Switzerland

The Other Davos, 16-17 January 2026

Thursday 25 December 2025, by BFS/MPS

For more than 25 years, the “Other Davos” has been creating a counter-power to the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. This year’s conference focuses on our anti-militarist responses to the escalation of imperialist tensions and wars, as well as on internationalist solidarity with Palestine.


After 40 years of neoliberal economic doctrine, we are going through an increase in social injustices, an impoverishment of an ever-increasing part of the population and a crisis of bourgeois liberal democracy, from which the conservative and reactionary far right is taking advantage. The gains of feminist movements are being called into question and incitement to racial hatred and militarisation are the new norm of (inter)national politics.

However, we are not only facing a political and social crisis, but also an economic crisis. The unstable prospects for growth and profit are leading to increased competition in the global race for control of value chains, natural resources, new markets and profitable investment opportunities. Imperialist tensions and the resulting wars lead to an arms race and militarisation of societies at home and abroad.

Austerity measures in favour of the arms industry and tax giveaways to the rich accentuate social inequalities. At the same time, the ecological crisis is worsening, with increasingly irreversible consequences. The climate crisis, species extinction and the destruction of ecosystems are in turn fuelling social conflicts and reducing the space in which we can achieve a society of solidarity.

The WEF and the far right

These overlapping crises have one thing in common: they are the result of the capitalist economic system, in which a handful of people hold all the wealth that the vast majority of workers produce every day. Since 1971, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has been bringing together the profiteers of this economic order to promote the neoliberal and authoritarian transformation of society.

In addition, every year in Davos, Switzerland, a platform is offered to the far right. For example, at the WEF 2025, far-right Argentine President Javier Milei proudly announced that he was forming a “global alliance of freedom against the hegemony of the woke left” with Musk, Meloni, Bukele, Orbán, Netanyahu and Trump. The WEF is therefore not a space for dialogue, but a tool for strengthening the domination and profits of the powerful.

The list of sponsors resembles a Who’s Who of fossil capital. Therefore, when the so-called economic leaders and the global political elite meet in Davos in January, no solution to the crises will be presented, but their causes will be further aggravated.
From resistance to liberation

At the Other Davos, which will be held on 16 and 17 January 2026 in Zurich under the motto “From Resistance to Liberation”, we will build a counter-power to this "alliance" of capitalists, bourgeois and fascists together. We bring together activists from many countries to develop ecosocialist, feminist and anti-imperialist responses to the wars and crises of capitalism. Bringing together activists from around the world is at the heart of the conference, as we see it as the key to global change. The global uprisings against corruption and the status quo, the multiplication of strikes, as well as the international movement of solidarity with Palestine thus carry a new internationalism.

This year’s guests at the Other Davos include the anti-Zionist Israeli historian Ilan Pappe (online), Asallah Mansour and other Palestinian feminists, the Syrian activist Leila Al-Shami, Oleksandr Kyselov and Olena Tkalich from the socialist organization Sotsialnyi Rukh from Ukraine, the socialists Avery Wear and Shireen Akram-Boshar from the United States, the comrades of the ex-GKN factory collective and the trade unionists of Sudd Cobas from the Florence region, anti-racist activists from Border Forensics in Geneva and the NoMore Committee in Basel, the feminist strike collective in Zurich, activists from critical social work (KriSo), the collective of critical teachers (KriLp) and students of critical psychology from Zurich, as well as many other activists from Switzerland and neighbouring countries.

The conference is organised by the Movement for Socialism (BFS/MPS) and will be held at the Volkshaus in Zurich (accessible to people with reduced mobility). The discussions will be translated into German, English and French. The plenaries and some workshops will be streamed live on YouTube. For the programme see here

26 November 2025

Translated by International Viewpoint from sozialismus.ch.

Attached documentsthe-other-davos-16-17-january-2026_a9327.pdf (PDF - 907.3 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article9327]


BFS/MPS is a Permanent Observer organization of the Fourth International in Switzerland.
Country

 

Abdullah Öcalan: Let’s reclaim socialism through peace and building a democratic society

By Abdullah Öcalan

Published date 24 December, 2025

Abdullah Öcalan’s message to the International Conference for Peace and Democratic Society. Republished from Ocalanvigil.net.

Esteemed thinkers, dear comrades, valued delegates, and all people who continue to believe that socialism is still possible;

I address you today from İmralı Island under the conditions of isolation of 26 years, at a moment when a new dialogue with the state over the Kurdish question in search for peace and a democratic society have resumed again.

To address you, at the International Conference on Peace and Democratic Society, on the path of rebuilding socialism, is both meaningful and significant.

As Kurds, over the course of 52 years of PKK struggle, we have completed our fight for existence and dignity, and we now enter a period in which a democratic republic and a democratic society can be rebuilt.

The PKK has fulfilled its historical mission by securing the national existence of the Kurdish people, while also exposing the limitations of nation-state socialism. Twentieth-century socialism emerged as a negative revolutionary intervention, yet failed to present a lasting alternative. Despite enormous sacrifices, this struggle has become a legacy enriched through both theoretical and practical critique. 

To honor and to own this legacy properly requires transforming socialism from a mere memory to a living social force beating at the heart of the people. The socialist tradition in history must be understood as a legacy aimed at building both peace and democratic society, and the path forward lies in fulfilling internationalist responsibilities — in theory and in practice.

Although utopian socialists and Marxists have offered comprehensive critiques of the capitalist hegemonic system since the 19th century, they failed to develop a decisive line with concrete results. Today’s capitalism is no longer merely a crisis; it has become a disease threatening the very survival of humankind. The monopoly of violence in the form of the nation-state plays a defining role in this collapse.

Just as capitalism cannot be explained solely through economic motives, the failures of socialist movements cannot be explained only by capitalist repression. Historical and contemporary mistakes have also been decisive.

My critiques of Marxism must be understood correctly. I do not blame Marx; in his era, history was not better understood as it is today and there was no ecological crisis, and capitalism was still on the rise. Even so, Marx was a thinker of profound self-questioning and intellectual courage. He perceived the importance of women’s liberation, yet approached it superficially, believing that once economic exploitation was overcome, gender oppression would naturally dissolve. His attempt to interpret social history exclusively through class, and his insufficient analysis of the state and the nation-state, led to serious consequences. 

While offering these critiques, I would like to underline my deep respect for Marx’s efforts and have no doubt of his sincerity, and note that I distinguish Marxism from Marx himself. When we critique Marxism and actual existing socialism on certain fundamental questions, what we feel — as socialists — is the spirit of self-critique from within.

Anti-systemic forces must revisit historical materialism in a way that aligns with the reality of human society. It is essential to understand that capitalism did not “descend from the heavens” in the 16th century; rather, its roots extend back to the 10–12 thousand years of evolution of civilization that began in Lower Mesopotamia. Archeological sites such as Göbeklitepe and Karahantepe shed light on this historical origin. 

For this reason, I find it more accurate to define the existing system of civilization as a “caste-based system of social murder.” Archaeological and anthropological findings show that male hunter castes, through the development of killing techniques, suppressed and enslaved women-centered clan communities. This marks the deepest rupture in human history — indeed, a major counter–revolution shaping all subsequent developments of civilization.

Understanding capitalism from this long historical perspective allows for far more eye-opening analysis. This system not only deepens internal social contradictions; it also threatens the extinction of the human species by producing chemical and nuclear weaponry that can annihilate the planet, by polluting the environment, and by plundering nature’s riches both above and below the ground. It is one of the essential duties of the international to offer the humanity with a new analysis of capitalism founded upon this grave reality.

We need to examine the history of the oppressed through the perspective of the commune, which emerged first and foremost as a formation of self-defense. This requires seeing early tribal communities as the beginnings of the commune and adopting a historical perspective stretching to today’s proletariat—and to all oppressed groups.

On this basis, we state that history cannot be reduced solely to class struggle. While class struggle is indeed part of it, it is more accurate to read history as a long process of relation and conflict between communal development and anti-communal development extending back roughly 30,000 years.

I anticipate that this conference also by engaging with the theoretical analyses I have offered here, will foster important debates that can contribute to the development of a new perspective of political program and organization. In this process, the fundamental method is dialectical materialism. 

However, certain excesses of classical dialectics need to be overcome. We must see contradictions not as opposing poles destined to eliminate one another, but as social phenomena that also sustain and shape each other. For without the commune, there would be no state; without the bourgeoisie, no proletariat. Thus, contradiction must be assessed not with a logic of annihilation, but through a transformative historical perspective.

Scientific developments show that the dialectical method remains an effective tool for social analysis, so long as it is not treated as absolute. With this framework, updating the commune–state and class–state dialectics is imperative. 

The failure of 20th-century real socialism stemmed from an inability to interpret this historical dialectic correctly: state-centered socialism seized the state, only to be defeated by it. By binding the right of nations to self-determination to the nation-state, it became confined within the boundaries of bourgeois politics. The concept of a “proletarian nation-state” similarly produced nothing but a reproduction of statist mentality.

Interpreting this reality correctly, I stated the following: 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.

On this path, I move forward with the conviction that we will succeed in reconstruction not through the state, but rather through the paradigm of a democratic republic and a democratic nation founded upon principles of women´s freedom, ecology and democratic society.

This awareness has renewed our movement ideologically and politically, revitalized its organizational dynamism, and deepened its roots in society — enabling it to develop a socialist program capable of responding to the needs of the century.

The relationship between democratic socialism and the state is also being reshaped within the context of the peace and resolution process. I define my relationship with the state as a relationship of democratization. 

The concept of the democratic republic requires that the state not function as a divine power standing above society, but rather as a structure operating within the framework of a democratic contract made with society. Through a strategy of democratic politics, it is possible to bring about change and transformation of the state and to rebuild society on democratic foundations.

Grounding this strategy in law will form the lasting basis of peace. Law is a mechanism that guarantees and balances the democratic relationship between state and society, serving as an instrument that prevents violence. At the same time, it will institutionalize the establishment, legitimacy, and reconstruction of the democratic republic. 

In relation, one of the key strategic arguments I have proposed is the concept of democratic integration and its legal framework. Democratic integration law, in which legal norms are reconstructed in favor of society through individual and universal norms along with collective rights, must rest on the following three fundamental principles:

• A law of the free citizen
• A law of peace and democratic society
• Laws of freedom

Democratic integration law will not only transform the state into a normative one but will also allow to institutionalize the societal gains, enabling society to realize its freedom. The “Call for Peace and Democratic Society” process that I launched is in itself a process of dialogue. In a region such as the Middle East — defined by complex relationships of ethnicities, religions, and sects — much can be achieved through democratic dialogue and negotiation. 

In addition, I believe that a meaningful socialism can be organized not through a violent revolutionary method but through a positive system of construction and existence — one that takes shape through democratic dialogue. Without comprehensive and profound democratic dialogue, it is difficult to believe that socialism can be built, or that it could endure even if it were built.

Lenin, too, said: “Without an inclusive and advanced democracy, socialism cannot be built.” With these thoughts and determination, I once again wish you a successful conference, and extend my enduring comradely greetings and affection.

 

Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation: On the escalating hostilities in Bangladesh

By Communist Party of India Marxist-Leninist Liberation

Published date 24 December, 2025

First published at Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation.

We express our deep anguish and grave concern over the rapidly escalating violence and organised public unrest in neighbouring Bangladesh. A disturbing wave of vandalism and targeted attacks has already resulted in significant loss of life and property.

Reactionary fundamentalist forces, mobilising youth along communal lines, have unleashed systematic assaults on religious minorities, opposition voices, and progressive cultural institutions. The attacks on leading media houses Pratham Alo and The Daily Star in Dhaka, and the ransacking of renowned cultural organisations chhayanaut and Udichi, signal a direct assault on democratic and secular values. The killing of student leader Osman Hadi of Inquilab Manch, the lynching and burning of a minority youth in Mymensingh, and the death of a minor girl in Chattogram following arson at a BNP leader’s residence, underscore the alarming brutality of the ongoing violence. Opposition party offices have also been systematically targeted.

This unprecedented spate of violence must be halted immediately. We urge the Bangladesh administration to act decisively, identify the perpetrators, and ensure justice.

We call upon the Chief Adviser of the Interim Government of Bangladesh to intervene to thwart this deliberate attempt by fundamentalist forces to destabilise society and undermine the democratic process ahead of the scheduled general election in February 2026.

At the same time, we remain deeply concerned that the fascist and fundamentalist forces in India may seek to exploit these developments to stoke Islamophobia and communal polarisation, particularly in West Bengal, for electoral gains in the forthcoming Assembly elections.

We appeal to all left, democratic, and secular-minded citizens to remain vigilant against sectarian provocations and to actively uphold the constitutional commitment to communal harmony, pluralism, and democratic rights across religious and cultural lines.

 

Brazil: Global antifascist forum a strategic space for struggle against the far right and imperialism (plus statement: Reject US aggression on Venezuela)

By Anti-Fascist Conference for the Sovereignty of Peoples

Published date 25 December, 2025

First published at International Anti-Fascist Conference for the Sovereignty of Peoples.

The Second Meeting of the International Committee projected the 2026 Antifascist Conference as a strategic space for unity, solidarity, and struggle against fascism and imperialism.

The second meeting of the International Committee of the Antifascist Conference and for the Peoples’ Sovereignty held last Tuesday (16th Dec. 2025), consolidated the international coordination of the Left toward holding the event. Organized from the capital of Rio Grande do Sul state, the virtual meeting brought together more than 80 comrades from different countries in Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Asia, with simultaneous translation in French, English, and Spanish, reinforcing the plural, internationalist, and unifying character of the conference scheduled to take place between 26th and 29th of March, 2026.

At the opening, City Councilor Roberto Robaina, president of PSOL in Porto Alegre and one of the event’s coordinators, contextualized the political importance of the meeting and of the conference itself.

“We are holding the second meeting of the International Committee at a special moment. Every week it is confirmed that an international initiative of this nature is absolutely necessary, because the advance of fascism, the far right, and imperialism is happening in a coordinated way,” he said. Robaina also highlighted that the initiative stems from the unity between PSOL, PT, and PCdoB, strengthened by the incorporation of social movements. “This Conference’s organizing was only possible because it is anchored in the strength of the working class, with the participation of the MST, CUT, CPERS, and dozens of other organizations,” he said, recalling that Porto Alegre carries the tradition of the World Social Forums as a reference for global articulation.

Representing the Workers’ Party (PT), the party’s president in Porto Alegre, Rodrigo Dilélio, reinforced the unified character of the Conference building in Brazil and the popular mobilization effort that precedes the event.

“Today there is a great unity among PT, PSOL, PCdoB, and the main organizations of the Brazilian working class to build this conference as an international antifascist reference,” he stated. Dilélio highlighted that the preparation for the event is directly connected to recent mobilizations in the country. “We are very happy with the demonstrations that have taken to the streets in recent days, and we believe that the conference will deepen this process of popular mobilization,” he added.

Eduardo Mancuso, also a PT leader and a member of the event’s coordination team, presented in detail the Forum of Democratic Antifascist Authorities, which will officially open the conference on the 26th March 26 at the Legislative Assembly of Rio Grande do Sul (State Parliament House).

“From the very beginning of the organization, there was the idea of building a forum of democratic authorities, inspired by the experience of the World Social forums of the early 2000s, when popular governments dialogued directly with social movements,” he explained. According to Mancuso, the goal is to articulate experiences of democratic radicalization. “We want parliament representatives and popular governments to be part of the opening demonstration, showing that institutional politics can also walk alongside popular mobilization.”

The centrality of anti-imperialism was reinforced by remarks from Raul Carrion, of the Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB), who linked the fascist offensive to the strategy of the major powers.

“The new security policy of the United States is a declaration of aggression against all peoples, especially the Latin American ones,” he stated. Carrion was categorical in summarizing the political axis of the conference: “There can be no struggle against fascism without a struggle against imperialism, just as it is not possible to confront imperialism without fighting fascism.”

Next, there was a speech by Belgian historian Eric Toussaint (CADTM), a leading figure in the alter-globalization movement and international organizer of the Conference. Toussaint celebrated the progress of the conference organization and the confirmation of important international delegations.

“We have already managed to secure the presence of numerous parties and parliamentarians from Europe, from the French, Italian, Spanish, Greek and British Lefts,” he stated. At the same time, he warned of the seriousness of the international situation. “For the first time, a president of the United States openly affirms his support for all European neo-fascist parties. This combines with the reaffirmation of the Monroe Doctrine and the designation of China as a systemic enemy, creating an extremely dangerous scenario,” he said. For Toussaint, the Porto Alegre conference can be an organized response to this scenario. “I am convinced that it will be a great success.”

In the organizational field, Gabi Tolotti presented the practical progress in the preparation of the event, highlighting the opening of registrations for self-managed activities and the structure for welcoming international delegations.

“We want to put a lot of weight on self-managed activities, because they allow each organization to find in the conference its own space for articulation and strengthening,” she explained. According to her, the organization team is working to guarantee accessibility. “We are structuring accommodations, partnerships with hotels and streamlining visa processes so that no one is excluded.”

The international speeches gave further density to the global character of the conference. From the refugee camps of Western Sahara, Ahmed Moulayali, of the Polisario Front, welcomed the initiative and highlighted its strategic importance.

“This conference comes at a very necessary moment. The Sahrawi people have been fighting for 50 years against colonialism, first Spanish and now Moroccan, with the support of powers such as Israel, France and the United States,” he stated. Moulayali highlighted the centrality of Africa. “Africa is the future because of its demographics and its wealth, and that is why it is the target of this imperialist dispute. Supporting the Sahrawi people is supporting the entire left in North Africa.“

Representing the Arab Palestinian Federation of Brazil (Fepal), Ualid Rabah reinforced the commitment to building a panel dedicated to Palestine.

“We are deeply committed to holding a conference that addresses the genocide in Palestine and the global resistance to it,” he stated. For Rabah, unity is a historical imperative. “Nothing exempts us from our differences, but everything obliges us to maximum unity in the face of an existential enemy. What is happening in Palestine today could happen anywhere in the world.”

From Uruguay, Daniel Dalmau brought greetings from the 33rd Congress of the Uruguayan Communist Party and reaffirmed the party’s commitment to the initiative.

“Our congress discussed the international situation in depth and the need for solidarity with all aggrieved peoples,” he said. He also highlighted the willingness to participate. “There is a great desire for the Communist Party of Uruguay to be present with a strong delegation in Porto Alegre.”

The Latin American dimension was also reinforced by the speech of Luis Bonilla, from Venezuela, who linked the anti-fascist struggle to resistance against neoliberalism, especially in the education topic.

“For fascists, education is not a priority, and that is why they try to destroy ministries and dismantle public policies,” he stated. Bonilla reinforced the commitment of his movement. “For us, this conference is part of the struggle for public, democratic, and anti-fascist education.”

Following this, Mauri Cruz, from the Brazilian Collective of the World Social Forum, connected the conference to the WSF process and the global anti-capitalist struggle.

“Fascism is the most radical face of capitalism. We will not overcome it without overcoming capitalism itself,” he stated. According to him, the conference can strengthen strategic alliances. “Only an alliance between left-wing parties and social movements can build a real alternative.”

From Chile, comrade Pablo Reimers, from the Communist Party, brought a political reflection and self-criticism.

“The response to the advance of fascism involves unity, honest self-criticism, and the resumption of the deep bond with the people,” he stated. He emphasized that electoral defeats do not end historical processes. “We are a party of struggle and we remain firm, because this battle already has a continental and global dimension.”

Comrade Flávia Verri, a militant of France Insoumise and a member of the Insoumise Eco-socialist Network, provided a detailed account of the French situation and the challenges for building broad participation in the conference process. Speaking in Portuguese, she explained that, despite a recent experience of unity on the left allowing the Popular Front to come out ahead of the far right in the 2024 parliamentary elections, the scenario has become deeply fragmented after the French Socialist Party supported an austerity budget from the center-ground.

“This unity has exploded, and one of the consequences was a deep division between political parties and the social movement,” she stated. According to Flávia, there is currently a strong autonomy of social movements in France, which resist re-articulating with political parties. Given this, she made a direct request to the conference coordination:

“Could the CUT [Central Única dos Trabalhadores], could the MST [Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra] make direct invitations? Because we could rely on these invitations to create a real dynamic in France. Otherwise, we run the risk of representing people, but not living realities and dynamics, which are crucial.”

From Argentina, comrade Julio Gambina (ATTAC Argentina, CADTM AYNA) warned of the gravity of the regional and international political moment, positioning the conference as an urgent response to the escalation of the far right.

“We are living through very serious times for Latin America, the Caribbean, and the world. The aggression against Palestine was correctly mentioned, but we also need to denounce the offensive against Venezuela, Colombia, Cuba, and Honduras,” he stated. Julio drew attention to the international articulation of the far right, explicitly citing the alliance between Trump, Milei, and Kast, the newly elected president of Chile.

“We cannot underestimate the electoral consensus of the far right. They are products of changes in global capitalism,” he said, advocating for a strategic reconfiguration of the unity of the left and the people, capable of responding to the offensive of capital, the growth of criminal capitalism, and the threat of wars on a global scale.

From Chile, comrade Luiz Schwaiger (MIR Chile) gave a critical analysis of the recent cycle of the institutional left in the country. According to him, the government of Gabriel Boric not only administered but deepened the neoliberal model, frustrating popular expectations that arose in the 2019 uprising.

“There has been a profound abandonment of the political struggle and the class struggle,” he stated. Schwaiger highlighted that, after the failure of the constitutional referendum process, the government chose not to mobilize the people, which opened space for the advance of the right. He also warned about reforms that seek to restrict the legalization of parties, excluding popular and revolutionary forces.

“Those who are left out are precisely the popular sectors and the left that have no money,” he denounced. For him, the conference should prioritize the rebuilding of the struggle of the working class and the strengthening of the trade union movement.

Comrade Patricia Pol, from Attac France, reinforced the importance of coordination between social movements, trade unions, and political forces, as well as raising the need to confront gender inequalities within the left itself.

“To fight against fascism and imperialism, we will need more women,” she stated, noting the low parity in speeches and decision-making spaces. Patricia highlighted the interest of Attac, the CGT, and other French unions in participating in the conference, connecting the anti-fascist meeting to the World Social Forum process.

“These spaces are not only for dialogue, but for acting together, proposing resistance, and showing that other worlds already exist and are possible,” she stated.

Representing the Communist Party of Argentina, Marcelo Rodriguez emphasized the central character of the anti-imperialist axis.

“Milei’s government is a mere follower of the policies of the United States and its new national security doctrine,” he denounced. For him, being anti-imperialist necessarily implies being anti-capitalist and anti-fascist. “These spaces are fundamental to strengthening the struggle of the people against policies of plunder and repression,” he concluded, reaffirming the party’s commitment to the success of the conference.

Also from Argentina, Sergio Garcia, leader of the MST and the national board of the FIT-U, brought an international perspective on the scenario. Fresh from a congress in Istanbul, he highlighted that the far-right offensive is global, but encounters resistance in different countries.

“There are very real dangers for the people, for the youth, for life itself, but there is also a very strong pole of resistance,” he stated. Sergio advocated for the building of united fronts in the streets and the articulation between anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist policies, also citing the ongoing resistance against the regressive reforms of the Milei government.

From Colombia, William Gaviria (UNEB, CADTM Ayna) offered an important self-criticism of the progressive camp.

“After the implementation of the neoliberal model, we did not realize the advance of fascism, which has been taking root in the popular imagination since the 1990s,” he stated, acknowledging the left’s responsibility for not reacting with due firmness.

Comrade Jose Cambra, from the Panama Teachers’ Association and the Pueblo Unido por la Vida Alliance, recounted a decade of popular struggles in the country. He described important victories, such as the defeat of neoliberal reforms, the reduction in fuel prices, and the closure of a large transnational mining company after massive mobilizations.

“However, today we live with repression, persecution, dismissals, disappearances, and a systematic violation of human rights,” he denounced. José warned of the return of US military bases to Panama and defended the united front as a fundamental strategic lesson.

“We hope that this conference will be a real expression of unity for continental and global actions against the far right.”

Comrade David Otieno, from Via Campesina Kenya, made a brief intervention to express the international peasant organization’s support for the conference initiative.

From Mexico, comrade Veronica Carrillo de la Promotora Nacional por la Suspensión del Pago de la Deuda Pública highlighted new challenges facing the anti-fascist struggle, especially in light of new technologies and artificial intelligence.

“We need to discuss how to build anti-fascism in this new context and include youth and the diversity of social movements,” she stated. For her, the fragmentation of the left and the inability to respond to social crises explain recent defeats and the advance of the right. “Whenever there is capitalism, there is a danger of fascism, especially in crisis scenarios,” she concluded, before emphasizing the importance of youth participation in anti-fascist movements.

Moving the debates forward, Roberto Robaina reinforced the need to incorporate the concerns raised into the conference planning.

“Flávia Verri’s request expresses a central concern: the conference cannot appear to be merely an articulation of political parties,” he stated. Robaina highlighted the role of the MST and the CUT as key elements in expanding dialogue with social movements and proposed a new, expanded meeting in January, with specified proposals for the panels.

Concluding his participation, Raul Carrion suggested that the conference be broadcast online to broaden its international reach. “This would allow for a much greater effect and impact,” he stated.

Finally, Eric Toussaint welcomed the suggestions presented, emphasizing the importance of gender balance and youth participation.

“We must guarantee the balanced presence of women on the panels and create specific spaces for youth,” he stated, reinforcing the democratic and pluralistic character of the conference.

At the end of the meeting, it became evident that the Anti-Fascist and Peoples’ Sovereignty Conference is consolidating itself as a strategic space for the reorganization of the international left, seeking to articulate parties, social movements, and popular struggles in the face of the gravity of the historical moment.

---

Reject US aggression against Venezuela

The Local Organizing Committee of the “1st International Antifascist Conference for the Sovereignty of Peoples” expresses its strongest repudiation of the aggression by the United States against the Venezuelan people, through the closure of Venezuela’s airspace and the implementation of a naval blockade of the country, while at the same time seizing ships and Venezuelan oil being transported to Cuba and to other countries.

Where is the cynical so-called “freedom of navigation,” proclaimed by the United States to justify the patrolling of all seas and oceans by its seven naval fleets?

Adding to this are attacks on Venezuelan civilian vessels and the summary execution of more than 80 Venezuelan citizens under the accusation—without any evidence—that they are “drug traffickers,” which constitutes extrajudicial killings of an extraterritorial nature.

No less serious is the authorization granted by the President of the United States to intelligence services and armed forces to assassinate President Nicolás Maduro and to carry out a so-called “regime change” in Venezuela.

It is also astonishing to hear statements by Donald Trump claiming that Venezuela’s oil and mineral wealth belong to the United States and will be taken by it.

This represents a neocolonial posture of plunder and pillage that flagrantly violates International Law, the UN Charter, the sovereignty of each country over its airspace, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

It must be clarified that there is no declaration of war by the United States against Venezuela—something that can only be done through a decision of the U.S. Congress.

These open and illegal aggressions by the United States against Venezuela are carried out with the expectation that Venezuela will respond defensively, allowing the aggressor to portray itself as a “victim” and then attack by all possible means, creating a serious military conflict in the Americas, a region declared a Zone of Peace by its countries.

The newly released U.S. National Security Strategy makes it clear that the target is not Venezuela alone, but all of Latin America—considered the United States’ “backyard”—to be plundered on the basis of the notorious Monroe Doctrine, now updated with the so-called “Trump corollary.”

For all these reasons, we not only denounce and repudiate the U.S. aggression against the brotherly Venezuelan people, but we also call upon all exploited and oppressed peoples and nations to close ranks in their defense.

We further invite everyone to join the 1st International Antifascist Conference for the Sovereignty of Peoples, to be held in Porto Alegre, Brazil, from March 26 to 29, 2026, where we aim to build a broad global articulation of an antifascist and anti-imperialist character to better resist these aggressions.

Porto Alegre, December 19, 2025.

Local Organizing Committee of the 1st International Antifascist Conference for the Sovereignty of Peoples

We are all Venezuela!
Trump, take your hands off Latin America!

 

Two narratives on the Hong Kong fire

By Au Loong-Yu

Published date 25 December, 2025

The 26 November 2025 Wang Fu Court fire has a lot of similarity with London’s 2017 Grenfell fire. In terms of scale, the former was much bigger — instead of just one building there were seven on fire, and instead of 72 deaths there have been 160 deaths as of now. However, the combustible materials used in renovating the outer walls were the direct cause of both.

At Grenfell the construction company used cheap cladding, while its counterpart at Wang Fu Court used cheap nets and foam boards to cover the scaffolding. In addition, the building company Prestige Construction replaced the fire escape windows with wooden boards to allow builders to move between scaffolding and the interior of buildings, allowing fire and smoke to easily spread when fire broke out.

Grenfell and Wang Fu – their similarities

Grenfell was a social housing project managed by the Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council’s management company KCTMO. The Grenfell inquiry reports revealed that the building company’s greed led to profit being prioritized over safety. The tight budget of the local council provided incentive to favour cheap cladding and a willingness to go so far as to claim that the material conformed to “the relevant provisions”. This laid the ground for the building companies to use combustible materials for cladding. Multiple whistle blowers and Grenfell residents / Action Group warned about potential fire hazards. If the overseeing public institutions had done their job, they would have discovered these malpractices. However, the local council, regulators and various government departments all exhibited negligence, complacency and blame-shifting among themselves. The privatization of the construction industry standard-setting body, the Building Research Establishment (BRE), in 1997 was another underlying cause of wide-spread corruption within the industry. All these factors eventually led to systemic failure, dishonesty, greed and conflicts of interest.

In the Hong Kong case, when the Secretary of Security blamed the bamboo scaffolding it was more a distraction from investigating the root causes of the fire than a credible claim. After the fire, most of the covering netting had burned but most of the bamboo scaffolding remained standing. Bamboo is much less combustible. Using bamboo for scaffolding in Hong Kong is not because of some cultural pride or simply out of “ technological backwardness”. It has more because of the peculiarities of the city packed with high rising buildings, leaving only small spaces between them. The strength and lightness of bamboo make scaffolding there much easier than using metal ones. While some of the falling burning bamboo might have made the fire worse, it was likely proportionally a much lesser cause of spreading the fire, although one must await an independent investigation into the case before any definitive conclusion can be made. If the fire alarms had been effective more lives would have been saved as well. But they were not. And neither did the fire hose reels work.

The subcontractor was probably not acting on its own. The unholy trio of the Wang Fuk owners’ corporation, its consultant (a local councillor), and the builders/engineering consultants are now widely suspected to be involved in the so called Wei Biu (Cantonese圍標), or collusion by different players to bid for contracts handed out by owners’ corporations. To make this happen, the colluders first take control of the owners’ corporations. Mafia and councillors are often involved as well. In the case of Wang Fu Court, a pro-Beijing councillor, Peggy Wong, was the corporation’s consultant and had tried hard to persuade the corporation to accept Prestige’s bid even though the bid was the highest quotation, reaching HK$330 million (more than 30 million GBP).

As in the Grenfell case, the Wang Fu case also witnessed residents and whistle blowers filing complaints about fire hazards long before the fire, but they were ignored by both the building company and various government departments. In 2024, campaigner Jason Poon had warned about the combustible scaffolding covering net at both Sui Wo Court and Wang Fu Court multiple times but had been ignored. He was repeatedly harassed for doing this.

Last year residents also filed complaints about their buildings’ potential fire hazards with the Labour Department, but the latter either said the law did not have clauses covering the safety of covering nets, or, when finally admitting that this was wrong, they simply replied that the nets were safe (which is false). The Housing Bureau, the Building Department, the Urban Renewal Authority, and the Fire Services Department all have the responsibility to regulate and monitor the safety of such a renovation project sponsored by the government’s Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme. They all failed miserably because they all merely relied on reports submitted by the managing company of the estate, the building company, or the engineering consultant of the owners’ corporation, without ever checking onsite; or if they did, they only went through the motions.

How the Basic Law laid the ground for rampant corruption

This has happened at a time when corruption in the construction industry has become even more rampant. Instead of complying with the law, it is a common practice for building companies to buy the fire compliance certificate from the Mainland Chinese suppliers instead. After the fire, David Lam Tzit-yuen, a legislator from the “medical functional constituency”, accused the construction industry of being “corrupt to the core with fraud and exploitation at every level”, and criticized the contractor who had built metal pipes for the Health Authority as being below standard and also criticized the shoddy workmanship of the Shatin to Central Link railway project. However, he failed to point out one thing: why haven’t his six colleagues at the more related constituencies to the fire (real estate and construction, architectural & surveying, and engineering) ever publicly warned about the danger of corruption and done something about it?

In general, the unholy trio of corrupted owners’ corporation, local councillors and the builders are the lowest level of the food chain. If there is ever an independent investigation it should first and foremost investigate the top level of the Hong Kong government. Particularly the relation between Peggy Wong and Clement Woo — he helped the former to succeed him as the consultant of the owner’s corporation. Before Woo was appointed Undersecretary of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau in 2021, he was the consultant of the Wang Foo Court Owners’ Corporation, and was reported that he helped Peggy Wong to succeed him. On top of that, the newly elected legislator representing the Engineering functional constituency, Bok Kwok Ming, is now being questioned about his role in the costly 475 million HK$ renovation of water pipes of the villa Fairview Park. Owners there complained that the decision was forced upon them, and Bok facilitated such a deal in his role of being member of a committee and a working group of the related project respectively.

The widespread corruption in the industry has its root in the Basic law imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing from the very beginning. Under its Basic Law, not only are one-third of the legislators “elected” by the above-mentioned functional constituency (before 2021 it was nearly half) but they are also given the rights to be part of the electoral committee which “elect” the Chief Executive too. Functional constituency mainly composed of business and professional sectors, designed to allow the business class to hold special power over the people and to continue to block the implementation of universal suffrage. The practice was borrowed from the fascist’s corporate state idea, where governments are composed of representatives from social sectors chosen for supposedly having made contributions to society. One cannot afford to overlook this matter if one is serious about identifying the causes of corruption there.

But Hong Kong had been well known for its anti-corruption watchdog, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). Founded in 1973 after strong social protests against corruption, the colonial government reluctantly began weeding out corrupt officials and business people. Since then, it had been seen as the most respectable law enforcing institution among the public. Why did the ICAC not tackle the horrible scale corruption in the industry? Although the Wang Fu fire prompted the ICAC to prosecute the direct culprit Prestige directors, this is far from enough, and this inadequacy dates back some time ago. Since the pro-Beijing media has repeatedly condemned the “British influence” within and beyond the ICAC, it seems that for years the ICAC has stopped being enterprising in going after corruption. For the watchdog, going after pro-Beijing politicians and businesspeople is surely not welcomed by Beijing. With Chinese companies getting more and more dominant in the city this implies that the ICAC is increasingly having their hands tied. The case of the head of the ICAC, Timothy Tong, is particularly telling. In 2013, the Audit Commission report showed that he had misused public funds to wine and dine Beijing officials in private, however no charges were brought against him.

One global capitalism, many varieties

This leads us to a discussion about the dissimilarities between the Grenfell and Wang Fu cases. Imagine the London mayor arresting young people for handing out leaflets calling for an independent investigation into the Grenfell fire, his police force charging people who merely plan to run a press conference about the fire with breaking National Security law, his local officials chasing away volunteers who merely run a supply station to distribute daily necessaries to the survivors of the fire, and, finally announcing the founding of a non-independent inquiry committee to look at the causes of the fire. On top of this, the most senior whistle blower from a decade ago, Lam Cheuk Ting, a former pan-democrat legislator who founded the “Great Alliance of anti-corruption and anti-Wai Biu”, is now in prison (along with hundreds of democrat legislators and activists). This is exactly what has happened in Hong Kong since 2020, but not in the UK, at least not yet.

A self-exiled Hong Kong scholar Chung Kim Wah, now living in UK, commented that there is a connection between the fire and Beijing’s wiping out Hong Kong’s autonomy, rule of law, civil society, allowing government officials and their business cronies to collude not only without any fear but even further empowered by the National Security law to throw those who dare to ask questions into prison. Chung’s comment is very much shared by most people in Hong Kong.

Yet it is another matter to say that the city was always clean from corruption until the 1997 handover, and it has only worsened from then on, or to argue that while British colonialism benefited Hong Kong people in general, the Beijing regime only brought us hardship and corruption. Beijing regime is no good but as far as colonial government is concerned we need to ask what period of the colonial era we are talking about? The statement that the colonial government significantly reformed itself is only valid in the short period of 1973 (the year when the ICAC was founded) to 1997. In other words, most of the colony’s 150 years plus history was brutal and plagued with corruption. In fact, the ICAC’s relative success was only a product of a momentary alignment in the relationship of forces between the colonial government and the rise of a youth movement, and also between China, Hong Kong and the UK. Therefore, the above liberal’s statement has to be revised — the British government only outperformed Beijing during the last twenty years plus of its rule.

Owen Au wrote in the Diplomat about the Hong Kong case, arguing that “No, Hong Kong’s governance is not becoming like China’s. It’s actually worse. Hong Kong is stuck in a governance vacuum, where neither democratic nor authoritarian accountability functions effectively.” According to him, many of Hong Kong’s governance traditions and key accountability mechanisms “were designed and institutionalized during the final decades of British rule, when the colonial government sought to develop Hong Kong into a prosperous global city grounded in professionalism, public accountability, and the rule of law.” His list did not include “universal suffrage”. It couldn’t, because there was none. So why counterpose “democratic accountability” to “authoritarian accountability” in comparing the colonial government and the Beijing regime then? And why is the UK, which does have liberal democracy, still unable to stop corruption from growing like cancer?

The Grenfell case and many other similar cases have already shown that as long as representative government is based on capitalism it will never get rid of corruption. Liberal democracy allows people have more rights to resist injustice than the Chinese authoritarian capitalism. But this dissimilarity should not blind us from seeing their common ground — capitalism. Capitalism is necessarily corrupting. Capitalism means money can also buy officials who are supposed to control corruption. This is exactly why Grenfell and Wang Fu share so much common ground. The victims of the Grenfell fire are still waiting for justice eight years after the fire. This is not to mention how a great number of the victims of the Post Office scandal have not received justice 25 years after being wrongfully prosecuted.

While able to see the dissimilarities between the two cases, Owen Au’s line of argument largely overlooks their similarities of being part of the same capitalist system; instead he hinted about “democratic accountability” under the colonial government, contrast this with how bad Hong Kong has become nowadays by making exaggerated claims about how good colonial Hong Kong had been (and also exaggerated the supposed “Chinese authoritarian accountability when he mentioned how Chinese officials often stepped down when disasters occurred — forgetting that often these officials would make a comeback to the same rank in a few years although not necessarily to the same post). It is no accident that he doesn’t even mention the term capitalism at all. When one avoids the term “capitalism” along with its history in discussions on the causes of corruption one would not be able to go very far in their search for answers. 

This also likely prevents us from understanding the Trump phenomenon in full — many wrongly think that this is just an anomaly which can be corrected once the Democratic Party returns to power. No, it has deep and strong roots in Western capitalism and colonialism, and if the evil forces of far right and social decay were once less rampant during the time when the welfare state still existed, they are now making a tidal wave come back. Certain Hong Kong and Mainland China liberals have always seen so called “Western civilization”, represented by the UK and the US, as their “light house” in the dark night. No wonder they were totally confused and disoriented when Trump cut all funding to the Voice of America and Radio Free Asia.

Sweeping generalisation and selective attack

In China an author called “Maoist21” wrote an indictment against both “Hong Kong and (Mainland) China’s bourgeoisie dictatorship” along this line:

The most hateful part of this fire is not the fire itself but the shameless bourgeoisie. The Hong Kong people have been repressed and exploited (by them). Li Ka Shing (the well-known local tycoon) lives in a mansion at the peak while the proletariat live in crowded small flats…The Hong Kong proletariat were antagonized by the shameless bourgeoisie and filed a lot of complaints… hoping to appeal to a government controlled by the bourgeoisie, or to adulate how democratic Taiwan or similar places are… If they do not understand how reactionary the Hong Kong government is, or do not understand the need to annihilate the bourgeois dictatorship in Hong Kong and in the whole of China, disasters like this fire will only occur time and time again there.

The above indictment of Hong Kong and Chinese capitalism and their “bourgeoisie dictatorship” is better than those leftists who while attacking Western capitalism they defend the Chinese regime by labelling it as “socialist” or “defender of our mother land against US imperialism”. However running through this and the author’s other articles is a failure to make more concrete analysis on the background of the fire — the author never acknowledged that there is a difference between a Hong Kong before 2020 and the Hong Kong since then, or more generally, a difference between capitalism where some degrees of civil and labour rights exist and those which had not. The Hong Kong people have been lamenting what have lost to them. Failing to acknowledge this loss makes the author’s appeal to the people there even more improbable.

While Owen Au sees no common socio-economic base between corruption in the West and those in Hong Kong/China, Maoist21 went to the other extreme, ignoring the dissimilarities between British/Taiwan/Hong Kong capitalism before 2020 and nowadays Hong Kong (and Mainland capitalism). Let us not glorify British capitalism or the other two — British capitalism has cracked down on the Palestine Action group and imprisoned a lot of their activists, violating the latter’s right to free speech. However awful capitalism is, the people in UK, Taiwan and Hong Kong before 2019 do/did have some rights to resist injustice. Acknowledging this does not amount to giving undeserved credit to liberal democracy. Rather it is to pay tribute to the history of their people’s heroic struggle of winning basic civil and labour rights from their ruling class, while reminding ourselves the need to fight for the rights to resist injustice under the CCP.

The problem with Maoist21’s article is that in the name of opposing reformism it pays little attention to the fight to defend or fight for basic rights. The author only wants a revolution instead. But fighting for reform does not equal reformism. Reformism means campaigners look to the ruling class to hand out reform of its own accord. Socialists always stress the need to promote the self-organisation and their autonomous struggle from below instead. Genuine socialists have always been “walking on two legs” — while defending what they have won or fighting for what they are being denied (reform), they always understand the necessity to greatly extend these rights whenever they get a chance until they can disempower the bourgeoisie and their governments (revolution). The first leg is the bridge to the second leg. In contrast, Maoist21’s article seems only to walk on one leg — the second leg of “revolutionary transformation” but without the bridge to make it possible. Conversely, socialists stress the fight for reform by their own power and means, not only to win improvements to their lives but also to allow the working people to be trained and tested during these partial struggles — without this revolution is simply impossible.

What is more worrying is that this kind of sweeping generalisation may be used by suspicious fake leftist argument. The author mentioned Li Ka Shing as an example. But quite a few Chinese leftists took one step forward by literally singling out Li as their target. Or, even if the targets are broaden to include others, they only include local tycoons. After the fire, videos were shared online attacking “the four big families”, including Li and other three real estate local tycoons (who own a lot of land reserves and newly built housing). Again, why just four? The four families are of course guilty of greed, but the above mentioned attack on them has a problem — again, it fails to mention the constitutional design as laid down by the Basic Law. It is this design about land ownership which allows such an oligopoly to exist in the first place. It stipulates that all land in Hong Kong is “state owned” but “managed by the Hong Kong government”. 

But does “state owned” mean “owned by the people”? This is impossible because to have such an implication the state must have at least some form of democracy. There is none in Mainland China, and in Hong Kong’s case it is even more laughable — while Mainland China recognises universal suffrage on paper, in Hong Kong the Basic Law only gives vague promises to implement it somewhere in the future, with no timetable at all. The head and the cabinet of the Hong Kong government remain selected by Beijing after consultation with local elites. With no democratic control by the Hong Kong citizens, government officials can simply continue their collusion with all major real estate giants (Mainland and Hong Kong companies alike) to push up land and housing prices and profit from it. 

Therefore, if a leftist indicts Hong Kong capitalism but only singles out one or four families and forgets to attack the constitutional arrangement of land which is nothing but in the service of the oligopoly, it is not credible. In fact, this kind of fake left argument contradicts itself in terms of methodology. When it condemned Western capitalism it always appear to be too sweepingly generalising things, but when it comes to attacking Hong Kong or Chinese capitalist forces it is surprisingly narrow — singling out Hong Kong local tycoons or Mainland private business/foreign capital. Seriously, are they the only culprits?

When some of the Mainland “leftists” joined this crusade against Li Ka Shing or the four family, it was also a time when the latter have been increasingly marginalised, politically and economically, by Mainland Chinese companies and the patrons behind them instead. The latter now account for more than 80 percent of the total value of the Hong Kong stock market because they have all the blessing from the big brother in Beijing. They have been in collusion but also compete with local tycoons and have been winning out most of the time. They are not well known for being clean from corruption either. This kind of “leftist” selective critique on Hong Kong “capitalism” carries only one purpose — to distract attention away from the rampant corruption of the most powerful capitalist collusion — the high ranking party officials and their crony business partners.

Conclusion

But we should not believe that there is an insurmountable difference between liberal capitalism and authoritarian capitalism. As mentioned above, the darkest force of barbarism has always been one of the core components of Western capitalism. Trump’s United State is converging with Chinese capitalism if the people there allow him. But right now there are still differences in degree between the two. Activists must walk on two legs — grasping the differences between two versions of capitalism in order to make the best use of the local situation while remain vigilant on how the future of varieties of capitalism may unfold.

Au Loong-Yu is a long-time Hong Kong labour rights and political activist. Author of China’s Rise: Strength and Fragility and Hong Kong in Revolt: The Protest Movement and the Future of China, Au now lives in exile.