The following is a serialisation of a speech on world perspectives, given on Tuesday 28 January at a meeting of the International Executive Committee of the Revolutionary Communist International.
As they say in planes, “ladies and gentlemen, please remain seated with your seatbelts fastened, because we have entered an area of turbulence.”
It’s only been one week since Trump entered power. It’s been a few weeks more since he was elected in November, and the whole of the world situation has been transformed.
We have seen – just from the point of view of Trump’s actions – the ceasefire in Gaza, the threat of military action against Denmark, a NATO member and an ally of the US, and Panama. We have seen the idea that Canada should become the US’ 51st state, that is, the annexation of a NATO country north of the border.
And this is just to mention a few things. What we can really see is an enormous acceleration of the pace of events in world relations, the economy and politics. And obviously, this has an impact on consciousness as well.
Of course, Trump is not the cause of all this. He is certainly a symptom of deeper processes taking place, but at the same time, he is a factor which enormously accelerates events. There’s no doubt about that.
As well as a number of events triggered by Trump’s actions, we have also seen in the last few weeks a number of other events: the collapse of the government in France, the collapse of the government in Germany, the collapse of the government in Canada. We have also seen the cancellation of the elections of Romania, which in any other circumstances would be a major event, but is now overshadowed by all of these other, more important events.
Yesterday we saw the collapse of the tech stocks in the US market. Nvidia, the tech company, lost over $600 billion from its stock market valuation. In just one day. This is the biggest one day fall of any company, in terms of the amount of money lost, at any time in history.
A lot of these things are quite astonishing in and of themselves.
We saw, for instance, a telephone call between Trump and Frederiksen, the Danish prime minister, about Trump’s ambition to annex Greenland, which apparently did not go very well. According to the Financial Times, which quoted some Danish sources, Frederiksen said that they were shocked and that they now understood that this was a serious matter!
This is the question. Because of Trump’s style, you can think, he’s all talk. Or that it is just the opening salvo in negotiations. But he is not just some influencer on social media. He’s the president of the United States of America, the most important and powerful imperialist power on earth. And when he says something, he might be a little bit extravagant in the way he says it, but you need to pay attention.
A bourgeois commentator quoted in the New York Times said that “you shouldn’t take Trump literally, but you need to take him seriously.”
As if all of this was not enough, yesterday we had Trump’s clash with Colombia. It was a short-lived clash, but I think it’s very revealing. For some reason that is best known to him, at four in the morning, the Colombian President Petro, decided to post a tweet protesting about the treatment of Colombian migrants being deported by the United States. They are being badly treated. From Trump’s point of view this is a demonstrative thing. Trump is trying to show that he is deporting people, by treating them like criminals that should be deported, shackled and handcuffed.
Colombia’s president Petro protested, and declared that he would not allow two US military planes that were transporting Colombian migrants to land in the country. One of the planes was already in the air, apparently. So what happened next? Trump published a social media post saying that “the socialist president of Colombia, who’s already very unpopular amongst his own people” has decided to reject these planes, and that therefore he was going to introduce 25 percent tariffs on all Colombian goods, effective immediately.
And he added that he was withdrawing visas and entry permits to the US from President Petro, and his government, and their families. And all their supporters! That’s millions of people!
He made a number of other threats. But these were in fact not just threats. He started acting on them immediately. There were about 1500 people who had appointments for visa applications at the US embassy in Bogota the day after. They were sent messages saying the appointments were all cancelled.
Petro then replied that this was unacceptable and that Colombia was imposing reciprocal tariffs on all US imports. Furthermore, he decided to publish a very long social media post. I don’t know if you’ve seen it. He said all sorts of things. He referenced the tradition of Sacco and Vanzetti [Italian anarchists infamously executed in the US], called Trump a “white slave owner” and said he would not shake his hand.
However, by the end of the day, Petro had been forced to back down all along the line and Trump issued another social media post saying that he had taught him a lesson, and that “America is respected again”.
There is an article today in the New York Times that describes this clash. The headline is “Behind the Colombia Blowup: Mapping Trump’s Rapid-Escalation Tactics”, and the opening paragraph says:
“There were no Situation Room meetings and no quiet calls to de-escalate a dispute with an ally. Just threats, counterthreats, surrender and an indication of the president’s approach to Greenland and Panama.”
Chas Freeman, a former US ambassador, made an interesting remark about Trump. He said that he is a businessman. He doesn’t know and doesn’t care for the norms of diplomacy and international relations between countries, the formalities and protocol, all of that. And he added that he is not just any businessman. His background is in New York real estate. That is a business in which there are no ethical rules of any kind. It’s all based on bullying and backstabbing.
Definitely. That seems to be Trump’s style. And now he is the president of the United States. Of course this does have an impact. There is obviously a strong element of this in his actions which sometimes may seem unpredictable. But of course, there is a method to his madness. And this is why we need to discuss what’s behind all of this.
Trump’s war against the ‘deep state’
Trump feels that, when he was in the president’s office the first time, he tried to accommodate the different wings of the party, and he tried to work within the rules of the state. As a result of that, he was slowed down, he was hemmed in and he was prevented from carrying out his real agenda by what he describes as the “deep state”. There’s an element of truth in that name.
But he’s now stronger than he was the first time around. He has full control, or let’s say overwhelming control, over the Republican Party, much more than in 2016.
Certainly he has much more political power, and he’s much less prepared to make any compromises or to allow other people to dictate his policies. You just have to look at some of the other measures that he has taken in this past week.
On Wednesday, officials at the National Security Council were sent home, some on leave, some on suspension. These are people who advise the government on issues like Iran, North Korea, Ukraine, the Middle East in general, and a whole number of other things. The decision was so fast, that according to the New York Times, some of them couldn’t physically leave the building, because their passes had been deactivated even before they’d been told they were being laid off.
And then, on Monday, President Trump signed an executive order, suspending all foreign aid for 90 days, pending a full review. All foreign aid has been suspended and people who work in NGOs all around the world have been told, “do not spend one single cent from now on until further notice”. There was a big panic in Ukraine about whether this affected military aid or not. There was back and forth all week about that.
In all of these instances, Trump said that these measures were to make sure that everyone is on message with his policies. He has also suspended all DEI (diversity, equality and inclusion) programs, and, not happy with that, he’s also instructed civil servants to inform on their colleagues if somehow they try to maintain policies like that, despite Trump’s orders. A confidential email address has been set up where people can report their colleagues in government.
