Atomic Abundance and Its EnemiesThe state’s return to nuclear has overwhelming support among New York’s industrial unions. The state AFL-CIO, the building trades, the laborers’ union, the Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA), and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) all heaped praise in the official press release. Joining them were manufacturing associations, chambers of commerce, and other business groups, along with a few nonprofit groups who embrace nuclear power, like the Clean Air Task Force. Not everyone is excited though. Many of the state’s environmental groups fanatically oppose nuclear power, despite its lack of greenhouse gas emissions. Food & Water Watch, for example, slammed the announcement as a “reckless distraction.” Alliance for a Green Economy dismissed it as a “bill-raising boondoggle” that still leads to “dangerous toxic waste.” Last year, a letter urging the state not to consider new nuclear was signed by 153 groups. Noticeably absent from the official press release, though, was Public Power NY, the environmental left coalition that two years ago won their campaign to authorize NYPA to “Build Public Renewables.” Powered in large part by the New York City chapter of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) — including DSA member, state assemblymember, and now Democratic nominee for New York City Mayor, Zohran Mamdani — the coalition is perhaps more directly guided by environmental justice nonprofits. In a statement of their own calling the announcement “unserious,” it dismisses NYPA’s impressive progress lining up renewables projects, demanding instead their own contrived target. But Kathy Hochul’s plans paint a picture of the future. Whereas Klein and Thompson imagine abundant rooftop solar panels on homes, she imagines nuclear-powered industrial manufacturing and generational careers for the working class, led by an ambitious public institution. It’s a shift in liberal politics that should be embraced, not dismissed.
https://jacobin.com/2025/07/hochul-nuclear-environment-nonprofits-dsa Tensions over the Arctic: imperialists race to grab the loot Trump is eyeing Greenland, Putin is strengthening Russia’s base on the archipelago of Svalbard, all the while embarking on new joint ventures with China in the Arctic region at large. The world's top imperialist powers are vying to strengthen their positions in the Arctic, elbowing weaker nations aside. With global warming melting the North Polar ice cap, the scramble for the Arctic has begun. The Arctic has long been a region of military-strategic importance. During the Cold War, both the US and the Soviet Union saw it as a key battleground, as the Arctic has the shortest flight path for potential missiles between US and Russian territory. Now, with rising tensions between the imperialist powers and global warming opening up new profitable avenues of trade and plunder, the interests of the main imperialist powers in the Arctic are reaching a higher level than ever before. As Leif Terje Aunevik, the mayor of Longyearbyen on Svalbard, told the BBC in May, “I think the world has been gripped by Arctic fomo [fear of missing out].” The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the rest of the globe since 1979. Scientists have predicted that the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free by summer 2050, or even as early as 2035. As the melting periods become longer, global warming increases faster, since the darker areas of thinner ice and open sea water absorb more sunlight, trapping heat in the atmosphere. For ordinary people, this will spell disaster: higher sea levels will flood coastal cities and eventually drown whole island nations. Catastrophic weather events will become more frequent, and whole ecosystems will be endangered. But for the capitalists, ice-free Arctic waters, thawing permafrost and disappearing glaciers mean something else entirely. The prospect of accessible rare earth minerals, untapped oil and gas deposits, and new fishing areas means that there is money to be made. New shipping lanes in ice-free waters are a particularly attractive prospect for freight monopolies to exploit.
https://marxist.com/tensions-over-the-arctic-imperialists-race-to-grab-the-loot.htmRevolutionary Communist Youth League of Russia (Bolsheviks) : Left and LiberalsThe political concept of “left” has long been labeled, and this label does not oblige its proud bearer. To be “left” means to advocate for some abstract social justice, which everyone understands in their own way. You give out food to the homeless? You're a leftist one. Do you stand for animal rights? The left one, too. Do you protect sexual minorities? The Left. Do you support a social state? Do you participate in the environmental movement? Helping the development of trade unions? Left, left, left… Therefore, it is obvious that the so-called left-wing motion is not really a movement at all, but a chaotic vinaigrette from a variety of views, trends, ideas. In this party there is a place for a wide range of views, not only not coinciding, but even opposite to each other. Anything can be packed in the right word wrapper. There are “left” patriots, there are “left” liberals, even anti-communists are also бывают «левые»“left”. Everyone will find a place. If we use the word “left” in the original sense laid by the Great French Revolution, then the Communists are also the left. And, therefore, they are part of the phenomenon that is called “left motion”. But at the same time, the Communists (both in Russia and in many other countries) stand apart from all left, do not always participate in the activity that is usually associated with the left, do not share “common” views and approaches on most issues, are fighting with these views. And in this sense, they are not part of the left movement. Consequently, any public upheaval, any sharp turn of social or political life, causes violent disputes in the environment of the left, mutual accusations, confrontation, enmity. It’s funny at the same time that cry out, “Well, the left is a split again!” What was formerly united can be broken, and the left movement has never been and cannot be united. Any question of any fundamental question will always cause a fierce confrontation between the diversified “left”. In our country, for example, during the monetization of benefits in 2005, the “swamp” protests of 2011-13, “Euromaidan” 2013-14, during numerous presidential and parliamentary elections. Imperialist war is a major shock that leaves its imprint on all aspects of society. Obviously, it also inevitably leads to another stratification, the demarcation of the left movement. And what are in this disengagement of the party, it is not difficult to understand. Some “Lefts” support “their own”, the native bourgeoisie. Others are equally jealous of the “stranger”. Both of them find a special charm in their chosen one, carefully embellish it, whitewash and justify. The history of the past and present century gives us many such examples. There is, however, a third party – the Communists who did not betray their ideas, who remained internationalists in practice. Hated by both camps of the bourgeoisie and their "left" servants, they do not attach to the tail of either side, but lead an independent line in the interests of the working class. Finally, between these three currents constantly run and rushing swinging, doubting, undecided. What is the correlation of forces between these three currents depends on the correlation of class forces, mainly on the strength of the working-class movement. Moreover, we are talking not only about the number (how many workers participate in class movement, in combat trade unions, etc.), but also about the quality (what is the level of ideological and political development, what is the awareness of their fundamental interests). The general rule is not difficult to formulate. The Less the working class realizes its fundamental interests, the weaker the class movement, the more those who lose faith in the power of the proletariat, seeks the path of least resistance, renounces the revolutionary strategy of struggle, and is attached to the tail of a particular group of the bourgeoisie. Conversely, the stronger the (quantist and qualitatively) working-class movement, the stronger the Communists. The communist movement is the mirror of the working-class movement. The bourgeoisie is constantly fighting for domination of the public consciousness. This struggle acquires particular importance to the bourgeoisie in an atmosphere of imperialist war. After all, capital has to, on the one hand, defend its positions (and its property) from external and internal enemies. On the other hand, the same capital attacks someone else's fiefdom, with the tension of all forces, wages a propaganda war, supports the external and internal enemies of its competitor. In such conditions, the propagators of all sorts of seditious ideas are especially dangerous - for example, that in the imperialist slaughter it is not necessary to support any of the parasites. Therefore, it is clear that the bourgeoisie (both “their” and “alien”) is trying to negate the influence of the Communists to subjugate them, to disarm, to disarm, to smash them ideologically and organizationally. Invaluable assistance in this case is provided by a diverse “left” servant.
Knowing all this, we will now consider the Russian left movement and its specificity more closely.
[RUS]
https://rksmb.org/articles/levye-i-liberaly/[ENG]
https://translated.turbopages.org/proxy_u/ru-en.en.9002b7a3-68784e51-7177d34e-74722d776562/https/rksmb.org/articles/levye-i-liberaly/