Defend Tony Greenstein Against Zionist/State Collusion!

Tony Greenstein, long-time Jewish anti-Zionist activist, is facing prison for allegedly acting with ‘intent to commit criminal damage” at the Shenstone Factory of Elbit Systems, the Israeli weapon and drone manufacturer. Elbit is well known to be a prolific manufacturer of weapons for killing and ethically cleansing Palestinians, and has been repeatedly targeted by protesters from the direct action protest group Palestine Action.

There have been well-publicised acquittals of Palestine Action protesters engaged in direct action protests at Elbit premises. For instance the Kingsway 5, who used fake blood to highlight the murder of Palestinians Elbit was responsible for at an October 2020 protest outside Elbit’s offices in Kingsway, London were acquitted by a jury that were convinced of ‘lawful excuse’ for their actions. This is not the only example, as Palestine Action make clear on their website:

“In trials across the country, activists have been acquitted, had their cases thrown out by judges, or have seen their charges dropped. In the courts this year, 18 activists have walked free, while 5 have seen minor convictions in the magistrates courts, those being for ‘criminal damage’ or ‘obstruction of the highways’. Dozens of other activists have had their cases dropped and trials postponed, until 2023 or 2024. Palestine Action are set for a number of major jury trials in 2023, where once again activists will deliver the message: Elbit is guilty, Palestine Action is not.”

These tactics have been successful not just for Palestine Action, but for other protesters in cases around the country, from environmentalists to those who in June 2020 pulled down the Bristol statue of 17th century slave-owner Edward Colston.

However, this extreme right-wing government is up to its neck in complicity and support for genocidal Israeli terror against Palestinians, and in addition is pursuing a culture war against anti-racists (who it dubs as a ‘woke’ menace) and against environmental protest as well. So not only has it been passing draconian anti-protest laws aimed at criminalising ‘direct action’ protest tactics such as ‘locking on’ (protesters attaching themselves to an object, such as a statue or gates etc), but even protesters linking arms. They are also trying to nobble jury trials to prevent possible acquittals by blatant violations of common law, which in the UK constitutes a layer of customary law that in some ways plays a role in lieu of an actual, written constitution, providing some semblance of defence of the rights of ordinary citizens confronted with abuses of governmental and judicial power.

One such ‘common law’ protection is the right of a jury to take account of its ‘conscience’ and acquit defendants on the basis of facts about the motives for an action that ostensibly breaks the law. The concept of ‘lawful excuse’ is a defence for many crimes involving social and political protest when the accused is able to demonstrate that the action taken was done to prevent greater crimes being committed. Obviously here Elbit is involved in producing material used to murder Palestinians in pursuit of political Zionism. Which is a racist project involving the forcible expulsion or even destruction of civilian populations who live in the ‘wrong’ place and are an obstacle to the desire of illegal Jewish settlers to steal their land. These implements thus are being used to commit a major, ongoing crime. The ongoing oppression today of the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza (and of so-called Israeli Arabs), is a continuation of the Nakba (catastrophe) of the Palestinian civilian population in ‘Israel’ – the 1948 expulsion of three quarters of the native Arab people of Palestine. This is self-evidently a far greater crime than the spraying of fake blood around the front of an office, or into a factory producing such implements. Juries have agreed with this and acquitted protesters on this basis.

Juries can be ‘nobbled’, i.e., prevented from hearing such legitimate evidence, by the abuse of power by judges, urged on in many cases by politicians and the ruling class in general. That pertains to the class nature of the state and of the judiciary in particular. When it is in their class interest to do so, such protections and legal principles are often flagrantly violated and ignored. In the case of Tony Greenstein and his fellow activists, this is evidently what happened. In the trial, no one was able utter a word about the motives of the protesters, who were arrested before they even arrived at the protest, on pain of imprisonment for ‘contempt of court’. Juries being not allowed to hear relevant facts about the motives of protesters and the conduct of those corporate bodies protested against is arguably a flagrant ‘contempt’ of the jury and therefore of the court itself, but that is the nature of the ruling class and the way their system of criminal justice, or rather criminal injustice, works in practice whatever fine words they utter about the ‘rule of law’.

Furthermore, as well as the activities of far-right Tory politicians and like-minded judges, in this case you have the direct involvement of the Zionist lobby. UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), which some might consider could justly be called UK Lawyers for Genocide, are particularly incensed in this case by Tony Greenstein’s anti-Zionist politics. And no doubt about his authorship of the encyclopaedic work Zionism and the Holocaust – which exhaustively documents Zionist complicity and collaboration with the Nazis during the Nazi holocaust. This was to secure a Jewish-Israeli state in the Middle East at the expense of millions of helpless European Jews who were sacrificed so that a privileged minority could become the founders of such a state.

UKLFI also recently wrote to the far-right Tory Home Secretary, Suella Braverman (who is attempting to deport refugees, including pregnant women, torture victims and victims of modern slavery, to concentrations camps in Rwanda), urging her to exclude the US citizen and anti-Zionist Rabbi, Dovid Weiss, from the UK. Rabbi Weiss came for a speaking tour alongside Dr Azzam Tamimi, a well-known Muslim academic, organised by the campaign group One Democratic Palestine and its dedicated founder, Peter Gregson, to promote unity of Jews and Muslims against Zionist racism. That proved to be a bridge too far even for Braverman. But it does show the far right nature of UKLFI: both in the case of Rabbi Weiss and Tony, as well as going after Palestinian figures as Tony documents , they also show a rabid hatred for Jews who oppose their racism, and they are quite prepared to ally with far-right racist forces in a more general sense in a vendetta against anti-racist Jewish people who they consider to be ‘race-traitors’ in a similar sense to neo-Nazi hatred of anti-racist white people.

Tony documents that UKLFI wrote to the judge urging his jailing for ‘contempt of court’ for writing of the right of the jury to return a verdict based on ‘conscience’ and the real facts about both the motives of the protesters and the crimes of those they are protesting against. This is documented by Tony in a legal sense (see and also by Craig Murray (see

The prospective jailing of Tony Greenstein and three other defendants at this Wolverhampton show trial has nothing to do with justice. In the case of the fifth defendant, even the (effectively nobbled) jury failed to convict, and the judge apparently himself conceded that a retrial might not be so easy. Such shenanigans are just repression, carried out by the racist state. All legal means must of course be used to fight such repression, but the only real means of defeating such abuses and travesties of ‘justice’ is through mobilising the power of the organised labour movement in defence of those so victimised and threatened with jail. From this case, all the way up to the most flagrant case of repression against anti-imperialist dissent – the persecution of Julian Assange, such ruling class attacks on basic democratic rights must be fought tooth and nail on the basis of class solidarity. Hands off Palestine Action protesters – hands off Tony Greenstein!

