Corbyn’s Labour, British imperialism and the working class

Below is the text of a talk delivered by Dani in Dunedin on Friday, July 21.

by Dani Sanmugathasan

Good evening! My name is Dani Sanmugathasan, and I am a member of the British Marxist and Leninist organisation called the Revolutionary Communist Group. The following talk will be on the topic of ‘Corbynmania’ – the opportunist phenomenon that’s swept through the labour movements in core economies over the last two years – and a good place to start is at the events in London earlier this month.


“Oh, Je-re-my Cor-byn!” rang out the chants of many on the streets of London on the 1st of July at the People’s Assembly’s ‘Tories Out’ march. The People’s Assembly, Momentum, Radical Housing Network, the Socialist Workers Party, the Stop the War Coalition, the Socialist Party, and the large trade unions (PCS, RMT, CWU, Unison, Len McCluskey’s Unite the Union…) were all rallying round the Labour Party leader, the holy Son of Attlee, the man who would save Britain from the iron grip of Tory austerity.

But beside these organisations, a distinct second current of marchers – composed of such organisations as Class War, the Focus E15 Mothers, Lesbians & Gays Support the Migrants, Architects for Social Housing, Movement For Justice, the Revolutionary Communist Group, and trade unions like the IWGB – led a different chant: “Labour, Tory, same old story!” These groups made several interventions throughout the day, distributing literature and providing an open sound system.

Members of Class War directly asked Len McCluskey and Corbyn himself, “When are you going to stop Labour councils socially cleansing people out of London?”, but were ignored by both. Class War continued to shout out their question, hold their posters up, and let the people around them know about Labour’s record of social cleansing and estate regeneration – precisely the estate regeneration programme that killed the residents in Grenfell Tower.

In response to this intrusion by Class War, the Labourites in the crowd first asked the watching police to disperse them and, when the constables didn’t oblige, formed up in a line in front of them, held up their branded placards in front of the Class War posters, and started chanting the same chant heard in the marching crowd: “Oh, Je-re-my Cor-byn! Oh, Je-re-my Cor-byn!”  They simply had no interest in hearing about what Labour are doing to the lives and homes of working class people.

Similarly, the leaders and speakers and followers who have filled the airwaves with their lamentations and fury over the Grenfell Tower fire have shown not the slightest interest in hearing about the estate regeneration programme that caused it. On the contrary, they are willing to sacrifice everything – including the hundreds of thousands of Londoners whose homes are being demolished by Labour councils and the truth about what killed the people in Grenfell Tower – to the electoral hopes of the Labour Party.  This video, Class War at the People’s Assembly demonstration, 1 July, 2017, perfectly illustrates the opportunists’ sickening contempt for the suffering of the mass of the working class: ]

Between these two factions described above – the Labourites and their camp followers on the one hand and the principled fighters of the working class on the other – we can see clearly illustrated what Lenin described in 1916 as the split in the working class: the latter faction standing for the interests of the mass of the working class, and the former, opportunist groups tied to the British Labour Party. But what is the material basis for opportunism in the labour movement?

This question was addressed by Lenin across multiple texts and speeches in the 1910s and 1920s, and has since been elaborated on by many revolutionaries based in imperialist states and revolutionaries in the lands oppressed by imperialism. Here I will attempt to bring together this theoretical groundwork with my own practical experience as a member of the Revolutionary Communist Group, fighting against the British Labour Party.


Britain is a major imperialist power – historically with some of the highest foreign direct investment earnings worldwide (although this has slumped somewhat since 2011). For example in 1993, following the 1990-92 recession, British investment overseas (direct and portfolio), at £101.9bn, was greater than the total capital investment in Britain at £94.2bn and more than eight times the investment in manufacturing industry. Such a relationship between the export of capital and investment in Britain last occurred in the period leading up to the first imperialist war. Lenin’s description of imperialism as parasitic and decaying capitalism has never been so appropriate.

Marx and Engels said in the 1848 Communist Manifesto, “the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” Therefore, the British state is the defender, in the last analysis, of British imperialist expansion and exploitation. It cannot be otherwise under capitalism.

