The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Articles

China is not a monolith

The Communist Party and socialist construction


01/07/2025

Out of the 1.4 billion people who live in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), around 100 million Chinese citizens are members of the Communist Party of China (CPC). To put that in perspective, Germany has a total population of about 84 million. And yet, all too often popular and even academic discourse sees fit to make broad categorizations (be they positive or negative) about China and its ruling Party, as if a political organization larger than any European country except Russia or a country larger than any other save India could be reduced to a single voice. Indeed, it is highly questionable how any group of such size could function at all without discourse, criticism, and self-reflection, and yet China’s return to global prominence has been meteoric.

Making matters worse, ideological sectarianism has led many leftists in the English-speaking world to refuse any serious engagement with more recent developments in China. This has resulted in a media landscape in which some of the most comprehensive outlets describing China’s socialist project come from reactionary sources engaged in bad faith analyses. The aim of this article is to serve as an introduction to a few of the key elements of the Chinese effort to construct socialism. It is written to inspire readers to engage more deeply with the many voices coming from China, rather than attempt to reduce the entirety of the PRC or the CPC to something which can fit inside of an “either this or that” box.

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics

Any amount of time studying CPC publications will quickly familiarize one with the concept of the tífǎ (提法). Tífǎ are short phrases which condense extensive ideological meaning, with examples including “Harmonious Society”, the “Four Basic Principles”, and “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”. In the case of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, what is being invoked is the continual application of socialist theory within China’s unique but permanently changing material circumstances. To that end, a line is drawn connecting the Party’s major ideological developments, which are listed as: Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, the Scientific Outlook on Development, and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.

The CPC Constitution, in summarizing these developments, refers to each as a “crystallization of the collective wisdom of the Communist Party of China” in their respective epochs, emphasizing historical precedence. Each major ideological development by the Party is contextualized with all those that have preceded it and justified by its claim of representing a continuation of Marxist-Leninist principles. The development of China’s socialist project has been one of dramatic change and adaptation, but it is interesting to note how, with each new iteration of party leadership, the CPC has found it necessary to state and restate its commitment to socialist principles and a communist future. The Party’s legitimacy, its “right to rule”, is in part tied to its adherence to socialist ideals. Rather than attempting to move beyond these ideals, the rhetoric of the CPC repeatedly and consistently reaffirms them.

Like all nation-states, the PRC has no choice but to exist in a world-system defined by the dominance of the capitalist mode of production. The PRC Constitution states that “class struggle will continue to exist within a certain scope for a long time to come” adding that “the people of China must fight against those domestic and foreign forces and elements that are hostile to and undermine our country’s socialist system”. Similarly, the CPC Constitution notes that “owing to both domestic factors and international influences, a certain amount of class struggle will continue to exist for a long time to come, and under certain circumstances may even grow more pronounced, however, it is no longer the principal contradiction”. This is rationalized, according to the CPC Constitution, as inevitable given China’s current level of development in what is called the “primary stage of socialism” — a stage which “cannot be bypassed” and “will take over a century”.

Article 3 of the PRC Constitution and Article 10 of the CPC Constitution state that the State and Party operate in accordance with the principles of democratic centralism. It is true that the centralized aspect of Chinese governance limits actions and speech which would hinder the Party’s decisions, but this should not be misunderstood as the negation of debate within the Party or country as a whole. Dissent is constrained, but that does not mean that it does not exist. In 2012, Chinese academic Cheng Enfu defined seven tendencies in China’s political discourse: neo-liberalism, democratic socialism, new leftism, eclectic Marxism, orthodox Marxism, revivalism, and innovative Marxism. These tendencies are representative of a complex and ongoing debate within China and include policy-positions ranging from the prioritization of Confucian values to the furthering of economic privatization to the reinvigoration of Maoism. Similarly, David Ownby, a professor at the University of Montreal who runs the Reading the China Dream blog, frequently translates works by Chinese scholars into English, dividing this discourse into three main categories: liberalism, New Leftism, and New Confucianism. Ownby insists that “genuine debate… occurs constantly in China, and the intellectual world is not as ‘harmonious’ as Chinese authorities would prefer, nor as totalitarian as Western media sometimes suggests.”

