Trumpism, Imperialist War and the Historical Crisis in the Total Reproduction of Capital
The recent NATO summit, Trump’s visit to China, the meeting between Xi and Putin, the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz and the rapid realignment of global alliances all indicate that the world has entered a phase of structural instability and protracted rivalry; a phase in which the previous order of global capitalism is eroding without any new stable order being able to replace it.The present crisis is not merely a continuation of the classical cyclical crises of capitalism.
Since the threshold of the First World War, capitalism entered a stage in which crises could no longer be managed solely through the internal mechanisms of the market and the cycle of accumulation. World wars, extensive state intervention, militarism and organized destruction became internal tendencies of capitalist reproduction itself. From that point onward, the development of technology and productive forces increasingly served war, control, reconstruction and crisis management rather than the improvement of living conditions and social welfare.
The crisis of the 1970s was a continuation of this structural crisis. Neoliberalism and globalization were not solutions to the crisis, but rather historical forms of managing and postponing it through financialization, relocation of production and the integration of China into the world market. From the 1990s onward, however, the crisis entered a new stage: not only economic accumulation, but also the political, social and institutional structures necessary for the reproduction of capital itself began to erode. The crisis of 2008 was the naked moment of this reality; the moment that revealed that even the most basic reproduction of social life had become trapped within the crisis of accumulation and financialization.
The formation of the European Union, the creation of parallel political and economic structures alongside the nation states, and the permanent conflict between federalist and confederal tendencies all reflected European capitalism’s attempt to find a new form for managing the crisis. Yet this very process itself became a source of deepening political fragmentation and crisis of legitimacy. The erosion of traditional parties, the rise of the far right, the crisis of parliamentarism and the expansion of the security state are not isolated political crises, but political expressions of the historical crisis in the reproduction of capital.
The rise of Trumpism must be understood within this framework. Trumpism is not a temporary political deviation, but the political expression of the historical crisis within the structure of global capitalism and American hegemony. As neoliberal globalization becomes incapable of stabilizing the dominant position of the United States, the state increasingly turns into a direct instrument for the reorganization of capital, economic warfare and geopolitical pressure. Pressure on Europe, the redefinition of NATO, the trade war with China and the return of industrial and tariff policies all express this transformation.
The recent NATO summit itself was less a demonstration of Western unity than a sign of its internal crisis. Disagreements over the war in Ukraine, the energy crisis, relations with China and rising military expenditures have further exposed the fractures within the Western bloc. NATO’s expansion into Northern Europe and the militarization of Scandinavia are likewise not signs of Western stability, but indications that the crisis has reached the heart of Europe’s security structure.
On the other side, the meeting between Xi and Putin and the expansion of cooperation between China, Russia and the Shanghai bloc indicate that rival blocs are also being reorganized. Yet this process does not signify the emergence of a new stable order. China, despite its immense economic and technological power, remains dependent on the world market and the international structure of accumulation. Russia, meanwhile, has become less the center of a new order than a military-security actor operating within the global crisis itself. For this reason, the Eastern bloc still represents above all the erosion of Western hegemony rather than the emergence of a stable historical alternative.
The Middle East has likewise become one of the central nodes of this global reorganization. The crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, divisions within OPEC, Saudi Arabia’s growing ties with China, the attempts of Arab states to redefine their regional alliances, and the ongoing wars in Gaza and the Red Sea all indicate that the region has entered a phase of rapid and unstable shifts in alliances. Neither the American bloc is capable of fully stabilizing its position, nor is the China–Russia–Iran axis capable of creating a stable alternative order.
Iran stands at the center of this contradiction. On the one hand, its geopolitical position and regional deterrence capacity have turned Iran into a significant actor within global power relations. On the other hand, this position rests upon a chronic crisis of social reproduction, inflation, the erosion of public services and constant pressure upon the working class. The costs of geopolitical deterrence and regional rivalry are not paid from the profits of large capitalists, but through declining real wages, rising prices, deteriorating living conditions and intensified exploitation imposed upon workers and the oppressed.
What stands before us today is neither the movement toward a stable unipolar order nor a peaceful transition toward a balanced multipolarity. The world has entered a phase of violent reorganization, protracted rivalry and long-term instability; a phase in which war, the security state, energy crises and geopolitical fractures become permanent elements of capitalist reproduction.
Neither the United States is capable of restoring the previous order, nor are China and its allies capable of constructing a new order able to contain the global crisis of accumulation. For this reason, there exists no rapid or low-cost perspective for ending wars, stabilizing global rivalries or restoring international stability. Capitalism has entered a period in which crisis is no longer the exception, but the normal form of political and economic life itself.
Under such conditions, the fundamental question for the working class is not the choice between rival blocs, but the reconstruction of an independent capacity for organization, solidarity and internationalist politics against the globalization of capitalist crisis.
Inflation, War and the Return of the Working-Class Question
Global capitalism today no longer reproduces itself merely through the everyday exploitation of labor power, but increasingly through war, destruction, militarization, repression and mass impoverishment. From Gaza and Lebanon to Iran, from the Red Sea to Europe, the working class and the exploited are being directly trapped within a cycle of war, layoffs, inflation, unemployment and social devastation. What states describe as “security,” “national defense,” or “stability” is in reality the organized transfer of capitalist crisis onto the lives of the working class.
The wars of today’s Middle East are not simply conflicts between states or rival geopolitical blocs. What is unfolding across Iran, Palestine, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and the broader region is a moment within the historical crisis of global capitalism; a crisis transmitted into everyday life through war, sanctions, inflation, energy crises and the militarization of states. Governments and official media attempt to present war as a “national,” “civilizational,” or “security” issue, but the material reality is something else entirely: the real costs of war are paid not by governments, but by workers and the oppressed.
In Iran, the combination of sanctions, recession, the collapse of the rial, structural corruption and now the destruction of industries and infrastructure has produced what can only be described as a crisis of social reproduction. Iranian workers are no longer confronted merely with low wages, but with the gradual erosion of the very possibility of life itself. Chronic inflation, the housing crisis, the collapse of healthcare services, the spread of temporary contracts, job insecurity and the collapse of purchasing power have reduced the lives of millions of workers to a struggle for survival. War intensifies this process. Damage to or disruption of oil, petrochemical, transportation and energy infrastructure means not only economic loss, but directly leads to layoffs, suspended production, halted projects and mass unemployment.
Yet the crisis is not limited to Iran. Across the Arab countries and the Gulf region, the working class faces different forms of the same crisis. The economies of these states are built upon energy exports, global trade and cheap migrant labor. War, disruptions in energy and transport routes, rising insurance costs and regional instability have destabilized the entire economic structure of the region. Rising oil prices may increase state revenues, but the real burden is once again transferred onto the working class through rising food prices, higher rents, collapsing public services and intensified job insecurity.
Meanwhile, millions of migrant workers in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain exist in an extremely fragile position. They lack political security and social rights, and will be among the first victims of recession, halted projects and declining investment. For these workers, war is not an abstract geopolitical question, but a direct threat of unemployment, homelessness and poverty. In Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq as well, energy crises and inflation have expanded poverty, debt and unemployment. The entire region has entered a period of social and class instability that is eroding the foundations of the existing order.
But the effects of war do not remain confined to the Middle East. Global capitalism is deeply dependent upon energy, transportation and global production chains, and every crisis in the region rapidly becomes a crisis across the entire network of global production and reproduction. Rising oil and gas prices have intensified a new wave of inflation, rising living costs and social pressure across the world. From Europe to Latin America, from South Asia to Africa, millions of workers are now paying the price for wars in which they played no role.
As a result, the global working class once again confronts the same contradiction experienced during previous major capitalist crises: declining real wages, rising living costs, expanding unemployment and growing social insecurity. Capitalism manages its crisis not through reducing profits and wealth at the top, but through destroying the living conditions of the working class. Yet this intensification of economic and social pressure simultaneously creates the conditions for the return of class struggle.
This struggle does not emerge from outside society or as an abstract political idea. It grows directly out of everyday experiences of work, inflation, layoffs, social insecurity and the erosion of life itself. Contrary to the image presented by bourgeois media, workers’ struggles have never been merely “economic” or “trade-union” struggles. Even when workers are forced to mobilize under the banner of immediate economic demands, their struggle acquires a political character because it directly confronts the state, employers and the existing social order. Pensioners’ demonstrations, workers’ strikes and protests against inflation or layoffs are all moments of confrontation between labor and capital, even if governments, media and unions attempt to reduce them to “limited economic demands.”
In many countries, including the Scandinavian states, unions and official negotiating structures have for decades transformed the principle of “controlled protest” into part of the capitalist order itself. Collective agreements, anti-strike laws and the systematic cooperation between unions, employers and the state function precisely to prevent the development of independent working-class solidarity. Yet even under such conditions, every genuine workplace protest is the product of a living process of discussion, dissatisfaction, solidarity and hidden organization among workers — a process that usually develops beyond the direct control of management, employers and official representatives.
Workplace resistance generally begins with scattered dissatisfaction and the expression of small demands. Gradually it expands, pushing workers into discussion and communication while creating networks of trust and solidarity. Union representatives and management attempt to channel this process into negotiation and bureaucratic control in its earliest stages in order to prevent its independent development. But the reality is that every strike, collective protest or workplace action has already passed through layers of pressure, intimidation and attempts at containment before reaching a level of organization and solidarity.
Every new wave of inflation, layoffs and destruction of public services accelerates these hidden processes and expands networks of communication and dissatisfaction among workers. From this point onward, class struggle once again becomes a central question — not merely as a struggle over wages or working conditions, but as a struggle for the very possibility of life against a system whose survival depends upon war, poverty and the destruction of the lives of the majority.
Modern Management at the Workplace; Institutionalized Division
The capitalist attack on the working class today is no longer limited to wage cuts, longer working hours or the destruction of social services. Over recent decades, the very structure of the workplace itself has been reorganized in ways designed to weaken solidarity, communication and collective organization among workers. If the concentration of labor in the factories and large industrial centers of Fordism once created relative conditions for the emergence of working-class organization and communication, contemporary capitalism has consciously sought to dismantle this potential.
The transition from Fordist organization to “lean production” and flexible management was not merely a technical transformation in the labor process, but part of a broader political and social reorganization of capital against the working class. The fragmentation of workplaces into small units, the creation of supervisors and team leaders, permanent competition among workers, individual performance evaluations, temporary contracts and the use of organizational psychology to manage human relations all function to prevent the development of collective solidarity. Contemporary capitalism seeks not only to manage labor power itself, but also the relations among workers.
This process is no longer confined to industry. The same organizational model first implemented in factories and production lines has now become entrenched in hospitals, schools, transport systems, municipalities, service sectors and even educational and research environments. Workers and employees are divided into smaller units, responsibilities are individualized and management attempts to reduce every form of dissatisfaction to personal conflicts, psychological exhaustion or “communication problems” between workers. In many cases, grievances rooted in excessive workloads, understaffing or declining wages are deliberately transformed into individual and internal group conflicts in order to prevent the expansion of solidarity.
Alongside this managerial restructuring, trade unions themselves have increasingly become part of the machinery for containing workers’ struggles. In many countries — especially in Europe and Scandinavia — collective bargaining structures, anti-strike laws and the permanent cooperation between unions, the state and employers keep workers’ protests within manageable limits. Every independent action outside official channels is rapidly confronted with threats, legal pressure or the risk of job loss. As a result, a growing gap has emerged between the union apparatus and the real experience of workers inside the workplace.
Yet despite all these obstacles, working-class resistance has not disappeared. On the contrary, new forms of communication and solidarity emerge precisely within these pressures. Every real workplace struggle, before becoming an open strike or public protest, is the product of a long process of discussion, trust-building and hidden networking among workers. Dissatisfaction initially appears in scattered and individual forms, but gradually expands through everyday conversations, breaks, informal contacts and shared experiences, eventually forming nuclei of trust and solidarity.
This process often resembles a constant tug-of-war between workers and the mechanisms of capitalist control. Management attempts to identify and neutralize dissatisfaction in its earliest stages — through supervisors, individual meetings, organizational psychologists or union activists who seek to channel resistance into negotiation and bureaucratic control. Yet every time workers succeed in uniting around common demands, a crack appears in this structure of domination.
Under such conditions, the issue is not merely resistance against a specific wage level or contract, but the reconstruction of class solidarity within environments deliberately designed to prevent it. For this reason, demands capable of reducing fragmentation and linking different groups of workers together become strategically decisive. Collective letters, petitions, solidarity networks, discussion circles and communication beyond the workplace are not simply tactical tools; they are moments in the reconstruction of the collective capacity of the working class.
This process can transform scattered protests into the basis for building durable workers’ networks around militant workers’ circles and internationalist nuclei. The conscious use of social media, friendship groups and collective discussions among coworkers can greatly facilitate this development. Conversations and experiences emerging within the workplace can continue in a more organized form through group chats, communication networks and solidarity circles extending beyond the workplace itself.
Today, many militant workers’ circles — especially in Iran and Turkey — have successfully used such methods to organize protests and strengthen communication among workers. In Sweden as well, these forms of communication have played an important role in bringing workplace struggles into society at large, creating support groups and expanding solidarity. Such tendencies exist in different forms in workplaces everywhere, but under the conditions of global capitalist crisis they increasingly need to develop into more durable, conscious and political forms.
Once workplace struggles break beyond the isolated limits of the workplace and expand into the social sphere, the balance of forces begins to shift. Connections between different workplaces, the public visibility of struggles, the expansion of solidarity networks and the linking together of scattered struggles can break the isolation imposed upon workers. It is precisely this process that can create the conditions for the emergence of durable workers’ networks and internationalist nuclei.
Capitalism today operates globally and reproduces its crisis on a global scale. For this reason, working-class organization can no longer remain merely local, fragmented or confined within the exhausted structures of the past. Without rebuilding real solidarity in workplaces and everyday life, and without the formation of nuclei capable of organizing independent workers’ networks, no serious perspective exists for the political advance of the working class or for the reconstruction of proletarian internationalism.
Yet the very crises that drive capitalism toward war, repression and division simultaneously create the conditions in which workers are compelled to rediscover forms of communication, trust and collective organization. From this point onward, internationalism ceases to be an abstract slogan or ideological formula and becomes a material necessity for defending the possibility of life and struggle against the globalization of capitalist crisis.
Towards the Reconstruction of Working-Class Internationalism
Global capitalism has entered a period in which crisis, war, social collapse, militarization and the assault on the working class are no longer temporary or exceptional phenomena, but permanent elements of the reproduction of the existing order. From the wars in the Middle East and the expansion of security states to inflation, mass layoffs, the destruction of social services and the organized attack on workers’ living conditions, everything points to the fact that global capitalism increasingly preserves itself by sacrificing the lives and futures of the majority of society.
Yet the crisis is not merely an economic or military one; it is also a crisis of political perspective. Large sections of the global working class now find themselves in a situation where neither the official parties, nor the existing trade unions, nor the traditional currents of the left provide any real response to the present condition. Social democracy, official trade unionism, nationalism, campism and various forms of ideological leftism have all, in different ways, either become integrated into the management of capitalist crisis or remain trapped within the repetition of obsolete formulas inherited from the past.
Under such conditions, the reconstruction of working-class internationalist politics is no longer a purely theoretical or propagandistic issue, but an urgent material necessity. Capital operates globally, the crisis is global, war has become globalized, and the chains of production and reproduction are internationally interconnected. For this reason, the response of the working class cannot remain confined within national borders, geopolitical blocs or state-centered politics.
But working-class internationalism itself cannot be rebuilt through abstract slogans or formal alliances. The historical experience of the last century has shown that whenever the working class lost its political and organizational independence, its struggle was either absorbed into the state, the party, the nation and global blocs, or degenerated into sectarianism and ideological existence detached from real social struggle. The defeat of the Internationals, the defeat of the first wave of world revolution and the historical rupture between theory and class praxis did not merely lead to the collapse of organizations; they also left broad sections of the workers’ movement trapped in political disorientation and historical hopelessness.
Over the following decades, Marxism — which had once emerged as the theoretical expression of the real movement of the working class and the science of class struggle — was gradually either absorbed into the structures of states and official parties or reduced to an academic, specialized discourse separated from social praxis. As a result, many militant working-class circles and groups, despite possessing real experiences of struggle and resistance, remained without a clear horizon capable of linking everyday struggles to an internationalist and emancipatory perspective.
Yet this same crisis simultaneously places the necessity of reconstructing working-class politics once again before us. Contemporary capitalism not only operates globally, but also attempts to undermine the very possibility of class solidarity through new forms of management, fragmentation of labor, organized division, precarious employment and digital control. For this reason, the reconstruction of internationalism can no longer remain at the level of political declarations or symbolic alliances; it must grow out of the real experience of struggle, workplaces, networks of solidarity and organization from below.
Militant working-class circles, networks of communication, discussion groups and independent forms of solidarity have therefore become more important than ever. Without rebuilding such connections, no real perspective exists for overcoming fragmentation and reconstructing independent class politics. Yet at the same time, these scattered struggles and emerging networks themselves risk exhaustion, fragmentation or reintegration into the existing order unless they are connected to a clear political perspective and to a critical reassessment of the historical defeats and experiences of the international workers’ movement.
For this reason, the need for an internationalist political platform rooted within the real experience of the workers’ movement and developed through the critique of historical defeats and achievements is felt today more urgently than ever. The political platform of the Internationalist Workers’ Organization, which will soon be published, is an attempt in precisely this direction; an effort grounded in more than four decades of political activity, struggle and systematic study concerning the crisis of global capitalism, the defeat of revolutions, the question of organization, the critique of dominant left traditions and the reconstruction of working-class internationalist politics.
This platform seeks to analyze contemporary capitalism not merely as an economic crisis, but as a historical crisis in the total reproduction of capital — a crisis encompassing every sphere of social life, from production and the state to war, science, ideology, migration, social reproduction and political structures. On this basis, the platform attempts to rethink the transformations of contemporary capitalism, the restructuring of production, digitalization, changing forms of labor organization, class consciousness, the critique of campism, the critique of containment-oriented trade unionism and the necessity of rebuilding internationalist organization in connection with the real experience of class struggle.
The platform offers neither promises of salvation nor ready-made formulas for the future, nor is it a repetition of old ideological schemas. Its central aim is to reconnect internationalist politics to the real terrain of class struggle and to reconstruct the unity of theory, organization and revolutionary praxis in a world where capitalism increasingly reproduces itself through war, division, poverty, control and social devastation.
Today, the reconstruction of working-class internationalism is no longer a distant moral ideal or abstract slogan, but a material necessity for defending the possibility of life, struggle and emancipation against the globalization of capitalist crisis. The working class will only be able to overcome historical fragmentation, defeat and political disorientation if it once again recognizes itself not as a collection of nationally or ethnically divided labor forces, but as a global class with common interests and a common horizon.
