The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Articles

Red Flag: Watermelons at the Fusion Festival

In his weekly column, Nathaniel Flakin examines Berlin’s favorite radical left festival and Palestinian solidarity


04/07/2025

Last weekend, the world’s media focused on Glastonbury. The Irish hip-hop group Kneecap was cut from the live broadcast due to their solidarity with Palestine — and the English punk band Bob Vylan electrified tens of thousands with chants of “Death, death to the IDF!” Keir Starmer called the chant “appalling” — a harsher condemnation than he has managed for 20 months of genocide in Gaza.

With everyone else watching Somerset, Berlin leftists kept their eyes on Lärz, a small town two hours north of Berlin. At a former Soviet air base, 70,000 people were trying to create “vacation communism” at the Fusion Festival. Both the tagesschau and the police reported nonchalantly that there were “no disturbances” — quite a contrast to the rote denunciations of “Israel hatred” at cultural events.

In Lärz, there were indeed watermelons, “Free Palestine” signs, and artists speaking out against genocide — but reporters simply didn’t see that, as they’re not allowed on the grounds. On Sunday, up to 150 people joined a pro-Palestine demonstration through Fusion.

A pro-Israel group calling itself “Fusionistas Against Antisemitism and Antizionism” brought together around 100 people and complained that their stall was banned. They refer to supposed “antisemitic incidents” at last year’s festival, but they are using the same distorted statistics as the German government — every time a non-Jewish supporter of Israel faces criticism for advocating war crimes, they declare themselves to be a “victim of antisemitism” — even when they’re attacking left-wing Jews. 

It seems rather absurd to present support for an apartheid state — the exact same position as CDU, AfD, Axel Springer, etc. — as part of a “pluralistic” and “non-hierarchical” left. Isn’t Zionism quite hierarchical when it comes to who can live in Palestine? But then the Antideutsche were always absurd.

Not a Bubble

At Fusion, as everywhere else, Zionists are losing ground as the whole world watches a genocide unfold live on their phones. I have written about Fusion again and again and again, and after a multi-year break (for… you know… reasons), I was able to return for nine hours on Sunday, and I brought my own “Fusion Fights Apartheid” shirt. The very first Fusion worker I met, while getting on the bus in Berlin, hugged me.

Fusion’s radical left politics are not overt — it’s more like a place for leftists to zone out and make some money. It’s basically a Soliparty at the neighborhood squat, but at a bafflingly enormous scale. And for the record: I have no problem with that! Leftists get stressed, and it’s ok for us to want to shut off our brains for a few days — even better if it’s with other leftists and for a good cause.

Yet as much as Fusion feels removed from the outside world — people waiting in line at the entrance will say “I’ll see you on the other side” — it is not actually a bubble. Its politics reflect those of the Berlin Left. At the moment, up to 80% of people in Germany reject weapons shipments for Israel, and even Die Linke (the Left Party), which historically defended Zionism, can now be seen at pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

Muddled Statements

Last year, Fusion tried to strike a balance between the censorious demands of Germany’s “reason of state” and the left-wing views of their attendees, particularly the international ones. The organizers, Kulturkosmos, put out a statement demanding recognition of “Israel’s right to exist.” But as many people pointed out, leftists do not defend any state’s “right to exist,” and certainly not a settler-colonial state founded on the basis of ethnic cleansing. 

After lots of criticism and calls for a boycott, the Zentralkommittee published a follow-up acknowledging they had “written from our German perspective,” and should be clear about Israeli apartheid and genocide. The text was muddled, but it pointed in the right direction.

There was a subsequent call to double down on the boycott, but I think this was a mistake. While I understand everyone who doesn’t want to support events that are not 100% clear on Palestine, I think we should fight for all of our spaces. If Antideutsche are crying about being excluded, then we shouldn’t be simultaneously excluding ourselves.

There are many things to criticize about Fusion — it wouldn’t be a left-wing festival if we weren’t constantly arguing about it. It is indeed too white, too hetero, too German, and above all too cautious in its politics. It’s not a good look that Glastonbury, a commercial festival with liberal politics, had more to say than Fusion, for and by radical leftists. Yet people are learning and Fusion is changing — as evidenced by the many watermelons in Lärz.

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.

I don’t think the center could hold even if it tried to

On the “No Kings” protests and the crackdown on expression in the United States


02/07/2025

A photograph of protestors at a "No Kings" demonstration. One holds a sign which reads "Our democracy is under attack by our own government".