Moreover, CPC publications, as well as the Party’s constitution, insist that China has entered the “primary stage” of socialist development. Whereas Lenin’s State and Revolution elaborated on the Marxist conception of the time, that the overthrow of capitalist society would first result in a “lower phase” of communism (socialism) and then a “higher phase”, the CPC insists that this lower phase must itself be broken into stages given China’s historical circumstances. In the “primary stage” of socialist development, the CPC has achieved national autonomy and placed market forces under Party control. From this perspective, one might understand the continuance of class struggle as a tactical decision while the CPC pursues the current “principal contradiction” of raising the living standards of the Chinese people and addressing “unbalanced and inadequate development”.

Cheng Enfu and Yang Jun, in an article for the Monthly Review, consider China’s socialist development through a “Triple Revolution” theory. They argue that revolution first takes the form of a seizure of power, followed by an embodiment of reform and self-improvement, and finally a transitional period to “carry the revolution through to its completion”. The authors note how this notion of carrying the revolution to its completion has been reintroduced by Xi Jinping as an “urgent demand” of the CPC. The development of socialism in China is an ongoing conversation, and its future will be tied to the ability of Chinese socialists to push their values forward through the challenges of both internal and external contradictions.

“Crossing the River by Feeling the Stones”

The CPC is attempting to build socialism by balancing the benefits and consequences of market economics through a process of experimentation and a philosophy of pragmatism (summarized in Deng Xiaoping’s famous quote, now an oft-quoted adage in Party discourse: “crossing the river by feeling the stones”). Chen Yun, who served on the Central Committee of the CPC from 1931-1987, described what has come to be known as “birdcage economics”. Chen insisted that market forces were necessary for the PRC to catch-up with the industrialized world before it succumbed to internal and external pressures. However, he also warned that the “bird” (market forces) must never be allowed outside of its “cage” (the state plans of the CPC). He stated: “We have to utilize a cage, that is to say, both invigoration of the economy and allowance for regulation by market forces should play their role as prescribed by the state plan, and we must not deviate from the format of state plans.”

China’s socialist market economy is not Soviet-style socialism premised on central planning. Nor is it free market capitalism. It has elements of both, though in reality it is neither. The state plays a tremendous role, and while the market is given space to thrive, this space is defined by ironclad limits set by the Communist Party and adjusted in accordance with changing domestic, international, and global realities. The question of whether any individual adjustment is conducive to the ends of socialism or represents a step backward is best raised empirically, rather than ideologically, which requires familiarity with China’s material situation.

The CPC’s exercise of state power has also extended beyond the market. Yang Ping, founder of the journal Wénhuà Zònghéng (文化纵横), considers China’s rise to be representative of a “third wave” of socialism following the initial wave of European labor movements gaining class-consciousness and the second wave of socialist state projects which ended with the dissolution of the USSR. Yang argues that China’s development of a socialist market economy has allowed it to rise rapidly without succumbing to the international pressures that overwhelmed Soviet-style socialism. Key to this point is an emphasis on the leading role of the Communist Party on the grounds that “if socialism does not provide ideological and cultural leadership, capitalism inevitably will”.

Under Xi Jinping, there has been a renewed effort at consolidating more and more civil spaces and social institutions under CPC control — rationalized, according to Yang Ping’s argument, that CPC leadership is necessary to prevent Chinese development from succumbing to capitalist idealism. This logic might be compared to the role of the state as a “birdcage” for the market: the CPC understands that the institutions of civil society must expand as China develops, but will not allow this expansion to take place without oversight on the grounds that the absence of leadership by the Communist Party is synonymous with the presence of leadership by capitalist interests. This is a balancing act, one which is rife with contradictions, and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics will be judged historically by its ability to successfully navigate and resolve such contradictions.

