True to the words of the legendary 19th-century French novelist Gustave Flaubert, “there is no truth. There is only perception”. The truth may sound or taste bitter. But in reality, there is no singular truth and perception about anything and everything in this divine universe, even about the most abstract ones. Inherent truth is subjective, which lies in the hands of an individual’s interpretation. Together, they have a profound influence on shaping people’s views.

Its real-life exponent is none other than the dictator Hitler⸺thanks to his exceptional oratory skills, once dangerous and fascinating. On the other side of the coin lies the legacy of the great American social and civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. His non-violent liberal views on racial equality echoed deeply. Both historical figures left an indelible mark on the world courtesy of their respective mindsets strategically manifested, intertwined with truth and perception.

To shape public perception, key news sources include print and electronic media. These include newspapers, television, books, magazines, and radio. Newspapers and television are naturally the most widely ubiquitous, commanding massive audience coverage and deep penetration.

India has one of the largest newspaper circulations in the world. It endures and reveres the media, but here is the catch. According to media literacy index data, our homeland, India, ranked at a very low level globally. The magnitude of freedom is handy to the journalists at large, and it is alarming! Sadly, in India’s context, it is directionless. Ultimately, it is a wake-up call. The freedom of the press is inextricably linked to the democracy of a country. Apart from this, news channels on television are not behind in the rat race with their contemporaries. Selling content to the audience instead of ensuring quality content that informs them the most. Running for TRP, the real news gets diluted. The essence of informing and information gets killed long before through various media.

India’s complex emotional landscape

In a country as emotionally vulnerable and socially heterogeneous — as India. The longstanding challenges, such as Hindu-Muslim tensions, population explosion, poverty, illiteracy, and more. Labyrinths of other enigmas are often engulfed, which causes reactive, colloquial responses. They manifest vividly during nightmarish, complex — Kafkaesque episodes. Numerous instances of public unrest like riots, rapes, suicides, and more are evidence to it. Such emotionally charged reactions complicate the government’s ability to implement and administer policies in a consistent, transformative manner. This is where the truth and the press hold a critical role. In these complexities, the leakages of the internal machinery get highlighted.

A Press Under Siege

Having such a media state has major concerns and equally questionable consequences. They often tend to leave a painful scar later in the long term. On the contrary, the case is very different in countries as Russia, China, the US, and the U.K. They usually have concrete, strong, hassle-free, definite political motives and policies. They refrain from the ways India often tends to follow. The typical Indian answer to our emotional country goes back to our heated history textbooks. There have been countless deliberate attempts the whole world has made to conquer the roots of our ‘bhāratavarṣa’. It was not only for centuries but for millennia indeed. Starting from the advent of Alexander the Great in 326 BCE to the British Empire in 1947. The continual cycle of ‘sought and fought’ had fragmented and fractured the internal cohesion. This legacy left the nation in a difficult yet diverse situation. Still, it often backfires, creating an ironic, complicated situation of unity in diversity. Unlike other countries, the US and Russia. Unfortunately, India hasn’t enjoyed an uninterrupted political lineage with a uniform singularity of purpose. In our case, the press doesn’t report the truth. It often has to wrestle for it amid the noise of unresolved historical background, painstakingly.

Indispensable, twin forces — the truth is an expression, the press is the medium. Shaping and reshaping our views, then our beliefs. Eventually, it solidifies respective ideologies. The media are the purveyors of truth and freedom. Conveying information concisely under the instructions of the government. With such a vital authority and verdict resting on the press, it is a transparent, crystal-clear mirror of the country. It is a double-edged sword, bridging the supreme authority with the assurance of the people. Just exactly like Snow White’s enchanted mirror, today’s press undergoes examination, “Mirror, mirror on the wall: Who tells the truth among us all”? Publicly, things get amplified and complicated with social media. It affects the scenario, which itself is in an uneasy, lopsided state.

Social Media Perils and Content Pollution

True to the words of the legendary English poet Alexander Pope, the warmth of his lines is produced in his thought-provoking work, ‘An Essay on Criticism’. The lines “A little learning is a dangerous thing.” These are so apt to the complex content we consume today. The essence of the magnum opus is deeply felt even today in the 21st-century modern world.

In the essence of the digital age today, Social Media is the online medium that makes shallow learning among the masses a dangerous thing! It has a profound impact and internal pressure on one’s daily life. The ignorance of countless posts on X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, and so on, will undoubtedly be bliss. In shades of innumerable benefits, it often results in ruining one’s privacy. Social media validation and accumulating more and more followers are blinding. It is infused with overloaded fake news, intense addiction, and the urge to form opinions and criticism (trolling). Everyone wants to express something without having the real knowledge about it. With this huge confusion and anxiety, it has emerged everywhere like wildfire. All of this has created misconceptions, prejudice, manipulation, censorship, ambiguity, rumours, and misuse. This mess is one of the major grey shades of social media.

Content is not just consumed; it is exaggerated, engineered, and fabricated. All this is exercised under legitimate knowledge claims. Ultimately, this flooding mechanism has blurred the line between what is reel and what the actual reality is. It has adulterated information to an unprecedented level. India itself produces a large number of content creators globally. In turn, Indians also tend to consume a huge volume of content. Thanks to insanely addictive reels and posts on apps like TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram, and more. As a result, India also leads in average mobile screen time. The estimated screen time is more than 5 hours daily. Even sometimes creating obscene content for the sake of likes and comments is considered normal! At least for disseminating genuine content, social media proves to be an easy yet complex option. Consequently, it has driven the Indian media into peril.

The Collapse of Free Speech

Unearthing the truth in the crossword and its clues embedded in a web of lies is hard. It has paradoxically suffocated the very freedom of speech within the compound chaos altogether. Truth is born out of freedom and courage. The press, which once investigated the unknown, unbelievable, and the unthinkable, now tirelessly circles. Just hunting for the truth for the sake of real, meaningful truth. But alas, today, there is both speech and courage immersed deep. The axis of profoundly malicious, politically motivated actions and intentions is strongly holding it. Both truth and press now operate in a system they once sought to expose. Here, language often bought through bribes speaks loudly and boldly to rule over everyone. Often, institutions buy and sell the freedom of speech, putting their agenda forward to the masses. This dirty, unethical transaction not only trades monetary value but also corrupts the system. It hollows the society morally, emotionally, and socially, both intentionally and unintentionally, like a parasite.

The voice of the innocent (media professionals), who dare to speak the truth, often embraces unjust retribution and tyrannical faith. Their remarkable efforts peel back those thick layers of deception, corruption, and bribery, but go in vain. Pressure groups and others often bury uneasy truths and astonishing facts under the guise of national interest and public welfare. The beautiful irony is just showcased as normal in thin air! The menace is that it is paraded to the audience as a sideshow spectacle. Such skillful, shrewd wordplay and rhetorical acrobatics contribute significantly to it. As a result, even the sharpest person in the room can’t pose a question. This puppetry media manipulation in a performative democracy becomes art, not for informing, but for controlling.

The Legal Lens: Indian Constitution and the Press

Laws and the press share a valiant, intertwined relationship where both have the power and potential in society. The law acts as a watchdog over the duty of both the people and the press. The freedom of the media is not only linked to journalism but to the vocal freedom of a country. Leaving it in a deadly dilemma of oblivion if left unchecked.

Resorting to legal methods for a hand-to-hand confrontation and cleansing it eventually may be the tedious yet best remedy. Highlighting the pitfalls and sorting them to the roots, as there is no smoke without fire. Although this is an even bigger headache since the magnitude of the Indian media industry is a whopping amount of more than a billion dollars.

By turning through the pages of the most voluminous rulebook of the world, the Indian Constitution. It offers us both a better, comprehensive, and far-sighted view. Indian law is just and faithful enough to meet both ends and refine its application by drawing the light of wisdom over the respective case.

Article 19(1)(a) relates to the independent freedom of voice and their respective opinions against the actions of the government. The media is legally backed up to highlight the plight of truth ‘lying’ beneath the surface and above it. Likewise, some notable eye-opening cases include the Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras and the Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. vs Union of India. These astounding cases had thrust the freedom of the press and media into the limelight, concreting their status even more. These cases and many more are at the confluence of the political and social environment. The emancipation to advance facts and reports without any intervention, but with reasonable restrictions behind the fences.

Freedom and truth in the press should be carried sensibly within the thin line of legal demarcation relative to the audience. Sensitive news often triggers harmful ideas, and it can lead to both psychological and mental pain directly. Avoiding the spread of any fake news, defamation, contempt of court, blasphemy, voyeurism, and any threat to the sovereignty and integrity of India is of utmost national significance. There has been some progress over time to overcome the stagnant debacle; there is a long road to travel.

Press, Sacrifice, and Political Ironies

Dubbed as the 4th pillar of democracy, the press and media enjoy an ironic status owing to their gullible volatility. There remain shining examples of fearless Indian journalism that delivered the truth at the right place and at the right time, undeterred by mental pressure. But ironically, the most staggering report gathered is that our motherland, India, stands amongst the top countries to have the most journalist deaths.

Renowned cases of such ill-fated scapegoats include Gauri Lankesh, J.Dey, and Daniel Pearl; the list goes on. Their “sacrifice” bears a thought-provoking lesson. These media professionals fearlessly tried to unmask the bitter truth of the wrongdoers and guilty minds. To combat such authoritarian regimes, often influential political ideals march forward carrying the baton, calling for a major upheaval or revolution. In the process, this leads to doublespeak from the other side in a counterreaction. Often, when things take a U-turn, these political ideals later turn into political prisoners! Eventually, their descendants find their lives embroiled, burdened with defining and redefining their ideologies and legacy.

Such a misuse or mistake can lead to an Orwellian dystopia in a totalitarian manner, as pointed out by the great 20th-century English author George Orwell. In his magnum opus novel, 1984, he showcases the political nightmare the caged media and press cast upon it.

In the dynamics of India, the silver lining is certainly visible. The architectural Gandhian values of truth and freedom will be followed and resonate. Both the sanguine prospects and outputs of journalism will emerge rooted in integrity and moral duty, without fleeting urgency. But rather with an imperative role, a pillar of democracy, not with transience but with transparency.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Prabhav Khandelwal.

In the land of the Condor, near the base of the tallest mountain in the Western hemisphere, an Incan community lived. The people hunted, along the sheer hillsides, they farmed, they collected water from the river gushing from snowmelt. They had children, built families, and passed on traditions to generations of descendants.

The land was cold, inhospitable, but their village grew and their community thrived at the far Southern reaches of the vast Incan empire, in present-day Argentina. Today, centuries have passed, the people are gone, but the stones and dirt that made their homes remain. The stories and language of their ancestors have been lost to time. But their spirits remain. And the ruins remember.

This is episode 60 of Stories of Resistance—a podcast co-produced by The Real News and Global Exchange. Independent investigative journalism, supported by Global Exchange’s Human Rights in Action program. Each week, we’ll bring you stories of resistance like this. Inspiration for dark times.

Written and produced by Michael Fox.

A note from Stories of Resistance host Michael Fox: 

If you enjoy this podcast, please subscribe, like, share, comment, or leave a review. 

And please consider signing up for the Stories of Resistance podcast feed, either in Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Spreaker, or wherever you listen.

You can check out pictures of these Incan ruins in Argentina’s Andes Mountains, on Michael’s Patreon account

Please consider supporting this podcast and Michael Fox’s reporting at patreon.com/mfox. There you can also see exclusive pictures, video, and interviews. 

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Michael Fox.

And this brings me to what I referred to earlier as a reaffirmation of my views on the basic problem confronting the underdeveloped countries. The principal insights, which must not be obscured by matters of secondary or tertiary importance, are two. The first is that, if what is sought is rapid economic development, comprehensive economic planning is indispensable… if the increase in a country’s aggregate output is to attain the magnitude, of, say, 8 to 10 per cent per annum; if in order to achieve it, the mode of utilization of a nation’s human and material resources is to be radically changed, with certain less productive lines of economic activity abandoned and other more rewarding ones taken up; then only a deliberate, long range planning effort can assure the attainment of the goal…

The second insight of crucial importance is that no planning worth the name is possible in a society in which the means of production remain under the control of private interests which administer them with a view to their owners’ maximum profits (or security or other private advantage). For it is of the very essence of comprehensive planning for economic development – what renders it, indeed, indispensable – that the pattern of allocation and utilization of resources which it must impose if it is to accomplish its purpose, is necessarily different from-the pattern prevailing under the status quo…
— xxviii-xxix, Foreword to 1962 printing, The Political Economy of Growth, Paul A. Baran [emphasis added]

It is surely of some interest that the late Professor Baran — reassessing his important, insightful, and extremely influential 1957 book, The Political Economy of Growth — grounds his contribution to the liberation of the post-colonial world in two “insights”: 1. The necessity of “comprehensive” economic planning over the irrational decision-making of the market, and 2. The impossibility of having effective planning with the major productive forces in the hands of private entities operating for profits.

Put simply, Baran is arguing that the most promising humane and rational escape from the legacy of colonialism is for the developing countries to choose the socialist path going forward and adopt planning as a necessary, rational condition for achieving that goal.

It is of equal interest that many who consider Baran to be one of the fathers of dependency theory — the theory that development is most significantly hindered by the state-to-state structural barriers imposed by the “core” on the “periphery” or the “North” on the “South” — have abandoned Baran’s key “insights” for an approach that argues for open, unhindered “fair” exchange and the rationality of markets.

For many of today’s Western left, the locus of international inequalities is found in the economic relations between states. Exploitation — in the form of taking advantage of uneven development or resource differences — undoubtedly occurs in the relations between states, systematically in the colonial era, more indirectly today. That is just to say that competition between capitalist states within a global imperialist system will produce and reproduce various inequalities. It is popular to capture this as conflict between an advantaged North and a disadvantaged South — while the geographical reference is most inexact, it is widely understood. From Wallerstein, Arrighi, and Gunder Frank, through Amin, and an important consensus today, the central feature of imperialism is thought to be the vast differences in wealth between the rich and poor countries. Moreover, they share the belief that existing structures maintain those differences, structures established and protected by the richest countries.

Of course, they are right to object to these inequalities and the practices and institutions that preserve them. And Paul Baran was acutely aware of these structures, but also attendant to the specific historical conditions influencing the individual countries — their differences and similarities. He understands the trajectory of the post-colonial states:

Thus, the peoples who came into the orbit of Western capitalist expansion found themselves in the twilight of feudalism and capitalism enduring the worst features of both worlds, and the entire impact of imperialist subjugation to boot. To oppression by their feudal lords, ruthless but tempered by tradition, was added domination by foreign and domestic capitalists, callous and limited only by what the traffic would bear. The obscurantism and arbitrary violence inherited from their feudal past was combined with the rationality and sharply calculating rapacity of their capitalist present. Their exploitation was multiplied, yet its fruits were not to increase their productive wealth; these went abroad or served to support a parasitic bourgeoisie at home. They lived in abysmal misery, yet they had no prospect of a better tomorrow. They existed under capitalism, yet there was no accumulation of capital. They lost their time-honored means of livelihood, their arts and crafts, yet there was no modern industry to provide new ones in their place. They were thrust into extensive contact with the advanced science of the West, yet remained in a state of the darkest backwardness (p. 144).

At the same time, Baran is fully aware of the predatory nature of foreign capital, denying its “usefulness” and affirming its sole domestic benefit to the merchant class.

Perhaps his clearest statement of the logic of imperialism appears on pages 196-197:

To be sure, neither imperialism itself nor its modus operandi and ideological trimmings are today what they were fifty or a hundred years ago. Just as outright looting of the outside world has yielded to organized trade with the underdeveloped countries, in which plunder has been rationalized and routinized by a mechanism of impeccably ‘correct’ contractual relations, so has the rationality of smoothly functioning commerce grown into the modern, still more advanced, still more rational system of imperialist exploitation. Like all other historically changing phenomena, the contemporary form of imperialism contains and preserves all its earlier modalities, but raises them to a new level. Its central feature is that it is now directed not solely towards the rapid extraction of large sporadic gains from the objects of its domination, it is no longer content with merely assuring a more or less steady flow of these gains over a somewhat extended period. Propelled by well-organized, rationally conducted monopolistic enterprise, it seeks today to rationalize the flow of these receipts so as to be able to count on it in perpetuity. And this points to the main task of imperialism in our time: to prevent, or, if that is impossible, to slow down and to control the economic development of underdeveloped countries.

Notice that Baran acknowledges, along with today’s fashionable dependency theory, that imperialism’s “main task” is to impose underdevelopment. But imperialism’s agent is identified as the “monopolistic enterprise” and not specifically an antagonistic state or its government. Of course, the state hosting monopoly corporations does all it can to promote and protect their interests, but it should not be confused with either the exploiter or the beneficiary of exploitation: it is “the well-organized, rationally conducted monopolistic enterprise” that bleeds the workers of the developing countries. With monopoly capitalism dominating the state, the state plays a critical, essential role as an enabler for the most powerful monopolies in the global economy.

For Baran, the key to liberating the former colonies from the stranglehold of rapacious monopolies is not a reordering of international relations, not a campaign for a level international playing field, not alternative market institutions, nor a coalition of dissenters from the status quo, but a radical change in the social and economic structure of the oppressed country.

In this regard, Baran differs from many contemporary dependency theorists who pose multipolarity as an answer to the North-South inequalities and welcome the BRICS development as constituting an anti-imperialist stage. They believe that breaking the stranglehold of the dominant great power — the US — will somehow eliminate the logic of contemporary imperialism, that it will disable the “mechanism of impeccably ‘correct’ contractual relations” at the heart of “core” / “periphery” relations.

But this is not Baran’s thinking. He opts instead for an active engagement of the workers, peasants, and intellectuals on the periphery. His is a class approach. For Baran, working people are not dried leaves, blown this way and that by the powerful winds of great powers. Rather, they are the agents of their own liberation.

Baran draws out the potential of the post-colonial masses through his innovative concept of “surplus.”¹ Baran asks revolutionaries in the emerging countries to realize the potential surplus that they may access for development provided that they engage in a “reorganization of the production and distribution of social output” and accept “far reaching changes to the structure of society.” (p. 24). Baran emphasizes four available sources for the surplus:

One is society’s excess consumption (predominantly on the part of the upper income groups…), the second is the output lost to society through the existence of unproductive workers, the third is the output lost because of the irrational and wasteful organization of the existing productive apparatus, and the fourth is the output foregone owing to the existence of unemployment caused primarily by the anarchy of capitalist production and the deficiency of effective demand. (p. 24)

By recovering this surplus, Baran contends that the post-colonial world can begin “the steep ascent” — the escape from the legacy of colonialism and the stranglehold of capitalism. At the same time, Baran concedes that a resource-poor country, an economy violently distorted by a close neighbor — a country like Cuba — will need assistance from the socialist community, an assistance that has been less forthcoming since the demise of the Soviet Union.

The Multipolaristas and the BRICS advocates do not share Baran’s confidence in working people. They cannot conceive a revolutionary answer to the problem of development. They relegate socialism to the far, far-off future, and argue for a more humane capitalism. Their vision ends with establishing a new regime of “structural adjustments” that will blunt the economic power of the US to make way for a plurality of powers competing for global markets, but in a “friendly” way. This is the social-democratic vision taken to the global level. But this is not Baran’s vision.

Like their national counterparts, these global social democrats envision a world in which reforming capitalist social relations — taming the worst monopoly scoundrels — will result in the proverbial arc bending toward justice. BRICS, they believe, will give us a level playing field for the monopoly corporations to roam more fairly.

A recent Oxfam report on inequality in Africa suggests that there is plenty of potential surplus available for building a developmental program based on a class-based approach of appropriation and surplus recovery:

● Africa’s four most affluent billionaires have $57.4 billion in wealth, which is greater than ~50% of the continent’s 1.5 billion people.

● While Africa had no billionaires in 2000, today, there are 23 with a combined wealth of $112.6 billion. The wealth of these 23 ultra-rich Africans has grown by 56% in the last 5 years.

● The richest 5% on the continent have accumulated almost $4 trillion in wealth, more than twice the wealth of the rest of the people in Africa (by comparison, the richest 10% of US households hold two-thirds of US wealth).

● Almost half of the world’s most unequal countries are in Africa.

● The bottom 50% of Africans own less than 1% of the wealth of the continent (by comparison, the bottom 50% of US households own 3% of US wealth).

Presumably, the report does not include the billionaires like Elon Musk, Patrick Soon-Shiong, Rodney Sacks, and many others who relocated and invested outside of Africa. Eight of the top foreign-born US billionaires are from Africa.

Clearly, class, and not state-to-state relations, is at the center of Africa’s human development problem. The “potential surplus” accumulated in the hands of so few would well serve a peoples’ development program that could reverse the concentration of wealth now starving the continent’s poor. Appropriated wealth could well serve an industrial drive and the rationalization of agriculture. More than enough wealth is available in Africa to implement Paul Baran’s twin insights that open this article.

The BRICS movement — a coalition of partners aligning to create a different international exchange network that would be less one-sided, less privileging wealthy nations– is not itself a bad thing. The proverbial level playing field — the fair and free marketplace — is a proper goal for capitalist participants competing internationally. But it is not a Left project. It moves the goal no closer in the struggle for justice for working people. It is not class-partisan, and thus ultimately will likely benefit those who gain from the proper functioning of capitalist economic relations in the various countries disadvantaged by existing relations. And we know from the Oxfam report who they are.

One can see the limitations of multipolarity from the recent Rio de Janeiro meeting of BRICS leaders. There is much talk of a “more equitable global order,” of state-to-state “cooperation,” of broader “participation,” even a pledge to fight disease and extreme poverty. The foreign ministers and heads of state dutifully denounce war and aggression. The current President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva “called BRICS a successor of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).” What he didn’t say was that NAM broke up when Cuba transcended toothless resolutions and declarations and actually defended Angola against apartheid South African aggression in a bloody war that brought the criminal regime to its knees. The BRICS response to the attack on Iran brings “toothlessness” back to mind.

Baran’s revolutionary path is not an easy one. Others have tried and failed. From Nkrumah and Lumumba to Thomas Sankara, revolutionaries in Africa have taken steps in this direction, only to be thwarted by powerful forces determined to snuff out even a beginning. That alone should tell the EuroAmerican left that it is the path worth following.

We should not pretend that reforming global market relations—any more than reforming national market relations– will secure justice for working people. That will come when the workers, peasants, and intellectuals of the global South decide that justice is impossible while “the means of production remain under the control of private interests which administer them with a view to their owners’ maximum profits.”

ENDNOTE:

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Greg Godels.

Media outlets TV9 Bharatvarsh, TV9 Hindi and TV9 Assam in their video reports and stories on June 26  said that July 15 onwards, two-wheelers using the national highway will have to pay toll to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

Although TV9 Bharatvarsh has now removed this video, it was shared on YouTube by Opposition party, Congress. The party’s national spokesperson, Ritu Chaudhary, and party member, Priyamvada, also shared  TV9 Bharatvarsh’s video on X to claim that the Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party was making life harder for middle-class Indians by imposing toll tax on two-wheelers, which is often dubbed a lifeline for many who cannot afford cars.

Besides TV9, many other media organisations such Zee News Telugu, ETV Bharat, Punjab Kesari, IBC24, Lalluram.com, IRIA Gujarat, BBN 24 and DB Live published similar reports that two-wheelers will have to pay toll tax from July 15. India Today also published a report, which was subsequently taken down from its website. However, social media users shared screenshots of the story. Panchajanya, a Hindi language weekly magazine published by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), also posted the update on X but deleted it later.