A couple of weeks ago, I sat in a café in Northern California, where I live, and anxiously scrolled through headline after headline, post after post, about the deployment of the United States National Guard and Marines to the city of Los Angeles. The deployment of 2,000 California National Guard members, undertaken without the input of California Governor Gavin Newsom or any state leaders, was announced on June 7th in response to protests in Los Angeles against continued Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids against our undocumented community members. In the days that followed, that deployment ballooned to another 2,000 National Guard members, followed by 700 United States Marines.

We are about seven or eight hours away from Los Angeles, but considering the simultaneous protests in San Francisco and Sacramento, no amount of pretend normalcy or California sunshine could cut through the tension that seemed to renew every time the espresso maker hissed. The barista in charge of the music kept playing songs specifically about California, until switching to The Beach Boys shortly after the death of Brian Wilson was announced. I have to admit that I have rarely felt the kind of public anxiety pulsing through the café that morning, despite the other moments I can point to, and have participated in, that have followed a related political trajectory. I have to admit that this makes me lucky.

The night before, Karen Bass, current mayor of Los Angeles, imposed a curfew on one square mile of downtown Los Angeles in response to the notion put forward by U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration that the protests in the city, in particular those focused on the Metropolitan Detention Center, had become violent, that Los Angeles was a festering urban hellscape of lawlessness and depravity. With the exception of those residing or working in the area, failure to disperse had the consequence of detention or arrest, mostly carried out by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD).

The imposition of a curfew can be viewed multiple ways—Karen Bass called it a “tipping point”, reporting that 23 businesses had been looted. Jim McDonnell, Chief of the LAPD, framed it as a matter of public safety. Governor Newsom, backed by Mayor Bass, took the position that the citizens of Los Angeles and California should not in any way validate the Trump administration’s characterization of the situation. In his address to California, Newsom took great pains to clearly demarcate the line between state enforcement of immigration and federal escalation and misuse of power, telling us directly that “criminal behavior will not be tolerated” while also calling on us to exercise our right to protest.

The protests themselves have largely been peaceful, something repeatedly emphasized in play-by-play coverage by The New York Times, by CNN, and by the Associated Press, especially as protests began spreading to other cities (I want to note as well that demonstrations have been consistently occurring on a smaller scale over the past several months). However, despite this emphasis, multiple narratives also emerged about the tone and mood of the protests. Major news outlets also skipped heartbeats to report the hundreds of arrests taking place, while Fox News termed the protests in Los Angeles “an invasion.” On social media, it quickly became a common refrain for people to warn each other to protest not with foreign flags, but with Californian or American flags—this way, protestors could not be accused of invasion, of unpatriotic behavior, or of malicious intent.

On June 14th, an estimated 5 million people participated in coordinated “No Kings” demonstrations across all 50 states. I was one of those 5 million people, one of an estimated 3,500 in my town according to local organizers, in a county that votes consistently for GOP candidates and voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 election. Aside from two trucks with Gadsden flags and one man who angrily flipped us off as we marched in serpentine coils through downtown, we encountered dozens of supportive car honks. I saw people I’d never seen at demonstrations before, and for several people I talked to, it had been their first ever protest. Parents carried babies on their shoulders. Next to me, an 11-year-old child shouted with the crowd, “Immigrants are welcome here!”. People in neon safety vests who had trained in crowd safety and de-escalation helped us safely cross streets. When a fire truck drove down Main Street, everyone cheered at it, and the man driving it waved back at us. The police did not tear gas us, as they did to protestors in Georgia—we largely seemed to ignore each other. Despite the news we had woken up to that morning regarding the assassination of Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband (and the attempted assassination of Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman and his wife), there was a sense of relief and jubilation in the crowd: We were here together. Our community, like so many others, has absorbed and survived multiple historic and deadly wildfires—but on this day, we were here together.

Later that night, I absorbed the reporting emerging from other states: Some clashes between law enforcement and protestors had occurred in Los Angeles, in Portland, and in some smaller cities. Some protests had been targeted, with an attack in Utah resulting in the death of a Samoan-American fashion designer. Despite these events, however, the protests remained largely peaceful.