One example of these contradictions in civil society is the role of organized labor in China. All labor unions must be affiliated with the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), an organization controlled by the CPC. Within China’s socialist market economy many corporations are also under party oversight, and must maintain internal party organizations. This creates an obvious conflict of interest in which workers seeking a resolution to their grievances are left appealing to representatives who are also connected to their company’s management. This has resulted in widespread distrust of the ACFTU and the emergence of grassroots labor organizations and NGOs in Chinese civil society, initially tolerated by the CPC but now largely dismantled or integrated into CPC-led organizations.

However, the integration of Party and society has also enabled incredible progress, such as Xi Jinping’s poverty alleviation campaign which has lifted nearly 100 million Chinese citizens out of extreme poverty since 2013 (contributing to the 800 million who have been lifted out of poverty in China since 1978). The success of such a campaign would have been unthinkable without the capacity to mobilize large numbers of party cadres alongside local communities to address problems at their roots and in a sustained way. For example, a key role was played by the All-China Women’s Federation (ACWF), a mass organization tied to the CPC. This deliberate linking of Party and civil society represents an adherence to the Maoist principle of the “mass line”. The same integration of civil society organizations under CPC control which has contributed to workplace grievances and widespread strikes has also facilitated the unprecedented feat of raising the living standards of hundreds of millions while eradicating extreme poverty. China’s path to socialism is a balancing act. It is an ongoing debate over how to implement the proper kind of leadership in relation to constantly changing material circumstances, and in the face of internal and external contradictions — it cannot be otherwise.

What Can Be Learned from China’s Socialist Endeavor?

CPC official Sun Yeli has stated that while China’s modernization process contains universally applicable aspects, it is also tailored to China’s unique context. The scholar Yuen Yuen Ang has described China’s economic model as “using what you have”, referring to the creative application of local resources by grassroots actors in accordance with top-down directives. What might be learned from China is not any one specific policy or organizational system, but a methodology. An understanding of Marxism not as a dogmatic subscription to a set of conclusions to be considered ahistorically, but rather as a science of change grounded in the material world. Socialist principles (the pursuit of economic equality, international solidarity, and a resolution of exploitative contradictions) should be ironclad and inflexible. But these principles cannot be realized in one fell swoop — they must be constructed piece by piece, with inevitable setbacks and all of the challenges of human imperfection.

Marxists around the world should consider what socialism will have to look like in relation to their own specific environments. This requires a critical analysis of which tactics will or will not allow one to further the socialist cause, conducted concretely rather than abstractly. The fact that the CPC has not been able to skip from its “Century of Humiliation” straight to a fully classless society free of exploitation seems to be grounds for many so-called “Western Marxists” to dismiss the entirety of China’s effort at socialist construction outright, a consequence of treating Marxism as a dogma rather than as a science. Yet, no socialist project has ever existed outside of a state of siege from both domestic and international counter-revolutionary forces. Nor has a socialist project yet been achieved in the so-called “developed” world.

Such points cannot be brushed aside. Socialist China did not come into being with an industrialized economy or a military strong enough to secure its sovereignty. Rather, it emerged out of a period of historic weakness, imperialist exploitation, and poverty. High among these contradictions has been the horror of poverty, which led Deng Xiaoping to declare that without raising people’s living standards “you cannot say that you are building socialism”. In spite of its hardships, China has made historic strides forward. Missteps, setbacks, and counter-revolutionary tendencies (both internal and external) are inevitable. Socialist construction cannot proceed through ideological purity, it must navigate the contradictions of reality without losing sight of a red future.

There are of course reasons for concern, for example the makeup of the Party going forward. Drawing on the Organizational Department of the CPC as its source, South China Morning Post reports that CPC membership in 2019 consisted primarily of managerial and technical workers. Agricultural and “blue-collar” workers combined make up roughly a third of Party membership (a slight decrease from 2012). The Party is also aging, with about 18% of members being retirees and around a third being at least 61 years old. Female representation is horribly low and improving only at a snail’s pace. The composition of the Party, increasingly “white collar” and stubbornly male, cannot but impact the internal decision-making dynamics of the CPC going forward — but such matters are concerns, not grounds for surrender or dismissal.

