Book Review: If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: The Case Against Superintelligent AI by Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares

Written by: Alex M and Duncan B on 13 March 2026

 

The tech billionaires, Musk, Altmann and others are locked in a race to build Artificial General Intelligence, otherwise known as Superintelligent AI. These are machines that surpass human brainpower. So far no one has got there yet. With the current rate of development of AI, and the billions of dollars being thrown at AI, it may not be long until Superintelligent AI is a reality.

There is a spectrum of views about Superintelligent AI. Its promoters say that Superintelligent AI is wonderful and will save humanity. Its opponents take the “Doomsday view” that Superintelligent AI will destroy humanity. 

The authors of this book, Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares are both firmly in the “Doomsday” camp. They were both involved in working to develop Superintelligent AI until they came to realise the dangers it poses. 

They could not put their fears any more bluntly than in the introduction to the book when they say “If any company or group anywhere on the planet, builds an artificial superintelligence using anything remotely like current techniques, based on anything remotely like the present understanding of AI, then everyone, everywhere on earth will die.

We may laugh at this prediction. The authors paint scenarios of how   Superintelligent AI could start thinking for itself and escape human control and eventually wipe out humans. 

This may seem far- fetched, but when we look at the character of the people like Musk who are developing Superintelligent AI, in a USA run by Trump, we can’t have any confidence that they will care about the consequences of Superintelligent AI, as long as they are the first to build it. 

Last year we reviewed Empire of AI, which told how people like Sam Altman brushed aside the concerns about the safety of AI which the safety teams of their companies raised. The attitude was “be first in the race for AI and sort the bugs and problems out later.”

The authors are adamant that joint international action must be taken to shut down all attempts to build Superintelligent AI everywhere in the world. They want the great powers of the US, UK, Russia and China to take the lead in preventing the development of Superintelligent AI. 

We can’t see this happening. No country will want to be left behind in the AI race. We have also seen how Trump, egged on by the tech billionaires, reacts to attempts by any country to impose any sort of controls on AI. This is seen as an attack on American sovereignty, and Trump threatens retaliation against any country which tries to regulate the tech billionaires.

                                                *****************************
Duncan B has admirably summed up the central thesis of Yudkowsky’s and Soares’s book. The book has attracted quite a bit of attention because the authors are relentless in hammering home their doomsday scenario. That is, the development of Superintelligent AI will be apocalyptic for humanity. 

It is interesting that quite a number of people appear to have been swayed by Yudkowsky’s and Soares’s arguments in the book, if the endorsements on the book’s fly are any indication. The reason why I point this out is that their arguments are not well handled, relying on assertion and a number of analogies and hypothetical scenarios that reinforce their message but do not necessarily persuade a more skeptical/critical person. Being disturbed about the doom-laden viewpoint and not entirely convinced by how the two writers set out their ‘stall’, so to speak, I sought out online reviews of If Anyone Builds It… and found one particular review which really got to grips with the book’s inadequacies.

Will Macaskill writing in a post on his Substack site ‘Both/And’ reviewing If Anyone Builds It… gets stuck in straight away: 

I thought that “If anyone builds it, everyone dies”, by Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares, was disappointing, relying on weak arguments around the evolution analogy, an implicit assumption of a future discontinuity in AI progress, conflation of ‘misalignment’ with ‘catastrophic misalignment’. I think that their positive proposal is not good .

I had hoped to read a Yudkowsky-Soares worldview that has had meaningful updates in light of the latest developments in ML and AI safety, and that has meaningfully engaged with the scrutiny their older arguments received. I did not get that. (1)

Macaskill criticizes the use made of evolution as an analogy for the development of Superintelligent AI by Yudkowsky and Soares. While there is some merit in using evolution as an explanatory tool to help laypeople understand how the training of AI works, there are problems with the analogy. One of the problems Macaskill highlights is the fact ‘that evolution wasn’t trying, in any meaningful sense, to produce beings that maximise inclusive genetic fitness in off distribution environments. But we will be doing the equivalent of that!’ Here Macaskill is referring to the drive to produce Superintelligent AI, where tech companies are actively trying to bring into being this product. The analogy thus falls down.

Turning now to the discontinuity in AI progress that Macaskill identifies in If Anyone Builds It… In their book, Yudkowsky and Soares posit a hypothetical scenario where there is a sudden overnight leap in intelligence which comes about when AI is used extensively to develop Superintelligent AI. Such an overnight leap in capacity will necessarily mean it will be too late for humanity to ‘align’ the new AGI to human values. Macaskill argues that the discontinuity in AI progress exemplified here overstates the rapidity of the process of development which may be very fast but not as a ‘sudden, sharp, large leap…’ 

Aligning Superintelligent AI to human values for Yudkowsky and Soares is an impossibility and therefore we must stop any attempts to build it. Macaskill argues that their views on the alignment question are flawed. Yudkowsky and Soares at times conflate ‘imperfect alignment’ (where the AI doesn’t always try to do what the developer/user intended it to do), with ‘catastrophic misalignment’ (where the AI tries hard to disempower all humanity, insofar as it has the opportunity). For Macaskill here is another example of Yudkowsky’s and Soares’s tendency to invoke the ‘discontinuous jump to godlike capabilities idea’ which is a feature of their approach in the book.

It is useful to highlight Macaskill’s critique of If Anyone Builds It… because it validates both what myself and Duncan B initially thought about the book. It is not well argued; relies on some flawed analogies and assertions; and offers up a possible solution which as Duncan B suggested above is not likely to ever be implemented.

The development of Superintelligent AI, like AI in general is in the hands of predominantly US based tech billionaires. They have a massive vested interest in pushing these products down our throats, which have caused and will continue to cause job losses across the globe. Other pernicious effects have arisen, such as deep fake porn, scams, heightened surveillance, and the targeting and killing of civilians in conflict zones. Now there is the possibility of the end of humanity courtesy of artificial superintelligence. As Nick Estes so eloquently put it when recently referring to the morass engulfing the US in the light of the Epstein scandal, and which I argue also holds for the current AI era, we are witnessing ‘… the moral pathology of capitalism in its decadent phase and the morbid symptoms of imperial decline.’ (2)

The only solution remains socialist revolution.

(1) https://willmacaskill.substack.com/p/a-short-review-of-if-anyone-builds accessed 10 March 2026

(2) https://nickestes.substack.com/morbid-symptoms  accessed 7 March 2026

Solidarity with the Revolutionary Socialists in Turkey

 Written by: ICOR on 12 March 2026

 

(Source: Instagram youngstruggle_europe )

The International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organisations (ICOR) has taken up the case of the latest victims of repression inside Turkey. We reprint a call from ICOR for solidarity with the arrested activists - eds

On February 3, 2025, the Turkish state carried out a large-scale wave of arrests targeting numerous revolutionary forces. Among those arrested were representatives of the Socialist Party of the Oppressed (ESP), the Limter-Is Port Workers’ Union, the Central Workers’ Movement (BIH), the Beksav Cultural Center, the environmental organization Polen Ekoloji, the youth organization SGDF, and journalists from the ETHA news agency. A total of 82 people were taken into custody. This state attack is yet another attempt to silence antifascist and revolutionary forces in Turkey and suppress resistance against the fascist regime under the AKP and MHP.

What is particularly striking is the fact that while the state is negotiating with Abdullah Öcalan for the disarmament of the Kurdish movement, with no substantial progress made in the national question or democratic reforms, the repression against antifascist forces, even the bourgeois opposition, continues to escalate. A particularly notable example is the persecution of Istanbul's opposition CHP mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, whose arrest in March 2025 led to large scale mass mobilizations.

The repression against the ESP, which has positioned itself critically towards the current political process and is actively mobilizing against the NATO summit in Ankara in July 2025, is meant to serve as a warning to any antifascist and anti-imperialist forces in the country. Despite the repressive measures, the comrades of the ESP have shown their militant stance and moral strength in court as they resisted fascist pressures.

These arrests and persecutions are just the beginning of a series of repressive measures that will be taken against all antifascist forces and political resistance in the country. A new generation of fascist jurists is already in office, with the new Minister of Justice, Akin Gürlek, acting strictly according to political orders and already planning significant restrictions on the rights of lawyers.

While the AKP once faced the threat of being banned as a party and vehemently opposed such repression at times, it now seeks to de facto eliminate any parties that oppose the fascism.

Worldwide, repression against revolutionary and antifascist forces is growing, accompanied by the rise of fascism and the threat of imperialist wars. Reports of similar repressive measures are emerging from countries such as Cameroon, India, and Nepal. In light of this international development, international solidarity becomes even more important. The experiences of resistance and international solidarity are invaluable, and we must build upon them.

In this critical situation, ICOR is calling for a comprehensive solidarity campaign for the revolutionary socialists in Turkey.

 

 

Anti-War Protestors Invade Premier Malinauskas' Electoral Office

 Written by: Max O. on 9 March 2026

 

(Photo supplied)

Campaigning in the South Australian 2026 state election is well underway. Anti-war protestors have their own thoughts on what should be on the campaign agenda. They decided to focus on a number of electoral seats that host industrial military complexes in Adelaide/Kaurna Yerta.

Premier Malinauskas, who holds the seat of Croydon, is also the Minister for Defence and Space Industries. Lucy Hood, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, whose seat of Adelaide hosts Lot 14—a hub that houses the Australian Space Agency and a number of other military research-related corporations and start-ups—Boeing Defence, and the Defence SA office in the CBD.

On 4th March, anti-war protestors from Disrupt Arms Traders, IPAN-SA (Independent & Peaceful Australia Network - South Australia), and PACOA (Port Adelaide Community Opposes AUKUS) took their no-war message to the electoral offices of Malinauskas and Hood.

Just before these campaigners occupied the office foyers, they forewarned the media of their intentions. Half of the protestors entered the building while the other half stood outside displaying banners to passing traffic.

Once inside Premier Malinauskas' office foyer, they delivered a letter opposing the transformation of South Australia into a war base to serve US imperialism's aggression in East Asia. They then proceeded to occupy the foyer, chanting anti-war slogans and criticising the premier's fawning over US weapons corporations to the staff.

Channel 7 TV arrived at Malinauskas' office and interviewed a representative of the protestors, who pointed out the dangers of AUKUS and the numerous US and UK weapons manufacturers in the state, such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, and BAE. The protest was televised that night on the evening news (see our Facebook page for March 5).

Afterwards, the anti-war protestors repeated the action at Lucy Hood's office in Prospect. This action caught the Labor Party and electoral staff off guard, leaving them somewhat flummoxed and embarrassed to have to deal with the protestors.

Overseas war profiteers in South Australia have become one of the biggest industries in the state. The anti-war protestors threatened to repeat this kind of action at other electoral offices in the future.

Malinauskas’ key agency is Defence SA, which rolls out the red carpet to weapons makers. He wants a weapons export economy, no matter what it takes and what gets destroyed as a result of the weapons exported from South Australia.

Exporting parts for F35s, guided missiles, and cyber warfare technology—used to destroy and kill—is all fine according to "Weapons Pete." Hey, he’ll even throw in a government grant or two to help global weapons makers. As long as there’s a shiny photo opportunity, he’ll be there.

Malinauskas' obsession with AUKUS puts him on a par with Marles and Albanese. When the US directs, they jump. Malinauskas is so obsessed with AUKUS that he has given global arms dealers access to our entire education system to spread their propaganda to youngsters in our schools.

The significance of Diego Garcia for the US

 Written by: (Contributed) on 8 March 2026

 

(Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/)

As the Starmer government in the UK continues to dither about honouring a high-level diplomatic agreement with Mauritius concerning the sovereignty of Diego Garcia, the status of the joint US-UK base that exists there has been shown to have caused some difficulties in US-UK relations.

The UK government initially refused Trump’s request to use its military bases in support of the war with Iran. But on 1 March, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced he would, after all, permit the use of the UK’s overseas base on Diego Garcia. This is to be limited to ‘defensive’ action against missiles and drones based in Iran. This limited concession was reportedly negotiated with Washington, in accordance with London’s view on the legal issues involved.

Starmer’s vacillations led Trump to sledge him as “not a Winston Churchill”.

Concerns about Diego Garcia are regarded as sensitive.

The main reason of concern remains the changing nature of UK relations with the US and the failure of the Trump administration to access reliable intelligence assessments about China's diplomacy in the wider Indo-Pacific and Africa, and then act accordingly

In 2022, the British government began negotiations with their counterparts in Mauritius about the sovereignty of Diego Garcia, following a legal ruling by the International Court of Justice three years earlier that the UK should relinquish one of their last remaining colonial acquisitions. It was eventually resolved that Britain would transfer sovereignty of the tiny land-mass strategically placed in the centre of the vast Indian Ocean and also pay Mauritius $190 million a year for long-term rental. The finance was accompanied with strings to safeguard US and British interests.

It was acknowledged in official communiques that the reasoning behind the decision taken by Whitehall was that the proposal would guarantee western control of Diego Garcia, for example, against a backdrop of increasing competition from China.

In a manner similar to other geo-strategic outposts, Mauritius is regarded as a 'swing state' in competition between the US-led foreign policy and China. (1)

The arrangement between Britain and Mauritius did not include an established timeframe, although was generally acknowledged to be important after the official diplomatic signing last year. Since that time, however, the matter has continually been pushed down foreign policy agendas by the Starmer government in Westminster. The British are well-known for such delaying tactics although Starmer has already been openly criticised by members of his own Labour Party as not even possessing the suitable qualities of an M.P., let alone Prime Minister; he is a puppet. He remains, for example, part of an elite patronage system based on Leeds University and considered by those controlling class and state power to be a safe player for defending traditional British interests. Social change and traditional Labour politics is not an agenda item for the Starmer government despite it possessing a huge parliamentary majority. Social democracy has taken on a different meaning with Starmer.

The Starmer government remains, nevertheless, quite content to merely manage vast bureaucracies converging upon Whitehall, staffed by grey-flannelled faceless wonders serving patronage systems, designed to block any social change. The politics department at Leeds University produced vast numbers of such people. They look after each other well.

Recent dithering by the Starmer government over decisions about Diego Garcia remain, therefore, just one point of consideration. There are numerous other examples.

Behind the scenes, Diego Garcia has a chequered history; its strategic significance for US defence and security provision has been a central factor of consideration since the 1970s.

While falling into the hands of British colonial control in centuries past, Diego Garcia was forcibly cleared of its population during the 1960s and early 1970s and subsequently leased to the US for basing a highly sensitive intelligence facility, as part of a global network.

The intelligence facilities became fully operational in March 1973, linked into a global network and arc which included counterparts based at Silvermine in Apartheid South Africa, Abu Masa in Iran, Kagnew in Ethiopia, Subic Bay in the Philippines and Pine Gap in central Australia. (2) The diplomatic alliance between Australia and the US is primarily focussed upon the long-term and continued viability of Pine Gap.   

Silvermine, moreover, was also the strategic link into a wider intelligence-gathering facilities, including NATO and the Southern Ocean Defence Plan, guaranteeing the Pentagon with defence and security provision spanning the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans. (3) The stated range of the Silvermine facilities reached Argentina to Bangladesh, northern Africa to Antarctica. (4)

Mauritius was also an important player in the intelligence network, being the main conduit through which telecommunications were channelled directly from Diego Garcia to Whitehall. (5) Similar to provisions for the Pentagon used facilities based in Puerto Rica. (6)

Since 1973, the US intelligence facilities based on Diego Garcia have been subject to continual upgrading. They now have the status of a military hub for operations, with a similar counterpart based in Guam in the Pacific, swinging on an arc from Pine Gap. (7) They, furthermore, use facilities based at Darwin Harbour as a support centre for regional and other deployments. (8)

What, however, has shaken US foreign policy considerations is the rapid rise of China as a serious competitor to traditional US-led hegemonic positions. In fact, a US congressional committee found the US were no longer the dominant power in the Pacific, nearly a decade ago; it has far-reaching implications for the use of Guam as a military hub for operations. (9) Pentagon intelligence assessments have, therefore, shifted toward the continued viability of Diego Garcia as the military hub for operations in the Indian Ocean. The outcome was the proposed agreement between the UK and Mauritius.

Coinciding with the findings of the US congressional committee, a military intelligence research finding drew attention to China's increasing role in the Indo-Pacific and Africa. (10) It was recommended that the US, therefore, should expand and upgrade their three-tier Island Chain Theory operational in the Asia-Pacific, to a fourth and fifth chains proposed for the Indian Ocean; the facilities based on Diego Garcia were central to the proposal. (11)

And there lies the main reason for the continual dithering on the part of the Starmer government and the position of the Trump administration, which have changed their position toward the proposed agreement with Mauritius on several occasions. (12) A day after the US State Department recently agreed to accept the Mauritius agreement with Britain, for example, a personal intervention by Trump halted US support. (13)

While the continually changing US position toward the Mauritius agreement is, in part, due to the mindset and cognitive disposition of Trump, it also reveals a general failure by the US to accurately assess the nature of China's diplomacy in the Indo-Pacific and Africa, and then  create a general agreement inside the corridors of power; Washington and the Pentagon, however, appear increasingly dysfunctional. The problem starts at the top and flows in a downward direction toward lesser minions.

Elsewhere, in the Middle East, former associates and analysts employed by the Trump administration have spoken openly about how 'the president fundamentally fails to grasp' analytical and intelligence assessments. (14) There is little reflective insight in his decision-making; his closest associates, who he presumably calls upon for advice, include family real estate financiers, a dried-out alcoholic and a former heroin addict with a fourteen-year history. They are not insightful, educated people, but remain part of a coterie of intrigue.   

To date, the Starmer government have stated they will not go ahead with the Mauritius agreement without US support. It has provided a convenient cover played out by dithering and a continued sycophantic prime minister in Westminster. The puppet is squirming.

Meanwhile, the clock remains slowly ticking away with an acknowledgement that, 'Diego Garcia … allows the US to project power across a vast part of the region and is seen as increasingly strategic at a time when a more assertive China is rivalling US influence in the Indo-Pacific, including a close relationship with Mauritius'. (15) No ambiguity.

The implications for the US failing to act accordingly are potentially far-reaching.

A former advisor to the Starmer government has already been quoted, for example, stating, 'it was pressure from the Biden administration that helped push the UK to strike the deal … giving sovereignty to Mauritius would help US and British interests by preventing the island from allying long-term with China'. (16) Political expedience was the order of the day.

The Trump administration, however, appear to see the world rather differently. That is, if they see it at all. They appear oblivious. The government of Mauritius together with a number of influential international bodies, nevertheless, have already stated that honouring the agreement 'is the only way to ensure the long-term security of the base'. (17)  

1.     Chagos deal halt to pacify Trump, Australian, 27 February 2026.
2.     Essential instruments of US strategy, two new gendarmes: Iran and South Africa, Le Monde Diplomatique, December 1976.
3.     Maritime Operational and Communications Headquarters, The Star (South Africa), 10 March 1973; and, Silvermine Communications Centre, Signals Units of the South African Corps of Signals and related services, Walter Volker, (Pretoria, 2010), page 609; and, Not in Europe Alone, John Biggs-Davison, M.P., Brassey's Annual: Defence and the Armed Forces, 1972, pp. 78-89, which states: “Australia is one of three A's of the southern ocean defence system … the other two being South Africa and Argentina” (page 87).
4.     Star, ibid.
5.     Security in the mountain, The Star (South Africa), 17 March 1973.
6.     Ibid.
7.     See: US intensifies military presence in Indo-Pacific, The Global Times (Beijing), 24 July 2018.
8.     Ibid.
9.     Study: US no longer dominant power in the Pacific, Paul D. Shinkman, Information Clearing House, 22 August 2019.
10.   See: China's reach has grown, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, 22 October 2018.
11.   Ibid.
12.   Chagos deal, Australian, op.cit., 27 February 2026.
13.   Ibid.
14.   Iran 'ready to spill American blood – even at huge cost', Australian, 27 February 2026.
15.   Chagos deal, Australian, op.cit., 27 February 2026.
16.   Ibid.
17.   Ibid.

 

Zionism: regional expansion in pursuit of a Greater Israel

Written by: Nick G. on 19 March 2026

 

On March 17, a senior official in the Trump intelligence community resigned in protest against the war with Iran.

Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the US agency responsible for coordinating and analysing terrorism intelligence, said “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

US imperialism had its own reasons for wanting to attack the Iranian regime, concerned about its siding with the Russian and Chinese imperialists and opposing both US imperialism and Israel.

However, the reasons given by Trump for joining Israel’s surprise attack on Iran, namely, that Iran’s nuclear weapons capacity posed a direct threat to the US, has been undermined by yesterday’s Senate hearing testimony from Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence. 

In a written version of her opening statement, Gabbard said Iran's nuclear enrichment program had been "obliterated" in 2025 strikes, and that the regime had not resumed enrichment activities. She omitted that portion of her statement in her spoken testimony, explaining later in the hearing that she did so to save time.

If, as Kent suggests, it was Israel that controlled the timetable for the attack on Iran, then an examination of Israel’s game plan is in order.

Israel is a racist, genocidal, apartheid state with regional expansionist ambitions.

It was created by acts of terrorism and maintains itself through terrorism.

Its existence is based on the 1897 teachings of the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl.

Herzl defined Israel based on a promise made by God to Abraham’s descendants that they would inherit the land between the Nile and the Euphrates (Genesis 15:18-21). 

The Irgun, the Stern Gang and Haganah terrorised the British into surrendering their Mandate over Palestine, and terrorised Palestinians into fleeing the area that became the State of Israel.

But the Zionists wanted more.

The Irgun flag depicted a map, divided by a gun, with modern Israel on one side, and Jordan on the other. Both were areas sought by the Zionists.

Both were part of Herzl’s Greater Israel which includes parts of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Kuwait, Turkey and Iraq. 

The dream of a Greater Israel is what drives Zionist regional expansionism.

Its chief proponents are Netanyahu, Finance Minister Smotrich (banned from travelling to Australia by the federal government in June 2025), and Minister for National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir. Both Smotrich and Ben-Gvir live illegally (under international law) on lands seized from Palestinians in the West Bank. Smotrich gave a speech in 2023 at a podium that displayed a map that showed Jordan as part of Israel.

During a speech before the United Nations General Assembly on September 22, 2023, Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held up a map that shows Israel stretching “from the river to the sea.” When his Likud party was formed in 1977, its original party platform read “The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” (Judea and Samaria refer to the West Bank; Gaza is included in the area between the Sea and the Jordan.)

We are yet to see whether the Queensland government, which has arrested two young people for supporting the Palestinian slogan “from the river to the sea”, will also condemn Netanyahu and Australian Zionists for espousing the Zionist’s “from the sea to the river” objective.

Proponents of a Greater Israel have support from an influential section of Trump’s MAGA rightists. Mike Huckabee, who twice ran for the Presidency as a Republican candidate, was appointed Ambassador to Israel in 2025. He is a Christian Zionist and said in an interview aired mid-February that he would not disavow the belief that the Bible promised that land to Israel – even though it now encompasses all or part of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

“It would be fine if they took it all,” Huckabee said.

Zionism constitutes an on-going threat to the sovereignty of its neighbours. It provoked the war against Iran in pursuit of Greater Israel, knowing that Iran was supporting elements of the resistance movement in Palestine and in Lebanon and therefore constituted a blockage and obstacle to its further expansion. 

US imperialism’s Trump agreed with and participated in the attack. We can thank him every time we fill up our cars for petrol prices that have gone through the roof. 

Together, the political ideology of Zionism and the arrogance of the Trump administration must be fought.

Our struggles to halt the incorporation of Australia into the US empire are part of that fight.

International Working Women’s Day spotlights dangerous women on opposite sides

Written by: Louisa L. on 8 March 2026

 

(Supplied)

What a difference five years make. 

When Grace Tame became 2021 Australian of the Year, it was on the back of giant struggles against child sexual abuse. She was not tame. She showed the strength and intelligence that allowed her to stand against the patriarchy as a teenager, had educated her on other forms of oppression. 

On International Working Women’s Day, we honour those ‘difficult women’ like Tame, who are anything but grateful to the ruling class for oppression. We honour those women who stand with the people, who understand their collective power, who fight for justice.

Above all we honour the masses of women who struggle day to day to survive to create justice and hope in a world where US imperialism and Zionism rampage, and here, where Australian parliaments and the monopoly capitalist state apparatus of violent suppression are under US domination. 

Despite her intelligence, this year’s Australian of the Year, Katherine Bennell-Pegg, is almost Tame’s opposite. She serves the US war machine. She stands for US imperialism. Her appointment shows US imperialist demands that all cracks of possible resistance be blocked.

Many have pointed out this contrast.

Nick G wrote on January 26, with space ‘the new military frontier’, that Bennell-Pegg is part of the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue alongside Raytheon, BHP, Lockhead Martin, Microsoft, Thales and the Australian Government. She declares she’ll promote STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) in schools and universities. 

Nick G suggests she’ll encourage other states to follow South Australia’s transformation of “a working-class high school into a ‘Secondary College’ with an attached ‘Space Academy’”. An expensive photo shoot shows beaming young people, with school uniforms displaying both the US and colonial Australian flags. 

The military has run some US schools for decades, syphoning young people into its war machine, its brutality, trauma and body bags. Young African Americans often chose the military, saying Afghanistan and Iraq were safer than the USA. Their life expectancy was longer and at least the military would pay for their burial. Young Hawaiians also joined the military because their economic prospects were so low in this US state.

Bennell-Pegg will make women’s work harder. She will target children. She will target their education.

Facing outwards, towards the masses

Against this, women are life givers, care givers. Overwhelmingly they nourish life. They are educators.

The richest private schools have major STEM programmes housed in high end architecture, and trips overseas. But they also have music and drama centres, sporting fields, swimming pools with cameras, and everything to create a rich and well-rounded education (undermined by propaganda and lies) for the future managers and CEOs. All with massive public funding and huge fees. 

State schools will get none of that. Staff – mostly female – hold the system together, just as they do in public hospitals, facing crushing workloads. 

“Care” of the mentally ill, including children, is a revolving emergency department door. In NSW mentally ill people who say they’ll harm themselves and others, can wait days in emergency departments, and leave without treatment. One waited 72 hours. There are just four public beds in drug treatment programs in Sydney! 

Care falls upon families, especially women. 

We celebrate First Peoples' women and women standing against all aspects of oppression. We know many of us carry the double load of oppression, paid and unpaid work, without which capitalism would sink into its stinking swamp of lies, theft and war.

But much has changed in 50 years too.

In the 1970s Glen Tomasetti sang, ‘Don’t be too polite girls’. Today Australian women take our place in the world. We demand it. But oppression continues. We refuse to be silent to do as we’re told.

From Knitting Nana’s to girls wearing keffiyehs to school day in day out, refusing to be compliant, we’ll make mistakes and learn from them. Facing outwards towards the masses, chains still bind us. 

But we refuse to comply to US monopoly capitalism and its wars. We will never give up. United, we have always been dangerous.

 

Picketing the International Women’s Day breakfast

Written by: Liz M on 6 March 2026

 

(Supplied)

For many years now, women in South Australia have been able to attend an IWD breakfast as a prologue to celebrations of women’s achievements and protests about ongoing exploitation and discrimination.

This year’s event, held at the Adelaide Convention Centre, was a little different.

For the first time, a number of women and their supporters picketed the event to object to the role of the host, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, in failing to support the women of Gaza.

Organised by the Australian Friends of Palestine (AFOPA), the picket began at 6am as the first of more than 3000 attendees entered the building.
AFOPA made its objections to Wong’s hosting of the event clear: 

“Since October 2023, over 28,000 women and girls have reportedly been killed in Gaza. Nearly 250,000 women and girls face starvation. More than one million women and girls have been forcibly displaced. In 2024, 70% of women killed in conflict globally were from Gaza.

“As Foreign Minister, Penny Wong represents Australia’s foreign policy, which has provided diplomatic cover and material support that enable these atrocities to continue. She has misled the public about Australia’s weapons exports to Israel and has been referred to the International Criminal Court for aiding and abetting genocide.”

IWD began as a protest against capitalism and its oppression of women. The first Day was organised by the American Socialist Party in 1909. In 1911, Communists Clara Zetkin and Rosa Luxemburg started Women’s Day in Europe. In March 1917, women textile workers in Russia used the event to call for Bread and Peace. The revolution later that year saw the culmination of their demands, and March 8 was decided upon by the leaders of the new Soviet Union as the day for a national holiday and international celebration.

For many years, IWD was celebrated as International Working Women’s Day, but there were very few working women in evidence among the $60 per head ticketed entrants to this morning’s breakfast.

It has become an increasingly corporatised event: the class dynamics were gobsmacking. There wasn't even any attempt to fig leaf it by inviting First People's women like they did a few years back. Just the business set, power suits, designer dresses etc. And many blazered private school girls -at least 6-8 private schools.  There was one small group of public school kids.

We carried effigies of dead babies and held corflutes about Wong’s position on Gaza and the disproportionate effect of the genocide on women and children. It was a silent protest asking the participants not to cross the picket line, but to my knowledge no-one changed their mind.

Nevertheless, it was the first real challenge to the event, and it was a challenge to Wong.

No doubt she will whisper something to Albanese about the bloody difficult women who picketed the event.