Matt Catino

You might have heard a certain former president call a political opponent a 'Marxist,' or a popular commentator warn about the 'evil' of 'post-modern neo-Marxism.' These kinds of accusations get thrown around a lot these days, especially when anxieties about the economy, job security, and political instability are high. But how many of the people making these claims have actually read Marx beyond, maybe, a quick skim of The Communist Manifesto? Probably not many. The truth is, a lot of what we hear about Marx is based on myths and misunderstandings. And in a time when we're facing serious challenges to democracy and economic fairness, understanding his actual ideas – not caricatures of them – is more important than ever. Let's clear up some of the most common misconceptions 1. Marx was actually quite impressed by Capitalism. yes it's true, Marx didn't just rule capitalism out, he even argued that it was the most productive system ever created. Ma...

Piers Morgan. He's a polarising figure, a Marmite personality. He fancies himself a champion of free speech, a valiant warrior against the encroaching forces of "wokeness." He wields the term like a cudgel, seemingly unable to resist its siren call. But what is "woke," really? Beyond the hyperbolic pronouncements and the performative outrage, what does this ubiquitous, and increasingly weaponised, word actually mean? This isn't just about Piers Morgan. He's a symptom, not the disease. He, along with figures like Elon Musk, throws "woke" around with abandon, but what are they really talking about? What's the history of the term, and how has its meaning morphed over time? A dictionary definition might tell you that "woke" means "aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)." Simple enough, right? Awareness of social issues impacting minorities – wh...

Britain's latest general election marked a significant majority win for labour, one the party hasn't seen since the Blair days. I claim however, that Labours victory was not in part due to their policies, leader or viewpoints, but instead simply because they're not conservatives. The British people had been subject to devastating tory rule for years, and when the election was called, everyone knew what the outcome would be. My analysis here claims that Labours victory is in no way a victory for the left, and is more a return to the neoliberal status quo. My position is that labour has more in common with conservatives than differences, a position I believe solidified by their reluctance to seriously engage in left wing ideals. My position then focuses on these claims: Labour are a conservative Lite party, who push neoliberal economics: Under Starmer’s leadership so far, there has been little noticeable shift in British economic policy. The prevailing ideology remains unchan...