IUAFS Statement: No No2NATO Platform for Fascist David Clews!

Since 2014 International Ukraine Anti-Fascist Solidarity (IUAFS), and its predecessors have campaigned in solidarity with the people of the Donbass, and the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics they created after the fascist Maidan coup backed by US imperialism. As part of the struggle against imperialism and its Ukrainian fascist puppets, we defend the Special Military Operation of Russia to crush the fascist threat from the US backed Azov, Aidar, Kraken, Svoboda and other such fascists who are the dominant forces in the Maidan Ukraine state apparatus. We support the defeat of this regime and the “Denazification of Ukraine” as the Russian government rightly set out as a key war aim.

Opposition to the NATO proxy-war in Ukraine is not confined to internationalists who act in solidarity with the victims of imperialism.  Most of the far right are showing solidarity with the NATO-funded Nazis who infest and dominate the Ukrainian regime, with the likes of Azov, Aidar, Kraken, Svoboda and Right Sector who have dominated the Maidan regime since 2014. But there is a minority of fascists who oppose the Ukraine war. We have nothing in common with them, their differences with Ukraine’s Nazis are about tactics only. Thus, we oppose the decision, apparently taken by George Galloway, to organise an online rally with David Clews, who organises the Unity News Network, and voted not to endorse or support it at our meeting on 22nd May. It is a major error for others such as Chris Williamson to speak alongside Clews.

We subsequently intervened at the 25 May event, in the online comments (which was all that was open to us), to expose who Clews is to those attending the event. Some of those provided with this evidence subsequently agreed with us that Clews is a fascist.  This material has been circulating among No2NATO circles in Scotland for a couple of weeks now, and knowledge of Clews’ politics is hopefully becoming more widespread. Some IUAFS comrades also raised a motion along the lines of this statement at the No2NATO members meeting in London on 27 May, though the discussion was not conclusive, and we did not press the issue to a vote on that occasion. We concluded that because of the seriousness of the issue, and the unclarity among No2NATO supporters generally, it was necessary to publicly air this issue and hopefully resolve it positively. We also stated our intention to do this at that members’ meeting.

Clews, who organised the 22 April Protest in Trafalgar Square on the slogan “Not a Penny More to the Zelensky Regime” is not working in solidarity with those under fascist attack. He writes:

“Our position is absolutely UNEQUOVICAL [sic!] these conflicts are NOTHING to do with us and we should be sending no money or weapons or getting involved in any way shape of form.

Now we can all have opinions and I am perfectly comfortable with those who are opposed to what is happening but my position is that we must put the needs of this country first!”

Clews is a fellow-traveller and publicist for Patriotic Alternative (PA), who have organised violent protests and attacks against refugees. Unity News Network have given sympathetic coverage to such hostile mobilisations (see

PA are a Nazi group whose ‘opposition’ over Ukraine is based on isolating British people from any involvement in the affairs of ‘foreigners’, not any notion of solidarity with those under fascist attack! PA is in favour of an Israeli-style ‘nation state’ law in Britain based on white nationalism. It has a programme of ‘assisted repatriation’ of non-white minorities in Britain.

Clews’ fascist politics are revealed in a long interview that he did for Unity News Network (UNN), with PA’s leader Mark Collett and his fellow fascist Laura Towler (

During this discussion, he engages in a prolonged, sophisticated exchange with Collett and Towler, where both sides talk at length about the 1930s historical tactics of ‘revolutionary organisations’ (they clearly mean fascist/Nazi, white nationalist organisations), in diluting their views to reach a greater audience. Clews reassures Collett, that he shares all his basic views, but fears they will alienate ordinary people and have to be hidden, so a future saviour can ‘liberate’ white people from multiculturalism etc. It is clear that Clews is just as much a white nationalist as Collett but seeks a PR strategy to win over greater layers.

Clews is seeking to draw leftist anti-war activists into blocs with him. We should firmly reject such overtures. Any bloc with such forces is a serious mistake, and the kiss of death. We want to win over fighters against imperialist oppression to solidarity with the people of the Donbass, who are facing an imperialist campaign that funds Nazis to expel them (ethnic cleansing), as part of a wider project of balkanising and fragmenting Russia. We want to win fighters against imperialism from the many in the immigrant-derived parts of the working class to such an internationalist perspective.

This attempt at a bloc with the like of Clews is completely at odds with that aim, and can only seal us off from anti-imperialist layers who act in solidarity against fascism. As supporters of No2NATO No2War we repudiate this and call on the movement as a whole to do so. These fascists want to drive oppressed minorities out of the country in the name of white nationalism. Despite any temporary, formal similarly of demands at a given time, they are not allies, but enemies. Just as much enemies as the Nazis who murdered millions of Jews, Russians, Poles, Gypsies and other oppressed population such as gays and lesbians in the Nazi death camps, and the Azovists and similar fascists who are attacking Russia today.

Paris May Day 2023

The following videos and images were taken by a comrade who visited Paris for May Day. France generally is still in the throes of conflict between the French working class population and Macron, who is trying to impose a rise in the pension age by diktat, when the bulk of the population is clearly opposed. This gave rise to a very fertile May Day this year. These videos and images evidently capture some of it.

Open Letter to the PSC Following their call to boycott the Muslim & Jew Tour

[from Peter Gregson, initiator of One Democratic Palestine]

Dear Ben Jamal, Director Palestine Solidarity Campaign,

After you excluded me from membership of the PSC four years ago, the last thing you said of my many protestations was that I should better spend my time helping the Palestinian cause.

I have done so, but discovered only last week that you have been doing precisely the opposite. For you have chosen to tell your PSC members to boycott the Muslim & Jew Tour- because I have been refused admittance to your PSC membership because of concerns about comments you said I “made on a blog which were antisemitic”. You declared these comments antisemitic because they alluded to Zionist power.

