The Marx International

Following the election results in the small German state of Saxony-Anhalt, where the Alternative for Germany (AfD) coalition won, capitalist media outlets ran headlines like "The far right sweeps Germany," European Union (EU) presidents and officials announced a "rise of the German far right," and 99% of global left-wing leaders claimed there was a "danger of fascism in Germany." In reality, this same slogan is used whenever figures like Trump, Bolsonaro, Orbán, Meloni, Farage, Milei, Paz, Kast, de la Espriella, Abascal, or any other bourgeois candidate of this persuasion win elections under the banner of the "rise of the global far right." Is it true that the "far right" is advancing, or is there a danger of fascism in Germany and the world? In this work we are going to do the Marxist analysis on whether or not there is a " rise of the extreme right", analyzing the case of Germany which is applicable to any country, because it is a slogan that resonates throughout the world.

Where does the term "far right" come from?

Before beginning a detailed analysis of the issue, we want to address the term "far right," which is a bourgeois , journalistic term used by bourgeois officials and analysts in a vague definition intended to suggest that these political formations are "fascist" or "Nazi," but which avoids categorically defining them as such. Currently, countless groups that define themselves as "Marxist" and "left-wing" use this terminology, causing much confusion, which necessitates a preliminary clarification for the development of this work.

Marxists do not use the terms "left" and " right" to define political organizations . Marx and Engels did not use these terms, which arose during the French Revolution due to the seating arrangements of those to the "left" or "right" of the presiding officer in the National Assembly. The leaders of classical Marxism always considered these definitions superficial, bourgeois, or insufficient, and in works such as "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte ", "The Class Struggles in France" , and the "Communist Manifesto" , they used terminology based on the class interests of the groups, such as democratic, radical, or republican parties to refer to sectors of the petty bourgeoisie or bourgeois democrats, and reactionary, conservative, or "law and order" parties for sectors of the upper bourgeoisie.

It is possible to find occasional mentions of "left" or "right" in private correspondence or in journalistic accounts of current events where they described the architecture of bourgeois parliaments, but never as central analytical categories. Even when they criticized other groups within the workers' movement itself—for example, the Lasallians, Proudhonists, or anarchists—they categorized them according to their ideological currents but never as "left" or "right ." When leaders who call themselves "Marxists" define their organizations, media outlets, or electoral fronts as " left-wing ," it is opportunism, reformism, bourgeois or petty-bourgeois politicking, because the word "left" is a bourgeois term that encompasses a vast spectrum, from imperialist governments like Obama's or Sánchez's in Spain, to bourgeois governments like Lula's or Claudia Sheinbaum's in Mexico, to Stalinist parties like the Communist Party of China, India, Cuba, Colombia, or Chile, to dictatorships like Chavismo, and all other kinds of reformist organizations that do not put forward a program that defends the historical interests of the emancipation of the working class.

One could argue that fascism was a phenomenon that Marx and Engels failed to foresee, which doesn't alter our assertions in any way, since in this case we would call these formations "fascist" without euphemism. For Marxists, the fundamental dichotomy is not "left versus right ," but socialism versus capitalism, or proletariat versus bourgeoisie. The "rise of the far right" campaign seeks precisely to modify this approach and place the axis "left-right," aiming to present the course of the world situation from a "reactionary perspective," a panorama of defeats amidst which the people and the working classes support fascist or Nazi political variants, leading to the establishment of dictatorial or fascist regimes. Having made this clarification, let's examine the validity of the claim regarding the "advance of the far right" in the world.

A campaign with no basis in reality

We define the slogan "the rise of the far right" as a campaign, that is, a coordinated global propaganda effort that is activated every time a member of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), a forum for convergence and events promoted by the American Conservative Union (ACU), wins an election. The CPAC is comprised of various bourgeois sectors, such as the wing most aligned with the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement and Donald Trump within the Republican Party; the People's Party and VOX in Spain, led by Isabel Díaz Ayuso and Santiago Abascal, respectively; the Freedom Advances movement and the president of Argentina, Javier Milei; the Liberal Party, represented by the Bolsonaro family in Brazil; the Fidesz Party, led by Viktor Orbán in Hungary; Reform UK in England, led by Nigel Farage; and the National Rally              (Rassemblement National), headed by Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella in France, to name a few examples .

