spirit of reviving democratic values and policies becomes another empty slogan, and the forces of authoritarian violence are given permission to return.

I do not want to underestimate the magnitude of what amounts to a historic political rebuke. As Ryan Bort observes, Democrats swept the House and Senate, captured governorships once considered beyond their reach, and delivered a crushing defeat to Trump and the Republican Party.  As Jeffrey St. Clair rightly reminds me in an email, there is no shame in celebrating, even for a moment, “the crushing defeat of some of the most venal people on the planet.” Nor should we minimize the repudiation of Elon Musk’s obscene efforts to purchase political power, the ability of voters to overcome the assault on voting rights and “the extreme gerrymandering enabled by the Supreme Court, or the triumph of El Sayed running a pro-Palestinian campaign over AIPAC and the Islamophobes?” Taken together, these victories mark a powerful rejection of the machinery of racial hatred, billionaire domination, and authoritarian rule. Yet celebration must not become a substitute for political reckoning. The defeat of Trumpism at the ballot box, however historic, does not mean that the economic, political, and cultural forces that produced it have been dismantled.

The possibility of genuine transformation will not emerge from the exhausted leadership of a Democratic Party unwilling to break with the capitalist order it serves. It will emerge from the streets, from organized workers, from young people refusing to be written out of history, and from collective struggles that reject the politics of fear, austerity, racial hatred, and disposability. Elections may interrupt the march toward authoritarianism—a crucial pedagogical function– but they cannot abolish the conditions-the myriad economic, political, and cultural forces-that make fascism possible. The task now is to turn this moment of resistance into a sustained struggle against the structures of power that have made democracy increasingly subordinate to wealth, militarism, and corporate domination. The future cannot be entrusted to political elites in suits, who promise to rescue democracy while preserving the economic order that is destroying it. The struggle is not simply to defeat one authoritarian leader, but to dismantle a system that makes authoritarianism possible and to build a world in which justice, equality, collective freedom, and human dignity become the foundations of democratic life.

The opinions expressed here are solely the author’s and do not reflect the opinions or beliefs of the LA Progressive.

CapitalismGangster CapitalismElection Results

Henry A. Giroux

By

Henry A. Giroux

Henry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is the Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical Pedagogy. His latest books are The Burden of Conscience: Educating Beyond the Veil of Silence (Bloomsbury in 2025); Assassins of Memory: Critical Pedagogy and the Politics of Erasure (Bloomsbury, 2026). He is LA Progressive’s Associate Editor.

Israel Continues Bombing Gaza as Floods Devastate Families Living in Tents

 At least two Palestinians were killed in Israeli attacks, while five others died when a sand dune collapsed amid severe flooding

by Dave DeCamp | November 8, 2026 at 5:34 pm ET | Gaza, Israel

Israeli attacks continued to pound Gaza on Sunday despite the devastation facing displaced Palestinian civilians after heavy rains flooded tens of thousands of tents over the weekend.

The Palestinian news agency WAFA reported that on Sunday night, an Israeli strike on the al-Mawasi tent camp west of Khan Younis, southern Gaza, killed at least two Palestinians, including one woman. Several other Palestinians were also wounded in the attack.

The Anadolu Agency reported that an Israeli strike in northern Gaza wounded at least four people, including one who was in critical condition. Sources told the outlet that there was also a strike in central Gaza, and a woman was injured by gunfire to the northeast of Khan Younis.

Displaced Palestinians stand at a tent camp during a rainy day in Gaza City, November 7, 2026. REUTERS/Dawoud Abu Alkas

Also on Sunday, a steep sand dune collapsed onto tents in Ard El-Rebat displacement camp in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza, killing at least five Palestinians, including three children. At least one building damaged by previous Israeli attacks collapsed on Saturday.

Amid the devastation due to the heavy rains, official Israeli social media accounts made light of the situation, with a State of Israel X account run by the Israeli Foreign Ministry writing, “Contrary to popular belief, Israel does not control the weather.”

But Israel does control what enters Gaza, and Palestinian civilians are still living in tents and bombed-out buildings more than one year after a so-called ceasefire deal was signed due to a joint US and Israeli decision not to allow reconstruction to take place.

Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and a family friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said back in August that the US “will not allow Gaza to be rebuilt” until it is “demilitarized.” His comments came about a month after the US announced that Hamas agreed to a deal that would see the group give up its weapons, a proposal that Netanyahu rejected.

The US has continued to back Israel’s attacks despite Israel rejecting the Hamas disarmament proposal. Since the ceasefire deal was signed in October 2025, the IDF has killed at least 1,610 Palestinians and wounded 5,819, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, as Israel has constantly violated the agreement with daily strikes.

If you liked this article, please support Antiwar.com.
We are 100% reader-supported.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.