And now you tell people to boycott a UK-wide tour that is aimed at debunking Israel’s claim to be the Jewish State.  You prevent PSC supporters hearing the words of Palestinian author and broadcaster Dr Azzam Tamimi and international spokesman of the Neturei Karta- Jews Against Zionism Rabbi Dovid Weiss because, I believe, they call for the end of Israel. It is a call which I believe PSC does not want people to hear.

One might struggle to fathom why you have told people to boycott two incredibly important speakers touring the UK in support of Palestine. You must know that the Friends of Israel have done everything possible to cancel this tour- from asking the Home Secretary to exclude Rabbi Weiss, the Jew on the tour, from entering the UK from the USA, from harassing our venues, telling them that Rabbi Weiss is a dangerous extremist because he says “Zionism and Israel is the root cause of all the bloodshed and animosity between Jews and Muslims including Arabs”…. “The only way to stop this bloodshed is to remove this sickness, this tumour, the thing that is causing bloodshed”.

It appears that you are so determined to prevent this message coming from a Rabbi to British citizens that you are doing all in your power to prevent them hearing it.

Why, therefore are you now, apparently, working to prevent British people hearing criticisms of Israel? I have long suspected the PSC as having more sympathy for Zionists in the UK than for Palestinians in Palestine – you have Ben Soffa as Secretary, Head of Digital under Sir Keir Starmer, following instructions to delete pro-Palestine Labour Conference motions from YouTube; you refused to defend your patron Jeremy Corbyn in the face of Zionist attacks claiming he was antisemitic; your organisation has done little to prevent the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism which has eviscerated Palestine supporters from Labour and the unions (apart from critiquing it on a completely new and generally unpromoted website ( ) – so desperate were you not to upset Zionists in the UK.

Your venal and unhelpful directive telling PSC members to stay away from our tour suggests that you are actually not interested in Palestinian solidarity. The Palestinians voted for Hamas, yet the PSC does not take a position either in support or against a one state or two state solution. You sit on the fence on the matter that time and again Palestinians have told you they want – the majority want their country back and to see the end of Israel, yet by your stance you appear to accept the validity of the Israeli state.

And you refuse to support Palestine Action- real activists that seek to prevent Israel making its arms in the UK. Your tepid campaigns against Puma and Barclays do nothing to address the real problem of Zionist power in the UK. It rather feels your actions are a ruse to control Palestinian protest and extract membership fees from gullible human rights supporters to keep your PSC afloat and yourself on a salary.

Your concept of solidarity with Palestinians is, I believe, deeply flawed. Time and again, PSC shows little solidarity with what the Palestinians want. Your call to boycott the Muslim & Jew Tour is pathetic and action you should be ashamed of.

Yours sincerely.

Pete Gregson (Chair)

One Democratic Palestine

Notes: Pete was excluded from PSC membership in May 2019 because, Ben Jamal told him, that he “failed to exhibit support for PSC’s core values, including opposition to all forms of racism”. Pete was surprised at this complaint, coming as it did from a Palestinian working as Director of the PSC. The words that Ben Jamal disapproved of so strongly were from an article written by Pete on a petition in Oct 2018 “Does the IHRA Help Jews?”

“There is anti-Semitism in the UK because, I think, the Jews have so much leverage here. And they clearly do – as the most outspoken ones, those in support of Israel – the Zionists- have shown- as they have exerted considerable leverage on the UK’s political parties- the police, the schools and universities, the local authorities – to adopt the IHRA – and has it made the Jews safer?

“Not at All. But it does indicate the Jews in the UK (that with 370,000 or 0.5% of the population) generally wield significant influence.

“My statement “The Holocaust gives Jews so much leverage that they could call for the beatification of Margaret Thatcher and the country would probably jump to their desire”, clearly refers to the UK. And I think it’s true that they have far more influence in the UK because of the Holocaust”.

Pete cannot see that observing the exploitation of Holocaust guilt can be construed as antisemitic- all Jews were equally discriminated against by the UK in that we did little to help them before and during the Holocaust, though Churchill and Parliament knew exactly what Hitler was doing. Pete believes that all Jews have leverage because of the UK’s Holocaust guilt, but that only the Zionists exploit that leverage, in using it to justify Israel’s existence.

More at



To be sent to Ben Jamal c/o

LCFI Statement on Pakistan: Free Imran Khan: Defeat Imperialism and its Right-Wing Agents

A real political upheaval and a popular rebellion has been unleashed in Pakistan following the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. In 2022, Khan was ousted from the government by the pro-imperialist right-wing opposition. In 2023, in the middle of the election campaign, he suffered an attack at a rally having his legs machine-gunned. The fact that he did not die in the attack, unlike former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who was victimized in a similar situation, further increased the popularity of Khan, the favorite candidate of the working population.

After the masses summoned by the Pakistan Movement for Justice, PTI, took to the streets and violently clashed with the repressive forces, the regime split and the country’s Supreme Court recognized that Khan’s arrest was illegal, demanding his immediate release.

Several factors have made Khan and his party leaders of the current political process. 1. centuries of resistance to imperialist oppression, since the British Empire, as Marx and Engels have already recorded; 2. border conflicts with India over Kashmir artificially provoked by the regional ruling classes since 1947; 3.  two decades of the  U.S. military invasion of Afghanistan,  the longest tenuring occupation of the twenty-first century which aggravated national oppression in Pakistan; 4. The political decay of the Pakistan Peoples Party, once the dominant seemingly leftist party in Pakistan and indeed Asia. All these elements have caused a previously irrelevant political organization  to capitalize on popular discontent by criticizing imperialist geopolitics over the country and approaching Russia and China at a time of declining U.S. hegemony and rising Eurasian bloc.

The former cricketer was elected in 2018 on a programme of pacification of relations with India, rapprochement with China and Russia, having carried out a gas pipeline construction agreement with Russia, the Pakistan Streamer, in 2020.  The PTI is a bourgeois party that seeks reforms of the political regime, defending a welfare state against the extreme concentration of wealth and religious discrimination.