The Karnataka Congress also shared a similar report on its official X handle, calling it another blow to the common man. Other social media users on X also posted about the government levying a toll tax, based on media reports.

Fact Check

Considering some news outlets deleted their reports, we began checking whether the information was true.

While investigating, we came across an X post by Nitin Gadkari, the minister of road transport and highways, shipping and water resources. His post said that media outlets were spreading misleading news that the government was levying toll on two-wheelers. Condemning those for spreading misinformation without verifying, he clarified that no such decision was made and two-wheelers remain exempt from toll tax. He even tagged TV9Bharatvarsh in his post.

The X handle of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) also said that reports by media outlets on toll being levied on bikes and scooters was baseless and that no such proposal was being considered.

The fact-checking unit of the government’s Press Information Bureau (PIB) also debunked the claims that two-wheelers would soon have to pay toll. However, it is worth noting that PIB did not call out any news outlet’s reports in its post, even though the misinformation was amplified because of misreporting by news outlets.

Even during the recent India-Pakistan conflict, PIB’s fact-check unit debunked many false claims spread on social media, but did not name or call out any media houses that blatantly spread misinformation.

Read: PIB ignores false claims by Indian media about Operation Sindoor & The fictional strikes on the Karachi port and what it says about Indian media

On June 26, TV9 Bharatvarsh issued a clarification: “TV9 Bharatvarsh had run the news some time ago that now two-wheelers will have to pay toll tax on NHAI, refuting this news, Union Minister Nitin Gadkari has tweeted and informed that this news is false.”

दो पहिया वाहनों को नहीं देना होगा टोल टैक्स

TV9 भारतवर्ष ने कुछ देर पहले ये खबर चलाई थी कि अब NHAI पर टू व्हीलर्स को टोल टैक्स देना होगा, इस खबर का खंडन करते हुए केंद्रीय मंत्री नितिन गडकरी ने ट्वीट कर जानकारी दी है कि ये खबर गलत है. यानी टू व्हीलर्स पर कोई भी टोल टैक्स नहीं… pic.twitter.com/RSP1mkFC3w

— TV9 Bharatvarsh (@TV9Bharatvarsh) June 26, 2025

To sum up, many Indian news outlets misreported that two-wheelers would soon have to pay toll tax, resulting in many amplifying it. The NHAI and Union minister Gadkari clarified that no such proposal was on the cards.

The post ‘News’ about two-wheelers having to pay toll is not true; TV9 Bharatvarsh, India Today, others misreport appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Pawan Kumar.

The Pakistan Army promoted Asim Munir to the rank of field marshal after the recent conflict between the two countries, which intensified after India launched Operation Sindoor (on May 7) targeting terror bases in Pakistan, a fortnight after the dastardly terror attack in Kashmir’s Pahalgam killed 26 civilians.

On June 11, News18 published a story titled “Pakistan COAS Asim Munir Invited to US Army Day Celebrations on June 14: Sources | Exclusive”.  According to the report, Pakistan’s chief of army staff (COAS), Asim Munir, was invited by the US administration to attend the commemorative event. Citing ‘top intelligence sources’, News18 said that Munir would arrive in the United States by June 12.

On June 12, India Today also reported, citing ‘top sources’ that Munir confirmed his attendance at the ceremonial military parade on June 14 after Washington extended an invitation.

Deccan Herald also reported that the Trump administration invited Asim Munir to attend the US Army Day celebration on June 14. 

Other news outlets, including the Times of India, Economic Times, and Financial Express, reported the same.

Munir being invited to the US celebrations sparked outrage in India, with Opposition leaders calling it a major diplomatic setback for the country on a global scale. Congress MP Jairam Ramesh criticized the United States for extending an invitation to Munir, considering his incendiary rhetoric (calling Kashmir India’s jugular vein) before the Pahalgam attack.

This is the man who spoke in such incendiary and provocative language just before the Pahalgam terror attacks. What is the US really up to?

This is another huge diplomatic setback for India.https://t.co/bLD2gF5dcK pic.twitter.com/coJ5xnArhz

— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) June 11, 2025

Fact Check

Firstly, Munir was nowhere to be seen in the June 14 parade, which was largely an affair limited to the US administration.

Secondly, right before the parade, the White House categorically told some news publications that it had not invited any foreign military leaders, including Munir, to participate in the June 14 US Army parade.

The Quint cited an unnamed White House official as saying: “We never invited a foreign official… this is a celebration of 250 years of our Army and the United States of America.”

Responding to widespread speculation—particularly reports originating from India—regarding Asim Munir’s purported attendance, the official added:

“If a foreign military leader of that stature were to visit, established diplomatic protocols would be followed and public announcements made in advance. This appears to be a product of rumor-mongering, amplified by certain media circles. Just observe the timing.”

Note that the unsubstantiated claims surfaced shortly after US Central Command’s (CENTCOM) commander general Michael Kurilla, testified before the US House Armed Services Committee, where he commended Pakistan’s ongoing counter-terrorism operations.

By June 14, several of the publications that reported on Munir being invited to the US Army parade have updated or revised these reports to say that the White House issued a denial of these reports. News18 was among the few that added a correction in its updated report. 

To sum up, reports claiming Pakistan army chief Asim Munir was invited to the US Army’s 250th anniversary parade are not true and have been denied by the US. Many Indian media news outlets seem to have misreported this owing to incorrect “source-based information”.

The post News18, TOI, India Today among others misreport that Pak army chief Asim Munir was invited for US Army parade appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Ankita Mahalanobish.

“These are not isolated incidents, but systematic attacks by Israel on the media. This disturbing and deliberate pattern must end,” said CPJ Regional Director Sara Qudah. “The killing of journalists in a hospital courtyard on the holy day of Yawm Al-Arafah — preceding Eid al-Adha — underscores the relentless dangers facing the media in Gaza.”

The drone strike on Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital courtyard killed correspondent Suleiman Hajjaj and camera operator Ismail Baddah of Palestine Today TV, a channel affiliated with the Islamic Jihad militant group, and Samir al-Rifai, an administrator for the local, privately owned Shams News Agency.

The Israel Defense Forces said on Telegram that they had “precisely struck an Islamic Jihad terrorist who was operating in a command and control center in the yard of the Al-Ahli Hospital.”

Palestine Today TV described the killings as a “double war crime” for “direct targeting” its journalists and a hospital, both protected under international law.

Palestine Today TV correspondent Emad Daloul was also injured, as well as three journalists with Qatari-funded Al-Araby TV: reporter Islam Badr and camera operators Imam Badr and Ahmed Qulaja.

“The strike happened at around 10:20 a.m. with a single missile fired by an Israeli drone directly at a group of journalists who were sitting in the courtyard, working on their laptops,” Islam Badr, who started filming minutes after his right leg was hit, told CPJ.

“Qulaja was critically injured by shrapnel,” added Islam Badr, brother to Imam Badr.

Al-Mayadeen TV journalist Akram Daloul, a relative of injured Emad Daloul, told CPJ that the correspondent’s condition was serious because he had previously undergone a kidney transplant.

CPJ emailed the Israel Defense Forces’ North America Media Desk to ask if the military was aware of the presence of journalists in the area and if they were deliberately targeted but did not immediately receive a response.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

At the 2025 National Membership Meeting of Jewish Voice for Peace in Baltimore, thousands of anti-Zionist Jews gathered to reaffirm their opposition to Israel’s occupation of Palestine and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians—and to reject the antisemitic notion that the political ideology of Zionism represents all Jews. In this vital and wide-ranging discussion recorded during the JVP gathering in Baltimore, TRNN’s Marc Steiner sits down with self-identified Palestinian Jews Esther Farmer and Ariella Aïsha Azoulay to discuss the complexities of Jewish identity and belonging today, the historical origins of Israel, and “the way that Zionism destroyed both Palestine and the diverse modes of Jewish life” that predate and reject the Zionist project.

Ariella Aïsha Azoulay is a Palestinian Jew of African origins, film essayist, curator, and professor of modern culture and comparative literature at Brown University. She is the author of numerous books, including: Potential History: Unlearning Imperialism; The Civil Contract of Photography; and From Palestine to Israel: A Photographic Record of Destruction and State Formation, 1947-1950. Esther Farmer is a Palestinian Jew and native Brooklynite passionate about using theater as a tool for community development. She is former Ombudsman and Manager for the New York City Housing Authority, former United Nations representative for the International Association for Community Development and was an original founder of Teamsters for a Democratic Union. She is also a Jewish Voice for Peace NYC chapter leader and the director and playwright of “Wrestling with Zionism.”

Studio Production: Cameron Granadino, David Hebden
Audio Post-Production: Alina Nehlich

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Marc Steiner:

Welcome to the Marc Steiner Show here in The Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. It’s good to have you all with this. Jewish Voice for Peace is having their national convention right here in Baltimore, and the real news is there to bring you the story. Two of the leading participants in JVP are joining me in studio here at The Real News, Ariella Aïsha Azoulay is Professor of modern culture and media and comparative literature, and a film essayist and curator of archives and exhibitions. Her books include Potential History: Unlearning Imperialism; Civil Imagination: The Political Ontology of Photography; The Civil Contract of Photography; and From Palestine to Israel: A Photographic Record of Destruction and State Formation, 1947-1950. Among her films: Un-Documented: Unlearning Imperial Plunder, and Civil Alliance: Palestine 47-48. Among her exhibitions: “Errata” in Barcelona and HKW in Berlin; “Enough! The Natural Violence of the New World Order” that was done in Leipzig.

And we’re also joined by Esther Farmer, who is a Palestinian Jew, a native Brooklynite whose passion is using theater as a tool for community development. She’s the director of “Wrestling with Zionism,” a reader’s theater project in New York City, as well as the author of several published articles on theater and community development. Esther is an active member and part of the leadership team of Jewish Voice for Peace in New York City. And they join us here in studio. So welcome both of you. It’s good to have you here. I’m really happy you could take the time from the conference to join us here for a little bit. One of the things that fascinated me about the two of you as I was going through all of your work, not all of it, but going through your work, is that you both identify as Palestinian Jews. Can we talk about what that means? That’s a word You never hear that maybe in certain circles you do, but in the rest of the world you don’t hear that notion idea of Palestinian Jew and what that means and why. That’s the way you identify.

Esther Farmer:

So my father was born in Hebron, Palestine. My grandfather was a Turkish Jew who went to Palestine pretty much to avoid the draft from World War I. He was a draft dodger,

Marc Steiner:

Didn’t want to fight for the Turkish army.

Esther Farmer:

He was a progressive Jew, didn’t believe in war. I found out much later that the penalty for avoiding the draft was to be hung. So several Jews actually left, but he did not realize that since Palestine was a Turkish protector, he was drafted anyway, and that’s why they came to the United States. They came to New York. So this was way before the Nakba and way before 1948, my family was, they lived on the Lower East Side. They were very poor and they were very anti-Zionist. So my family’s existence gives the lie to all Jews loved Israel, and certainly Ariella’s work really ties into that, that before the Holocaust, most Jews were not Zionists. So what does it mean to be a Palestinian Jew is that there was a country called Palestine, and it was Muslim, Christian, and Jewish. It was very diverse, and the vast majority at that time, 80% were not Jewish. They were Muslim. So Israel was a creation of people who did not live there for their own interest.

Marc Steiner:

I want to get to that point because that’s really a critical point. People don’t get about it, what Israel is and why it is. Ariella?

Ariella Aïsha Azoulay:

Yeah. So I think that first of all, we have to be reminded that the category of identity is a colonial category. And I was born into the Zionist colony in Palestine, and an identity was imposed on me at birth called Israeli identity. And this identity was fabricated in 14 years since, I mean 14 years before I was born, which means synthetic identity that was meant to cultivate or to create a factory of Israeli babies, that their identity is predicated on their opposition to other who lived in this country, who lived in this place, which were defined Palestinians. So when I’m speaking about these kind of human factories in the Zionist colony in Palestine, I’m speaking about the way that Zionism destroyed both Palestine and the diverse modes of Jewish life. Part of them took place in Palestine. My family moved to Palestine, my maternal from maternal side, they were expelled together with Muslims when the first white Christian state was created in Spain, when Jews and Muslims were expelled from Spain. So they moved from Spain to Portugal, France, Austria, Bulgaria, and then Palestine, way before the Zionist movement started to colonize or to aspire to colonize Palestine. So they were Palestinian Jews in the very factual way. They were part of Palestine. And this is not a colonial identity, this is a form of belonging. And when I’m saying that I’m a Palestinian Jew, it is a way of undoing, first of all, the identity that was imposed on me at birth, that I’m not recognizing myself in it, and all the other colonial identities that await for me like American or like French. So claiming that I am a Palestinian Jew is claiming a form of belonging. That was the form of belonging of my maternal ancestors. From my paternal side, we were Algerian Jews and both identities were destroyed. Both forms of belonging, sorry, not identities were destroyed through two colonial project, the French colonization of Algeria on the one hand and the Zionist colonization of Palestine. So being an Algerian Jew, a Palestinian Jew, a Muslim Jew is a mode of reclaiming my ancestral modes of belonging.

Marc Steiner:

I love that. Both of you really interesting stories, very powerful stories, and I want to dive back into that. But I was thinking as you were talking that, and I’ve wrestled this a lot and I’ve written about this, which is that if there had been no Holocaust there, there’d be no Israel. I mean, that’s the fundamental, most Jews were not interested in being Zionists. They were in this socialist movements here. They were doing whatever they were doing, whatever we were.

Esther Farmer:

I don’t know about that.

Marc Steiner:

Okay, please go ahead.

Esther Farmer:

I mean, I don’t know how we could know that, but there’s an assumption there that the imperialist powers at that time wouldn’t have. I mean, they certainly used the Holocaust and the sympathy of the world, or the Zionist claimed that they absolutely had to have Israel to, and it was seen as some kind of reparation or something. But as my father used to say, also, I love Avila’s work because it kind of puts a context to things that my family would say is that the Zionists love Israel and they hate Jews. And I think that says a lot. So I don’t know that the imperialists wouldn’t have created Israel one way or another. I don’t know. I just think it’s an assumption.

Marc Steiner:

Good.

Esther Farmer:

Yeah,

Ariella Aïsha Azoulay:

Maybe I can complete it from a different perspective. Yeah, please. I think that we cannot say that if there will not, Holocaust won’t be the state of Israel. We have to ask ourself what is the continuity between the Holocaust and the state of Israel in order to reply that we have to go back in time because the Holocaust didn’t arrive from nowhere.

Okay, if it didn’t arrive from nowhere, we have to ask ourself what did Europe wanted from the Jews in order to have the Holocaust and then to force on the Jews all over the world to be represented by the Zionists that destroyed Palestine and created the state of Israel as the destiny of the Jewish people. For that, I invite in my book, the Jewelers of the Umai, have it here with me, a potential history of the Jewish Muslim world. What I invite people to look at is in the wake of the French Revolution, when the modern citizenship was invented, Jews who lived in France were not part of the citizenship they were given with this citizenship a few years after the French Revolution. But what interests me is not the fact that the Jews were naturalized in the wake of the French Revolution. What interests me is the price that they had to pay in order to become citizens.

They had to forget that they were Jews and forgetting that they were Jews. This was a European project. So eliminating the Jews either by assimilating them into the Christian world or assimilating them into what the Euro-American powers invented in the wake of World War II as the Judeo-Christian tradition, or eliminating the Jews through extermination. All these are part of the same project, what to do with the Jews. Europe invented the Jews as a question, as a problem. And at the same time that Europe invented the Jews as a problem, they also invented the solution with quotation mark to make out of diverse Jewish communities, a Jewish people with a destiny. This brings us to the beginning of the 19th century, the beginning of the 19th century. They invent Palestine as a question, and they invent the Jews as a question, and they merge both questions. Napoleon, Napoleonic Wars already saw the possibility of transferring the Jews to Palestine.

So this connection between Palestine and the Jews is something that Europe invented way before the Nakba. And the last point in time that I would like to bring to our conversation is in the wake of World War ii, after the Holocaust, Euro-American powers imposed what they called New World Order. They created the UN as the organ to facilitate their solutions to different people. The Jews were in displaced person camps in Europe from 45 to 48. The Zionist movement was a marginal movement in the life of Jews, worldwide marginalized movement. In the Jewish Muslim world, it has almost no presence. And Europe that was responsible for the extermination of the Jews add to innocent itself, making Europe innocent, making Europe, one of the liberating powers add to what was relied on the exceptional of the Nazi, which legitimized all the European colonies and the exceptional of the Jewish suffering, this double exceptional and the recognition of the Zionist as representative of the Jews, which means those who were mandated to destroy Jewish, a diverse Jewish life all over the world in Asia, in North Africa, in many other places. And the Zionists were mandated to destroy Palestine. This was part of Europe and your American powers part of their response, what to do with the Jews. So if we speak about the final solution by the Nazi as an extermination, the final, final solution or the post final solution was to impose on the Jews a state that will be for them at the price of Palestine, at the price of the destruction of diverse Jewish communities,

Esther Farmer:

Which is fascinating to me because it’s like it’s the way that Zionism is so deeply antisemitic. It is antisemitic, obviously by

Marc Steiner:

Homogenizing. Jump to that. Please go ahead.

Esther Farmer:

Well, just by homogenizing, and now it’s being used tangible form of Jewish life except the Zionist one, right? And it’s like this way of Jews being used. I mean, that was something that my family taught me very deeply in my DNA, that Jews are used by the imperialists for their own interests. And the creation of Israel was so much about that. And yet, we’re all supposed to say that as Jews, we all love Israel, which is the most antisemitic thing possible. And of course for me, as someone who comes from a very strong leftist Jewish background, what Israel is doing is a travesty. And back to that question of the Jews love the Zionists, love Israel and hate Jews. That incident that happened when it was a boatload of refugees and they were coming to the United States and they were turned away.

They weren’t interested in going to Israel. They wanted to come to the United States. And the United States turned them away, and the Zionists were fine with that as long as the United States supported Israel. So it’s just a perfect example in your face of how Jews in Israel is not the same thing, but we have been inundated with propaganda to make our identities. And I mean, Ella’s work is so fascinating to me because they’ve literally erased our memories and have just changed the narrative and the dialogue to the point where it’s unrecognizable as to who people are. And now Christian nationalists are telling us what it is to be a Jew, which the IRA definition says that you’re only a Jew if you support Zionism. So they’re literally erasing our memories and history.

Ariella Aïsha Azoulay:

Yeah, no, this goes back to Napoleonic Wars Napoleon, who codified what is Judaism, who invented the Jewish consi story, who created Jewish life as a pyramidal modes of being who are entangled being Jew with the state in a way that the state, the states, different states can tell us today, what does it mean to be Jew? And there are bad Jews, and good Jews and the anti-Zionists are being considered the bad Jews. And those are Christians who never reckoned with their antisemitism or anti Judaism with their racism toward many groups that are telling us what does it mean to be Jew? And I would like just to add that Europe, in order to innocent itself from its crimes against the Jews, first of all, imposed the state of Israel or imposed the Zionist as representative of the Jews, but also exchanged with the enemy of the Jews and created Palestinians, Arab and Muslims as the enemies of the Jews.

And these were never our enemies. If the Jews added systematic enemy, this was Europe. For centuries, Jews were expelled from one place to another in Europe. And it ended up with a project that is being called as a euphemistic term to describe. It was called the emancipation of the Jews in the 18th century, in the 19th century. What is this emancipation? This emancipation meant to kill the Jew within the Jew. I think that here in the us, we have to think about it as similar to the project of killing the indigenous within the indigenous, right? It’s like the boarding schools. So on a global scale, Europe killed the Jew within the Jew, and many of the members of what is being called here in a way that always surprise me, American Jewry, many of the members of this community don’t even remember that they belong to other communities that were destroyed by Europe, right? American Jewry is an invention, is an amalgamation, is another amalgamation that is built on the European amalgamation of the Jewish people in the 19th century. So we have to be reminded also that Zionism started as a Christian movement. The colonization of Palestine was a Christian ideology before it became a Zionist, a Jewish Zionist ideology.

Esther Farmer:

It’s interesting that I remember when Biden said, if we didn’t have Israel, we would have to invent

Marc Steiner:

It,

Esther Farmer:

Which is again, the most antisemitic thing in the world telling are you saying that Jews are not safe where they are? So we’re not safe here. So we have to create Israel. And you support that. I mean, you can’t get more antisemitic than that, but where are the Zionists? Where’s the outrage from the Zionist around that statement?

Marc Steiner:

You both have just said so much that we can stay here for hours, just pulling it all apart and really taking a deep dive here into all of it that you’ve said. I mean, what both of you have pointed out on one level, a number of levels you have on one level is how antisemitism drove Zionism in many ways to create Israel for the power of the West, as I put it once a long time ago, is to force refugees, to create refugees. And what you’ve all described, how do you take that and make it understood both politically and socially in this country? So some of the Zionist leaders will immediately call you and me self hating Jews. That’s the first thing they’ll say. But how do you take what you’ve just described and get people to really understand and put their hands around what it really means, how Israel, Israel created, what it stands for and what it’s done to us?

Esther Farmer:

Well, we are doing this conference now where we have 2000 anti-Zionist Jews in a womb 15 years ago. Be lucky if you got 15 anti-Zionist Jews in the room. So this is happening right now because the impact of what Zionism has done is war militarism and imperialism. And that’s being seen now throughout the whole world. So our job in JVP is to move Jews and everyone away from Zionism, and that’s happening. The issue is that the narrative, I mean, I’ve been doing this work for 50 years, and I have never seen the narrative the way it is right now. It has substantially changed, and that took a tremendous amount of work, and we’re proud of that work. So that’s happening. And yet the policies of the United States are still the same. So that says a lot about what so-called democracy is, when the majority of the country is with us pole after pole is saying they are not supporting what Israel is doing, but yet that’s still the policy. So I think these issues of identity and the relentless propaganda that has gone on since this Zionist, I dunno what you want to call it, experiment, has been both so destructive to Palestinians and to Jews, really, really destructive. And that’s why it’s so important for us to have this as Naomi Klein says it, Exodus away from Zionism.