In one of his polemics, Vladimir Lenin noted that in revolutionary times the Communist Party had to “speak French”, his metaphor for utilizing “rousing slogans” to “raise the energy of the direct struggle of the masses and extend its scope”. For “pure” socialists, this direct application of revolutionary zeal seems to be the be-all end-all of socialist construction. Yet, Lenin claimed, in times of stagnation one must learn to “speak German”, working slowly, “advancing step by step, winning inch by inch”, ultimately declaring: “Whoever finds this work tedious, whoever does not understand the need for preserving and developing the revolutionary principles of Social-Democratic tactics in this phase too, on this bend of the road, is taking the name of Marxist in vain.”

The history of the Communist Party of China is that of an organization which has learned, through trial and error, when to “speak French” and when to “speak German” (and there have been errors, ranging from the consequences of the Cultural Revolution to the inconsistency with which violations of worker’s legal rights have been addressed). Now, as the largest economy by GDP (PPP), the CPC is showing the world what it means to “speak Chinese”: to creatively navigate the contradictions of socialist growth in a capitalist world-economy while tirelessly developing a revolutionary culture. China’s socialism will proceed in the only way human endeavor possibly can: through steps and missteps, deviations and corrections, debate and reflection. It is an experiment which demands the world’s attention, led by a party which is not static, but living. Readers are encouraged to engage critically with the variety of theoretical perspectives emerging from China, and to engage with China’s socialist project as a process rather than as a monolith. In this time of historic reaction, Leftists around the world must learn to “use what they have”, to refine theory through practice, and to progress down the path towards a red future through both inches and strides.

3rd July 1988: Iran Air flight 655 is shot down

This week in working-class history


On 3rd July, 1988, Iran Air Flight 655 was flying in Iranian airspace, taking civilian passengers from Bandar Abbas to Dubai. It was shot down by two surface-to-air missiles fired by the US warship Vincennes, which was patrolling the Strait of Hormuz. All 290 people on board the flight were killed. 8 years later, the US government paid $61.8 million in compensation to the victims’ families. However, Vice President George Bush later insisted, “I will never apologize for the United States—I don’t care what the facts are.”

Some of the facts were recorded in the proceedings of the U.S Naval Institute, as Noam Chomsky later recounted: “David Carlson, who was commander of a nearby vessel, said he couldn’t understand it. He said that they saw this Iranian commercial airliner coming up right in international airspace, and the USS Vincennes focused its high-tech radar system on it and was moving forward to shoot it down.”

The attack on the 655 took place towards the end of the Iran-Iraq war, which lasted from 1980 to 1988. At first, the US government supplied both sides with arms (in the Iran-Contra hearings, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North admitted that the USA had broken the official arms embargo to provide Iran with weapons). As the war went on, the US tilted towards supporting the Iraqi dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

The shooting down of the Vincennes is just one of many examples of the disregard both for international law and human life shown by successive US governments, both Republican and Democrat, in their attempt to control the oil region. In 2002, the USA declared war on the same Saddam Hussein whom they had been supporting against Iran. As the US wages war on Iran once more, we should remember the victims, past and present, and mobilise against their imperialist wars.

Will Labour address child poverty in the UK?

When tackling child poverty becomes a political choice and not a moral duty


30/06/2025

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stands at a wooden podium with the official government crest, addressing the media during a press conference. Behind him are three Union Jack flags and wooden paneling, while blurred figures of seated attendees are visible in the foreground.

One might think that alleviating child poverty should hardly be a controversial aim for a left-wing government, but controversial it is proving to be for the current Labour government in the UK. At the centre of said controversy is a two-child benefits cap, which prevents parents from claiming welfare for any children additional to their first two.