Is it true that election data shows evidence of the "advance of the far right"? No. The data reveals a very different reality. For example, taking the case of Germany, the AfD won the elections in the state of Saxony-Anhalt with 576,032 votes out of a total of 1,706,851 registered voters, which represents 33% of the eligible population. But the bourgeois media and imperialist officials portray an AfD victory with 44%, considering only those who voted and excluding the more than 400,000 Germans who did not vote and the nearly 25,000 who cast blank ballots. The same thing happened in the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania state elections of September 20, 2026, in which the AfD obtained 388,026 votes, representing 29% of the 1,321,294 eligible voters. The data shows that the AfD garners support from around 30% of the country's bourgeois and upper-middle classes, but it did not receive the support of 70% of the population; that is, it does not garner widespread support among the working class and the poorest sectors of society.

On the other hand, one could say that the AfD is "sweeping" Germany if it had won in any of the most important German states, such as North Rhine- Westphalia, Bavaria, Baden- Württemberg, Lower Saxony, Hesse, or Saxony, or in major cities like Berlin or Hamburg. However, in the Berlin elections of September 20, 2016, Die Linke (The Left) won with 468,060 votes, representing 18% of the 2,729,396 eligible voters—a very poor showing. But even poorer was the AfD's performance, which represented a mere 11% of the population. These figures clearly demonstrate that there is no "advance of the far right in Germany . " The AfD achieves victories in states such as Saxony-Anhalt, number 12 of the 16 German states, or Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, which is number 14, with very poor numbers, in states that are among the least important in social and economic terms.

In other words, even using the data from bourgeois democracy, we can verify that everything claimed by imperialist officials and the media—that the "far right is advancing in Germany" and has achieved a "landslide victory" —is false. It is even more false considering that bourgeois democracy is never the expression of the will of the people because it is a fraud orchestrated by the ruling classes. The requirements for running for office are prohibitive, millions are needed to finance campaigns, and the mechanisms of representation serve the interests of the ruling classes. Therefore, election results are useless for measuring the popular will, or at the very least, they are a highly distorted representation . But even if we analyze the campaigns of Trump, Bolsonaro, Orban, Meloni, Farage, Milei, or Abascal, we find the same panorama that we see in Germany with the AfD: The parties receive votes from the bourgeoisie and upper middle classes of the country, but there is no data to indicate that the great masses of workers and the people are mostly inclined to support the political parties of the CPAC.

To make that claim, we would need concrete data showing a shift of 40% to 50% of the eligible voting population in support of the conservative CPAC parties, but such data is nowhere to be found, in any country. Looking at the data from the last US elections, Trump won the 2024 election with 77,302,580 votes, which is 31% of the 244,666,890 eligible voters. This means that almost 70% of the US population did not support him, and he is now headed for a major defeat in the midterm elections. With these figures, it is difficult to assert that there is an "advance of the far right" among workers and the people in the U.S. In Argentina, Milei obtained 9,341,798 votes, representing 25% of the 36,477,204 eligible voters in the last legislative elections of 2025, meaning that 75% did not support him; therefore, there is no evidence of an "advance of the far right" among the workers and the people of Argentina.

In the 2023 Spanish general elections, the People's Party (PP) obtained 8,160,837 votes and Vox 3,057,000, representing 21% and 8% respectively. In the 2024 European elections, the PP obtained 5,996,627 votes and Vox 1,688,255, representing 16% and 4.4% respectively of the 35,665,455 eligible Spanish voters. These figures demonstrate that there is no "advance of the far right" among workers and the general population in Spain. In Italy, Meloni was elected president with 7,302,517 votes out of 46,021,956 eligible voters, a meager 16% that was enough to win, but provides no evidence to suggest a "rise of the far right" among the Italian working class and the general population. In France, 10,110,034 votes were cast for Marine Le Pen out of 49,332,729 eligible voters, representing 20%, indicating that 80% of the French electorate did not support Le Pen.