He is at war with the establishment and what he perceives as “the deep state”. This does not necessarily mean he’s going to win on all occasions, because the capitalist state is very powerful. Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that he is at war with it and he has decided to push his agenda, whatever that may be.
We are faced with a decisive change in the world situation, one that has several important implications.
The very election of Trump, which was only two months ago, – it seems now like a long time ago! – was a major change in itself. The US ruling class and the US establishment used all the tricks in their armoury to prevent him from winning that election. Nevertheless, he won. And he won a very convincing victory.
What does that mean? We have seen the liberals, the media and the so-called left raise a hue and cry saying that this represents ‘a shift to the right’ in the United States, and that it’s part of a general shift to the right in world politics.
But this explains nothing. Because if you accept this argument, what are you saying? Was Biden left-wing? This is the implication. Let’s look at foreign policy. Trump was the ‘peace candidate’, while Biden was the warmonger candidate. That question played a role in the election result, particularly in a number of districts with a high percentage of Muslim and Arab voters.
Of course, there are reactionary elements that pushed Trump’s vote. But, in themselves, they do not explain his victory. For instance, there were a whole number of states where Trump won or increased his vote significantly which at the same time also voted for legislative initiatives to enshrine abortion rights in the states’ law. This included Florida, where the pro-abortion vote got a higher result than Harris – though they didn’t reach the required threshold.
What we have explained, and I think it is completely correct, is that the main reason for the victory of Trump, the main conclusion you ought to draw, is that he was able to capture, connect with and channel this very deep-seated and widespread anti-establishment mood that exists in the United States.
The same mood exists in many other advanced capitalist countries as well. It expresses itself in many different ways. Another indication of this, which was very striking, was the reaction to the assassination of the United Healthcare CEO by Luigi Mangione. The assassination itself was significant, but even more so was the public’s reaction to the assassination, which was one of understanding and sympathy; not for the CEO but for Mangione.
He has become a sort of folk hero. That reaction was not only among people who consider themselves left-wing, but also amongst many people who consider themselves conservatives and Republicans, including many Trump supporters. That’s the significant question.
This is a most peculiar phenomenon, isn’t it? Trump is riding the wave of anti-establishment mood. There is a crisis of legitimacy of all bourgeois institutions. There is an anger against big business, against politicians of all sorts, against the state and so on. But he is a billionaire himself, and everyone knows he is a billionaire. And he surrounds himself with billionaires.
This is a deeply confused reflection of that mood. But certainly it is a reflection of it. And the reason is also clear, both in the United States and in Europe we have seen the complete bankruptcy and failure of the left, which has been utterly unable to capitalise on such a mood.
We have come out of a period in which left anti-establishment figures and parties were on the rise everywhere in Europe and in America in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis and the massive anti-austerity movements around 2011. Podemos, Syriza, Melenchon, Corbyn, Sanders: all of them failed completely. The bankruptcy of their reformist ideas was shown in practice one way or another.
The most extreme example was the Syriza government in 2015, but also Bernie Sanders’ endorsement of Clinton in 2016. They capitulated and left the space wide open for people like Trump.
World relations
What is Trump going to do? I don’t even think he knows what he is going to do.
In his inauguration speech he said “we’re going to do things that people will be shocked at”. And, people are certainly shocked. At least I am shocked.
The President of the Atlantic Council, a right-wing think tank, Fred Kempe said that Trump “is both the product and the purveyor” of a new era which will be “characterized by more government intervention, less common cause, more mercantilism, less free trade, and more big-power swagger.”
In the way Trump is conducting himself there is a strong element of this big-power swagger. The big power is showing the little boys who is boss. This can be seen clearly in the way he treated Petro.
Obviously personalities play a big role in history. Historical materialism is not in contradiction with that, on the contrary.
At the same time, Trump is also the reflection, the personification of deeper trends in world relations, world politics and the crisis of capitalism that we need to explain.
We have explained these underlying trends in the last world perspectives document in 2023, in the RCI manifesto and in articles and discussions we’ve had about world perspectives and world relations. We have recognised that the world situation is dominated by:
a) the relative decline of US imperialism.
b) the rise of new, young, dynamic imperialist powers like China, which are also reaching their limits to a certain extent. Also in this category is Russia, in a different way and to a certain extent.
c) the fact that these trends allow a whole number of middle-range powers to act in a more independent way, balancing one bloc against the other, which you can see in many different instances, such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, India and others.
We have talked about the relative decline of U.S. imperialism and the rise of China, which challenges the former for world domination. But there is another additional trend that we have not paid as much attention to, one which now comes into the centre of the equation, which is the long-term crisis of European capitalism.
I think that this general framework allows us to explain the meaning of Trump’s foreign policy.
There are some important differences between his foreign policy and Biden’s. Biden’s foreign policy was based on the refusal to accept the limitations of US power, and as a result of this, continuing foolishly in an attempt to maintain US domination over the whole world.
That domination existed for the best part of 30 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it is no more.
You can see a manifestation of this in the Ukraine war. The idea was that the US was going to defeat Russia and weaken it to a point where it would never again be able to invade another country, defying the will of Washington. Biden made a famous trip to Poland at the beginning of the war when he said that the aim of the war in Ukraine was regime change in Moscow.
We have a similar position in the Middle East, where Biden effectively gave a blank check to Netanyahu with all the consequences that that entailed. Even though some of those consequences were not necessarily in the best interest of the United States in the region.
In contrast, Trump’s policy seems to be approximately that the US needs to defend its national security interests. The US has its own sphere of influence, which is mainly in its near abroad, in North America. The US should strengthen its position there, instead of spending a lot of money and men fighting wars in far off places which are of no interest to the US.
In his press conference before his inauguration, he talked about Greenland, the Panama Canal, Canada and Mexico.
As part of this plan to strengthen the US and concentrate on its national security interests, he wants to put an end to the war in the Middle East and the war in the Ukraine. That could also, perhaps, bring Russia on board and separate Russia from China.
Such a policy, he thinks, would then allow the US to concentrate on the main threat to its world domination, which is China. You have to admit that from the point of view of the general interests of the US ruling class, this makes much more sense than Biden’s policy.
Some of you may listen to the Against the Stream podcast and we had an episode in which we talked a lot about a podcast that we had listened to, in which the Financial Times’ Gideon Rachman, a liberal, was interviewing Dan Caldwell, an adviser to Trump’s Pentagon transition team.