In an imperialist country, against the general advance of the workers’ movement, the ruling class could not stay in power and maintain the facade of bourgeois democracy without winning the allegiance of a section of the working class to its side. But not just any section. From the bourgeoisie’s viewpoint, the skilled workers and their unions represented the decisive section of the proletariat to win as allies; they were a relatively small stratum with strategic significance in production. They are often suspicious and even hostile to the mass of their fellow workers, but still control the principle organisations of the working class and can constantly exclude any revolutionary element from these organisations – make them “safer for economism and spontaneity”. That is, act as the ‘labour lieutenants of capital’. As Lenin pithily said to the 1920 Second Congress of the Communist International, [p]ractice has shown that the active people in the working class movement who adhere to the opportunist trend are better defenders of the bourgeoisie than the bourgeoisie itself. Without their leadership of the workers, the bourgeoisie could not remain in power.” The rise of monopoly capitalism provided a qualitatively stronger material basis for the bourgeoisie to consolidate this alliance with the skilled workers and their unions, as monopoly provided the capacity to make increased concessions.

Thus, monopoly capital in the imperialist countries was willing to concede certain prerogatives to the skilled workers that seemed historically unavoidable, such as unionisation “rights”, control over entry to the trades, and substantially higher wages – hence Lenin’s term for this privileged stratum: the “labour aristocracy”. Importantly, these concessions are granted not from any expropriation of the wealth of capitalists, but by the super-profits resulting from imperialism both in terms of colonial and neo-colonial exploitation and capital export, and by “oppressing, crushing, ruining and torturing the mass of the proletariat and semi-proletariat” at home. In exchange for these privileges, the skilled stratum saw its future in collaboration with monopoly capital, against the mass of the working class. Thus, for example, the ‘powerful’ trade unions did nothing in 1920s Glasgow for the poor or for John MacLean. In allowing the defeat of the poorest sections of the working class during that time they prepared the way for the crushing defeat of the whole organised working class in the General Strike of 1926.

There are two critical points to note here. Firstly, it is vital not to reduce Lenin’s analysis of the labour aristocracy to a descriptive theory regarding skilled workers, but to grasp the labour aristocracy by its economic role in opportunism and restraining the labour movement. The make-up of the labour aristocracy is not static. Secondly, economically the desertion of the labour aristocracy to the bourgeoisie is an accomplished fact. Correctly linking the super-profits by which the labour aristocracy is bribed to the development of monopoly capital as a whole underscores this. A split has occurred in the working class and “the opportunist trend can neither disappear nor ‘return’ to the revolutionary proletariat.”

But the labour aristocracy as a layer of the working class is not an isolated problem. The entire working class, not just the labour aristocracy, is affected by the general conditions of monopoly capitalism and bourgeois-democratic political life in the imperialist countries. Because of this, the benefits and privileges from monopoly capitalism are not and cannot be totally confined to the labour aristocracy. This is especially the case in periods of general prosperity, as Engels noted about late 19th-century England when the lower strata of the class shared with the labour aristocracy – granted to a limited extent – the benefits from rapid capital accumulation and world capitalist hegemony. Thus, there is a substantial economic, political, and ideological basis in imperialist countries for the lower strata to develop illusions about bourgeois democracy and look often to the “more experienced” and “more respectable” labour aristocracy to provide leadership in (supposedly) representing their interests.” Lenin described this phenomenon brilliantly in his polemics against the British Prime Minister David Lloyd-George:

“The mechanics of political democracy works in the same direction [as more direct forms of bribery]. Nothing in our times can be done without elections; nothing can be done without the masses. And in this era of printing and parliamentarism it is impossible to gain the following of the masses without a widely ramified, systematically managed, well-equipped system of flattery, lies, fraud, juggling with fashionable and popular catchwords, and promising all manner of reforms and blessings to the workers right and left — as long as they renounce the revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. I would call this system Lloyd-Georgeism, after the English minister Lloyd-George, one of the foremost and most dexterous representatives of this system in the classic land of the “bourgeois labour party”. A first-class bourgeois manipulator, an astute politician, a popular orator who will deliver any speeches you like, even r-r-revolutionary ones, to a labour audience, and a man who is capable of obtaining sizable sops for docile workers in the shape of social reforms (insurance, etc.), Lloyd-George serves the bourgeoisie splendidly, and serves it precisely among the workers, brings its influence precisely to the proletariat, to where the bourgeoisie needs it most and where it finds it most difficult to subject the masses morally.”