Opponents of the cap, which was introduced by Theresa May’s Conservative government in 2017, argue that the policy is keeping around 540,000 children in absolute poverty and that it should be repealed, with some of the strongest opposition understandably coming from within Labour’s own ranks.

However, in last year’s King’s Speech, which sets out the government’s agenda for the coming year at the beginning of each session of Parliament, the newly elected Labour government made no mention of scrapping the cap. This was a clear signal that the Starmer administration had no intention of abolishing the policy any time soon.

Sensing an early opportunity to damage the government right out of the blocks, the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) tabled an amendment to the King’s Speech that called for the cap to be scrapped. Knowing that some Labour MPs could not refuse to support it, the SNP hoped to manufacture a demoralising rebellion against the government. The huge Labour majority meant the amendment had no chance of passing, but this piece of parliamentary gamesmanship did its job, and several Labour MPs duly supported the amendment.

It was a modest rebellion of only seven MPs, but to suffer a rebellion of any size on the first King’s Speech of the first Labour government in 14 years was an embarrassment. As such, it was inevitable that the government would respond, but the unexpectedly harsh 6-month suspension of each of the rebels from the party was a clear statement of intent. It showed that the government would not take rebellions lightly, but also that it would be steadfast in its opposition to scrapping the cap, at least for the foreseeable future.

But having repeatedly refused to scrap the cap for months, Labour now appears to be considering doing just that, apparently in response to appeals from MPs. Before looking at the choices facing the current government as it stands on the precipice of a surprising and welcome U-turn, it is worth looking at how it has come to find itself in this position in the first place.

The New Labour government under Tony Blair made tackling child poverty one of its main priorities after it swept into power in 1997. In 1999, riding high on the strong public approval that characterised the first years of New Labour, Blair made a bold pledge to end child poverty in the UK by 2020.

It seemed unachievable. But at first it looked like the heft of central government was actually beginning to shift the dial. Labour introduced new tax credits, increased welfare spending and launched a programme of holistic parental support called Sure Start, all of which led 1.7 million children out of absolute poverty by 2008—a 50% decrease from 1999.

In 2010, however, the Conservatives took over the reins of power and, with them, Blair’s project to end child poverty by 2020. Predictably, the progress that had been made up to then began to slow and eventually reverse.

In response to the 2008 financial crash, the Conservatives ushered in an era of austerity, which saw vicious cuts to public spending in the name of fiscal responsibility and living within the country’s means. But their strategy failed to produce significant growth, and the potent combination of economic stagnation and welfare cuts pushed 900,000 children into poverty between 2010 and 2023. During the same period, the proportion of children living in households below the poverty line also went up to 30% from 27% according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

One of the biggest blows dealt by the Tories to the mission to end child poverty in the UK during the era of austerity was the introduction of the two-child benefits cap in 2017. The cap is just one of the undesirable legacies left over after 14 years of Conservative government and, if not repealed, is predicted to affect an additional 640,000 children over the course of the current parliament.

Many have joined the chorus of progressive voices, including former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, calling for the cap to be scrapped as a cost-effective way to lift children out of poverty. So why, until recently, has the current Labour government seemed so reluctant to do so?

The answer surely lies in the party’s relentless effort to cast itself as the fiscally responsible choice during the 2024 general election. This involved making cripplingly restrictive promises on taxation and taking a hard line on welfare reforms. It formed part of what seemed to be a larger strategy of presenting a prudent, sensible version of the Labour Party whilst letting the reckless Tories shoot themselves in the foot. As an election-winning plan, it cannot be faulted—Labour won a huge landslide victory. But the government has left itself hamstrung by its own promises, unable to enact the progressive policies people normally expect from the Labour Party, including on the two-child cap.

The most recent substantial polling on the topic also suggests there is not much public support for scrapping the cap, with 60% in favour of keeping it and only 28% in favour of abolishing it. More evidence that mere electioneering is behind the government’s decision not to take action.

