Voices & Statements
Decolonisation through a Marxist lens
Vijay Prashard People’s Summit Speech from OUR TIME IS NOW #3
“We accompany the mood of the people” — Vijay Prashad

Black Agenda Report: Haiti’s White Warlords, Part1 & Part 2

India’s Prabhat Patnaik: Fascism is rooted in the crisis of neoliberalism (Interview) | MR Online
Return of the Dialectics of Nature Debate
“WORK WORK WORK” with Michael Yates and Intan Suwandi (Abolish “work!”) | Monthly Review
Abortion Rights: Today We Mourn, Tomorrow We Organize! | Statement by the CPUSA.
Noam Chomsky: “Every Time We Build Up Our Military Budget, We’re Attacking Ourselves”
The Dehumanisation of Autistic People Must End | Verso blog
E.M.S. Namboodiripad (1909-1998) On how he became a Communist and the development of Indian Communism | 16 March, 1994 Namboodiripad (1909-1998) was one of the key figures in Indian Communism. He was the first Communist state chief minister (Kerala), 1957-9 and 1967-9. He later spent fourteen years (1978-92) as general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). Andrew Whitehead interviewed him in Delhi on 16 March 1994 and we talked about how he became a Communist, the influence on Indian communism of R. P. Dutt and the British party and the development of the Indian Communist movement. 


For Immediate Release
May 2, 2022

Planned Parenthood Action Fund, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and EMILY’s List Presidents Announce Plans to Spend $150 Million on 2022 Midterms

As the constitutional right to abortion hangs in peril, leading organizations unite for historic investment in a midterm election cycle to elect sexual and reproductive rights champions

Washington, D.C. — Today, the Presidents of three major advocacy and political organizations, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and EMILY’s List, announced a plan to collectively spend a historic $150 million on the 2022 midterms to ensure the election of reproductive freedom champions up and down the ballot. While each will run its own electoral programs with their own advocacy and political organizations, today’s announcement represents a united effort to aggressively respond to the unprecedented attacks on sexual and reproductive rights and abortion rights across the country and raise voters’ awareness of the lawmakers who are to blame. The campaigns will collectively reach tens of millions of voters and be spent in states such as Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, California, Kansas, Wisconsin and more to re-elect abortion rights champions and retire lawmakers who threaten our constitutional right to make our own medical decisions and control our bodies and our lives.  Investments will be made up and down the ballot, from state legislatures, to Attorney Generals and governors, to U.S. Congressional races. 

Statement from Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund:

“This moment in the fight for sexual and reproductive rights requires all of us to come together and boldly defend our freedoms. Let’s be clear: We have reached a crisis moment for abortion access because conservative politicians have engaged in a coordinated effort to control our bodies and our futures. We must center those for whom stakes are highest, including people of color who have been most harmed by abortion bans and this generation of young people that could experience a future without the freedom to decide their own path forward. We will only be able to reclaim power when we send reproductive health champions to office at all levels of government, which is why this historic investment with our partners is so crucial. Let this be a warning to the out-of-touch politicians standing in the way of our reproductive freedom: People are watching. People are furious. And this November, the people will vote you out.” 

Statement from Mini Timmaraju, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America:

“With so much at stake, we must take bold action to protect and advance reproductive freedom and deliver victories up and down the ballot for reproductive freedom champions. It’s time to send an unmistakable message to politicians who have run roughshod on our freedoms: When you come for our rights, we’ll come for your seats. With a direct challenge to Roe before the Supreme Court and a coordinated effort by extremist politicians across the country to block abortion access, our fundamental rights face an existential crisis. Electing lawmakers who will ferociously fight for reproductive freedom is essential to ensuring that we’re prepared for what comes next, and that’s exactly why we’re joining our partners in this critical, unprecedented effort.” 

Statement from Laphonza Butler, president of EMILY’s List:

“The threats to abortion rights are growing and the Republican Party is moving quickly toward their ultimate goal: ending the right for a woman to make decisions about her own body and eliminating access to an abortion altogether. We stand with our allies as they continue the work to support providers and patients, and our way forward is clear: we are going to replace those who stand in the way of our rights with pro-choice advocates who will listen to the voices of a majority of voters, change these policies and protect our reproductive freedom. It’s never been more crucial to secure pro-choice majorities at all levels of government to stop anti-abortion lawmakers from decimating our access to abortion across the nation.”