The PTI began its project on the Pakistani political scene (then dominated by the Islamist right of the PML-Q identified with the military dictatorship of Pervez Musharraf (1999-2008), and the PPP) after it organized a protest against drone strikes in Pakistan on November 23, 2013 in Peshawar. It called on the federal government to force an end to US CIA drone strikes and block NATO supplies through the country to Afghanistan. “We will put pressure on America and our protest will continue if the drone strikes are not stopped.”

Communists must support all actions of the oppressed peoples and their political representatives against imperialism and demand freedom and full political rights for nationalist leaderships, in this case, Khan. At the same time, we point out that its bourgeois political program and its defense of the multipolar capitalist world are insufficient to rid Pakistan of all national and social oppression and that only through a socialist revolution is it possible to eliminate the deep scourges imposed by capitalism on the population such as extreme social inequality and religious oppression.

Socialist Fight rejoins the LCFI

It is with immense pleasure and honour that the LCFI communicates to the vanguard of the working class and the revolutionary left that the Socialist Fight organization of Great Britain returns to the framework of our national sections, after some years of distance from some international political differences and Zionism. For an undefined time, there will be two chapters of the LCFI in Great Britain with independent websites and publications. In unity with other organisations, the SF now further strengthens the struggle of our international against NATO in the UK and the world, it also strengthens the defense of Russia and other oppressed countries against imperialism as we continue the struggle for a socialist world and for building a new communist international.

LCFI International Secretariat

Letter to New Worker

This letter was sent to the New Worker on 8 May

Dear Comrades,

Opposition to the NATO proxy-war in Ukraine is not confined to internationalists who act in solidarity with the victims of imperialism.  Most of the far right are showing solidarity with the NATO-funded Nazis who infest and dominate the Ukrainian regime, with the likes of Azov, Aidar, Kraken, Svoboda and Right Sector who have dominated the Maidan regime since 2014. But there is a minority of fascists who oppose the Ukraine war.

Such as ‘Patriotic Alternative’ led by Mark Collett. Their opposition is based on isolating British people from any involvement in the affairs of ‘foreigners’, not any notion of solidarity with those under attack (from fascists!). PA is in favour of an Israeli-style ‘nation state’ law in Britain based on white nationalism. It has a programme of ‘assisted repatriation’ of non-white minorities in Britain.

David Clews, who organised the 22 April Protest in Trafalgar Square on the slogan “Not a Penny More to the Zelensky Regime” shares their view of the NATO proxy war. He writes:

“Our position is absolutely UNEQUOVICAL these conflicts are NOTHING to do with us and we should be sending no money or weapons or getting involved in any way shape of form.

Now we can all have opinions and I am perfectly comfortable with those who are opposed to what is happening but my position is that we must put the needs of this country first!” (

What is disturbing is what is behind this. Clews is a ‘soft’ fellow-traveller of far-right groups like PA who only differs with them on ‘tactical’ grounds. This is revealed in a long interview that he did for his Unity News Network (UNN), one of the organisers of the 22 April Protest, with Mark Collett and Laura Towler of PA (

He fears their openly white nationalist views will “put off” the average man (or “Joe Normo”, as he puts it). During this discussion, he engages in a prolonged, sophisticated exchange with Collett and Towler, where both sides talk at length about the 1930s historical tactics of ‘revolutionary organisations’ (they clearly mean fascist/Nazi, white nationalist organisations), in diluting their views to reach a greater audience. Clews attempts to reassure Collett, who is scathing about Clews’ scheme, that he shares all his basic views, but considers that they will alienate ordinary people and have to be hidden, so a future saviour can ‘liberate’ white people from multiculturalism etc. It is clear that Clews is just as much a white nationalist as Collett but seeks a PR strategy to win over greater layers.

Clews is seeking to draw leftist anti-war activists into blocs with him. We should firmly reject such overtures. Any bloc with such forces is a serious mistake, and the kiss of death. We want to win over fighters against imperialist oppression to solidarity with the people of the Donbass, who are facing an imperialist campaign that funds Nazis to expel them (ethnic cleansing), as part of a wider project of balkanising and fragmenting Russia. We want to win fighters against imperialism from the many in the immigrant-derived parts of the working class to such an internationalist perspective.

Any bloc with the like of Clews would be completely at odds with that internationalist aim and would allow pseudo-left supporters of the proxy war to tar us with such an association, and seal us off from these internationalist, anti-imperialist layers. These fascists want to drive such people out of the country in the name of white nationalism. Despite any temporary, formal similarly of demands at a given time, they are not allies, but enemies.


Ian Donovan

Consistent Democrats

Coronation: Farce and Obscenity

Charles Windsor’s coronation is a huge provocation against the working class, and an incredibly arrogant psyop. The timing is not fundamental to the point: but today working-class people are being hammered by huge price rises in basic foodstuffs and a considerable number are threatened with being driven into malnutrition, and even homelessness. Yet on coronation day, May 6th, there is a demand from the monarch and his ruling class cohorts for the population to “swear allegiance” to him and his family, as he partakes of his enormously expensive ceremony, estimated at around £100 million.

This arrogant demand on the people from those above is likely to fall flat. It is a sign of fragility. Charles Windsor is not popular or respected. Many sections of the population have a distinctly low opinion of him. Part of the ideology of monarchism is that the royals are somehow supposed to be a superior breed to the rest of us, but Charles Windsor is seen as callous, arrogant and a crank by many. The prince who talks to his plants.

Even among monarchists, many consider him tainted by the issue of his late wife, Diana Spencer, who died in a car crash 26 years ago after being hounded by the prurient royalist tabloid media and its paparazzi for speaking out about his adultery with the woman who is now his wife (soon to be ‘Queen Camilla’) while their sons were still infants.

The various official explanations for her death, mainly that she was the victim of a drunken chauffeur, are full of holes and contradicted by video evidence. At best, she died after being hounded and chased through the streets of Paris by the voracious British royalist press-pack and their hirelings; at worst, some suspect foul play and some sort of covert state action to get rid of her and an embarrassing problem that threatened to mortally wound public support for the monarchy.

Her death, in August 1997 caused a huge public outpouring of grief from a population that was obviously then, as it is now, saturated with monarchist sentiment, or at least sentimental softness on the various eagerly promoted myths of royalty. But it had a two-edged aspect to it; there was also great suspicion and latent anger among those masses that was partially directed even then at then-monarch Elizabeth Windsor for what was seen as public callousness about the death, tinged with suspicion. It was a peculiar episode that allowed the newly elected Tony Blair to co-opt this sentiment, however briefly, for his government by baptising her as the “people’s princess”.