Glimpses of a coming U-turn, however, are beginning to appear. Cabinet ministers have openly said that the government is currently considering scrapping the cap and there is hope that the government’s Child Poverty Taskforce may call for it to be scrapped when it publishes its findings in the autumn.

It would be a most welcome U-turn. That there are more children in poverty than there were over a decade ago in the sixth largest economy in the world is a national disgrace. The government must surely recognise that tackling this problem is not just the right thing to do, it is a moral imperative. There may be other issues where the long-term political calculations of a government with an eye on a second term might justifiably be allowed to influence decision making, but this is simply not one of them. An election-winning reputation for fiscal restraint cannot be bought with the suffering of impoverished children willfully kept below the poverty line by their own government.

Estimates put the annual cost of scrapping the cap at between £2 billion and £3.5 billion. Clearly it would not be a cheap policy, but shedding the painfully short-sighted promises on taxation would free up more than enough revenue to fund it. The time has come for the government to decide where its values lie. Is it in the business of winning elections for winning’s sake, keeping a tight belt and cutting welfare to cling on to the red wall and middle England? Or has it entered power with a purpose, to protect the most vulnerable in society and to build a fairer, more compassionate Britain? Only time will tell.

Outrageous

How the West enabled the war on Iran


29/06/2025

On 13 June, Israel launched its most reckless campaign yet — a brazen, unprovoked strike against Iran, openly backed by US president Donald Trump. After the US joined the assault, Iran retaliated with a largely symbolic missile strike on a US base in Qatar, leading to a tentative ceasefire. Both sides now claim victory, but in war there are only losers — and accomplices.

For 12 perilous days and after more than a year and a half of genocide in Gaza, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyhu threw the Middle East into further jeopardy. Considering Iran is a major oil and natural gas producer, this also put the stagnating world economy at risk too. As expected and naturally warranting no mention from Western leaders, the casualties were asymmetrical, with many more killed in Iran than in Israel. Just three days into the conflict, Israel further broke international law by going out of its way to terrorise the Iranian population by attacking civilian structures including a television studio in Tehran. 

Meanwhile, Trump called for the evacuation of Tehran, a city of over 8.7 million, bringing to mind the repeated evacuation orders issued by the Israeli Army for Gaza and Beirut. Trump then authorised unprecedented strikes by the US military on three key Iranian nuclear facilities. Netanyahu and Trump both floated regime change as a possible desirable consequence of the attacks. This is a blatant violation of international law on principles of national sovereignty and protection from foreign interference.

What was the reaction around the world? The day after the first attacks I used the word “limp” to characterise the initial Western response. But “limp” doesn’t begin to describe the attitudes expressed in the days after. European leaders sent all kinds of mixed messages: From vehemently defending Israel’s right to self-defence to calling for “de-escalation and restraint from all sides”; from saluting the Israeli state’s “courage” in attacking Iran to blaming the latter for “destabilising the region”. The latter type of solidarity continued to be strictly reserved only for Israel even after the US attack. In contrast, countries like Russia, China, Japan and Saudi Arabia issued repeated strongly worded statements, citing how the Israeli and American attacks violated the United Nations Charter. This was something the Europeans never did.

Many argue that the Israeli attack was not unprovoked, but was in fact a warranted pre-emptive attack. One by “The Only Democracy in the Middle East” against an evil and allegedly nearly nuclear power, the Islamic Republic of Iran. Evidence points to the falsity of this presumption. It is just as happened with allegations against Saddam Hussein of possessing weapons of mass destruction before the US invasion of Iraq. Now with Iran, we see the same media complicity we saw before with Iraq. 

In March 2025, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified before the US Congress that the American intelligence community “continues to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized a nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.” Despite rebuking Iran for not meeting its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the International Atomic Energy Agency also stated that they didn’t find any evidence that Iran was building a nuclear bomb. Some sources state that Iran was up to three years away from being able to build such a bomb, and even if it was built, it would hardly be a threat to Israel, the only nuclear power in the region.