The collective investment will be used by Planned Parenthood advocacy and political organizations, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and EMILY’s List in a variety of tactics, including, where legally appropriate, voter outreach, paid advertising, message research, mobilization efforts, polling, PAC contributions to candidates, trainings and communications guidance to support the abortion access movement, and in-person actions at state capitals and in Washington, D.C. These efforts are in addition to the robust investments made in collaboration with local and state partners, reproductive justice organizations, and other allies to mobilize supporters and push back against abortion restrictions.

Last year, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, American Bridge 21st Century, and EMILY’s List released research indicating that support for abortion rights is a winning issue heading into the 2022 midterm elections. The research found that abortion drives voters to support Democrats over Republicans by a 71-point margin. As well, voters overwhelmingly oppose efforts to severely restrict abortion access, and believe that Republicans are out of step with their personal views on the issue.  

This summer, the Supreme Court could overturn or unravel the constitutional right to abortion  guaranteed by Roe v. Wade when it issues a decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case on a Mississippi abortion ban. Even with Roe in place, the right to an abortion is a right in name only for millions of people, due to systemic barriers and abortion restrictions that target Black, Latino and Indigenous communities, and people with low incomes. Access to abortion in Texas has essentially been blocked since September 2021 because the Supreme Court has allowed Texas’s S.B. 8 ban to remain in effect. This year alone, over 350  abortion restriction bills were introduced in 41 state legislatures. 

These abortion bans and restrictions are deeply unpopular with voters: 

  • Gallup poll finds that 80% of the American public think abortion should be legal
  • Marquette poll finds that voters oppose overturning Roe by a 30 point margin
  • CNN poll finds that nearly 70% of Americans do not want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade
  • Washington Post-ABC poll finds that 75% of people say decisions on abortion should be left to the woman and her doctor, including 95% of Democrats, 81% of independents and 53% of Republicans.

EMILY’s List, the nation’s largest resource for women in politics, has raised over $700 million to elect Democratic pro-choice women candidates. With a grassroots community of over five million members, EMILY’s List helps Democratic women win competitive campaigns – across the country and up and down the ballot – by recruiting and training candidates, supporting and helping build strong campaigns, researching the issues that impact women and families, running nearly $50 million in independent expenditures in the last cycle alone, and turning out women voters and voters of color to the polls. Since our founding in 1985, we have helped elect the country’s first woman as vice president, 159 women to the House, 26 to the Senate, 16 governors, and more than 1,300 women to state and local office. More than 40% of the candidates EMILY’s List has helped elect to Congress have been women of color. After the 2016 election, more than 60,000 women reached out to EMILY’s List about running for office laying the groundwork for the next decade of candidates for local, state, and national offices. In our effort to elect more women in offices across the country, we have created our Run to Win program, expanded our training program, including a Training Center online, and trained thousands of women.

Over the decades, in order to maintain unequal exchange, a system of rules, institutions and practices of investment and trade centred on the US dollar and US financial institutions has evolved. Under US-monopoly power, both inter-imperialist rivalries as well as anti-imperialist resistance have been subdued with the subordination and incorporation of Europe and Japan and of many of the elites of the developing nations.

Imperialism, US hegemonism and multipolarity / by Jenny Clegg / 04.19.22

Not every international conflict is some form of inter-imperialist rivalry. We must recognise and support the rise of developing countries and the alliances they make that are slowly creating a more equal world.

IN HIS RECENT ARTICLE “‘Is Russia an imperialist country?’ is not the right question” (Morning Star, March 29 2022) Zoltan Zigedy does well to point out that imperialism, as a new stage of capitalism, is a historically developing system and not a policy.

But somewhere along the line the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater: by effectively dismissing multipolarisation as a system of inter-imperialist rivalry, drawing an equation between now and 1914, he overlooks the crucial factor of the emergence of the developing world.

Despite subordination under neo-colonialism, that developing countries still have a certain counter-imperialist agency has been demonstrated by the abstentions to the US-initiated UN general assembly motion deploring Russia’s aggression on Ukraine.