Trade unions in Britain are run by opportunists, and represent and primarily organise the more privileged sections of the working class. These trade unions are run like capitalist businesses. Their leaders are paid more than four times the average wage. They have enormous assets – of the order of hundreds of millions of pounds – and a comparable gross income which continues to rise despite a fall in their membership. Unions have invested heavily in the capitalist system: on the stock market, in pension funds and other financial institutions, and therefore unions and their officials have an important stake in the imperialist system. Because 1 in 10 workers in Britain work in ‘defence’ industries, trade unions take no action against the criminal arms trade and often defend that trade to protect jobs. The trade union movement supports immigration controls, a racist standpoint in an imperialist country. Their political role is to tie the working class to the bourgeois Labour Party and its economic and political programme – the ‘indissoluble link’ discussed by Stuart Hall in his excellent 1979 essay “The Great Moving Right Show”.

The British trade union movement supported the war against Argentina in the Malvinas and the imperialist conflict in the Gulf. In the run-up to the Iraq war, they set up the pathetic ‘Reclaim the Party for Peace’ initiative as a recruitment drive to the warmongering Labour Party, rather than pursuing an anti-imperialist line, resulting in the collapse of the British anti-war movement: from the record-breaking 2 million on the streets of London on 15th February 2003, only 5000 turned out at the rally for Palestine on 17th May of the same year. A movement that allies itself to the Labour ‘left’ is a movement going nowhere.


The ascendency of Labour left veteran Jeremy Corbyn from backbench rebel to unlikely leader has once again raised this question as to whether socialists should support Labour. So, let’s examine his credentials. The fact is the vast majority of Labour MPs are right-wing reactionaries opposed to him and to whom he has made a series of concessions in order to sustain the unity of the party above all else. As such, Corbyn has ensured that Labour remains a racist, pro-austerity, imperialist and warmongering party to ensure it remains a parliamentary force.

In terms of a), imperialist war: Corbyn has made concession after concession to the right wing. He allowed a free vote in parliament over bombing Syria and renewing Trident. The 2017 manifesto confirmed that Labour supported Trident renewal. In the run-up to the election, Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry said that Labour would be prepared to send a taskforce to the Malvinas in response to a crisis and that there was no question of giving up sovereignty. The manifesto confirmed this attitude towards overseas territories, and also reaffirmed the party’s commitment to NATO. It derided the Tories’ cuts to defence spending, and boasted of promises to consistently spend above the NATO threshold of 2% GDP. Two weeks ago, the Labour Party also backed the extension of non-jury trials in the occupied north of Ireland. Corbyn has capitulated to the racist ideology of Zionism, saying that he now “admires” the settler-colonial state of Israel, and the manifesto clearly states his commitment to a two-state ‘solution’.

Labour’s manifesto has made clear that Corbyn accepts the rules of the game – not just defending Britain’s global position, but also reassuring the ruling class with regard to Labour’s fiscal responsibility and emphasising that it will clear the budget deficit within five years, signifying agreement that the ruling class will keep its hands on the proceeds of Britain’s plunder from the rest of the world. Consistently the manifesto makes reference to pride in the British arms industry and promises to defend jobs in it – a nod to those trade unions whose members benefit from imperialist war.

In terms of b), racism: Since becoming Labour leader, Corbyn has made many statements calling for solidarity with migrants and refugees, but in practice Labour councils are implementing cuts that disproportionately affect ethnic minorities and are collaborating in immigration raids against rough sleepers. The 10,000 new police officers promised in the manifesto undoubtedly would continue to facilitate this latter, and would also continue the disgusting terrorising of black and Muslim populations happening throughout the country.

While the 2017 Labour manifesto paid lip-service to “the historic contribution of immigrants … to our society and economy”, it then went on to complain that “Contrary to the Conservative government’s rhetoric, they have not taken control of our borders or strengthened our security”. Corbyn promised to recruit 500 new border guards to strengthen immigration enforcement, and also to replace the income threshold for spouse visas with an equally anti-working class requirement that those on spouse visas must have no recourse to public funds. This bait and switch routine, aimed at bleeding-heart middle class liberals, is typical. For example, he has promised to reinstate the Migration Impact Fund, but by increasing the levy on the visas of non-EU migrants that it was funded by.