All this begs the question: why did Israel attack now? The fact is that all of Iran’s traditional allies in the region — Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria — have all but left the picture in the past year and a half. Other than strategic alliances with Russia and China, Iran is essentially alone, isolated from the “international community” and facing an emboldened enemy in Israel. Additionally, Netanyahu is barely holding together an ailing coalition government and is likely to go to prison for corruption charges once he leaves office. Furthermore, the US had essentially disengaged from the region in recent years, hindering Israeli interests. Netanyahu therefore saw little political downside in taking this risk, and had much to win – a patriotic boost and a renewed vigour for its core alliance.

This might just have been the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity he had been hoping for to realise his long-held dream of launching a massive attack on Iran. Netanyahu has been warning of the imminent nuclear threat from the Islamic regime since the 1990s. He has tried time and again to use it as a pretext to attack Iran. In truth, his ultimate goal is and has always been not to simply destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities but to destabilise the country and attempt to topple the Islamic regime. He stated this unabashedly in the week following the initial attack, in numerous videos posted to social media and interviews with American outlets. In these he attempted to convince the American public of the righteousness and necessity of the attacks. 

Americans were largely opposed to the US intervening in yet another war in the Middle East. Donald Trump was elected a second time on a platform of being against renewed American involvement in foreign wars. This war on Iran has divided the Make America Great Again/America First movement. Some key MAGA figures like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene are vocally against US involvement and facing significant pushback from establishment Republicans as the war machine heated up.

Up to the days before the initial Israeli attack, President Trump maintained that he was still trying to negotiate a deal with Iran to prevent the country from developing a nuclear weapon. He publicly stated that he didn’t want Israel to attack its nemesis. In a dramatic twist, however, soon after the attacks started Trump quickly changed face. Now he openly expressed support for the Israeli attacks and his knowledge of them, while still expecting the Iranians to return to the negotiating table. Days later the US joined the Israeli war effort. The USA operation targeted three key nuclear sites in Iran with “bunker-busting” bombs unavailable to Israel.

Contrary to the public’s will, and despite statements of the US State Department (that the US were not initially actively participating in the attacks), US warships stationed in the Mediterranean were already involved. They had been intercepting Iranian missiles aimed at Israel. Furthermore, the United States continues to supply Israel with much of its arsenal, and billions of dollars in aid the US every year. Unsurprisingly many figures in American politics, Democrats and Republicans alike — a majority funded by the Israel lobby — doubled down on the overblown nuclear narrative. Many rejoiced at the Israeli attacks and instigated the American intervention, or tacitly approved of the operations. Some simply criticised the Trump Administration for not having sought Congressional authorisation for the bombings as the US constitution mandates.

Another question comes up: why end the war “so soon”? Many point to the depleted state of the Israeli Armed Forces’ arsenal. This was evident by the increasing failures of the much vaunted Iron Dome air defense system as the war dragged on. The official Israeli position is that the stated mission — to dissuade Iran from building a nuclear weapon and undermine its ability to do so — was achieved. Although serious doubts remain about the success of even the powerful US attacks.

Indisputable, however, is the horrifyingly high human and economic cost of wars that defy all international norms of rule of law and protection of human rights. The war drums keep building. As Israel, led by the ever belligerent Netanyahu, and the United States, led by the reckless Trump, escalated the conflict, the risk of a wider, highly unpredictable regional war grew. So did the risk of a global economic meltdown due to spiking oil and gas prices. This benefited the big producers like the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. The full ramifications of this brief but intense war will likely take time to reveal themselves.

But one thing is clear, it was never about the nukes. It was always about provoking a destabilising war. Yet another outrageous attempt at regime change to add to the history of brazen Western imperialism. Fuelled by the careless hubris of Western elites, this war was about nothing but destruction from the start.

Fact check: Was October 7 the “Worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust”?