Marc Steiner:

Yeah,

Ariella Aïsha Azoulay:

No, I think that just maybe we have to remind ourselves that there is genocide going on. It’s almost two years, and there are some common ways to understand what is genocide, which is related to what was done by Lemkin and the convention against genocide. But I think that we have to maybe ask other questions about genocide rather than defining what is genocide. Understanding that settler colonial regimes are genocidal regimes, and the state of Israel is a genocidal regime that serve the west, serve the West to solve with quotation mark the Jewish question another time in its history and serve the West to have its mercenaries in the form of Israelis. And I think that it became very clear that since October, 2023, without the arms and the money and the propaganda machine all over the world, in the western world in what you called policies in state apparatuses, the persecution of voices that are denouncing the genocide without all these western power,

The genocide will not last more than 1, 2, 3 weeks. Israel does not have the power to have a genocide. Israel itself would not survive in 48 without the destruction of Jewish diverse communities without forcing the Jews in Europe, the survivors to go to Palestine rather than to rebuild their communities in Europe without inciting violence in the Jewish Muslim world and making the life of Jews in the Jewish Muslim world impossible in a way that they slowly, slowly, this world was dismantled and Jews had to leave. Most of them did not want to go to Palestine. The case of Algeria in 62, at the moment of the end of the War of Independence

Marc Steiner:

For Algeria

Ariella Aïsha Azoulay:

Only 20% in Algeria, only 20% of the Jews were forced to leave Algeria because two colonial projects forced them to leave Algeria, only 20% went to the Zionist colony in Palestine. The rest of them went to Canada and France. So they were not Zionists. So we have to understand that the state of Israel was sustained with Western power. It was not an expression of a Jewish liberation project. It was a European project, Euro-American project to reorganize the entire world to create what they called the Jewish Judo Christian tradition, which never existed to remove the Jews from the Jewish Muslim world,

Marc Steiner:

Which did exist

Ariella Aïsha Azoulay:

To create Palestine as allegedly a state for the Jews and to turn Palestinians into exterminate group. So when I relate to the term genocide, when I wrote several texts during the beginning of the genocide, I put aside the legal definition of genocide. And I am trying to reconstruct how the genocide against Palestinians started. And it started in the wake of World War ii when Western power through the mediation of the UN, decided that Palestinians are experiment for the sake of Zionist, for the sake of creating a Zionist state. So rather than speaking about genocide as an event, I speak about genocidal regime, I speak about genocidal technologies, and when you understand the genocidal regime, you understand that already the nakba was the beginning of the genocide because Palestinians were exter amenable. They had to pay the price, they could be exterminated because their presence, there was an obstacle for the imposition of the new world order with quota mark, which was a Euro-American project of enting Europe of its crimes against the Jews and of its crimes against other colonies. We have to be reminded that in 45 European powers, and we’re speaking about the British, the French, Spanish, they still had colonies in different places in the world. So by exceptionalizing, the Nazi, by exceptionalizing the suffering of the Jews, they actually continue to run the world and not to reckon with their crimes against the Jews and against other racialized communities.

Esther Farmer:

One of the things that gets me always is when people say, well, Israel has a right to exist as if the country was established by God. I mean countries are created by the that be for their own interests. When I was growing up, there was no Bosnia.

This was created generally not created by the people that live in these places. It’s created as Ariela was saying, by the western world for their imperialist interest. So I don’t know why this country of Israel has any more right to exist than anybody else. And I think there’s a difference between these countries and the people that live in them, but this idea that countries, that Israel has a right to exist, it’s just so interesting. It’s an example of how the assumptions and how we’ve been trained to think in these ways around nation states and the creation of these things that just has nothing to do with our actual lived experience and history.

Marc Steiner:

So you both have said so much and given such deep analysis about where this is in some ways, I think that is not heard very often and really original. I mean, it’s not the way people describe what is being faced at this moment. And as you were speaking, 10 things were going through my head. One was, how do you take the analytical description that you both have given us and popularize that message so people understand it so people can grasp it? Because the way you describe, it’s very simple, very clear about what created this, I’m sorry, go ahead.

Ariella Aïsha Azoulay:

No, no. It just occurred to me to think about it not as we would do this work. JVP does an incredible work, but it is not only about people doing this work, the genocide made it clear to millions

That this is a genocide and Israel is a genocidal regime. I can write this book and this book and you can do your work, et cetera. But people are not stupid. And there is a moment when people understand they cannot do an accelerated lessons that you take with someone who already did the work, but with the beginning of the genocide, millions went to the street, right, took it to the street to say, this is a genocide and they’re being persecuted constantly. All these draconian laws, all these draconian policies of the Trump administration is because there are millions who are saying that this is a genocidal regime. So the question is not how you bring these ideas. The question is maybe how we exit, as Nole said Zionism, but how we exit the structures that imperial powers created as benign structures. Museums, archives, nation, states, borders, naturalization, all these structures are against people.

So the questions are much bigger than how you transmit the lies of Zionism to other people. For me, the main question is outcome. That all the crimes that were committed against the Jews as if they never existed because the Jews were received with quota state or the Jews received a citizenship. The question is how to bring the Jews to participate in the anti-colonial, general global anti-colonial struggle to decolonize this world. So it’s not only how you convince your parents or your siblings, it’s about how we exit from those institutions that were normalized as benign institutions, but actually they are reproducing the destruction of the world.

Marc Steiner:

So one of the things I think about as you all describe where we are and why we’re here, I think about historically here in this country that 70% of all the civil rights workers in the South when I was a civil rights worker in the South as a young man were Jews. 70% of all the whites civil rights workers, civil rights workers in the south were Jews. And that we were the heart of the labor movement. We were the heart of the revolutionary movements. In Europe, there’s a different spirit I think that has to be grasped and put out there a different heritage and tradition of who we are as opposed to having it being defined by this kind of Zionist domination that was pushed and created by the imperial powers as you were talking about. So they have a beachhead in the Middle East and they figured out what to do with the Jews.

Ariella Aïsha Azoulay:

But the example that you bring is very interesting because Jews participated in the civil rights movement. They were in solidarity with the black.

They didn’t fight their own struggle as part of it. And I think that what JVP maybe today offer is how to think about the liberation aspirations of the Jews together with the liberation aspirations of other groups. And I think that what happened with the us, what happened with this kind of erasure of what Europe did to us, what Euro-American did to us is the removal of the Jews from the history of colonization in a way that the Jews from a long time did not have a project of decolonization while they were still colonized. To act only as a blank American citizen in the movement for the civil rights movement means not understanding how much Jews were still colonized. So they could act as blank citizens, but not as Jews who are affirming this as their own struggle. They struggle for black Americans. And I think that here there is a very interesting things for Jews to do in the US is to reclaim their histories outcome that they became American Jews outcome, that their history is a very short history, the history of their life in America.

Where is their history in Europe, what was taken from them? There are traditions, there are beliefs, there are many things were taken from them. There are possibility to live their life there. So I’m not speaking about in terms of returning to Europe, but I’m speaking about reclaiming their histories. If the Jews will reclaim their histories, they will not be blank citizens in empire only joining others struggles. And I think the JVPs that maybe the first time that there is a kind of broad Jewish movement in the US where Jews are speaking about what was taken from them and cementing Zionism as their identity is part of what was taken from them. But there is much more to that.

Esther Farmer:

I mean, I feel very personally angry at Zionism from my experience as a leftist Jew. My father was a union organizer, and I grew up with that history of, as you say, in the labor movement. And Jews and I have always felt, and I have seen this with my own eyes, how this Zionist project has moved Jews to the right in the way that you are describing has moved Jews in the direction where it’s unrecognizable. To me, that’s the other way in which I see Zionism as so antisemitic. The whole history of Jews being for justice, even in the biblical text and stuff, it’s just completely thrown away by only us only. My mother used to say, we are Jews for justice, not just us.

Marc Steiner:

And

Esther Farmer:

That was the history, what it meant to me to be a Jew. So I feel like Zionism was, and in Ella’s work, it’s like a deliberate attempt to erase an understanding of Jews as standing with the oppressed in the world. That’s interesting what you said about from my family, I did experience that connection between what happened to the Jews and other people, that solidarity. I did feel that, and I think that there were other people who did feel that, but I also think that there was a deliberate attempt to break that memory in some ways though I think that’s what’s so interesting about what we’re talking about.

Marc Steiner:

Yeah, I think the reason, I’m not usually at a loss for words how I make my living, but one of the things that really struck me about this conversation we’ve had so far is that it’s one that doesn’t take place in very many places where there’s an introspection about Jewish history and Jewish life and what it means in what we face today and how we’ve become sucked into this imperial world oppressing Palestinians. And when I was a kid, it was the fight against Jewish store owners in inner city neighborhoods that we used to boycott and go after because of what they were doing. But now that becomes, it becomes a prominent aspect of American jewelry at this moment. And I think the way you two describe this, the depth of which you describe, this is something I think that people need to wrestle with. Beyond JVP.

Ariella Aïsha Azoulay:

There are many initiatives. If we see millions in the street protesting against the genocide, many of them are organized in different collectives. Strike MoMA, making, munches, kohenet, so many collectives, smalls middle size that are reclaiming, they are Jewish heritage and reclaiming. They are Jewish heritage is saying, we are not white try to whiten us. This is what they’re saying. But Jews were never white. So while accepting as part of the Jewish identity in the us, it’s something that always strike me accepting this category that the Jews are white is accepting to erase their history. They were first racialized, their histories were destroyed in order to tell them, we give you the passage to passage white, but Jews are not white. So I think that we cannot see the millions in the street protesting against the genocide and believe that there is only JVP. JVP is very powerful, very broad because you have branches in different cities, but there are many, many initiatives all over to reclaim what was taken from the Jews and what was taken from the Jews.

Part of it is major part of it today. There are history as victims of genocide, and now the Zionists are perpetrating genocide that implicate the entire Jewish community because of a long history of conflating between Zionists and Jews. Because when the West recognized the Zionist as representing the Jewish people with no reason to recognize them, but it served the interest of the West, it created a kind of conflation. And this conflation took from the Jews many things that people are struggling to today to introduce a distance from them and from this identification or this false mode of being represented by the state of Israel and the Zionist without announcing the responsibility to continue the struggle against the genocidal regime.

Marc Steiner:

So as we conclude here, I was thinking about this kind of neofascist regime that exists in Israel and this neofascist regime that’s taking over the country that we live in here, and all the experience the two of you have had and the creative work you’ve done and the political work you’ve done, and where you see the hope and where we’re going, where you see the struggle going and what we face right now. I mean, seeing JVP grow as it has is amazing, and other groups are there, but the right is really on the rise. And in many ways, as almost as you were alluding to the right, often uses Jews and people get sucked into the right. So where do you both think this takes us all, after all your years of struggle and being parts of movements in your work,

Esther Farmer:

I mean, hits the horror and the hope every second.

Marc Steiner:

Yeah,

Esther Farmer:

Right. I mean, across the street you’ve got 2000 anti-Zionist. That’s the hope. And we have this fascistic things. Is this really happening right now? Again, I think it’s a really interesting moment when the majority of the country is with us, and yet we still have these policies now that contradiction is only going to grow. I think there’s so much grassroots organizing going on, not just from JVP in so many areas, and it’s really important. I think this concept of intersectionality and solidarity is extremely important. And that’s the hope is the solidarity and the intersectionality of our movements. And as Ariella was saying, it’s a worldwide thing. It’s not only about Israel, it’s not only about Palestine. It’s this whole way of understanding even how nation states are organized. I struggle with that myself because I come from a time when national liberation struggles were a very progressive thing and people wanted independence. And then there are these states that exist and have they helped the world? Have they not helped the world? What does that mean to have the world organized by these nation states? Is there a difference between anti-colonial and decolonial? These are interesting questions that are coming up right now for me anyway. So yeah, I think there is hope. There is organizing going on. People are moving and both sides are moving very fast. They are,

Ariella Aïsha Azoulay:

Yeah. So if I may just pick on something that you said right now, I don’t think that these were a national liberation movement. These were anti-colonial movements that were intercepted by the colonizers to become national liberation movements. All the process of decolonization of Africa was intercepted by the West through the creation of the un. We have to be reminded that in 45 there were several 40, 45 states in the world. Today we have 200 states, which means that the decolonization of Africa, decolonization of Asia, rather than being decolonized from the imperial powers, the imperial powers created international organization that imposed that the only way to decolonize a place would be to create a nation state.

Esther Farmer:

That’s very interesting.

Ariella Aïsha Azoulay:

So I don’t think that these were national liberation struggles. These were anticolonial liberation struggle that were intercepted by the West in Algeria. It’s very typical. It was an anticolonial struggle and it ended up with an independent state from where the Jews, Algerian Jews had to live because this was the model that is built on the purification of the body politic from elements that do not fit there. So the Jews didn’t fit here, and the Jews didn’t fit there, and the Jews didn’t fit there and others didn’t fit there. And we got the new World order. One comment about what you said, I don’t think that in Israel it is a neo fascist regime. Israel is, as I said earlier, a genocidal regime to begin with. The fact that Netanya ran this genocide cannot make us forget that the genocide against Palestinians started in 48. The destruction of Palestine, the destruction of the Palestinian society didn’t start with Netanya.

And this phase of the genocide is horrible and is the highest in terms of casualties, but it is not the highest in terms of the destruction of the Palestinian society. And when you ask about hope, if there is hope is in a global decolonial transformation of the world, because all these structures that enabled in 45 to impose another settler colonial state as a liberation project for the Jews, while it was a project of liberation of Europe from its crimes to appear in the world as the liberator. So I think that the fact that those organs continue to exist as benign organs, museums, for example, that looted so much of ancestral worlds of black, of Jews, of Muslims, and impose themselves as the guardians of this culture while they participated in the decimation of the material culture of so many people. So I think that there is a lot of work to be done in order to undo imperial planter, to undo the imperial organization of the world, and not only to speak about throwing away this or that government, it’s about stopping the genocidal regimes that are still being recognized as benign democratic regime with an accident with side project that should be reformed.

Israel cannot be reformed. Israel is a genocidal regime and Israeli state apparatuses should be dismantled in order to allow the return of Palestine in which Jews will also be part of it as one of the minority groups and not as the governor, the masters of the land.

Marc Steiner:

I want to say that this has been one of the best conversations I’ve had in a long time, and mostly because I didn’t do much talking at all, but which is great. I think you both brought a very profound and different analysis to this conversation that’s not often heard, and I wish we could sit here for the next three hours, but we can’t. And I just want to say thank you to Ariel Zuli and to you both farmer for being here today and being part of this conversation.

Ariella Aïsha Azoulay:

Thank you for inviting us. It was a pleasure. Yes. Thank you so much for having us to share the flow with you.

Marc Steiner:

I deeply appreciate it. Really the joke from my friends that were listening, mark, you didn’t say anything. It’s okay. Because what came out of this, I think was something that people have to really wrestle with about where our future is going, not just as Jews, not just as Israel Palestine, but in terms of where the world is going and why this is so central to all of that.

Esther Farmer:

And there’s something very liberating about thinking about the world without nation states or thinking about the world without borders. Can we have those imaginations? Can we think beyond what they’ve given us, that we have to think that way? Can we think beyond that? And now maybe is a moment the horror and the hope where we can think in different ways.

Marc Steiner:

We have to thank you both so much for taking all this time.

Esther Farmer:

Thank you. Thank you.

Marc Steiner:

See you back at the JVP conference. Once again, thank you to Ariella, Aisha Azule and Esther Farmer for joining us today. And thanks to David Hebdon and Cameron Grino for running the program and audio editor, Alida Nek and producer for always working for Magic behind the scenes. And everyone here at The Real News for making this show possible. Please let me know what you thought about what you heard today and what you’d like us to cover. Just write to me at mss@therealnews.com and I’ll get right back to you. Once again, thank you to Ella Aisha Azule and Esther Farmer for being our guest today here on the Mark Steiner Show on the Real News. And remember, we can’t do this without you, so please share, join our community by clicking on the subscribe button right below here and support the Real News Network. Do it now. So for the crew here at The Real News, I’m Mark Steiner. Stay involved. Keep listening, and take care.

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Marc Steiner.

Patco Strike protests. Photo: Socialist Worker archives.

I had recently turned twenty-one in 1981, when President Ronald Reagan fired thirteen thousand striking air traffic controllers. It was a hot muggy August day in Boston. I remember that myself and one of my oldest friends Bill Almy were driving past the Boston Common, the country’s oldest public park and refuge for the city’s residents in the downtown area, when it was announced on the radio. Bill’s car has no air conditioning which added to the already stifling atmosphere of Reagan’s first term in office. We both looked at each other and wondered what would come next.

The Reagan administration’s destruction of PATCO was an historic turning point, not simply for the organized trade union movement at the time, but for the fortunes of the entire U.S. working class during the four decades that followed. “Concessions” became the watchword of contract negotiations. The ongoing deregulation in the airlines, banking, and trucking industries meant that such unions as the UAW, the Steelworkers, and the Teamstersshrank to the margins or literally disappeared from key sectors of the U.S. economy, while new, non-union employers emerged. In many ways, we have never recovered from the destruction of PATCO four decades later.

Today, Donald Trump and his chief hatchet man and Nazi sympathizer Elon Musk are carrying a much greater and deeper attack on basic constitutional rights, legal rights of workers, and the already thread bare welfare state that exists in the United States, something Reagan could not have imagined.​ Some call, “PATCO on steroids.” Faced with an existential crisis during the PATCO strike, the AFL-CIO, the United States’ main trade union federation led by Lane Kirkland, fumbled the ball. They protested loudly, organized a massive demonstration in Washington, D.C., and then told people to vote in the upcoming 1982 election.

If anything the AFL-CIO’s tepid response emboldened our enemies. Will the organized trade unions’ response to the Trump-Musk offensive fare better today?

PATCO

A few months before PATCO went on strike, newly sworn-in President Ronald Reagan had survived an assassination attempt. He was leaving a luncheon meeting with leaders of the AFL-CIO, the country’s largest trade union federation. Ironically, the man who killed the trade union movement was saved by a trade union official. He was much closer to death than revealed at the time, but Reagan recovered and began to project the jovial virility that appealed to many conservative voters and working class, male Democrats. The clever White House propaganda about his recovery boosted his popularity.

While Reagan won a landslide victory over the hapless, Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter, he was viewed as a throwback to the McCarthy era. Reagan’s militant anti-Communism and dangerous swagger many feared would lead to nuclear war with the U.S.S.R. But, the assassination attempt wiped all that away, at least for a while. Veteran Washington Post reporter, the late David Broder wrote at time:

“The honeymoon has ended and a new legend has been born. … As long as people remember the hospitalized president joshing his doctors and nurses — and they will remember — no critic will be able to portray Reagan as a cruel or callous or heartless man.”

So, when air traffic controllers hit the picket lines on August 3rd, 1981 across the country, the political advantage was with Reagan. The whole story is best told in Joseph A. McCartin’s Collision Course: Ronald Reagan, the Air Traffic Controllers, and the Strike that Changed America.

Speaking from the Rose Garden of the White House, Reagan struck a moderate, almost reasonable tone compared to the current President Donald Trump. He leaned on his own history as a union president (he was president of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and a lifetime member of an AFL-CIO union), he defended the right the right of private sector workers to strike, and praised supervisors and workers who crossed the picket line in the name of public safety. But drew the line at public sector workers. Reagan declared, “If they don’t report for work in forty-eight hours, they have forfeited their jobs and will be terminated.”

Like many people who’ve written about the labor movement during the past four decades, PATCO, the acronym for the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, was at the heart of any analysis of the collapse of U.S. trade unions for the two decades that followed. The facts are well-known. Little has changed with understanding what transpired and why since then. Nearly two decades ago, I wrote:

“You can rest assured that if I am elected president, I will take whatever steps are necessary to provide our air traffic controllers with the most modern equipment available and to adjust staff levels and work days so that they are commensurate with achieving a maximum degree of public safety, the Republican candidate for president, Ronald Regan promised Robert Poli, the head of PATCO in a letter dated October 1980.

PATCO, along with a handful of other unions including the Teamsters led by Mafia patsy and FBI informer Jackie Presser, endorsed Reagan in the 1980 presidential election, while the bulk of unions in the AFL-CIO endorsed the incumbent Democratic president Jimmy Carter, whose administration had broken every promise it had made to the labor movement in his four turbulent and disappointing years in Office.”

Jimmy Carter was widely despised in the labor movement. William Winpisinger, the head of the International Association of Machinists (IAM) and the only avowed “socialist” on the AFL-CIO, during an interview with the the New York City-based Village Voice, he was asked what could Carter do to redeem himself in Labor’s eyes? He responded, “Die.” In fact, Reagan’s blueprint for breaking the PATCO strike was drawn up by the Carter administration. The New York Times reported on August 6, 1981:

It was more than 20 months ago that the Federal Government began planning its response to a nationwide strike by air traffic controllers. Officials at the Federal Aviation Administration said today that they started in January 1980 to draft a detailed contingency plan for operating airport control towers and radar​ scopes with supervisory personnel, on the assumption that members of the controllers’ union might strike.

Reagan Administration officials enthusiastically polished and put into effect the plans first drafted in the Carter Administration. In the Federal Register of Nov. 13, 1980, the aviation agency published a ‘’national air traffic control contingency plan for potential strikes and other job actions by air traffic controllers.’’

PATCO’s picket lines were large and confident during the first days of the strike, but the atmosphere changed rapidly. I was a young member of the International Socialist Organization (ISO) and a student at UMass-Boston at the time. I have a hazy memory of going out to the PATCO picket line at Boston’s Logan Airport. A history of PATCO’s Boston Local 215 is available here. Kevin Murphy and Peter Lowber of Boston interviewed Local 215 Bill Robertson for Socialist Worker. Over one thousand trade unionist rallied in support of PATCO, which included teachers, postal workers, and Mike Ferman, PATCO’s eastern regional vice-president, who told the crowd:

“To hell with the laws against the air traffic controllers striking. If there’s an unjust law, if there is a fascist law, we’re right to break it. We’re right to fight it.”

My political education in labor struggles and socialist politics was in its early stages. Watching history unfold before me was thrilling but the confident atmosphere in the early days of strike turned darker after Reagan began to make good on his threats. The ISO’s monthly newspaper Socialist Worker had a tiny circulation but it’s first editorial “Union Buster Reagan”, though slightly behind political developments, captured what was at stake:

“They [PATCO] deserve to win — and they deserve the unqualified support of all airline workers — pilots, attendants, and ground and maintenance workers — and all workers. They can also teach Ronal Reagan a lesson. The president and his administration will take as much away from workers as they possibly can — with cuts and in contracts. The time to stand up and fight is now.”

A fractured labor movement

PATCO and its members were not simply badly prepared for the upcoming battle with the Reagan administration, it was so naïve as to be living in a delusional world. After Reagan fired PATCO strikers, the union’s president Robert Poli told the New York Times, “I have to say it was a surprise. ‘’I believe the air traffic controllers of the country, and myself included, never thought that would happen.’’ Why? Socialist Worker wrote at the time:

Ronald Reagan, of course, campaigned for president by boasting that he was a friend of labor and that he had himself once been a union officer. Some workers, apparently believed him. But if there were any doubts at the time, there should be none now. He is anti-union, and intends to give his backing to the union-busting campaign now in full swing in this country.

Reagan was successful with the postal workers. His threats — also of military intervention, firings, fines — worked against “militant” [postal] union presidents Vincent Sombrotto and Moe Biller.

Will they work against Robert Poli, the head of the air traffic controllers’ union and the 15,000 union members? Perhaps.

It became very clear that Reagan was not interested in bludgeoning PATCO into concessions but its destruction. Poli and the rest of the PATO leadership had not simply miscalculated what Reagan was up to but their own power. The New York Times reported in late October 1981:

The union believed that a walkout would dramatically curtail air travel and that the airlines and business executives, whose private flights would also be reduced, would bring pressure on President Reagan to accede to the union’s demands.

An article in a Seattle controllers’ newsletter before the strike said: ‘’Our power stems from one, and only one, source. That is our ability to withold our services en masse, thereby halting the air transportation system of this country.’’

Although air travel has been curtailed and passengers have been subjected to vexing delays, enough has been continued — about 80 percent, the Government says — to allow the system to function.

There was widespread sympathy for the air traffic controller among union workers in the airline industry, and in some eagerness to do something to support them. However, real solidarity — not verbal protests or wind-bagging at rallies — was not forthcoming. The most important union here was the Machinists led by William Winpisinger. PATCO appealed for support. The editors of the revolutionary socialist Against the Current (ATC) magazine wrote:

What was Winpisinger’s response to the PATCO workers’ request for support? He declared himself in full support and sent a letter to every airport IAM local, calling on them to give the fullest support to PATCO, with the small proviso that under no conditions should they take job actions.

