As the year draws to a close, we present a collection of our most read articles published over the course of 2023 covering diverse topics, from critiques of capitalism and imperialism to perspectives on conflict zones and authoritarian threats to prospects for building a viable progressive political alternative.
We begin in January with Ian Parker’s extensive analysis of the symbiotic and destructive relationship between global capitalism and “Stalinist realism.” In February, Brian Grogan scrutinised the political positions underlying the Stop the War Coalition’s upcoming London demonstration, arguing they align with pro-Putin interests. An excerpt from Ian Parker’s reading of Lenin’s interpretations of Hegel follows in March.
Several articles explore leftist positions regarding conflict. In April, Liu Xiang contends Taiwan should resist CCP rule while avoiding war if possible. Simon Pearson then warns of creeping authoritarianism and threats to dissent in the UK. Elizabeth Lawrence summarises contentious debates over Ukraine policy within the UCU Union Congress. Fred Leplat argues for restricting certain arms supplies to Ukraine.
Looking outward, Adeeb Shaheen draws parallels between the Israeli occupation of Gaza and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine from a Palestinian viewpoint. Gilbert Achcar closely analyses the strategic implications of Hamas’ October counteroffensive. Later, Achcar attributes Hamas’ devastating miscalculations leading to the Al-Aqsa Flood assault on Gaza to flawed assumptions.
Finally, we look at building the left. Joseph Healy presents a case for launching a new progressive party in Britain, while Ian Parker provides theoretical grounding to develop a materialist framework for neurodiversity.
This collection offers crucial insights and debates to guide leftist thought and action in incredibly challenging times.
Thank you for reading and thinking with us in 2023. We look forward to continuing the conversation in the year ahead.
Already the backsliding begins. ITV news is reporting that the Government has changed one point in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. They have accepted that academies will retain their ‘freedom’ to set their own pay scales for teachers. So the criteria in the School Teachers Pay and Conditions document will only apply to teachers in Local Authority schools. Why have the Government climbed down on this issue? It’s not as if this is a major financial problem for academies. But what will be the next change/climb down by the Government? Will academies be exempt from the National Curriculum? Will Local Authorities be able to build schools according to the needs of their communities or will all new schools, as at present, have to be academies?