In the British general election, Nigel Farage received 4,117,620 votes out of 48,208,507 eligible voters, representing 8%. In Chile, Kast won with 3,104,458 votes, representing 20% ​​of the 15,779,102 eligible Chilean voters, while in Colombia, de la Espriella won with 10,361,499 votes, representing 25% of the 41,421,973 eligible Colombian voters. In Hungary, Orbán lost the election, and then there is the case of Narendra Modi and the BJP (India) and other Southeast Asian parties that could be included among those of the same political persuasion as Trump, but the BJP is part of the BRICS group with China and Russia and is not part of the CPAC network. With all this electoral data in hand, we can state without a doubt that there is no real evidence to support the claim of a "rise of the far right" anywhere in the world. The campaign has no basis in any objective facts, yet it is gaining traction. Why is it gaining traction despite being unsupported by any real-world data? Which political forces and global organizations are behind this campaign?

A campaign by UN, US and European Union officials

Who are the leading figures and officials claiming that "the far right is on the rise"? In the United States, these include Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama, Vice President Kamala Harris, Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, leaders of the Democratic caucuses in the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, as well as Democratic Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jamie Raskin. Within the Republican Party, the campaign against the "far right" is also being spearheaded by former Republican Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, Republican Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, and Republican Governors Larry Hogan and Phil Scott. In Europe, the campaign is being led by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, leader of Germany's Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which heads a capitalist political coalition of 80 parties from 43 European countries. The CDU controls 11 European states and is the largest group in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

Officials like Josep Borrell, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and leader of Spain's Socialist Party (PSOE), claim that "far-right forces are fueling fear." Roberta Metsola, President of the European Parliament and leader of the European People's Party in Malta, has called for "protecting democratic values ​​and the rule of law against extremist parties." Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, warned that "far-right rhetoric dehumanizes minorities ." This entire layer of capitalist UN officials, bourgeois leaders, social democrats, heads of government, members of the European Council, and progressive blocs in Parliament are the ones leading the campaign against the "far right." It is a campaign launched from the highest levels of governments and imperialist institutions.

If you thought this was a campaign launched by Marxist, socialist, or revolutionary groups, you'll be surprised by the reality. It's a policy of imperialist leaders and officials that many self-described "Marxist " groups have adopted as their own. One could argue that adopting this policy is justified because the CPAC organizations being denounced are fascist, which would then make adopting such a policy to protect the working class and the people debatable. This leads us to the question: Are the CPAC organizations fascist? How does Marxism define an organization as fascist?

How do Marxists define an organization as fascist ?

A primary characteristic of the Nazi or Fascist Party is the establishment of an armed, paramilitary wing, organized as a shock troop called the Freikorps , tasked with attacking opponents, assaulting activists, carrying out pogroms, lynchings, massacres, persecutions, attacks on unions, and beating leaders, among other things. The Nazi Party was founded on February 24, 1920, and created its first and main paramilitary arm in 1921, a year after its founding, with the official establishment of the Sturmabteilung , or Storm Troopers (SA). Four years later, in 1925, the Nazi Party created the SS as a small personal escort unit for Adolf Hitler, which grew to become the most powerful and infamous paramilitary and security arm of the Nazi regime. The Italian Fascist Party formed paramilitary militias called the " Blackshirts," or squadristi, which operated outside the regular state police forces. Mussolini founded the party on March 23, 1919 in Milan and that same year launched the squadristi that acted as local armed militias to repress workers' strikes, launch lynchings against activists, headquarters of trade unions and Marxist parties.