Labour also refused to oppose the Conservative 2016 Immigration Act which increased racist controls in aspects of everyday life including health, employment, housing, opening bank accounts and driving a car. In the manifesto Corbyn condemned what he described as “turn[ing] private sector landlords, teachers, medical staff and other public sector workers into […] immigration officers,” but only on the basis that they were unpaid for this new duty! Morevoer, Andy Burnham, while he was Shadow Home Secretary, took the opportunity to boast how as Health Secretary he had restricted migrants’ access to the NHS. Additionally, when the House of Lords tabled an amendment that would have increased asylum seekers’ right to work, every Labour MP abstained. Without an increase to migrants’ rights, a demand absent from the manifesto, Labour’s promises to take action against the exploitation of migrants seem inevitably to lead to further criminalisation.

On 25 April Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer announced that if elected Labour will aim to enable migration for work but with no access to benefits. This is migration on the terms of capital, increasing pressure on migrants to accept work on whatever pay and conditions employers choose to offer – or leave Britain. An internal Labour document leaked at the end of May considered the possibility of reopening Tier 5 of the Points Based System. This tier allowed for recruitment of unskilled labour with extremely limited rights, and was suspended in 2008 because unskilled labour was already in ample supply through EU migration. Corbyn was quick to dismiss any suggestion that this was party policy, reiterating the manifesto promise of “a new system which is based on our economic needs, balancing controls and existing entitlements.”

This is in line with Labour’s commitment to negotiate a Brexit deal that includes free trade but not free movement of workers.

The priority is clear – “our economic needs” means the needs of British capitalism. Given that the British economy is structurally dependent on low-waged migrant labour, particularly in agriculture, health and social care, some replacement for EU migration post-Brexit must necessarily be found.

The manifesto included a ‘tougher’ approach to immigration, with the addition of a pledge to ‘control’ immigration and a statement that action is needed to prevent migrant workers undercutting the wages of British citizens.  However, there is actually little evidence that migration reduces the wages of British workers.

This ‘tougher’ approach was again fronted by Sir Keir Starmer, reportedly under pressure from unions including Unite and GMB. It was applauded by sections of the reformist left. Socialist Party NEC member Julie Beishon welcomed the move at a public meeting at Salford University on 31 May, arguing that a more open immigration policy would have lost votes – the labour aristocracy in action!

This is a common tactic: the members of the lower strata who are of the same racial or national grouping as the labour aristocracy – English in England, whites in the United States – often serve as a vehicle for the labour aristocracy to influence significant portions of the lower strata of the class. In the contemporary USA, for example, the narrow sectoral interest of the labour aristocracy and the “white racial interest” of white workers (as whites) often coincide politically to produce one of the most pernicious strains of national chauvinist and racist opportunism in world history. With regard to this, it is notable that 16 key Labour figures, including a number of MPs, the party’s local council representative on the NEC, and the man who ran Corbyn’s second leadership campaign, have come together to set up a group that will aim to bolster the party’s support in England. This ‘English Labour Network’, which will launch this week, claims that the party cannot win a UK majority without winning over voters who “identify as English. . .”  Their push is apparently for Labour to be a “strong patriotic voice”.

In terms of c), healthcare: Corbyn’s “Save our NHS” rhetoric is only paying lip service to public healthcare, while his policies would actually ensure a continuation in its decline. It was the last Labour government that forced the health service to use ruinously expensive private finance for major building projects and encouraged the privatisation of NHS services. Labour’s Independent Sector Treatment Centre programme, which excluded NHS organisations and lavished £5.6bn on private companies between 2003 and 2010, remains the largest NHS privatisation ever. And as far as Corbyn’s policies are concerned, they are deeply insufficient to make up for this. A 3.1% NHS inflation rate and soaring requirements for emergency treatment, along with manifesto commitments to lift the pay cap and restore bursaries for trainee nurses, will put a great strain on funding. Corbyn’s promises of £6bn extra a year will have to be spread painfully thin.

In terms of d), austerity: 18 months ago, the left claimed that Corbyn’s election as Labour leader would transform the Labour Party and reinvigorate the fight. In fact, on his watch, Labour and the trade unions have stifled any grassroots struggle since it would split the Labour Party. Together with John McDonnell, Corbyn instructed Labour councils not to set illegal budgets for 2016/17, thereby authorising savage cuts in services and jobs. This year no such instruction was required since Labour Party rule changes at the September 2016 conference made it a disciplinary offence to oppose legal budgets. This let both the Labour councils and the trade unions off the hook. In my own city of Bristol, our mayor, Labourite Marvin Rees, even had the gall to – “with a heavy heart”, of course – call a series of public consultations on where cuts should be made, while homelessness in the city rises for the 6th successive year.