The problem with the treatment of the comings and goings of the royals as soap opera, as has become the practice of the media in the neoliberal era, is that the monarchy derives its legitimacy from the principle of dynastic succession. Soap operas can turn nasty. And real life, when there are dynastic conflicts at stake, as well as questions involving racism and similar issues, can be even nastier when they are fought out in public.

The death of Diana was a major trauma, and the central figures at the heart of this are Charles and his two sons, William and Harry, and his former mistress and soon-to-be “Queen Camilla”, the former Mrs Parker-Bowles. They became the central figures of the British monarchy the moment the aged Elizabeth passed away. Elements of this group are at daggers drawn with each other, in public view. And there is no alternative for the UK monarchy than them.

Harry’s recent series of Netflix interviews, with his mixed-race American wife Meghan Merkle, and his book Spare, was an explosion waiting to happen. A continuation, and a deepening, of the trauma of the death of Diana. If Diana was an explosive outsider to the British royal camarilla, Harry and Meghan are even more explosive. The royal family, desperate to show that it was in tune with ‘modern Britain’ with its immigrant-derived communities and ethnically mixed major cities, completely failed to deal with a non-white woman marrying into it through Charles and Diana’s younger son.

Accusations of racist treatment of Meghan Merkle, together with actual physical brawling between brothers William and Harry over matters related to this, have caused further, major trauma to the reputation of the royals. The whole saga of whether Harry and his wife will attend the coronation just epitomises this. When the spectacle is over, monarchists everywhere will have to come to terms with the fact that the new monarch, and the ‘new’ monarchy, is very different to the staid, dependable image his mother went to great lengths to project throughout her record-long reign, trying to preserve the monarchy from scandal.

Charles/Camilla Pseudo-Liberal Cult: “Please Tolerate Us!”

Instead of this, we will have King Charles and Queen Camilla, who everyone knows were in an adulterous relationship for the whole period when Charles was married to Diana Spencer, who bore the current heir to the throne, William Windsor, and the ‘Spare’, Harry. Charles will be the head of the Church of England: which as least nominally stands on the biblical 10 Commandments, among them being: “Thou shalt not commit adultery”.

The Church of England was founded by Henry VIII in the sixteenth century when he wanted to divorce his wife and broke with Rome to allow him to do so (he later executed two of his six wives). But the question of divorce, let alone adultery, was so sensitive for the monarchy and the Church of England in the 20th Century that in 1936 Edward VIII had to abdicate the throne because he wanted to marry a divorcee.

But now the King – the head of the Church – and his Queen will be the two best-known ‘adulterers’ in the country, and their actions are not seen as mere innocent dalliance, but having played a major role in circumstances that caused the death of the mother of the new heir to the throne, a charismatic woman with a following like that of a film star. This leading to major conflict including physical brawling and estrangement between the succeeding generation of the royal family. Charles is himself old, and unlikely to be around much longer than a decade or two. It is tailor-made for more blowouts and internecine warfare that could easily bring the fragile British royal dynasty to complete collapse.

That is where this latest wheeze of asking the population at large to ‘swear allegiance’ to the new King comes in. It has the whiff of desperation about it, and the flavour of even trying to create a cult. And then there is the odd fact that, among the bunting and Union Flags that bedeck the streets ready for the coronation, you frequently see the rainbow flag of LGBT rights. Is this a sign that the British monarchy have suddenly become progressive campaigners for gay rights? That is unlikely. Though Diana was known for her work as a champion of the victims of AIDS, the rest of them had no particular liberal reputation.

It appears more likely that Charles and Camilla are so conscious of their position as adulterers at the head of the Established Church, that they are looking for support and sympathy among others who are also deemed by conservative elements in and around the church to be ‘deviants’. It’s a cynical exercise in in trying to gain sympathy for the new monarch among unconventional layers, that will likely strengthen the arguments of those who dismiss support for gay rights as cynical, hypocritical ‘wokery’.

Manipulation and attacks on Democratic Rights

This manipulation goes hand in hands with threats of repression from the government and the bourgeois state against anti-monarchy protesters. The ruling class is quite worried that the institution of the monarchy is particularly fragile right now, and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. So, they are particularly intolerant of criticism, and hostile to those who would campaign for its abolition. The implementation of the new grossly undemocratic anti-protest laws has been brought forward, threats have been made by the police and the Home Office against protesters and opponents of the monarchy, and facial recognition will be used on coronation day against those objecting, an outrage against democratic rights. This was echoed within the Labour Party of Starmer, as at the 2022 LP Conference the delegates were pressganged into singing “God Save the King”, and Starmer made clear that criticising the monarchy was as much a no-no as opposing the imperialist proxy-war in Ukraine, or criticising Zionism.

Liberal republicans and the soft-left say that the monarchy is “out of touch”. They say similar things about the current Tory government, implying that the ruling layers are somehow unaware of the suffering and anger that their attacks on our living standards, on social welfare and the social wage, the engineered, rigged housing market and the huge housing crisis, sky high prices, extortionate rents, unfit housing and homelessness that is the result of it, cause to working class people. But this is wilful naiveite.

These are not lapses. They are brutal means to keep working-class people in line. They WANT working class people to fear being reduced to penury if they fight back. They WANT to destroy every social gain we have, from the NHS and basic protection against ill-health, to pensions. They want to hamstring and render useless the trade unions, to effectively ban working class struggle against our impoverishment. They want to make effective social and political protest against their attacks on us, against the destruction of the environment, and now against the coronation, difficult if not impossible.

The monarchy is an anti-democratic institution par excellence. Its very existence is a complete negation of democracy and the very idea of equality. It asserts that the common man or woman belongs to an inferior species, in effect, that privilege, not only wealth but power, is dependent upon birth, and that that is true by right. The ideology of monarchy wraps up subservience in the mantle of supposed virtue, the ‘virtue’ of being ‘loyal’ to the project of world robbery, of benefiting from the plunder of centuries, and of being ‘a cut above’ the victims of British imperialism in the past centuries, by such a show of loyalty to the robbers.