In other words, both the Nazi and Fascist parties used methods of civil war against the workers and the people, relying on a private paramilitary arm, as Leon Trotsky explained: "...big capital is obliged to create private armed gangs, specially trained to attack the workers, just as certain breeds of dogs are trained to attack their prey. The historical function of fascism is to crush the working class, destroy its organizations, and stifle political freedom when the capitalists no longer feel capable of governing and dominating with the help of the democratic machinery." (Where is France Going? - The Collapse of Bourgeois Democracy (1936))

The other characteristic of the Nazi or Fascist Party is that it publicly and openly proclaims the abolition of bourgeois democracy and the bourgeois parliamentary system. Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf ( My Struggle , 1925–1926) that he categorically rejects parliamentary democracy, calling it "inefficient" and "decadent ." Instead, he formalized the Führerprinzip , or Leader Principle, which stipulated that absolute authority should reside in a single person without legislative or political party checks and balances. In articles signed by Joseph Goebbels, he famously wrote in Der Angriff (1928): "We entered the Reichstag to supply ourselves with the weapons of democracy from its own arsenal... If democracy is stupid enough to give us free passes and tickets for this service, that's their problem... We come as enemies." In a speech before the Supreme Court of Leipzig in 1930, Hitler openly declared that when the Nazi Party came to power by legal means, "heads would roll" in the courts to punish the "November criminals ," meaning the founders of the bourgeois democratic republic.

Given these characteristics of Nazi or fascist parties, can we define Germany's AfD or the CPAC groups as fascist organizations? Most of the groups that make up the CPAC have existed for decades, and we have no record of them forming private paramilitary wings; that is, we don't see the brownshirts or blackshirts created by CPAC leaders marching in the US, Germany, France, Spain, Great Britain, or any other country in the world. One could argue that when CPAC groups come to power, they use state repressive forces against the people. And that's true, but it's not something only CPAC governments do; all capitalist governments in the world do it, including progressive ones. In other words, the CPAC organizations don't focus on developing private armed groups to organize public lynchings.

Regarding CPAC's policy toward bourgeois democracy, anyone who visits the CPAC website will find the following announcement on the homepage: "The Center for Legislative Accountability (CLA), an initiative of the CPAC Foundation, works to promote government transparency, while continuing its more than 50-year mission of holding legislators accountable by publishing their voting records." In other words, CPAC publicly proclaims that for 50 years it has been promoting a conservative, pro-capitalist, reactionary agenda in Parliament and publishing how its legislators vote.

Contrary to the Nazi Party's public proclamation of destroying Parliament, the CPAC has for 50 years promoted activity within Parliament. Its groups advocate for participation in bourgeois democracy and for monitoring its legislators, thus providing ample evidence to conclude that it is utter nonsense to claim that CPAC groups are "fascist." We Marxists must constantly denounce the CPAC for its reactionary, imperialist, conservative, retrograde, and other such characteristics, but it is absurd to call CPAC groups "fascist." To confuse CPAC groups with fascism is akin to confusing the animal kingdom with the plant kingdom. Furthermore, the underlying motive behind labeling conservative CPAC groups "fascist" is to advance a policy of class collaboration, which Marxists reject.

We reject the "cordon sanitaire" policy

But if CPAC groups aren't fascist, why do US, EU, and UN officials insist on denouncing them as "far-right " groups that threaten "democracy" ? This campaign is the product of a brutal fight between imperialist factions, in which UN and EU officials label CPAC groups "fascist" because they are "Eurosceptic" and "anti-globalist." In other words, CPAC leaders consider organizations like the United Nations (UN), the World Health Organization (WHO), international courts and agencies, the EU, the Euro, and central bank governors to be illegitimate supranational bureaucracies. They accuse these bodies of promoting a "progressive" ideological agenda , and NATO is viewed with suspicion under the premise that the United States and its European partners bear a disproportionate financial burden.

And these are precisely the institutions whose seats are mostly occupied by Democratic officials, those from the European republican right, and social democrats. It is a fight between two counter-revolutionary sectors, and there is no "progressive sector" in this struggle, because these are imperialist sectors discussing how best to defend the interests of the ruling classes and the global capitalist-imperialist system. However, the leaders of the UN, the EU, the US, and all imperialist officials are promoting the "cordon sanitaire" policy to confront the "far right," a policy that constitutes a strategy whereby a group of traditionally centrist, center-left, or progressive political parties commit to isolating and excluding a political force considered " far right" to prevent it from gaining power or influencing institutional decision-making.