This was followed by Winpisinger’s public pronouncement that every IAM local was free to “act according to their consciences” on the PATCO strike. This could of course be interpreted in two ways — as encouragement to act, or as a form of legitimation for those who did not want to do anything.

The test came when the San Jose, California, IAM, under pressure from its ranks, actually demanded that the International give them support in attempting to shut down the local airports. Winpisinger’s response was a prudent silence.

Without the IAM striking in support of PATCO with the full support of the AFL-CIO, the strike was doomed.

For those familiar with the history and politics of the U.S. labor movement this inaction was not a surprise. William Serrin, the chief labor reporter for the New York Times wrote at the time:

The strike also demonstrate[d] the fractiousness of the union movement. The movement has always been less idealistic and united than its statements and songs suggest, Jerry Wurf, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said in August.

Moderate unions, often with nothing to lose, oppose nuclear power; construction unions support it. Liberal unions often oppose military production; more conservative unions favor it, for it means jobs. Public sector unions, out of self-interest, support tax increases and oppose tax reduction referendums; private sector unions campaign for reduced taxes and are often vexed by the rising wages of public workers.

But a singular lack of solidarity marked this strike.

Solidarity Day

The lack of Solidarity on the picket line for PATCO appeared to be made up for by the AFL-CIO’s massive Solidarity Day march on September 19, 1981. For many people, the march was a direct response to Reagan’s strike breaking, but plans for the march were conceived much earlier. AFL-CIO leaders, especially federation leader Lane Kirkland, were frustrated and annoyed at being shunted aside by Ronald Reagan, who attempted to appeal directly to the ranks of the labor movement, with some success.

Reagan’s destruction of PATCO gave added urgency to Solidarity Day on top of his draconian cuts to social welfare spending and regressive tax cuts for the Uber wealthy. Historian Timothy J. Minchin Labor Under Fire gives us a vivid description of the vast outpouring of opposition to Reagan’s policies that the march expressed:

“Although it was initiated by the AFL-CIO, the march mobilized a broad swath of the American population. Its leaders — including civil right icons such as Jesse Jackson, Bayard Rustin, and Coretta Scott King — were diverse. Closely monitoring events, the Reagan administration estimated that no fewer than 250 organizations were taking part, including 100 unions, and a variety of civil rights, religious, and civic groups. Turnout was impressive. According to the National Park Service, 260,000 people attended Solidarity Day, more than the number that turned out for the iconic March on Washington in 1963 or the Vietnam Moratorium in 1969.”

Many participants and observers put the number at somewhere between 400,000 to 500,000 demonstrators, including six thousand PATCO strikers. It was no doubt a personal triumph for Lane Kirkland. Minchin’s book Labor Under Fire reveals many things about the organizing of the march that will surprise many people today, including, “Kirkland also permitted communist and socialist participation in the march.” It’s worth noting that the Teamsters were absent from Solidarity Day. If you look at the Teamster magazines for August, September or October 1981, you would never know that there was a PATCO strike, Reagan broke the union, or there was a massive labor march in Washington, D.C. in full view of Teamster headquarters.

I remember Solidarity Day quite vividly. It was a beautiful day. For national demonstrations, it was typical to drive down Washington from Boston late on Friday night and gather blurry-eyed with comrades and friends of the ISO, who made their way to the capital. There was a big push to get the tiny membership of the ISO out to the march. As the old ISO internal bulletin put it: “Most important — everyone should be there. It’s quite difficult, to be blunt, to imagine a socialist who would not want to be on this demonstration.”

Traveling around D.C. was made a lot easier because the public transit system was free that day, because the AFL-CIO covered the cost. The ISO gathered in this sea of people and were encouraged to march close but behind the Machinists contingent. While Kirkland allowed the left to participate in the march and Winpisinger’s reputation on being on the left, this didn’t work its way down to the ranks of the IAM, many of whom worked in the defense industry. Anti-communism was a very real thing. I remember there being a lot of tension, at least initially, with revolutionary socialists mingling so closely but it eventually dissipated.

Two of my most important memories of the march was that union contingents were well organized including banners, signs, and jackets, but many were uncomfortable with chanting slogans. The other memory was following the demonstration the ISO had a public meeting to assess the day. I remember the late Milt Fisk speaking and saying something like, “Some day I hope we can see workers in these great numbers, not just walking away after a great demonstration of strength, but to actually seizing power.” It was the first time I heard someone describe what a workers’ revolution would look like in the United States.

But, how to assess what Solidarity Day really meant? Minchin pointed to a serious problem with Solidarity Day from the very beginning. He wrote, “In protesting against the Reagan administration’s cuts, the AFL-CIO was on the back foot. A key problem was that the rally was held after the administration enacted its budget and tax programs, robbing it of the ability to block these polices.” True, however, the problems ran even deeper.

Socialist Worker’s editorial “Solidarity Day: It must be turned into action” declared that, “Solidarity Day was a fantastic success.”

“But there were important problems as well. First and foremost, the march was not used to organize and build support for the 12,000 PATCO strikers, despite the fact that some 6,000 air traffic controllers took part in the march and were greeted enthusiastically by nearly everyone they met.

The PATCO strikers are still fired. Their union is being destroyed. And daily the picket lines are crossed by all the other airport and airline unions. Secondly, it is clear, despite the absence of politicians on the podium, that the prime purpose of the demonstration was to give the Democrats a boost in their efforts to recover from Reagan’s victories in November [1982] and in Congress. A machinists banner read “Get Ready for Teddy.”

There were thousands of American flags on the march, even some confederate flags. At one point a huge part of the rally rose to sing “God Bless America.” The United Auto Workers union passed out tens of thousands of hats with the slogan “Buy American.”

Finally, the editorial continued:

The march can “only be the beginning” — if it means that more people take from it the lesson that words are not enough, especially in the case of PATCO. Action is absolutely necessary. And the lesson that rank and file organization is necessary, if the movement is to be built and carried on. And that the politics of the movement, including a socialist current, must be built.

Reading all of this four decades later, while I’m aware that there are many differences today, I’m also struck by how broadly similar and the political tasks for us remain the same.

The post “PATCO on Steroids”: Will Labor’s Response be Different Today? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Joe Allen.

The airstrike on the tent housing journalists in the grounds of Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis killed Hilmi al-Faqaawi, a social media manager for pro-Palestinian Islamic Jihad broadcaster Palestine Today TV, and injured the following journalists:

• Ahmed Mansour, Palestine Today news agency editor
• Ahmed Al-Agha, BBC Arabic contributor
• Mohammed Fayeq, freelance photojournalist and drone operator
• Abdullah Al-Attar, freelance photographer for Anadolu Agency
• Ihab Al-Bardini, camera operator contributing to U.S. channel ABC
• Mahmoud Awad, Al Jazeera camera operator
• Majed Qudaih, Radio Algerie correspondent
• Ali Eslayeh, photographer for West Bank-based site Alam24

The Israel Defense Forces said the strike targeted Hassan Eslayeh, a freelance photographer who was with Hamas on October 7, 2023. The IDF said Eslayeh, who was injured on April 7, 2025, was a “terrorist” who “participated in the bloody massacre.”

In 2023, the pro-Israeli watchdog HonestReporting published a photo of Eslayeh being kissed by then-Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, after which CNN, the Associated Press and Reuters news agencies cut ties with the journalist.

“This is not the first time Israel has targeted a tent sheltering journalists in Gaza. The international community’s failure to act has allowed these attacks on the press to continue with impunity, undermining efforts to hold perpetrators accountable,” said CPJ Middle East and North Africa  Director Sara Qudah. “CPJ calls on authorities to allow the injured, some of whom have sustained severe burns, to be evacuated immediately for treatment and to stop attacking Gaza’s already devastated press corps.”

Footage verified by Reuters news agency showed people trying to douse flames in the tent while other images of someone trying to rescue a journalist in flames were widely shared online.

CPJ’s email to the IDF’s North America Media Desk to request comment did not receive an immediate response.

More than 170 journalists and media workers have been killed in the Israel-Gaza war.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

On March 24, deadly Israeli strikes hit the car of Qatari-based Al Jazeera Mubasher’s Shabat near northern Gaza’s Beit Lahia, and the home in southern Gaza’s Khan Yunis of Mansour, who worked for the pro-Islamic Jihad, Beirut-based Palestine Today TV.

“CPJ is appalled that we are once again seeing Palestinians weeping over the bodies of dead journalists in Gaza,” said CPJ’s Program Director Carlos Martinez de la Serna in New York. “This nightmare in Gaza has to end. The international community must act fast to ensure that journalists are kept safe and hold Israel to account for the deaths of Hossam Shabat and Mohammed Mansour. Journalists are civilians and it is illegal to attack them in a war zone.”

On March 18, Israel resumed airstrikes on Gaza, ending a ceasefire that began on January 19.

On October 23, the IDF accused Shabat and five other Palestinian journalists working with Al Jazeera in Gaza of being members of the militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad. CPJ has called on Israel to stop making unsubstantiated allegations to justify its killing and mistreatment of members of the press.

Shabat told CPJ in October that he was not a member of Hamas. “We convey the truth on Al Jazeera Mubasher, and we move within the areas classified by Israel as safe,” Shabat said. “We are citizens, and we convey their voices. Our only crime is that we convey the image and the truth.”

More than 170 journalists and media workers have been killed since the beginning of the Israel-Gaza war in October 2023.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Photo by Jason Leung

The late 19th century saw economists, mainly German and Austrian, create a mythology of money’s origins that is still repeated in today’s textbooks. Money is said to have originated as just another commodity being bartered, with metal preferred because it is nonperishable (and hence amenable to being saved), supposedly standardized (despite fraud if not minted in temples), and thought to be easily divisible—as if silver could have been used for small marketplace exchanges, which was unrealistic given the rough character of ancient scales for weights of a few grams.^[1]

This mythology does not recognize government as having played any role as a monetary innovator, sponsor, or regulator, or as giving money its value by accepting it as a vehicle to pay taxes, buy public services, or make religious contributions. Also downplayed is money’s function as a standard of value for denominating and paying debts.^[2]

Although there is no empirical evidence for the commodity-barter origin myth, it has survived on purely hypothetical grounds because of its political bias that serves the anti-socialist Austrian school and subsequent “free market” creditor interests opposing government money creation.

Schurtz’s Treatment of Money as Part of the Overall Social System

As one of the founders of economic anthropology, Heinrich Schurtz approached the origins of money as being much more complex than the “economic” view that it emerged simply as a result of families going to the marketplace to barter. Surveying a wide range of Indigenous communities, his 1898 book, An Outline of the Origins of Money, described their trade and money in the context of the institutional system within which members sought status and wealth. Schurtz described these monetary systems as involving a wide array of social functions and dimensions, which today’s “economic” theorizing excludes as external to its analytic scope.

Placing money in the context of the community’s overall system of social organization, Schurtz warned that anyone who detaches “sociological and economic problems from the environment in which they emerged… their native land… only carries away a part of the whole organism and fails to understand the vital forces that have created and sustained it.”

Looking at Indigenous communities as having preserved presumably archaic traditions, Schurtz viewed trade with outsiders as leading wealth to take an increasingly monetary form that eroded the balance of internal social relations. Schurtz deemed the linkage between money, debt, and land tenure to lie beyond the area on which he focused, nor did he mention contributions to group feasts (which historian Bernard Laum suggested as the germ from which Greek obols and drachmas may have evolved).^[3]

The paradigmatic forms of Indigenous wealth were jewelry and other items of personal adornment, decorations, and trophies, especially foreign exotic products in the form of shells and gemstones or items with a long and prestigious history that gave their wearers or owners status.

Thorstein Veblen would call the ownership and display of such items conspicuous consumption in his 1899 book, The Theory of the Leisure Class. They had an exchange value, as they do today, but that did not make them monetary means of exchange. Schurtz saw many gray areas in their monetization: “Beads made of clay and stone are also crafted by Indigenous people and widely used as ornaments but rarely as money.”

At issue was how a money economy differs from barter and from the circulation and exchange of useful and valued items in a social economy. Was Indigenous exchange and wealth pre-monetary, an archaic seed that led to money’s “more ideal forms?”

Schurtz’s Distinction Between Inside-Money and Outside-Money

Exchange with outsiders was typically conducted by political leaders as the face of their communities to the outside world. Trade (and also payment of tribute) involved fiscal and social relations whose monetary functions differed from those of the domestic economy but ended up dovetailing with them to give money a hybrid character. Schurtz distinguished what he called outside-money from inside-money, with outside-money ultimately dominating the inside monetary system.

“The concept of money,” he wrote, originated “from two distinct sources: What functions as the foundation of wealth and measure of value for property and serves social ends within a tribe is, in its origins, something entirely different from the means of exchange that travels from tribe to tribe and eventually transforms itself, as a universally welcomed commodity, into a kind of currency.”

Inside-money was used within communities for their own exchange and wealth. Outside-money was derived from transactions with outsiders. And what was “outside” was a set of practices governing trade outside the jurisdiction of local governance.^[4]

Schurtz’s distinction emphasized a characteristic of trade that has continued down through today’s world: the contrast between domestic payments subject to checks and balances to protect basic needs and navigating status hierarchies but (ideally) limiting sharp wealth disparities, and exchange with outsiders, often conducted on islands, quay areas, or other venues socially outside the community’s boundaries, subject to more impersonal standardized rules.

Throughout the ancient world, we find offshore island entrepots wherever they are conveniently located for conducting trade with outsiders.

These islands kept foreign contact at arm’s length to prevent mercantile relations from disturbing the local economic balance. Egypt restricted foreign contacts to the Delta region where the Nile flowed into the Mediterranean. For the Etruscans, the island of Ischia/Pithekoussai became the base for Phoenician and Greek merchants to deal with the Italian mainland in the eighth and seventh centuries BCE. North Germans seem to have conducted the Baltic amber trade through the sacred island of Helgoland.

“The emergence of specific internal monetary systems is always supported by the inclination to transform outside-money into inside-money, and to employ money not to facilitate external trade, as one might assume according to common theories, but rather to obstruct it,” Schurtz concluded. In his chapter, “Metal as Ornament and Money,” he pointed out that it was foreign trade that led metal to become the primary form of money. “While most varieties of ornament-money gradually lose their significance, one of them, metal-money, asserts its ground all the more and finally pushes its competitors out of the field.” He added that: “Metal-money made from noble metals is not a pure sign-money, it is at the same time a valuable commodity, the value of which depends on supply and demand. In its mature form, it therefore in itself embodies the fusion of inside-money with outside-money, of the sign of value and valuable property with the means of exchange.”^[5]

This merging of inside- and outside-money is documented already in the third millennium BCE in the Near East. Silver-money was used for long-distance trade and came to be used for domestic enterprise as well, while grain remained the monetary vehicle for denominating agrarian production, taxes, and debt service on the land, and for distribution to dependent labor in Mesopotamia’s temples and palaces.

Schurtz also questioned whether the dominance of metallic money emerged spontaneously in many places or whether there was a diffusion from a singular origin, that is, “whether a cultural institution has grown in situ or whether it has been transferred from other regions through migration and contact between societies.” The diffusion of Mesopotamian weights is associated with silver points to its diffusion from that region, as does the spread of the region’s practice of setting interest rates simply for ease of calculation in terms of the local fractional arithmetic system (60ths in Mesopotamia for a shekel per mina a month, 10ths or percentages in decimalized Greece, and 12ths in Rome for a troy ounce per pound each year).

Checks and Balances to Prevent the Selfish Concentration of Wealth

What does seem to have developed spontaneously were social attitudes and policies to prevent the concentration of wealth from injuring economic balance. Wealth concentration, especially when achieved by depriving cultivators of their means of livelihood, would have violated the ethic of mutual aid that low-surplus economies need as a condition for their resilience.

Viewing money as part of the overall social context, Schurtz described “the social transformation brought about by wealth” as a result of monetizing trade and its commercial pursuit of profit, or “acquisitiveness”:

“[E]veryone is now compelled to join in the competition for property or he will be pulled into the vortex created by one of the newly emerging centers of power and property, where he will need to work hard to be able to live at all. For the property owner, no temporal limit constrains his view on the perpetual increase of his wealth.”

Schurtz characterized the economic mentality as a drive for “the unlimited accumulation of movable property,” to be passed on to one’s children, leading to the creation of a wealthy hereditary class. If archaic societies had this ethic, could ancient civilizations have taken off? How did they prevent the growth of wealth from fostering an oligarchy seeking to increase its wealth at the expense of the community at large and its resilience?

Schurtz reviewed how Indigenous communities typically avoided that fate by shaping a social value system that would steer wealth away from being used to achieve predatory power over others. He cited numerous examples in which “immense treasures often accumulate without reentering the transactions of daily life.” One widespread way to do this was simply to bury wealth. “The primitive man,” he wrote, “believes that he will have access to all the goods given to him in the grave, even in the afterlife. Thus, he too knows no bounds to acquisition.”

Taking his greed and wealth with him to use in the hereafter prevents hoarded wealth from being inherited “and growing into a dangerous instrument of power” by becoming dynastic; ultimately operating “on the belief that the deceased does not give up his rights of ownership but jealously guards over his property to ensure that no heir makes use of it.” A less destructive removal of wealth from its owners was to create an ethic of peer pressure in which individuals gained status and popular acclaim by accumulating wealth to give away. Schurtz wrote:

“[R]emnants of the ancient communism remain alive enough for a long time to effectively block attempts to amass as many assets as possible in a single hand. And in places without an actual system of debt and interest, the powerful individual, into whose house the tributes of the people flow, has indeed little choice but to ‘represent’ by way of his wealth: in other words, to allow the people to participate in his indulgences.”

Such an individual achieves philanthropic renown by generously distributing his possessions to “his friends and followers, winning their hearts and thereby establishing real power based on loyal devotion.” One widespread practice was to celebrate marriages, funerals, and other rites of passage by providing great feasts. This “extraordinary… destruction and squandering of valuable property, particularly livestock and food, during those grand festivals of the dead that evolved out of sacrifices and are, among some peoples, not only an effective obstacle to the accumulation of wealth but have turned into economic calamities” when families feel obliged to take on debt to host such extravagant displays.

Religious officials and temples often played a role in such rituals. Noting that “money, trade, and religion had a good relationship with one another in antiquity,” Schurtz cited the practice of donating wealth to temples or their priesthoods. But he recognized that this might enable them to “gain dominance through the ownership of money” under their control.

“The communist countermeasures against wealth generally do not endure,” Schurtz wrote. “Certain kinds of property seem to favor greed directly, especially cattle farming, which can literally turn into a hoarding addiction.” He described communalistic values of mutual aid as tending to break down as economies polarized with the increase in commercial wealth.

Schurtz also noted that the social checks on personal wealth-seeking did not apply to economies that developed a “system of debt and interest.” Wealth in the form of monetary claims on debtors was not buried and could hardly be redistributed to the population at large, whose members typically were debtors to the rising creditor interest.

The only way to prevent such debts from polarizing society was to cancel them. That is what Near Eastern rulers did, but Schurtz’s generation had no way of knowing about their Clean Slate proclamations.

Starting with the very outset of debt records c. 2500 BCE in Sumer, and continuing down through Babylonia, Assyria, to their neighbors, and on through the early first millennium BCE, rulers annulled financial claims on agrarian debtors. That prevented creditors from concentrating money and land in their own hands. One might say that these debt cancellations and land redistributions were the Near Eastern alternative to destroying material wealth to preserve balance. These royal acts did not destroy physical wealth but simply wiped out the debt overhead to maintain widespread land tenure and liberty for the population at large.

Canceling agrarian debt was politically feasible because most personal debts were owed to the palace sector and its temples or their officials. Royal Clean Slates seemed so unthinkable when they began to be translated around the turn of the last century that early readers hardly could believe that they actually were enforced in practice. François Thureau-Dangin’s French translation of the Sumerian ruler Enmetena’s (c. 2400 BCE) proclamation in 1905 was believed by many observers to be too utopian and socially disruptive to have been followed in practice, as was the Biblical Jubilee Year of Leviticus 25.^[6]

But so many such proclamations have been found, extending so continuously over thousands of years—along with lawsuits in which judges upheld their increasing detail—that there is no doubt that these acts did indeed reconcile the accumulation of monetary wealth with social resilience by blocking the creation of predatory oligarchies such as those that would emerge in classical Greece and Rome and indeed survive into today’s world.

Monetary Innovations in the Bronze Age Near Eastern Palaces and Temples

Economic documentation in Schurtz’s day was able to trace monetary practice only as far back as classical Greece and Rome. There was a general belief that their practices must have evolved from Indigenous Indo-European speakers. Marcel Mauss would soon treat the gift exchange of the Kwakiutl tribe of the Canadian Pacific Northwest (with their competitive one-upmanship) as the prototype for the idea of charging interest. But monetary interest has a specific stipulated rate, with payments due on specific periodic dates set by written contracts. That practice stems from Sumer in the third millennium BCE, along with silver (and grain) money and related financial innovations in the economic big bang that has shaped subsequent Western economic evolution.

Money’s function as a standard of valuation did not play a big role in Schurtz’s survey. But subsequent archaeological research has revealed that money’s emergence as part of an overall institutional framework cannot be understood without reference to written account-keeping, denominating debt accruals, and fiscal relations. Money, credit/debt, and fiscal obligations have all gone together since the origins of written records in the ancient Near East.

Near Eastern fiscal and financial records describe a development of money, credit, and interest-bearing debt that neither the barter theory nor Schurtz’s ethnographic studies had imagined. Mesopotamia’s “more ideal” money evolved out of the fiscal organization of account-keeping and credit in the palaces and temples of Sumer, Babylonia, and their Bronze Age neighbors (3200–1200 BCE). These Near Eastern economies were larger in scale and much more complex and multilayered than most of the Indigenous communities surveyed by Schurtz.

In contrast to largely self-sufficient communities, southern Mesopotamia was obliged to engage in large-scale and long-distance trade because the region’s river-deposited soil lacked metal, stone, and even hardwood. The region’s need for raw materials was far different from the trade and “monetization” of luxuries by the relatively small-scale and self-sufficient communities studied by Schurtz and hypothesized by economists imagining individuals bartering at their local market. In these communities, he noted: “The amount of metal shaped into ornaments almost always far outweighs the amount transformed into practical tools.” Mesopotamia’s trade had to go far beyond personal decorative luxuries and prestige commodities or trophy items.

An entrepreneurial merchant class was needed to obtain these raw materials, along with a specialized labor force, which was employed by the temples and palaces that produced most export handicrafts, provisioned corvée labor to work on public infrastructure, served as mints and overseers of weights and measures, and mediated most monetary wealth and debt. This required forward planning and account-keeping to feed and supply labor (war widows, orphans, and slaves) in their weaving and other handicraft workshops and to consign their output to merchants for export. Calculating the cost of distributing food and raw materials within these large institutions and valuing their consignment of goods to merchants required designing standard weights and measures as the basis for this forward planning. Selecting monetary units was part of this standardization of measuring costs and value.

This made possible the calculation of expected rental income or shortfalls, along with profit-and-loss statements and balance sheets. The typical commodity to be distributed was grain, which served as a standard of value for agrarian transactions and credit balances that mounted up during the crop year for advances to sharecroppers, consumption such as beer from ale-women, and payments to priests for performing ceremonial functions. Their value in grain was to be paid at harvest time.

The calculation of food rations for distribution to the various grades of labor (male, female, and children) enabled the costs to be expressed in grain or in workday equivalents.

