What Is to Be Done? Toward a Praxis of Resistance

By Biljana Vankovska

April 1, 2026

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

Image by @firinnedrakaina.bsky.social

We are living through times where the architecture of global peace is not merely crumbling; it is being deliberately dismantled. The drums of global war beat louder than ever, drowning out the voices of reason. Across the globe, imperial power grinds forward, indifferent to human lives. In the face of such force, silence is complicity. We are compelled to speak, not because words alone will stop bombs, but because refusing to speak means surrendering our humanity.

Yet, things have only escalated. Our voices are barely audible beneath the barrage of projectiles. Nevertheless, I do not miss an opportunity to speak or write, hoping to reach the Macedonian public and the wider world: there is no more time to wait! But an old Macedonian saying goes: there is no point waking someone who pretends to be asleep. I confess a personal “sin”: I write because it helps me stay mentally and intellectually sane.

The problem is serious even among those aware of the Armageddon before us. A woman of Iranian origin on Substack wrote bitterly: “Are you really just going to keep talking? Where is the global collective action?.” It hit the mark. Today, we lack not analysis, but action. As Lenin asked: What is to be done? (I use his title fittingly, aware that historical circumstances differ). At the recent Tricontinental Institute’s assembly, Vijay Prashad said: “We must take a step forward!” We must conceptualize resistance against barbarism and what comes after. We seem to have lost the power to imagine a just society transcending frameworks of market economics and classical political science. We must define the ultimate goal. My peace colleagues would easily answer: positive peace! Found in Johan Galtung’s works, this encompasses human emancipation, social justice and dignity, de facto containing basic elements of the communist idea. Unfortunately, most peace activists fear ideology, standing on the safe shore of the liberal horizon.

This is my modest attempt to frame things radically, meaning “from the root.” Peace studies still speak of peace through peaceful means, invoking the UN Charter. It sounds moving and beautiful only if the UN were not complicit in silencing crimes. The UN is neither an abstraction nor autonomous; it is created by governments that are either perpetrators or vassals (or both). Few today are genuine democracies, just, and moral. The UN is what states made of it, primarily those self-appointed as guarantors of peace after WWII. They granted themselves rights above all others, like gods. Consequently, the military-industrial complex expanded like a giant octopus, metastasizing all spheres of human activity, alongside military blocs and bases. Humanitarian aid arrives only after blood is spilled. Many believe replacing kakistocrats or reforming the UN will guarantee peace. The new “Aryan race” has evolved into an “Epstein caste”, just as capitalism has been transformed into an overt form of neo-fascism and US hyperimperialism, perpetuating inequality defended by military power. Dissident voices diagnose problems but do not know what is to be done. Even though many were excited from the mass protests in the US and many other cities on 28 March, the cynical mind is correct: The performances seen, the celebrities heard—it all looked like a circus. They do know they don’t want a king (Trump), yet they do not challenge the system that allowed oligarchy to govern their lives. There is a growing consensus across the Global South that Western public opinion is functionally irrelevant to the fight against imperialism.

The official doctrine of the most powerful empire is “peace through strength.” Its executors do not mind the UN Charter, the Genocide Convention, or even the Geneva Conventions. Such force is not answered with suggestions, proposals for peaceful conflict resolution and performances on the street. Force is met with force. Resistance. Responses with poetry, appeals, and art are moving and beautiful at the same time, but insufficient. Currently, only people of Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, Cuba, and fragmented anti-colonial movements really fight back against the Empire of Evil. They show what it means to stand when babies are tortured, and existence must be defended with bodies. The Vietnamese were in such a battle, but we seem to have forgotten them. “Peace through peaceful means” was the slogan then, too—but until they inflicted enormous losses on US citizens, they were not left in peace. They proved the power of resistance against the military Goliath. Honestly, if I were a Palestinian mother seeing my child/children killed, I would immediately take up arms. Better to die fighting than die a little every moment.

The answer to this madness is our own “madness”: peace through resistance! Recently, on 27 March, recalling Yugoslav history, it came to mind that the protests rose against the Pact with Nazi Germany. Slogans we still remember read: “Better the grave than a slave,” “Better war than the Pact!” That was the seed of the Partisan movement. My peace friends want a global anti-war movement (by often excluding “others”, like China for instance), but slogans and street protests soothe consciences without striking the Empire where it hurts. Some people more courageous than us defend dignity with blood and lives. That is the right to self-defense in international law! It is also in the UN Charter. Yet, those far from battlefields must develop methods of struggle against the war machinery, fleeing neither the mad Nero in Washington nor the silence.

From the academic sphere, I start with professors: they must “corrupt” youth like Socrates! Even in physics classes, they must speak about war. On militarization and numbness, everyone can teach. Dedicate one hour a week! Unions and farmers can strike; this war hits those who live by sweat everywhere in the world. Journalists must remember Robert Fisk and Julian Assange, showing solidarity with colleagues used as clay pigeons who lost their lives with unprecedented courage. Medical workers can follow Mads Gilbert’s example! Culture and civil society can screen anti-war films like Hair or Dr. Strangelove or any other anti-war film (including documentaries). But those ‘inside the belly of the beast’ can do the most: boycotts, sabotage, and conscientious objection. Many US military professionals do not support the war, greeting with the code “Epstein.” Now is the moment for objection. Before Joe Kent’s resignation, many others showed that character and conscience would not let them work at universities or the UN, obedient to the military superpower. Workers in military industries can exert pressure, as can local communities near military bases. I am not sure if global cohesion will emerge, but each of us must start by sweeping our own doorstep.

Resist authorities allied with the degenerate Epstein caste of child-killers! The time is NOW! We are on the brink and have no excuses left for dreaming with eyes wide shut about the universal organization and its documents that are spattered with the blood of innocents. Extending the agony of the current system works against us. Let’s help the new one to be born, even in pain—as it usually happens.

This article was produced by Globetrotter.Email

Biljana Vankovska

Biljana Vankovska is a professor of political science and international relations at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, a member of the Transnational Foundation of Peace and Future Research (TFF) in Lund, Sweden, and the most influential public intellectual in Macedonia.

 

Venezuelan leftist: ‘Recuperating sovereignty and control over our resources is essential’

By Luis Fernando Marquez & Federico Fuentes

Published date 28 March, 2026

Confusion and concern have followed the rapid pace of events in Venezuela after the US military incursion on January 3. Since then, the Venezuelan government has started to open its oil and mineral industries to transnational corporations, while there has been a constant parade of US officials and military leaders through the country.

How should we interpret these events? Federico Fuentes, from LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal, spoke with Venezuelan leftist Luis Fernando Marquez, a National Agrarian Alliance founding organiser and Alliance for Sovereignty and Democracy activist, about developments in the country, the people’s reactions and challenges for the left.

What was behind the US military actions, which, after several months of deploying warships in the Caribbean, culminated in an assault on Venezuela and the kidnapping of then-president Nicolás Maduro and National Assembly deputy Cilia Flores? Was this simply to gain control of Venezuelan oil?

We are witnessing a realignment of spheres of influence on the international chessboard. In this context, US President Donald Trump has inaugurated a new way of doing politics, known as the “Donroe Doctrine”. This Trumpist project seeks to reclaim Latin America as the US’s backyard and halt China’s rising regional influence. The January 3 attack sent a message to Latin American countries that this is a new phase of Trump-style interventionism, with quick and decisive actions seeking a deterrent effect.

With Venezuela, oil is a crucial factor. The major US oil companies back Trump’s MAGA project. So, Trump was able to kill two birds with one stone: exert control in this sphere of ​​influence and seize vast reserves of crude oil and minerals, including gold and heavily coveted rare earth elements such as rhodium and coltan. Venezuela’s strategic position, located so close to the US, was a major motivation. 

Post January 3, the US administers Venezuela’s oil reserves. Our country is not even allowed to manage our oil revenues, which are sent to bank accounts in Qatar and the US. The US has also gained a market of 30 million consumers for its products, which are now being purchased under colonial conditions. So, there was an economic motivation as well as a geopolitical one.

Furthermore, Trump’s triumphalist message of resolving international conflicts in record time has helped strengthen his image at home. Trump’s approval rating slightly increased after the military intervention in Venezuela. This is not insignificant for Republican aspirations to win the November midterm elections, which could determine the course of US policy toward Venezuela.

I would, however, emphasise that Trump’s decision to militarily intervene in Venezuela is based on a long-term vision, not simply polls or elections. In his speeches, Trump has made clear his intention to reverse the oil nationalisation carried out in Venezuela in the 1970s and compensate oil companies nationalised during the Hugo Chávez government (1999-2013).

Another motivation is the presence of organisations in Venezuela that the US considers terrorists — specifically the National Liberation Army (ELN, from Colombia) — and countries such as Iran, Russia and Cuba. But this was a secondary consideration compared to the issue of inter-imperialist rivalry. As the highest stage of capitalism, imperialism requires imperial countries exerting power and control over their spheres of influence by converting periphery countries into areas of extraction or production while keeping out competitors. This is occurring now in Venezuela.

What was the reaction within Venezuela to the events of January 3 and since? What is the mood of the population?

Most people felt a mix of relief and surprise. For more than 10 years, Maduro presided over a dictatorship. During this time, there were countless episodes of violence, a deep economic crisis, and a strong repressive atmosphere, with people subject to police scrutiny and protests essentially illegal. With all outlets for social discontent blocked, such feelings in the first few days [after January 3] were understandable.

These feelings have begun to dissipate, and I believe will continue to dissipate — even if January 3 is still very fresh in our minds — because many realise that the regime is still in power. Moreover, they see that the US military incursion not only caused a loss of sovereignty but has imposed a protectorate, taking Venezuela back to its situation at the start of the 20th century.

Generally speaking, the situation is the same as before. The economy, in particular, remains the same. People’s expectations remain focused on improving their economic situation. They are less interested in democracy or a political solution to the crisis; those issues have been relegated to the bottom of people’s priorities, according to some polls. Essentially, they want better wages and salaries.

The Venezuelan people have paid a very high price for the neoliberal policies imposed by the Chávez and Maduro governments over more than two decades. High oil revenues created a kind of economic mirage, but today we see the consequences of this disastrous economic policy that resulted in meagre wages and salaries while destroying public services and infrastructure.

The price will be even more visible as full-throttle neoliberal policies pushing privatisations and precarious employment are implemented. The neoliberal logic will prevail, because it is something that Chavismo and the main sector of the opposition agree on. The most dramatic aspect of the situation is that the solution offered to us is not just to deepen this neoliberal model, but to also auction off our resources and national oil industry at rock-bottom prices.

But, for now, apart from sporadic and isolated opposition activities that have attracted few participants, there have been no mobilisations. The calls for mobilisation issued by certain political sectors have not yet connected with the people. I believe, however, we will gradually see more participation in such mobilisations. This will depend on the ability to come up with messages and slogans that resonate with the people, as well as the dictatorship’s ability to counter such calls with more repression and immediate economic relief to demobilise working-class sectors.

For now, the atmosphere on the street remains calm. To be honest, people hope that things will improve in the short term. It is somewhat paradoxical that people wonder when Trump will raise their salaries — which is both tragicomical and an insight into how people view our current situation. But, as the months go by and the economic situation remains unchanged, I am sure that perception will start to change.

Progressive and left-wing sectors face the enormous task of winning people over to a nationalist program. Recuperating sovereignty and control over the country’s resources is essential; without this, it will be impossible to develop the country’s productive forces. Instead, Trump is proposing an aggressive importation policy that will destroy what little remains of the productive apparatus. 

We are heading towards an economy and productive apparatus under US tutelage, which prioritises imports over national production. If Trump is successful, a monopoly of US products will be imposed, including in agribusiness, which in the US receives billions in subsidies. This will result in businesses in Venezuela’s countryside going bankrupt, and the nascent national agricultural industry will be dismantled.

I am convinced wages will improve in the short term, but this will not lead to stability due to the US’ policy of aggressive austerity and possible dollarisation of the economy. This will leave Venezuela’s state with little room to address the country’s pressing problems or economic development.

There was a lot of talk about possible regime change in Venezuela, but power remains with Delcy Rodríguez and others in power with Maduro. Why do you think that was the result?

The Trump administration closely studied the implications of carrying out a regime change by force in Venezuela. That is why the military operation in the Caribbean took so many months. Ultimately, Trump assessed that regime change would need a much larger intervention and cost more lives and resources. Instead, he opted for maximum pressure and dialogue with certain sectors in power to facilitate the operation they ultimately carried out.

The right-wing opposition initially took a triumphalist tone and embarked on a pre-electoral campaign, particularly targeting working-class and poor sectors. But more than two months after January 3, they are starting to realise their mistake. They are analysing the possibility that Delcy Rodríguez will attempt to stay in power for as long as possible.

Within Chavismo, there is a sense of shock and divisions that could deepen. That is why Chavismo is now talking about resistance in a bid to connect with its supporters and convince them to accept surrendering everything — oil, minerals, etc — in order to save what they call the “revolution”. Delcy and [National Assembly President] Jorge Rodríguez are hoping that this pragmatic, non-anti-imperialist and resistance-focused discourse can help galvanise their base.

Where does this leave the right-wing opposition, which the US has traditionally supported?

The US seems to be weighing its options. The transfer of power to Edmundo González — the real winner of the 2024 presidential elections — and opposition leader María Corina Machado was initially ruled out. Instead, there is a three-phase plan, the duration of which is still unclear. But this could easily change.

It is here that the opposition could play an important mobilising role. Public opinion is largely on the side of Venezuela’s right-wing opposition due to people's fatigue with the false left-wing discourse of the Maduro government. But the right-wing opposition is trapped by its electoral vices, having prematurely jumped into electoral campaigning. Machado continues to lead in opinion polls by a wide margin, with 78% support if elections were held today, according to Meganalisis. However, Machado is still outside the country.

That is perhaps why Chavismo is hoping to ride out the year, anticipating material conditions will improve and give them more room for manoeuvre when nominating a candidate with the best chance of winning any hypothetical presidential elections.

Progressive, and even nationalist, sectors need to put forward a discourse of sovereignty and democracy that can connect with the Venezuelan people, who still hold strong nationalist sentiments, even if it has been somewhat blunted. These sentiments will only get stronger as US tutelage is further imposed. Over time, we need to ensure that notions of homeland, sovereignty and genuine democracy gain priority over the immediate discontent that has led large sectors of people to entrust their vote to the right.

Ultimately, we must recover democracy as a sovereign nation; that should be the principle under which we unite the opposition. We must defeat the dictatorship. But we cannot ignore the issue of tutelage. Rather, both elements must be defeated. Only a democracy that respects minorities and political agreements can guarantee stability and defend the country's borders.

How can we define the new Rodríguez government and the ties being forged between the US and Venezuela today?

The new Rodríguez government — colloquially known as the “Rodrigato” [roughly translated as Rodrigvirate] — is a government under the tutelage of the Trump administration. It has converted Venezuela into a factory or protectorate within the US’s sphere of influence. You only need to look at the parade of high-ranking US officials through Caracas to realise the speed at which this is advancing.

This does not, however, preclude or contradict the idea of ​​regime change; ultimately it depends on what Trump believes can get him the maximum gain. That is why the government and the radical wing of the opposition are focused on gaining attention and favours from the new leader.

Do you agree with the idea that the government has no options but to obey Trump in the current situation?

We can say that the “Rodrigato” is in a situation reminiscent of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, despite differences in form and substance.

Then, [Russian revolutionary Vladimir] Lenin temporarily sacrificed Russian aspirations and capitulated to Germany, renouncing sovereignty over certain territories and any indemnity. This course was later proven correct, as Germany was defeated and the Soviet Union gradually recovered the lost territories.

Today, Chavismo seems to want to resist by surrendering everything and submitting to tutelage in order to ride out this period and wait for more favourable times. It is true that, today, the Delcy Rodríguez government has no other option but to obey the US. The government was militarily defeated by the world’s greatest power.

But the government could have taken a different path, if it took into consideration the country and the Venezuelan people instead of simply defending its own interests and disregarding the popular sovereignty expressed in the 2024 presidential elections. Those elections marked the point at which the government lost international legitimacy and gave the Trump administration the chance to restore Venezuela within its sphere of influence.

That said, we must understand that, today, inter-imperialist contradictions are primary compared to the contradiction democracy-dictatorship, even if the latter has not gone away.

Do you see any chances to resist Trump’s recolonisation plans or a return to democratic governance?

The most likely scenario is that economic dependence accelerates. Venezuela was already sending more than half a million barrels of oil daily to the US, and that will continue to rise.

The new hydrocarbons law, which was approved and sanctioned in 12 days, was an unprecedented event in the country’s legislative history. As a result, the country has been dealt a monumental setback, one that has taken us back to the Juan Vicente Gómez dictatorship era (1931–35) in terms of oil jurisprudence. During Gómez’s rule, US companies were granted large oil concessions at rock-bottom prices. Money from these concessions mostly went into the dictator’s pockets, with only a small percentage going to the state coffers.

It was not until 1936, with the first oil workers’ strike, that progress was made on a new hydrocarbons law that established the famous 50/50 royalties split. Then, after the 1976 nationalisation of the oil industry and creation of the state oil company, PDVSA, state revenues from oil sales increased and Venezuela joined OPEC.

Today, all this is at risk. Even Venezuela’s presence in OPEC is subject to discussion. Under the new law, the amount of state income is flexible: revenue collection can range between 0–30% depending on how successful transnational companies are in negotiating contracts.

The Venezuelan people have great capacity for resistance. We have endured so many years of profound crisis, emigration, pandemic and repression, which has helped strengthen many social organisations. At the same time, liberal thought has gained ground among the population; that is undeniable. This largely has to do with the false equating of Chavismo with Communism. Moreover, the inability of left-wing sectors opposing the regime to create an organic movement has left a political void in most poor and working class sectors.

How can the left respond?

The situation today presents us with an opportunity to form a broad, class-struggle opposition to tutelage and dictatorship, one that involves youth, working-class and urban sectors and differentiates itself from the extreme elements currently dominating the opposition. Building such a front will have to be a medium- and long-term process, which starts by speaking to people’s real needs.

Elections are important and, if held this year, will determine who is in government — though whoever that is will find it impossible to govern if they do not engage with all sectors of national life. We know, however, that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s three phase plan for Venezuela does not include elections this year.

It is important to highlight that Chavismo still represents almost 20% of the electorate. Any left-wing alternative must seek to channel the discontent within the PSUV ranks.

As time goes by, the contradiction between imperialism and sovereignty will become even more pronounced, leading to unity processes among previously rival or enemy sectors. Within this new reality, previously rival sectors could form political blocs. 

Of course, the contradiction between democracy and dictatorship remains. But we must reclaim the banners of national sovereignty and identity, and use these to reach out to the people to combat dictatorship and tutelage.

That is why we are promoting the National Agrarian Alliance, which we hope to extend to all rural sectors, including producers, farmworkers, ranchers and livestock breeders. We want to initiate a big national debate and declare a national food emergency. I am promoting this organisation, along with other initiatives such as the Alliance for Sovereignty and Democracy, to demonstrate that the Venezuelan countryside and popular sectors have something to say.

Venezuelan peasants have been among the hardest hit by the policies of the Maduro and now Delcy Rodríguez government. Inflation, fuel shortages, high input prices and the lack of credit over many years has bankrupted many farmers and peasants. Despite this, they produce a high percentage of the food consumed in the country. This could change as a result of the food import policy being imposed by Trump. Hence the need to bring all these sectors together to form what we have called the National Agrarian Alliance.

 

Trump’s Iran War May Mark the Beginning of the End for Dollar-Backed US Empire

Radical economist Costas Lapavitsas discusses the crumbling of the dollar-backed world system and what could be next.

By Costas Lapavitsas, C.J. Polychroniou

 March 26, 2026

Source: Truthout

Images Money - Dollar. Flickr.

In recent decades, imperialism has been somewhat out of fashion as a subject of analysis in academic circles. Yet in the past several months, President Donald Trump had reminded everyone that U.S. imperialism is indeed alive and kicking. In fact, imperialism never went away, as leading radical economist Costas Lapavitsas points out in the exclusive interview for Truthout that follows. Lapavitsas, a professor of economics at SOAS University of London, warns us that the world is now closer than ever to world war and nuclear confrontation. His recent article in the New Left Review, “A Topography of the New Dollar Imperialism,” outlines his recent research into the growing chaos of Trump-era U.S. imperialism and its potential catastrophic consequences for the world.

C. J. Polychroniou: Imperialism was a central concept in Marxist and radical thought throughout the 20th century, but to many, globalization seemed to have made it obsolete. Today it is making a dramatic comeback, not least because of Trump, whose territorial ambitions, revival of the Monroe Doctrine, and threats against Canada, Greenland, and Panama make him look and act like a 19^th-century imperial adventurer. How does imperialism remain a characteristic feature of contemporary capitalism, and how does today’s imperialism differ from the aggressive expansionism of the great powers before 1914?

Costas Lapavitsas: Imperialism never disappeared. The classical Marxist theorists — above all, Lenin, Hilferding, Bukharin, and Luxemburg — established something that remains valid: Imperialism is at root an economic phenomenon, a historically specific way of organizing accumulation and surplus extraction at the world scale, backed by coercive state power. Imperialism is embedded in capitalism.

The forms and mechanisms of imperialism, however, have changed profoundly. The imperialism of the great powers before 1914 rested on territorial possession, colonial administration, and the direct extraction of resources and value. It sprang from the fusion of industrial and banking capital within national blocs competing for territory and markets. Today’s imperialism operates through an entirely different architecture. Global production chains dominated by multinational enterprises are paired with international banks and investment funds. They operate in a hierarchical system of production and finance anchored in the U.S. dollar. The system is exploitative and coercive but relies on payment mechanisms, collateral rules, and sanctions that enforce compliance without territorial occupation. Ultimate coercion, needless to say, depends on military power and naked aggression.

Trump is a symptom of this structure under stress, not its author. U.S. productive primacy has been eroding for decades while dollar dominance remains strong. That gap is now generating global political turbulence. The territorial gestures toward Greenland and Canada, the tariff wars, and the blunt transactional dealings with other major powers do not constitute a new imperial strategy. Rather, they are the behavior of a hegemon that can no longer reproduce consent and is falling back on raw positional power. Positional power without productive foundations, and without the institutional legitimacy that once underpinned U.S. leadership, is a diminishing asset.

Can global financial capital and capital accumulation alone provide the key to understanding contemporary imperialism in its totality?

No. This needs to be said clearly, because the temptation to reduce contemporary imperialism mostly to finance is understandable given the extraordinary growth of financial power in recent decades.

Contemporary imperialism rests on the structural pairing of internationalized productive capital and global financial capital. These two forms are distinct but mutually reinforcing. A hedge fund can manage $1 billion or $1 trillion from the same offices on Wall Street; a semiconductor plant cannot double output without years of investment. Production is rigid; finance is elastic. But they interlock. Global production chains need dollar liquidity to function; financial capital needs the profit flows generated by production to have something to draw on.

The U.S. state holds this pairing together at the level of the world market primarily through its command of the dollar as world money. It guarantees settlement, enforces contracts across jurisdictions, provides crisis liquidity, and defines what counts as money globally. This is the hinge of the entire system.

And behind everything stands military power as the ultimate guarantor. The sea lanes through which the vast bulk of world trade moves are secured by U.S. naval forces. Intellectual property regimes, semiconductor chokepoints, and undersea cable systems all depend on enforceable U.S. jurisdiction — backed, when necessary, by force. Finance, production, law, and military power form a single integrated imperial apparatus. To reduce imperialism to any one of these is to mistake a pillar for the building.

In a recent publication in the New Left Review, you refer to “new dollar imperialism” and “balance-sheet imperialism.” Can you elaborate on these terms? And is this a genuinely new form of U.S. imperialism?

The terms capture the specific character of contemporary imperialism. In 1945 the United States commanded nearly half of world manufacturing output, but now its share has fallen to roughly 10 percent. Yet nearly 60 percent of global reserves remain in dollars, and roughly half of all cross-border payments are settled in dollars. The balance sheet of the Federal Reserve functions as the ultimate collateral backstop for global markets. The U.S. selectively grants to other central banks access to Federal Reserve swap lines, tying them directly to its balance sheet. This is a crucial control mechanism of the global system.

“The dollar’s position no longer derives from U.S. productive preeminence but from the institutional and coercive capacity of the U.S. state.”

And yet, as U.S. monetary dominance persists and has in some ways deepened, the productive foundations of its power have eroded dramatically. The dollar’s position no longer derives from U.S. productive preeminence but from the institutional and coercive capacity of the U.S. state to control the infrastructures through which global accumulation operates. That is the central paradox of contemporary imperialism, and it is genuinely new.

What makes the current phase especially distinctive is that since 2008, the Federal Reserve has become the underwriter of the entire global financial system. This includes not just globally active banks but also the hedge funds, pension funds, and asset managers that now account for nearly half of global financial assets. By determining which securities count as collateral and which do not, the Fed directs the hierarchy of global credit.

There is a common misunderstanding here. It is typically assumed that the power afforded to the U.S. by the dollar is clear in relations among states. But the hierarchy shows up in the hard data of global enterprise transactions. Among the world’s 500 largest manufacturing firms, U.S. enterprises hold more than half of all long-term debt while Chinese firms of comparable size carry a disproportionately high share of short-term borrowing. That gap registers the dollar hierarchy as a structural constraint on accumulation worldwide.

This power is deployed as an instrument of coercion by the U.S. government, and Iran is the starkest recent example. Before bombs fell, decades of sanctions had excluded Iran from dollar clearing, frozen its foreign assets, and severed it from the global financial system. Together with commercial sanctions, it strangled Iran’s economy and prepared the ground for military destruction.

Trump’s economic team seems to believe tariffs and a weaker dollar can restore U.S. industrial power. Is there any coherence to this project, or does it run into a fundamental contradiction at the heart of U.S. capitalism itself?

Trump and his advisers have identified a real problem, even if their diagnosis is largely wrong and their remedies incoherent. The relative industrial decline of the United States is undeniable. Chinese industrial output is now several times larger, and even labor productivity growth in the U.S. has remained persistently weak, if one sets aside the current hype around AI. Industrial output as a proportion of GDP has not grown under Trump, while public and private investment — with the important exception of AI — have been insufficient for decades. The social pressures generated by the productive weakness of U.S. capitalism, especially stagnant real wages, vast inequality, and the hollowing out of industrial communities, are what propelled Trump to power.

But the relative decline of the U.S. as a national entity is inseparable from the global rise of U.S. multinational enterprises. It was U.S. multinationals that exported productive capital, established global production chains, outsourced labor-intensive processes upstream, and financialized their own operations through share buybacks rather than domestic investment. The hollowing out of the U.S. industrial base was carried out largely by the very corporations Trump is most aggressively defending. There is no simple way of simultaneously restoring domestic industrial capacity and protecting the global privileges of U.S. multinationals. This will certainly not take place through tariffs alone.

What would actually address U.S. industrial decline is a coordinated program of public investment, a genuine reversal of financialization in favor of production-oriented finance, real wage growth, and controls on capital flows. Trump’s combination of tariffs, tax cuts for the rich, welfare reductions, and fresh deregulation of Wall Street points in precisely the opposite direction.

Many on the left have looked to China as a counterweight to U.S. imperialism, even as an anti-imperialist force. Is that a sustainable position? And does China itself qualify as imperialist?

This question has generated more heat than light on the left, and I want to answer it carefully. The reality is considerably more complex than many of the positions that tend to dominate the debate.

China is not a capitalist country similar to those at the historic core of the world economy. Market mechanisms and capitalist accumulation are pervasive and dominant at the level of production and circulation. But the Communist Party and the state apparatus retain ownership and control over the financial system, the strategic allocation of investment, the movement of capital across borders, and the commanding heights of the economy. The state-owned enterprises — the giants forming the backbone of the Chinese economy — are not analogous to large U.S. multinationals. This hybrid reality does not map cleanly onto classical categories of political economy. Analyses that ignore it, whether to romanticize China as socialist or dismiss it as just another capitalism, are inadequate.

China also faces serious internal contradictions that complicate any narrative of unstoppable rise. Its extraordinary growth rested heavily on massive investment, more than double the proportion of the U.S. But the returns to that investment have been declining significantly and labor productivity growth has slowed sharply. The economic rebalancing that is required is socially very difficult and the risks are enormous.

On the international stage, China is a productive superpower trapped inside a monetary and institutional hierarchy it did not build and cannot yet dismantle. The renminbi accounts for less than 3 percent of global reserves and cross-border payments. Chinese public debt does not serve as international collateral. Chinese enterprises settle obligations in a currency that their country does not issue, while the Chinese government accumulates reserves in its rival’s public debt. That is not the position of an ascendant imperial power that is creating a new order. It is the position of a hegemonic challenger seeking a larger voice in the rules of a system in which it remains deeply embedded.

China is neither an anti-imperialist force in any meaningful sense nor a rival imperialism symmetrical to the U.S. It is a formidable and historically novel challenger whose rise has fundamentally destabilized the existing imperial order. The left does itself no favors by projecting onto China either socialist virtues it does not possess or imperial vices that do not yet characterize its position in the world monetary system.

You have written that the current impasse raises the specter of world war, even nuclear confrontation. Should we take that seriously?

Entirely seriously. I want to be precise about the logic, because this is not rhetorical flourish but a conclusion the analysis forces upon us.

Since the Great Crisis of 2007-9, the world has entered an interregnum. The hegemonic challengers, above all China, have achieved sufficient productive and military capacity to resist subordination but lack the monetary and institutional power to rewrite the rules. The U.S. hegemon retains world money dominance and financial system supremacy but faces eroding productive primacy, rising public debt, and increasingly constrained military reach. Neither side can impose resolution; neither can accept permanent subordination.

“The configuration of the world economy echoes the rivalries among leading capitalist states before 1914. The present moment is no less perilous.”

The rapid escalation of global tensions and the ensuing militarization are not temporary disturbances. Look at what is happening in Iran. For years, sanctions and dollar exclusion strangled the Iranian economy. Then in 2025 and 2026 came open war launched by the U.S. and Israel. But the aim is not to annex territory or create a colonial administration. Rather, it is to shatter the Iranian state, control its oil resources, and create an obedient vassal of the global system. This is contemporary imperialism in practice; that is, first coercion based on the dollar and the balance sheet, then raw military violence, but not the burden of direct rule. This pattern is unlikely to remain confined to Iran. As productive challengers accumulate military capacity and the constraints on conflict dissolve, the configuration of the world economy echoes the rivalries among leading capitalist states before 1914. The present moment is no less perilous.

What makes it more dangerous still is the nuclear dimension. Capitalism has previously resolved blocked hegemonic transitions through great-power war. There is no structural mechanism that prevents it from doing so again, and this time, the arsenals exist that could end human civilization altogether. To be sure, this is a remote probability, but it is no longer negligible. Whether the drift to war continues and makes it more serious will depend crucially on popular opposition to war and the resurgent capitalist imperialism that is taking us in that direction.

“The Left’s Top Job This Year”? Academics In and Out Imperialist Quicksand

PAUL STREET

 March 27, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Image by Philippe Bout.

I have long been horrified by the unradical nothingness of our supposed “radical Left” academics, many of whom lined up behind the “neoliberal” capitalism-imperialism of the deeply conservative presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2007 and 2008.

A recent small but instructive example is a social media post by a leftish literature professor with a taste for “theory” and long, enigmatic sentences. After putting up a New York Times headline reporting that “[California Governor Gavin] Newsom Regrets Remarks Comparing Israel to ‘Apartheid State,’” the professor wrote this:

“I really cannot stand social media posts of the kind I am about to make, you know, the kind that tell other leftists what they should do, so apologies for the grandstanding in advance. But I do sincerely feel like if the left, all the progressives, taxers-and-spenders, rad-libs, miscegenationists, commies — all the good ppl out there being gay and doing crimes – have one job this year, it is to make Newsom’s statement disqualifying for a Democratic Party nominee (to say nothing of Hairgel’s transphobia, opposition to the ‘billionaire’s tax,’ war on the homeless, and vetoing of universal health care).”

Talking About What is to be Done is Not “Grandstanding”

I applaud the professor’s refusal to be ne-O-bamanized by “Hairgel” Newsom, but where to begin with how tepid and unradical this is? What’s wrong with a radical intellectual holding forth on “what other leftists should do”? Leadership is essential and attempts to exercise it should not be shamed in advance as “grandstanding.” A serious Left thinker should make recommendations on conduct. Lenin’s great 1902 pamphlet is titled What is to be Done? for good reasons: the Russian intellectuals and activists of his time were far too caught up is disorganized and non-revolutionary activities, potentially squandering the historical moment in which they lived. As the young Karl Marx pointed out, in words that are inscribed on his grave: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”

Were Marx and Engels just “grandstanding” when they called in The Communist Manifesto for “the left” of their time to build a revolutionary communist movement for the abolition of all forms of exploitation and oppression, denouncing utopian and other forms of conciliatory (bourgeois, petit-bourgeois, and even feudal) “socialism”?

“The point” has never been more urgent than it is in 2026, as the underlying capitalist-imperialist system is pushing humanity to the brink of extinction through climate catastrophe and/or nuclear war.

“The Left…All the Good People Being Gay and Committing Crimes”

Then there’s the professor’s oddball and eclectic definition of “the left.” “Rad-lib” is a hopeless contradiction in terms (kind of like the title of one of the prolific liberal economist and political commentator Robert Reich’s many books: Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few.) Only in some hyper-“woke” identitarian fantasy land is it meaningfully “left” to have sex with people of your own gender and/or across racial lines (nothing at all against either of those activities).

There’s nothing radical about “committing crimes” (at least not without specifically political acts against the ruling system) or, on a more serious matter, about taxing the rich to pay for reforms so ordinary folks can sometimes tenuously do a little better when it comes to getting in on the spoils of America’s parasitic and imperialist capitalism.

The only potentially revolutionary tendency the professor mentions is “commies,” whatever that word means to him. And real “commies” fight for new revolutionary socialist system that does away with the rich by abolishing the capitalist order, not for taxing the rich.

“The Left’s Top Job This Year”

But the worst and most telling and significant part of the professor’s post is the notion that “the left’s” top “job this year…is to make Newsom’s statement disqualifying for a Democratic Party nominee.”

Read that again. Let that sink in.

Not funny! Here we are now under the terrible, potentially consolidating reign of a fascist and exterminist regime atop the most lethal superpower in history, a regime that is moving to deep-six previously normative bourgeois electoral democracy and rule of law in the “homeland” while waging an insanely reckless and criminal war that could expand to include nuclear weapons and other superpowers in the Middle East. The Trump fascist regime is making it abundantly clear that it will not tolerate election outcomes it doesn’t like and is moving in numerous ways to undermine, subvert, intimidate, suppress, and perhaps suspend or cancel the 2026 midterms. It is already using its deadly war on Iran as a tool for the project of cementing fascist rule and locking down American society inside the United States. The moment cries out for what Refuse Fascism has been calling for since early last March:

‘NOW IS the TIME WHEN WE MUST RISE UP and ACT to STOP the CONSOLIDATION of TRUMP MAGA FASCISM. For the lives of people here and around the world we must refuse unlawful and inhumane orders… we must fill the streets and town squares in non-violent protest—not stopping until we become millions — not relenting until this regime is no longer able to implement its program or maintain its hold on power….The hour has come for each of us to ask: If we do not act to stop this, what kind of people will we become?” We stand up and fight for a future in which no human being is enslaved, subjugated, or deemed “illegal” … a future in which the planet can heal and people can be fit caretakers of the earth…We can and must create a political crisis in which the Trump regime cannot govern and implement their fascist program or even maintain his hold on power….Waiting for the next elections will be too late. We cannot rely on the Democratic Party’s leadership who complacently rely on the very norms and processes that the Trump regime shreds by the hour….Let it not be said that when there was still a chance to stop an unprecedented threat to the future of humanity, we did not rise to meet the challenge of our time.”

Compare this clarion call for mass action without electoral illusion or childish faith in the fascism-enabling and capitalist-imperialist Democrats with what the professor says is “the left’s” number one priority right now: “disqualifying” Gavin Newsom from becoming the imperialist dollar Dems’ presidential nominee in 2028! RF channeled Dr. Martin Luther King’s plea for good people to grasp “the fierce urgency of now.” The professor’s counsel mired those people deeper in the paralyzing quicksand of capitalist America’s savagely time-staggered, corporate-crafted, candidate-centered, major-party presidential politics.

It’s nice that the professor dislikes Newsom’s knee-bend to Israel, but this really takes seduction by the siren song of US bourgeois-electoral politics to a depressing extreme. Turning “the left’s” attention to which candidate one of the two imperialist parties puts up in a capitalist-imperialist election that may not even be held in two-plus years is highly problematic! It’s like telling someone in the middle of a heart attack to make sure to go to their regularly scheduled check-up two years from now with a couple of really bad doctors — the US electoral process (already terrible before the current and ongoing fascist assaults) and the dismal Weimar Democratic Party of inauthentic opposition. These lousy physicians are themselves very sick and may well not be alive in two years.

I’m all for telling Newsom to get lost but the notion that doing so is the “the left’s” top priority right now is seriously messed up.

Some Critical Background

For some historical background to understand left-identified academics and intellectuals who promote non- and anti-revolutionary thinking under a deceptive radical guise, see the Marxist philosopher and historian Gabriel Rockhill’s new book, Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism? — an important study of how the US State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, and ruling class foundations cultivated and sponsored an un- and indeed anti-revolutionary, anti-communist, imperialism-compatible “left” professoriat after World War II. “Drawing on extensive archival research to pull back the curtain on ruling class machinations,” the book’s publisher notes, Rockhill, “elucidates how the intellectual world war on the socialist alternative has sought to shore up and promote a ‘compatible left’ intelligentsia while misrepresenting, maligning, and trying to destroy the revolutionary left.” (Oh, the stories I could tell about misrepresentation, malignancy, and attempted destruction – another time.)

A Forgotten Gabriel

Speaking of actually radical academics named Gabriel, would anyone like to reflect on the remarkable, if all too predictable, extent to which the Trump regime’s reckless war on Iran is evidence for the great radical historian Gabriel Kolko’s thesis on the limits of US power? As Kolko showed in his classic volumes The Roots of American Foreign Policy (1969). Anatomy of a War: Vietnam, the United States, and the Modern Historical Experience (1985), Century of War: Politics, Conflicts, and Society Since 1914 (1994). and Another Century of War (2002), America’s imperial masters have “consistently misunderstood and underestimated the wars they have set into motion,” relying on “military technology” that “cause conflicts to be much longer and more destructive to civilians than ever.” America “responds to the complexity of world affairs with its advanced technology and superior firepower, not with realistic political response and negotiation” – a recurrent imperial habit of military hubris and futility that works to make the world and America less, not more, safe and livable. And on that note, this from yesterday’s New York Times:

“Iran’s Attacks Force U.S. Troops to Work Remotely: Iran has severely damaged several American military bases in the Middle East, officials say. Iran has bombed U.S. bases across the Middle East in retaliation for the U.S.-Israeli war, forcing many American troops to relocate to hotels and office spaces throughout the region, according to military personnel and American officials. So now much of the land-based military is, in essence, fighting the war while working remotely, with the exception of fighter pilots and crews operating and maintaining warplanes and conducting strikes….Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps has urged people to report these new locations as it hunts for the dispersed troops. There were close to 40,000 U.S. troops in the region when the war started, and Central Command has dispersed thousands of them, some to as far away as Europe, American military officials said. But many have remained in the Middle East, although not on their original bases, military officials said…The result, according to current and former military officials, is a war that is much harder to prosecute. ‘Yes, we have the ability to set up expedient operation centers, but you’re absolutely going to lose capability,’ said Master Sgt. Wes J. Bryant, a retired Special Operations targeting specialist in the U.S. Air Force. ‘You can’t just put all that equipment on the top of a hotel, for example. Some of it is unwieldy.’ A U.S. military official said that troops are not working from the roofs of civilian hotels…Iran responded forcefully to the joint American and Israeli strikes, targeting not only U.S. bases but also embassies and oil and gas infrastructure throughout the region. With its supreme leader and dozens of other leaders killed, the Iranian regime has retaliated by launching hundreds of drones and missiles into neighboring countries and largely shuttered the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping route, making sure the war would be felt by people across the globe…Many of the 13 military bases in the region used by American troops are all but uninhabitable…”

But no worries – Mein Trumpf is sending in the 82^nd airborne, which Trump expects to fix things in time for it to return to help him cancel the 2026 midterms in response to terror attacks caused by his criminal war!

Paul Street’s latest book is This Happened Here: Amerikaners, Neoliberals, and the Trumping of America (London: Routledge, 2022).