Discussions on Regime Change have ebbed and flowed over the decades, even though the phenomenon has not always been described in this way. It is now used by pro-capitalist elites to describe getting rid of an elite in charge of a hierarchical mass society or movement that is resisting the desires and expectations of another dominant hierarchical mass society also harnessed to the capitalist mode of production. The First and Second 20th century World Wars between two sets of political regimes resulted in the replacement of the elite regimes of the defeated side. The Vietnam War was a failed attempt by the Western Aliance to change the North and South Vietnam Communist Regime as was the war on the Korean peninsular.

The two more recent wars in Afghanistan were also attempts to replace regimes hostile to the western alliance as were the wars conducted by NATO in Iraq and those in Syria. The current wars between Russia and Ukraine essentially commenced as attempts to change the regime in Ukraine and the war on Gaza is an openly stated attempt by Israel to forcibly replace the regime of Hamas over the Palestinian people. Although in this latter case the larger truth is that the war on Gaza and the West Bank represents an attempt by the Jewish State of occupation (designated as Israel) to gain absolute control of the entire land of historic Palestine.

Therefore, it is a form of distorted nonsense to consider, as some recent commentators have suggested, that Regime Change by modern hierarchical mass society ‘states’ is something exceptional or something new. In fact, Regime Change is as old as the establishment of the hierarchical mass society form of human aggregation itself. It matters little what formal expression has been used to identify this process, the ‘essence’ is invariably the same. The essence of regime change and genocide started as early as approximately 860 BCE in the middle east, and as one ancient ruler then boasted about it, it frequently took the following form.

“I drew near to the city of Tela. The city was very strong; three walls surrounded it. The inhabitants trusted to their strong walls and numerous soldiers; they did not come down or embrace my feet. With battle and slaughter I assaulted and took the city. Three thousand warriors I slew in battle. Their booty and possessions, cattle, sheep, I carried away; many captives I burned with fire. Many of their soldiers I took alive; of some I cut off their hands and limbs; of others the noses, ears and arms; of many soldiers I put out the eyes. I reared a column of the living and a column of heads. I hung up on high their heads on trees in the vicinity of their city. Their boys and girls I burned up in the flame. I devastated the city, dug it up, in fire burned it; I annihilated it. (Standard Inc. , col. I. 113 – 118./ quoted in ‘A History of Babylonian and Assyrians’. By George Stephen Goodspeed. Section 168.)

Three thousand years later, and boys and girls are still being burned up but now in the flames of US supplied and Israeli delivered bunker bombs and other munitions in similarly  devastated Gaza. It is also well known that the Macedonian Greek ruler Alexander (frequently spun as ‘great’) later took his armies around the middle and near east and ‘changed regimes’ left right and centre, from India to Egypt and many places in between. Indeed, he instituted regime change wherever he decided it was possible and lucrative to do so. In the two later Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage, the elite generals of the Roman Armies decided to get rid of the elite regime in charge of Carthage in the most emphatic ways. This included overthrowing them and stripping their assets in foreign domains from Carthage elite possession in the second Punic War. Later still, in the third Punic War, the Roman promoted to General, (Scipio) ordered the decimation of the entire population of Carthage either by genocidal slaughter or by enslavement of the remaining survivors.

So the sensible conclusion is that regime change and genocidal elimination of populations are two aspects of the same elite-driven socio-economic logic operating within all hierarchical mass societies. The nonsense talked about regime change is that it is only deranged madmen such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khomeini, Gaddafi and such like who engage in such brutal forms of regime change and genocidal activities. That opinion is clearly ill-considered nonsense because a long series of British, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portugese and American elites – designated by historians as rational and stable – nevertheless over three centuries of colonial aggression conducted regime change operations throughout the continents of India, Africa, South America, North America and of course Europe.

The above, indisputable historical facts, in each case demonstrate almost exactly the same thing; that regime change and genocidal actions against indigenous populations are part and parcel of the general socio-economic logic of hierarchical mass societies. It does not matter who is in charge of them, the same dynamic evolves.  Moreover, this socio-economic logic unfolds irrespective of what historical period, what geographical location or what ideological tendency (secular or religious) they were created within. This inhumanity is a built in structural issue. But this overwhelming historical and contemporary evidence also demonstrates and reveals much more. In addition it demonstrates the tendency of hierarchical elites to either downplay or totally ignore the inbuilt logic of their own hierarchical system of socio-economic activity. It also invites the question (and reveals the answer) why the ‘rational‘ and ‘stable‘ elites and their intellectual and propaganda servants ignore this indisputable tendency and its ruthless manifestation.

I suggest the reason for elites ignoring this inbuilt tendency stems from a mixture of ignorance and self-interest. The self-interest of elites in the hierarchical mass society system lies in the fact that the obvious power, influence and relative wealth these systems are designed to deliver to those elites, is a powerful incentive to ignore any shortcomings or existential problems the hierarchical mass society system continually displays. The degree of general ignorance of this fundamental systemic flaw in the hierarchical mass society system of social living arises from the fact that to eradicate this level of ignorance requires a detailed historical knowledge together with an informed revolutionary-humanist perspective, both of which are lacking among elites. These two factors, historical ignorance and a revolutionary-humanist perspective, are inadequately developed or totally undeveloped within elites in general and are particularly absent in those elites who are trained to govern.

But this twin absence is also strongly evident among those intellectuals whose consciousness arrives at partial forms of criticism of the latest iteration of the hierarchical mass society system, now known as the capitalist mode of production. Anthropocentric ideology, in it’s latest bourgeois form, dominates intellectual thinking across the whole social and political spectrum of educated citizens. This abscence was evident in the dominant ideologies circulating among the 20th century anti-capitalists such as the Bolsheviks and Communists headed by Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky in the Soviet Union and Charman Mao in Communist China. The socio-economic form of hierarchical mass societies was not fully understood by them as the cause and therefore was not merely a symptom of the alienated and alienating structure of human to human and human to non-human relationships within life on earth. Therefore, strict hierarchical leadership and authoritarian control was as ruthlessly promoted and adhered too among those ‘socialist’ and ‘communist’ leadership ranks (and their imitators) as it was among, Fascists, Islamists, Zionists, Conservatives, Liberals, Labourites and Christian Social Democrats.

Sadly, this unquestioning and uncritical tendency of promoting and retaining hierarchical mass society systems is perpetuated among their modern anti-capitalist ‘followers’, who in the 21st century often simply regurgitate essentially the same sectarian platitudes as their long dead ‘hero’ leaders. The best many of their dedicated followers of that particular fashion, can come up with is to recommend that modern critics of the current elite anthropocentric system read the early 20th century works of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky or Mao for inspiration and guidance in the 21st. This, phenomenon illustrates the long established truism that educators are always first in need of education themselves and that teaching something before you have fully understood it yourself frequently represents a case of the extremely short-sighted arrogantly offering to lead the blind through a minefield.  To my knowledge, not one of these modern advocates of following 20th century anti-capitalist vanguardist perspectives of Bolshevism or Maoism have pointed out the essential similarity between the hierarchical regimes of the left, the right and the centre or the long historical record of all such hierarchical mass society regimes, that are briefly noted above.

This tragic shortcoming represents not only their own personal failure to understand the real history of all hierarchical mass societies, but also involves them in putitive attempts to misguide present and future generations of working people into repeating the drastic mistakes of previous generations. These mistakes begin precisely with the ‘trust me and follow MY LEADER’ syndrome that were made in previous generations and are due to the same lack of understanding by the ‘left’ of the hierarchical anthropocentic system as a whole. If anyone recommends reading Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky or Mao without mentioning their uncritical acceptance of the hierarchical mass society model both in their theoretical studies and in their actual institutional practices, this I suggest implies a level of wilful or neglectful ignorance. Like cigarette packets those left orientated ‘brands’ intended for intellectual consumption as with other right wing and liberal orientated political ‘brands’ should carry a warning that utilising  ‘the contents can seriously damage your health’ as well as the health and well being of those around you.

Roy Ratcliffe (June 2024.)