On the necessity of comprehending the world in an internationalist manner and organizing and acting accordingly
The world as we know it is falling apart. Every day we see Trump’s face on the screen and it disgusts us. But he has visibility, and we must connect these faces of the ruling elites with capitalist modernity and transnational capital. For the observation that the capitalist world system is in a deep, structural crisis is no longer just an analysis of the anti-capitalist and socialist school. Even key representatives and actors of the capitalist system recognise the fact that we are not only dealing with a cyclical economic downturn, but with a multiple crisis that encompasses ecological, economic, social and geopolitical dimensions. Various terminologies and analytical frameworks are used to define the global hegemonic ‘interregnum’ – or global transition phase. The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci described an interregnum as a phase ‘in which the old is dying and the new cannot yet be born’, and in which crises, uncertainties and ‘a great variety of morbid symptoms’ accumulate.1
‘If we’re not sitting at the table, we’re on the menu.’
The latest discussions at the ‘Club of the Rich’, the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2026, once again highlighted how also the ruling elites analyse the current world situation. Particularly noteworthy here is the speech2 by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who said that we are not in a transitional phase, but in the midst of a rupture. The old world order would not return, he said, and nostalgia was therefore not a strategy. The Canadian Prime Minister warned that the major powers had begun to use economic integration as a weapon: ‘With tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion and supply chains as vulnerabilities that can be exploited.’ He went on to warn that the middle powers must join forces to avoid being crushed between the major powers of the US and China. Because if they are not at the table, they will be on the menu. He pointed out that Canada had benefited from the old ‘rules-based international order,’ including ‘American hegemony,’ which had ‘contributed to the provision of public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for dispute resolution frameworks.’ However, he declared that this world order no longer exists. Instead, he argues for calling it what it is: ‘A system of intensifying rivalry between major powers, in which the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as a coercive tool.’
From the ‘end of history’ towards ‘political decline’
This systemic analysis of the current situation is not limited to politicians; even ideological pioneers of neoliberalism are forced to reflect on their own theories about the ultimate victory of capitalism. One example is the thinker Francis Fukuyama, who is known for proclaiming his theory of the ‘end of history’ . It was in 1992, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, that he declared that humanity’s ideological evolution had reached its end point, that socialism as a social system had failed, and that the neoliberal order was therefore the final and highest stage of human development. Beyond that, he argued, there could be no other political, social or economic model. At the time, the collapse of real socialism was interpreted not as an expression of internal flaws, but as the definitive victory of capitalism. The thesis of the ‘end of history’ functioned at the time as a manifesto of capitalist modernity, proclaiming the defeat of the socialist idea and declaring liberal democracy to be the final destination. But time passes judgement on history without mercy. The arrogant confidence of the forces of capitalist modernity at that time has now given way to deep concern, and even neoliberal thought leader Fukuyama has replaced this thesis with the concept of ‘political decay’. A closer look at Fukuyama’s intellectual journey and his shift in thinking from the optimism of the ‘end of history’ to warnings of ‘political decay’ can also be understood as a summary of the internal reflections of the system of capitalist modernity. In his 2014 work Political Order and Political Decay , he shows how the system he once idealised has been eaten away from within. We are no longer faced with a victorious model of capitalist modernity, but with a structure that has collapsed under its own weight, become cumbersome, and lost both its direction and its spirit.
According to Fukuyama, belief in the immutability of the hegemonic US model reached its peak between 1989 and 2008, the brief ‘golden age’. However, this glorious image suffered its first major crack with the global financial crisis of 2008. Fukuyama diagnoses various symptoms here, but sees the real disease in the disintegration of American domestic political institutions and the social fabric. Fukuyama borrows the term ‘political decay’ from his teacher Samuel Huntington. According to Huntington, systems are doomed to failure if they cannot adapt to the demands of new social groups. Fukuyama applies this theory to the modern United States: institutions are originally founded to solve a specific problem, but over time they become so entrenched that they can no longer adapt to changing environmental conditions. Institutions begin to no longer protect the public good, but instead enforce the interests of their own elites and small groups. Powerful elites divert state resources to their own circles; nepotism supplants performance. The state, once the engine of prosperity, has now become an instrument for satisfying personal interests. Fukuyama argues that the American system has transformed from a ‘democracy’ into a ‘vetocracy’. This term means that the necessary reforms cannot be carried out because numerous actors within the system have veto power. The checks and balances built into the system have changed from a means of increasing the government’s functionality to a means of paralysing it. Behind this concentration of power in such a narrow circle lies a fundamental sociological and economic phenomenon: the rapid monopolisation of capital. In a situation where more than half of the world’s population has less income than twelve people, such a vertical concentration of economic power inevitably leads to a concentration of political power in a single hand. However, Fukuyama does not see this as a collapse, but speaks of a ‘disruption of order’. His proposed solution is to strengthen the executive bureaucracy, reduce the excessive dependence of the judiciary and implement radical political reforms to break through the ‘vetocracy’. As a liberal, Fukuyama believes that the real cause of political decline in the United States lies not in the competitive capitalist system, but rather in the dysfunctionality of political institutions. Fukuyama’s approach is therefore based on the confidence that liberalism can be repaired or reformed from within. According to Fukuyama, the pathological excesses of capitalism could be brought under control if the institutions functioned properly. It is not the system itself that is parasitic and problematic, but rather the institutions that are simply outdated.
In addition to the political decline of the United States described by Fukuyama, the Epstein case also adds the component of moral erosion. The Epstein case is not only one of the darkest criminal cases in modern history, but also an X-ray image of the systemic, moral and intellectual depravity of this US-American international ‘order’. It represents a contribution to the social history of decaying capitalism and patriarchy. The scandals that have come to light reveal not only the actions of a few perverse individuals, but rather how politics, academia, finance and the cultural industry have created a patriarchal ‘caste of untouchables’.
The USA as “empire of chaos”
The Kurdish freedom movement also considers the current situation of capitalism to be in a phase of systemic and structural crisis. It even refers to capitalist modernity as a “crisis regime” in the sense that no solution can be expected from the system itself, only a form of crisis management. As a result, depressions and crises have become a permanent state of affairs. ‘Normal’ times, on the other hand, are the exception, or rather, crisis has become the norm. The Kurdish freedom movement describes the wars and conflicts between nation states at various levels in the age of globalised capitalism as the Third World War. This is a permanent intra-capitalist power struggle aimed at restructuring the world system. The actors in this world war are trying to weaken competing forces and strengthen their own position. There are no clear front lines or the goal of a quick military victory. Instead, it is a constantly ongoing war in which contradictions and conflicts are played out in shifting alliances. Today, global capitalism is waging a protracted but continuous struggle for new political constellations and models of order in accordance with its own systemic requirements. The struggles, tensions and conflicts we observe worldwide are integral parts of this Third World War. To understand it, one must comprehend its deep roots in the structure of global capitalism. This war is also inseparable from the crisis of the capitalist world system. Global capitalism is in a multidimensional crisis: the growing gap between rich and poor, ecological destruction, continuing patriarchal rule, migration movements, armament and the normalisation of war are expressions of this profound systemic upheaval.
According to the pioneering Kurdish thinker Abdullah Öcalan, the capitalist system, led by the USA, attempts to preserve its power through an “empire of chaos”3: “The empire of chaos, which we could also, in a certain sense, call World War III, is not managed using military and political methods alone but more intensely and decisively by global corporations and the media. Global economic and media corporations do not shrink from physically and mentally starving societies in order to easily manipulate and use them as they see fit. They hope that by using their scientific and technological superiority they can salvage capitalist society system from chaos and exit the crisis even stronger or, if this is not possible, at least minimize the damage as far as possible, restructuring if necessary. In this chaos, the old-fashioned ways and means are no longer suited to managing, protecting, and sustaining the system with nothing but small changes. Therefore, it would be more realistic to evaluate the new US tactical and strategic approaches and implementations in the light of the chaos process.”4 Against this backdrop, we can observe a new global offensive by the system under the Trump administration, which is expressed in various forms in both domestic and foreign policy.
Global offensive of capitalist modernity: New US National Security Strategy
This empire of chaos is waging a war against its own population on the domestic front and laying the groundwork for civil war in the United States. One focal point here is the terror wrought by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Minneapolis. It operates outside the law and forms a paramilitary force directly subordinate to the Trump administration. With its excessive use of violence, ICE can currently be described as the ‘black shirts5 of the United States’. The issue of immigration is not the real problem for the government in this context. The big project behind it is fascism, with the aim of destroying the working class in the country both economically and organisationally. At the same time, however, we are seeing widespread resistance in Minneapolis, which reached its peak on 23 January 2026 – the first large-scale general strike in the US in almost 80 years, campaigning against ICE raids and for workers’ rights.
We must evaluate the new strategies and tactics of the United States as a global hegemonic power in the context of the particularities of this chaotic process. Even though Trump’s strategy follows a logic that cannot be deduced from clearly formulated position papers, but rather can be understood by observing his seemingly unpredictable actions, a look at the US National Security Strategy (NSS) published in December 2025 reveals important strategic and tactical priorities. Two aspects are significant in this context. Firstly, what is particularly new about the National Security Strategy is that, in the context of the power struggle with China, Latin America (in US parlance: the Western Hemisphere) is gaining considerable importance. Not only is Russia present in this region, but China in particular has become the region’s largest trading partner (excluding Mexico) and, at the same time, a significant investor in critical infrastructure – from ports to 5G networks. According to the US, this is set to change. “We want other countries to see us as their partner of choice,” the NSS states, adding that the US will “use various means” to “make it more difficult for them to cooperate with others”. Secondly, this plan, which is referred to as the “Donroe Doctrine” in relation to the former Monroe Doctrine, primarily targets South America’s raw material reserves, such as Venezuela’s oil and the lithium reserves of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile. The strategy paper repeatedly refers to “critical supply chains”: “Strengthening critical supply chains in this hemisphere will reduce dependencies and increase America’s economic resilience.”6 However, it also explicitly refers to expanding the military presence in Latin America and the Caribbean and intensifying arms and military cooperation with countries in the region – “from arms sales and intelligence sharing to joint manoeuvres”.
It began with imperialist aggression against Venezuela in January of this year, when, on Trump’s orders, US-American troops invaded Venezuela on 3 January, killing Venezuelan and Cuban citizens and arresting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. The Trump Doctrine has turned Latin America back into an open sphere of influence by effectively updating the Monroe Doctrine. The recent military intervention in Venezuela is the logical continuation of this line and should be understood as an imperial attempt to re-establish a hierarchy. In short, the intervention in Venezuela is not an isolated incident, but can rather be seen as one of the steps towards implementing the new US strategy. This U.S. intervention was a direct attack on Venezuela’s national sovereignty, with which the US directly violated the Charter of the United Nations and thus international law. Trump openly declared to the New York Times that he did not need international law. At the same time, Trump is reshaping the international landscape to his advantage and challenging the founding ideas of the UN by concluding a new “peace pact” with states loyal to the US and establishing a ”peace council” in Davos.
Geoeconomics and imperialism
In order to understand the strategies of the “empire of chaos” in this current phase, it seems sensible to discuss them in the context of the concepts of geo-economics and imperialism. In recent years, geo-economics has been one of the most frequently used terms to explain the current dynamics of global capitalism. Trade, investment, technology and financial flows are now determined less by market signals than by geopolitical priorities. While this is not a new system, these instruments are now being used openly and systematically as a strategy for imperial reorganisation. Geoeconomics is the systematic use of economic and military instruments for geopolitical and strategic purposes. Tariffs, sanctions, technology restrictions, control of financial flows and the restructuring of supply chains form the basic elements of this toolkit. What is important to note about this is that these interventions do not serve to “correct market failures”, as is often claimed in conventional approaches, but rather to reorganise the international balance of power. Geoeconomics is therefore not a technical political decision, but a political and class-related project. The term was first defined in the 1990s by American military strategist Edward Luttwak as follows: “This neologism best describes […] the connection between the logic of conflict and the methods of commerce or, as Carl von Clausewitz would have written, the logic of war in the grammar of commerce.”7 In this context, it is not possible to separate geoeconomics from the debate on imperialism. However, it is misleading to equate imperialism solely with land appropriation or direct military expansion. In Lenin’s sense, imperialism is defined by the concentration and centralisation of capital, the supremacy of finance capital, the primacy of capital exports over commodity exports, and the hierarchical division of the world economy among the great powers. In this context, the essence of imperialism lies in the reshaping and reproduction of the global hierarchy at a level where the logic of capital and national logic are intertwined.
Returning to the recent discussions at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the Global Risks Report 20268 presented there summarises the changing perceptions of risk around the world over the last two years from the perspective of the ruling elites. A table in the report shows that geo-economic conflicts have climbed eight places, representing the fastest-growing risk. This shows that in the phase of global hegemonic interregnum, which has arisen as a result of the relative decline of US hegemony, the struggle to reorganise the global hierarchy has also moved openly into the centre of world economics and politics. This is consistent with speeches such as those made by the Canadian Prime Minister and others.
The rise of geo-economics and its inclusion in the main agenda at Davos are one of the clearest signs that imperialism today operates through global value chains, technology regimes and financial sanctions. In this respect, the core of the problem has not changed. It is still a question of who determines the global hierarchy and under what conditions. In this context, the strategy of the United States is crucial. The US, which is experiencing a relative decline in terms of production and industrial capacity, nevertheless retains its financial and military superiority to a large extent. This asymmetry is prompting the US to redefine the existing global hierarchy in the face of China’s ever-accelerating rise. The geo-economic redefinition of the international hierarchy is the conceptual expression of this strategy. The Trump doctrine is the clearest political manifestation of this orientation. Trade wars, tariffs, technology restrictions and interventions in supply chains are being used as an imperial response to the relative decline of the US. Ultimately, geo-economics is not a technical economic term, but the name given to the current form that imperialism has taken under the conditions of crisis. The risk table discussed in Davos reflects the United States’ efforts to establish a new global hierarchy. Therefore, the debate on geoeconomics is inevitably a debate on imperialism in the 21st century.
IMEC and Pax Silica
Against this background, developments in Palestine, Rojava (Kurdistan), Venezuela, Greenland and other places, which at first glance appear to be confronted with different problems, are also interconnected. Only by explaining these connections will it be possible to bring these struggles and issues together in the agenda of an anti-capitalist international. Transnational capitalism, in all its various forms, is becoming the central global political actor in this Third World War. A central characteristic of the financial age is the increasing intertwining of economics and politics on a global scale. Local and national, political and economic decisions are increasingly coming under the control of global super-monopolistic forces. This is accompanied by predatory, extractivist processes on several fronts: land, energy and minerals.
Two initiatives that are being driven primarily by the US to minimise China’s influence in global competition are particularly noteworthy in this context. First, the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) announced at the G20 summit on 9th and 10th September 2023 in the Indian capital New Delhi. The heads of state and government of the US, India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Italy, Germany, France and the EU as a confederation of states announced the establishment of this corridor. The aim is to connect Eastern and Western Eurasia – i.e. India and Europe – via the Middle East in the form of a new transport, pipeline, electricity and data cable network. This geostrategic decision is one of the driving factors behind the escalation of conflicts that has been observed in the Middle East since autumn 2023. It is a response to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI, also known as the New Silk Road), which has been pursued since 2013 and is intended to encompass 150 countries along five land corridors and one sea corridor.
From the perspective of the concept of geo-economics outlined above, the IMEC project is not merely an economic project. It is linked to the establishment of a new regional security architecture in the Middle East, with Israel playing the role of the hegemonic centre. This will drive forward the transformation of the region in line with the new world order, bring energy reserves and new energy routes under control, ensure the unhindered flow of capital and limit the scope for action by Russia and China. The so-called “Abraham Accords” (Abraham Accords Declaration) also play a central role in the implementation of IMEC. These were signed in Washington on 15 September 2020 by representatives of Israel, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain. Within this framework, the two Arab states agreed to recognise Israel and establish diplomatic relations. The strategic goal here is to subject the Arab states to Israeli hegemony in the region and clear the way for the IMEC. The fact that nothing, not even genocide, will be stopped in order to achieve this and ‘clear the way’ is clearly demonstrated by the genocide in Gaza by the Israeli occupation army, which has been ongoing since 7 October 2023. The powers involved in the IMEC are insisting with all their might on the implementation of this project.
The second initiative is the Pax Silica project, which cannot be understood without reference to the IMEC project and clearly expresses the connection between militarism and the technology industry. Pax Silica is a strategic alliance launched in December 2025 by the US State Department to secure supply chains for AI, semiconductors and critical minerals. The project represents a multinational AI alliance of the US against China and aims to secure both the value chain of the AI economy and the technological leadership of the US and its allies. It aims to reduce dependence on China, address the lack of access to critical minerals, and form coalitions of partner countries (Australia, Israel, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea) for the technological future. This race for artificial intelligence is also an extension and intensification of the rivalry between the US and China. It is not only a competition for the technology itself, which has many dangerous implications for the military, police and labour, but also a competition for raw materials, energy, trade routes and new economic relationships with countries in order to procure these raw materials – in other words, the race for artificial intelligence is also a race for new and renewed international economic alliances. Pax Silica is also seeking expansion in the Middle East. As with IMEC, Israel is a founding or core member of this alliance. It is a strategic move to consolidate technological cooperation between the US and Israel in the AI sector and to prepare the Middle East for the intentions of the major technology and energy companies. Israel, as the regional hegemonic power, is the embodiment of this capitalist strategy and Pax Silica in the region. Pax Silica is an attempt to portray genocide as an investment project. Gaza is to be transformed into an investment location and become part of this project.
Battle of ideas
Projects such as these highlight the connections between genocidal, imperialist and extractivist practices and threats in Palestine, Rojava, Greenland and various regions in Latin America. The attacks on Rojava, which began in early January this year with the aim of destroying the democratic self-government model, were also part of an international plan. It was part of the strategy to unify the Syrian nation state, liquidate all resistant dynamics and force them to integrate into the regime, and ultimately persuade Syria to join the Abraham Accords. Rojava stands for the opposite of the hegemonic projects of capitalist modernity described above and for a real alternative to the authoritarian and capitalist system. The idea behind the Rojava social model is not only to combat the “symptoms of the disease,” but to tackle the systemic causes.
In this phase of the dissolution of capitalist modernity and its structural crisis, there is the possibility of both democratic offensives and developments as well as totalitarian-fascist developments. We find ourselves in a historical period in which both the ruling elites and societies are profoundly questioning the existing world order, and it depends on the degree of organisation of the democratic forces and the right methods, forms of action and models of social organisation to be able to use the potential for a democratic awakening. In this period of chaos, democratic and egalitarian movements can, with small and effective steps, build something in a short time that will determine the long-term future. The revolution in Rojava is a concrete example of this and, with its paradigm of democratic modernity and democratic socialism, opens up new perspectives for social struggles and the development of a more just social order. Especially in this process of global reorganisation, it is crucial to have convincing ideological-political concepts and viable solutions in order to have a real chance of gaining influence in this chaos.
To understand how much the empire of chaos fears such ideas, discussions and practices about alternatives to the existing capitalist system and tries to nip them in the bud, one only needs to look at the past few months.
Despite the slogan of “the end of history and ideologies,” , the hegemonic power of capitalist modernity, the USA, saw it necessary to proclaim ‘Anti-Communism Week’9 in the USA last year, almost 180 years after the publication of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ Communist Manifesto in early 1848 and more than 35 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and real socialism. On 7th November 2025, the anniversary of the 1917 socialist revolution in Russia, the White House issued a statement declaring the week of 2nd to 8th November ‘Anti-Communism Week’. The document portrays socialism as a threat to ‘faith, freedom and prosperity’ and warns against ‘new voices’ that allegedly repeat ‘old lies.’ In doing so, it once again declares war on the idea of socialism, which it itself had declared dead. Behind all the self-assurance of the system lies the obvious fear of the ruling class and caste of growing opposition to capitalism and the idea of socialism, which instils free and revolutionary thinking in societies. The immediate political background to the White House statement is the mayoral election in New York, in which over a million people voted for Zohran Mamdani, a self-proclaimed ‘democratic socialist’. The “anti-communism week” was backdated to include election day, 4th November, and it warns grimly against those who “camouflage themselves with the terms ‘social justice’ and ‘democratic socialism’”. This hysteria stems from the fact that opposition to capitalism is growing rapidly internationally and is expressing itself in various forms—the “No Kings” mass demonstrations on 18 October, the overwhelming global rejection of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, and the “Gen Z” protests in Africa and Asia. Polls show that 67 percent of young people in the US, the absolute centre of capitalist modernity, have a positive or neutral attitude toward socialism, while only 40 percent favour capitalism.
We are therefore also witnessing an ideological attack on ideas that represent possible alternatives to capitalist modernity, above all the idea of democratic socialism. The ongoing threats and sanctions against Cuba must also be understood in this context. US President Trump has openly declared his goal of overthrowing the socialist government in Havana. The imperialist attack against Venezuela can also be seen as a blow against one of the last bastions of real socialism on the continent. The message to the hemisphere is clear: any political project that challenges US foreign policy, even if only rhetorically, will be confronted with direct pressure and systematically destabilised. All progressive projects that oppose US imperialism are declared targets. In this context, the classification of Antifa in the US, as well as left-wing groups from Germany, Italy and Greece, as ‘terrorist organisations’10 can be cited as another example of the US government’s attempt to ban left-wing ideas. Trump’s attacks on Antifa are aimed at defaming everything to the left of him as terrorist and, above all, at defaming the broad anti-racist movement that formed nationwide after the police murder of George Floyd a few years ago as destructive, violent and chaotic.
The ruling elites openly declared that we are in the midst of a battle of ideas in the wake of the global wave of solidarity with Palestine. When pro-Palestinian demonstrations spread to universities in the United States and led to university occupations, with protesting students and lecturers demanding that the universities withdraw their investments from US-American companies that are involved in the genocide, this posed a direct threat to the interests of transnational capital and their class. It was a group of multimillionaires and billionaires who instructed New York City Mayor Eric Adams to send the police to storm Columbia University and other campuses in the city. Palantir CEO Alex Karp made it clear how high the stakes were, in the view of these transnational capitalist classes, in the protests. Palantir, a billion-dollar high-tech company based in Silicon Valley, signed an agreement with the Israeli Ministry of Defence in early 2024 to provide the Israeli armed forces with artificial intelligence and other digital technologies that were used in the genocide in Gaza. ‘The protests on campus are not a side issue. They are the main issue,’ Karp said. ‘If we lose the intellectual battle, we will never be able to raise an army in the West again.’11
Democratic socialism of the 21st century
Trump made it abundantly clear where the main enemy of those in power really lies with his statement that the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) should be considered more dangerous than Islamic State (IS)12. Here, too, the PKK represents a socialist movement which, contrary to the discourse of the ‘end of history’ in the 1990s and the fact that many turned away from socialism at that time, declared: “To hold on to socialism is to hold on to humanity.” The struggle of the freedom movement and its vision of a democratic-confederal Middle East directly challenges the agenda of capitalist modernity and is therefore defined by Trump as a threat and is the underlying reason for the aggression against the Rojava Revolution in particular and the Freedom Movement of Kurdistan in general.
In this current battle of ideas, Kurdish thought leader Abdullah Öcalan also criticises the dogmatic repetition of theories from the 19th or early 20th century and the rigid adherence to formulas that are no longer relevant in the context of modern social conditions. He therefore emphasises the need to rebuild socialism in a philosophical, ideological and organisational sense and advocates a democratic socialism of the 21st century in resistance to capitalist modernity: “The history of real socialism in the 20th century shows that its failure was also based on a misunderstanding of this dialectic: state-centred socialism, which wanted to take over the state, was ultimately absorbed by it. The right of peoples to self-determination was reduced to the nation state – a step back into the logic of bourgeois politics. The concept of the “proletarian nation state” merely reproduced state-centred thinking. That is why I say: nation-state socialism leads to defeat, whereas democratic society socialism leads to victory. Today, the time has come to advance toward democratic emancipation on the basis of democratic society socialism.”13
As the world as we know it falls apart, it is crucial for anti-systemic and democratic forces to understand the world in an internationalist way, to organise themselves accordingly and to act accordingly. As a first step, this means detaching ourselves from the narratives that make our experiences seem unique and creating more frameworks in which similarities and connections are highlighted. As we have discussed, the Third World War is escalating every day in different forms in new places. Sometimes diplomacy is intensified, sometimes violence; the agenda will continue to be shaped by multiple crises. Priorities in individual theatres will shift, but the war as a whole will be fought on many fronts. In contrast, the unrest that has been ongoing since 2010 in a large number of countries on different continents shows that the peoples, workers, young people and women are uniting around common demands. All these developments make an organised internationalist movement both necessary and, at the same time, create a concrete basis for its emergence.
The text was written before the recent attack by Israel and the USA on Iran.
1Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, herausgegeben und übersetzt von Quintin Hoare & Geoffrey Nowell Smith, London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1971, S. 276.
2 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/21/nostalgia-is-not-a-strategy-mark-carney-is-emerging-as-the-unflinching-realist-ready-to-tackle-trump
3Öcalan, Abdullah. Beyond State, Power and Violence, pp. 207-208.
4Ebd.
5Black shirts (Italian: camicie nere) was the initially unofficial and later official collective name for members of the Italian fascists’ paramilitary militias.
6 https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf
7From Geopolitics to Geo-Economics: Logic of Conflict, Grammar of Commerce, Edward N. Luttwak, Journal: The National Interest
8https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2026.pdf
9 https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/11/anti-communism-week-2025/
10 https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/amerika/usa-trump-ost-antifa-terror-100.html
11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1schQrqJFU
12 https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2019-10/us-praesident-donald-trump-pkk-terrormiliz