Answer: No. In his weekly column, Nathaniel Flakin looks at the 1976 military coup in Argentina


27/06/2025

As Israel continues its genocide in Gaza and its bombing of five different countries, the same lines keep getting repeated: “Israel has a right to defend itself.” Otherwise, there will be more attacks like the one on October 7, 2023, which was the “worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.” This phrase has been used by Netanyahu, Biden, Harris, etc., attempting to link the armed struggle against Israel with the Nazi genocide.

Is it true, though? On October 7, a total of 736 Israeli civilians were killed (though not all of them were Jewish). At least 14 of these were killed by the Israeli army, and likely more. In addition to roughly 700 Jewish civilians, Palestinian militants also killed 379 armed combatants.

How does this compare to other antisemitic massacres since the liberation of Auschwitz in 1945? The military coup in Argentina on March 24, 1976, killed an estimated 3,000 Jews.

The “National Reorganization Process,” as the generals cynically called it, aimed to crush Argentina’s powerful workers’ organizations and left-wing groups. This included mass killings and forced disappearances. Prisoners were thrown from airplanes into the ocean. Newborn babies were seized from their detained mothers and given up for adoption. At least 8,961 people were disappeared in the Dirty War — but human rights groups put the real number between 22,000 and 30,000. Argentinian courts have called this a genocide.

Argentina’s Jewish community

As Saúl Sosnowski told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in 2016: “Jews in Argentina only made up 1 percent of the population, but they were about 10 percent of the disappeared.” As was the case in other countries and epochs, Jews were overrepresented in the revolutionary movements like the Montoneros and the Trotskyists — and thus drew the ire of the generals. 

As Juan Pablo Jaroslavsky explained to the Guardian in 1999, “We have identified 1,296 Jewish victims by name out of the official list of 10,000 victims. But if the unofficial figure of 30,000 total victims is correct, then the number of Jewish victims could be over 3,000.”

This was no coincidence: After the Second World War, the government of Juan Perón provided refuge to thousands of Nazi war criminals, and the Argentinian military was full of antisemitism. Many officers believed in the Andinia plan, a conspiracy theory about Jewish subversives hoping to create a second Jewish homeland in Patagonia. (Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, had indeed considered Uganda or Argentina as possible locations for a Jewish state, but rejected them in favor of Palestine in the early 1900s.)

U.S., German, and Israeli complicity

Today, the U.S. government and its Israeli vassal claim their warmongering in the Middle East is necessary to protect Jewish lives. So, how did they react to the biggest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, as it was taking place in Argentina?

The military coup was part of Operation Condor, a U.S.-backed plan to eliminate the Left in the Southern Cone. Henry Kissinger gave a “green light” to the mass disappearances in Argentina. The junta got tens of millions of dollars in military aid from the U.S., and Germany was another vital backer.

The Israeli government did help some Argentinian Jews emigrate to the Holy Land. This is consistent with Zionist policy during the Holocaust: they would help Jews find refuge only so far as it contributed to their goal of colonizing Palestine. As David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel, put it: 

If I knew that it was possible to save all the [Jewish] children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.

This cynical policy was repeated in Argentina.

At the same time, Israel continued to supply Argentina’s military with weapons — weapons that were being used to murder Jews. Tel Aviv remained one of the Junta’s main allies, even as disagreements grew between Buenos Aires and Washington.

Javier Miliei, Argentina’s far-right president today, is a big supporter of Israel and also a defender of the generals who murdered thousands of Jews. This is yet another example of how antisemites love Israel and vice versa.

October 7 was not the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. The military coup of 1976 was several times more deadly. The U.S., German, and Israeli governments, who today claim that a genocide is about “protecting Jewish lives,” were actively supporting the antisemitic massacre in Argentina. Imperialists and Zionists only care about Jewish lives when it serves their geopolitical interests.

Red Flag is a weekly column on Berlin politics that Nathaniel Flakin has been writing since 2020. After moving through different homes, it now appears at The Left Berlin.