Schurtz would have called this grain “inside-money,” and regarded as “outside-money” the silver minted by temples for dealing with foreign trade and as the basic measure of value for business transactions with the palace economy and for settling commercial obligations. A mina (60 shekels) of silver was set as equal to a corresponding unit of grain as measured on the threshing floor. That enabled accounts to be kept simultaneously in silver and grain.

The result was a bi-monetary grain-silver standard reflecting the bifurcation of early Mesopotamian economies between the agrarian families on the land (using grain as “inside-money”) and the palatial economy with its workshops, foreign trade, and associated commercial enterprise (using silver as “outside-money”).

Prices for market transactions with outsiders might vary, but prices for debt payments, taxes, and other transactions with large institutions were fixed.

Schurtz’s conclusion that the rising dominance of commercial money tended to break down domestic checks and balances protecting the Indigenous communities that he studied is indeed what happened when commercial debt practices were brought from the Near East to the Aegean and Mediterranean lands around the eighth century BCE.

Having no tradition of royal debt cancellations as had existed in the Near East ever since the formative period of interest-bearing debt, the resulting decontextualization of credit practices fostered financial oligarchies in classical Greece and Rome. After early debt cancellations and land redistribution by populist “tyrants” in the seventh and sixth centuries BCE, the ensuing classical oligarchies resisted popular revolts demanding a revival of such policies.

The dynamics of interest-bearing debt and the pro-creditor debt laws of classical antiquity’s creditor oligarchies caused economic polarization that led to five centuries of civil warfare. These upheavals were not the result of the coinage that began to be minted around the eighth century BCE, as many 19th-century observers believed, mistakenly thinking that Aegean coinage was the first metallic money. Silver-money had been the norm for two millennia throughout the Near East, without causing disruption like that experienced by classical antiquity. What polarized classical antiquity’s economies were pro-creditor debt laws backed by political violence, not money.

Conclusion and Discussion

Schurtz’s starting point was how communities organized the laws of motion governing their distribution of wealth and property. He viewed money as emerging from this institutional function with a basically communalistic ethic. A key characteristic of Indigenous economic resilience was social pressure expecting the wealthy to contribute to social support. That was the condition set by unwritten customs for letting some individuals and their families become rich.

Schurtz and subsequent ethnologists found a universal solution for reconciling wealth-seeking with community-wide prosperity to be social pressure for wealthy families (that was the basic unit, not individuals) to distribute their wealth to the citizenry by reciprocal exchange, gift-giving, mutual aid, and other forms of redistribution, and providing large feasts, especially for rites of passage.

This was a much broader view than the individualistic economic assumption that personal gain-seeking and, indeed, selfishness were the driving forces of overall prosperity. The idea of monetizing economic life under communalistic mutual aid or palace direction was and remains anathema to mainstream economists, reflecting the worldview of modern creditors and financial elites. Schurtz recognized that mercantile wealth-seeking required checks and balances to prevent economies from impoverishing their members.

The problem for any successfully growing society to solve was how to prevent the undue concentration of wealth obtained by exploitative means that impaired overall welfare and the ability of community members to be self-supporting. Otherwise, economic polarization and dependency would lead members to flee from the community, or perhaps it simply would shrink and end up being defeated by outsiders who sustained themselves by more successful mutual aid.

As noted above, Schurtz treated the monetization of wealth in the form of creditor claims on debtors as too post-archaic to be a characteristic of his ethnographic subjects. But what shaped the context for monetization and led “outside-money” to take priority over inside-money were wealth accumulation by moneylending and the fiscal and military uses of money. Schurtz correctly rejected Bruno Hildebrand’s characterization of money as developing in stages, from small-scale barter to monetized economies becoming more sophisticated as they evolved into financialized credit economies.^[7]

And, in fact, the actual historical sequence was the reverse. From Mesopotamia to medieval Europe, agrarian economies operated on credit during the crop year. Monetary payment occurred at harvest time to settle the obligations that had accumulated since the last harvest and to pay taxes. This need to pay debts was a major factor requiring money’s development in the first place. Barter became antiquity’s final monetary “stage” as Rome’s economy collapsed after its creditor oligarchy imposed debt bondage and took control of the land.

When emperors were unable to tax this oligarchy, they debased the coinage, and life throughout the empire devolved into local subsistence production and quasi-barter. Foreign trade was mainly for luxuries brought by Arabs and other Near Easterners. The optimistic sequence that Hildebrand imagined not only mistakenly adopted the barter myth of monetary origins but also failed to take debt polarization into account as economies became monetarized and financialized.

Schurtz described how the aim of preventing the maldistribution of wealth was at the heart of Indigenous social structuring. But it broke down for various reasons. Economies in which family wealth took the form of cattle, he found, tended to become increasingly oppressive to maintain the polarizing inequality that developed. The same might be said of credit economies under the rising burden of interest-bearing debt. Schurtz noted the practice of charging debtors double the loan value—and any rate of interest indeed involves an implicit doubling time.

That exponential dynamic is what polarizes financialized economies. In contrast to Schurtz, mainstream economists of his generation avoided dealing with the effect of monetary innovation and debt on the distribution of wealth. The tendency was to treat money as merely a “veil” of price changes for goods and services, without analyzing how credit polarizes the economy’s balance sheet of assets and debt liabilities. Yet, the distinguishing feature of credit economies was the use of moneylending as a lever to enrich creditors by impoverishing debtors. That was more than just a monetary problem. It was a political creditor/debtor problem and, ultimately, a public/private problem.

The issue was whether a ruler or civic public checks would steer the rise in monetary wealth in ways that avoided the creation of creditor oligarchies.

Most 19th-century and even subsequent economic writers shied away from confronting this political context, leaving the most glaring gap in modern economic analysis. It was left to the discovery of cuneiform documentation to understand how money first became institutionalized as a vehicle to pay debts. This monetization was accompanied by remarkable success in sustaining rising wealth while preventing its concentration in the hands of a hereditary oligarchy. That Near Eastern success highlights what the smaller and more anarchic Western economies failed to achieve when interest-bearing debt practices were brought to the Mediterranean lands without being checked by the tradition of regular cancellation of personal nonbusiness debt.

Credit and monetary wealth were privatized in the hands of what became an increasingly self-destructive set of classical oligarchies culminating in that of Rome, which fought for centuries against popular revolts seeking protection from impoverishing economic polarization.

The devastating effects of transplanting Near Eastern debt practices into the Mediterranean world’s less communalistic groupings show the need to discuss the political, fiscal, and social-moral context for money and debt. Schurtz placed monetary analysis in the context of society’s political institutions and moral values and explained how money is a product of this context and, indeed, how monetization tends to transform it—in a way that tends to break down social protection. His book has remained relatively unknown over the last century, largely because his institutional anthropological perspective is too broad for an economics discipline that has been narrowed by pro-creditor ideologues who have applauded the “free market” destruction of social regulation aimed at protecting the interests of debtors.

That attitude avoids recognizing the challenges that led the Indigenous communities studied by Schurtz, and also the formative Bronze Age Near East, to protect their resilience against the concentration of wealth, a phenomenon that has plagued economies ever since classical antiquity’s decontextualization of Near Eastern debt practices.

References

Battilossi, Stefano; Cassis, Youssef; and Yago, Kazuhiko, editors, 2018. “Origins of Money and Interest: Palatial Credit, Not Barter.” In Handbook of the History of Money and Currency, pp. 45–66. Berlin: Springer.

Hildebrand, Bruno, 1864. “Naturalwirthschaft, Geldwirthschaft und Creditwirthschaft.” Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 2: pp. 1–24.

Hudson, Michael, 1999. “From Sacred Enclave to Temple to City.” In Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East, edited by Hudson, Michael, and Levine, Baruch, pp. 117–46. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

Hudson, Michael, and Wunsch, Cornelia, editors, 2004. “The Development of Money-of-Account in Sumer’s Temples.” In Creating Economic Order: Record-Keeping, Standardization and the Development of Accounting in the Ancient Near East, pp. 303–29. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press; Republished by Dresden: ISLET, 2023.

Hudson, Michael, 2024. Temples of Enterprise: Creating Economic Order in the Bronze Age Near East. Dresden: ISLET.

Laum, Bernard, 1924. Heiliges Geld: Eine historische Untersuchung über den sakralen Ursprung des Geldes. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.

Mauss, Marcel, 1925. The Gift: Expanded Edition. Translated by Guyer, Jane I. Chicago: Hau Books. 2016 edition.

Menger, Carl, 1892. “On the Origins of Money.” Economic Journal, Vol. 2, Issue 6: pp. 238–55.

Thureau-Dangin, François, 1905. Les Inscriptions de Sumer et d’Akkad. Paris: Leroux.

Wray, L. Randall, 2004. Credit and State Theories of Money: The Contributions of A. Mitchell Innes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Notes.

^[1] Menger, Carl, 1892. The barter theory has been refuted by modern research uncovering the Bronze Age Near Eastern institutional origins of money, which I discuss in chapters 1 and 3 of Temples of Enterprise (Hudson, 2024). My criticisms of this theory are in “Origins of Money and Interest: Palatial Credit, Not Barter” (Hudson, Michael, 2020).

^[2] See the papers collected in Wray, L. Randall, 2004.

^[3] Mauss, Marcel (1925), 2016; Laum, Bernard, 1924. Schurtz mentions spit-money in passing but finds trade in food relatively unimportant.

^[4] I discuss this in “From Sacred Enclave to Temple to City” (Hudson, Michael, 1999) and Chapter 10 of Temples of Enterprise (Hudson, Michael, 2024).

^[5] Schurtz cited as an example of how monetary authorities could substitute sign-money for metal-money the case of “Kublai Khan, the ruler of the Mongolian empire, [who] drove out metal-money with sign-money, specifically stamped pieces of paper, evidently following the Chinese example; Marco Polo’s accounts indicate that the endeavor must have temporarily succeeded only because of the tremendous power and authority of the ruler, with the result of a vast accumulation of gold and silver in the Khan’s residence.” But he made disparaging remarks about the French government’s paper money assignats and called John Law a “swindler,” dismissing government money creation.

^[6] Thureau-Dangin, François (1905: 86–87), translated the Sumerian term for “justice” (amargi) to mean specifically that officials and wealthy individuals (“the powerful”) would have no legal claims for debt foreclosure.

^[7] Hildebrand, Bruno (1864), classified economies as passing from Naturalwirtschaft (“barter economy”) to Geldwirtschaft (“gold/commodity money economy”) and finally Kreditwirtschaft (“credit economy”).

This text is adapted from Michael Hudson’s foreword to An Outline of the Origins of Money by Heinrich Schurtz, and this excerpt was produced by Human Bridges.

The post What Are the Origins of the Money We Use Today? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Michael Hudson.

Photo by Jason Leung

The late 19th century saw economists, mainly German and Austrian, create a mythology of money’s origins that is still repeated in today’s textbooks. Money is said to have originated as just another commodity being bartered, with metal preferred because it is nonperishable (and hence amenable to being saved), supposedly standardized (despite fraud if not minted in temples), and thought to be easily divisible—as if silver could have been used for small marketplace exchanges, which was unrealistic given the rough character of ancient scales for weights of a few grams.^[1]

This mythology does not recognize government as having played any role as a monetary innovator, sponsor, or regulator, or as giving money its value by accepting it as a vehicle to pay taxes, buy public services, or make religious contributions. Also downplayed is money’s function as a standard of value for denominating and paying debts.^[2]

Although there is no empirical evidence for the commodity-barter origin myth, it has survived on purely hypothetical grounds because of its political bias that serves the anti-socialist Austrian school and subsequent “free market” creditor interests opposing government money creation.

Schurtz’s Treatment of Money as Part of the Overall Social System

As one of the founders of economic anthropology, Heinrich Schurtz approached the origins of money as being much more complex than the “economic” view that it emerged simply as a result of families going to the marketplace to barter. Surveying a wide range of Indigenous communities, his 1898 book, An Outline of the Origins of Money, described their trade and money in the context of the institutional system within which members sought status and wealth. Schurtz described these monetary systems as involving a wide array of social functions and dimensions, which today’s “economic” theorizing excludes as external to its analytic scope.

Placing money in the context of the community’s overall system of social organization, Schurtz warned that anyone who detaches “sociological and economic problems from the environment in which they emerged… their native land… only carries away a part of the whole organism and fails to understand the vital forces that have created and sustained it.”

Looking at Indigenous communities as having preserved presumably archaic traditions, Schurtz viewed trade with outsiders as leading wealth to take an increasingly monetary form that eroded the balance of internal social relations. Schurtz deemed the linkage between money, debt, and land tenure to lie beyond the area on which he focused, nor did he mention contributions to group feasts (which historian Bernard Laum suggested as the germ from which Greek obols and drachmas may have evolved).^[3]

The paradigmatic forms of Indigenous wealth were jewelry and other items of personal adornment, decorations, and trophies, especially foreign exotic products in the form of shells and gemstones or items with a long and prestigious history that gave their wearers or owners status.

Thorstein Veblen would call the ownership and display of such items conspicuous consumption in his 1899 book, The Theory of the Leisure Class. They had an exchange value, as they do today, but that did not make them monetary means of exchange. Schurtz saw many gray areas in their monetization: “Beads made of clay and stone are also crafted by Indigenous people and widely used as ornaments but rarely as money.”

At issue was how a money economy differs from barter and from the circulation and exchange of useful and valued items in a social economy. Was Indigenous exchange and wealth pre-monetary, an archaic seed that led to money’s “more ideal forms?”

Schurtz’s Distinction Between Inside-Money and Outside-Money

Exchange with outsiders was typically conducted by political leaders as the face of their communities to the outside world. Trade (and also payment of tribute) involved fiscal and social relations whose monetary functions differed from those of the domestic economy but ended up dovetailing with them to give money a hybrid character. Schurtz distinguished what he called outside-money from inside-money, with outside-money ultimately dominating the inside monetary system.

“The concept of money,” he wrote, originated “from two distinct sources: What functions as the foundation of wealth and measure of value for property and serves social ends within a tribe is, in its origins, something entirely different from the means of exchange that travels from tribe to tribe and eventually transforms itself, as a universally welcomed commodity, into a kind of currency.”

Inside-money was used within communities for their own exchange and wealth. Outside-money was derived from transactions with outsiders. And what was “outside” was a set of practices governing trade outside the jurisdiction of local governance.^[4]

Schurtz’s distinction emphasized a characteristic of trade that has continued down through today’s world: the contrast between domestic payments subject to checks and balances to protect basic needs and navigating status hierarchies but (ideally) limiting sharp wealth disparities, and exchange with outsiders, often conducted on islands, quay areas, or other venues socially outside the community’s boundaries, subject to more impersonal standardized rules.

Throughout the ancient world, we find offshore island entrepots wherever they are conveniently located for conducting trade with outsiders.

These islands kept foreign contact at arm’s length to prevent mercantile relations from disturbing the local economic balance. Egypt restricted foreign contacts to the Delta region where the Nile flowed into the Mediterranean. For the Etruscans, the island of Ischia/Pithekoussai became the base for Phoenician and Greek merchants to deal with the Italian mainland in the eighth and seventh centuries BCE. North Germans seem to have conducted the Baltic amber trade through the sacred island of Helgoland.

“The emergence of specific internal monetary systems is always supported by the inclination to transform outside-money into inside-money, and to employ money not to facilitate external trade, as one might assume according to common theories, but rather to obstruct it,” Schurtz concluded. In his chapter, “Metal as Ornament and Money,” he pointed out that it was foreign trade that led metal to become the primary form of money. “While most varieties of ornament-money gradually lose their significance, one of them, metal-money, asserts its ground all the more and finally pushes its competitors out of the field.” He added that: “Metal-money made from noble metals is not a pure sign-money, it is at the same time a valuable commodity, the value of which depends on supply and demand. In its mature form, it therefore in itself embodies the fusion of inside-money with outside-money, of the sign of value and valuable property with the means of exchange.”^[5]

This merging of inside- and outside-money is documented already in the third millennium BCE in the Near East. Silver-money was used for long-distance trade and came to be used for domestic enterprise as well, while grain remained the monetary vehicle for denominating agrarian production, taxes, and debt service on the land, and for distribution to dependent labor in Mesopotamia’s temples and palaces.

Schurtz also questioned whether the dominance of metallic money emerged spontaneously in many places or whether there was a diffusion from a singular origin, that is, “whether a cultural institution has grown in situ or whether it has been transferred from other regions through migration and contact between societies.” The diffusion of Mesopotamian weights is associated with silver points to its diffusion from that region, as does the spread of the region’s practice of setting interest rates simply for ease of calculation in terms of the local fractional arithmetic system (60ths in Mesopotamia for a shekel per mina a month, 10ths or percentages in decimalized Greece, and 12ths in Rome for a troy ounce per pound each year).

Checks and Balances to Prevent the Selfish Concentration of Wealth

What does seem to have developed spontaneously were social attitudes and policies to prevent the concentration of wealth from injuring economic balance. Wealth concentration, especially when achieved by depriving cultivators of their means of livelihood, would have violated the ethic of mutual aid that low-surplus economies need as a condition for their resilience.

Viewing money as part of the overall social context, Schurtz described “the social transformation brought about by wealth” as a result of monetizing trade and its commercial pursuit of profit, or “acquisitiveness”:

“[E]veryone is now compelled to join in the competition for property or he will be pulled into the vortex created by one of the newly emerging centers of power and property, where he will need to work hard to be able to live at all. For the property owner, no temporal limit constrains his view on the perpetual increase of his wealth.”

Schurtz characterized the economic mentality as a drive for “the unlimited accumulation of movable property,” to be passed on to one’s children, leading to the creation of a wealthy hereditary class. If archaic societies had this ethic, could ancient civilizations have taken off? How did they prevent the growth of wealth from fostering an oligarchy seeking to increase its wealth at the expense of the community at large and its resilience?

Schurtz reviewed how Indigenous communities typically avoided that fate by shaping a social value system that would steer wealth away from being used to achieve predatory power over others. He cited numerous examples in which “immense treasures often accumulate without reentering the transactions of daily life.” One widespread way to do this was simply to bury wealth. “The primitive man,” he wrote, “believes that he will have access to all the goods given to him in the grave, even in the afterlife. Thus, he too knows no bounds to acquisition.”

Taking his greed and wealth with him to use in the hereafter prevents hoarded wealth from being inherited “and growing into a dangerous instrument of power” by becoming dynastic; ultimately operating “on the belief that the deceased does not give up his rights of ownership but jealously guards over his property to ensure that no heir makes use of it.” A less destructive removal of wealth from its owners was to create an ethic of peer pressure in which individuals gained status and popular acclaim by accumulating wealth to give away. Schurtz wrote:

“[R]emnants of the ancient communism remain alive enough for a long time to effectively block attempts to amass as many assets as possible in a single hand. And in places without an actual system of debt and interest, the powerful individual, into whose house the tributes of the people flow, has indeed little choice but to ‘represent’ by way of his wealth: in other words, to allow the people to participate in his indulgences.”

Such an individual achieves philanthropic renown by generously distributing his possessions to “his friends and followers, winning their hearts and thereby establishing real power based on loyal devotion.” One widespread practice was to celebrate marriages, funerals, and other rites of passage by providing great feasts. This “extraordinary… destruction and squandering of valuable property, particularly livestock and food, during those grand festivals of the dead that evolved out of sacrifices and are, among some peoples, not only an effective obstacle to the accumulation of wealth but have turned into economic calamities” when families feel obliged to take on debt to host such extravagant displays.

Religious officials and temples often played a role in such rituals. Noting that “money, trade, and religion had a good relationship with one another in antiquity,” Schurtz cited the practice of donating wealth to temples or their priesthoods. But he recognized that this might enable them to “gain dominance through the ownership of money” under their control.

“The communist countermeasures against wealth generally do not endure,” Schurtz wrote. “Certain kinds of property seem to favor greed directly, especially cattle farming, which can literally turn into a hoarding addiction.” He described communalistic values of mutual aid as tending to break down as economies polarized with the increase in commercial wealth.

Schurtz also noted that the social checks on personal wealth-seeking did not apply to economies that developed a “system of debt and interest.” Wealth in the form of monetary claims on debtors was not buried and could hardly be redistributed to the population at large, whose members typically were debtors to the rising creditor interest.

The only way to prevent such debts from polarizing society was to cancel them. That is what Near Eastern rulers did, but Schurtz’s generation had no way of knowing about their Clean Slate proclamations.

Starting with the very outset of debt records c. 2500 BCE in Sumer, and continuing down through Babylonia, Assyria, to their neighbors, and on through the early first millennium BCE, rulers annulled financial claims on agrarian debtors. That prevented creditors from concentrating money and land in their own hands. One might say that these debt cancellations and land redistributions were the Near Eastern alternative to destroying material wealth to preserve balance. These royal acts did not destroy physical wealth but simply wiped out the debt overhead to maintain widespread land tenure and liberty for the population at large.

Canceling agrarian debt was politically feasible because most personal debts were owed to the palace sector and its temples or their officials. Royal Clean Slates seemed so unthinkable when they began to be translated around the turn of the last century that early readers hardly could believe that they actually were enforced in practice. François Thureau-Dangin’s French translation of the Sumerian ruler Enmetena’s (c. 2400 BCE) proclamation in 1905 was believed by many observers to be too utopian and socially disruptive to have been followed in practice, as was the Biblical Jubilee Year of Leviticus 25.^[6]

But so many such proclamations have been found, extending so continuously over thousands of years—along with lawsuits in which judges upheld their increasing detail—that there is no doubt that these acts did indeed reconcile the accumulation of monetary wealth with social resilience by blocking the creation of predatory oligarchies such as those that would emerge in classical Greece and Rome and indeed survive into today’s world.

Monetary Innovations in the Bronze Age Near Eastern Palaces and Temples

Economic documentation in Schurtz’s day was able to trace monetary practice only as far back as classical Greece and Rome. There was a general belief that their practices must have evolved from Indigenous Indo-European speakers. Marcel Mauss would soon treat the gift exchange of the Kwakiutl tribe of the Canadian Pacific Northwest (with their competitive one-upmanship) as the prototype for the idea of charging interest. But monetary interest has a specific stipulated rate, with payments due on specific periodic dates set by written contracts. That practice stems from Sumer in the third millennium BCE, along with silver (and grain) money and related financial innovations in the economic big bang that has shaped subsequent Western economic evolution.

Money’s function as a standard of valuation did not play a big role in Schurtz’s survey. But subsequent archaeological research has revealed that money’s emergence as part of an overall institutional framework cannot be understood without reference to written account-keeping, denominating debt accruals, and fiscal relations. Money, credit/debt, and fiscal obligations have all gone together since the origins of written records in the ancient Near East.

Near Eastern fiscal and financial records describe a development of money, credit, and interest-bearing debt that neither the barter theory nor Schurtz’s ethnographic studies had imagined. Mesopotamia’s “more ideal” money evolved out of the fiscal organization of account-keeping and credit in the palaces and temples of Sumer, Babylonia, and their Bronze Age neighbors (3200–1200 BCE). These Near Eastern economies were larger in scale and much more complex and multilayered than most of the Indigenous communities surveyed by Schurtz.

In contrast to largely self-sufficient communities, southern Mesopotamia was obliged to engage in large-scale and long-distance trade because the region’s river-deposited soil lacked metal, stone, and even hardwood. The region’s need for raw materials was far different from the trade and “monetization” of luxuries by the relatively small-scale and self-sufficient communities studied by Schurtz and hypothesized by economists imagining individuals bartering at their local market. In these communities, he noted: “The amount of metal shaped into ornaments almost always far outweighs the amount transformed into practical tools.” Mesopotamia’s trade had to go far beyond personal decorative luxuries and prestige commodities or trophy items.