The monarchy plays an important role in maintaining the bourgeois order: it is the formal basis for the power of the executive branch of government, the power of the prime minister, who acts in the name of the Crown, not the popular will. Citizens of the UK are deemed as ‘subjects’, another negation of democracy and equality. The monarch still also has reserve powers that can be used by the ruling class to restrict or abolish democratic rights and procedures in an ‘emergency’ as the ruling class sees it. So far these have been used by the monarch’s representative overseas, as in 1975 when the Australian Labor government of Gough Whitlam was sacked by the Governor General, Sir John Kerr, whose power derived from the British monarchy (though in fact he acted for the CIA). Something similar happened in 1983 when another Governor General was instrumental in giving legal cover to the US invasion of the tiny Caribbean Island of Grenada, to overthrow the fractured remnants of the leftist New Jewel Movement and reassert US power.

The fact that the monarch mostly no longer exercises direct political power does not change its political-ideological role. It renders the widespread veneration of it among the middle classes and backward parts of the working class, more craven, more ideologically retrograde. The naked exercise of power at least commands a form of respect through knowledge of the consequences of non-obedience. This is self-willed subservience, the only thing that really drives it is the belief that the subservient benefit from a share of the ruling-class plunder that the monarchy symbolises.

Abolish the Monarchy – Abolish Capitalist Power!

The monarchy symbolises subservience to wealth in general, which is why the tabloid press is ferocious in denouncing all dissent from this ideology, even when it seeps into the family of the monarch, and the liberal media as often as not follows suit. The negation of class consciousness and democracy. Subservience to the monarchy thus runs deep in the imperialist-dominated British labour movement and the Labour Party. The hegemony of British capitalism in the 19th Century, and then Britain’s imperialist hegemony from approximately the 1880s until it was fractured by WWI, and then only finally displaced by US imperialist hegemony since WWII, created the material base for the dominance of the monarchy over British politics even in the period when the working class movement managed to extract real concessions from the bourgeoisie, with ‘welfare capitalism’ in the three decades or so after WWII, which came under concerted attack from neoliberalism from the 1970s onwards to the this day. All these events failed to shake the domination of the monarchy spiritually over the British Labour movement.

The biggest give-away that Brexit, contrary to the illusions of some on the left, was not a left-wing opposition to neoliberalism, was the nationalism and the continued, even enhanced, reverence and deference to the monarchy and the Union Jack, the flag-shagging etc. Even though part of the drive behind it was anger at the decline of working-class living standards under neoliberalism, and the abandonment of working class politics by the Labour Party for the last few decades (with the partial exception of the period under Corbyn’s leadership). The thrust of this movement was a demand for the restoration of the privileges British workers felt that they were owed as members of a formerly ‘great’ Empire, and a hostility to immigrant workers, not any solidarity with the victims of British imperialism and its allies. Thus overall, Brexit was a reactionary, sentimental-imperialist movement despite being driven by working class discontent.

To politically express its own class interests, and not be the self-willed wage-slaves of the bourgeoisie, British workers have to break decisively from monarchism. This has not happened so far in the 20th and 21st Centuries, though there were some fleeting signs of it in the 19th. But the most revolutionary act in British history was of course carried out by the bourgeoisie in its revolutionary phase under the leadership of Cromwell. Even though he was a bourgeois scoundrel and a key progenitor of British colonialism’s crimes in Ireland, the act of his movement in executing Charles I was a highpoint that the British working-class movement has never come close to emulating – yet! But British imperialism is in terminal decline, and the US behemoth they today act as vassal to is also facing the loss of hegemony in the current ‘new’ Cold War with Russia and China. These ruling classes will take ‘their’ working classes with them into deeper and deeper penury, if not nuclear annihilation, as they struggle to retain their world power and profit margins.

It is thus a matter of simple self-preservation and class interest for the working-class movement in Britain to reject this absurd loyalism and inscribe the democratic demand for the abolition of the (very bourgeois) monarchy and aristocracy on its banner as an integral part of a transitional programme for working class rule and international revolution.

May Day Statement : The Escalation of the World War Danger and the Need for a New Communist International

Today the imperialist powers and their allies are escalating the siege against the Russian-Chinese bloc. Everything points to the confrontation advancing towards a third world war if the current escalation does not ebb. In this sense, the puppet neo-Nazi regime of Kyiv has already turned the Ukraine into a platform for the war. It has been de facto annexed to NATO. Ukraine has not been a sovereign country since 2014 and is now merely a sacrificial tool of imperialism.

The integration of Finland and Sweden into NATO, the creation of AUKUS (the Asia-Pacific NATO arm created by the United States, Britain and Australia) and the continuous provocations against China over the Taiwan question are all part of the siege by the imperialist powers of the Russian-Chinese pole and its allies. Redoubling the oppression of these countries, with the active participation of the European imperialism, is necessary for US imperialism to ensure that the 21st century is also the “American century”.

This need for oppressed countries, surrounded by imperialism, to resist has built, in practice, a world anti-imperialist front including both oppressed capitalist states and the remaining workers states. Marxists must know how to position themselves within this world anti-imperialist front. There is ongoing debate amongst anti-imperialist Communists in regards to the class character of Cuba, North Korea and China, on whether they are Communist or deformed workers states or indeed whether China remains a workers state. Notwithstanding such disagreements it is obligatory to defend all these states against attempts by pro-imperialist forces to overthrow them either directly from without, or by ‘colour revolutions’ from within. That is why we reject any attempt at “revolutionary” defeatism in both camps, since imperialism and its allies are in one camp and in the other a bloc of countries oppressed by imperialism, and the workers’ states.

Every movement of US imperialism worsens its own crisis. A few weeks ago, several banks in the US and Europe had to be bailed out. This is part of a boomerang effect on the imperialist economies of the failure of their sanctions against Russia. We must make use of every self-inflicted blow by the US imperialists and every division that occurs between the capitalist powers. BRICS and the developing countries are making their own movements of de-dollarization of trade relations, sharing of technologies (for example in semiconductors), and mutual protection against sanctions, speculative attacks, etc. Likewise, the other imperialist powers are unsure about how much to cut their own throats in (they hope!) exchange for future profits. We must recognize at the same time that each blow to them brings the US ruling class closer to a point in which open war seems to be the only “solution” to their problems. The tendency is clear, but the outcome is unpredictable.

We do not want war. The workers are the main victims of the scourge of war, both directly and indirectly, as shown by the destruction of life in Donbass and in Ukraine, dragged by the puppet Zelensky into a nation of rubble, and by the rapid deterioration in the living conditions of workers in Europe. It is always the imperialist nations that take the initiative to unleash war. Russia, led by Putin, oppressed and surrounded on all sides by NATO, belatedly decided to react and defend the people of Donbass with the Special Military Operation. Now, imperialism is making every effort to not return to peace, to profit from a lucrative arms race, and to escalate to war. 

We do not want war, but nor are we pacifists.  We must break with the politics of pacifism and Russophobia. The organizers and leaders of the March 18th protests in the USA for example tried to isolate and censure the organizations that support a Russian victory over imperialism in the war and instead aimed to pressure the imperialist Democratic Party that is waging the war. Such politics only cowers in the face of public opinion and serves imperialist governance. No progress will be made appealing to either of the vicious imperialist Republican or Democrat wings of the US ruling class. 

History demonstrates that wars open fissures in the capitalist world system, breaches through which proletarian revolutionary movements can break though. The great wars of the 19th and 20th Centuries resulted in great revolutions. The Franco-Prussian war resulted in the Paris Commune. The Russo-Japanese War gave birth to the first Russian Revolution of 1905. The First World War gave rise to the Bolshevik Revolution and a huge revolutionary wave in its aftermath. The Second World War produced the Korean, Chinese, Yugoslavian, Vietnamese, Cuban revolutions, involving the expropriation of non-European capitalism. An ongoing war in a more globalized world could unleash a phenomenon even more extensive than after the Second World War. One third of the world’s population lives in countries where capitalism’s means of production have previously been expropriated from private ownership. As the imperialist escalation moves towards the third World War, the communists need to be internationally more aware and organized as the vanguard of the working class.

The tactic of participating in the world anti-imperialist front must be accompanied by the strategy of a consistent fight against imperialism, a fight against the capitalist system as a whole.

Therefore, we defend the right of China and Russia to defend themselves from the imperialist encirclement. As well as all the people oppressed by imperialism – like the population of Donbass itself – just as we are for the victory of all belligerent forces that confront imperialism – like Hamas in Palestine, while we aim to unite the fight against imperialism with the struggle for the proletarian and socialist revolution.

The very character of this war, defensive for Russia and offensive for imperialism, proves once again that the bourgeoisies of oppressed countries are incapable of carrying out the complete liberation of their peoples from imperialism, as they wish to continue exploiting their part of the world working class. Only new socialist revolutions can fully defeat imperialism, complete these tasks and thus emancipate humanity. But, leaving things to spontaneity, it is easier for humanity to continue on the course of increasing barbarism than to socialism. As the war in Ukraine has also shown this barbarism will increasingly take a fascist form. To halt this we need a new international organization of communists that will unify all who agree with the above program to give a conscious, proletarian, socialist and revolutionary alternative to the stalemate and the current war.


Endorsing Groups

볼셰비키그룹/Bolshevik Group (South Korea) (US and Australia)
κομμουνιστικη επαναστατικη δραση / Communist Revolutionary Action (Greece)

Liaison Committee for the Fourth International, and its sections:
Consistent Democrats (Great Britain)
Liga Communista / Communist League (LCFI – Brasil)
Socialist Workers League (United States)
Tendencia Militante Bolchevique/ Militant Bolshevik Tendency (LCFI – Argentina)

Socialist Fight (Great Britain) 
Socialist Unity Party (US)
US Friends of the Soviet People

Endorsing Individuals

Marie Lynam (Posadists Today – London)

José Carlos Marçal – PCPB (Brasil)

Joana Marisa Boaventura (Brasil)

Rainer Shea (USA)

Consistent Democrats’ Statement: Down with Starmer’s Zionist/Racist Purge of Diane Abbott!

The suspension of Diane Abbott from the Labour whip in the House of Commons by Starmer is another grotesque instance of Labour’s purge of opponents of racism, and of socialists and left-wing people generally. In Abbott’s case she has been the MP who has been subjected more racial abuse than any other politician in Britain. Comrade Abbott has been purged for expressing her views in a letter to the Observer (23 April) about the different types and impacts of racism and prejudice affecting different minority populations in the UK.

We consider that while some of the views expressed by Abbott in her letter are mistaken, for instance about Travellers and Irish people, her views about racism against Jews are simply correct in today’s conditions. In any case, these topics are a legitimate subject for debate within the labour movement and Starmer’s suspension of Abbott represents utter hostility to the norms of free labour movement debate – which is not really news. No doubt it is also intended to get another ‘troublesome’ left-wing MP of long-standing out of the party, after Jeremy Corbyn. It is unlikely that Abbott will have any more success than Corbyn has in getting the whip back – Corbyn has now been officially barred from standing in the Islington North seat he has won over and over again since 1983. Abbott, who has done the same in Hackney North and Stoke Newington since 1987, is most likely to face a similar attack. If they were to both decide to stand as independent candidates in their own long-held seats in the coming General Election they would likely win, and give a big impetus to the need, felt by millions, for a leftist alternative to the Tories and hard neoliberal New Labour under Starmer. Whether they will seems highly doubtful, though it is not entirely clear whether they might do so under pressure from below.

Misogynoir and Racism

As has been pointed out previously, Abbott has been abused both racially and in a sexist manner, and the combination of the two produces the phenomenon of misogynoir, a special hatred of black women. An investigation by Amnesty International, cited in the Guardian from the period surrounding the 2019 General Election, into abuse on Twitter, noted that:

“Of the 140,000 tweets mentioning the shadow home secretary’s Twitter handle, @HackneyAbbott, one in 20 were classified as abusive. During the six months the tweets were monitored, Abbott received more abuse than all female MPs from the Conservative and Scottish National parties combined.”

Abbott herself recounted:

“Abbott told the study her experience as an MP had gone from receiving one racist letter a week to hundreds every day, including letters covered in swastikas and pictures of monkeys and chimpanzees. “It’s the volume of it which makes it so debilitating, so corrosive, and so upsetting. It’s the sheer volume. And the sheer level of hatred that people are showing,” she told researchers.”


