The example of struggles in various countries stimulates and influences movements in others
ISA International Political Committee statement, based on discussions on world perspectives at a meeting of the International Committee of ISA on 1 October.
In “a world with two predatory super powers” (Martin Wolf, FT 1 October), the key trends of this year have continued since our last World Perspectives update in May. There has been a certain consolidation of Trump’s regime, the genocide in Gaza is a dominating factor in consciousness globally, and militarization and right-wing nationalism are accelerating. In parallel, with contradictions building up and new crises developing, there are also powerful new struggles and revolts of workers and youth, and important political developments to the left.
A reactionary turn dominates the capitalist system and its representatives. Trump’s presidential Bonapartist regime has increased repression and threats both domestically and internationally. In the US itself, he is using armed forces of the state to hunt and terrorize migrants, expanding ICE with 10,000 new agents. The National Guard is being deployed in several cities, including Washington DC, and the threat of using the army against “the enemy within” is increasingly made. The murder of Charlie Kirk was used to increase attacks on the left and all Trump’s opponents.
At the same time, there is falling support for Trump and mass opposition to him. 14 June saw the largest day of protest ever in the US, with millions mobilised. There is another day of mass protests on 18 October. However, given the grave lack of leadership, resistance is uneven and has not been able to push back the regime decisively on any issue thus far.
Globally, Trump’s trade war has largely brought allies to heel and dealt significant further blows to a Chinese imperialism in crisis. Trump’s deal with the European Union was a humiliation of the European ruling classes, who accepted a 15% tariff on their exports in exchange for zero on US exports to the EU. Trump’s actions are encouraging other governments and political parties to go further in the same autocratic and right-wing populist direction. The international “solidarity” among the global right is shown by Trump’s 50% tariffs on Brazil, in response to Bolsonaro being jailed as well as his promise to financially support Milei’s government in Argentina, facing a new economic meltdown.
Alongside and interlinked with the actions of Trump, the central political issue internationally is the genocide in Gaza. Two years into the war of extermination, Gaza is completely destroyed, with the population forced into tiny unliveable camps and pushed into mass starvation. The barbarism unleashed has taken the international solidarity movement to its highest stage yet. The general strikes of Italian workers, alongside mass demonstrations, is adding a new quality to the movement – the necessary action of the working class. The solidarity movement has been met with state repression and slander campaigns. Struggle for democratic rights is becoming a central issue.
Power relations in the Middle East have changed drastically, in favour of the Israeli state. Ceasefires are welcome and have been a main demand of the solidarity movement since the beginning, but peace plans from Trump and others offer no real peace or stability, not to mention an end to the occupation or self-determination for the Palestinian masses. All factors leading to wars and crises still remain and contradictions are continuing to build up, with the region’s working masses being the key to ending wars and misery. In Egypt, demonstrations in solidarity with Gaza were completely stopped, and the regimes in the Gulf states fear the reaction of the masses against their cooperation with Israel.
The new period of more and longer wars and militarisation is also underlined by over 3.5 years of war in Ukraine, with no end in sight. On the contrary, the war is being intensified with drone attacks and civilian victims multiplying. European governments are shaken and fearmongering to further step up militarisation at home.
Despite Trump’s fiasco in flirting with Putin to achieve the peace he promised most, in Ukraine, the US president was still seen as a “favourite” to receive the Nobel “Peace” prize. It would then have gone to a White House that in less than a year has bombed Iran and Yemen, attacked Venezuelan ships in the Caribbean as part of a large military build up, and continued to threaten Greenland and Panama. And, most of all, a White House which has giving full support to the genocide in Gaza.
The “peace agreements” Trump claims to have brokered are extremely general and vague, with no issues solved or even with fighting continuing as in Congo. They are also all linked to Washington’s goal of securing natural resources and imperialist plunder in general. Fearing criticism if they gave the prize to Trump, but still wanting to please him, the Nobel committee gave the prize to his extreme right-wing ally in Venezuela, María Corina Machado, who has nothing to do with peace.
It is obvious that the capitalist classes today have very few, if any, reliable political representatives from the traditional “centre ground”. Most liberals, social democrats and similar are adopting variants of the policies of the right-wing parties. These developments are a result of a capitalist system without any coherent plan to solve its many crises.
In China, crises are deepening, added to by the effects of the dominating global conflict between US and Chinese imperialism. China’s share of the world economy is shrinking, and its relatively recent pivot back to a heavy reliance on exports is threatened by the trade war and tariffs. The collapse of the dominating property sector and chronic over-production is causing increased unemployment and also hitting the Chinese capitalists. Youth unemployment is officially at 18.9% (which would be 25% using the pre-2023 methodology). In the worst year of Japan’s “lost decades”, 2001, youth unemployment reached 10.1%. There is an ongoing power struggle at the top of the ruling “CCP”, although the “black box” of the dictatorial regime hides the scale of it. Almost certainly, this power struggle in which Xi Jinping is increasingly challenged, is a trigger for the re-escalation of the trade conflict with Trump.
The world economy has not recovered from its near-death moment in 2008-09. The “solutions” applied back then created record levels of debts, deficits and increased inequality to new heights. Today, the turn to nationalism and trade wars are damaging the economy further, leading to stagnant growth and job losses. This is added to with the huge increases in military spending.
