Debanking, an Authoritarian Threat to the LeftThe twenty-first century brought the utopian promise of an ever more interconnected world. Champions of globalization aspired to ever more international connectivity, meant to discourage powerful actors from creating divisions that might threaten the well-being or existence of others. It was rarely mentioned, however, that global interconnectedness could also allow individual actors in key positions of power to influence decisions across the entire network. Nowhere is this danger more evident than in the now-globalized banking sector. The serious consequences of interconnected global banking and finance have recently threatened the left-wing German solidarity organization Rote Hilfe (Red Aid). Citing the Trump administration’s declaration of an enigmatic German antifa group as a “terrorist” organization, a Göttingen-based bank attempted to shut down Rote Hilfe’s accounts. Similar cases have threatened other left-wing and anti-fascist groups in Germany and across the world. It lays bare the threat that “debanking” — the shutting down of accounts or refusal of services on political grounds — poses to the Left.
https://jacobin.com/2026/05/rote-hilfe-debanking-germany-repressionWhat Do People Attending a Tommy Robinson March Really Believe?What do the 60,000-odd people at a Tommy Robinson march believe? Surely – at a minimum – they all like Tommy Robinson? I have news: no. He’s a “Zionist shill”, “a grifter”, I was told by two of his own attendees. One man confidently told us he wouldn’t have come on the march if it had been associated with Tommy Robinson (the march was organised and emceed by Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon). Were they all, at least, united in their hatred of migrants? Not entirely, no – not least because some of them were migrants: Iranian monarchists, to be exact, here at Robinson’s request, they repeatedly told me. They held up banners of Robinson that depicted him and US president Donald Trump in shimmering light as saviours of the Iranian nation. Some called for the UK to immediately invade Iran. They were, at least, keen to underline that they were genuine migrants (as opposed to the fake ones you apparently get these days). Most of the British nationalists we spoke to looked on, bemused at their chanting. Is everyone at a Tommy Robinson march at the very least a British nationalist? Perhaps – but there were also a surprisingly high number of Republic of Ireland flags and a fair few Israeli ones on display, as well as the aforementioned sea of Iranian monarchist flags. This is not exactly your traditional National Front march. Of course, it’s not like there is nothing that holds these people together. There is a core of commonly held ideas here, which we can list: Britain is good, but it has been lost in some way. Muslims, although not all bad, are disproportionately responsible for sexual violence in the UK (this is not true). Illegal migration must be stopped. Keir Starmer apparently doesn’t agree with this. He is a wanker. These are commonplaces. Memes. Vague feelings made into words. They are not the ligaments of a serious movement. But even – or perhaps especially – simple ideas like these can be the starting point for a dizzying variety of worrying extremisms, as much as they can form the basis of a more normie kind of far-right politics that wishes for the status quo, but with a harder aesthetic.
https://novaramedia.com/2026/05/19/what-do-people-attending-a-tommy-robinson-march-really-believe/Revolutionary Communist Youth League (Bolshevik): 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 that the French Great Revolution laid, 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. An imperialist war is a profound upheaval, leaving its mark on all aspects of society. Clearly, it inevitably leads to yet another division, a split within the left movement. And it's not difficult to understand the sides in this split. Some "leftists" support "their own," native bourgeoisie. Others champion the "foreign" bourgeoisie just as zealously. Both find a special charm in their chosen one, carefully embellishing it, whitewashing it, and justifying it. The history of the past and present centuries offers us many such examples. There is, however, a third side—the communists , who have not betrayed their ideas and remain internationalists in practice. Hated by both bourgeois camps and their "leftist" servants, they do not align themselves with either side, but pursue an independent line in the interests of the working class.
[RUS]
https://rksmb.org/articles/levye-i-liberaly [ENG]
https://rksmb-org.translate.goog/articles/levye-i-liberaly?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_hist=true