An entrepreneurial merchant class was needed to obtain these raw materials, along with a specialized labor force, which was employed by the temples and palaces that produced most export handicrafts, provisioned corvée labor to work on public infrastructure, served as mints and overseers of weights and measures, and mediated most monetary wealth and debt. This required forward planning and account-keeping to feed and supply labor (war widows, orphans, and slaves) in their weaving and other handicraft workshops and to consign their output to merchants for export. Calculating the cost of distributing food and raw materials within these large institutions and valuing their consignment of goods to merchants required designing standard weights and measures as the basis for this forward planning. Selecting monetary units was part of this standardization of measuring costs and value.

This made possible the calculation of expected rental income or shortfalls, along with profit-and-loss statements and balance sheets. The typical commodity to be distributed was grain, which served as a standard of value for agrarian transactions and credit balances that mounted up during the crop year for advances to sharecroppers, consumption such as beer from ale-women, and payments to priests for performing ceremonial functions. Their value in grain was to be paid at harvest time.

The calculation of food rations for distribution to the various grades of labor (male, female, and children) enabled the costs to be expressed in grain or in workday equivalents.

Schurtz would have called this grain “inside-money,” and regarded as “outside-money” the silver minted by temples for dealing with foreign trade and as the basic measure of value for business transactions with the palace economy and for settling commercial obligations. A mina (60 shekels) of silver was set as equal to a corresponding unit of grain as measured on the threshing floor. That enabled accounts to be kept simultaneously in silver and grain.

The result was a bi-monetary grain-silver standard reflecting the bifurcation of early Mesopotamian economies between the agrarian families on the land (using grain as “inside-money”) and the palatial economy with its workshops, foreign trade, and associated commercial enterprise (using silver as “outside-money”).

Prices for market transactions with outsiders might vary, but prices for debt payments, taxes, and other transactions with large institutions were fixed.

Schurtz’s conclusion that the rising dominance of commercial money tended to break down domestic checks and balances protecting the Indigenous communities that he studied is indeed what happened when commercial debt practices were brought from the Near East to the Aegean and Mediterranean lands around the eighth century BCE.

Having no tradition of royal debt cancellations as had existed in the Near East ever since the formative period of interest-bearing debt, the resulting decontextualization of credit practices fostered financial oligarchies in classical Greece and Rome. After early debt cancellations and land redistribution by populist “tyrants” in the seventh and sixth centuries BCE, the ensuing classical oligarchies resisted popular revolts demanding a revival of such policies.

The dynamics of interest-bearing debt and the pro-creditor debt laws of classical antiquity’s creditor oligarchies caused economic polarization that led to five centuries of civil warfare. These upheavals were not the result of the coinage that began to be minted around the eighth century BCE, as many 19th-century observers believed, mistakenly thinking that Aegean coinage was the first metallic money. Silver-money had been the norm for two millennia throughout the Near East, without causing disruption like that experienced by classical antiquity. What polarized classical antiquity’s economies were pro-creditor debt laws backed by political violence, not money.

Conclusion and Discussion

Schurtz’s starting point was how communities organized the laws of motion governing their distribution of wealth and property. He viewed money as emerging from this institutional function with a basically communalistic ethic. A key characteristic of Indigenous economic resilience was social pressure expecting the wealthy to contribute to social support. That was the condition set by unwritten customs for letting some individuals and their families become rich.

Schurtz and subsequent ethnologists found a universal solution for reconciling wealth-seeking with community-wide prosperity to be social pressure for wealthy families (that was the basic unit, not individuals) to distribute their wealth to the citizenry by reciprocal exchange, gift-giving, mutual aid, and other forms of redistribution, and providing large feasts, especially for rites of passage.

This was a much broader view than the individualistic economic assumption that personal gain-seeking and, indeed, selfishness were the driving forces of overall prosperity. The idea of monetizing economic life under communalistic mutual aid or palace direction was and remains anathema to mainstream economists, reflecting the worldview of modern creditors and financial elites. Schurtz recognized that mercantile wealth-seeking required checks and balances to prevent economies from impoverishing their members.

The problem for any successfully growing society to solve was how to prevent the undue concentration of wealth obtained by exploitative means that impaired overall welfare and the ability of community members to be self-supporting. Otherwise, economic polarization and dependency would lead members to flee from the community, or perhaps it simply would shrink and end up being defeated by outsiders who sustained themselves by more successful mutual aid.

As noted above, Schurtz treated the monetization of wealth in the form of creditor claims on debtors as too post-archaic to be a characteristic of his ethnographic subjects. But what shaped the context for monetization and led “outside-money” to take priority over inside-money were wealth accumulation by moneylending and the fiscal and military uses of money. Schurtz correctly rejected Bruno Hildebrand’s characterization of money as developing in stages, from small-scale barter to monetized economies becoming more sophisticated as they evolved into financialized credit economies.^[7]

And, in fact, the actual historical sequence was the reverse. From Mesopotamia to medieval Europe, agrarian economies operated on credit during the crop year. Monetary payment occurred at harvest time to settle the obligations that had accumulated since the last harvest and to pay taxes. This need to pay debts was a major factor requiring money’s development in the first place. Barter became antiquity’s final monetary “stage” as Rome’s economy collapsed after its creditor oligarchy imposed debt bondage and took control of the land.

When emperors were unable to tax this oligarchy, they debased the coinage, and life throughout the empire devolved into local subsistence production and quasi-barter. Foreign trade was mainly for luxuries brought by Arabs and other Near Easterners. The optimistic sequence that Hildebrand imagined not only mistakenly adopted the barter myth of monetary origins but also failed to take debt polarization into account as economies became monetarized and financialized.

Schurtz described how the aim of preventing the maldistribution of wealth was at the heart of Indigenous social structuring. But it broke down for various reasons. Economies in which family wealth took the form of cattle, he found, tended to become increasingly oppressive to maintain the polarizing inequality that developed. The same might be said of credit economies under the rising burden of interest-bearing debt. Schurtz noted the practice of charging debtors double the loan value—and any rate of interest indeed involves an implicit doubling time.

That exponential dynamic is what polarizes financialized economies. In contrast to Schurtz, mainstream economists of his generation avoided dealing with the effect of monetary innovation and debt on the distribution of wealth. The tendency was to treat money as merely a “veil” of price changes for goods and services, without analyzing how credit polarizes the economy’s balance sheet of assets and debt liabilities. Yet, the distinguishing feature of credit economies was the use of moneylending as a lever to enrich creditors by impoverishing debtors. That was more than just a monetary problem. It was a political creditor/debtor problem and, ultimately, a public/private problem.

The issue was whether a ruler or civic public checks would steer the rise in monetary wealth in ways that avoided the creation of creditor oligarchies.

Most 19th-century and even subsequent economic writers shied away from confronting this political context, leaving the most glaring gap in modern economic analysis. It was left to the discovery of cuneiform documentation to understand how money first became institutionalized as a vehicle to pay debts. This monetization was accompanied by remarkable success in sustaining rising wealth while preventing its concentration in the hands of a hereditary oligarchy. That Near Eastern success highlights what the smaller and more anarchic Western economies failed to achieve when interest-bearing debt practices were brought to the Mediterranean lands without being checked by the tradition of regular cancellation of personal nonbusiness debt.

Credit and monetary wealth were privatized in the hands of what became an increasingly self-destructive set of classical oligarchies culminating in that of Rome, which fought for centuries against popular revolts seeking protection from impoverishing economic polarization.

The devastating effects of transplanting Near Eastern debt practices into the Mediterranean world’s less communalistic groupings show the need to discuss the political, fiscal, and social-moral context for money and debt. Schurtz placed monetary analysis in the context of society’s political institutions and moral values and explained how money is a product of this context and, indeed, how monetization tends to transform it—in a way that tends to break down social protection. His book has remained relatively unknown over the last century, largely because his institutional anthropological perspective is too broad for an economics discipline that has been narrowed by pro-creditor ideologues who have applauded the “free market” destruction of social regulation aimed at protecting the interests of debtors.

That attitude avoids recognizing the challenges that led the Indigenous communities studied by Schurtz, and also the formative Bronze Age Near East, to protect their resilience against the concentration of wealth, a phenomenon that has plagued economies ever since classical antiquity’s decontextualization of Near Eastern debt practices.

References

Battilossi, Stefano; Cassis, Youssef; and Yago, Kazuhiko, editors, 2018. “Origins of Money and Interest: Palatial Credit, Not Barter.” In Handbook of the History of Money and Currency, pp. 45–66. Berlin: Springer.

Hildebrand, Bruno, 1864. “Naturalwirthschaft, Geldwirthschaft und Creditwirthschaft.” Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 2: pp. 1–24.

Hudson, Michael, 1999. “From Sacred Enclave to Temple to City.” In Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East, edited by Hudson, Michael, and Levine, Baruch, pp. 117–46. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

Hudson, Michael, and Wunsch, Cornelia, editors, 2004. “The Development of Money-of-Account in Sumer’s Temples.” In Creating Economic Order: Record-Keeping, Standardization and the Development of Accounting in the Ancient Near East, pp. 303–29. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press; Republished by Dresden: ISLET, 2023.

Hudson, Michael, 2024. Temples of Enterprise: Creating Economic Order in the Bronze Age Near East. Dresden: ISLET.

Laum, Bernard, 1924. Heiliges Geld: Eine historische Untersuchung über den sakralen Ursprung des Geldes. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.

Mauss, Marcel, 1925. The Gift: Expanded Edition. Translated by Guyer, Jane I. Chicago: Hau Books. 2016 edition.

Menger, Carl, 1892. “On the Origins of Money.” Economic Journal, Vol. 2, Issue 6: pp. 238–55.

Thureau-Dangin, François, 1905. Les Inscriptions de Sumer et d’Akkad. Paris: Leroux.

Wray, L. Randall, 2004. Credit and State Theories of Money: The Contributions of A. Mitchell Innes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Notes.

^[1] Menger, Carl, 1892. The barter theory has been refuted by modern research uncovering the Bronze Age Near Eastern institutional origins of money, which I discuss in chapters 1 and 3 of Temples of Enterprise (Hudson, 2024). My criticisms of this theory are in “Origins of Money and Interest: Palatial Credit, Not Barter” (Hudson, Michael, 2020).

^[2] See the papers collected in Wray, L. Randall, 2004.

^[3] Mauss, Marcel (1925), 2016; Laum, Bernard, 1924. Schurtz mentions spit-money in passing but finds trade in food relatively unimportant.

^[4] I discuss this in “From Sacred Enclave to Temple to City” (Hudson, Michael, 1999) and Chapter 10 of Temples of Enterprise (Hudson, Michael, 2024).

^[5] Schurtz cited as an example of how monetary authorities could substitute sign-money for metal-money the case of “Kublai Khan, the ruler of the Mongolian empire, [who] drove out metal-money with sign-money, specifically stamped pieces of paper, evidently following the Chinese example; Marco Polo’s accounts indicate that the endeavor must have temporarily succeeded only because of the tremendous power and authority of the ruler, with the result of a vast accumulation of gold and silver in the Khan’s residence.” But he made disparaging remarks about the French government’s paper money assignats and called John Law a “swindler,” dismissing government money creation.

^[6] Thureau-Dangin, François (1905: 86–87), translated the Sumerian term for “justice” (amargi) to mean specifically that officials and wealthy individuals (“the powerful”) would have no legal claims for debt foreclosure.

^[7] Hildebrand, Bruno (1864), classified economies as passing from Naturalwirtschaft (“barter economy”) to Geldwirtschaft (“gold/commodity money economy”) and finally Kreditwirtschaft (“credit economy”).

This text is adapted from Michael Hudson’s foreword to An Outline of the Origins of Money by Heinrich Schurtz, and this excerpt was produced by Human Bridges.

The post What Are the Origins of the Money We Use Today? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Michael Hudson.

Image Source: Goran tek-en – CC BY-SA 4.0

Archaeologist and scholar Giorgio Buccellati’s book At the Origins of Politics describes how Mesopotamia’s urban revolution in the late fourth millennium BC shaped a new mentality. The segmentation and specialization of industrial production required written recordkeeping, standardization of weights and measures, and surveying and allocation of land planning. This inherent logic of handicraft production and its related organization of trade and market exchange, especially with the palace and temple institutions, led to new forms of social interaction, with the state and its laws and religion consolidating the new managerial hierarchies.

I met Buccellati in 1994 at the first of what would become a decade-long series of Harvard-based colloquia to compile an economic history of the Bronze Age Near Eastern origins of money and interest, land tenure, and its public obligations. Since these innovations were shaped largely by relations with the temples and palaces, our group started by focusing on just what it meant to be public or private.

It was fairly clear what “privatization” meant, but calling the palace or temples “public” was problematic. Royal price schedules for grain, silver, and other key commodities applied only to transactions with these large institutions, which were corporately distinct from the rest of the economy where prices were free to vary. Hammurabi’s laws focused on the relations between the palatial sector and the family-based economy on the land, which followed its own common law tradition for wergild-like personal offenses and other legal problems not involving the palace. How far beyond the palace did the state extend?

Buccellati’s paper focused on a broader philosophical idea of “public” as referring to the overall system of social and economic organization: “The dichotomy between public and private is coterminous with the origin of the city.”1 As he points out in At the Origins of Politics: “The increased size of the settlements created a critical mass, whereby face-to-face association no longer was possible among each member of the social group.” The relationship was political. “On the etymological level, the terms ‘urbanism’ and ‘politics’ are equivalent, given that they both derive from the word for ‘city’ in Latin and Greek respectively.” His term “state-city” emphasizes the overall political and administrative context.

He views industrialization as the economic dimension of the urban revolution that occurred in the late fourth millennium BC. The scale and social complexity of mining (or trading for metal) and metallurgy, beer-making, and weaving involved increasingly impersonal relationships as industrial organizations created products beyond the ability of individuals to make by themselves. The evolution was from direct personal contact to being part of a long, specialized chain.

Describing this takeoff as the first Axial Age, Buccellati explains how economic and social relations had been transformed over the 50,000-year evolution from small Paleolithic groups to urban industrial production, trade, and property relations. The technology and administration of production transformed the character of labor and what Buccellati calls para-perceptual thought. The moral principles of mutual aid, group solidarity, protection of the needy, and basic rights to means of self-support were retained from pre-urban practice but were administered on the state level.

“The state was never able to eliminate or even ignore the people… political ideology became a way for the leadership to justify itself in front of the base,” bolstered by religious attitudes to popularize an “Ideology of Control… the ideology of command, of leadership not necessarily based on coercive means.” Even in the face of “ever-increasing gaps in prestige and economic ability,” the rhetoric of kingship promoted “a sense of solidarity that transcends the limit of reciprocal face-to-face recognition.”

For the king, the aim was to make “submission not just tolerable but actually desirable.” That enabled Mesopotamian rule to be personal and indeed dynastic. “The king was not just the most powerful private individual; he embodied a distinct organism.” Kings were described as serving heaven, as reflected in Hammurapi’s stele depicting him presenting his laws to the god of justice, Shamash (or in some interpretations, receiving them from Shamash).

“The private model was thus superimposed from scratch on the public one,” merging the state and religion as every new king pointed to his ancestors as if this meant continuity of the law. The principle of kings being hereditary was accepted “without ever being formulated in theoretical terms.”

From Living in a State of Nature to a Stratified Managerial Order

Buccellati describes production as evolving from interpersonal and small scale to institutional and large scale. He describes how Paleolithic hunters and gatherers met their needs by using what they found in nature. They napped flints to make spear points and cutting tools, and wove plant fibers to make clothing, baskets, and other artifacts, but these materials were as they found them. And personal wealth took the form of shells or other objects found in nature. However, the increasing complexity of industrial organization transformed the character of producers in that they ceased to have face-to-face relations with the users of the objects they made. Products evolved increasingly beyond objects found in nature, and also beyond the ability of single individuals to make them as they required chains of transformation via metallurgy and manufacturing.

Although Buccellati does not focus on land tenure, money, and credit in this volume, his analytic schema of the transition from “nature” to man-made institutional structures suggests how land and credit relations evolved along similar lines, from informal and spontaneous to formal and standardized. If there was an archaic relationship with the land, it was for an Indigenous tribe to claim territory as belonging to itself for hunting and gathering and for ceremonial or religious functions.

Most exchange was domestic, taking the form of reciprocal gifts, often of the same food types simply as a means of binding groups together in the spirit of mutual aid. But artifacts were traded among Indigenous communities already in the Ice Age, from one tribal group to another, sometimes passed along over long distances.

Gathering places for such exchange existed already in the Ice Age, often at river crossings or natural meeting points. These would have been seasonal sites, with chieftains responsible for keeping the lunisolar calendar to time when to travel to such spots. If anything, such gathering places were the opposite of the later city that Buccellati describes. The idea was to prevent any one group from dominating others or restricting territorial control. The result was akin to the amphictyonic centers of classical antiquity, neutral zones set aside from political cities and rivalries, with careful equality of participants as a condition for amicable relations.

Deities often were trees, woods, or natural rock formations such as those that survived in Germanic religion into the first millennium of our era, and Japan’s Shinto religion. Lunar and solar deities were part of an astronomical cosmology reflecting the rhythms of nature. By the Bronze Age, gods took on the role of patrons of social authority and justice as urbanization transformed the natural environment.

Technology enabled the production of new shapes and “artifacts that have no analogy in nature.” Mud bricks became standardized to build walls. “Stone is no longer seen as an adaptation of pre-existing forms” but was shaped to produce new building structures. Fire played an important role in controlling the environment, not only to cook food but also to bake mud bricks and harden ceramics, and to refine metal from ores and make alloys such as bronze to produce tools, weapons, and other implements. The potter’s wheel and spindles for weaving were developed, and a managerial class came into being as manufacturing such products required increasingly complex organization, from producers and traders to armies.

The Neolithic agricultural revolution saw the standardization of land, allotted to community members in lots sufficient to support their families, with proportional obligations attached—obliging their holders to serve in the army and provide seasonal corvée labor on communal building projects.

These obligations were what defined land tenure rights. That created a strict relationship with the emerging urban centers that transformed “the village as it existed in prehistory… in the sense of autonomous villages that found an end in themselves. … Agricultural or manufactured production did not have as its end point the village, but rather and especially the urban markets.” Rural villages became part of the city, and local conflicts were settled by traveling urban judges.

Monetization of Exchange Between the Rural and Urban Centers

Money evolved as part of the valuation dimension of exchange. Anthropologists studying surviving Indigenous communities have found that artifacts typically are valued for their rarity or lineage of ownership. In archaic times such objects were often buried with their wearers, having become part of their personal identity. In time, they took a proto-monetary signification of esteem. But it was in southern Mesopotamia that money became formalized as a measure of valuation, simultaneously for domestic agrarian and industrial exchange—mainly for grain and wool—and for foreign trade. In both cases, the palace and temples played a key role. A standardized measure of value was needed for the economy’s own industrial and institutional functioning, not merely for personal decoration and status.

Foreign trade was necessary to obtain raw materials not found in the region’s river-deposited soil. Copper and tin were the key metals that were needed, the alloy of which gave its name to the Bronze Age (3500-1200 BC), but silver was adopted as the main measure of value for palace transactions and those of entrepreneurs, presumably because of its role in religious symbolism. Silver and other commodities were obtained by a mercantile class of entrepreneurs, whose major customers were the palace and temples, which also supplied most of the textiles being exported.

The largest categories of debts and fiscal obligations were inter-sectoral, owed by citizens on the land and mercantile entrepreneurs to the palace sector and its temples. The seasonal character of agriculture made credit necessary to bridge the gap between planting and harvesting, to be paid on the threshing floor when the crop was in. Grain served as the main domestic agrarian measure of value and the medium for paying agrarian debts.

The palace and temples integrated their economic accounts by setting the silver mina and shekel that denominated the value of commodities obtained in foreign trade (and consignments of what was exchanged for them) as equal to corresponding measures of grain, while dividing the relevant measures into 60ths to facilitate the allocation of food and raw materials based on the 30-day administrative month used by the large institutions.

The resulting monetary system of account-keeping for credit and fiscal collection was part of a broader economic context in which standardized weights and measures were used to quantify and calculate the various magnitudes of the inputs required by the large institutions for producing commodities in their workshops, along with the amounts of the charges, fees, and rents payable to the institutions and fiscal collectors.

The surplus grain rent paid to the large institutions supported dependent labor in the weaving and handicraft workshops. Commodities no longer were made by individual craftpersons known to the users, but by many, whose identities were institutional and hence collective and impersonal as far as the buyers or users were concerned. The workforce consisted largely of war widows and orphans, and also slaves captured from the mountains surrounding Mesopotamia. (A typical word for slave was “mountain girl.”)

The textiles woven by this labor were consigned to merchants to act as intermediaries between the large institutions or the growing class of private estate holders and foreign purchasers. Interest charges (usually equal to the original loan value for consignments of five years) served as a means for consigners and backers to obtain their share of the gain that merchants were expected to make on their trade.

Bucellati shows how the urban revolution’s “evolutionary process in motion” to transform society and with it “the very nature of human existence.” The development of writing, for instance, had a deep effect in transforming thought processes, much as the creation of languages had served to “externalize thought.” It enabled the communication of ideas to others without having to rely on memory.

Originally used by the eighth millennium BC to oversee and quantify trade and exchange transactions, it came to be used for accounting and credit, and increasingly to preserve, arrange and order thoughts, public announcements, treaties, poetry, and laws. The written word became a new medium for thought. Buccellati describes this “reification of thought” as part of the “removal from nature.” That was part of the evolving uniformity that spread from the production of commodities to shape the overall social order.

Debt Strains Lead Rulers to Protect Their Economies From Polarizing

Industry and entrepreneurial foreign trade concentrated control and wealth in the hands of managers and “big men.” Their economic gains caused a wealthy class to emerge, initially within the large institutions, with credit being used to pry labor away from palace control. Creditor claims on indebted cultivators accumulated, largely at the institutional level of landholders, merchant-creditors, and also ale-women, whose customers ran up tabs for their beer, to be settled at “payday” on the threshing floor when crops were harvested.

It was inevitable that strains would develop as a result of the rising role of credit and debt relations, especially in times of flooding or crop failure. As rent and other payment arrears and interest charges mounted up, private lending (often by royal or temple officials acting on their own account) became the major initial way to obtain the labor of debtors, by requiring them to work off their debts. That prevented cultivators from performing the stipulated corvée and military service that they owed in exchange for their land tenure rights.

The result was a threefold conflict: first, creditors against debtors; second, creditors against the palace over the appropriation of labor via debt bondage; and third, the assertion of creditor power against traditional communal moral ideas of equity and mutual aid. Archaic communities traditionally sought to minimize economic inequality, perceiving much personal wealth as being achieved by exploiting others, above all by indebting them. By the third millennium, indebted cultivators faced the threat of being disenfranchised, losing their personal freedom and self-support land through foreclosure.

As Buccellati observed in our 1994 colloquium royal protection of homesteaders, canceling the overgrowth of personal debt resulted “more from a concern for the public domain than as a phenomenon of privatization.” Rulers from the third millennium BC onward protected palace claims on the labor of their citizens from being disrupted by debt strains of the type to which subsequent Western civilization has succumbed. Sumerian rulers made sure that these strains would not be permanent because that would have been at the expense of the palace’s own requirements for corvée and military service from agrarian debtors.

