Spanish communists: The Ceuta migrant crisis is not an "invasion" but the product of capitalist rivalries "Between Thursday and Friday, around 50,000 people crossed the border by land and sea from Morocco into Ceuta, thousands of them minors. More than 50 deaths have been reported so far, making this one of the worst humanitarian crises ever witnessed at Spain's borders. By Friday, the overwhelming majority had returned to Morocco. These events can be understood as a means of pressure exerted by the Moroccan regime in the context of Spain-Morocco relations, coinciding with Morocco's increasingly close ties with the U.S.-Israel axis and a new phase of rapprochement between Spain and Algeria. Meanwhile, Spain's coalition government has blamed the situation exclusively on human trafficking networks, deliberately avoiding any connection between what has occurred and the diplomatic, political, commercial and military relations shaping the region. In response to the events in Ceuta, which the most reactionary sectors have gone so far as to describe as an "invasion," we denounce the fact that such situations are made possible by the conditions endured by broad sections of the Moroccan people, whose hardship can easily be manipulated and exploited in the disputes between capitalist governments and states.
https://www.idcommunism.com/2026/08/spanish-communists-ceuta-migrant-crisis-is-not-an-invasion-but-product-of-capitalist-rivalries_01726532161.htmlThe Liberal Capture of Anarchism - The Polar Blast (2025) For the past few years, a peculiar current has swept through parts of the anarchist milieu, particularly those corners closest to academia, the NGO apparatus, and the broad “social justice” ecosystems of the liberal left. It goes something like this: “we don’t live in revolutionary times”. The line is always delivered with a kind of weary resignation, as if the speaker has grown too sophisticated, too worldly, too traumatised or too professional to still believe in any of the old principles. We are told that anarchists cannot reject electoralism, because that would be “dogmatic” or “purist.” We cannot maintain a principled anti-militarism in the face of imperial alignments and geopolitical chessboards, because that would be “naïve” or “privileged” or simply “not how the world works.” We cannot challenge nationalism, because apparently even anarchists must kneel before the altar of flags when the right war breaks out. And in Aotearoa, we are increasingly instructed that anarchists, of all people, should simply fall into line behind Labour, the Greens, or Te Pāti Māori, and that anything else amounts to assisting the Right, aiding fascism, or failing to take “real-world consequences” seriously. It is a remarkable ideological contortion, one that has transformed a large portion of self-identified anarchists into adjuncts of liberalism, junior partners to parliamentary leftism, and in some cases loud defenders of militarised state power. This collapse is not merely political drift; it represents a profound refusal to uphold the most basic tenets of anarchism. It is a capitulation dressed up as realism, a surrender disguised as nuance, and a fear of being politically unfashionable mispackaged as maturity. But at its core, this discourse expresses something simple and corrosive – a belief that anarchism is incapable of acting as a revolutionary force in its own right, and must therefore outsource its agency to liberal institutions.
https://libcom.org/article/liberal-capture-anarchism-polar-blast-2025J. V. Stalin:Marxism and the National Question [END] VII. THE NATIONAL QUESTION IN RUSSIA The advantage of regional autonomy consists, first of all, in the fact that it does not deal with a fiction bereft of territory, but with a definite population inhabiting a definite territory. Next, it does not divide people according to nations, it does not strengthen national barriers; on the contrary, it breaks down these barriers and unites the population in such a manner as to open the way for division of a different kind, division according to classes. Finally; it makes it possible to utilize the natural wealth of the region and to develop its productive forces in the best possible way without awaiting the decisions of a common centre – functions which are not inherent features of cultural-national autonomy. Thus, regional autonomy is an essential element in the solution of the national question. Of course, not one of the regions constitutes a compact, homogeneous nation, for each is interspersed with national minorities. Such are the Jews in Poland, the Letts in Lithuania, the Russians in the Caucasus, the Poles in the Ukraine, and so on. It may be feared, therefore, that the minorities will be oppressed by the national majorities. But there will be grounds for fear only if the old order continues to prevail in the country. Give the country complete democracy and all grounds for fear will vanish.
It is proposed to bind the dispersed minorities into a single national union. But what the minorities want is not an artificial union, but real rights in the localities they inhabit. What can such a union give them without complete democratization? On the other hand, what need is there for a national union when there is complete democratization? What is it that particularly agitates a national minority?
A minority is discontented not because there is no national union but because it does not enjoy the right to use its native language. Permit it to use its native language and the discontent will pass of itself. A minority is discontented not because there is no artificial union but because it does not possess its own schools. Give it its own schools and all grounds for discontent will disappear. A minority is discontented not because there is no national union, but because it does not enjoy liberty of conscience (religious liberty), liberty of movement, etc. Give it these liberties and it will cease to be discontented.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm#s7