Some 140 countries mostly in the developing world — whether led by right-wing, progressive or neutral governments — are now clearly unwilling to follow the US diktat on imposing sanctions.

The multipolar trend does indeed contain inter-imperialist rivalries, but it is essentially driven by the rise of developing countries and regions. Marking a new era, its basis was laid in the last years of WWII in the multiple-pole framing of the UN security council and collapse of the old colonial empire which followed.

Developing nations, potentially, could pursue policies of national development and regional organisation promoting the gradual emergence of further poles to influence the world trajectory towards a more equitable order.

According to Zigedy, imperialism “tends to engage all economies in relations of dominance and dependence” as if nations fight endlessly for position on the ladder of power leaving no room for unity in resistance.

Actually imperialism, as based on monopoly and finance capital, involves mechanisms of unequal exchange which continue to see hours and hours of unpaid labour drain from developing economies to the centres of capital in the most advanced economies in the world.

Monopoly has elevated competition between the major capitalist countries into rivalries as they vie for leadership positions, but the main contradiction is between imperialism and the anti-imperialist forces.

Over the decades, in order to maintain unequal exchange, a system of rules, institutions and practices of investment and trade centred on the US dollar and US financial institutions has evolved. Under US-monopoly power, both inter-imperialist rivalries as well as anti-imperialist resistance have been subdued with the subordination and incorporation of Europe and Japan and of many of the elites of the developing nations.

In the G20, where important struggles over rule-making have taken place, whilst the former generally align their interests with the hegemon, the latter, with a lesser voice, have struggled to find more space to pursue theirs.

There are course different forms of capital and the dominance in particular of US monopoly and finance capital squeezes the rest. But whilst potential rivals such as Europe and Japan have preserved their privileges as US power holds up the unequal order, the capitalists of the developing states face an unequal competition against imperialist monopolies (note: competition is not the same as rivalry — think competing in a race as opposed to deliberately tripping over your rival in that race).

On the question of Russia, Zigedy is correct in saying that, despite ranking only 12th in world GDP, it remains a major capitalist power, one of the “big 5” along with the US, Europe, Japan and China. But being an active participant in competition with others, even vying for position as a leading force, is not equivalent to being imperialist.

Locked out of the US-dominated system, Russia certainly has used and abused its military muscle — not least in invading Ukraine in violation of the UN Charter. However to compete and survive against hegemonic power it has also joined efforts to coordinate with developing countries, for example in the BRICS and the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation.

For Zigedy, Russia’s engagement with Syria, Cuba and Venezuela is reduced simply to rivalry with the US. But how likely is it that these countries, having stood up against one superpower at huge cost, would fall into another unequal relationship this time with a far weaker power? Are they so devoid of agency that they can’t gain some benefits for themselves, forging external relations of a non-imperialist nature, otherwise known as “win-win?”

China’s experience has shown that if internal class contradictions are handled correctly, a developing economy’s capitalist class can contribute positively to economic development.

Zigedy seeks to remind us of Lenin’s criticism of the petty-bourgeois reformist tendency to separate imperialism from capitalism, but in doing so he reduces imperialism to capitalism such that the only forms of resistance are socialist.

The power rivalries between the US, Nato and Russia, Zigedy claims, have “little bearing on the interests of the Russian, Ukrainian or European working classes.” But in fact for Lenin it was obligatory to use “any, even the smallest, rift between the enemies, any conflict of interests among the bourgeoisie of the various countries and among the various groups or types of bourgeoisie within the various countries” and to take “advantage of any, even the smallest, opportunity of winning a mass ally, even though this ally is temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional.”

Multipolarisation today — again this is not a policy but an emerging objective trend — is a complex mix of contradictions: between hegemony and anti-hegemony; monopoly and competition; imperialism and anti-imperialist nationalist forces; as well as between capitalism and socialism.

These form the objective basis for change, but conditions also are influenced by subjective (political) factors. So with the multipolar trend. Whilst objectively the old — US hegemonic power — has been in relative decline, the new — a more equal distribution of wealth and power — has been slow to develop and amidst the consequent instability, a tendency of “strongman leadership” has emerged, including right-wing populists and nationalists who have hindered rather than helped co-ordination amongst developing states.

War and sanctions are producing a global crisis of such a scale now that developing countries, hit the hardest by the rising global prices and shortages, are being forced to look independently to their own economic self-interest. The US meanwhile is left relatively unscathed.

Abstention is not yet a counter-hegemonic non-alignment but it may indicate a turning point, a moment of reawakening for the global South. To emerge further into a united, transformative effort to make global rules fit for development and the elimination of world poverty requires a progressive vanguard.

It is then for the socialist current to rise to the challenge, to decipher the cracks as international and national contradictions deepen so as to seize any and every opportunity to neutralise opposition and strengthen progressive forces and movements, be they counter-hegemonic, anti-imperialist or socialist.

Peoples Dispatch, February 26, 2022,
Before the War / by Tariq Ali

London Review of Books, Vol. 44 No. 6 · 24 March 2022

No one​ knows how this will end. Putin’s reckless adventurism has backfired: an attempt to mimic the US on a GDP of $1.5 trillion, smaller even than Italy and minuscule compared to China ($14.7 trillion), was always going to be foolhardy. If he imagined a quick sortie, akin to a colonial-style ‘police operation’, he must now realise that installing Yanukovych or another puppet president in Kyiv will commit Russia to maintaining a massive military presence in Ukraine. A country that twelve years ago had a polity roughly divided between pro-Russian and pro-Western factions has swung decisively in the West’s favour.

Biden, too, threw caution to the wind. His decision last November to proceed with Nato enlargement – starting the process of incorporating Ukraine – in the half-hope, half-belief that this would check Russia’s encroachment at the borders of Donbass and Crimea proved disastrously wrong. This can’t be admitted in public, but Nato leaders know it and so do the leaders of China, India, Vietnam, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Cuba and the other countries that abstained from criticising Russia at the UN. Their combined populations amount to half of humanity. The US will have to concede on other fronts. A State Department delegation has already arrived in Caracas. They need the oil. Juan Guaidó, the Washington-appointed president recognised by the West, will have to be discarded. Secret talks with Iran have resumed, much to Israel’s annoyance.

The origins of this massive foreign policy failure are the subject of a recent study, Not One Inch, by M.E. Sarotte, a historian at Johns Hopkins and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.* The title refers to the assurance on the limits of Nato expansion given to Mikhail Gorbachev by James Baker, then US secretary of state, in 1990. The Soviet Union had stationed troops in East Germany since the liberation of Berlin; in 1990 they numbered 380,000. Gorbachev was in a strong position militarily. In all other respects, however, he was weak. Sarotte describes him as an ‘idealist visionary’, but neither word really applies. He was a well-meaning reformer. (I witnessed for myself the excitement generated in Russia by glasnost – not only in intellectual circles and the universities but also in factories and among bureaucrats.) As a world leader, however, he was out of his depth. Western flattery went to his head.

Baker played on this weakness and suggested a deal. Would the Soviet Union agree to withdraw from East Germany if the US ensured that Nato did ‘not shift one inch eastwards from its position’? The next day, he repeated his words to Gorbachev in a letter to Helmut Kohl: ‘Would you prefer to see a unified Germany outside of Nato, independent and with no US forces, or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to Nato, with assurances that Nato’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastwards from its present position?’

What Kohl and his foreign minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, preferred was direct talks with Gorbachev, at which Kohl pledged there would be no Nato bases in the former DDR. Until this happened, Washington and Bonn were extremely nervous. They couldn’t believe that the Soviet Union would hand over East Germany without anything in writing. Gorbachev kept his side of the bargain. The US didn’t.

Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s secretary of state, comes in for special criticism in Sarotte’s account – not only for advocating war (‘Colin, what are you saving this incredible military for?’) but for pushing American advantage at any cost. Nato enlargement was worthwhile because it would demonstrate ‘from Ukraine to the United States’ that the ‘quest for European security is no longer a zero-sum game’.

Other paths could have been taken. An intelligence report presented to Condoleezza Rice in 2008 included this warning:

Ukrainian entry into Nato is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in Nato as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests. [Pursuing this strategy] would create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

The author? William Burns, now director of the CIA, whose job involves managing the consequences of his rejected advice.

Critiques of expansionism are not new nor are they confined to the left. Thomas Friedman issued surprisingly sharp criticisms of US policy in two recent columns in the New York Times. In the first of these, he recounted his memories of 2 May 1998:

Immediately after the Senate ratified Nato expansion, I called George Kennan, the architect of America’s successful containment of the Soviet Union. Having joined the State Department in 1926 and served as US ambassador to Moscow in 1952, Kennan was arguably America’s greatest expert on Russia. Though 94 at the time and frail of voice, he was sharp of mind when I asked for his opinion.

He then quoted Kennan’s reply in its entirety:

I think it is the beginning of a new Cold War. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves.

We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [Nato expansion] was simply a lighthearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs. What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was. I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.

Don’t people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime. And Russia’s democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we’ve just signed up to defend from Russia. Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the Nato expansionists] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are – but this is just wrong.

Putin is a staunch anti-communist, of course, a devotee of both Mother Russia and the Orthodox Church. In 2017 he refused to mark the centenary of the February and October Revolutions, telling an Indian newspaper proprietor (whom I had primed before their private meeting in Moscow) that ‘these revolutions are not part of our calendar.’ At a recent press conference, Putin denounced Lenin as the father of Ukrainian independence. This is partially true. Lenin despised Great Russian chauvinism and the nationalism of oppressor nations. He celebrated the tsarist defeat at the hands of the Japanese which triggered the 1905 revolution. In June 1917, at a critical point between the two revolutions, Lenin condemned the Provisional Government for refusing to carry out ‘an elementary democratic duty’ by declaring support ‘for the autonomy and for the complete freedom of secession of the Ukraine’. Later, he insisted that the constitution of the Soviet Union should contain a clause allowing all nations in the union the right to national self-determination, i.e. the right to secede.

The Bolsheviks agreed soon after taking power that Finland, Poland and Ukraine should be granted independence. They knew that Ukraine was different, that its peculiar national texture (immigrant Russian proletariat and bureaucracy; ultra-nationalist peasantry resentful of Polish landowners and Jews) posed unique difficulties. It was Stalin, as the commissar for nationalities, who went to Finland to deliver the message. Nobody was dispatched to Ukraine, but the local Soviet, the Rada, proclaimed a People’s Republic and insisted that its intention was ‘not to separate from the Russian Republic’. As other Soviets sprang up throughout Ukraine, the national movement was divided between those who signed a separate treaty with Germany (and later with France) and those who remained with the new Soviet state. The Russian civil war split the country, as did the Second World War. Ukrainian defections to Hitler are well documented. In 1954, a year after Stalin’s death, Nikita Khrushchev, the Ukrainian leader of the Soviet Union, backed by the Presidium, enlarged Ukraine by adding Crimea. It was an emotional gesture. No political justification was provided. Few at that stage thought the Soviet Union might implode.

The emergence of a Russian peace movement is one of the more heartening developments of the last few weeks. Most Western politicians pay lip-service to the courage of young Russians facing state repression, but at home both Johnson and Starmer have denounced Stop the War. Putin attacks his dissenters as agents of Nato, which they staunchly deny. Here, Stop the War is traduced for supporting Putin by opposing Nato expansionism and its wars. They could hardly do otherwise: Nato is a military organisation designed to preserve US hegemony in Europe and beyond. By any means necessary?

Tariq Ali’s next book, Winston Churchill: His Times, His Crimes, will be published by Verso in May.

London Review of Books, Vol. 44 No. 6 · 24 March 2022,

NO WAR ON UKRAINE, NO WAR ON RUSSIA, NO WAR PERIOD! | by National Board, CPUSA | 02.25.2022

The CPUSA calls on the U.S. people to demand the Biden administration change course immediately. War is never an acceptable solution and must be rejected in the strongest terms. Therefore, we also call on Russia to withdraw troops. All sanctions must be ended and borders secured and respected.

The saber-rattling, sanctions, and selling of “wolf tickets” in recent weeks, as the CPUSA National Committee meeting recently warned, have spilled over into open war. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine threatens catastrophic consequences.

There is no doubt that the long-standing attempt by U.S. imperialism and NATO to bring Ukraine into the military alliance has heightened tensions. In the recent period, this effort, along with providing military supplies combined with Cold War rhetoric, is a backdrop to the crisis. A lasting peace is not possible unless Ukraine remains outside NATO.

Russia’s ruling circles have their own national designs, and the outbreak of war will only make matters worse.

The present crisis has been long in the making. The historical context reaches back to the end of World War II, the Cold War, and the formation of NATO.

However, the issue roiling today’s strife is the fact that the presence of NATO and U.S. bases, military forces, and missile systems put Russia’s western border under continual threat. Over the past decade or so, Lithuania, Poland, Latvia, Romania, and Estonia have provided a home to these formations, maintaining a constant war footing. This is in complete violation of agreements made at the end of the Cold War that NATO would not expand eastward.

NATO’s expansion now includes not only Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic — in 2004 seven additional countries were added. NATO once numbered 12 members; now it comprises 28. Furthermore, the NATO military alliance is looking at Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Ukraine as possible future members.

Another factor to be considered in the current crisis is the fate of the 4 million Russians living in the areas of Luhansk and Donetsk, Ukraine. Agreements reached in 2014 with respect to their autonomy have never been implemented by Ukraine’s government.

These regions opposed the 2014 U.S.-backed coup that overthrew the elected president of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych. For their opposition in 2014 the separatists were attacked and killed by the Azov Battalion, a military detachment of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists – Bandera faction (OUN-B), a Neo-Nazi outfit. Some sources number the casualties at 14,000.

This is the context the Biden administration and the corporate media do not, will not, talk about.

Again, the U.S. must change course. Our country is facing a serious political and social crisis that the fanning of the flames of war can only exacerbate. The praise of the invasion as “wonderful” by former President Trump implies that the U.S. should invade Mexico. “We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen,” was his horrifying statement.

The serious problems of climate change, lack of health care, low-wage jobs, and institutional racism challenging our working class cannot be solved while the U.S. spends billions each year on maintaining a massive military force and weaponry and on NATO. Consider that billions could be found for the military budget, but “Build Back Better” is said to be too costly.

We, the members of the CPUSA, unequivocally join with peace forces around the world in demanding: No expansion of NATO, No deployment of troops, No war on Ukraine, No war on Russia, No war period! The future of the planet depends on it.

Interviews, Books, & Poets
There Is No Progressive Politics Without Internationalism – An Interview With Cornel West | Jacobin
Noel Ignatiev’s Communist Education | Image: Ignatiev speaking at Occupy Boston
Sylvana Tomaselli’s Wollstonecraft: Philosophy, Passion, and Politics
Princeton University Press, 2021 / Reviewed by Steph Marston
How Italy Lurched From Anti-Fascism to Anti-Politics | An Interview With John Foot
“Leaders” Failed The Left? (w/ Vijay Prasad) | BAD FAITH (podcast)
The origins of poetry: A Marxist analysis | MR Online
Nkrumah’s ‘CONCIENCISM’ with Dr. Charisse Burden-Stelly and Dr. Layla Brown | MR Classics
“We decided that we would burn our draft cards”: Interview with Mike Davis
Reading List: White Supremacy Has Always Been Mainstream | Boston Review, May 16, 2022
Ecosocialist Bookshelf, May 2022
Marx in Paris, 1871: Book Launch and Discussion | Haymarket Books
Incomplete, True, Authentic, and Wonderful History of May Day / by Peter Linebaugh | Credit: AudioZine
The Left LensThe China Initiative and the New McCarthyism | Friends of Socialist China
Sanctions and the World Economic Order: A Conversation with Prabhat Patnaik
Charlene Mitchell Interview | AfroMarxist, 1998
BAR Book Forum: Carole Boyce Davies’ “Claudia Jones: Beyond Containment”
On June 18, Rude Mechanical Orchestra will join the Poor People’s Campaign in Washington DC for the Poor People’s and Low Wage Workers’ Assembly and Moral March on Washington |
Rude Mechanical Orchestra |
Diego Rivera’s America | University of California Press, June, 2022
Rural Women and the Future of Campesino Life in Venezuela: A Conversation with Emma Ortega
Organize, Fight, Win: Three Decades of Black Communist Women’s Political Writing.
Verso, Oct 04, 2022 | ISBN 9781839764974
Langston Hughes: Progressive poet and wanderer | PW, 02.28.2022
This video featuring Viyay Prashad, Marxist historian and director of Tricontinental, is an extract from a book talk and discussion on David Harvey’s The Anti-Capitalist Chronicles, A Primer for How to be An Anti-capitalist. The full video can be viewed here:
Questions From a Worker Who Reads/ by Bertolt Brecht
Radical Poetry Reading with Mahogany L. Browne | The Brooklyn Rail

Another Green World:
Black Agenda Report:
Black Alliance for Peace:
Boston Review:
Canadian Dimension:
Capitalism Nature Socialism:
Climate & Capitalism:
Common Dreams:
Democracy at Work:
Democracy Now:
Economic Policy Institute:
Economic and Political Weekly (India):
Frontline (India):
Granma (Cuba):
Green Left:
Hampton Institute:
In Defense of Communism:
Janata Weekly (India):
John Pilger:
Labor Notes:
L’Humanite (FR):
Links International Journal:
Maine Beacon:
ML Today:
Morning Star (UK):
MR Online:
New Age Weekly:
People’s Democracy (India):
People’s Dispatch:
People’s Voice (CA):
People’s World:
Prensa Latina (Cuba):
Presente! Maine:
Progressive International:
Resumen Latinoamericano:
Salvage Collective:
Tricontenental (India):
Venezeula Analysis (VZ):
ZZ’s Blog:

Coalition of Labor Union Women:
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space:
International Manifesto Group:
International People’s Assembly:
International Women’s Development Agency (IWDA):
Let Cuba Live:
Maine Access Immigrant Network (MAIN):
Maine AFL-CIO:
Maine Equal Justice:
Maine Peace Action:
Maine Peace & Justice Center of Eastern Maine:
Maine People’s Alliance:
National Alliance Against Racist & Political Repression:
Network in Defense of Humanity:
People’s Forum:
Poor People’s Campaign:
Resources for Organizing & Social Change:
Southern Maine Workers Center:
U.S. Peace Council:
Veterans for Peace (Maine):
Wabanaki Alliance:
Women’s International League of Peace & Freedom:
World Federation of Trade Unions:
World Peace Council:

Communist and Workers Parties

Brazilian Communist Party:
Colombian Communist Party:
Communist Party in Denmark:
Communist Party of Argentina:
Communist Party of Australia:
Communist Party of Austria:
Communist Party of Bangladesh:
Communist Party of Belgium:
Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia:
Communist Party of Brazil:
Communist Party of Britain:
Communist Party of Bulgaria:
Communist Party of Canada:
Communist Party of Chile:
Communist Party of China:
Communist Party of Cuba:
Communist Party of Denmark:
Communist Party of Finland:
Communist Party of Greece:
Communist Party of India (Marxist):
Communist Party of India:
Communist Party of Ireland:
Communist Party of Israel:
Communist Party of Mexico:
Communist Party of Norway:
Communist Party of Peru (Patria Roja):
Communist Party of Poland:
Communist Party of Slovakia:
Communist Party of Spain:
Communist Party of Sweden:
Communist Party of the Peoples of Spain:
Communist Party of The Russian Federation (KPRF):
Communist Party of the Workers of Spain:
Communist Party of Turkey:
Communist Party of Ukraine:
Communist Party of Uruguay:
Communist Party of Venezuela:
Communist Party of Vietnam:
Communist Party USA:
Communist Party, Italy:
Communist Refoundation, Italy:
French Communist Party:
German Communist Party:
Hungarian Workers’ Party:
Italian Communist Party:
Japanese Communist Party:
Labour Party, Turkey (EMEP):
Palestinian Communist Party:
Paraguayan Communist Party:
Party of Labour of Austria:
Party of The People:
Peruvian Communist Party:
Portuguese Communist Party:
Progressive Party of the Working People – AKEL:
Serbia, Communists of Serbia:
Socialist Movement of Kazakhstan:
Socialist Workers’ Party of Croatia:
South African Communist Party:
Sudanese Communist Party: