Michael Roberts: A Marxist Theory of Crisis in the Contemporary World

As a worker and long time union activist, I want to encourage working class people who are seeking answers to the many issues we are facing in our daily lives, to read Michael Roberts' answers to important questions in this interview. I think that workers often retreat from a subject when we feel we don't fully understand it or it appear's too complex; a result of class oppression in my view. I know I did. But one doesn't have to understand every detail, every aspect of a subject to recognise that its main premise is fundamentally sound. One doesn't have to be an "angler" to catch fish. If we understood everything about a subject the moment we opened the page there'd be no need to read on. It's like taking up hiking; we don't start with a trek up Kilimanjaro. 

Michael Roberts, a Marxist economist I have know for a long time, touches on some important subjects that are important to all workers. The issue of China for example and economic questions like finance capital, investment, crypto currency or what causes recessions or slumps. I think it is important to develop some understanding of China's incredible rise and how this has occurred.

I am not an expert in economic theory, Marxist or otherwise,  and there is a need for "experts" in any subject if we want to fully understand them. We never stop learning in a way. But I do grasp the general process that is at the heart of Marx's explanation of the capitalist system of production that Michael touches on here and, and that enables me to see things more clearly. It's an explanation that corresponds with objective reality, my life as a worker, a seller of labor power not a buyer of it. There is powerful propaganda in society that denies class oppression or that workers are exploited at all. Roberts says of the tech worker, "knowledge workers are just as much part of the proletariat as manual workers doing physical tasks." They are learning that truth at a rapid pace. The workplace is the best teacher. Read on, and if you hit an obstacle, put it aside, you can return to it later. Learning is a process. Richard Mellor

A Marxist Theory of Crisis in the Contemporary World

This is an English translation of an interview published in Chinese by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in 2025 in World Socialist Research.

1. Michael Roberts, thank you for your time! Could you briefly tell us when you got to know and accept Marxism and what impact did your previous job in the City of London have?

If you have a Marxist insight into the workings of finance capital, you are much less likely to assume that all will be well with financial investment. One lesson for workers that I learnt and this applies to China too: stay out of financial markets. Even better, workers’ pension funds should not rely on stock market investing as these funds continually lose workers’ contributions by doing so. But it works the other way too. A close understanding of the workings of the financial beast can help us explain better the fragilities and speculations of the system.   

2. What do you think is the core idea of Marxism? What’s the relationship between historical materialism and the critique of political economy? 

The core ideas of Marxism can be reduced to two key concepts. 

First, the history of human organisation since primitive times is the history of class struggle. The materialist conception of history is that change for better or worse is driven by the material interests of classes and, in particular, by the ruling class (feudal lords, capitalist companies) and the working class. While individuals can play key roles at moments in history (decisions and actions by kings or by revolutionary leaders), in the final analysis, change depends on economics and classes. As Marx said: “men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.” 

The second core idea is the law of value under capitalism. Capitalism is a system of production for the profit of the owners of the means of production, who exploit those who own nothing but their ability to work for the owners. Labour creates all the things and services that we use and need, but the value of that labour is appropriated by the owners of the means of production as ‘surplus value’ over and above what labour receives for its work. That surplus value is accumulated as capital. Our social needs then depend on the decisions of capitalists on whether it is profitable or not. This explanation of the workings of the modern economy is denied by the apologists for capitalism – but it is compellingly clear. 

3. The theory of crisis is an important part of Marx’s critique of political economy. There have been many debates among Marxists on how to understand Marx’s theory of crisis. What do you think of Marx’s theory of crisis, and the relationship between overproduction, underconsumption, and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall? 

Yes, a theory of crises under capitalism is very important. The apologists for capitalism deny that there are any endemic crises in capitalist production – ie regular and recurring slumps in production, investment and employment. For them, such crises are either random events, one-offs or the result of bad decisions, speculations or negligence. The apologists deny that crises are inherent in the capitalist system of production for profit. But Marx’s law of value reveals why regular crises are endemic. Capitalist production only takes place if profits are made and Marx shows that a contradiction arises between the drive for more production and profitability of that production (ie profits relative to capital invested). Capitalists compete against each other to gain market share and a bigger cut in the profits appropriated from workers. In order to gain an advantage, they resort to using labour-saving technology to reduce costs and increase the productivity of labour. But Marx argued that profit only comes from labour going to work, so if investment is increasingly in machines etc relative to labour, productivity may rise but at the expense of a tendency for profitability to fall. Eventually, profitability may fall so much that it causes a fall in total profits. Then capitalists stop investing, close down production and lay off workers. Unemployment rises alongside unsold goods and services. This is a slump. It can only be rectified by getting profitability rising again and that requires removing unnecessary workers, weak companies and keeping wages down. Then the whole process can start again. Slumps are a necessary ‘cleansing’ process for capital to recover. Marx outlines his theory of crises most clearly in Capital Volume 3, Chapters 13-15. 

However, many Marxists do not accept that the law of tendency of the rate of profit to fall as explained in these chapters is relevant to crises in capitalism. Instead they consider two other main theories. The first is that there is ‘underconsumption’. This is when workers cannot buy back all the goods and services produced by the capitalists because they do not have enough money. Both Marx and Engels disputed this underconsumption theory, pointing out that workers will never have enough money to buy back all the output being sold, precisely because wages do not contain all the value created and realised as the capitalists have appropriated any surplus value (the difference between the value of commodities sold and wages going to the workers; in other words, profits). The point is that capitalists do not need to sell all their commodities to workers; much of sales is to other capitalists (eg steel is sold to auto manufacturers to make cars etc). 

The other alternative theory is that of ‘overproduction’. Capitalists just keep producing to accumulate more profits without considering whether they can sell their production on the market. They overproduce relative to demand. The problem with this explanation of crises is that it does not explain when production becomes ‘too much production’. It may never happen, or it could happen at any moment. There is no logic to this theory. Put it this way, if supply is in line with demand, can there still be a crisis of investment and production in capitalism? Marx would say yes, because the profitability of what is being produced is what decides whether capitalists invest or not. Indeed, this is how crises unfold. Profitability falls, then total profits and then capitalists try to sell more to cover falling profits. But that means ‘overproduction’, forcing capitalists to lower prices and/or cut production. Overproduction is the result of the overaccumulation of capital ie falling profitablity of capital invested, not the other way round.

order this book here

4. In 2020, you published the book Engels 200 – His Contribution to Political Economy, in which you systematically introduced Engels’ research on political economy and his contribution to Marxist political economy. However, there is a view that the crisis caused by the rate of profit to fall is actually Engels’ viewpoint, and he exaggerated or even tampered with Marx’s discussion on the tendency of the rate of profit to fall when editing volume 3 of Capital. What do you think of this viewpoint?

This view has been expressed by several Marxists (in particular, the German Marxist scholar, Michael Heinrich) who claim that they have read unpublished papers by Marx that apparently show Engels changing Marx’s words to make the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall appear more important. These Marxists also claim that Marx actually abandoned the law in the 1870s and so it should not be considered relevant to Marxist economics and crisis theory.

But other scholars have shown clearly that Engels did not engage in any significant distortion of Marx’s text as in Chapters 13-15 of Volume 3 where the law of profitability is spelt out. And there is no evidence that Marx dropped the law in the 1870s – on the contrary, he conducts further work on it. For example, in the 1870s, Marx spent considerable time looking at the rate of profit with various mathematical formulas. When Engels came to edit Capital Volume 3, he excluded Marx’s mathematical work on the rate of profit, even though it would have confirmed that Marx still held to his law. All this is explained in my book, Marx 200 and in my book Engels 200, with all the references.

The Marxists who push this have also bent Marx’s law of value into a theory of money ie. value is not created by labour in production, but instead is only realised in selling commodities produced on the market. So no sale, then no value. This was not Marx’s view. Value is the result of the effort of human labour in production; how much of that value is eventually realised depends on sale in the market. But there is no value at all without human labour production. Behind this revised theory is an attempt to replace profitability as the ultimate cause of crises with a theory of monetary or credit instability, similar to the view of mainstream economists like Keynes.

5. From your point of view, what are the main differences between Marxist political economy and other schools of economics (like neoclassical economics, Keynesianism, etc.)? Can we regard the theory of crisis as an important difference or even essential difference between Marxist political economy and mainstream Western economics?

The key difference above all is that other schools of economics, even the most radical ‘heterodox’ schools that do not accept that markets are perfect, do not agree with Marx’s law of value. They do not accept that the key contradiction of capitalist production is production for profit, not social need and that increased production eventually comes into conflct with increased profitability and that is what leads to booms and slumps, ie crises. The mainstream neoclassical school deny crises can happen in properly run markets or in markets that are not interfered with by governments, monopolies or trade unions. Heterodox economists deny the role of profit in crises and look to either a ‘lack of demand’ (Keynes); or financial instability (Minsky) or monopolies (Sweezy, Stiglitz) or bad regulation.

And this is a crucial difference, because all these schools are suggesting that capitalist production can be modified or corrected to make capitalism work better. Keynes said more government spending or monetary injections will do the trick; heterodox Minsky said: regulate the banks and finaancial institutions, then capitalism will be stable. These reformist approaches are theoretally and empirically wrong. Marx’s theory of crisis shows that capitalism cannot be reformed in that way. Crises are endemic to capitalism because ultimately they are caused by falling profitability. The only way to end crises is to replace capitalism with a planned economy under common ownership ie no capitalists. 

6. In your research, what impacts does the financialization of capitalism have on the real economy and the working class? 

One of the features of the last 50 years in modern economies in the Global North has been the rise of the financial sectors, not just banks but hedge funds, investment funds, insurance funds, private equity, cryptocurrencies etc. Increasingly, capitalists have switched their investment of accrued profits into financial assets and speculation rather than into investment into new technology and productive sectors. This is the phenomenon of ‘financialisation’. 

However, some Marxists and others have been so enamoured by this development that they have started to claim that capitalism has changed its spots. It is no longer a system of production for profit through the exploitation of labour in factories, offices etc, but now it is just a financial monetary system where money makes more money. This means that workers have lost their role as producers of value in capitalism. Now capitalists can get value just from monetary tricks. Capitalism has become finance capital, which rules over producer capital.

This is nonsense. Although financial profits in some economies like the US and the UK are large, say up to 25% of total profits, the vast majority of profits are still made by selling goods and services produced by workers. And that is especially the case in the so-called Global South where manufacturing has become predominant, not finance. Globally, the working class has never been larger and still most capitalist accumulation comes from the labour of working people in production. The leopard of capitalism has not changed its spots.

7. What do you think of the current crisis of capitalism in the global economic system, especially the financial crisis in recent years? What insights can Marxist political economy provide for us to understand the crisis of capitalism? 

This is a big subject. In the 21st century we have had the two biggest slumps in the history of capitalism, 2008-9 and 2020. There is every reason to expect that another slump will take place before the end of this decade. That may be triggered by a new financial crash as in 2008. This time that crash may not start in the banks as such but be engendered by rising corporate debt and the cost of servicing that debt. Already, there are around 20% of companies in Europe, Japan and the US that are called ‘zombies’ ie they are like the living dead because they do not make enough profits to cover even the cost of servicing their existing debt and so must keep borrowing.These companies are in serious risk of going bust and bringing down even profitable companies in a ricochet effect. 

8. You think that since the end of the Great Recession in 2009, the major capitalist economies have been in a Long Depression. Is there any difference between the Long Depression and previous long depressions in the history of capitalism? What strategies should China adopt in response to the global impact of the Long Depression?

I define a depression as opposed to a recession or slump as a period where after a slump, the previous trend of growth in output, investment and above all profitability, is much lower than before the slump. And this lower trend can last for decades. In that sense, the Long Depression of the 2010s onwards that I have identified is similar to the depression of the late 19th century (1873-97) and the Great Depression of 1929-42. As of 2025, the current depression is continuing as the pandemic slump of 2020 did not lead to a significant rise in profitability and so investment growth and real GDP growth remain even weaker than in the 2010s. 

China has avoided all these crises in capitalism. That’s because China has an economy dominated by a large state sector and planning by the government, so that any instability in its capitalist sector can be overcome and investment and production can carry on relatively uninterrupted. If the capitalist economies of the West head into another slump, then trade and investment into China will be hit, but China now has a massive domestic base and it has invested heavily into new technologies and continues to direct and plan that investment mainly through the state sector. China needs to expand the state sector and planning to reduce the instability in its capitalist sector, particularly exposed by its plunging real estate sector (mostly capitalist based).

9. Digital currency and blockchain technology have been hot topics in the field of financial technology in recent years, and they have had a profound impact on the global economy and financial system. What is your opinion of these financial innovations and digital finance？Will they lead to a more serious global economic crisis？ 

Cryptocurrencies, as they are called, like bitcoin, are just another form of speculative financial asset like gold or paintings. They are not alternative forms of money that could replace state issued currencies (fiat money) like the dollar or yuan. Digital currencies in general already exist in one form ie you pay your bills by card, phone or bank transfer without any paper money involved. The possible new development would be a central bank digital currency that bypasses commercial banks. So far, that development has made limited progress. In the meantime, cryptocurrencies are yet another form of what Marx called ‘fictitious capital’ that adds yet more risk of a financial crash down the road. 

10. Given the increasing popularity of artificial intelligence and automation, how to apply Marxism to analyze the impact of technological progress on production modes and social relations?In your research, what is the correlation between technological progress and economic growth?

This is complicated. Artificial intelligence (AI) is just a new form of technology aimed at replacing human labour and increasing the productivity of labour and so raising the rate of exploitation on labour by capital. New technology can lead to huge job losses, especially for those in industries and occupations it replaces, but it can also, over time, create new industries and employment. Consider the industrial revolution, the electricity revolution, the auto industry, computer revolution. Technology has always been key to economic growth by raising the productivity of labour, especially when the size of the labour force stops rising – as in China today. 

It is argued that AI is a completely new development that will replace human labour altogether because it can supersede human intelligence. The evidence for this is doubtful. Much of AI is just a fast processing of existing human knowledge and cannot replace the imaginative nature of human intelligence. Also, AI will take some time, even decades, to diffuse its productivity-enhancing effects through economies. In my view, it is not a ‘game changer’ that can save capitalism. 

11. Technofeudalism is a view that has emerged in recent years to describe the changes of society caused by cloud technology, that is, tech giants and large platform enterprises possess the data and power like feudal lords, while ordinary users serve these digital overlords as unpaid data producers like serfs, and the new form of rent replaces profit as the main form of accumulation. Do you agree with using technofeudalism to define the current stage of western society? 

Technofeudalism as a concept suggests that capitalist production, ie production for a profit through the exploitation of labour, has been replaced by a feudalism where digital monopolies just extract rents. But where do these rents come from? Marx pointed out that rent, interest and profits all come from the same source: the surplus value appropriated from the value created by human labour power. It is just wrong to argue that companies selling cloud technology are not producing commodities for sale and profit just like any capitalist process. The bulk of Amazon’s profits come from distribution and transport of things; the bulk of Facebook’s profits come from advertising; the bulk of Google’s too. The bulk of Microsoft and Apple profits are from selling computer hardware and software. This is not feudalism but straightforward capitalism. Capitalism is not dead and to suggest that it is a dangerous idea for workers because it means labour may not see its enemy as capital as a whole, but just a small part of capital, so that there is no need to replace capitalism but just ‘feudal monopoly’ capitalism.

12. The labor theory of value is the core idea of Marxist economics. In time of automation and the digital economy, how to apply the labor theory of value to analyze modern economy? What do you think of data as a new factor of production? 

Data or knowledge comes from human activity. So knowledge has value in the same way that physical things have value for society and for capital. Knowledge is material: it requires the energy of human labour; ie. mental labour, in the same way as physical labour. Both are material and create value. So capital can appropriate surplus value from knowledge workers that it employs and does so increasingly across industries and the world. Such surplus value is embodied in patents, intellectual property rights etc. Knowledge or mental labour is just as ‘material’ as physical labour. Mental activity takes place in the synapses of the human brain and is combined with physical labour using a computer etc. So mental labour creates value just as much as physical labour. And knowledge workers are just as much part of the proletariat as manual workers doing physical tasks.

Indeed, mental labourers are being exploited increasingly by capital to appropriate surplus value (profit) .So there is no need to invent a new term for the working class such as a ‘multitude’. This implies that the working class, those who only make a living by selling their labour power and own no means of production, no longer exist. This term hides the class struggle between labour and capital, thus confusing the need to replace capitalism. 

13. Has the development of the digital capitalism widened the North-South divide? 

Yes, it is widening that divide. But that divide is widening anyway. The Global South (with the exception of China) is not catching up with the Global North however you measure it: by GDP per person; by productivity per worker; by income per person; by reducing inequality. The North-South divide is expressed in the control of an imperialist bloc of economies with relatively low population dominating the rest of the world which has the bulk of humanity.

14. What economic policies do you think president Donald Trump will adopt, and what impacts will these policies have on the global economy? 

We cannot be sure what Trump will do. But he says he is going to apply huge tariffs on US imports, particularly those coming from China. He claims his aim is to get US industry back to where it was at the expense of the rest of the world. Above all, he wants to continue the policy of previous US administrations to strangle, choke and reverse the economic progress of China, which is seen as the main threat to US hegemony. Indeed, Trump will also back further military provocations to restrict China. Domestically, he aims to cut corporate taxation so the rich and big business pay even less than now and do away with regulations on industry and global warming abatement. His Cabinet is composed completely of billionaire hedge fund and private equity managers who will seek to benefit the rich at the expense of most Americans. 

Worldwide, if Trump does follow through with these policies, then world trade will fall back and tensions between the US-led Western alliance and China will rise dangerously. Inequality of wealth and income between countries and within countries will increase and the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East will continue, with the risk of war in Asia too.

15. Will Trump’s promised economic policies, such as massive tax cuts and increased military spending, pose a threat to global economic stability by leading to higher global debt levels?

Yes, global debt is already at record highs and relative to global output. In particular, the US government is running sizeable budget deficits in order to finance the war in Ukraine and for Israel and it plans massive increases in military spending to fund further action globally. Trump wants Europe to pay more for this, but in the meantime, US public debt is hitting all-time highs and the cost of servicing that debt in interest is now surpassing government spending on education and health and other public services. 

16. Will Trump’s economic policies worsen the contradictions of the global capitalist system, leading to overproduction and the tendency of crisis?

All this is against a global background of low growth and trade, poor investment and productivity growth. The major capitalist economies, with the possible exception of the US, are stagnating or even in outright recession, especially in Europe. There is every possibility that these economies will face a serious slump by the end of this decade, which will spill over to the rest of the world, as happened in 2008 and 2020. Only China can hope to ride through that. 

17. Do Trump’s economic policies reflect the rise of economic nationalism and protectionism in the context of globalization? Will these policies worsen global economic inequality? How can developing countries respond to the inequality in the global economic system? 

Protectionism and nationalism by others is no alternative solution to Trump. Developing countries need to come together to cooperate on trade, investment and reducing inequality. But to do that, the people in these countries must get governments that stand for labour and for common ownership of resources and assets to plan each economy and in cooperation globally. Unfortunately, nearly all Global South governments do not stand for these policies. They are either controlled by despots or support big business at home and US imperialism abroad. Until these governments are changed, I do not expect much progress in higher growth, reduced inequalities, full employment and better public services.

18. You persist in writing blogs for a long time. What influence has this style of writing made on your thinking and exchange of ideas? Could you share your recent research or research plan in the future？

The aim of the blog and my books is to increase our understanding of how capitalism works, its contradictions and faultlines, with a view to replace it. I consider that Marx’s analysis of capitalism is the most compelling and so I seek to defend Marx’s views, as I see them, against alternatives, all of which come down to trying to make capitalism work (better). I aim my blog not at academics but at activists seeking to change the world for the better. That does not mean I ignore difficult or complex issues of theory or statistical evidence. On the contrary, I try to explain them more clearly. Currently, I am preparing a new book on what is happening in capitalism and in the world economy in the 2020s. It is really a follow up to my Long Depression book published in 2016. Many things have happened since and there is more to come in this decade.

‘Time is Running Out’ will be published in December 2026 by Haymarket Books. 

A regional defence pact could end Israel's violent expansionism

David Hearst, editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye, explains why he believes resistance by Iran and its allies has been the only force preventing Israel from pursuing further territorial expansion and the expulsion of native populations.

 

“Every nation in the Middle East will feel the consequences of Israeli success,” Hearst says.

“It is well past time to arrange a regional framework and defence pact that would become a fact on the ground, which neither Israel nor the latest occupant of the White House could ignore.

 

“An end to the war with Iran, if it happens, must be the start of a regional initiative to ensure it never happens again.”

Middle East Eye on You Tube

Something Pretty Explosive came out Today About the Epstein Files.

Something pretty explosive came out today about the Epstein files.

Rachel Hurley*

June 11 26

Does anyone else remember that rumor about the whole Trump team getting together to figure out how to deal with the fact that Trump was in them so many times?

 

Well, guess what - the NYT reported the whole story today. It's in a new book by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan called "Regime Change," and here's what they say happened.

 

So - as we all recall - last July the DOJ and FBI go "yeah there's no client list, the guy killed himself, nothing to see here."

 

Then MAGA absolutely loses it. Charlie Kirk's Turning Point event turns into what the authors call an Epstein grievance fest, speaker after speaker trashing AG Pam Bondi. Trump reportedly called Kirk and chewed him out, then went online and told his own fans to quit wasting "Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein." 

 

It did not work.

 

Ten days later, JD Vance hauls everyone into the Situation Room - Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, Susie Wiles, Karoline Leavitt, and the deputy AG, Todd Blanche.

 

Trump's not even there. Vance walks in and goes, basically, this is a huge problem.

 

And the idea Vance throws out is get Tucker Carlson to go interview Ghislaine Maxwell in prison, on the theory that maybe she'll sit there on camera and say Trump never did anything.

 

Vance was actually the one arguing to just release everything. Everybody else wanted to sit on it. And the reason they wanted to sit on it is in the files. There's a document - emails from an Epstein accuser named Sarah Ransome - making a graphic claim about Trump. The book says officials sat in the most secure room in the country having a "surreal" conversation about the "nipple material," some of them hearing the claim for the first time. 

 

When the Ransome allegation came up, Vance argued for putting it and other accusations on the DOJ site as "maximum transparency," saying Trump's been accused of worse and wouldn't care. Wiles shut him down cold - told him the president would absolutely not be fine with that. 

 

Vance also tried to set up a Rogan interview timed to the DOJ launching its Epstein files website. The plan was to put Blanche on Rogan - but Rogan told Vance, on the phone, he didn't want Blanche. Vance then floated himself, pitching that only part of it would be about Epstein and the rest could be about the new legislation and "working families." Never happened.

 

Later at the DOJ, everyone was at each other's throats. Dan Bongino, then deputy FBI director, walked into a DOJ meeting and screamed at Bondi - "you f*cked this thing up from the start" - over the client list she'd promised was "on my desk" and then never produced. He and Kash Patel both reportedly told the White House she needed to go. Bongino called the whole mess Trump's Iran-contra.

 

Okay but the one who actually matters here is Todd Blanche.

 

Blanche runs the whole Justice Department right now - he's acting attorney general. And before any of this he was Trump's personal defense lawyer, the literal guy standing next to him in court. Then he got the number two job at DOJ, and now he's been nominated by Trump to run the place officially - because of course, right?

 

Pam Bondi already testified that Blanche had been in charge all along of how the files got released - and apparently, in that situation room meeting - he was workshopping how to make it seem like he was doing his job.

 

The book says Blanche brought two ideas. One, he'd personally go interview Maxwell. Two, ask a court to unseal the grand jury testimony. He pushed the court thing knowing it'd get tossed, because grand jury material is about the most locked-down stuff there is. He just wanted it on record that he asked, so somebody could point to it later.

 

Then he went and interviewed Maxwell. Two days, in the courthouse in Tallahassee where she's doing twenty years. Former prosecutors said that's insane - a senior DOJ official does not personally run an interview like that, line prosecutors do, with FBI in the room. He went himself, to talk to the one living person who knows the truth about his boss.

 

And then, about a week later, she mysteriously got moved to a nicer prison - a minimum-security camp in Texas, the kind of place sex offenders basically never get sent.

 

So, yeah - that's the incredibly, non-surprising story of the Trump administration trying to run cover for the star of the Epstein Files.

 

What a country.

 

Rachel Hurley is running for Congress in Tennessee’s 5^th District

Publishing this article is for our readers interests and is not FFWP’s endorsement of her political campaign. This blog does not support the Democratic Party.

 

Legal profession revolt against the UK judge whose job is to protect Israel's genocide

Judge Johnson so rigged the trial of anti-genocide activists that 1000s of legal professionals have urged him to step down from the sentencing hearing. But Johnson's dirty work is not yet complete.

Johnathan Cook, June 10th 2026

From Johnathan Cook on Substack

The trial of the Filton Four reaches its climax on Friday. Judge Jeremy Johnson will decide the sentences of four Palestine Action activists found guilty of criminal damage – after two juries refused to convict them of far more serious charges brought by the British government, via the Crown Prosecution Service.

Keir Starmer’s government failed to secure the convictions for aggravated burglary and violent disorder it so desperately needed. They would have helped retroactively justify its decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation – the first time in British history that a direct action group, which targets property, has been proscribed.

Starmer’s hostility towards Palestine Action is personal. It has been a massive thorn in his side during Israel’s near three-year genocide in Gaza.

From the outset, Starmer suggested that Israel had the “right” to withhold food, water and power from the 2 million Palestinian residents of Gaza – a crime against humanity for which the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is wanted by the International Criminal Court.

Starmer’s complicity in the genocide has only been underscored by Palestine Action, which has targeted Israeli factories operating in the UK run by Elbit Systems that supply Israel’s genocidal army with killer drones for use in Gaza.

The so-called Filton trial derives its name from an Elbit factory in the Filton neighbourhood of Bristol that Palestine Action targeted in August 2024. Efforts to destroy these Israeli drones came at a time when Starmer was under enormous popular – if little political – pressure to end British arms sales to Israel.

PR crisis

Proscription, however, has not worked out well for Starmer. It has entangled him in a self-inflicted public relations crisis of almighty proportions.

Palestine Action activists have been held in remand without trial for an unprecedented period of time, far in excess of the normal maximums, and in especially harsh conditions that have treated them as if they were terrorism suspects, even though their arrests long precede the group’s proscription last year. 

These sustained abuses led to a prolonged hunger strike, and a desperate government and media campaign to justify their mistreatment. 

Proscription has led to thousands of people, most of them elderly and including upstanding members of British society – from magistrates and doctors to army veterans – facing convictions for “supporting terrorism” for holding up placards stating: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

This popular backlash cornered the High Court into declaring the proscription unlawful – a decision the government is appealing. That has led to another unprecedented situation: police are still arresting people for holding the placards, despite the courts ruling that the basis for such arrests is unlawful.

The law has never looked more of an ass.

Which is why the government is pinning its hopes on Judge Johnson riding to the rescue on Friday.

Judge Johnson has not been shy about showing where his loyalties lie. Not to the law, but to the British security state.

Which should hardly come as a surprise, given his background.

Judge Johnson made it to the bench after years serving as the most favoured barrister of the “secret state”, representing the intelligence services, the ministry of defence and the police. His working environment of choice as a lawyer was behind-closed-doors prosecutions held out of view of the public or proper legal scrutiny.

Rigged trials

Judge Johnson has done precisely nothing to counter the overwhelming impression that the Filton activists’ prosecutions were entirely political. He quite openly rigged both trials in manifold ways, as former British ambassador Craig Murray has set out. 

Let me quote from him at length the ways Judge Johnson flagrantly skewed the hearings to the detriment of the activists and justice:

Judge Johnson ruled that the defendants were not permitted to refer to their motives.

He ruled that the jury may not be informed of their absolute right to acquit.

He attempted to have the leading defence barrister, Rajiv Menon KC, prosecuted for contempt of court for informing the jury of their rights.

He ruled that terms including ‘genocide’ and ‘ethnic cleansing’ may not be used in court.

He ordered that the notebooks and other writings of the accused be redacted to withhold from the jury any information related to Elbit’s supply of weapons to Israel.

He enforced the concealment from the jury of the nature of the weapons and equipment that had been damaged.

He granted anonymity to senior Elbit staff and admitted their evidence without the defence being able to cross-examine.

He ruled that the trial had *not* been prejudiced by the Secretary of State [Yvette Cooper] and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police [Sir Mark Rowley] stating the offences as fact throughout national media.

He allowed the release to the media of highly edited and selective prosecution video footage during the trial which gave a false impression of events.

He permitted the admission of Metropolitan Police video evidence which they had given over to Elbit’s sole custody for an entire year.

In a trial with so many extraordinary anomalous moments, perhaps the most glaring was Judge Johnson’s efforts to get the main defence barrister in the first trial, Rajiv Menon KC, jailed for contempt of court simply for noting to the jury in his summing up speech that they had a hundreds-of-years-old right in law to acquit.

Jonathan Cook 4mo If you are baffled by why the jury refused to convict the Palestine Action defendants, it's because – unlike them – you didn't hear the actual evidence. You heard what the media wanted you to know. Here, I explain what the jury learnt from the trial: https://jonathancook.substack.com/p/barristers-powerful-speech-at-filton 383 8 130

Judge Johnson’s behaviour was so unprecedented and certain to have a chilling effect on the ability of defence barristers to represent their clients – the Filton defendants decided to dismiss their barristers from summing up in their second trial to avoid their lawyers facing prison for doing their job and defending them – that the Court of Appeal had no choice but to overrule Judge Johnson’s contempt proceedings against Menon. 

Murray rightly concludes: "That is an astonishing list of nefarious actions by Judge Johnson. Read it again. Many people will surely conclude, it is Judge Johnson who should be in jail."

Gagging order

But even with the convictions for criminal damage secured under these rigged conditions, Judge Johnson is still in a position to cause more harm to the rule of law. He is due to sentence the Filton Four on Friday. 

Judge Johnson has reserved to himself the right to sentence the four anti-genocide activists not just for the relatively minor criminal damage charge they were convicted of after his rigged trial, but – once again in an unprecedented move – treat those criminal convictions as if they were for terrorism offences.

That means he can impose a longer sentence, more draconian prison conditions and more onerous, life-long conditions after their release. 

The jury knew none of this when they were considering whether to convict. Judge Johnson placed a gagging order on his decision during the trial which meant the information was withheld from the jury and could not be reported until after the verdict. The gag was broken only by foreign mediaand Zarah Sultana, who used her parliamentary privilege to reveal Judge Johnson’s government-friendly, anti-justice machinations. 

In yet another unprecedented feature to the trial, this will be the first time in British history that someone accused of criminal damage is sentenced as a terrorist. Judges were only given these extraordinary powers in a highly controversial amendment in 2021 to counter-terrorism legislation. 

Judge Johnson’s logic for taking advantage of his extra powers in this case is quite extraordinary too. He argues that, in destroying Elbit’s killer drones, the activists were seeking to “influence” the Israeli government to change its policy in Gaza – that is, to stop committing a genocide. 

Subscribed

Putting pressure on governments is what terrorists try to do, he argues, so this must mean the anti-genocide activists are terrorists.

Opposition to the genocide, in Judge Johnson’s view, has to be treated as an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one. 

It is all the more astounding that Judge Johnson is using this argument when he refused to allow the jury to hear any evidence of the activists’ larger political motivations: that they wanted to stop British complicity in Israel’s genocide by targeting a factory that made the drones for use in that genocide. 

Remember, all this is happening as Starmer’s government makes unprecedented moves to end many jury trials in Britain, leaving us to the mercy of judges like Jeremy Johnson. 

As Defend Our Juries notes, the government is looking to create “an extraordinary and deeply authoritarian precedent, allowing countless more protesters to be tried for an ordinary offence, but secretly sentenced as terrorists, without juries knowing this when they convict”. 

‘Cruel and vindictive’

Judge Johnson’s rogue manoeuvrings have so incensed the legal profession that thousands signed a petition demanding that he take the chance last Monday to recuse himself from the sentencing hearing. He, of course, refused to do so. 

They call his behaviour during the trial “biased” and “discriminatory conduct” and have referred him to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.

Here is David Whyte, professor of law at Queen Mary’s University of London, who handed the petition to the JCIO explaining another reason why so many legal professionals are outraged by Judge Johnson’s actions: he has shown exceptional “cruelty and vindictiveness” in holding the activists in remand for more than three times the normal maximums, even when the prosecution was not asking for them to be remanded, and for refusing them bail between their convictions and sentencing. 

The Court of Appeal is due to issue its ruling on the government’s appeal against the earlier High Court decision declaring Palestine Action’s proscription unlawful this coming Monday, days after Judge Johnson’s sentencing of the Filton activists. 

If this is all starting to look like theatre, that it because it is. In dictatorships, these are called show trials. Everyone understands that the outcome is predetermined. Everyone understands that justice is non-existent. The verdict is entirely political. It is a faux-legal rationalisation of what the security state wants. 

Judge Johnson is the perfect judge to play that part. 

The courts will do exactly what is expected of them unless they are worried that public revulsion will discredit their decision. Now is the time to raise our voices.