Furthermore, this racial abuse found repeated expression within the Labour Party. Two major reports, one commissioned under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, the other conducted by Martin Forde QC after the leaking of the earlier report, found that attitudes to Diane Abbott and other BAME MPs in WhatsApp messages between Labour apparatchiks hostile to the Corbyn leadership (using official Labour Party phones and discussion groups), revealed “over and underlying racism and sexism” and “ expressions of visceral disgust, drawing (consciously or otherwise) on racist tropes, and they bear little resemblance to the criticisms of white male MPs elsewhere in the messages”.

So, the most prominent and long-standing black MP, a victim of much racial and bigoted abuse, including from within the Labour Party, has been suspended and threatened with expulsion, for expressing her opinion about racism. But none of her abusers have been so purged! What a scandal! Her letter is short enough to reproduce in full:

“Tomiwa Owolade claims that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people all suffer from “racism” … They undoubtedly experience prejudice. This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable.

“It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus. In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships.”

Though she did issue an apology for it being published, saying it was an early draft of a letter that had been sent to the paper by mistake. She had no need to apologize, though the letter could have been better written and some nuances better expressed. But these are political questions and debating the nature of racism or prejudice against various groups is completely legitimate in a labour movement where Zionism has played a major role in muddying the waters and poisoning debate.

She is wrong about Travellers and the Irish (in Britain at least), who have been subjected to sustained racism under British imperialism and colonialism, and in the case of Travellers, all over Europe. Racist oppression against the Irish in particular has been closely linked to Ireland’s position as Britain’s oldest colony: the Irish have been treated as less-than-human by the British ruling class for centuries and this has only weakened as British imperialism has itself weakened so much that it has had to relinquish part of its historic power in Ireland. Reluctantly to a nation that has gained from its membership of the European Union, which part of the British ruling class regards as a separate imperialist bloc that they reluctantly must work with (but many would keep as at much distance as possible – hence Brexit, and the travails of the ‘Northern Ireland Protocol’).

The degree of discrimination against Travellers including in Britain today, rivals and may even exceed that against black people. For decades after open discrimination on racial grounds became illegal in Britain, “no travellers” signs were a commonplace in pubs etc., particularly in the countryside. They are not unheard of even today, as a 2021 report by London Gypsies and Travellers highlighted:

“This has been an important “Me Too” moment for the Traveller community. The exposure of Pontins’ blacklisting of Irish Travellers has resonated hugely with many people’s experiences of discrimination. It has made plain the racism that Gypsies and Travellers routinely face, but which has become so normalised that it is barely remarked on.”

And of course, gypsies and travellers were subjected to persecution and then extermination, along with the millions of Jews who were murdered by Hitler, in the Nazi genocide and extermination campaigns during and in the lead up to World War II. However, unlike Jews, who have pretty comprehensively overcome the oppressed position they were forced into before 1945, GRT people are still being persecuted, including by this government.

What comrade Abbott is perhaps guilty of is seeing racism through an excessively black lens. For someone from a very oppressed black community who has been personally subjected to torrents of racial abuse, however, that is perfectly comprehensible. The point she was clumsily making is that they’re not oppressed on the basis of colour. In recent times the BNP had some Jewish members and even councillors, there are prominent Jewish members in Le Pen’s party (and other far right parties) in France, and part of the Irish population is gravitating towards the far right over refugees in Ireland. These groups have not historically been oppressed solely on the basis of colour, whereas black people always have. Attempting to recognise the (several) genocides of the people of African origin is not permitted by the racist Labour Party, if it is given the legitimacy of being up there with the Nazi holocaust.

Abbot’s Purge – A Racist Outrage!

That she should face being purged for such a thing is an outrage! The Starmerites do not care two hoots about anti-Irish racism nor about Gypsies, Roma and Travellers (GRT) – as shown by their toleration of John Mann – a major force in the ‘anti-Semitism’ smear campaign – who even issued pamphlets targeting Gypsies and Travellers alongside other supposedly ‘anti-social’ layers for ‘trespass’.

When she comes to talk about prejudice against Jews in today’s conditions, she is basically correct. Unlike Gypsies and Travellers, for instance, today, Jews are rarely identifiable, unless they choose to be so, and through upward mobility, have pretty comprehensively escaped from ghettoisation and oppression. The change in Britain has been so marked that before World War 2, Jews were a key social base not only of the Labour Party, but also of the Communist Party. Today, Jews are far more likely to support the Conservative Party than Labour.

This is the political expression of a layer of the population that has escaped from a subordinate, oppressed position and rightly considers itself to be privileged. Political Zionism was a key means by which this was effected. Its conservative, bourgeois politics was crucial in overcoming the hostility of the propertied classes to class-assimilation of Jews (whose origin was largely in a medieval community that were mainly involved in trade in commodities), into the middle and upper classes of Western capitalist societies, and therefore joining the dominant class layers of Western imperialism. Albeit with a distinctive, Zionist form of bourgeois politics that particularly sees Israel as ‘their’ transplanted imperialist state. Today, phoney allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ are a means to fend off criticism of the virulent Zionist racism against Palestinian Arabs and their defenders that plays a major role in Jewish communities in the West, and its considerable influence on imperialist policy in the Middle East.

This is what Starmer is upset about: criticism of this particular type of racism is not tolerated in his racist, Zionist ‘Labour’ Party. He himself stated his support for Zionism “without qualification”. Phoney fulminations against so-called ‘anti-Semitism’, i.e., criticism of this type of racism, played a major role in bringing down Corbyn’s leadership. The Big Lie was propagated widely that Corbyn was brought down by a supposed ‘scandal’ of his leadership’s supposed ‘discrimination’ against Jews. A complete pack of lies from start to finish, a total scam, but reinforced by the state’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, now run for the benefit of neoliberalism, not oppressed groups.

But this clearly racist purge makes the real, racist nature of Starmer’s party much clearer. And he will not be able to escape this. The most abused, black female member of Labour’s Parliamentary Party is being purged for commenting on her own oppression and that of others, while those in Labour who abused her, and others, get off scot-free. This makes clear – Starmer’s leadership is an enemy of Britain’s oppressed black and Asian minority populations, and this enmity stems in considerable part from the Zionist politics of Labour’s leading cliques.

Down with the Starmer/Zionist racist purge of Diane Abbott!

Reinstate her now!

No vote to Starmer’s Zionist New Labour!