The IMF and others are worried about the approach of a new financial meltdown. There is frenetic and parasitic speculation on stock markets – ten tech/AI companies have 40% of the total New York stock market valuation – and in crypto-currencies and gold.
The sharp right-wing turn by ruling classes is also propelling an international climate counter-revolution, again led by Trump, with even previous lip service commitments to climate and the environment being scrapped. “7 of the 9 critical Earth system boundaries have now been breached”, reported the Planetary Boundaries Science Lab at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in September, adding that this is “increasing the risk of destabilising the planet”.
At the same time, many events underline that the class balance of forces today is not simply one of counter-revolution alone. In Europe alone, September and October have seen huge general strikes in Italy, Greece, Belgium and France, as well as mass mobilisations against the genocide in many countires.
Politically, rising right-wing parties are countered by powerful counter-currents, with the birth of Your Party in Britain despite its crises, the unprecedented dynamism of Die Linke in Germany (reflected in the Gaza solidarity mobilisation it called bringing 100,000 onto the streets), and new prominence of Melenchon amid the deep French political crisis. The mass support for Zohran Mamdani in the New York mayoral election, despite the fact that he is running as a Democrat, again shows the potential to build political working class alternatives. Marxists participate in these developments, supporting the building of new left formations at the same time as arguing for a revolutionary socialist programme, warning of the limits of reformism, which ultimately lead to capitulation.
There is also a new youth-led wave of struggle against economic hardship, inequality, lack of democratic rights and unemployment. Uprisings shook corrupt regimes in Nepal and Indonesia, and were followed by youthful mass protest movements including in Madagascar, Peru and Morocco. As was the case with the wave of revolts in 2019, a single issue can trigger general protest movements against those in power, which overthrow governments and spread internationally. Also similar to 2019, and again in Bangladesh last year, the ruling classes will exploit weaknesses in movements’ political programs and organization to attack and derail them.
Wars and trade wars
Around the world, there is an urgent need for mass anti-war and anti-militarism campaigns uniting trade unions, left and workers’ parties and workers and youth in general. Before the US war on Iraq in 2003, Marxists pointed out how workers’ actions – strikes and blockades building up to general strikes – were needed, alongside the major movement on the streets, to stop the war.
Gaza and Middle East
In the movement against the war of extermination in Gaza, the militant direct action represented by the Sumud flotilla and the general strikes in Italy were a new qualitative escalation. They were also linked to each other, with tens of thousands launching the flotilla from Barcelona and the Italian dockers’ threat to “block everything” if the flotilla was attacked. When that happened, a second general strike followed on 3 October, with a million marching in Rome. Two weeks before, 100,000 took direct action to stop the bicycle classic Vuelta de España in Spain, defeating a mass police deployment in Madrid. The idea of political strike action against the genocide and general strikes on an international scale has taken on flesh.
It was no coincidence that the two countries at the epicenter of the European movement – Italy and Spain – forced their governments to send navy ships to “escort” the flotilla and pushed Turkey to do the same. Even Egypt made vague threats to act. Of course this was not genuine support for the flotilla and indeed, the navy ships left the scene before the Israeli army intervened. This mass pressure is also reflected in the tokenistic recognition of Palestinian state by Western powers and toughening of rhetoric criticising Israel, after two years of full support for the genocidal war. The flow of arms to Israel has not stopped, and these governments also lined up to support the deal proposed by Trump.
Netanyahu’s speech to an almost empty hall at the UN General Assembly reflected isolation – but not from the one who matters most, Trump. However, Netanyahu had no choice but to support Trump’s peace plan. On paper, this plan does not fulfill the “total victory” Netanyahu claimed to be close to achieving, which in the grotesque vision of the far-right Israeli government includes the displacement of all Palestinians and new settlements. Hamas was ordered to release all hostages and disarm in exchange for some kind of amnesty and the release of hundreds of Palestinians in Israeli prisons. Trump dropping the idea of deporting all Palestinians from Gaza was a setback for the Israeli extreme right, but a condition to get the Arab dictatorships on board.
Trump’s unconditional support for Israel, including his bombing of Iran, has always been combined with a hope that the “normalization” process of Abraham Accords between Israel and Arab regimes could continue. The genocidal war has blocked the most coveted deal, between Saudi Arabia and Israel. The “peace plan” is designed to move that process forward, with the hope of stability, increased business deals and a boost to Trump’s standing. The fact that the horrors in Gaza were leading to an escalated solidarity movement was also a factor, as was the Israeli attack on Qatar, an important US ally.
Arab and Muslim regimes, fearing growing protests as well as the pressure from Trump, accepted the “plan”. Qatar and Turkey put pressure on Hamas to accept it. Even the Iranian regime made supportive comments. Netanyahu, on the other hand, repeats his position that the Palestinian Authority has no role to play and there will be no Palestinian state. Israeli troops will continue to control at least 50% of Gaza. The Israeli right-wing government realizes it is now “on top” in the region and wants to be able to attack who it wants when it wants. Despite a “ceasefire” agreement, Lebanon is attacked almost daily. Syria, Yemen and even Qatar have also been targeted in recent months.
The peace plan began its first phase on 10-13 October. It is likely to formally hold for a limited period. For the Gaza population the ceasefire is a relief, amid hellish conditions. It is also a relief for protesters in Israel who have long demanded an end to the war to secure the release of hostages. With Trump investing all his prestige in the “deal” and the masses in Israel and the region longing for peace, the Israeli government will need to construct serious excuses for new massive attacks on Gaza, and if so, will get US backing. Continued Israeli aggression in the region and the West Bank, even if not formal annexation, is to be expected.
In Israel itself, there will be hope and pressure for peace, but mainly continued uncertainty and strong criticism of Netanyahu, even if Trump has given him a short breathing space. The official opposition offers no real alternative. A change in Israel has to come from the working class and from the youth, based on an alternative to the oppression of Palestine, and the war mongering of capitalism and imperialism.
No imperialist peace plan can solve the Palestinian struggle for national liberation. In the “peace plan’s” early stages, the “unpolitical” administration which will allegedly rule Gaza alongside a regional military force are far from concrete – “Its size, mandate and even the nations that will deploy troops are unknown” wrote the FT on 13 October in relation to the latter. It is clear that the “economic development plan” offers nothing to Palestinians who have lost friends, family and futures, who are starving and succumbing to diseases. Resistance against continued occupation and siege will not disappear, including from Hamas.
The mass struggle of the Palestinians has again and again shown there is no solution within the framework of capitalism and imperialism. The key will be new eruptions of struggle in the region, with the working masses organising and developing a revolutionary socialist program. The most decisive developments would be uprisings in the region, especially Egypt and Jordan. The recent mass movement in Morocco shows the potential for an explosion.
Ukraine
The long war in Ukraine following the Russian invasion on 24 February 2022 continues to have major influence on global events. Initially, it consolidated and tightened blocs around the two sides in the major conflict between US and Chinese imperialism. The US under Biden strengthened its leadership of the Western bloc, with China’s bloc including Russia and increasingly Iran and North Korea.
The bloc dynamic was shaken and transformed by Trump but not eliminated: blocs are fundamental to imperialism. We said at the height of the crisis in the Western bloc (after Zelensky’s first Washington visit in March), “The so-called Western alliance has never been among equals, and since the end of World War II, the US has been the undisputed hegemon within it… This is nothing new to imperialism. As well as bitter struggle between rival powers and blocs, its dynamic is also characterised by relations of domination and submission within imperialist blocs and alliances”.
The European powers have been forced to accept the recipe dictated by Trump. The “bloc” has changed character, described by Martin Wolf in the FT as “transforming allies into vassals”. European governments are being made to play a more leading role in the Ukraine war, paying for US arms as well as drastically increasing their own military budgets.
Trump’s attempt to reach a deal with Putin, offering to lift sanctions and make economic deals, have failed. In recent months, the war has also partly changed character and alongside the ongoing “meatgrinder” at the front, become increasingly a war of missiles and drones, even against cities. The number of Russian drone attacks this year against targets in Ukraine has been nine times higher than last year. The main purpose is to reduce morale and fuel war weariness in Ukraine, but it is difficult to assess to what extent this has been successful. At the same time, Russian imperialism continues to slowly and at an enormous cost make new territorial conquests.
Trump’s most recent shift means he wants to put military pressure on Putin, including plans to step up arms sales. It has been suggested that he could authorise Tomahawk missile attacks inside Russia which would be one of the biggest escalations of the war so far. Trump has also ordered US ships and aircraft closer to Russia and even said he would support shooting down Russian jetfighters over Nato airspace. But even a significant shift from Trump will likely only prolong Ukraine’s ability to slow Russian advances down, not turn the tide.
All parties now count on the war continuing for much longer. Any continuation of the war is dangerous. There is a massive escalation of the rhetoric and incidents between Russia and European countries. The Swedish Prime Minister and his German colleague, chancellor Merz, have both used the expression that their countries are neither at war or peace. Poland has shot down Russian drones and there have been several alarms raised about drones over Denmark, even if unidentified and in several cases untrue. Summits of European leaders are dominated by military and security issues, with the threat from Russia to the fore. If European Nato countries would spend 5% of GDP on the military as Trump demands, their combined military budget would be larger than the US’. This military buildup means that Germany no longer can afford its social spending, Merz has stated.
On the Ukraine war, recent statements from Beijing are also significant. China’s foreign minister Wang Yi told EU leaders in July that China cannot allow Russia to lose the war. There are also new reports of more significant military assistance in the form of parts and even Chinese arms factories on Russian soil. Yi’s admission is an accurate summation of Chinese imperialism’s attitude, with the war having high stakes for the global power struggle. This has become more important in the aftermath of setbacks for Iran and other Chinese allies in the Middle East.
Latin America and Africa
All continents are drawn into the inter-imperialist conflict. Trump’s rhetoric against Venezuela as a centre for the drug trade and Venezuelans as a major criminal group in the US that should be deported, has been followed by a military build up. Different navy ships backed up with intelligence units have been gathered in the Caribbean with the capacity to launch missile strikes. A number of Venezuelan ships have been attacked, causing over 20 deaths and many more wounded (as of 9 October). Washington describes Venezuelan authoritarian president Maduro as a drug baron and there is growing speculation of a US attack on Venezuelan soil to pursue regime change. If so, it will have big effects in Latin America with its history of US interventions and support of military coups.
In Africa and internationally, the military regimes established in Sahel, particularly in Burkina Faso led by Ibrahim Traoré, have caught attention for their anti-imperialist rhetoric and measures directed against French imperialism, as well as partial nationalisations of some mines and industries. Their emergence is based on resistance to exploitation, but also on the hope to end the wars and terror from right-wing islamist armed groups. While nationalizations and actions against imperialism are welcome, they are still limited and these military regimes do not offer a way out. They have instead aligned with Russian and Chinese imperialism, and repressed protests and organisation from below. These are not the methods of the working class necessary to achieve liberation from post-colonial imperialism.
Both Congo and Sudan are devastated by long wars involving other regional forces. Sudan is named as the worst humanitarian catastrophe with over 150,000 killed, 12 million forced to become refugees and 25 million at risk of famine. There, as with Congo, the Trump administration has attempted to reach some tentative deal, aiming to get credit for “peace” and to secure control of natural resources. The Congo deal has not yet achieved peace, with ongoing fighting between the Congolese army and the M23 forces backed by Rwanda. In Sudan, with Saudi Arabia and Egypt supporting the army and UAE backing the RSF opposition, talks have so far ended without any agreements.
Generally, Africa is already being hit by the trade war causing new waves of factory closures in South Africa and elsewhere. In Nigeria, Kenya and other countries, governments implementing the austerity recommended by the IMF are met with strong resistance and protests that so far lack the leadership and program needed.
The trade war
Capitalist economists have commented that the trade war launched by Trump ‘makes no sense’. But it is not mainly about economics. Declared aims such as “reindustrializing” the US will not happen, apart from steps on a very limited scale, mainly in the arms industry.
Tariffs are political and geopolitical. Political in the sense of Trump “delivering” on economic nationalism for his base and gaining advantage for key allies in the capitalist class. There are some parallels with Brexit which was an economic failure but a great political success, pushing official British politics further to the right, and strengthening right-wing nationalism.
In geopolitics, as we wrote in an article on the ISA website April 14: “It was not primarily a question of trade, but of establishing who is in charge. Especially in relation to Chinese imperialism, but also to the EU and the rest of the world.” In this, Trump has largely got his way. Allies (EU, Japan, UK) have made remarkable concessions in exchange for a deal. The EU deal (15% in exchange for zero percent) was rushed into and described by EU leaders as a success because Trump’s first bid was 30%! Like other governments and regimes, the EU also promised investments to Trump, in this case to buy US oil and gas worth hundreds of billions of euros. Mexico, the country most impacted in terms of GDP by the trade war, has also swallowed the medicine and is now implementing tariffs against China to please Trump.
US allied states and governments had no choice but to obey. At the same time, the US being unreliable, will lead ruling classes in those countries to search for other options, over time, for cooperation as well as for new markets. But that is not the situation now, with insecurity and ‘wait-and-see’ dominating.
The actions of the CCP regime are, as with Trump, not based on purely or even predominantly economic calculations. They should be seen against the background of economic stagnation and political crises – including the power struggle at the top. Despite western media and US politicians emphasising the strengths and threats of their main adversary, the fact is that the CCP regime, after Trump’s “liberation day” in April, accepted a “truce” which means tariffs of 50% vs 10%, while talks to reach a definitive deal continued. Beijing has failed to gain the upper hand or seize opportunities provided by Trump’s aggression and hubris.
On 9 October, this position seemingly changed, with the Chinese commerce ministry announcing export controls on rare earths. This was just 10 days before the 4th plenum, a CCP summit expected to take decisions on economic policies as well as on leadership positions. Most likely, the announcement was an attempt to show strength by Xi Jinping, not least in the domestic power struggle. In China itself, the new stage of conflict is presented as an escalation initiated by Washington.
A shocked Trump immediately threatened a new 100% tariff, maintaining his willingness to meet Xi at the Apec summit in South Korea at the end of the month, however. The effect of this heating up of the trade war was a sharp drop on stock markets. While backing off from war-like declarations can be difficult, it is in the interests of both sides to scale things down currently. They were both hard hit by the period of extreme tariffs in April and it remains the case that neither side can deliver a knockout blow to the other.
Shaky deals and new temporary thaws are possible, but will not solve the major conflict and confrontation. The decoupling trend will continue. Domestically, it is also still in the interest of the US to present a growing threat from China, in order to justify its emphasis on military spending and national security. There can be military incidents amid the manifold tensions in the Western Pacific. However, neither side strives for a major confrontation at the moment.
Word economy on the edge of serious crisis
The overall outlook for the world economy is bleak, with the lowest level of growth at the moment (except for the pandemic downturn) since the financial crisis in 2008. The World Bank said a few months ago that this was due to “heightened trade tension and policy uncertainty” (read Trump’s trade war) and went on to say, “if forecasts for the next two years materialize, average global growth in the first seven years of the 2020s will be the slowest of any decade since the 1960s.”
The OECD has now upgraded growth somewhat for this year to 3.2% but this does not change the overall grim outlook. The OECD also pointed out that the full effect of tariffs is yet to be felt, warning of “significant risks to the economic outlook.” To a significant degree the effect of tariffs on the world economy has not been worse because in the bulk of cases countries did not retaliate and avoided escalation. If the latest US-China flare-up is not resolved, this has the potential to cause significant economic damage in an already fragile situation.
The US economy is sluggish, with overall growth projected by the Federal Reserve at 1.6% for this year, clearly higher than many economists expected after “Liberation Day” but still a real slowdown from the 2.8% in 2024. But this is only the headline number. It is clear that the US economy is slowing down on various fronts with a whole series of problems piling up which could spill over into a major crisis in coming months.
The biggest indicator of trouble is the job market with the number of jobs being created dropping steeply and a number of bourgeois economists now saying that the US has entered a “labor recession.” Manufacturing output has shrunk for six straight months. Inflation has also not gone away, despite high interest rates. Consumer inflation stood at 2.9% in August. Tariffs are a big reason for this with companies passing on the higher cost of imports. The Yale Budget Lab estimate is that the average US household will pay $2,300 because of tariffs this year.
This means that the world’s biggest economy is firmly in stagflation territory – low growth combined with inflation – for the first time since the 1970s. Of course these problems are still relatively mild compared to the ongoing deflationary spiral and virtually zero growth in the Chinese economy. This has led to significant cuts in wages for large sections of the workforce and mass unemployment for young people. The unemployment rate for 16-24 year olds is now 10.5%.
But the prospect of a financial crisis beginning in the US is now very real. A massive bubble has developed centered on Artificial Intelligence (AI) with at least $300 billion in investment by the big US tech firms this year alone. This is investment which has almost entirely failed to lead to actual profitable returns. It is directly fueled by the massive overaccumulation of capital in the past historical period, a situation only worsened by the “easy money” policies of the 2010s.
AI is now estimated to account for 40% of US growth this year and 80% of stock market gains. This is comparable to the dot.com bubble of the late 90s but arguably on a much bigger scale. As an FT headline read, “America Is Now One Big Bet on AI.” This is also pulling significant foreign investment into US markets contributing further to the soaring tech stock prices untethered to the real economy and ensuring that the effects of the bubble bursting will be global. The Bank of England has recently warned of the growing risk of a “sharp market correction.”
And if a major financial crash does occur, we need to stress, as we have in previous material, that this would occur in a global landscape far different to 2008-9 when key powers cooperated to prevent a full scale collapse of the world economy. Today such cooperation would be far harder to achieve and the likelihood of a deeper 1930s type slump would be far higher.
Trump consolidating his position in the US
In the US, we see an apparent contradiction between Trump’s declining support in recent months and the drive to rapidly consolidate an authoritarian regime. Trump now has less than 50% support in the polls for his handling of every key issue, especially the economy and inflation, issues that were key to him getting elected. The continuing Epstein scandal has also contributed to Trump’s softening support. Even on immigration, the public is increasingly unhappy with the brutality of Trump’s deportation campaign though there is overall support for “securing the border.” In fact it is in part this declining support overall which is contributing to the urgency of Trump and the far right to accomplish their goals.
The assassination of far right influencer Charlie Kirk was a golden opportunity for Trump to rally the base and launch a series of repressive measures which had been planned for some time. It was argued that the “radical left” had whipped up the hatred that led to this act when the overwhelming bulk of individual terrorism in the US comes from the white supremacist, extreme right.
A number of people with social media posts not sufficiently supportive of Kirk lost their jobs in the days after his killing. Trans people were targeted. Executive orders were issued to go after “antifa” as a form of domestic terrorism and to open a criminal investigation of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. Going after the Democratic Party’s associated liberal organizations in the run up to next year’s midterm elections is clearly a priority but the socialist left is certainly also a potential target, even if not at the top of the list right now.
In a direct echo of previous Red Scares in World War I and the 1950s, Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 spells out, “Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”
This is a pretty fair summation of the scope of Trump’s agenda, a distillation of the reactionary turn of the bourgeoisie. It is also so broad as to include almost any form of political opposition. It only leaves out the labor movement and workers’ ability to organize, clearly the ultimate target. But Trump’s regime has shown its intent by shutting down the labor relations machinery which was historically used to keep unions in check but through which workers also sometimes scored wins. Now the bourgeois feel not even this fig leaf is needed. Meanwhile the counterrevolutionary drive to remove or undermine the remaining gains of women, Black and LGBTQ people from the 60s is well underway.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is now the second largest internal police force in the world and essentially Trump’s private army, continues to ramp up its terror campaign as federal forces invade one Democratic-led city after another. Trump told the assembled generals in Quantico that the army should use major US cities as training grounds for war. In a recent operation allegedly against a Venezuelan drug gang, hundreds of agents from ICE and various other agencies swooped on a residential building in Chicago, including rappelling out of helicopters dragging out dozens of Latino and Black residents, including children, in the middle of the night, most of them legal residents or US citizens.
This reign of terror has led to a reversal of the high levels of immigration of recent years. But for Trump, while presenting this as “promises kept” to his base, the point is the terror itself and the threat to turn ICE and the forces of repression against others who would seek to seriously oppose him.
The government shutdown, now headed for a third week, was triggered by the Democrats in Congress correctly refusing to pass a government funding measure which would cut healthcare insurance for millions. While the Democratic leadership has finally taken a stand on something, this in no way means they are gearing up for a serious fight against the administration. Trump at this point shows no intention of negotiating, using it as an “unprecedented opportunity” to lay off more federal workers. This comes on top of removing the union rights of a million federal workers, almost 10% of the organized labor movement in the US.
Mass protests are likely to continue, with another upcoming “No Kings” national day of action, but by themselves protests like this will not stop Trump. There are severe limitations without the intervention of the organized working class. Socialist Alternative (ISA in the US) has called for strike action against the ICE/National Guard military occupations in various cities. An atrocity at some point could easily lead to a massive social explosion given the level of anger that exists.
The likely victory of Zohran Mamdani as New York City mayor in November is a significant development. The Mamdani campaign, as we have pointed out, has much in common, in what it expresses and the enthusiasm it has created, with the development of Die Linke in Germany and Your Party in the UK, except that it remains trapped in the corporate Democratic Party. Mamdani is a member of the DSA who has run on the question of unaffordable housing, calling for free buses, free childcare for children under five, and a $30 an hour minimum wage. It is expected that by the end of the campaign over 100,000 will have volunteered to help the campaign, an astounding number, over 1% of the city’s population. Mamdani is also winning because he is a Muslim candidate who stood with the Palestinian people, against the pro-Israeli state leadership of the Democratic Party. Remarkably he has the support of most of the city’s Jewish population, the largest outside Israel. We have been engaged in the campaign while warning very clearly about the compromises Zohran has already started to make to the Democratic establishment and big business.
Political polarization turbocharged
With five different prime ministers in 21 months, France has become increasingly ungovernable in the context of the historic crisis of French capitalism. The country is now the clearest example of political crisis and instability in the West.
A week after Sébastien Lecornu’s resignation on 6 October, Macron ended up reappointing him as prime minister with a new cabinet that looks much the same as the previous one. This time, they are desperately trying to avoid a new vote of no confidence in the National Assembly by appealing to sectors of the traditional right (such as part of the Republicans, formed by former president Sarkozy, now sentenced to five years in prison for corruption) and sectors of the Socialist Party, the most right-wing component of the New Popular Front.
The draft budget that “Lecornu II” is expected to present essentially maintains the same austerity plan, cuts and withdrawal of rights that provoked mass resistance which brought down Lecornu’s predecessor. If, in the past, Macron has been forced to resort to authoritarian, Bonapartist measures, such as overriding the Assembly and approving his hated pension counter-reform by decree (Article 49.3), this time it would be much more difficult.
Macron and his centrist political force arose as a political lifeline for French capitalism in the 2010s, ensuring bourgeois governability in the face of the instability generated by the end of the two-party system that had prevailed before. But today, Macronism has exhausted itself and is unable to carry out the austerity programme needed by the French bourgeoisie.
In the context of French social and political polarisation, the weakening of Macronism and the worsening crisis give rise, on the one hand, to the growth of the far right Rassemblement National (RN) of Le Pen and, on the other, open space for Melenchon of La France Insoumise (LFI) as a potential left-wing alternative. Polls for the presidential election show Jordan Bardella (Le Pen’s protege in the RN) with roughly double the support of any other candidate. Melenchon then features heavily, often just behind Macron’s candidate. With the growing erosion of Macronism, the trend is for the 2027 French elections to be marked by a contest between Melenchon and the RN.
This scenario is being replicated, with its specificities, in several other countries. In Germany, the AfD leads all opinion polls, and the resurgent Die Linke (The Left) is neck and neck with the Social Democrats. In Chile’s important Presidential election coming up in November, the most likely second round contest would be between the far right Kast and the Communist Party’s Jeanette Jara (who hails very much from the right of the party).
In Britain, the undermining of the two-party system which marked the 2020s has given way to its collapse. Keir Starmer’s “loveless landslide” general election victory in July 2024 was only the prelude to the Labour Party’s deepest crisis since its inception. Stumbling from one crisis to another, the days of this beleaguered Blairite as Prime Minister appear to be numbered. The disgraced Tory party, which has been further Trumpified since its removal from power, is suffering from an even deeper crisis and is the government’s main opposition, very much in name only. In opinion polls, both of the historic “two parties” of the British political system regularly struggle to make up 40% between them.
In the volatile redrawing of Britain’s political map, two poles have emerged: Reform UK and Your Party. In first place in all polls lies Reform, Nigel Farage’s far right outfit, the face of British Trumpism. Its path to power (which is still not guaranteed) has been laid not by Farage’s skills by the entire political and media establishment, not least Starmer’s Labour, which has swallowed Farage’s line of racism and nationalism hook, line and sinker. In Britain and internationally, the rightward reactionary turn of capitalist politics has taken place across the political spectrum, from former social democrats, to Liberals and Conservatives, only finding its most effective and authentic voice in the figureheads of the rising right.
On the one hand, the international populist and far right is of course marked by a remarkable degree of political homogeneity – they all sing from the same racist, anti-feminist, transphobic, nationalist and militarist hymn sheet. On the other hand however, it is also marked by important differences between and within one phenomenon and the next, reflecting national, subjective (it is, after all, a movement of ‘great leaders’) and ideological differences.
This includes the existence within several of these phenomena, of more extreme, even fascistic tendencies. In the US, a plethora of “hardcore MAGA” figures and grouplets abound, ranging from open white nationalists and neonazis to more populist figures like Tucker Carslon and Marjorie Taylor-Green. In Britain, Farage’s rise in the polls has run parallel to the racist “Tommy Robinson” (real name Ian Yaxley-Lennon)’s rise on the streets, which culminated in a march of over 100,000 racists through London in September. In France, the arch-racist Eric Zemmour is another prominent figure in the political landscape, positioning himself to the right of Le Pen’s RN.
While such forces are currently (usually) working as auxiliaries to the more “mainstream” right populist phenomena, they also point towards the potential for a new and even more dangerous right which can be strengthened amid the deep crises of the system in the next period.
The struggle to push back and defeat the right is therefore of central importance for socialists today. It is also one of the key political tests for the new left political figures, parties and formations which this period is throwing up. In this struggle, socialists must play the role of the labour movement’s historical memory, and prepare to fight boldly against the inevitable resurgence of “lesser evilism” and classical popular frontism (the idea that all political forces, including capitalist ones, should unite against the far right). The movement to defeat the right must be one of working class opposition to the entire capitalist political establishment. It must also be based around a political programme which mobilises for struggle and offers real solutions to the crises of the system, closely linked to powerful mass socialist parties internationally.
The birth of Your Party is of historic importance for many reasons. It is the biggest development in the direction of working class political independence in Britain for decades, coming at a moment in which this has never been more needed. Its most important leading figures – Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana – are the most authoritative representatives of the most fighting elements of the working class, antiwar and social movements across multiple generations. Its potential was expressed in 800,000 people, more than one in 100 adults in the UK, signing up to support it in July.
However, the fundamental flaws of reformism – which thrives on backroom and parliamentary maneuvers over mass working class mobilization – have been on full display in the crisis that has plagued the process from the very start. At the time of writing, the process, while highly shambolic and undemocratic, appears to be back on track in the runup to the party’s founding conference at the end of November. The dispute at the top of the party is also becoming more openly politicized, with Zarah Sultana emerging as a clear left challenger to the more conservative elements of the Independent group of MPs currently leading the project.
Sultana, as well as supporting a democratic structure for the party, and uncompromisingly defending trans rights, has made powerful statements in support of socialism, which she crucially defines not only as a set of limited reforms but as a more fundamental transformation, including workers’ control of the means of production. She represents a more radical left variant of reformism, reflecting the absorption of some crucial lessons from the failure of the mass movement around Jeremy Corbyn in the 2010s. While not as dramatic, this also has echoes in the more combative stance taken by the new parliamentary leadership of Die Linke fronted by Heidi Reichinnek, and in the profile of Melenchon in France.
Marxists energetically support and amplify all steps forward taken by leading figures in the movement, which in turn can have an important impact on consciousness, and link these to the need for a revolutionary socialist programme. However, such a programme will never fall from the sky, or be arrived at through the independent political evolution of parliamentary leaders, as significant as that may be. A revolutionary socialist programme must be fought for in an organized way within mass left parties and the labour movement. This is the central task facing ISA’s forces, which participate fully in these developments.
New wave of struggle underway
The key factor in defining the destinies of both the far right and the new left-wing alternatives that are emerging or growing is the perspectives for direct struggle on the part of broad sections of the working class, youth and the oppressed.
In several countries in both Europe and the neocolonial world, the last few months have been marked by examples of mass struggles, strikes and general strikes, mass demonstrations and, in some cases in the global South, genuine popular rebellions with semi-insurrectionary components.
In the wave of strikes and protests that has hit several European countries, solidarity with the Palestinian people and the struggle against the genocidal war by Israel has been a central factor. Stimulated by the action of the global Sumud flotilla, we have seen some of the largest pro-Palestine demonstrations, with actions of solidarity and support for the flotilla, in several countries.
As well as the most significant events which have taken place in Italy and Spain as described in the introduction, Berlin (Germany) saw the largest mass mobilisation in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle in the country’s history. Crucially, this demo was called by Die Linke itself (which also organised a 20,000-strong bloc within the march). In Britain, the first pro-Palestine demonstration held after the ceasefire agreement in Gaza (and the 32nd national demonstration since the beginning of the genocidal war in October 2023) brought together about half a million people.
The Israeli state’s action against the flotilla sparked mass mobilisations on several continents. In Turkey, for example, massive protests against the genocide in Gaza also turned into protests against the Turkish government.
Strikes as a method of struggle by the working class in solidarity with the Palestinian people had already been previously employed in multiple countries, as in the case of dockworkers in Greece and Spain. But the greatest example came from Italy, where the general strikes were called – under great pressure from below and from the left of the labour movement – by the main unions and successfully shut down the economy. The result was also the strengthening of an internationalist sentiment among key sectors of the working class and an awareness of the role of strikes in political struggle.
Austerity measures, cuts and attacks by European governments, which tend to worsen linked to increased military spending, are also provoking mass resistance today. This scenario is likely to deepen as we see inflationary pressures generated by the trade war.
In Greece, the 24-hour general strike in early October is yet another example of the willingness to fight, adding to previous strikes and mobilisations in the country. This struggle against the government’s plan to increase the working day to 13 hours followed other important struggles during the year, such as the protests on the second anniversary of the Tempi train disaster in February, the general strike for wage increases in April, and the public sector workers’ strike in August.
In France, a mass movement organised mainly outside the structures of the main trade unions resisted budget cuts, pension freezes and other attacks planned by Prime Minister François Bayrou. Immediately after Bayrou’s fall, the movement intensified on the basis of semi-spontaneous actions organised via social media and other alternative means. On 10 September, under the slogan Bloquons Tout (Block everything), hundreds of thousands of demonstrators, with a strong youth presence, took to the streets, blocked roads, erected barricades and held open grassroots assemblies in various parts of the country. The mobilisations continued and grew with new demonstrations and strikes on 18 September. The main union leaders, who did not organize this protest movement, were nonetheless forced to take a stand and authorise strikes that were already being organised by the rank and file.
The role of young people and the fact that struggles largely take place outside the more conservative and bureaucratic structures of many trade unions brings a freshness and energy to these mass movements. At the same time, these movements are still not armed with a clear and defined plan to escalate the struggles, or a political alternative. This was also seen in an extreme way in the case of mass uprisings in the neocolonial and global south.
Genuine mass popular uprisings have taken place in countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, generally with youth playing a leading role. “Generation Z” reacts in the streets and with radicalism in the face of an absolute lack of prospects for the future. Many of these social explosions have brought down governments and prevented harsher attacks on their rights and living conditions.
In Nepal, mass uprisings took less than five days to bring down Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli, who resigned on 9 September. In Madagascar, President Andry Rajoelina fled the country on 12 October as a result of protests that began in late September in response to water and energy shortages, but which turned into a popular rebellion.
In Peru, the youth rebellion reignited the mass struggle against President Dina Boluarte, who took office in late 2022 following the coup that overthrew then-President Pedro Castillo. The struggle of Generation Z in the streets ultimately provided the final push that led to the president’s ousting on 10 October with an impeachment vote in Congress.
In countries such as Morocco and the Philippines, movements led by radicalised youth have also shaken governments. The mass explosion in Indonesia at the end of August was what started this new wave of Generation Z protests. What began as a protest against the privileges granted to parliamentarians escalated into a mass social uprising against politicians in general. Regional parliament buildings were set on fire, police stations were invaded and burned down, and politicians’ homes were attacked by protesters.
It is important to learn the lessons of previous experiences of similar social explosions. Radicalised struggles like these also took place in Sri Lanka in 2022, in Bangladesh in 2024 and, more recently, in Kenya in June and Indonesia in August this year. Although each struggle has its own specificities, in general the movement showed revolutionary potential but lacked a democratic decision-making structure and leadership, and a clear strategy and programme for real political change. In the face of this absence, the political and economic system, even in tatters, managed to recover and establish new rotten governments.
The example of struggles in various countries stimulates and influences movements in others. There is a strong component of internationalism in the actions, methods and symbolism of these struggles. The French ‘Block everything’ soon became the main slogan in the general strike in Italy. The image of the pirate with a straw hat, a reference to the manga ‘One Piece’ that began to be used by protesters in Indonesia, was soon to be seen on the streets of Paris, Lima and elsewhere.
This whole wave of struggles and uprisings, which in many respects remind us of the huge and powerful mobilisations of 2019, demonstrates the strength of the anger contained in broad sectors of the masses and the enormous willingness to fight that exists. But, to overcome the limits of the struggles of 2019 and the 2020s so far, in addition to the willingness to fight and combativeness, movements need a strategy, programme and organisation capable of taking struggles to their ultimate consequences.
Neither the movements of the working class and the oppressed masses nor the main forces of the left have yet overcome these limitations. This is linked to the fact that the forces of revolutionary Marxism, which has room to grow and strengthen itself in this period, are still extremely weak. As a result, we can see the opening of space for reaction through the forces of the far right, combined with state repression and confusion in consciousness. We must also be prepared for this.
The rise of the far right, including its arrival in positions of power in several countries, does not represent the end of the story. In Britain and France, potential far-right governments would have to face powerful workers’ movements and could be defeated, paving the way for the strengthening of left-wing alternatives. In the same way, the right wing, back in power in Bolivia, will have to face the mass movement and could well be defeated in its project of regression, attacks and withdrawal of rights won by workers and the poor in recent decades.
We are seeing a preview of this in Ecuador. Far-right President Daniel Noboa, re-elected in April, withdrew fuel subsidies and provoked a huge popular reaction. The indigenous movement and sectors of the working class are promoting a national strike against the government’s measures.
The example of Milei in Argentina is also symptomatic. The far right in power has aggravated the economic crisis and triggered a deep political crisis that could make Milei’s administration unviable if he suffers another heavy defeat in the legislative elections at the end of October, as he did in the elections in the province of Buenos Aires.
The strength and example of the struggles against genocide in Gaza, the struggles against the far right, and the efforts to build independent alternatives for the working class represent a favourable starting point for Marxists to defend a socialist programme in this period. These developments sow the seeds of potential for broader sections of workers, youth, and the oppressed to find in revolutionary Marxism, the only way out of the current impasses and crisis.