By characterizing CPAC formations as "far-right" and suggesting the danger of a rise in fascism or Nazism, government organizations, bourgeois and reformist political parties—that is, the entire bourgeois superstructure of the country—are shifting the focus of national politics to the confrontation with CPAC political formations. Regardless of who governs or what policies the government is implementing, the fight against the "far-right" becomes the central issue. And from this point, these imperialist political formations call for the creation of a "cordon sanitaire ," a term originally from medicine, which implies a series of agreements among all the country's political organizations to defeat the "far-right" in a kind of "anti-far-right front."

This "cordon sanitaire" policy , for example, seeks to unite the CDU (Christian Democratic Union), the CSU (Christian Social Union of Bavaria), the SPD (Social Democratic Party), and Die Linke (The Left) in Germany. It is a policy agreed upon by bourgeois, imperialist, reformist, social democratic, and ex-guerrilla organizations, and is even being promoted by organizations that once considered themselves Marxist or Trotskyist. It is a policy of agreements that leads to class collaboration and conciliation in the name of a supposed "fight against fascism," which is entirely false. The "cordon sanitaire" strategy includes forming coalitions or agreements in Parliament against the projects of the "far right," even if they need those votes to achieve an absolute majority or a quorum. These agreements seek to marginalize representatives of these formations from key positions in parliaments, such as committee chairmanships, boards of directors, approving and rejecting laws, or representation in relevant institutions.

This policy includes a media and discursive " cordon sanitaire," which seeks to position the message and slogans around the polemic against the far right through a common political and social front, highlighting their positions and reaching agreements on issues such as migration, civil rights, and the bourgeois democratic system. This is the policy of 99% of left-wing groups worldwide that have adopted the policies of imperialism, whether or not they have parliamentary representation, and thus adopt the same slogans, campaigns, and slogans as the officials of the "progressive" imperialist bourgeois parties. The policy of the "cordon sanitaire" leads groups that proclaim themselves "Marxist" to end up defending institutions like the UN, the EU, and the Euro against "fascism," and presenting these institutions as "progressive ," as is the case with their participation in the UN-organized Global Flotilla Sumud for Palestine.

We completely reject the policy of the "cordon sanitaire" and all actions carried out under this slogan. We reject it because this policy implies class collaboration and conciliation with the bosses' and imperialist parties. The maneuver of calling CPAC organizations "fascist" and then demanding the establishment of a "cordon sanitaire" against fascism is a trap against which we warn all activists worldwide not to fall, because it leads to collaboration with and capitulation to the governments and institutions of global imperialist capitalism. However, in recent years the concept has generated intense debates because workers and people are fed up with these calls made by those who are precisely the ones implementing violent austerity measures and defending the bankers and multinationals that dominate the world economy. This has led many of these parties to crisis and collapse, allowing many CPAC groups to win elections with very few votes.

The "mirage" of political revolution: Dictatorships and bourgeois democracies in crisis

Why do CPAC groups win elections despite extremely poor showings, reaching a maximum of 30%, or even as low as 16%, as was the case with Meloni in Italy? Because the heart of imperialist political regimes is crumbling. German imperialism has been governed by a two-party coalition: On the one hand, the old and historic Social Democratic Party of Germany (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, SPD), the party currently led by Tim Klüssendorf, which has included leaders such as Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, Gerhard Schröder, and Olaf Scholz. On the other hand, the CDU (Christian Democracy), the old bourgeois party that has included historical figures such as Konrad Adenauer, Helmut Kohl, and Angela Merkel. Both parties have been the basis of Germany's dominance over the European economy, expressed in the imposition of the Euro, the currency that expresses the supremacy of the imperialisms of Germany and France over the rest of the European countries.

Britain's imperialism never accepted the supremacy of Germany and France, which led to its withdrawal from the Eurozone with the Brexit referendum in 2020. In reality, Germany's supremacy was an expression of the dominance of corporations like Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas over the European imperialist economy, a dominance enshrined in the policies of the European Central Bank (ECB). However, the election results, where CPAC groups won by a narrow margin, demonstrate that rather than a "growth of the far right," what is actually happening is the collapse of reformism. This is because the world's largest working classes are massively breaking with their old leaderships—what Marxists call a "political revolution." And in this case, in Germany the working class breaks with one of the oldest social democratic parties in Europe, the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), the party founded by the followers of Marx and Engels, and whose leaders later betrayed them by supporting war budgets and the policies of German imperialism.

We call "political revolution" the process by which the peoples and activists of the world turn their backs on the old currents, parties, and leaderships because they no longer believe in them and reject them. Through the process of "political revolution," the peoples of the world are breaking in the 21st century with social democracy in all its variants, classical Stalinism and its Maoist, Castroist, Guevarist, etc., variants, bourgeois nationalist movements such as the PRI, Peronism, APRA, Nasserism, and former guerrilla movements such as Sandinismo, Farabundo Martí, etc.—all leaderships that were once attractive to millions worldwide and today are sinking into a profound crisis as a result of the rejection and repudiation they suffer for their betrayals.

The process of global political revolution results in a weakening of capitalist regimes, both dictatorial and bourgeois-democratic, which are based on parties and leaderships in which the masses no longer believe. This provokes a true political "earthquake ," because it plunges dictatorships and regimes with fascist characteristics into crisis throughout the world: the Ukrainian revolution puts Putin's dictatorial regime in crisis, the Palestinian revolution puts the sinister State of Israel in crisis, the Syrian revolution ends the Al-Assad regime, the Arab Spring is a graveyard of dictators, the Venezuelan revolution puts the Chavista dictatorship in crisis, the revolution in Bangladesh liquidates the dictatorial regime of Sheikh Hasina Wazed, and so on, among other examples.

But the political "earthquake" is not limited to dictatorships. It is also throwing bourgeois democratic regimes into crisis. The phenomenon is expressed in the fact that sectors of the masses do not go to vote and turn their backs on bourgeois elections, which manifests as an "abstentionist wave " sweeping the world. People began to express their rejection of bourgeois democracy around 2021 when high percentages of the population did not vote, or cast invalid or blank ballots, as in Venezuela, Italy, Brazil, Peru, Iraq, Chile, etc., or as in the cases of the US and Mexico where abstention reached almost 50% .In some elections, such as the regional elections in France, abstention reached levels of 65.3%, reaching historic levels since General Charles de Gaulle founded the Fifth Republic in 1958. In Chile, abstention reached such high levels that it forced the government to declare participation in the elections "mandatory."

The collapse of political parties and organizations that led the mass movement for decades impacts bourgeois democracy because the bourgeois democratic regime rests on bourgeois and reformist political parties. If these pillars collapse, the entire political regime collapses. The fact that the world's masses have begun to turn their backs on the propaganda of the bourgeoisie and reformist organizations is a sign of growing consciousness that is putting the bourgeois democratic regime in crisis and striking at all the political organizations that defend it, especially the reformist organizations.

The masses of the world are not voting because they have no one to vote for. They are breaking with their old leadership, but they cannot find an alternative, so they prefer to abstain. The crisis of bourgeois democracy leads to the emergence of very weak capitalist governments, elected by a very small percentage of the population, which must govern amidst a brutal crisis of capitalism, causing a constant stream of crises and government collapses. Under the blows of political revolution, bourgeois democracy has become a Pandora's box for the ruling classes themselves, a phenomenon that acts as a "mirage ." Even under the iron grip of fraud and the anti-democratic bourgeois electoral mechanisms, it is possible for a "nobody" to win the elections, surpassing the traditional parties, as already happened with Beppe Grillo, Meloni, Milei, Bolsonaro, etc.—figures or "outsiders" from the CPAC groups who, two years before becoming president, were completely unknown.

These presidents win elections with percentages of 25% or 30% of the total eligible voting population, which is the electoral base these parties usually enjoy. The world's pundits and bourgeois charlatans, upon seeing these election results, define the country's political situation as a "turn to the right," but as we just saw, there is no "turn to the right" nor a "rise of the global far right." On the contrary, these are governments that lack mass support and are very weak. The elections do not reflect the reality of what the majority of the population thinks; they are merely the "mirage" of a political revolution—a very progressive process that liquidates the old leadership and throws the doors wide open to the return of Marxism to the working classes of the world.

The "rise of the far right" campaign seeks to conceal the global revolution

Although imperialist officials, with their "rise of the far right" campaign, seek to present the course of the world situation from a "reactionary perspective ," a panorama of defeats, the reality is exactly the opposite. What dominates the world situation is the revolutionary uprising of the world's peoples against capitalism, which began with the triumph of the Iraqi National Liberation Revolution in 2009/10. From that revolutionary triumph, a global revolutionary stage opened, combining the crisis of capitalism with a revolutionary upsurge of the masses, and has developed to date into three global revolutionary waves: the first between 2010 and 2015, the second between 2016 and 2021, and the third, which we are experiencing from 2022 to the present.

The current wave of uprisings features remarkable revolutionary victories, such as the triumph of the Palestinian militias who defeated the Israeli army's (IDF) attempt to seize control of Gaza. On October 9, 2025, the Palestinian guerrillas defeated a vastly superior army by waging urban guerrilla warfare supported by a massive, powerful, and deeply moving global mobilization similar to those seen in Vietnam or Iraq. The State of Israel was left isolated worldwide, facing the evidence of its war crimes against a significant portion of the unarmed and vulnerable Palestinian civilian population. Thus, the Third Intifada dealt a historic blow to the Israeli occupation army and is plunging the Zionist behemoth into an unprecedented economic, political, and social crisis.

To that revolutionary triumph is added the victory of the American people in Minnesota when, on February 5, 2026, 700 federal agents from ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and CBP (Customs and Border Protection) were forced to withdraw from Minneapolis after a month-long struggle that included mobilizations, a general strike, and the deaths of two activists. It culminated in Trump's defeat in Minnesota and the collapse of his immigration policies, which have sparked a wave of strikes across the country and massive mobilizations by the "No Kings" movement. Added to this triumph is the collapse of the capitalist dictatorships in Venezuela and Cuba, which compelled imperialism to negotiate with both regimes, as well as Iran's victory against US and Israeli aggression. Despite overwhelming military superiority, the imperialist coalition was unable to invade Iran as a result of the defeats that imperialism suffered first in the Iraq War, then in the two Arab Springs and later in the 3rd Intifada, which constitutes a revolutionary triumph.

This exacerbates the economic and political crisis of imperialism because the failure to seize control of the Strait of Hormuz triggered a global surge in oil prices and led to a rift within NATO. Added to this are other victories, such as the Ukrainian militias' victory against Putin's dictatorship in April and May of 2026, which allowed them to begin recovering some of the territories occupied by Putin after four years of invasion. The Ukrainian militias defeated an overwhelmingly superior army in a military defeat that plunged the dictatorship of the capitalist oligarchs of the Russian Federation into a political, social, and economic crisis of historic proportions.

The revolutions of the 21st century are directed against capitalism because the root of all contradictions and hardships stems from the private ownership of the means of production, concentrated in the hands of large Wall Street corporations. It is these revolutions, and the political revolution, that imperialist officials try to conceal with the false campaign of the "rise of the far right," but this maneuver is futile. Regardless of the level of consciousness of the people, the revolutions strike at capitalist states, their governments, dictatorships, bourgeois democracy, and their institutions, thus preventing the ruling classes from overcoming their crisis and bankruptcy. The revolutionary triumphs of the third wave allow us Marxists to advance in the global regrouping of revolutionaries, and with it, the preparation of the revolutionary general staff to put an end to capitalism once and for all and impose Global Socialism.