Corbyn, for his part, had this to say at the Annual Labour Party Conference in September 2016: “Across the country, Labour councils are putting Labour values into action in a way that makes a real difference to millions of people. . .” A real difference, yes, but presumably not of the kind he wishes to sell to the electorate.

In terms of e), housing: on the 9th of May, Corbyn pledged to put housing at the forefront of his party’s general election campaign, guaranteeing to build a million homes, with half of them council houses. But in the Labour manifesto this radical promise had been watered down to merely “at least 100,000 council and housing association homes a year” – by the end of the parliamentary term – “for genuinely affordable rent or sale”. Corbyn has embraced Labour’s new definition of ‘council’ housing, which can be any kind of tenure and where the idea of a regulated council rent is a thing of the past, with ‘affordable’ meaning anything up to 80% of market rent. There is no mention of social rent.

The RCG has been taking part in local protests against the HDV – the Haringey Development Vehicle – a 50-50 joint enterprise with the Australian construction giant Lendlease, which will see £2bn worth of public assets in the north London borough handed over, gratis, for the promise of future profitable returns. In the first phase of the plan the civic centre, Wood Green Library, and more than a thousand publicly-owned homes on the Northumberland Park estate will be demolished and redeveloped to create profitable housing and retail units. The mainstream left regrettably chose to postpone its protests as soon as the general election was announced, in order to concentrate on getting a Labour government elected, as if Labour on the national stage would be any less in hock to the demands of developers like Lendlease, big business and City hedge funds and bankers.

RCG comrades, along with Architects for Social Housing, also attended a pre-election hustings in Bermondsey & Old Southwark to challenge the Labour MP, Neil Coyle, over the accelerated demolition and sell-off of council estates, most notoriously the Heygate, and the erosion of homes for social rent in his constituency. Coyle squirmed and attempted to shift blame, but could not avoid the fact that new developments are being built at Elephant & Castle with zero affordable housing of any kind. He was also challenged over the destruction of the shopping centre, which has been handed over to developers Delancey, which will see livelihoods in the predominantly Latin American community destroyed.  The local SWP-run Defend Council Housing campaign of course called for a vote for Coyle in the election!

We also attended the Annual Council Meeting on the 14th of May to heckle Newham’s Labour Mayor Robin Wales as he boasted that over the last 25 years he had brought Newham from an “incompetent backwater” to a place where there are “real Labour values that create for each of us the means to realise our true potential”.  He boasted that Newham is “showing the way for others to follow”.  Yet behind the shiny towers of luxury accommodation, the swathes of shopping outlets and the new cultural ‘mega-hub’, the reality for Newham’s working class is grim: the second-highest poverty rate in London, the second-highest proportion of homeless residents in the country and more people living in slum-like temporary accommodation than ever before. Meanwhile, council housing estates like the Carpenters Estate remain largely boarded up, facing demolition and replacement by unaffordable private flats.

The framework for the disastrous Housing and Planning Act 2016, of which much of the above is the result, was provided by a former Labour Cabinet member, Lord Adonis. In March 2015, he called for the demolition of 3,500 London council estates – which he lumped together with ‘brownfield land’ – to be replaced by ‘market-priced rent developments’, saying “there are particularly large concentrations of council-owned land in inner London, and this is some of the highest priced land in the world.”  Adonis was writing for a report produced by the estate agents Savills, whose major shareholders are City and international investment companies, and which has worked tirelessly with London councils to further the corporate takeover of their housing stock. The result has been the destruction of more than 150 working class estates by Labour councils in London alone. At no stage has Corbyn acted to rein them in, or expressed support for those fighting to save their homes. On the contrary, he praised Labour authorities for doing “a good job” of delivering homes!

And this hasn’t even covered education, or the screamingly urgent issues regarding fire services or Brexit!