Buccellati pertinently notes that three main considerations shaped Near Eastern public laws: “the concept of rules, the sense of justice, [and] the decisive moments in resolving conflict.” Hammurapi’s “code” was simply a collection of judgments, but his andurarum proclamations were enforced by the courts to cancel personal debts (but not mercantile debts), liberate bondservants (but not slaves), and redistribute self-support land (but not townhouses) that had been forfeited to creditors or sold under economic duress. These Clean Slates were the most basic royal administrative acts of Mesopotamian rulers from Sumerian times onward. They were the moral pillar of the state.

The Mesopotamian State Solved the Debt Problem That Western Civilization Has Not

Buccellati sees the transformation of production, economic control, and ways of perceiving and thinking about one’s place in society as progressing toward a geopolitical peak with the Assyrian Empire. What enabled and made this sustained achievement so successful were royal laws to regularly restore economic balance on a system-wide level. Clean Slate proclamations prevented a creditor oligarchy from emerging to rival palace claims on the labor and crop surpluses of citizens on the land. In this respect, the distinction between financial and industrial gain-seeking—and the socially destructive character of usury and creditor self-interest—was recognized already in the third millennium BC in the Hymn to Shamash, the Akkadian god of justice (lines 103-106):

What happens to the loan shark who invests his resources at the (highest) interest rate?
He will lose his purse just as he tries to get the most out of it.
But he who invests in the long term will convert one measure of silver into three.
He pleases Shamash and will enrich his life.2

Buccellati rightly states that “We are the heirs of Mesopotamian perception and political experience.” Modern civilization, however, has retrogressed from the Bronze Age Mesopotamian achievement of avoiding deepening financial and economic imbalance. He notes that modern society defines property as being alienable, but in the West securing property rights always has entailed the “right” to forfeit it to creditors or sell under duress—irreversibly. That has been the case ever since Near Eastern commercial and credit practices were brought to the Aegean and Mediterranean lands in the first millennium BC.

The West has adopted the basic economic practices invented in the fourth and third millennia BC, but not the economically protective measures that rulers took to annul the buildup of creditor claims to reverse the increase in debt bondage and loss of land by debtors. That decontextualization is what in my view makes the West “Western.”

Bronze Age Near Eastern practice was so different from the Western worldview that most modern historians resist recognizing and appreciating the relevance of the region’s takeoff in the fourth and third millennia BC. Indeed, today’s anti-state economic ideology denies that money and industrial enterprise could have been innovated by what Buccellati calls the state, that is, the palatial authority.

This ideology obscures a great question posed for the West: How is it that Near Eastern “divine kingship” achieved what Western democracy has failed to do: check the emergence of a creditor rent-seeking oligarchy, which in classical antiquity would strip the Greek, Italian, and other populations of their means of self-support that had formed the basis of economic liberty for the first 3,000 years of the Mesopotamian takeoff that this book so comprehensively describes.

Notes.

1. Buccellati, Giorgio, “The Role of Socio-Political Factors in the Emergence of ‘Public’ and ‘Private’ Domains in Early Mesopotamia,” in Hudson, Michael and Levine, Baruch (eds.), Privatization in the Ancient Near East and Classical Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass: Peabody Museum [Harvard], 1996):131.

2. In Giorgio Buccellati, “When on High the Heavens…”: Mesopotamian Religion and Spirituality with Reference to the Biblical World (London, 2024):194, citing Reiner, Erica, Your Thwarts in Pieces, Your Mooring Rope Cut: Poetry from Babylonia and Assyria (Ann Arbor, 1985): 68-84, and W.G. Lambert, W.G., Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford, 1960): 122-138.

This text is adapted from Michael Hudson’s foreword to At the Origins of Politics by Giorgio Buccellati, and this excerpt was produced by Human Bridges.

The post How Mesopotamia’s Urban and Industrial Revolution Started Politics as We Know It Today appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Michael Hudson.

– from Maya Angelou poem, “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings”

Thinking about what I would write in this column about the importance of group singing for a mass people’s movement I somehow remembered this Maya Angelou poem, this poem about singing at a time of adversity.

One of the first times I ever sang out loud outside of a church or school setting was when, at the age of 20, I was literally “caged,” in a cell in the Monroe County Jail in Rochester, NY. I had just been arrested with seven others for a nonviolent, “Catholic Left” action in 1970, spending five hours inside a Federal Building in the FBI, Selective Service and US Attorney’s offices. We cut up draft files and looked for incriminating FBI files [they were paper back then, not electronic] as a nonviolent protest against both the Vietnam War and the J. Edgar Hoover/FBI-led government repression of many of the organizations working for peace, racial justice and women’s rights.

I remember how I felt inside that Rochester jail cell: very scared, very aware that I could end up spending a long time in prison. My response to that deep fear was to sing. And as I did so it was strengthening to hear others arrested with me calling out words of support.

Singing can be a very special thing, especially within mass movements for positive, progressive change. Here’s something Bruce Hartford wrote in his excellent book, “Troublemaker,” about the role of singing in the 1960s Black Freedom movement:

The songs spread our message,
The songs bonded us together,
 The songs elevated our courage,
  The songs shielded us from hate,
     The songs protected us from danger,
      And it was the songs that kept us sane.

Hartford wrote this about one of those experiences:

“I so vividly remember those night marches during the school crisis when white mobs filled the outer perimeter of the square. As we marched around the green singing with every ounce of energy and passion we could muster we had to circle again, and again, and again, past that one spot where they were most intensely trying to break into our line. Most of the time they couldn’t do it. They simply couldn’t do it. In some way I can’t explain our singing and our sense of solidarity created a kind of psychological barrier between us and them, a wall of moral strength that they couldn’t physically push through to attack us with their clubs and chains, as they so obviously wanted to do.”  p. 347

27 years ago my wife, son and I moved from Brooklyn, NY to Bloomfield, NJ. I soon began seeing and hearing at various activist protests a group called the Solidarity Singers, an all-volunteer group which sang at demonstrations, meetings, conferences, anywhere they were asked to sing. They sang songs with melodies drawn from the civil rights and labor movements but with words appropriate to the particular issue at that time. About 10 years ago, after retiring from paid employment, I became an increasingly active member of this group to the point where today I consider it to be one of my main areas of activist work in New Jersey.

There is no question that the existence and persistence of this group has made a difference in building a stronger, multi-issue, activist progressive movement in New Jersey.

James Connolly, the famous Irish labor, socialist and independence leader, also a women’s rights supporter, understood the importance of singing. In the introduction to “Revolutionary Songs,” published in Dublin in 1907, he wrote this:

“No revolutionary movement is complete without its poetical expression. If such a movement has caught hold of the imagination of the masses they will seek a vent in song for the aspirations, the fears and the hopes, the loves and the hatreds engendered by the struggle. Until the movement is marked by the joyous, defiant, singing of revolutionary songs, it lacks one of the most distinctive marks of a popular revolutionary movement, it is the dogma of a few, and not the faith of the multitudes.”

To defeat Trump, Musk and MAGA and advance towards a very different future than what they and the billionaire/fossil fuel class want, it will take multitudes, multitudes lifting our voices together in defiance and in song.

As we saw yesterday with tens of thousands of people protesting in a coordinated way in all 50 states, and as we will continue to see in multiplying and growing acts of resistance going forward, we won’t go back! Let’s go forward singing!

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Ted Glick.

“The killing of Mohamed Al-Maqri highlights the extreme dangers Yemeni journalists face while reporting from one of the world’s perilous conflict zones. Enforced disappearances continue to endanger their lives,” said Yeganeh Rezaian, CPJ’s interim MENA program coordinator. “CPJ demands that those responsible for Al-Maqri’s killing be held accountable. It is long overdue for all factions in Yemen to immediately end the abhorrent practice of subjecting journalists to years of enforced disappearance.”

Al-Maqri, a correspondent for television channel Yemen Today, was abducted while covering an anti-AQAP protest in Al-Mukalla, the capital of the southern governorate Hadhramaut. The AQAP, the Yemeni branch of the Islamist terrorist group Al-Qaeda, had subjected him to enforced disappearance since October 12, 2015.

At least two other Yemeni journalists are currently subjected to enforced disappearance, a practice defined as state-sponsored abduction followed by a refusal to acknowledge the person’s fate or whereabouts.

Waheed al-Sufi, editor-in-chief of the independent newspaper Al-Arabiya, has been missing since April 2015 and is believed to be held by the Houthi movement. Naseh Shaker was last heard from on November 19, 2024, and is believed to be held by the Southern Transitional Council.  

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

My message today is really simple but brutal. 

Israel kills the journalists deliberately. This is unprecedented. The Western media — including here in Aotearoa New Zealand — kills the truth about genocide in Gaza.

On Boxing Day, an Israeli air strike killed five Palestinian journalists in a clearly marked white vehicle outside a hospital in central Gaza.

• READ MORE: Israel kills five Palestinian journalists in attack on media van
• RSF’s 2024 Round-up: journalism suffers exorbitant human cost due to conflicts and repressive regimes
• Silencing the messenger: Israel kills journalists, while the West merely censors them — David Robie
• Other Israel’s war on Gaza reports

The journalists from the Al-Quds Today TV channel were outside the al-Awada Hospital in the Nuseirat refugee camp when their satellite broadcast van was struck by a pre-dawn Israeli strike.

Video footage that went viral showed the van with the words “PRESS” clearly marked in red block letters engulfed in flames.

Middle East Eye reporter Hani Aburezeq said from the scene: “The van was entirely burnt and destroyed. It was fully engulfed in flames.”

The slain journalists were – let’s honour their names — Fadi Hassouna, Ibrahim al-Sheikh Ali, Mohammed al-Ladah, Faisal Abu al-Qumsan and Ayman al-Jadi.

Jadi had gone to the hospital with his wife who was giving birth to their first child. He had gone out to check on the car and his mates when it was bombed.

Baby born on day father died for ‘truth’
Imagine that, the baby was born on the very day his father died while doing his job as a journalist — reporting the truth.

It is another cruel example of the tragic lives lost in this genocide by Israel which has killed more than 45,400 people, mostly women and children.

Al Jazeera’s report on the journalist killings. Video: AJ

Just last week, four other journalists were killed over two days. And now the total is 201 Palestinian journalists killed since 7 October 2023.

This is by far the highest death toll of journalists in any war or conflict.

By comparison, in the six years of the Second World War only 69 journalists were killed.

And in 20 years of the Vietnam War, just 63 journalists were killed.

Al Jazeera reports that Israel, which has not allowed foreign journalists to enter Gaza except on military embeds with the Israeli “Defence” Forces (IDF), which is increasingly being dubbed by critics as the Israeli “Offence” Forces (“IOF”), has been condemned by many media freedom organisations.

Gaza ‘most dangerous region’
The besieged enclave is now regarded as the “most dangerous region of the world” for journalists, according to Reporters Without Borders in its annual report.

Al Jazeera itself was banned by Israel in May from reporting within the country, and was subsequently barred from reporting within the occupied West Bank and the closure of the Ramallah bureau in mid-September.

Israel has tried to silence Al Jazeera previously in by threatening it in 2017, bombing its broadcast office in Gaza in 2021, and assassinating celebrated journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in 2022 and other reporters with impunity.

Al Jazeera, TRT News and many independent news outlets as Democracy Now!, The Intercept, Middle East Eye and The Palestine Chronicle stand in contrast to mainstream media such as BBC, CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post that have frequently been called out in investigative reports for systemic bias against Palestine.

Among the poignant messages from Palestinian journalists documenting this war are Bisan Owda, who signs on her video reports every day with “I’m still alive”.

But I would like to share this reflection from another journalist, videographer Osama Abu Rabee who says on his X news feed that he is “capturing the untold stories of resilience and hope”. He said in one post this week:

‘Moments away from death’
“One of my most vivid memories is when three journalists and I were in Eastern Jabalia and we needed to connect our e-sims to edit and upload content of a massacre.

“We went to a room but the connection wasn’t good so I suggested we go into another room. Less than 5 minutes later, the room we had been in got bombed.

“People came over running thinking that we were killed but luckily there were only injuries.

“This was one of the many times that I was moments away from death. I know that I’m targeted as a Palestinian but also as a journalist.

“Every single day I step out of my house and put on my ‘press’ vest and I look behind at my family, I’m not sure if I’ll see them again.

“I hope you understand the risks we are taking to show you the truth.

“Even 15 month later, we continue to go out every single day  and document the horrors that people in Gaza experience.

“We do this so that when God asks what you do, we respond with ‘we did what we could’.”

NZ media’s role shameful
Can journalists and the media in Aotearoa New Zealand say with hand on heart that “we did what we could” in the face of this genocide?

Of course not, the role of New Zealand media has been shameful, apart from notable exceptions such as Gordon Campbell.

It has failed to hold the Christopher Luxon coalition government to account over its pathetic inaction over the genocide.

It has failed to press the government into taking a stronger and more principled stance at the United Nations to call for sanctions against the apartheid and genocidal regime, or to even expel Israel from the global chamber — or the ambassador from Wellington.

It has failed to argue for New Zealand to join the South African-led genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Take Ireland, a smallish country like New Zealand, as an inspirational example. Earlier this month, Ireland responded immediately to the closure of Israel’s embassy in Dublin by opening a Palestinian museum on the premises.

Prime Minister Simon Harris condemned Israel’s genocidal actions, particularly against children and reaffirmed his country’s commitment to human rights and international law.

He said Ireland would not be silenced over Israel. He continued:

“You know what I think is reprehensible? Killing children, I think that’s reprehensible.

“You know what I think is reprehensible? Seeing the scale of civilian deaths that we’ve seen in Gaza.

“You know what I think is reprehensible? People being left to starve and humanitarian aid not flowing,”

Silence of the news media
Have we ever had such a courageous statement like this from our Prime Minister. Absolutely not.

It is shameful that our government has not taken a stand.

And it is shameful that the New Zealand media has been so silent over this most horrendous episode of our times — genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in front of our very eyes for 15 months.

To my knowledge, journalists in Aotearoa have not made even made statements of solidarity with the journalists of Gaza and their horrific sacrifice to bear witness to the truth.

I made a plea for such a stand last January and it was ignored. Australia is making a better job of challenging the status quo.

New Zealand journalists have already “normalised” the genocide. Shameful.

Dr David Robie is convenor of Pacific Media Watch and editor of Asia Pacific Report. This was first presented as an address to a Palestinian solidarity rally in Aotearoa New Zealand’s Te Komititanga Square in Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau on 28 December 2024.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Five Palestinian journalists have been killed in a new Israeli strike near a hospital in central Gaza after four reporters were killed last week, reports Al Jazeera citing authorities and media in the besieged enclave.

The journalists from the Al-Quds Today channel were covering events near al-Awda Hospital, located in the Nuseirat refugee camp, when their broadcasting van was hit by an Israeli air strike.

Footage from the scene circulating on social media shows a vehicle engulfed in flames.

• READ MORE: Israel kills five journalists in Gaza as babies freeze to death
• Other Gaza media reports

The video of the white-coloured van shows the word “press” in large red lettering across the back of the vehicle.

The dead journalists have been named as Fadi Hassouna, Ibrahim al-Sheikh Ali, Mohammed al-Ladah, Faisal Abu al-Qumsan and Ayman al-Jadi.

Al Jazeera’s Anas al-Sharif reports that Ayman al-Jadi had been waiting for his wife in front of the hospital while she was in labour to give birth to their first child.

Civil defence teams retrieved the bodies of the victims and extinguished a fire at the scene, the Quds News Network said.

Israel claims ‘targeted’ attack
Israel’s military confirmed the strike.

It claimed it had carried out a “targeted” attack against a vehicle carrying members of Islamic Jihad and that it would continue to take action against “terrorist organisations” in Gaza.

BREAKING: 5 journalists were just killed by Israel.

An Israeli strike targeted the PRESS vehicle belonging to “Al-Quds Today” channel while the journalists were sleeping inside the vehicle in front of Al-Awda Hospital in Al-Nuseirat, Central Gaza. Their bodies were charred.… pic.twitter.com/B1u1eXIn3j

— Suppressed News. (@SuppressedNws) December 26, 2024

“Prior to the attack, many steps were taken to reduce the chance of harming civilians, including the use of precision weapons, aerial observations, and additional intelligence information,” the military said in a post on X.

The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) earlier this month condemned Israel’s killing of four Palestinian journalists in the space of a week, calling on the international community to hold the country accountable for its attacks against the media.

The Paris-based media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) also condemned the killing of the journalists last week as a “continuation of the war crimes committed by Israel”.

“On December 14 and 15, the Israeli army murdered three media professionals in northern Gaza and the central Gaza Strip,” RSF said in a statement.

“Some of the few remaining reporters in the northern region, subjected to a ground invasion by Israeli forces, were recently forced to evacuate their homes.”

RSF named three of the killed journalists as Al-Jazeera cameraman Ahmad al-Louh, a 39-year-old media worker who was was filming a report on the Palestinian Civil Defence in the Nuseirat camp when he was killed on December 15 by an air strike; Mohammed Balousha, a reporter for the Emirati channel Al-Mashhad who was mortally wounded by a targeted drone strike while reporting in the Sheikh Radwan district in northern Gaza, and correspondent Mohammed Jaber al-Qarinawi, 30, who was killed along with his wife and their three children by an isolated air strike — “a sign that his home had probably been targeted”.

‘Stark reminder’ on media attacks, says RSF
RSF’s director of campaigns Rebecca Vincent said: “These latest killings are a stark reminder of the ongoing assault by Israeli forces against media professionals in northern Gaza, where the handful of journalists remaining are now at risk of disappearing altogether.

“In parallel to ongoing attacks on media in central Gaza where displaced persons are now seeking refuge, this is a clear continuation of the Israeli authorities’ attempts to control the narrative on its war through any means possible.

“We repeat in the strongest possible terms that targeting journalists is a war crime, and these atrocious attacks must stop. It is time for concrete action by other states — in particular Israel’s allies — to urge the Israeli government to immediately comply with international law.”

Ninety-six percent of Gaza’s journalists have been forcibly evacuated from their homes, and 92 percent have lost essential reporting equipment, according to data from RSF’s local NGO partner, Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ).

At least 141 journalists have been killed in Israel’s war in Gaza since October 7, 2023, according to the CPJ.

However, other monitoring agencies put the death toll higher — the Gaza-based Government Media Office has documented 201 killings of journalists by Israel.

Israel has continued a genocidal war on Gaza that has killed more than 45,000 people, most of them women and children, since a cross-border attack by the Palestinian group Hamas on 7 October 2023.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

• Man accused of killing health insurance executive pleads not guilty today in New York courtroom.
• International health officials call for air raids on Gaza hospital to end.
• Governor Newsom declares state of emergency after bird flu cases detected in state.
• New report shows disparity in access to youth sports in California. 
• New report shows disparity in access to youth sports in California. 

The post The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays – December 23, 2024 Man accused of killing health insurance executive pleads not guilty today in New York courtroom. appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

Imperialism is not the creation of any one or of any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognizable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will…

— Rosa Luxemburg, The Crisis of German Social Democracy (1916)

The arguments embroiling the left on the nature of imperialism, over whether Peoples’ China or Russia is capitalist or imperialist, whether the pink tide in Latin America is a socialist trend, whether the BRICS development is an anti-imperialist movement, and so forth, are becoming more and more heated as they proceed further and further into the academic weeds.

There is a host of issues and positions entangled in these debates, as well as numerous vested interests: deeply felt, long held theories, research platforms, and networks of intellectual allies.

Moreover, these arguments are decidedly one-sided: long on academic opinion, short on working-class or activist participation.

That said, they are important and deserve discussion.

A recent interview of Steve Ellner by Federico Fuentes in LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal is a place to begin to unravel some of these disputes. Now Steve Ellner is neither a surrogate in nor a straw man for this discussion. Ellner is a thoughtful, analytical academic with a long-committed history in the Latin American solidarity movement and with a background on the left. He is more likely to say “X may mean…” rather than “X must mean…” than many of his academic colleagues. That is to say, he is no enemy of nuance.

Ellner begins with Lenin, as he should, and asserts that Lenin’s theory is both “political-military” and “economic.” This, of course, is correct. In Chapter seven of Imperialism, Lenin specifies five characteristics of the imperialist system. Four are economic: the decisive role of monopoly capital, the merging of financial and industrial capital, the export of capital, and the internationalization of monopoly capital. One is political-military: the division of the world between the greatest capitalist powers.

Lenin gives no weight to these characteristics because they are together necessary and sufficient for defining imperialism as a system emerging in the late nineteenth century. Imperialism, for Lenin, is a stage and not a club.

Following John Bellamy Foster, the editor of Monthly Review, Ellner posits that there are two interpretations of imperialism that some believe follow from the two aspects of imperialism. Indeed, there may well be two interpretations, but given Lenin’s unitary interpretation of imperialism in Chapter seven, they are misinterpretations of Lenin’s thought. Recognizing that Lenin explicitly says that he offers a definition “that will embrace the following five essential features…,” there is, perhaps to the dismay of some, only one valid interpretation– an interpretation that combines the economic with the political-military.

That said, Foster and Ellner are correct in critically appraising those who do misinterpret imperialism as solely political-military (contestation of territories among great powers) or as solely economic (capitalist exploitation). Truly, most of the misunderstandings about imperialism since Lenin’s time come from advocating one misinterpretation rather than the other, while failing to perceive imperialism as a system.

Ellner gently rejects one political-military interpretation that he associates with Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin: equating “imperialism with the political domination of the US empire, backed of course by military power…” Ellner rejects that thesis, “given declining US prestige and global economic instability.” An interpretation that separates and privileges the political-military from the economic necessarily decouples imperialism from capitalism — something that Lenin explicitly denies. Accordingly, it follows that modern-day imperialism — including US imperialism — would be akin to the adventures of Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan, leaving exploitation as, at best, a contingent feature.

A solely political-military explanation of imperialism is a step removed from the more robust Leninist explanation.

Ellner considers the economic interpretation: “At the other extreme are those left theorists who focus on the dominance of global capital and minimize the importance of the nation-state.” Ellner has in mind as his immediate target the position staked out by William I Robinson, Jerry Harris, and others in the late 1990s, a position that rides the then-dramatic wave of globalization to posit a supremely powerful Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC) that overshadows, even renders obsolete, the nation-state.

At the time, others pointed out that the substantial quantitative changes in trade and investment and their global sweep had been seen before and were simply a repeat of the past, most telling in the decades before the first world war. Were these changes not a continuation of the qualitative changes addressed in Lenin’s Imperialism?

Like many speculations that overshoot the evidence, the projected decline or death of the nation-state was made irrelevant by the march of history. The many endless and expanding wars of the twenty-first century underscored the vitality of the nation-state as an historical actor. And the intense economic nationalism spawned by the economic crises of recent decades signals the demise of globalization — a phenomenon that proved to be a phase and not a new stage of capitalism. Sanctions and tariffs are the mark of robust, aggressive nation-states.

The tempest in an academic teapot stirred by the artificial separation of the economic and the political-military in Lenin’s theory of imperialism is enabled by lack of clarity about the nature of the state. Left thinkers, especially in the Anglophone world, have neglected or derided the Leninist concept of State-Monopoly Capitalism — the process of fusion between the state and the influence and interests of monopoly capitalism — which explains exactly how and why the nation-state functions today in the energy wars between Russia and the US and the technology wars between Peoples’ China (e.g., Huawei) and the US. Paul Sweezy and Paul Baran’s casual dismissal of the concept of State-Monopoly Capitalism in Monopoly Capital (1966) is representative of the utter contempt shown for Communist research projects by many so-called “Western Marxists.” While the theory of State-Monopoly Capitalism gets no hearing among Marxist academics, the slippery, but ominous-sounding concept of “deep state” has achieved wide-spread acceptance, while not taxing the comfort of Western intellectuals.

Nonetheless, Robinson’s stress on the political economy of imperialism cannot easily be dismissed. His reliance on the key concepts of class and exploitation are certainly essential to Lenin’s theory.

In fact, the greatest challenge to the political-military aspect of Lenin’s theory was not the alleged decline of the nation-state, but the demise of the colonial system, especially with the wide-spread independence movements after World War II. The crude and totalizing domination of weaker nations favored by the Spanish, French, Portuguese, and British Empires– the division of the world into administered colonies– was, with nominal independence, replaced by a system of more benign economic domination. Kwame Nkrumah, the Ghanaian revolutionary, designated this system “neo-colonialism” in his book, Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. Nkrumah’s elaboration of Lenin’s theory preserved the integrity of Lenin’s “political-military” aspect by reconstituting the colonial division of the world by the great powers into a neo-colonial division of the world into spheres of interest and of prevailing economic influence.

Since Ellner correctly acknowledges that Lenin’s economic and political-military aspects are essential to his theory of imperialism, he must contend with an awkward, vexing question that continually divides the left: how does the People’s Republic of China (PRC) fit into the world imperialist system? What does its deep and broad participation in the global market mean?

Ellner appeals to the facts that the PRC does not have bases throughout the world, does not use sanctions (not true!), and does not exploit the excuse of human rights to intervene in the affairs of other countries.

But surely this side steps Nkrumah’s powerful thesis that imperialism in the post-World War II era is not simply the vulgar exercise of administrative and military power and the exhibition of national chauvinism. It is, rather, the division of the world into spheres of interest that both benefit the great powers through exploitation and the competition with other great powers for shares of the bounty.

Certainly, the PRC does not avow a policy of imperial predation, but neither does the US or any other great power from the past. Indeed, imperialism has always been presented — sincerely or not — as beneficial to all parties, whether it is a civilizing function, a paternalistic boost, or protection from other powers. The Chinese leadership may well truthfully believe that their trade, investment, and partnership with other countries is a victory for all — a “win-win” as some like to say.

But that is always the answer that great powers give that are using their capital, their know-how, and their trade to profit their corporations. Perhaps, the most notorious of these “win-win” projects was the Marshall Plan. Sold to Europe as a “win-win” based on Europe’s impoverishment and the US’s generosity, billions were allocated for loans, grants, and investments in Europe. History shows that billions in new business for US corporations were thus created, Cold War political dependency and loyalty were achieved, and the US retained new markets for decades. The big winners, of course, were US corporations and their capital-starved European counterparts.

Other US investment and “aid” projects, like The Alliance for Progress, were more blatantly guided by US interests and even less a “win” for their targets.

This was the era of the development theories of W.W. Rostow that offered a blueprint and a justification for the investment of capital in and the corporate penetration of poorer countries. It was, in fact, a justification for neo-colonialism. Yet Rostow’s stage theory of lifting countries from poverty can appear surprisingly consonant with the logic of the PRC’s foreign investment strategies.

It is hard to resist the temptation to ask: How is this different from the PRC Belt and Road Initiative? How is the BRI different from the Marshall Plan? Or, to use an example from Lenin’s time, the Berlin-Baghdad railroad project?

It is beyond dispute that Peoples’ China — whatever the goals of its ruling Communist Party — has a massive capitalist sector, with many corporations arguably of monopoly concentration rivaling their US and European counterparts, that similarly seek investment opportunities for their accumulated capital. That is, after all, the motion of capitalism.

What is baffling and frustrating for those sympathetic to the Communist Party of China is the failure for the CPC’s leaders to frame their economic policies towards other states in the language of class or employ the concept of exploitation. In Comrade Xi’s recent speeches at the Kazan meeting of BRICS+, there are many references to “multilateralism,” “equitable global development,” “security,” “cooperation,” “advancing global governance reform,” “innovation,” “green development,” “harmonious coexistence,” “common prosperity,” and “modernization,” — all ideas that would resonate with the audience of the G7. How would these values change the class relations of the BRICS+ nations? What does this thinking do to alleviate the exploitation of capitalist corporations?

These are the questions Ellner and others should be asking of the PRC’s leaders and the advocates of BRICS+. These are the questions that probe how today’s nation-states participate in the imperialist system and how that participation affects working people.

The problem is that many on the left would like to believe that there is a form of anti-imperialism that is not anti-capitalist. They find in the BRI and BRICS+ a model that competes with United States imperialism and could be said to be therefore anti-US imperialist, but leaves capitalism intact. Of course, it is impossible to embrace this view and retain Lenin’s theory of imperialism. Every page in the pamphlet, Imperialism, affirms the intimate relation between imperialism and capitalism. The very subtitle — The Final Stage of Capitalism — is testimony to that connection.

Ellner suggests that a political case can be made in the US for singling out US imperialism over imperialism, in general. He wants us to believe, through an example of Bernie Sanders’ strategic thinking, that criticizing US foreign policy is far more threatening to the ruling class than Sanders’ “socialism.” That may be true of Sanders’ tepid social democratic posture, but not of any serious “socialist” stance against capitalism and its international face.

We get a taste of Ellner’s vision of the role of BRICS-style anti-imperialism when he conjectures that “Anti-imperialism is one effective way to drive a wedge between the Democratic Party machine and large sectors of the party who are progressive but vote for Democratic candidates as a lesser of two evils.” Rather than take the failed “lesser-of-two-evils” policy head on, rather than contesting the idea of always voting for candidates who are bad, but maybe not as bad as an opponent, the left might instead wean Democrats away from slavish support for the Democratic Party agenda by standing against US foreign policy (which is largely bipartisan!). If trickery and parlor games count as a left strategy within the Democratic Party orbit, maybe it’s time to leave that orbit and look to building a third party.

Ellner’s interrogator, Federico Fuentes, correctly questions how making US imperialism the immediate target of the Western left might possibly overshadow or even conflict with the class struggle, the fight for socialism. He opines: “There can be a problem when prioritising US imperialism leads to a kind of ‘lesser evil’ politics in which genuine democratic and worker struggles are not just underrated, but directly opposed on the basis that they weaken the struggle against US imperialism…”

Fuentes and Ellner, in this regard, are fully aware of the recent dispute between the Maduro government and the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV) over the direction of the Bolivarian process, a dispute that resulted in an attempt to eviscerate the PCV on the part of Maduro’s governing party. Because the PCV was opposing the Maduro party in the July, 2024 election, Maduro maneuvered to have the PCV stripped of its identity, securing an endorsement from a bogus PCV constructed of whole cloth by Venezuelan courts.

From the PCV’s perspective, the Maduro government had abandoned the struggle for socialism in deed, if not word, and turned on the working class, compromising Chavismo in order to hold on to power. As a Leninist party, PCV held fast to the view that there is no anti-imperialism without anti-capitalism. Thus, the government’s reversal of many working-class gains had lost working-class support and, therefore, the support of the PCV.

Some Western leftists uncritically support the Maduro government and deny or ignore the facts of the matter. They are delusional. The facts are indisputable. Ellner is not among those denying them.

Still others argue that defense of the Bolivarian process against the machinations of US imperialism should be an unconditional obligation of all progressive Venezuelans, including the Communists. Therefore, the Communists were wrong to not support the government.

But surely this thinking calls for Venezuelan workers to set aside their interests to serve some bourgeois notion of national sovereignty. It is one thing to defend the interests of the workers against the enslavement or exploitation of a foreign power. It is quite another to defend the bourgeois state and its own exploiters without taking exception.

This was the question that workers and their political parties faced on many occasions in the twentieth century: whether they would rally around a flag of national sovereignty when they essentially had little to gain but a fleeting national pride.

As Lenin, Luxemburg, Liebknecht, and their contemporaries argued during the brutal bloodletting of the First World War, workers should refuse to participate in the “anti-imperialism” of national chauvinism, the clash of capitalist states.

The road to defeating imperial aggression — US or any other — is to win the working class to the fight, with a class-oriented program that attacks the roots of imperialism: capitalism. Unity around the goal of defeating the imperialist enemy — in Russia, China, Vietnam, or anywhere else — was won by siding with workers against capital, not accommodating or compromising with it. That was the message that the Communist Party tried to deliver to the Maduro government.

Restraining, containing, or deflecting US imperialism will not defeat the system of imperialism, anymore than restraining, containing, deflecting, or even overwhelming British imperialism, as occurred in the past, defeated imperialism. Only replacing capitalism with socialism will end imperialism.

That in no way diminishes the day-to-day struggle against US domination. It does, however, mean that the countries participating in the global capitalist market will reinforce the existing imperialist system until they exit capitalism. While there can be an anti-US imperialist coalition among capitalist-based countries, there can be no anti-imperialist coalition made up of countries committed to the capitalist road.

The left must be clear: a multipolar capitalist world has no more chance of escaping the ravages of imperialism than a unipolar capitalist world. If anything, multipolarity multiples and intensifies inter-imperialist rivalry.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Greg Godels.

Imperialism is not the creation of any one or of any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognizable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will…

— Rosa Luxemburg, The Crisis of German Social Democracy (1916)

The arguments embroiling the left on the nature of imperialism, over whether Peoples’ China or Russia is capitalist or imperialist, whether the pink tide in Latin America is a socialist trend, whether the BRICS development is an anti-imperialist movement, and so forth, are becoming more and more heated as they proceed further and further into the academic weeds.

There is a host of issues and positions entangled in these debates, as well as numerous vested interests: deeply felt, long held theories, research platforms, and networks of intellectual allies.

Moreover, these arguments are decidedly one-sided: long on academic opinion, short on working-class or activist participation.

That said, they are important and deserve discussion.

A recent interview of Steve Ellner by Federico Fuentes in LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal is a place to begin to unravel some of these disputes. Now Steve Ellner is neither a surrogate in nor a straw man for this discussion. Ellner is a thoughtful, analytical academic with a long-committed history in the Latin American solidarity movement and with a background on the left. He is more likely to say “X may mean…” rather than “X must mean…” than many of his academic colleagues. That is to say, he is no enemy of nuance.

Ellner begins with Lenin, as he should, and asserts that Lenin’s theory is both “political-military” and “economic.” This, of course, is correct. In Chapter seven of Imperialism, Lenin specifies five characteristics of the imperialist system. Four are economic: the decisive role of monopoly capital, the merging of financial and industrial capital, the export of capital, and the internationalization of monopoly capital. One is political-military: the division of the world between the greatest capitalist powers.

Lenin gives no weight to these characteristics because they are together necessary and sufficient for defining imperialism as a system emerging in the late nineteenth century. Imperialism, for Lenin, is a stage and not a club.

Following John Bellamy Foster, the editor of Monthly Review, Ellner posits that there are two interpretations of imperialism that some believe follow from the two aspects of imperialism. Indeed, there may well be two interpretations, but given Lenin’s unitary interpretation of imperialism in Chapter seven, they are misinterpretations of Lenin’s thought. Recognizing that Lenin explicitly says that he offers a definition “that will embrace the following five essential features…,” there is, perhaps to the dismay of some, only one valid interpretation– an interpretation that combines the economic with the political-military.

That said, Foster and Ellner are correct in critically appraising those who do misinterpret imperialism as solely political-military (contestation of territories among great powers) or as solely economic (capitalist exploitation). Truly, most of the misunderstandings about imperialism since Lenin’s time come from advocating one misinterpretation rather than the other, while failing to perceive imperialism as a system.

Ellner gently rejects one political-military interpretation that he associates with Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin: equating “imperialism with the political domination of the US empire, backed of course by military power…” Ellner rejects that thesis, “given declining US prestige and global economic instability.” An interpretation that separates and privileges the political-military from the economic necessarily decouples imperialism from capitalism — something that Lenin explicitly denies. Accordingly, it follows that modern-day imperialism — including US imperialism — would be akin to the adventures of Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan, leaving exploitation as, at best, a contingent feature.

A solely political-military explanation of imperialism is a step removed from the more robust Leninist explanation.

Ellner considers the economic interpretation: “At the other extreme are those left theorists who focus on the dominance of global capital and minimize the importance of the nation-state.” Ellner has in mind as his immediate target the position staked out by William I Robinson, Jerry Harris, and others in the late 1990s, a position that rides the then-dramatic wave of globalization to posit a supremely powerful Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC) that overshadows, even renders obsolete, the nation-state.

At the time, others pointed out that the substantial quantitative changes in trade and investment and their global sweep had been seen before and were simply a repeat of the past, most telling in the decades before the first world war. Were these changes not a continuation of the qualitative changes addressed in Lenin’s Imperialism?

Like many speculations that overshoot the evidence, the projected decline or death of the nation-state was made irrelevant by the march of history. The many endless and expanding wars of the twenty-first century underscored the vitality of the nation-state as an historical actor. And the intense economic nationalism spawned by the economic crises of recent decades signals the demise of globalization — a phenomenon that proved to be a phase and not a new stage of capitalism. Sanctions and tariffs are the mark of robust, aggressive nation-states.

The tempest in an academic teapot stirred by the artificial separation of the economic and the political-military in Lenin’s theory of imperialism is enabled by lack of clarity about the nature of the state. Left thinkers, especially in the Anglophone world, have neglected or derided the Leninist concept of State-Monopoly Capitalism — the process of fusion between the state and the influence and interests of monopoly capitalism — which explains exactly how and why the nation-state functions today in the energy wars between Russia and the US and the technology wars between Peoples’ China (e.g., Huawei) and the US. Paul Sweezy and Paul Baran’s casual dismissal of the concept of State-Monopoly Capitalism in Monopoly Capital (1966) is representative of the utter contempt shown for Communist research projects by many so-called “Western Marxists.” While the theory of State-Monopoly Capitalism gets no hearing among Marxist academics, the slippery, but ominous-sounding concept of “deep state” has achieved wide-spread acceptance, while not taxing the comfort of Western intellectuals.

Nonetheless, Robinson’s stress on the political economy of imperialism cannot easily be dismissed. His reliance on the key concepts of class and exploitation are certainly essential to Lenin’s theory.

In fact, the greatest challenge to the political-military aspect of Lenin’s theory was not the alleged decline of the nation-state, but the demise of the colonial system, especially with the wide-spread independence movements after World War II. The crude and totalizing domination of weaker nations favored by the Spanish, French, Portuguese, and British Empires– the division of the world into administered colonies– was, with nominal independence, replaced by a system of more benign economic domination. Kwame Nkrumah, the Ghanaian revolutionary, designated this system “neo-colonialism” in his book, Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. Nkrumah’s elaboration of Lenin’s theory preserved the integrity of Lenin’s “political-military” aspect by reconstituting the colonial division of the world by the great powers into a neo-colonial division of the world into spheres of interest and of prevailing economic influence.

Since Ellner correctly acknowledges that Lenin’s economic and political-military aspects are essential to his theory of imperialism, he must contend with an awkward, vexing question that continually divides the left: how does the People’s Republic of China (PRC) fit into the world imperialist system? What does its deep and broad participation in the global market mean?

Ellner appeals to the facts that the PRC does not have bases throughout the world, does not use sanctions (not true!), and does not exploit the excuse of human rights to intervene in the affairs of other countries.

But surely this side steps Nkrumah’s powerful thesis that imperialism in the post-World War II era is not simply the vulgar exercise of administrative and military power and the exhibition of national chauvinism. It is, rather, the division of the world into spheres of interest that both benefit the great powers through exploitation and the competition with other great powers for shares of the bounty.

Certainly, the PRC does not avow a policy of imperial predation, but neither does the US or any other great power from the past. Indeed, imperialism has always been presented — sincerely or not — as beneficial to all parties, whether it is a civilizing function, a paternalistic boost, or protection from other powers. The Chinese leadership may well truthfully believe that their trade, investment, and partnership with other countries is a victory for all — a “win-win” as some like to say.

But that is always the answer that great powers give that are using their capital, their know-how, and their trade to profit their corporations. Perhaps, the most notorious of these “win-win” projects was the Marshall Plan. Sold to Europe as a “win-win” based on Europe’s impoverishment and the US’s generosity, billions were allocated for loans, grants, and investments in Europe. History shows that billions in new business for US corporations were thus created, Cold War political dependency and loyalty were achieved, and the US retained new markets for decades. The big winners, of course, were US corporations and their capital-starved European counterparts.

Other US investment and “aid” projects, like The Alliance for Progress, were more blatantly guided by US interests and even less a “win” for their targets.

This was the era of the development theories of W.W. Rostow that offered a blueprint and a justification for the investment of capital in and the corporate penetration of poorer countries. It was, in fact, a justification for neo-colonialism. Yet Rostow’s stage theory of lifting countries from poverty can appear surprisingly consonant with the logic of the PRC’s foreign investment strategies.

It is hard to resist the temptation to ask: How is this different from the PRC Belt and Road Initiative? How is the BRI different from the Marshall Plan? Or, to use an example from Lenin’s time, the Berlin-Baghdad railroad project?

It is beyond dispute that Peoples’ China — whatever the goals of its ruling Communist Party — has a massive capitalist sector, with many corporations arguably of monopoly concentration rivaling their US and European counterparts, that similarly seek investment opportunities for their accumulated capital. That is, after all, the motion of capitalism.

What is baffling and frustrating for those sympathetic to the Communist Party of China is the failure for the CPC’s leaders to frame their economic policies towards other states in the language of class or employ the concept of exploitation. In Comrade Xi’s recent speeches at the Kazan meeting of BRICS+, there are many references to “multilateralism,” “equitable global development,” “security,” “cooperation,” “advancing global governance reform,” “innovation,” “green development,” “harmonious coexistence,” “common prosperity,” and “modernization,” — all ideas that would resonate with the audience of the G7. How would these values change the class relations of the BRICS+ nations? What does this thinking do to alleviate the exploitation of capitalist corporations?

These are the questions Ellner and others should be asking of the PRC’s leaders and the advocates of BRICS+. These are the questions that probe how today’s nation-states participate in the imperialist system and how that participation affects working people.

The problem is that many on the left would like to believe that there is a form of anti-imperialism that is not anti-capitalist. They find in the BRI and BRICS+ a model that competes with United States imperialism and could be said to be therefore anti-US imperialist, but leaves capitalism intact. Of course, it is impossible to embrace this view and retain Lenin’s theory of imperialism. Every page in the pamphlet, Imperialism, affirms the intimate relation between imperialism and capitalism. The very subtitle — The Final Stage of Capitalism — is testimony to that connection.

Ellner suggests that a political case can be made in the US for singling out US imperialism over imperialism, in general. He wants us to believe, through an example of Bernie Sanders’ strategic thinking, that criticizing US foreign policy is far more threatening to the ruling class than Sanders’ “socialism.” That may be true of Sanders’ tepid social democratic posture, but not of any serious “socialist” stance against capitalism and its international face.

We get a taste of Ellner’s vision of the role of BRICS-style anti-imperialism when he conjectures that “Anti-imperialism is one effective way to drive a wedge between the Democratic Party machine and large sectors of the party who are progressive but vote for Democratic candidates as a lesser of two evils.” Rather than take the failed “lesser-of-two-evils” policy head on, rather than contesting the idea of always voting for candidates who are bad, but maybe not as bad as an opponent, the left might instead wean Democrats away from slavish support for the Democratic Party agenda by standing against US foreign policy (which is largely bipartisan!). If trickery and parlor games count as a left strategy within the Democratic Party orbit, maybe it’s time to leave that orbit and look to building a third party.

Ellner’s interrogator, Federico Fuentes, correctly questions how making US imperialism the immediate target of the Western left might possibly overshadow or even conflict with the class struggle, the fight for socialism. He opines: “There can be a problem when prioritising US imperialism leads to a kind of ‘lesser evil’ politics in which genuine democratic and worker struggles are not just underrated, but directly opposed on the basis that they weaken the struggle against US imperialism…”

Fuentes and Ellner, in this regard, are fully aware of the recent dispute between the Maduro government and the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV) over the direction of the Bolivarian process, a dispute that resulted in an attempt to eviscerate the PCV on the part of Maduro’s governing party. Because the PCV was opposing the Maduro party in the July, 2024 election, Maduro maneuvered to have the PCV stripped of its identity, securing an endorsement from a bogus PCV constructed of whole cloth by Venezuelan courts.

From the PCV’s perspective, the Maduro government had abandoned the struggle for socialism in deed, if not word, and turned on the working class, compromising Chavismo in order to hold on to power. As a Leninist party, PCV held fast to the view that there is no anti-imperialism without anti-capitalism. Thus, the government’s reversal of many working-class gains had lost working-class support and, therefore, the support of the PCV.

Some Western leftists uncritically support the Maduro government and deny or ignore the facts of the matter. They are delusional. The facts are indisputable. Ellner is not among those denying them.

Still others argue that defense of the Bolivarian process against the machinations of US imperialism should be an unconditional obligation of all progressive Venezuelans, including the Communists. Therefore, the Communists were wrong to not support the government.

But surely this thinking calls for Venezuelan workers to set aside their interests to serve some bourgeois notion of national sovereignty. It is one thing to defend the interests of the workers against the enslavement or exploitation of a foreign power. It is quite another to defend the bourgeois state and its own exploiters without taking exception.

This was the question that workers and their political parties faced on many occasions in the twentieth century: whether they would rally around a flag of national sovereignty when they essentially had little to gain but a fleeting national pride.

As Lenin, Luxemburg, Liebknecht, and their contemporaries argued during the brutal bloodletting of the First World War, workers should refuse to participate in the “anti-imperialism” of national chauvinism, the clash of capitalist states.

The road to defeating imperial aggression — US or any other — is to win the working class to the fight, with a class-oriented program that attacks the roots of imperialism: capitalism. Unity around the goal of defeating the imperialist enemy — in Russia, China, Vietnam, or anywhere else — was won by siding with workers against capital, not accommodating or compromising with it. That was the message that the Communist Party tried to deliver to the Maduro government.

Restraining, containing, or deflecting US imperialism will not defeat the system of imperialism, anymore than restraining, containing, deflecting, or even overwhelming British imperialism, as occurred in the past, defeated imperialism. Only replacing capitalism with socialism will end imperialism.

That in no way diminishes the day-to-day struggle against US domination. It does, however, mean that the countries participating in the global capitalist market will reinforce the existing imperialist system until they exit capitalism. While there can be an anti-US imperialist coalition among capitalist-based countries, there can be no anti-imperialist coalition made up of countries committed to the capitalist road.

The left must be clear: a multipolar capitalist world has no more chance of escaping the ravages of imperialism than a unipolar capitalist world. If anything, multipolarity multiples and intensifies inter-imperialist rivalry.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Greg Godels.

For more on what we're up against when it comes to tech fascism, read the two recent pieces by Carole Cadwalladr in The Observer:

A new era dawns. America’s tech bros now strut their stuff in the corridors of power https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/11/a-new-era-dawns-americas-tech-bros-now-strut-their-stuff-in-the-corridors-of-power

How to survive the broligarchy: 20 lessons for the post-truth world https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/17/how-to-survive-the-broligarchy-20-lessons-for-the-post-truth-world-donald-trump

Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit! Discounted annual subscriptions are available! 

This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.