So if these protests have been mostly peaceful, then why are governors in other, largely conservative-led states, following Trump’s lead and deploying the National Guard? The imbalance of both agency and media response to these protests may result in a worrying trend regarding how protests are dealt with, despite the nonviolent and self-censoring actions of these demonstrations. For all of Chief McDonnell’s talk of the LAPD supporting Angelenos (an endearing nickname for residents of Los Angeles), we can see them on horseback, trampling protestors and striking them with batons. For all of Governor Newsom’s supportive rhetoric, he has simultaneously reinforced that the State of California can and will use force against its citizens all by itself.

The line between peaceful protest and unlawful assembly is continually moved, as exemplified by the curfew itself, and by the mixed messages people are given: We can and should protest, but only if we do it a certain way so as not to upset anyone. It doesn’t matter if ICE raids take place at schools, or in Home Depot parking lots, or at farms, and disrupt our public life—if we dare to be too angry about it, we are painted as lawless by both our enemies and the people who are supposed to stand up for us and our neighbors. I fear the lack of acknowledgement of the power differentials at work here. I also fear the implications of the logic at play here:  that it is okay to use force against civilians, regardless of their status, if the LAPD, if the San Francisco Police Department, if the DeKalb County Sheriff’s Office, says it is okay, because the alternative—the National Guard and the Marines—is objectively worse.

As of the evening of June 17th, 2025, the curfew imposed on downtown Los Angeles has been lifted. There are no curfews taking place in other California cities. The mainstream news cycle has shifted its too fearful and too savvy eye towards the escalating conflict between Iran, Israel, and the United States. Too infrequently, a headline about Gaza blooms red beneath the headline banner, another ticker line about targeted aid workers and starving or murdered civilians whose names would take an entire small-town plaza to vigil, whose names could stretch around city blocks for an uncomfortable distance.

But ICE has been given renewed directives to expand their raids in California and across the United States, contradicting previous declarations from the Trump administration that raids would cease at farms, restaurants, and hotels. US Citizens and elected officials alike have been arrested, detained, and disrespected for attempting to speak out and exercise the right to protest. Local police departments are assisting ICE, even if Chief McDonnell claims that LAPD is not one of them. If these agencies are working cooperatively together, despite narratives that place them at odds with one another based on city, state, or federal jurisdiction lines, I find myself focused on how they are still working together against the rest of us, and primarily against those among us who are undocumented, who may have applied for asylum several years ago but are still held up in the endless bureaucratic queue of lawful citizenship.

About a week before the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles, I got a sudden urge to re-read some of the works of the seminal California writer Joan Didion. On a camping trip in the Sierra Nevada, I breezed through The White Album and Slouching Toward Bethlehem, reflecting on words the critic Hilton Als spoke in a 2017 documentary about Didion: “You couldn’t write a cohesive narrative about the times, because the times weren’t cohesive.” I’d been feeling anxious already, even prior to the escalation which I worry has become normal; Didion’s work gave some conviction to my sense that we were sliding into a historical kind of disorder over the past decade or two in particular, that this was not an abnormal thing to be feeling. I had no idea that a week later I would be buzzing with an even more intense feeling that this was indeed the case.

I’ve found myself holding onto the phrase she borrows from the W.B. Yeats poem, “The Second Coming”: “Things fall apart; the center cannot hold”. In Slouching Towards Bethlehem, this becomes, “The center was not holding”, with Didion’s verb change linguistically implying a fundamental and irreparably-in-progress fragmentation of order. Perhaps now, the center cannot hold even if it wanted to, even if we tried to make it hold; we can no longer afford to ignore what is happening to our public life, our neighbors, our friends and loved ones. What counts for normal, for order, when our communities are being attacked, and our governor platforms right-wing conservatives with one breath while calling on us to protest with the other?

Didion, a New School journalist and writer who was characterized in an obituary as someone who drifted from the Republican Party in her youth towards the Democratic Party “without ever quite endorsing their core beliefs”, was said to have a fear of disorder, that manifested as metaphors involving snakes in her work. After having spent five years in Northern California, living through wildfire, I can understand this fear, and I believe that she partially tempers it with her writing about water, in which she recognizes that control over such a valuable resource in such a volatile climate is often a futile and self-destructive endeavor. As I sat in the café reading the news with The Beach Boys’ “Good Vibrations” surfing over me, as I protested with my community members, and as I continue to watch these senseless raids, I have come to think that maybe we, the people out on the street, are the water, looking out for the cops and the snakes on Gadsden flags in the corner of our eye, worried for the ways in which our own so-called protectors will try to dam us up next.

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.

3 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.