So, no change in the imperialist, anti-working class Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn, despite the rallying cries of the opportunist ‘left’. But in the face of this powerful opportunist trend, what should we, as communists, do? As Lenin said in his 1920 theses on the fundamental tasks of the Second Congress of the Third International, “All parties affiliated to the Third International must at all costs give effect to the slogans: “Deeper into the thick of the masses”, “Closer links with the masses”—meaning by the masses all those who toil and are exploited by capital, particularly those who are least organised and educated, who are most oppressed and least amenable to organisation.”

In general we can say that, in the long run, the less protected, lower strata will provide the social base for the revolutionary trend within the proletariat, and that the polarisation and challenge to the opportunist politics of the labour aristocracy will intensify as the class struggle sharpens and the revolutionary consciousness within the proletariat develops. Importantly though, this revolutionary consciousness will not necessarily be spontaneous.

The relationship between the labour aristocracy and the lower strata of the working class is hardly a static or simple one, and there can be no exact formula to determine how this complex contradiction will manifest itself at any given moment of the class struggle. On the one hand, the aristocracy is a sector of the class that has deserted to the bourgeoisie and sides against the interests of the lower strata. On the other, many benefits of imperialism are also extended even to these lower strata, and the labour aristocracy is connected to the lower strata by numerous political, economic, ideological, and, in many cases, national or racial threads that allow it to exert substantial influence over the entire working class.

So how should we win the lower strata over? The first thing to say is that we cannot do this without first letting go of any hope of winning over the labour aristocracy. As I described earlier, their desertion to the bourgeoisie is irreversible – we have to make a firm break with the bourgeois Labour parties of the world and their lackeys in the organised labour movement. Opportunists will claim that we are premature in abandoning Labour, and that the phenomenon of working class people being drawn to the party since Corbyn’s election as leader is evidence of a turnaround in its politics, making the party worthy of our tactical interest.

But even the claim this is based on is factually incorrect. Figures released to the Guardian newspaper this week from research carried out as part of the Party Members Project, give a telling evaluation of the class of the new membership: “more than half of members are graduates, with an average age of 53 and fairly affluent – with 77% of those surveyed from an ABC1 social group – up from 70% in 2015.”  Even considering the sections of the new membership who are working class: to quote Lenin, “[o]ne of the most common sophistries of Kautskyism is its references to the ‘masses’. We do not want, they say, to break away from the masses and mass organisations! But just think how Engels put the question. In the 19th century the ‘mass organisations’ of the English trade unions were on the side of the bourgeois labour party. Marx and Engels did not reconcile themselves to it on this ground; they exposed it.”

We have no guilt about breaking with Labour for the same reason we have no guilt about breaking with the Tory party despite it carrying the vote of around a third of the British working class.

This is the only basis for building anti-imperialist organisations from which a new communist party can emerge.

Political organisation of the masses will require a relentless struggle against the Labour Party and all those who want to tie the working class to the interests of the bourgeoisie through links with that party, and to do this we need to build an anti-racist, anti-imperialist movement – hence the name of the RCG’s newspaper: Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!

The RCG has been going ‘lower and deeper’ into the masses, and striving to build an anti-racist, anti-imperialist movement in the UK. We campaign with migrants for better working rights and rights to welfare. We vehemently oppose all imperialist war. Much of our work focuses on solidarity work with the Irish Republican cause, Palestine, Cuba and revolutionary Latin America. We oppose any and all attempts to wind back the progress the labour movement has won, including cuts to public library services, school funding, mental health services, and services and benefits for those with disabilities. RCG comrades played a major role alongside the IWGB in organising the London Deliveroo strike, which won many advances for precarious workers in the so-called “gig economy”.

As well as the interventions in housing I mentioned earlier, RCG comrades continue to be instrumental in the campaigns of the famed Focus E15 Mothers in Newham: a group of single mothers who Labour councils attempted to socially cleanse out of London. In Bristol, we work with the community tenants’ union ACORN. We resist evictions, support occupations, and challenge Labour councils’ toxic housing policy.

Our newspaper is also the only left newspaper in Britain that reports regularly on the struggles of prisoners, and we send the paper free of charge to all prisoners who request it.

If you’re ever in the UK, give us a shout!


In conclusion, I shall end with these words from Sylvia Pankhurst in 1920, published in her newspaper Worker’s Dreadnought: “[C]omrades, how much longer will you be willing to fight, work and pay for the war which the British capitalists are making on the working people of other countries?” Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!

All issues of Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!, current and past, along with much more of the RCG’s written output, are freely available at our website: