Tuesday, May 13, 2025

Sabotage Is On The Menu

In the UK, ecoactivists are increasingly turning to something new: sabotage. How far will it go? And how might it change the climate movement?
May 13, 2025
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


A Shut The System activist cuts the fibre optic cables of an insurance company in the City of London, January 20, 2025. Photo: Shut The System



It is the final week of February 2024, and the City of London, the capital’s ancient financial district, where corporations cluster like woodland trees, is teeming with climate activists. For three days they march the streets, block the entrances, and infiltrate the lobbies of major insurance companies. They act as part of a global campaign by an alliance of groups, and their aim is simple: stop the insurers from underwriting new fossil fuel infrastructure. This protest will end up showcasing both the pruning of one type of climate activism, and the blossoming of another.

The first activists to be arrested are a five-strong Extinction Rebellion troupe dressed like 1940s washerwomen, complete with hair curlers, heavy makeup and rubber gloves. Known as the Dirty Scrubbers, their plan is to performatively clean some corporate entrances, and dye some fake money green in their ‘greenwashing machine’ – an old washing machine on bike wheels. The action encapsulates much of what made Extinction Rebellion a global phenomenon – fun, theatrical, eye-catching activism that still has a bit of bite. The police commander is informed by protest organisers and gives the performance the go ahead. But half an hour later, the police on the street have other ideas. Thirty officers surround the Dirty Scrubbers as they wheel their greenwashing machine into the protest zone, and arrest them for conspiring to cause criminal damage. Only some are handcuffed, but all are loaded into vans and held in police cells until the evening. Their greenwashing machine is impounded.

On the third and final day of the protest, in the early hours of the night, a previously unknown group makes its debut. Hooded activists wielding paint-filled fire extinguishers spray the entrances of three insurers and flee the scene before the police arrive. Rather than getting cleaned by the Dirty Scrubbers, the skyscrapers end up stained blood-red by anonymous members of Shut The System (STS).



The Dirty Scrubbers are led into police vans, City of London, February 27, 2024. Photo: Extinction Rebellion UK

In their online manifesto (now taken down), STS promise to “shut down key actors in the fossil fuel economy” by waging an escalating “campaign of sabotage.” True to their word, their sabotage escalates. When they return to the streets four months later, this time to target Barclays bank in a joint action with Palestine Action, they don’t just spray-paint the bank’s glass fronted buildings, they smash them too. More than 20 branches are temporarily shut down across the UK to pressure the bank to divest from fossil fuels and Elbit Systems, Israel’s biggest weapons manufacturer. Weeks later, they return to the City of London to deface and smash insurance company windows.

Then in January of this year, STS try a new, more sophisticated kind of sabotage – cutting fibre optics cables. First to be forced offline is a collection of climate-denying lobby groups housed a stone’s throw from the British Parliament. Two weeks later, STS target those major insurers again, this time severing cables of firms not just in the City of London but also in Leeds, Birmingham and Sheffield.

Most recently, they target the private homes of three Barclays executives. On the morning of the bank’s AGM, its CEO, global head of sustainable finance, and president find their luxury properties spray-painted with messages demanding an end to fossil fuel investments. Cables are also cut at Barclaycard’s UK headquarters, and more than 20 bank branches have their door locks and ATMs superglued shut.

The ‘campaign of sabotage’ quickly bears fruit. A week after its entrance is stained blood-red, the insurance company Probitas declares it will not insure two ‘carbon bomb’ projects singled out by protesters (the East African Crude Oil Pipeline and a proposed coal mine in North West England). Days after STS and Palestine Action shatter Barclays bank branches, its CEO writes an op-ed in the Guardian renouncing the damage and voicing concern about the “overall suffering” in the Middle East. Four months later, the bank has sold all of its shares in Elbit Systems.

A long-term member of STS, who required total anonymity to be interviewed, was happy to outline the strategy behind their ‘campaign of sabotage’: “We want to give the climate movement more teeth by training up people and getting them into these sorts of actions, mobilising further across Europe and the world,” they say. “So when fossil fuel companies are presented with demands by protesters, they can expect the tactics we provide. There’s power in that. These industries will know that we’re escalating, know that we care about this, and know that we’re not going away.”

In adopting and spreading sabotage, STS doesn’t see itself as breaking away from the climate movement’s sustained adherence to non-violence. My contact instantly references the author of the manifesto How to Blow Up a Pipeline to explain: “I’m in complete agreement with Andreas Malm. Violence can be done to people, but not to buildings or infrastructure. We will not harm individuals.” Asked if they’d be willing to cut the cables of the home of, say, an oil company CEO, they don’t hesitate; “personally speaking, that’s within my limits. These people are killing people.”

But the use of sabotage does mark STS apart from the climate movement in other ways. The tactic necessitates a radically different culture to earlier organisations like Extinction Rebellion (XR) and Just Stop Oil (JSO), one where the need for security, and the fear of infiltration, reshapes nearly everything else. Reaching a member of STS for interview required multiple approaches. Once contact was made, Signal had to be jettisoned for a more anonymous messaging app. The days of open meetings in community halls and welcoming spokespeople is long gone. It begs the question, if you want to be a part of STS, how do you join? “We grow through people who know people, reaching out through a chain of trust,” says my contact. To become a member, you must be vouched for by at least two current members of STS, and members with deep roots in the climate movement are encouraged to scour their contacts for candidates. “We often find that people we’ve reached out to have been seeking a route in for a long time.”

This chain of trust spreads right across the UK, but it is a patchwork quilt, not a uniform fabric. Nobody can know everybody in STS, and group meetings are deliberately avoided. “Someone could have their phone taken away by police or put on remand. One person’s security failure could take out a lot of people” says my contact. Instead, a central team of organisers will chat with local leaders to agree on targets and dates and times, as well as pass on tactical knowhow. When it comes to deciding the specifics of an action – who takes which target, who adopts what tactic – the group operate like a take-away restaurant. “A long menu of possible options is sent around, and local cells then decide what they want to do based on location recces and capacity.”


A Barclays bank branch in Bristol after a joint nationwide action by STS and Palestine Action, June 10, 2024. Photo: Martin Booth

STS is a year old, and the menu system appears to be working. But it does raise issues around power distribution and decision-making. A typical STS activist will not know who writes the menu, nor have a say over what dishes are made available. Their experience of STS will rarely if ever breach the limits of their local cell. It’s a long way from the open strategy meetings of XR, or the large social soup nights of JSO, where power is mitigated and community fostered as much as possible. My contact accepts the criticism: “There are no elections right now for the central team, but questions are being asked about this. And we do want a system of feedback, but security is just so important.”

Questions are also being asked in the central team about money. Namely, how can supporters chip in so STS members can focus on action research and development full-time. “Applying for funding through the normal climate movement routes is very difficult,” confirms my source. “So far we’ve raised small amounts, mostly on the backs of individuals. We have plans afoot for many more types of sabotage, but the scope to try different things is dependent on finding funding.” Asked for possible solutions, my source can only say, “we’re working on it.”

The artistic side of the climate movement, so intrinsic to XR and offshoots like the Dirty Scrubbers, has also been sacrificed on the altar of security. The central team have little interest in branding, messaging, or media. “We do have a logo on Instagram,” points out my contact. “But our visual and social media content is minimal – a recognition that being in any kind of contact with our group holds risk. It’s not a philosophy, just a result of priorities. Our circle’s central concern is security.”

If STS is the vanguard of a new phase in the UK’s climate movement, this phase isn’t as accessible, transparent or fun as what came before. But my contact is sure that this self-described “darker, more serious wing” is needed. With a climate denier in the White House, Big Oil ripping up pledges to decarbonise, the planet heating faster than predicted, and climate scientists warning that cataclysmic tipping points could happen as soon as this year, it’s not surprising that some ecoactivists are ready to embrace more militant tactics. But when I ask my contact what drew them to sabotage, the worsening status quo, and the apparent failure of traditional protest tactics to reverse it, weren’t the only factors.

My contact first got involved in ecoactivism after the Covid pandemic, when a friend invited them to a local XR meeting. Impressed by the confident activists they found there, they started taking part in actions. As they spent more time in the movement, they learned about the global struggle for environmental justice, including brutal events like the Ogoni 9, where nine Nigerian activists opposing Shell’s drilling of the Niger delta were framed for murder and hanged in 1995. The UK-based oil giant was implicated in both their false charges and a long campaign of violence in the region. These corporate crimes fundamentally shifted how my contact saw XR’s activism: “What we were doing was engaging the public, but it started to feel too performative, like an illusion. We had this messaging of crisis, of lives being at risk, of needing to change right now! But we weren’t willing to really threaten the institutions most responsible.”

I put the criticism to Richard Ecclestone, an XR spokesperson and former police inspector. He is sympathetic: “I understand why they expressed those views. I’m horrified by the behaviour of companies like Shell, Barclays, Perenco (an Anglo-French oil company accused of ongoing ecocide in the DRC).” Ecclestone is also sympathetic towards their use of sabotage: “Personally, I don’t believe action against property is violent when you consider the harm being done by these companies to people and planet. A tiny amount of damage to their operations could be justified. That’s my take. Others within the movement will think different. We’re a broad church.”

But this doesn’t mean Ecclestone will be joining STS anytime soon, nor that he would welcome their tactics in future XR campaigns. “Our actions need to stick to our principles and values, and one of those is that we are accountable,” he says, meaning XR activists must accept the repercussions of their actions, including arrest. “If there’s no firewall between accountable and nonaccountable actions, we expose our people to extra risk, and that will hurt marginalised groups who for one reason or another can’t take on that risk. We have to do our best to be a home for everyone in the UK who wants to express their right to protest.”


City of London insurance firms are again visited by STS overnight, July 24, 2024. Photo: Shut The System

Another factor that steered my STS contact towards unaccountable sabotage was the increasingly draconian punishments the British state was dishing out to peaceful protesters. “Just Stop Oil’s campaign of blocking roads and disrupting sports events really boosted the signal – put the words just-stop-oil in every mind in the country,” they enthuse. “But the prosecutions and prison sentences have been ridiculous. If I’m going to go down and do time, I want to cause the maximum amount of disruption in the time I have, and that means covert actions.”

Since the rise of groups like XR and JSO, the UK government has been introducing increasingly repressive anti-protest laws, at least some of which were drafted by an oil-funded lobby group targeted by STS cable-cutters. The latest legislation started being enforced by police last year. As a result, unprecedented numbers of nonviolent protesters, mostly members of JSO, have been either imprisoned for years or paralysed by bail conditions for years as they wait for the overwhelmed justice system to put them on trial. The new laws have been used for even mildly disruptive actions like slow-marching, and when activists do have their week in court, the new legislation allows judges to strip them of all legal defences and ban them from mentioning climate change to juries.

After nearly 200 prison sentences, thousands of court cases, and the government adopting their core demand to stop new oil and gas, JSO has ended its three-year campaign. Their final action, a celebratory march through central London, took place last month. Mel Carrington, a JSO spokesperson, is bullish about the group’s achievements: “We won our demand, and we made the need to end new oil and gas a national talking point.” But she also acknowledges that the group failed to mobilise enough people to continue, and that the state crackdown on protest played its part in that: “To do street level actions you need a broad base of support. Since 2022, fewer and fewer people have mobilised, even for modest actions like slow marching. That’s the trend.”

While part of JSO will remain to support its many activists still trapped in the justice system, the bulk of the organisation will now metamorphosise into something new. And while Carrington is in dialogue with groups like STS, and open-minded about their tactics, she is confident that JSO’s successor organisation will not adopt them. Again, the key issue with STS is their lack of accountability, and how that undermines JSO’s understanding of nonviolence. “Nonviolence uses disruption to create moments of tension and an emotional response, and accountability is an essential part of that,” she says. “As we don’t hide our faces or identities, we show that we are willing to stand up for what we believe in and to accept the legal consequences.” By ensuring actions are public displays of human vulnerability and courageous defiance, accountability is also a major catalyst for press attention. “Disruption, arrests and imprisonment are typically what drives our media coverage” continues Carrington.

While JSO and XR are both firmly wedded to accountability, they have very different takes on the virtues of disruption. On New Year’s Eve of 2022, XR renounced public disruption as a primary tactic, and started to prioritise attendance over arrests to stem waning participation post-pandemic. This led to ‘The Big One’ a few months later, a four-day rebellion outside the British parliament that was carefully marshalled by XR to minimise risk and maximise participation. And while The Big One did draw huge crowds, media interest was threadbare, the government ignored it, and it failed to match the impact of previous rebellions. Or as Carrington puts it: “XR got 90,000 onto the streets, but no one cared because it wasn’t challenging anything.”

Ecclestone gently refutes the idea that no one cared about The Big One, noting how XR collaborated with more than 200 organisations for the event, and how much hard work went into forging that grand alliance behind the scenes. For him, media coverage is not the only way to engage more of the population, and XR has no plans right now to go back to disrupting the public. “XR has remained consistent over the years. Our principles and values haven’t changed. We’ve always tried to be inclusive and accessible, and a home for everyone in the UK.”

What has changed for Ecclestone is police strategy. “In the 1990s, when I was policing protests against live animal exports, we had no interest in arresting the activists, or punishing them for blocking the trucks. We let them express their right to protest, and let the trucks get through with a minimum of fuss,” he says. “This new legislation is a way for police to abdicate their responsibility to enable peaceful protest. If you extinguish people’s right to protest, they’ll go to Shut The System to take it out on perpetrators directly rather than trying to persuade politicians.”

Although my STS contact will not be drawn into details, the group have big plans for this year, and they will not be alone in bringing sabotage to British streets. In February, another new climate group, Sabotage Oil for Survival, kicked off their campaign by drilling into the tyres of over 100 gas-guzzling SUVs across three Land Rover dealerships. Palestine Action will also continue to share knowledge and collaborate with STS, and although there is no formal union between the two organisations, my contact describes the pro-Palestinian network as their “biggest inspiration.”

As for what this sabotage-filled future might mean for the rest of the climate movement, my STS contact focuses on the positives. They cite a recent academic study showing the “radical flank effect” of JSO, where that group’s disruptive actions made the moderate campaign of Friends of the Earth more popular. With global warming already exceeding 1.5°C, the Paris Agreement now a roadmap for a bygone era, and even the sober risk analysts of the insurance industry now warning that four billions lives could be lost by 2050, the belief that only moderate means can divert us from disaster feels increasingly delusional. If the climate movement adds sabotage to its arsenal, and breaking glass ends up breaking the political impasse, such actions should be seen not as sneaky sabotage, but heroic self-defence.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.Donate



Adem Ayy is a writer and activist based in London. He spent five years working for Extinction Rebellion, where he helped coordinate the global media team and edit a global newsletter that connected him to activists all over the world. He wants to spread their inspiring stories as far and wide as possible.


Elizabeth Gurley Flynn Sabotage The Conscious Withdrawal of the Workers' Industrial Efficiency October 1916 Originally published as SABOTAGE, THE CONSCIOUS.


First, it is widely believed that Ecodefense (or Abbey's Monkey Wrench Gang) launched the practice of monkeywrenching. In fact, ecological sabotage was ...

BLACK PRINCE OF PRIVATIZED WAR
What Are Erik Prince’s Plans for the Second Trump Administration?
May 13, 2025
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


Image by Gage Skidmore, Creative Commons 2.0

The deportation case of Maryland resident and Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia has drawn major attention to the practice of sending migrants to El Salvador for detention. One man looking to capitalize on this trend is Erik Prince, the former CEO of the private military company (PMC) Blackwater.

In a plan that has caught the interest of Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele and President Donald Trump, Prince has proposed deporting undocumented migrants through his new venture, 2USV, on a fleet of private aircraft. A “Treaty of Cession” would designate part of El Salvador’s Center for the Confinement of Terrorism (CECOT) prison as U.S. territory, and the transfer of “a prisoner to such a facility would not be an Extradition nor a Deportation,” according to a Politico article. The prison complex, which Prince previously toured in August 2024, would then be leased back to El Salvador to run, and the U.S. prison standards would not apply to it, similar to Guantanamo Bay.

If the U.S. had a counterpart to Yevgeny Prigozhin, the late architect of Russia’s modern PMC network, it is Erik Prince. Relentlessly entrepreneurial, Prince became a prominent player in Washington during the Bush and first Trump administrations, though he was mostly sidelined during the Obama and Biden years. He now returns to Washington’s inner circle seeking to increase his role again, having visited the White House shortly after Trump’s inauguration in January 2025 and serving as a character witness during the confirmation hearing for Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

As a hugely influential figure across the American PMC ecosystem, Prince’s Salvadoran pitch is one of many ambitious and controversial ventures he’s pursued. But his track record is uneven, with many proposals never materializing, and those that do often bring intense scrutiny.

Prince and Previous Administrations

Erik Prince first rose to prominence after founding the PMC Blackwater in 1997, initially offering training services to police and military personnel. After 9/11, Blackwater became a central player in the war on terror, expanding into armed security, logistics, transportation, and working with CIA assassination teams.

The company’s rise was accompanied by controversy. In 2006, its contractors allegedly disarmed and held U.S. soldiers at gunpoint in Iraq. A year later, Blackwater guards killed 17 civilians in Baghdad’s Nisour Square, causing global outrage. Prince and his allies argued the company was scapegoated for a chaotic war effort, while WikiLeaks files showed similar incidents with U.S. military members. Following these incidents involving the company, its reputation was severely damaged. Iraq revoked its license in 2007, and though the Obama administration briefly continued working with Prince, mounting scrutiny forced the severing of ties.

Erik Prince nonetheless remained active abroad. After selling Blackwater in 2010, he moved to Abu Dhabi, where he helped create a presidential guard for the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) royal family. Though later marginalized amid media concerns and questions over funds, Prince remained an influential adviser in expanding the UAE’s PMC operations in Yemen, Somalia, and Libya.

In 2014, Prince also launched the Hong Kong-based Frontier Services Group (FSG), evolving from a Bermuda-registered shell. The company focused on logistics and security support for Chinese firms involved in projects across Africa under China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

He emerged from the American political wilderness in 2015 as a vocal supporter and donor to Trump’s election campaign. His sister, Betsy DeVos, was later appointed secretary of education. In 2017, Prince reportedly participated in a secretive meeting in the Seychelles to set up a backchannel between U.S. and Russian officials. He continued pitching unconventional proposals throughout Trump’s term, with Trump pardoning four Blackwater contractors convicted in the 2007 massacre in 2020. The incoming Biden administration subsequently distanced itself from Prince and his network.

Latin America

Now, with a more assertive Trump administration back in office, Erik Prince is aligning new business proposals with U.S. policy goals and those of receptive foreign leaders. In March 2025, he traveled to Ecuador and announced plans to combat organized crime and illegal fishing in coordination with President Daniel Noboa, who was reelected in April, showing openness of the country to amend its constitution and permit the deployment of U.S. troops to fight criminal groups.

Prince’s approach taps into a consistent Washington view that stabilizing Latin America will reduce migration pressure on the U.S. border. Trump appears open to this, but the legacy of American intervention in the region from the Monroe Doctrine onward has often created more instability than it resolved. Whether private contractors can deliver real stability or simply serve short-term strategic aims remains unclear.

Trump and Prince also see PMCs as useful tools in destabilizing governments deemed hostile to U.S. interests. In 2019, Prince pitched a plan to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro using mercenaries. The following year, Operation Gideon—a failed coup attempt partly involving Florida-based PMC Silvercorp USA—led to the capture of several former U.S. servicemen by Venezuelan forces, though most fighters were Latin American, reflecting common American PMC sourcing practices.

Though the operation failed, another PMC-based operation proved more consequential soon after. In 2021, mostly Colombian mercenaries hired by the Florida-based company CTU were implicated in the assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moïse in the capital Port-au-Prince. The operation required minimal military resources but had a major political fallout, triggering a power vacuum and rising gang violence.

Prince was not tied to Operation Gideon or the 2021 Haiti operation, but in 2024, following Venezuela’s disputed July election, Prince began supporting a new opposition movement called Ya Casi Venezuela. While its goals remain opaque, Prince’s involvement suggests plans are once again underway in Caracas.

Further Abroad

Prince is also looking further abroad, building on years of groundwork. In 2023, he reportedly sought to deploy 2,500 Latin American personnel to the northern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) to halt rebel advances and protect mining areas, part of a UAE-DRC deal flagged in a UN report on sanctions violations.

In 2025, he struck a deal with the DRC government for “tightening tax collection and cracking down on cross-border smuggling—particularly in the copper and cobalt-rich south,” according to an April article in the African Report. These actions will help secure and regulate the region’s mineral sector and align with U.S. efforts to counter Chinese influence in the global minerals race—a far cry from Prince’s past dealings with Chinese entities in Africa. The situation remains volatile, with Russian PMCs long embedded in the DRC and Romanian mercenaries recently caught in the fighting.

PMCs have accrued significant power in Africa in recent years, with Russian mercenaries helping push the French military out of the Sahel in 2022-2023. With Trump back in office, Prince is positioning his approach as a quieter alternative to hard power, with the DRC as a possible testing ground. His move coincides with the Trump administration’s efforts to broker peace between the DRC and Rwanda to stabilize the region for mineral extraction.

Prince has also floated a proposal to take on Houthi rebels in Yemen, currently targeted by British, American, and Israeli strikes. He has also been involved in Israel since shortly after the October 7, 2023, attacks. One shelved proposal called for flooding Hamas tunnels in Gaza. While never executed, the initiative has inspired proposals in Gaza from other entities, including the February 2025 announcement that U.S. PMC UG Solutions and another firm will manage the strip’s Netzarim Corridor,a checkpoint separating northern and southern Gaza,” according to Popular Resistance.org.

Other plans of his have also failed to advance. Trump’s first administration rejected Prince’s plans to replace U.S. forces in Afghanistan with contractors and arm Libyan General Khalifa Haftar as a counter to Russia, which would also help regulate migration to Europe. The latter plan later triggered an FBI investigation under Biden, and future proposals may be similarly rejected by Trump.

Yet Prince also has domestic ambitions. During Trump’s first term, he partnered with Project Veritas, an organization known for using undercover tactics and hidden cameras to target media and left-wing institutions. Prince provided espionage training and allowed the group to use his Wyoming ranch, an operation that could easily be revived or imitated.

The deportation plan tied to El Salvador’s CECOT prison, mentioned earlier, also has domestic implications. Prince’s company, 2USV, tied it to a $25 billion business plan to deploy private agents to arrest and remove 12 million undocumented migrants from the U.S. While not publicly endorsed by the White House, the plan closely mirrors Trump’s stated priorities and could divert public attention away from ICE’s efforts.

Regardless of what is adopted by the White House, the momentum behind PMCs, private intelligence networks, and related actors shows no signs of slowing. Prince’s array of plans reflects his willingness to test the boundaries of what these companies can do at home and abroad. Their ambiguous legal status makes them ideal for politically sensitive missions where plausible deniability is important.

Once peripheral, these private entities are now increasingly relevant to regime change, mineral security, and border enforcement. Prince, perhaps more than anyone, is leading the charge, though his reputation may bring more attention to his activities than either he or his clients want.

This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.  Donate


John P. Ruehl
John P. Ruehl is an Australian-American journalist living in Washington, D.C., and a world affairs correspondent for the Independent Media Institute. He is a contributor to several foreign affairs publications, and his book, Budget Superpower: How Russia Challenges the West With an Economy Smaller Than Texas’, was published in December 2022.
The Times That Try Men’s Souls: America in 1776 and 2025
May 13, 2025
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


Image by Elvert Barnes, Creative Commons 2.0

Two hundred forty nine years ago, at the beginning of the American Revolution, it was the prose of a newly arrived immigrant from England, Thomas Paine, that stirred the revolutionary spirit among everyday Americans. His clarion call for unity, freedom from British rule and vision of America as a safe haven for liberty is etched in the nation’s memory:

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country, but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman…. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods, and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated” (The American Crisis. Number 1” 1776-1783).

Our times are also the times that try men’s souls. The sanctum of freedom envisioned by Thomas Paine and other American revolutionaries has devolved into a country that detains, forcibly deports and disappears men and women incommunicado to distant prisons in total disregard of their constitutional rights; and one that punishes students for simply standing for what is right: an end to Israel’s barbarity against the defenseless people of Gaza.

The troubling question is how did a country that once put its faith in presidents like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Lincoln descend to the likes of Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden and Trump. And from the counsels of Paine, why has America’s political class deigned to pay heed to the advocacy of the likes of Ben-Gurion, Meir, Begin, Shamir, Sharon and Netanyahu.

When considering America’s shift toward authoritarianism and in consequence, the subversion of constitutional rights, two causal factors spring to mind: the destructive U.S.-Israel entente and the growth of the Christian Right.

U.S.-Israel Entente


Decades ago the United States made the unsound decision to align its interests with and to invest heavily in Israel, a country that has, since 1947, been engaged in a genocidal project against the Palestinian people: “intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or part.”

The mission of Zionism has always been to expel the Palestinians and erase their ties to the land. Israel’s Zionist founders knew that to accomplish their expansionist goals they would need to do two things: garner the support of a powerful enforcer and true believer, namely the United States; and, to tell a biblical story that would appeal to a large majority of the population.

After years of selling Israel to Americans and close systemic collaboration, the political ethos of Washington and Tel Aviv has become much the same, with political and moral corruption and decline the by-products of that alignment.

Israel’s ceaseless genocidal war against the Palestinians and the complicity of Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump have exposed the falsehoods and the rot.

Biden’s indulgence of the Israeli regime laid the groundwork for President Donald Trump’s more draconian measures. A fateful precedent was set when, for Israel’s sake, he abandoned the “rules-based order” that the United States had essentially created after World War II. Trump appears intent on putting a final nail in the coffin of that order.

The “learning to live with genocide” laissez faire attitude fostered by U.S. politicians, along with the collusion of the corporate media, have moved the United States increasingly to the Right. The constitutional rights and freedoms, that have been “taken lightly” for so long have begun to disintegrate under Trump’s dictates.

Through threats and coercion, the Trump administration has tried to regulate academic freedom and free speech. Hundreds of students on visas have been threatened with deportation, subjected to university sanctions, or have been illegally detained.

The U.S. State Department, for example, announced in March 2025 that it was rolling out an AI-powered “catch and revoke” initiative in an effort to accelerate the cancellation of student visas. The effort involves government policing of the conduct and speech of scholars and thousands of students from abroad, using AI-assisted reviews of their social media accounts.

Cynically, while free speech is being curtailed, Israeli extremists and indicted war criminals have been allowed to speak in the United States. Most recently, Israel’s right-wing national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, addressed supporters in New York. And Netanyahu and former defense minister, Yoav Gallant have been welcomed.

Many in the United States are now experiencing what Palestinians have endured for decades under Israeli military occupation. Since there are no First Amendment protections in Israel, mass arrests, administrative detention (without charges and trials), kidnapping, ill-treatment, including abuse and torture, are day-to-day realities in Palestinian lives.

Like the Netanyahu regime that has introduced what it calls reforms in an attempt to undermine Israel’s legal establishment, the Trump regime is also using extraordinary, often illegal means, to curb the authority of the U.S. judiciary and carry out arbitrary arrests.

The Christian Right


The Christian Right, a powerful force in the United States, has been a dominant factor in the country’s drift, since the 1970s, toward doctrinaire absolutism. Two influential groups within the broader Christian Right—Christian Nationalists and Christian Zionists— have been effective in that creep.

Their ideologies are compatible and their constituencies overlap. Both view politics through a biblical prophetic prism. Christian Nationalists argue for a ultraconservative, Christian white state in America; while Christian Zionists champion a religious fundamentalist, Jewish-only state in all of historic Palestine.

The American Right, particularly Christian Zionists, have played an important role in assuring that U.S. policies favor Israel and in framing negative perceptions of Palestinians and their regional supporters, like Iran, as the enemy.

That Israel should have sole sovereignty and control over all of Palestine is a core tenet of the faith. They strongly believe that an exclusive Jewish state fulfills the promise of the End Times as prophesied in the Old Testament and that Israel’s survival is essential for the Second Coming—the return of Jesus to Jerusalem.

Consequently, solidarity with Israel is seen not only as a moral obligation but essential to one’s own salvation.

Total erasure of the Palestinian nation is fundamental to Christian Zionism’s apocalyptic vision. In this context, they have endorsed some of Israel’s harshest policies including military occupation, apartheid, annexation of the West Bank and Gaza, and regional supremacy.

Since the Palestinian insurrection of 7 October 2023, they have been among Israel’s staunchest defenders, viewing the war as integral to fulfillment of the end-times prophecy.

That Christian Zionism is as much political as it is a religious belief is reflected in their insistence that America must support Israel unconditionally because according to the Book of Genesis: “God will bless those who bless Israel and curse those [individuals and countries] who curse it” (Genesis 12:3).

The Christian Right has had a great deal of influence in Trump’s administrations.

During his first term, for instance, he recognized al-Quds (aka Jerusalem) as Israel’s capital and moved the U.S. embassy there. At Israel’s urging, he also abrogated the Iran nuclear agreement; signed a proclamation stating that the Syrian Golan Heights are part of Israel and slashed crucial financial aid to millions of Palestinian refugees.

The agenda of Christian nationalism has been driving policy during Trump’s second term, with many of the faithful rewarded with high-level positions. For example, the current U.S. ambassador to Israel, Christian Zionist Mike Huckabee, has said that he supports Israel annexing the West Bank.

Trump has been implementing policies outlined in Project 2025. The project calls for the radical restructuring of the federal government and expansion of presidential power. In line with its goals, his administration has been working to replace the rule of law with a white Christian-centered right-wing social vision.

The way U.S. administrations have engaged with and acted toward Palestine and the Middle East can best be described as arrogant, ignorant and immoral. America as a safe haven for liberty is linked to Gaza. What happens there, the decisions made, will affect the freedom of Palestinians and Americans. The America that Thomas Paine envisioned has turned into a nightmare. Although the “Common Sense” contours of political life he espoused in 1776 have dimmed, they still remain. Those ideals that do not come “cheap,” that are there to inspire political transformation, can be resurrected. They must, however, be summoned.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.  Donate


M. Reza Behnam
Dr. M. Reza Behnam is a political scientist who specializes in comparative politics, with a focus on West Asia.
What Will an American Pope Mean for the US?

Monday 12 May 2025, by Dan La Botz


The conclave of cardinals has for the first time elected a pope from the USA, a man who has been critical of the policies of President Donald Trump and Vice-president J.D. Vance. What will the choice of this American to be head of the Catholic Church mean for the US?


The Catholic Church is an enormous and influential organization. There are 1.4 billion Catholics worldwide. Twenty percent of the US population is Catholic, that is 73.2 million. There are more Protestants but they are divided into many churches, while the Catholic Church is the largest single religious organization in the United States. While mostly white, immigrants from Mexico, Central and South Americans have changed the ethnic composition of the church, so today 36% of US Catholics are Hispanic, while 54% are white, 4% are Asian, and 2% are Black. And in 2024 Trump won the votes of 54% of all Catholics and 61% of white Catholics.

Yes, the Catholic Church is a fundamentally conservative, even reactionary institution, patriarchal and sexist, denying women leadership roles or even a voice in deliberations, and denying their right to divorce and abortion. True, is has failed to protect children from sexual abuse by priests. Yes, historically is has been linked in many places, and especially in Latin America to the ruling class of landlords and capitalists and to the state. Yes, for centuries it had the character of the “opium of the people,” a drug for the oppressed.

Yet even this conservative institution had produced progressive and even socialist currents, such as the theology of liberation that was so influential in Latin America in the 1960s and 70s. A virtually Marxist theology, it inspired millions in Latin America to resistance, rebellion, and revolution. Horrified, the reactionary Pope Benedict (2005-13) attempted to eradicate it, firing priests and professors.

The recently deceased Pope Francis was an advocate of a theology of the people emphasizing concern for working people and the poor, for migrants, but also for the marginal and the oppressed, such as LGBT people. The new Pope Leo XIV it seems will follow in Francis’ footsteps.

Robert Francis Prevost, who was born in Chicago in 1955, earned degrees from the Catholic Villanova University in Pennsylvania, the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, and the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. From 1985 to 1999 he was a missionary in Peru, and from 2014 to 2023 he was back in Peru and became a Peruvian citizen. He served as a leader of the Augustinian order and held important posts in the Catholic hierarchy.

Prevost’s chose the name Leo XIV, placing himself in the tradition of Leo XIII, pope from 1878 to 1903 and who in his encyclical Rerum Novarum (of New Things) took up “the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class.” Leo XIII, while opposing socialism and defending capitalism, recognized the necessity and right of workers to organize labor unions, bringing the church from the Middle Ages into the modern world.

Both Trump and Vance congratulated Leo XIV on becoming pope and congratulated the US on having produced him. But what will happen to these Trump voters if the pope opposes the president’s racist and xenophobic policies? Will the new pope be able to change some minds? Trump’s followers are critical. Laura Loomer, a far-right activist who influences Trump, said the new pope was, “anti-Trump, anti-Maga, pro-open Borders, and a total Marxist like Pope Francis.” And she has a point. While not a Marxist, Prevost’s posts on social media before his election indicate that he is for the protection of immigrants, for reducing gun violence, and for working to stop climate change.

Trump will now find that he has to share the world stage with another powerful American leader, Pope Leo XIVm who will on many issues be an opponent.

11 May 2025


Attached documentswhat-will-an-american-pope-mean-for-the-us_a8993.pdf (PDF - 905.1 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article8993]


Dan La Botz
Dan La Botz was a founding member of Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU). He is the author of Rank-and-File Rebellion: Teamsters for a Democratic Union (1991). He is also a co-editor of New Politics and editor of Mexican Labor News and Analysis.


International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.
Georgia

The fight for democracy, social justice, and equality in the Caucasus

Interview with Members of Georgia’s Movement for Social Democracy


Tuesday 13 May 2025, by Ashley Smith, Collective


The country of Georgia, a small nation of 3.8 million people in the Caucasus, has been thrown into a profound crisis. Its people have risen up against the ruling party, Georgian Dream, over the passage of its Russia-style “foreign influence law,” homophobic anti-LGBTQ propaganda law, rigging of the recent election, and suspension of accession talks for membership in the EU.


The billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili pulls the strings behind Georgian Dream. He is the country’s richest oligarch and possesses a fortune of $6.4 billion, which is more than half of the size of the government’s entire budget and a fifth of the country’s GDP. He and his party, whatever their clashes with the West and their tilt toward Russia, collaborate with all the imperialist powers and multinational corporations in the plunder and exploitation of the country’s people, wealth, and resources.

Fed up with such authoritarianism and exploitation, the Georgian people have erupted in one of largest and most sustained mass protests in their country’s history. They are fighting for democracy and equality. Georgian Dream has responded with utmost brutality, repressing protests and arresting protestors. But the movement shows no signs of backing down. The country stands on a knife edge.

In the midst of this unprecedented struggle, socialists in Georgia have come together to form the Movement for Social Democracy to attempt to fill the vacuum on the left. Here, Tempest’s Ashley Smith interviews Vano Abramashvili, Maia Barkaia, Ia Eradze, Sopho Verdzueli, who are all activists in the struggle and leading members of the new organization.


Ashley Smith: The Georgian people have been in the midst of sustained struggle against the Georgian Dream government now for months. What triggered the protests? What are its main demands?

Sopho Verdzueli: The roots of the intense, ongoing, mass protests lie in the October 26 elections and subsequent events, including the Georgian Dream’s (GD) decision to suspend the EU accession process. GD manipulated the election to secure a monopoly control over the government. That precipitated a crisis in our political system, which has in fact been in crisis for a long period of time.

It is plagued by serious problems, including an unfair electoral system that guarantees concentration of power. It lacks independent institutions to guard against fixing results or other forms of abuse of power. That corrupt system is the product of all our other political and economic problems—elite control of a propaganda-driven media system, poverty and inequality, no democratic checks on power and migration out of the country.

GD is controlled by our country’s oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, who is one of the richest people in the world. GD used various forms of manipulation to guarantee its reelection, including widespread propaganda, oppression, vote buying and bullying of employees.

There was a strong hope that the Parliamentary election would resolve the political crisis triggered by the foreign agent law and other undemocratic laws GD enacted prior to the election. Instead it deepened our political crisis. Despite the official electoral commission certifying the results, there is legitimate doubt that the results do not express the will of the Georgian people. The opposition parties boycotted parliament, an institution that was viewed by the people as illegitimate. The parliament’s election of a new president only compounded the GD government’s legitimacy crisis.

GD’s decision to postpone accession talks with the EU, which are written into our constitution, then detonated mass opposition. Masses of people have been mobilized in protest ever since. These protests were not just in the capital, Tbilisi, but throughout the country in smaller cities and towns. This is unprecedented.

The GD government’s response to unceasing mass protests has been increasingly brutal repression. They have deployed police to attack peaceful protests, arrested countless activists, and subjected them to torture and inhumane treatment. Police brutality has become normalized today.

Predictably, the government does not investigate let alone charge police with crimes but instead brings charges against protestors. As a result, the government holds over 50 activists as political prisoners. This is unprecedented.

This situation has shaped the political demands of the movement. We are calling not only for new free and fair elections, but also the release of political prisoners. But GD has totally ignored those demands. It is intent to consolidate power with more and more repressive and authoritarian laws against peaceful protest, independent media outlets, and civil society organizations. So, since October, GD has turned into an authoritarian regime that rules through force, not the consent of the people.

Maia Barkaia: I want to emphasize that we see the current political crisis not in isolation, but as part of an ongoing crisis of democracy, which characterized not only GD’s rule, but also previous governments, including the UNM. The existing political parties, the rigged system they oversee, and the class inequality they enforce are all to blame for our current predicament.

Georgia has served as a site of neoliberal experiments, particularly since the early 2000s. So, the current crisis is the product of the last 30 years. But today’s crisis is still very different. GD is carrying out an assault on what passes as democracy in our country. Our fundamental rights are under attack. That gives an existential feeling to the current moment.

In addition to the immediate demands for release of prisoners and free and fair election, we in the Movement for Georgian Social Democracy raise long term demands. We want to reverse all the reactionary legislation the GD regime has imposed as well as advance demands to address the deep-rooted socio-economic inequality in Georgia.

Ashley Smith: What are the politics of the movement? What are the debates? Have coherent political currents with programs formed? If so, what are they?

Sopho Verdzueli: This current movement is completely different from previous ones. First of all, in scale and longevity. It is massive. It is in most cities and towns throughout the country. We have over three months of daily mass actions.

The movement is politically diverse as you would expect when such numbers turn out on demonstrations. These express a broad array of grievances, not just on the issue of geopolitics, EU accession, and the threat of Russia.

Of course, these issues get projected broadly, but what’s driving the movement is much deeper and involves multiple political, social, and economic grievances. But those grievances have not been expressed in the movement’s demands. But sometimes they breakthrough. So here and there, you can hear quite leftist slogans especially on the marches at night.

Unlike the past, this movement is a grassroots movement. Previously, opportunist politicians and parties positioned themselves as the leaders of the struggle. Not this time. They have not put themselves at the front of the movement, because the people would have opposed them doing so. People are fed up with the entire political establishment.

In their absence, people discovered we can build and lead the struggle ourselves. Political opposition try to assert themselves through the President Salome Zourabichvili’s Common Coordination Front as representatives to the media and international actors. But they do not lead in the actual movement in the streets.

Of course, that does not mean the movement can continue without clear political strategy and organization. But it must come from the movement and be for the movement. Although many of us feared the movement would lose momentum, we are witnessing the resilience of the people – as well as the missteps of GD, which continue to push people back into the struggle.

We are in a pivotal moment though, because we are on our own. Great Britain has imposed sanctions recently, however we need a more consistent and coordinated international response towards GD’s authoritarian steps.

Maia Barkaia: Exactly. The current protest is unique in our history. It is massive, independent, and more horizontal and self-organized. And it is beginning to go beyond calls just for democracy and include demands for social and economic justice.

Since the introduction of the first foreign agent law in 2023, the protest has come in waves, surging and subsiding. But since November 28th, this movement has not ebbed for a moment. Every day, every night people are out in the streets.

Another key development is on the Left. In the past, we were always hesitant to join mainstream moments because ideologically we were never aligned with them. But we have joined this one because we are united with its fundamental demand for democracy. At the same time, we have not compromised our values and principles.

In the past, we were afraid we would be subsumed by larger forces and the mainstream parties. But this time, our new group, Movement for Social Democracy has joined the movement, found a way to express demands for social justice and economic equality alongside the overarching call for democracy, and ensured that our voice remains loud and prominent in the struggle.

Ashley Smith: How have you intervened in the struggle? What kinds of people have joined the protest movement? Have workers joined?

Maia Barkaia: The nationwide protest movement and its ideology are quite diverse. The organized forces have been competing with each other over politics, but now they’re together in this new movement.The Movement for Social Democracy is part of the struggle, building it in every way we can. But we put forward an alternative from within it. We are a very ideologically grounded organization. Even though we come from various backgrounds politically, we have a common commitment to social justice, economic equality, and democracy.

The question of democracy is very important to us, because in Georgia, we have experienced socialism without democracy in the past. And in the last few decades democracy itself has been narrowly defined, leaving out without social and economic justice. So, for us, it’s important to emphasize that social justice, economic equality, and democracy are inseparable.

The main trade union in Georgia mainly acts in favor of the government and companies. So, it does not represent workers’ interests and demands. But there are newly emerging independent trade unions. These are all very important for building genuine working class organization at work and in the protest movement. Many in the Movement for Social Democracy are members of these unions and some are part of their leadership.

One of our aims is to build strong ties between our group, unions, and various grassroots organizations. In particular, we have tried to forge ties with the student movement at different universities.

One of the most important struggles is going on in Chiatura. The city has a mono-industrial economy built around a mining company. It was privatized in 2006, recently went out of business, and laid off 3,500 workers. The miners have launched a campaign that has been going on now for months. Recently, four miners on hunger strike were taken from their protest tents at 3am and arrested.

We are witnessing the crisis of democracy that suppresses dissenting voices and leaves workers powerless in the face of political and economic elites. Our movement has tried to help support their struggle and stand in solidarity with them. We believe that struggles for a collective purpose require collective action and engagement of organized collectives.

Vano Abramashvili: Our goal is to link to the miner’s struggle and other social and labor struggles with the bigger protests. We want to overcome the separation between different groups of society and the separation between democratic and economic demands.

These really are inseparable, especially in Chiatura where the government and the company have collaborated in the exploitation of the miners and now their layoff. They are facing a humanitarian crisis. They are demanding that the government address their demands for compensation, medical care, even food, and alternative employment.

So, the struggle of the miners is with not only their company but with the government. The GD government is reluctant to concede anything to the miners, because it knows that one concession opens the door for other groups of workers to make more economic, social, and democratic demands on it. So, GD has not conceded anything to the miners or to the whole movement.

The government’s hostile response to everyone opens up space to overcome the isolation between different struggles. It allows us to build bridges of solidarity between the struggle of the miners and the democratic movement. Doing that will help us forge a genuine movement of working people of Georgia.

Ashley Smith: One of the challenges the struggle in Georgia faces is the neoliberal development model—extractivist, transit capitalism—imposed on the country by the US, Russia, China, and the EU. What exactly is that model? What are the problems with it? Is it being challenged in the struggle?

Ia Eradze: All the governments we have had for the last few decades have been committed to this neoliberal development model. It is the root of all our democratic, social, and economic grievances. So, our Movement for Social Democracy aims to expose this fact to the whole protest movement.

Whether you are a miner, a teacher, a lecturer, or whatever, you feel insecure in this country. We don’t have a welfare system. Basic social economic rights are not guaranteed. And, like the miners in Chiatura, we are all in debt. The level of household debt is very high in Georgia.

The issue of debt has been dramatically exposed to the whole country by the miners. Once they lost their jobs, they have not been able to repay their loans. Public servants who have been fired by the government because of their political positions and participation in the movement also face unpayable debt.

Fear of household debt is one of the key reasons people cite for their reluctance to go on strike. This experience of debt unites everyone in a shared precarity. We all face pretty much similar vulnerabilities. That both makes people fearful of struggle but also drives them into it because life as we have known it politically and economically is no longer sustainable.

The neoliberal development model is the structural reason for our collective experience of debt. Essentially, under the influence of great powers, foreign capital, and domestic capital, Georgian governments have subordinated all economic policies to attracting investment, ensuring corporate profitability, building infrastructure for transporting commodities through the country, and plundering our natural resources with mines and damming our waterways.

This model has concentrated capital in the hands of our oligarchs, transformed old patterns of employment, and stripped away the welfare state. As a result, we face systematic socio economic insecurity and have to take out loans to pay for basic necessities. If we lose our jobs, we have no benefits to fall back on and face unpayable debt. If you have a job, you face terrible conditions.

This whole economic model has not changed one bit with elections. The old United National Movement government enforced this neoliberal model. So has Georgian Dream. They have all put foreign and private capital’s concerns first and workers last.

Chiatura is one example of the overall pattern. After it was privatized, the company subjected the miners to terrible workplace conditions, disregarded basic safety measures, and violated their rights. Despite the company being fined multiple times by the Ministry of Environment for polluting the city’s main river and the air, nothing changed except that now the workers are fired.

That demonstrates how the elites, especially oligarchs like Ivanishvili, control the government. So regardless of who’s elected, the oligarchic structure of the economy compels the state to act in the interests of the rich and against those of the people.

The economic elite and their multinational partners have used their control of the state to implement various so-called development projects. They’ve turned Georgia into a transit hub for the transport of commodities, a crypto currency haven, and a site for mining. The “developmental” infrastructure projects (such as dams, highways, or ports) are usually financed through foreign credit from multilateral development banks.

All of this is further distorted by our oligarch’s interests. Ivanishvili warps this entire neoliberal model to serve his private interests. So, this is neoliberalism with oligarchic characteristics.

Our job in the Movement for Social Democracy is to raise all the problems with this neoliberal model in the struggle. We have to explain to people how oligarchic neoliberalism is the reason that our state is so undemocratic. For us to win the better society we all want requires transforming the whole existing economic model.

Ashley Smith: How has the EU been dealt with in struggle, since it is complicit with the neoliberal program?

Maia Barkaia: Several waves of protest in 2024 preceded the current protest, which was triggered f by GD’s announcement of its suspension of the EU accession talks. That was the last straw that broke the camel’s back. The defense of democracy is the overarching goal that unites the movement.

In the movement there are various positions on the EU. Old parties that have implemented the neoliberal plan and are therefore part of the problem are also pro-EU. We in the Movement for Social Democracy have our own position about the European Union. But we are all united in the fight to defend democracy.

But there are differences even on the question of what democracy means. For us, we see democracy as inseparable from social and economic justice. And we strive for a more radical, participatory form of democracy—direct democracy. Representative democracy is not enough. We advocate democratic control of society, institutions, and workplaces.

We look to our past history in Georgia for precedents. Our First Republic, established in 1918 and survived until 1921, was a short lived period during which we had a very interesting experience with democracy. It was established by a coalition government led by social democrats.

They went beyond representative democracy. They did not implement direct democracy, but what they called non-intermediary democracy, which was a hybrid version of representative and direct democracy. That precedent is important for us to prove that democracy is not something imported or alien to our history, but something we have experimented with by the Left in our past. We want to build on that tradition to eventually build participatory, decentralized democracy in Georgia.

We have different views on the EU than UNM and other mainstream parties, which portray the EU as a paradise and suggest that Georgia’s problems will be solved simply by joining it. Instead, we view the EU as a garden that if we joined we would still have a great deal of work to do to make the country serve the interests of the people. We see accession as an existential question to protect us from Russian imperialism. In reality, the EU is the only space where we can physically exist in order to fight against neoliberalism in Georgia and build an equal and just society.

We have a two-pronged fight on our hands—first for survival from the immediate threat of Russian imperialism and second for democracy, social justice, and economic equality. We can’t do that by copying and pasting reforms from the West or anywhere else but engaging in our own struggle from below.

UNM sold the country off to the oligarchs through privatization of national assets. And since GD has little left to sell, it has focused privatization of natural resources to extractivist corporations. We have an utterly deregulated labor code that enables corporations to maintain terrible working conditions, long working hours, and workplace discrimination. And the ruling parties have enforced this and brooked no opposition. That has taken extreme form now under GD.

So, for us, accession to the EU gives us breathing space to carry out class struggle for democracy, social justice, and economic equality. That would be nearly impossible under the constant threat of intervention coming from Moscow.

Ashley Smith: The election of Donald Trump has scrambled Eurasian politics in a fundamental fashion. Trump has formed an explicit pact with Putin’s Russia for the partition of Ukraine. How has Trump’s election impacted the struggle and its politics?

Vano Abramashvili: Trump’s geopolitical games in Eastern Europe are a major concern for Georgia. GD has reacted initially by trying to diversify its relations with all sorts of governments from Russia to Iran to find support. Indeed, GD was one of the few governments to attend the inauguration of Iran’s new president.

But that blew up in its face. GD found itself alongside groups chanting “Death to America.” Of course, Trump and the rest of the US political elite were not happy with that. That was a big mistake for GD. It will retreat from that approach to placate Trump.

Already, GD has begun to mimic Trump’s discourse about fighting the deep state and the global war party. They even shared JD Vance’s speech in Munich denouncing the EU for repressing far right parties. But that too has blown up in its face, as GD is actually a far right party in power and it’s repressing everyone. People called attention to that hypocrisy. So, their mimicry of Trump and Vance boomeranged back on them.

Such craziness aside, GD is clearly aware that Georgia is caught up in Trump’s reshuffling of geopolitics between the US, the EU, Russia, and China. Ukraine is a dangerous precedent for what Trump may do with Georgia. The US was trying to get Russia to agree to a partition plan for the plunder of Ukraine.

Trump might treat Georgia in the same way, offering us to Russia as part of its sphere of influence. As a small country caught between various great and regional powers we are caught in a classic trap Thucydides described as “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

Our biggest concern is the implications for us in what happens between the US and Russia over Ukraine. Here’s one nightmare scenario. Say the pact between the US and Russia falls apart. We could get in the crossfire of a larger war.

Russia has military bases and even a naval port in Ochamchire, Abkhazia, a section of Georgia it has occupied since its war on us in 2008. It uses the port for its operation in the Black Sea. If Ukraine targets that port, Georgia could become a new theater for the war..

Regardless of whether this happens or not, the image of the US in Georgia has been fundamentally damaged. Not even the craziest pro-US people can support Trump’s neocolonial proposal to Russia to partition and plunder the country.

Ia Eradze: Precisely. Trump’s presidency has had an enormous impact on people in the popular movement. Until January this year, everyone considered the US democracy that whatever its many problems at least was some kind of model for Georgia. Now almost everyone sees the US as an example of the spreading crisis of democracy in the world.

Now more and more people realize that we are part of a global struggle against the far right and oligarchs. That is a shock for many in Georgia who had trust/belief in the US. But it has underlined our point that we have to rely on our agency. There is no savior outside of Georgia coming to save us from our authoritarian government. We have to free ourselves.

We cannot solely depend on outside powers to do that for us. That said, we cannot do it alone either, since we are a small country. So, our hope depends on popular movements in other countries against their far right, their oligarchs, and their authoritarian governments.

Ashley Smith: You recently established the Movement for Social Democracy to begin to fill the political vacuum on the Left. How did that come about? What are its core political positions? What kind of forces has it attracted? How do you operate in the movement?

Sopho Verdzueli: Georgia has a tradition of social democracy established by the first Republic of Georgia in the early 20th century. But it has been marginalized and forgotten. The Movement for Social Democracy is trying to revive that tradition in the midst of today’s protests.

In the midst of the mass movement, we realized that we needed to create an alternative that was both value-based and sustainable. Last year’s election in October made this clear. No one was satisfied with the so-called lesser evil. A large portion of the political opposition remains associated with neoliberal and undemocratic policies due to their past actions, while GD’s well-funded and wide-spread propaganda manages to portray all opponents as allies of the UNM.

When a lot of us complained about this situation, people said to us “why don’t you create an alternative?” We rose to the challenge and started talking about building a new organization.

This is not the first time something like this has been attempted; people have tried to create a social democratic movement and even a political party in the past. This time we think we have a better chance of success. The combination of the political crisis, the struggle, and widespread frustration with the absence of any genuine political alternative pushed those on the Left, despite secondary differences, to come together and build the Movement for Social Democracy.

This is a movement not a political party. GD has already denied our application to register us as a non-profit organization, a single legal form we have in the legislation for the movements. Regardless, we are forging ahead.

The Movement for Social Democracy has clear points of ideological agreement summarized in our manifesto of values. These can be broadly summarized as participatory democracy, social justice, and economic equality. We do not have some charismatic leader with huge money or social capital.

We are a membership organization with a very horizontal, democratic structure. That is one of our political values. In the movement, we do not compromise our values or engage in strategic silence on this or that topic in an opportunist fashion. We will stand for and advocate for positions on all sorts of issues that are not yet popular with the aim of convincing wider and wider layers in the protests.

One of those is our stance on the European Union. We see that a pro-European foreign policy is of vital importance for Georgia. We also see how loyalty to Russia is closely linked with anti-democratic and authoritarian actions within our country. Therefore, we hold a firm and unwavering position regarding our foreign policy direction. Naturally, this does not mean that we do not have critical views on certain EU policies, including many of its mistaken political and social policies.

We are a new organization, but we are growing in numbers and influence in a small country. Right now, we have more than 150 members, we have many different working groups, and we are actively engaged in building the broader struggle on various fronts. Our main goal right now is to create a political program. We want to demonstrate what a real and valuable political alternative should look like. We aim to challenge the mainstream political discourse and agendas on both sides.

Maia Barkaia: We have started our organization in a moment of emergency. The vacuum is immense, but we are determined to accumulate forces to fill it. For now, we must build a sustainable organization prepared for any political scenario, including being forced underground.

This is a long term struggle not just in Georgie but throughout the world. We all face increasingly similar challenges. In these dark times, we must prioritize the fight for democracy in everything from our own movements to our entire society. In the broader struggle, we must agitate for democracy, social justice, and economic equality.

Ashley Smith: Finally, what can the international Left do to help the Georgian movement?

Ia Eradze: The starting point for the international Left is to talk with those of us in the struggle and find out what is actually happening on the ground. Don’t fit us into pre established narratives. Try and grasp the nuances of our situation.

Work to understand why people would carry the EU or US flag. Don’t rush to label people and movements. The Left must recognize that in peripheral countries like ours, we do have limited options and room for maneuver. We have Russia on our border, occupying 20% of our country, and it poses a threat as to whether we can exist as an independent country.

The Left has to take a step back and see what we on the Left in Georgia are actually doing—trying to find breathing space to fight for the kind of society everyone on the Left wants. But we are doing that in very, very difficult circumstances.

I also think that the Left must not minimize or relativise what GD is doing to people in this country. We all know people in the struggle who have been brutalized and imprisoned only because of their struggle for democracy..

The international Left should listen to us in the struggle. Understand the nuances of our predicament as a country with very few options, far fewer than richer and more powerful powers. And most of all treat us with respect and build solidarity with our movement.

We want to establish relationships with sympathetic forces on the international Left. We have just started to reach out by sending letters to progressive figures, academics, and organizations in the US and internationally. We need to build connections in our common struggle.

Our main problem is, of course, with the far right and oligarchs in this country and internationally. But we do have criticism of the Left globally. Too often people on the Left only think analytically, not politically and strategically about Georgia, our region, and even their own country. As Sopho mentioned, being analytical and criticizing everything and everyone is a luxury.

I think there are two traps that people on the Left fall into—one, thinking only politically, and two, thinking only strategically. One without the other will lead to mistakes of all sorts. We need to do both if we are going to build a Left capable of intervening in the real world.

Above all else we need to build solidarity internationally. We are in a common struggle against authoritarianism, oligarchy, neoliberalism, climate change, and many other systemic crises. We are all in this fight together.

12 May 2025

Source: Tempest.


Attached documentsthe-fight-for-democracy-social-justice-and-equality-in-the_a8994.pdf (PDF - 950.9 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article8994]

Georgia
Why have people of Georgia massively risen up against the Government?
Statement against Azerbaijan’s Authoritarianism, COP29 and Green Capitalism, Wars, and Regional Slide into Authoritarianism
Local Communities and Labor Movements Under Threat in Sakartvelo: Interview with Left Activists

Ashley Smith
Ashley Smith is the managing editor at Spectre and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America in Burlington, Vermont. He has written in numerous publications including Truthout, The International Socialist Review, Socialist Worker, ZNet, Jacobin, New Politics, and many other online and print publications.

Collective


International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.