What Caldwell was saying, I thought, was very interesting. The first thing he said is that he was an army veteran, who had participated in the war in Iraq. There are a lot of these types, right? A lot of army veterans who have been politicised by their experience in the imperialist military adventures of the United States. There are a lot of them amongst Trump supporters and advisors.
Dan Caldwell explains, the US killed “up to a million Arabs, Iraqis and Syrians” and “over 4,000 Americans killed who were in uniform. Several thousand more who were contractors were killed.” In addition “the monetary costs were significant. Over $2 trillion and counting because the Iraq War is still going on”. And he draws the conclusion that this is “a foreign policy that I don’t think anybody can say with a straight face has made the United States safer and arguably hasn’t made the world safer or more stable.”
And so he argues that the US should not pursue that policy anymore. The US should concentrate on its natural national security interests. Gideon Rachman, who is a liberal, in a panic, asks him, “but what about Ukraine?”
Trump has said that the Ukraine war should have never started. He has also said that Zelensky should have never gone to war as the Russians have many more tanks than Ukraine. You can glean Trump’s thinking: “you don’t pick a fight with a much bigger enemy.” His approach is that of recognising the relative strengths of each power.
Back to Dan Caldwell. When asked about Ukraine, he said, “to answer your question, not to dodge it, the war is a tragedy. But for the United States, whether or not Russia controls Donbas or Crimea is not a vital interest to us.”
Trump has also made statements along similar lines: that the war in Ukraine should have never started, that it is the result of NATO provocations against Russia, and that he can understand that Russia has national security interests in Ukraine.
Dan Caldwell puts it in terms of the need for the US to recognise that there are things it can do, and things it cannot do.
“I think the United States should strive to remain the most powerful country in the world. But in my mind, that is different from trying to achieve primacy. In my view, attempting to be the dominant power is different from trying to be the most powerful country… I’m not advocating, embracing or accepting American decline. I’m advocating the opposite, we need to do things to reverse American decline. And I think our pursuit of primacy has ultimately made us weaker as a country.”
That is quite an interesting point of view and gives us an idea of Trump’s approach to foreign policy. This has certain implications. It is a recognition that the US has its own national security interests and spheres of influence. But from that it follows that other powers also have theirs and some sort of negotiation and agreement needs to be reached among them.
This is expressed in Trump’s dictum of “peace through strength”. That would bring the whole of the world situation closer to that which existed prior to World War 1, with different powers fighting to carve up the world. That has very important implications, not only for Ukraine, where Trump wants out, but also, I would say, for the position of Taiwan.
The obvious question that arises is, is it in the US national interest to defend Taiwan from China? Already in July last year Trump said that “Taiwan is 9,500 miles away. It’s 68 miles away from China …and it’s costing us a lot of money” from which the US doesn’t get anything in exchange.
In the podcast I mentioned, Dan Caldwell said that he would not make any security commitments to Taiwan and that rather than supply them with prestige weapons, the US should provide them with cheaper drones and aerial defences so that they may deter China from taking it over.
From Trump’s point of view, yes, China is the main rival of the US in the world. There’s no doubt about that. But that does not mean that the US should commit to going to war with China over Taiwan.
What is the conclusion that Xi Jinping is going to draw from the defeat of NATO in the Ukraine war? He is going to draw the obvious conclusion that there are definite limits to US power.
There are of course different opinions, even within the Trump camp, about China. Some see it mainly as an economic rival, others consider it has already become a military adversary.
These are some of the outlines which determine Trump’s foreign policy, as well as the fact that he is first and foremost a businessman and so he is much more keen on using economic means rather than military means. This is what we saw in the clash with Colombia. He did not threaten to send the Marines, or organise a military coup, but rather, threatened economic pain through tariffs. He used the US’ economic might vis-a-vis Colombia in order to achieve his aims.
It was a similar case with Denmark over Greenland. Yes, he said, he was not ruling out military action, but the whole question was posed in terms of a purchase of Greenland and he threatened Denmark with retaliatory tariffs.
Trump is at the head of the world’s strongest imperialist power and his policy is still imperialist, but it is one that, unlike Biden’s, is based on a certain degree of recognition that the US is not the only world power and that its might has certain limits.
From Middle East to Ukraine: US imperialism in the Trump era
Even before he came into office, Trump had managed to get a ceasefire deal in Gaza. Biden did not manage to do that. This has many important implications.
The first is that this is quite unprecedented, because the person who strong-armed Netanyahu into signing the deal – Trump’s envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff – is a businessman. He also comes from real estate, like Trump himself, and at the time he was dashing around the Middle East, he was a private citizen. He didn’t have any official position. Trump was not yet in office. Yet he was the one who twisted Netanyahu’s arm and forced him to sign the ceasefire deal.
This very same ceasefire deal had been on the table since, at the very least, May last year. Hamas had already accepted it in July 2024. Biden was pushing for it, but Netanyahu started inventing all sorts of excuses and pretexts to sabotage the deal.
One of his main excuses was that Israel had to keep control of the Philadelphi corridor, which is a narrow strip of land that separates Gaza from Egypt. Netanyahu insisted, in July last year, and then in September last year, that this was a crucial question for Israeli national security. The IDF could not under any circumstances withdraw from it, as otherwise Hamas would be able to cross into Egypt, back and forth, and use it as their supply line.
The deal says precisely the opposite. The IDF is withdrawing from the Philadelphi corridor, and also from the Netzarim corridor, carved out by the IDF to split the Gaza strip down the middle. That gives you an indication that all of Netanyahu’s protestations and sabotage had nothing to do with the hostages, nor with serious questions of national security, but rather with keeping the war going so he could stay in power.
Negotiations about the ceasefire had resumed in December, but as the date of Trump’s inauguration was coming closer it was clear that they were about to collapse. Trump had said, “I want a deal before my inauguration”. What happened at that point? The Israeli liberal Zionist paper Haaretz described it as follows:
Witkoff was in Doha, where these negotiations were taking place, and at a certain point he realised that the Israeli negotiators were just wasting time, that they had neither the intention, nor the authority, to sign anything or agree to anything.
So Witkoff called Netanyahu’s office and said, “I want a meeting with you tomorrow, Saturday”. Netanyahu’s office tried to delay the whole process, arguing that it was not possible to meet on Saturday as it was the Sabbath, that the meeting would have to be postponed, etc.
According to Haaretz, Steve Witkoff gave a “salty” reply, making it clear that he didn’t care if it was the Sabbath – the Jewish day of rest – and that the meeting was going to take place regardless. We do not know what happened in that meeting, but Witkoff must have banged the table and managed to get Netanyahu to sign this deal.
The signing of the ceasefire left Biden completely exposed. It has become clear that the US certainly had the power to put pressure on Netanyahu to change his policy. Biden’s policy of full support for Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza did not give Washington any leverage on Netanyahu, but rather, the other way around.
The ceasefire deal has led to a major crisis in Israel, or rather, the acceleration of the political crisis in Israel. One of the two far-right parties which are part of Netanyahu’s coalition has left the government, and the other one has threatened to leave.
A few months ago, Netanyahu brought another party into the coalition, Gideon Sa’ar’s party, so that he is not so dependent on the support of Smotrich and Ben Gvir, the leaders of the two far-right parties.
The ceasefire has also even more clearly exposed that one of Netanyahu’s main interests throughout the war was to keep the conflict going and even escalate it, so that he could remain in power. His own personal political survival played a major role. This is one of the reasons that he now is attempting to provoke an open war in the West Bank.
A ceasefire deal is not in his interest and therefore it is not certain that this ceasefire deal will hold. Netanyahu has also said publicly that he has received guarantees from Biden and Trump that after the first phase of this ceasefire he can resume the war on Gaza.
In the last few days, there was almost a breakdown of the Lebanon ceasefire. Trump’s administration intervened again to make sure that it didn’t break down completely.
It is clear in any case that the ceasefire deal cannot be described as a victory for Israel. It has not achieved any of its war aims, which were to release the hostages by military force and to destroy Hamas.
Israel’s military is one of the most powerful – if not the most powerful – in the Middle East, with access to very advanced technology, intelligence sources, high-tech weapons, low-tech weapons, extensive supplies of artillery and so on. Nevertheless, the IDF has not been able to rescue the hostages and, more importantly, it has not been able to smash Hamas, which was the real war aim.
According to some US intelligence reports in the last few days, Hamas has recruited 15,000 new members since the start of the war, which is more or less the same amount of people that the Israelis say they have killed. Obviously, though, these people will not be trained or integrated into the military structures to the same degree as those killed by Israel. Hamas has clearly been weakened by this, but it has certainly not been destroyed yet.
What have we seen in the last few days? What happened as soon as the IDF withdrew? Hamas’ structures have taken over. Yesterday, in the main square in Gaza City, you had Hamas police officers all over the place, in nice clean uniforms, setting up a stage for the hostages which were to be released, with large numbers of armed men very demonstratively showing that they are still in control. This was in the main square in Gaza City, the place that the IDF had gone over with a fine-tooth comb in order to make sure Hamas was nowhere to be found.
This is quite extraordinary. Hamas fighters have spent months underground in tunnels. They cut off all their communications amongst themselves for fear of being intercepted. And now they come out, having recruited thousands of new members, and they control the Gaza Strip again.
This whole series of events: the 7 October Hamas attack; the failure of Israel’s campaign in Gaza; Netanyahu’s cynical attitude towards the hostages: sooner or later all of these things must have an impact on the consciousness of Israeli working class people.
For decades, the Zionist ruling class has rallied the Israeli population around its policies with the argument that the only way to guarantee the safety and livelihood of Jews in Israel is through a strong state that defeats all its enemies. The myth of its invincibility has now been broken. The idea must eventually gain ground that there can be no way to peace as long as the national aspirations of the Palestinian people are unresolved.
It is worth asking: what is Trump’s policy for the Middle East?
[Note: this speech was given two weeks before Netanyahu’s visit to the White House and Trump’s announcement of his plan for the US to take over Gaza]
It seems to me that what he wants is a ceasefire deal which would then lead to the resumption of the Abraham Accords, that is, the normalisation of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. In his social media post claiming responsibility for the agreement, he mentioned the Abraham Accords and the fact that Gaza should not be a “haven for terrorists” anymore.
As far as I can tell he probably thinks that if they manage to create economic growth in the region, all of the problems will be solved and everyone will be happy.
This is not all he said. He is now asking, why don’t we move all the people from Gaza to Jordan and Egypt? We can build houses for them in a place where they can live in peace.
In his mind this makes sense. Gaza has been completely destroyed. It will take years to rebuild it, to clear the rubble, to build new homes and infrastructure. We’re talking about decades of reconstruction that will cost a lot of money. He’s essentially thinking: “why doesn’t someone else pay for this?”
And at the same time, he is probably thinking, “This way I can keep the Zionist far-right happy. They want to clear the Palestinians from Gaza. So let’s give them that as well.” He might want to get the Saudis and Gulf States to put up the money. You can already see the outlines of such a plan.
However, Trump’s practical, business-like approach to politics is not likely to work in the Middle East, or anywhere else, for that matter.
I do not think Saudi Arabia can agree to a normalisation deal with Israel as long as there is not some sort of Palestinian state, even if that is just a toothless statelet. Not because the Saudi rulers care about the national aspirations of the Palestinians, but because they are worried about being overthrown if they are seen as having sold the Palestinians out in an even clearer manner.
In addition, if you want to have a Palestinian state, how are you going to achieve that in the present circumstances without Hamas being in control of Gaza? The Israelis just tried for 15 months to get rid of Hamas with a brutal campaign, and they have not been able to achieve it. This is really an intractable problem within the limits of capitalist solutions. That’s the only conclusion you can draw from it. And the situation will get more complicated for Trump as time goes by.
The collapse of the Assad regime
I want to speak briefly about Syria, because this is another major event that’s happened in the last few weeks in a very surprising and sudden manner.
We have already analysed the fall of the Assad regime in a number of articles. This was part of the general world situation that we described earlier. Russia was otherwise engaged in Ukraine; Iran had been weakened in Lebanon by Israel’s campaign.
Turkey had a partnership of sorts with Russia that was hammered out in the course of the setbacks suffered by Turkey, in the first phase of the Syrian Civil War. But Turkey and Russia are not really allies. So, looking at the relative weakening of other powers which were backing Assad, Turkey decided that it was going to make a move.
They started by putting pressure on Assad to reach some sort of deal, which would involve increased control by Turkish proxies in Syria, allowing the return of large numbers of Syrian refugees who are currently in Turkey.
Assad, for some reason, decided not to make a deal. He was also in talks with other countries, including the Qataris, and he was under pressure from the Israelis. He did not want to make a deal with Erdogan.
As a result, Turkey pushed him, and as soon as they started pushing, the whole edifice collapsed. The Assad regime was so rotten, that there was nothing left.
Sometimes you have a wooden wardrobe that has been eaten by termites. You cannot see the damage from the outside, but one day you go and open the door and the whole thing collapses.
The situation that has emerged after the collapse of the Assad regime is one in which Turkey is much more predominant but still does not control the whole country. What we see is the carving up of Syria between different regional powers.
Israel has taken advantage of this, in order to increase the territory it controls in the South, next to the Golan Heights, overlooking southern Lebanon. Turkey controls the North, the North-West and the capital, Damascus. The Druze control the southern corner. The Kurds control the North East, but their position is very fragile.
There is a lesson here. The Kurds in Syria threw in their lot with US imperialism and now they are wholly dependent on the support of US imperialism for their survival. This is why the leader of the Kurdish People’s Defence Units (YPG) just sent a grovelling letter to Trump, effectively saying: “We can be friends. We are the best defenders of your interests in this region”.
In a comradely manner, we should discuss this lesson with those anarchists and leftists in the West, who had a completely uncritical attitude towards Rojava. At the end of the day, the rights of small nations are just loose change in the machinations of the big powers.
The war in Ukraine
Then we come to the war in Ukraine. I think the war in Ukraine is lost to the West and is lost to NATO. I think that there’s no way they can turn the tide of this war. Russia is advancing all along the front line, and the rate of advance is accelerating.
At every single juncture of this war, the attempt of the US to provide ‘wonder weapons’ that would change the course of the war has completely failed. First, we had Leopard tanks, then we had the HIMARS, then we had the F16s, then we had the ATACMS missiles. More recently, permission was granted to use ATACMS missiles to strike targets inside Russian territory. Every single time this has failed to turn the war around.
The decisive factor currently is Russia’s superiority in manpower and the inability of Ukraine to recruit more men for the front.
There are other factors involved, of course, such as the depletion of the stocks of armament in the West, and the limits of western military industry to continue to supply Ukraine, as compared to the ability of the Russian military industry to supply its own troops.
Incidentally, there is an interesting point to be made in relation to this question. A few months ago when the West was holding discussions with military contractors, the heads of the arms industries were saying: “Yes, we can produce more. We can invest in new plants so that we can produce more shells and military equipment, but only if you give us a long-term contract. If it is just a question of ramping up production for the next six months, we are not going to invest massively in fixed capital that we are not sure we are going to be able to use later on.” That’s how capitalist investment works.
This is not the case in Russia, where the state now has an interventionist policy in the economy, to make sure they win the war. The state says these factories are going to be working 24/7 and they are going to deliver the necessary material for the military. Whether these factories are state owned or privately owned, they are now under the control of the state.
This is one example that demonstrates that state planning, in one way or another, is much superior to the anarchy of the free market economy, even when it comes to provisioning weapons for the war.
This is a point that Ted Grant made during World War II. At that time, Britain established industry boards through which the factories and the private owners of capital were told, “you must produce this by such a date and in such an amount”. This was effectively a form of state planning. When it comes to important things, the capitalists themselves do not leave it to the free market.
The idea that western sanctions were going to damage the Russian economy to a point where they would prevent or hinder the war effort, has been demonstrated to be completely false. The Russian economy is growing and it’s producing enough to sustain this war.
When all these other factors are taken into account, the crucial factor is the inability of Ukraine to recruit enough men to fight. This has been the case for months now. Some information has filtered into articles in the western media, but the real situation is completely disastrous.
Many people did volunteer to fight at the beginning of the war. At that time, it was seen as a war of national defence and there was a wave of patriotism. These people have been in the front for years now without any rotation. They are completely exhausted. But at least these are trained and battle-hardened troops that know a little bit about how to fight.
But what you have now is increasingly authoritarian and violent ways in which the state is attempting to draft a whole number of other people into the army by force through the recruitment and mobilisation service, TCC. Recently there was a scandal in the Ukrainian parliament where a member of parliament from Zelensky’s ruling party said: “This cannot go on anymore, the recruitment officers in Kharkiv, they act like an occupation army, including the setting up of filtration checkpoints.” They look for military-age men, they bundle them into vans and send them straight to the front. They are being kidnapped, against their will.
This has generated resistance and backlash. For months now, recruitment officers have been using unmarked vans, because the only way they can catch people is by surprise.
There was an interview in the Daily Telegraph in Britain about a day in the life of a Ukrainian recruitment officer. At the end of the article they asked him, “Why do you do this?” He said: “I believe it’s better to work for TCC than to hide from it.” His only motivation is that it is better to be chasing people than to be chased! Being a recruitment officer at least means that he is not at the front where he would almost certainly die. This is the real mood that exists now in Ukraine.
Another example: Zelensky – in his inimitable style in which everything he does is subordinated to the needs of public relations for keeping the West onside – decided that eight new brigades were going to be formed. They would be trained by the West to the best NATO standards.
One of those was the 155th Mechanised Brigade. There are 3,500 men in a brigade. They were sent to France for top-quality training. This was also a propaganda move by Macron, who as we know is facing plenty of difficulties at home and wanted to appear as a strongman.
The 155th Brigade was trained and then returned to Ukraine, where it was sent to the front at Pokrovsk, one of the hottest areas of the front line, which the Russians have been progressively encircling for months. What happened? The brigade melted away before it fired its first shot. Some 1,700 men deserted, going absent without leave. Some 50 of them had already deserted in France.
This was described by a Ukrainian journalist, Yuriy Butusov. He is certainly not pro-Russian. He published a long report saying that the situation in the army is complete madness. Similar points were made by a group of Ukrainian military analysts.
Zelensky doesn’t want to hear the truth, so the generals around him don’t tell him the truth about the real situation. When the commanders on the ground, who are supposed to report on any changes or problems in their sector, do not do so, it becomes impossible to plan anything.
Let’s say a unit is pushed back from the position they are holding. This is not reported up the chain of command for fear of them being disciplined. So there is no truthful information. The unit that’s next to this one then thinks that the position is still a Ukrainian one. Then, all of a sudden, they are completely surrounded by Russian forces.
The total number of Ukrainian soldiers who have gone AWOL could be as high as 200,000! Over 90,000 have officially been charged with desertion since 2022, the vast majority of them in 2024, which means the rate is accelerating. These are people who one day decide they don’t want to be on the front line anymore, and they leave, or they are given medical leave and they never come back to their units.
The latest scandal in Ukraine is that they are now sending specialists from the Air Force to the front as infantrymen. These are people who have been trained in the use of drones, in spotting incoming missiles and so on, for air defence. They are highly trained and specialised personnel who are now being taken out of the Air Force and sent to the front. From a military point of view this is a complete waste of skill.
It seems to me that this situation cannot go on for much longer. We are dialecticians. It is going to reach a point in which these small incremental losses might become a complete collapse of the front.
The demoralisation in the army – which is a reflection of demoralisation in society – has accelerated with the arrival of Trump to power. He has said he will put an end to the war in twenty-four hours, and that he will make a deal with Putin. What do you think is the impact of this in Ukraine for the political leadership, the military leadership, and for the men on the front?
Some reports in the western media about the opinion of the troops say that Ukrainian soldiers support Trump, as they want to put an end to the war. A former Ukrainian minister was quoted by Politico talking about Trump’s impact on the war: “It might not be good – but it will be much better than under Biden… [he] managed the war as a crisis – he thought if he holds out long enough, the storm will pass. But it’s not passing. Trump takes the perspective that we have to stop the storm. He’s not concerned about how it will be stopped.”
This is what Trump’s tactic seems to be, to put an end to the war. It is not clear how he intends to achieve that or even if it will be possible for him to achieve it. What is clear is that if Trump were to say the United States is walking out of this war, which is what he is trying to achieve, then the war would be finished.
The current situation is one where the war has already been lost, but it has not concluded. If the US walks out, and stops the supply of military aid, weapons, supplies and so on, then it is finished.
A defeat for NATO in Ukraine will have a major impact on the world situation. This will not be like the time when the US was forced to leave Afghanistan, unable to defeat what is in effect a very backward country. We are talking here about a major proxy war between NATO and Russia.
Russia will come out of this war as the only imperialist power with an army that has been involved and tested in the methods of modern warfare. The war in Ukraine has served, as all wars do, as a testing ground for the most modern methods of warfare, the use of drones, the use of electronic warfare to counter them, new types of missiles, etc.
How will the Ukraine war end?
Can a deal be reached to put an end to the war? I will say that the only way a deal can be reached is on Putin’s terms. He is winning the war on the battlefield and the longer it goes on, the more territory he will win.
What are his terms? First of all, all the territory that he’s taken, he will keep. He also wants a commitment written in stone that Ukraine will never join NATO and will remain a neutral country. That also involves a scaling down of the size of the Ukrainian army.
What Putin was saying in the run up to the war in December 2021 was: “We want a new security architecture in Europe.” What this means is: “We want Europe and the US to recognise that Russia is a power, and for them to stop meddling in our backyard and making aggressive moves against Russia”.
In the discussions we had about the war in Ukraine when it began, some comrades argued that the West could not allow this war to be lost. They argued that, for the West, this war is an important question of prestige and that therefore, they would continue to supply weapons for as long as it took.
At that time I thought that the war in Ukraine would finish much earlier with a deal. I thought that the West would be prepared to recognise the real state of affairs much earlier. I think I argued that there would be a deal around autumn 2022. If you remember, a deal was being discussed in Turkey, but then Boris Johnson rushed to Kyiv and told them not to sign and that the West would support them “for as long as it takes”, until victory over Russia was achieved.
I was wrong and those comrades clearly had a point.
Against their best judgement, the West has continued to pile weapons into a war that, as was clear for a long time, could not be won. That was to a large extent for reasons of prestige. Having embarked on this war, the West cannot be seen to lose it. The mistake I made was to overestimate the capacity of western imperialism to act logically and rationally.
However, there are definite limits – financial, physical and political limits – to the ability of the West to continue to supply weapons. These limits have been reached to a large extent.
Regarding this question of prestige and the impact that the US losing face will have on world relations, perhaps Trump thinks he can get away with it because he can put the blame on Biden.
“This is not my war, this is not my humiliation, this is a mistake or even a crime committed by Biden. And we are walking away from this. Too many people have died already”. This is what he is saying.
Trump is also a narcissist. Some have said he wants the Nobel Peace Prize! This would not be out of character for the Nobel committee; they have given the Prize to a lot of unsavoury characters already.
So from Trump’s point of view, he probably thinks that if he were able to sit down with Putin, through his personal charm and personal relations, he would be able to arrive at a deal that’s beneficial for everyone.
This was the content of Trump’s post on social media: “I like the Russians. The Russians helped us a lot in World War II. The Russian economy is in a bad state and I will be doing Putin a favour by reaching a deal.”
But obviously Putin is not an idiot. He is many things, but not an idiot. And he knows what the real situation is, regarding the Russian economy (which is booming) and the military situation.
Trump thinks that the war in Ukraine is a mistake, a waste of money and a waste of time, and he wants to put an end to it. But real life is more complicated than Trump’s intentions alone.
He certainly has a lot of leverage on Ukraine. Trump considers Zelensky a nuisance. He will want to embark in negotiations directly with Putin and then turn around to Zelensky and tell him, “You must accept this”.
It was reported that the head of Ukraine’s security service, Budanov, said in a closed meeting with parliamentary faction leaders and military leaders that unless they engage in serious negotiations, in six months time Ukraine would face “an existential threat”. Zelensky has also said that the ban on any negotiations with Putin, which he promoted months ago, does not apply to him and that he is prepared to sit at the table. It is clear that the Ukrainian government is being forced to recognise reality. They will try to get as much as they can from these negotiations, but they don’t have much leverage.
What happens if the Europeans object to negotiations or to the terms of a potential deal? Trump will say, “Okay, well this is your war. You go ahead. We are walking out.” Europe is not in a position to continue the proxy war against Russia without the US, not from an economic, political or military point of view. These are the general outlines of the situation.
Trump tears up the imperialist rulebook
What does this all mean? There has been a major change in world relations. It is also a change in the way the United States acts.
The Economist published an editorial saying that the United States has now, “for the first time in over a century… an imperialist president”! I am sure a lot of people in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Chile, in Venezuela, and in Cuba are going to be surprised. Obviously, all US presidents have been imperialist for a long time. Well over a century, certainly.
But The Economist might be onto something, and it is the following. In the whole period since the end of World War II, or perhaps even before that, US imperialism maintained the pretense of acting on behalf of human rights, spreading democracy and the ‘rules-based order’, defending the ‘sacred principle of the inviolability of national borders’, and so on.
They were acting through ‘multilateral’ international institutions, which were apparently neutral, in which all countries had a say: the United Nations, the WTO, the IMF, and so on.
In reality, this was just a fig leaf. It was always a farce. Either the interests of US imperialism were expressed through these institutions, or they would ignore them completely.
The difference now is that Trump does not care at all for any of these pretences. He seems determined to tear up the whole rulebook and express things more openly, as they really are. When he says the Panama Canal and Greenland are part of US national security interests, he is expressing the point of view of the US ruling class, without any subterfuge.
Trump and the crisis of European imperialism
The way Trump speaks openly and without subterfuge about the interests of US imperialism is having an important impact on consciousness. The majority of people in the world can now see how the world really is, and how imperialism really works. These changes in consciousness have been massively accelerated by the war on Gaza.
We have talked about the relative decline of US imperialism and the rise of China and Russia as imperialist powers on the world scene, but these processes go hand in hand with the long-term decline of European imperialist powers, which has now accelerated enormously. We have explained it in a number of articles, including our article about Mario Draghi’s report on ‘European competitiveness’, and our recent article about the crisis of the European car industry.
Europe is in a deep crisis, one from which it cannot escape. It doesn’t have the means to get out of it. Germany has now been in recession for two years, and some bourgeois economists say the recession will continue for the whole of 2025. That would be unprecedented since World War Two.
This process has been massively accelerated as a result of the Ukraine war and European sanctions on Russia. These have not impeded the Russian war effort, but have mainly hurt Europe, and particularly Germany.
Just to give a few figures to illustrate the process: German industrial production is down 7 percent since 2021, but in energy-intensive industries it is down 20 percent! Germany is obviously the most affected country in Europe, as it was the one which was most dependent on the supply of cheap Russian energy.
But other countries are not far behind. In Britain industrial production has suffered a long-term decline. Nevertheless, the figures showing the collapse in production since the Ukraine war began are shocking: manufacturing output is down 9 percent since 2021, metals are down 35 percent, chemicals down 38 percent, cement 39 percent, and electrical equipment is down an incredible 49 percent! This is an absolute bloodbath.
What this reflects, beyond the impact of energy sanctions on Russia, is a deeper underlying process which is clearly explained in the Draghi report. The competitiveness of Europe is lagging behind the competitiveness of the US and China. Capitalism is based on reinvesting surplus value in order to advance the productive technique and develop the means of production, in order to produce in a more efficient manner.
While in the recent period there have been some increases in the productivity of labour in the United States, Europe is lagging far, far behind. The Draghi report explains very well that the level of economic integration of Europe is not enough to compete with the massive economies of scale and capital markets of China and the US.
The original idea of European integration was an attempt by the European ruling classes to stand together for fear of being hanged separately. Nevertheless, different regulatory regimes, separate capital markets and so on prevent the mobilisation of the combined strength of the different European capitalist classes in a joint European effort in any field. There are very few exceptions to this phenomenon. Airbus is one of the few.
Today, in a period of crisis and increased global competition between blocs, Europe, rather than standing together, is being pulled in all different directions. This will be increasingly the case.
This is the case, for instance, in Austria, whose capitalist class has a lot of interests in Russia. It is, therefore, being pulled in that direction. Other countries are being pulled towards the US. As a result, any attempt at a joint European policy to face this crisis will flounder.
They cannot agree on tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, because different European countries have different interests. Chinese electric vehicles are seen as a threat to the European car industry, which employs millions of workers. But still they cannot agree on tariffs, as some countries are courting Chinese companies to install electric vehicle or battery plants in their country, rather than in others.
The rise of the demagogues
This multi-faceted crisis is at the root of the rise of right-wing demagogues across Europe. This is not just a phenomenon in the United States, although Trump’s election victory has massively accelerated the rise of right-wing demagogic formations in Europe. This already existed before.
While there are differences – each of these formations are shaped by slightly different national characteristics, history, national peculiarities and so on – the process is broadly the same and the causes are common.
We see, for example, the rise of the AfD in Germany, which, as well as blaming migrants, is riding on the wave of anti-establishment anger, particularly around opposition to the war in Ukraine and the economic impact in Germany of sanctions on Russia.
Already during the general election in Britain in July 2024, there were certain advances for Farage’s party, Reform. But now the opinion polls put him at the same level as Labour. One of the polls even had him two points ahead.
Musk is fuelling this process. He intervened in a style which is similar to Trump’s, attacking Starmer, Macron and Scholz, and openly supporting the AfD by appearing via a video link at their national congress.
His intervention was inflammatory. He called on King Charles to dismiss the British government and for the people to rise up against Starmer’s government as he was, according to Musk, protecting grooming gangs and “covering up the biggest crime in Britain’s history”.
Of course, his interventions are deranged, but he is not only the billionaire owner of a social media platform. He is, at the same time, someone who has an official position in Trump’s administration. Incidentally, this is an official position, but one which is directly linked to the presidential office and outside of the state structure.
He is openly attacking European heads of state, without any regard for diplomacy or protocol, as well as using his wealth and his social media reach to push this message.
The liberals and the left are in a panic mode over this. They are raising a hue and cry over disinformation on social media and the “polarising effect of the algorithms”, and demanding “regulation”.
Yes, of course, there is plenty of disinformation on social media. But what you have to ask yourself is: is the ‘traditional media’ full of truthful information? The answer is no. Some of us still remember Saddam’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’. Secondly, why do people tend to believe disinformation on social media? It is because there is such a degree of mistrust in the traditional media. They’ve been lying and defending the system for such a long time, and people can now see through them.
The liberals turn around and say that the Romanian presidential election was manipulated through Russian-funded TikTok messages and that this is what led to the victory of Georgescu. This is completely ridiculous, and they have not yet provided any proof of it, but the Supreme Court has already cancelled the result of the first round on the basis of these allegations.
In fact, if it were so simple, why didn’t the liberals organise a campaign on TikTok themselves? The question is not the medium through which the campaign was spread. The question that needs to be asked is: what was the content of the campaign? Georgescu’s campaign was based on opposition to the war in Ukraine, against NATO and asked the question: why are we spending so much money on the war in Ukraine when our own people have to emigrate to western Europe because there are no jobs in Romania? And this obviously resonated with millions of Romanians.
This case really exposes the nature of liberals. What they are saying is that, if the wrong candidate wins the election – wrong from the point of view of NATO, Brussels, etc. – then we simply cancel the election. That is the sum total of the liberal’s attachment to democracy and the ‘right to vote’ that they keep going on about, and which they say is under threat from right-wing demagogues.
If you look at Europe, everywhere you see the same phenomena. Le Pen is rising in France and might eventually become the president. Farage is already polling ahead of Labour in Britain and might become the prime minister at the head of some sort of Reform-Tory coalition. The FPÖ might become the senior partner of a right-wing coalition in Austria. In Germany, we see the rise of the AfD either pulling the conservatives towards its positions or splitting them. Meloni is already in power in Italy.
For years we have been discussing the crisis of legitimacy of bourgeois democracy, of all its institutions, of all its established parties. That is caused by the crisis of capitalism, and it has accelerated since 2008. As a result, we have a growing anti-establishment mood, which is now being reflected in the rise of right-wing demagogues.
Shifts in consciousness
The rise of right-wing demagogues can be explained by these two factors: the anti-establishment mood, but also the collapse, the failure, the utter bankruptcy of the so-called ‘left’.
What is the default response of this so-called ‘left’ when faced with this situation? “We must all unite in defence of the Republic, we must all unite to defend liberal democracy and freedom of speech”, etc. This is the worst possible response and it actually helps the right-wing demagogues. They can then turn around and say, “Look. They’re all the same. They’re all defending the system.” And in fact, they are.
This is the system that is destroying jobs, which is responsible for the high cost of living, etc. Of course, the right-wing demagogues add to their argument an attempt to scapegoat migrants for these problems.
The question we need to ask ourselves is: what is going to happen when these formations come to power? Trump is in power already in the US. He has made many promises. He is riding on the expectations of millions of people who think that he is really going to Make America Great Again.
What does this mean for a significant section of working class people? To them, making America great again means decent well-paid jobs. It means that they can get to the end of the month without being forced to work two or three different jobs, or having to sell plasma to make ends meet.
This is not going to happen. This is certainly not going to happen. There are strong illusions amongst millions of people in the United States that Trump will bring back the ‘good old days’ of the post-war period. This is completely ruled out.
They think that Trump’s policies will bring better times.
It is not ruled out that, for a short period of time, some of these measures – for example tariffs, which will promote industrial development in the United States at the expense of other countries – might have a little bit of an impact. Many people will also give him the benefit of the doubt for a period of time. He can also use the argument that it is the establishment, the ‘deep state’, which is not allowing him to carry out his policies.
But once reality sinks in and these illusions are dispelled, we will see an equally sharp and violent shift of the pendulum to the left. The deep-seated anti-establishment mood that propelled Trump to power will express itself on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
There is an article by Trotsky called If America Should Go Communist, where he talks about the American temperament which he describes as “energetic and violent”: “It would be contrary to the American tradition to make a major change without choosing sides and cracking heads.”
The American worker is practical and demands concrete results. He is prepared to take action to get things done.
Farrell Dobbs, the leader of the great Minneapolis Teamsters strike in 1934, went straight from being a Republican to being a Trotskyist leader. In his account of the strike, he explains why. To him, the Trotskyists were the ones offering the most practical and effective solutions in dealing with the problems the workers faced.
The tasks of the communists
I’ll just finish with this question. We have been discussing for some time how there is a shift in consciousness, particularly amongst the youth. That was the case even before we launched the “Are You A Communist” turn. There is a layer of the youth that are drawing very radical conclusions, some of whom consider themselves communists.
Incidentally, we shouldn’t exaggerate this question. This is still only a layer. But in terms of numbers, the amount of young people who consider themselves communist is quite large for a small organisation like ours.
There is a new opinion poll in Britain that shows that 47 percent of youth agreed with the statement: ‘the entire way our society is organised must be radically changed through revolution’. That is actually a very sharp way to ask a question, and still it got the support of 47 percent of the youth.
The poll also has a number of other interesting results. A majority of the youth think that what is required is a strong leader not bound by parliament. So, of course, there is also a lot of confusion, and a rejection of the rotten politicians in parliament. Nevertheless, the fact that 47 percent of the youth think that revolution is needed to upend the whole of the political system as it is organised today is extremely significant.
As I said at the beginning, we live in extremely turbulent times. It seems like everyone else on the left is mired in a mood of desperation and dark pessimism. But we are optimistic. We are optimistic because we understand the underlying processes at play.
These processes will lead to massive clashes in the class struggle. What is obvious is that governments will find it increasingly difficult to implement the policies that the capitalist class needs to deal with the crisis. They cannot get a parliamentary majority for even more and even deeper austerity cuts, as any parties voting for these would be trounced at the election.
The Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, gave a speech to the European Parliament a few days ago where he said that they have to increase defence spending, and that the previous target of 2 percent of GDP is not enough. They are now demanding 4 or even 5 percent of GDP. In fact, many of the NATO countries currently do not even reach 2 percent!
Rutte added that, in order to do this they will need to cut spending in other areas. He specifically mentioned social spending, pensions, education, healthcare, etc. He told the European MPs that this was a difficult decision they needed to make, but that if they didn’t they might as well start a “Russian language course or emigrate to New Zealand”.
Of course, he is exaggerating the Russian danger in order to push his agenda of increased military spending. There is an element of scaremongering. Russia is not about to invade Europe. But the policy is clear: increase defence spending and cut social spending. This is on top of the already difficult situation working class people are facing.
This is the real situation we are in, a situation that is already provoking massive political radicalisation, part of which is now expressing itself in a very distorted manner.
Our modest forces do not allow us yet to intervene in a decisive manner in events. We are too small. There needs to be a certain urgency in the building of our forces. If we manage to get to an organisation of 5,000 or 10,000 members in an advanced capitalist country – a cadre organisation, with roots amongst the youth and the working class – before massive events break out – as they will – then we will be in business.
And this is perfectly possible too, if we carry out our work in a patient and systematic manner, if we don’t lose our heads and if we are able to connect with a small percentage of this layer of very radicalised youth who are looking for a serious alternative to fight against this rotten, senile capitalist system.
