Raymond Debord, of Militant, A Marxist Review for the Twenty-First Century (France) June 2025, comments on Roger Silverman’s article dated April 2025. See the Roger’s article HERE
About the international situation
A few remarks on Roger Silverman’s analysis
Comrade Silverman’s contribution is an excellent way of entering into an essential discussion: understanding the new historical period that is opening up. To speak, as he does, of a “new era in world history” is no doubt excessive, but something is indeed happening that deserves our full attention. The neoliberal production order as it has been in place since 1974 is on its last legs, and is beginning to be replaced by a totally different order (or mode of regulation).
This is the central point of any analysis of the present, and it’s a pity it isn’t explicitly mentioned. We are entering a new productive order, to which no name has yet been attached, but which presents specific characteristics reminiscent in part of mercantilism or the rise of competitive imperialism before 1914. At present, nobody seems to understand it, from neoliberal economists to the governments of most European countries. But we can cite: the refocusing on nation-states, the abandonment of multilateralism (both commercial and economic), the end of freedom of the seas, territorial claims (USA) or direct control over third countries (China, Russia, Arab Emirates). This phenomenon is based on the rise of monopoly capitalism, from the United States to Russia and China. And from this point of view, Roger is right to underline the new character of American governance, with the direct hold of financiers and bosses (starting with Trump and Musk) on the state apparatus.
The whole geopolitical development on the crisis of influence of American imperialism is excellent and necessary. Indeed, it’s impossible to understand what’s going on without bearing in mind that capitalism’s center of gravity has shifted with the emergence of new industrialised nations.
From the 1970s onwards, China began to take its place among the great industrial nations, becoming in just a few decades “the world’s factory” and the world’s second economic power, just behind the United States. If we consider the ranking of countries according to their Gross Domestic Product (GDP), between 1980 and today, Brazil has dropped from 17th to 9th place, and India from 14th to 5th. Russia, ravaged by capitalist restoration, has fallen from 36th place in 1992 to 11th place today. This fundamental change in the world economy, partly fostered by neoliberal globalisation, has extended the effects of industrialisation in 19th-century Europe to a considerable number of new countries. As a result, capitalism’s center of gravity has shifted to Asia. Over the past 25 years, the Asian powers’ share of global manufacturing output has risen from less than 10% to almost 40%, and now exceeds that of the G7 countries.
The long essay on Trump’s characterisation is quite correct in substance: he is not a fascist. No relation whatsoever. But then the question arises: why devote so much space to this development? Why implicitly discuss the arguments of decomposed groups who today advance this pseudo-“anti-fascist” rhetoric, but are in reality nothing more than the left wing of a neoliberalism in perdition? Hasn’t the time come to resolutely turn our backs on them? For the theoretical and practical break with neoliberalism is the prerequisite for any possible reconquest by workers.
What will happen in the medium term? Hardly anyone can answer that today. But the criticisms formulated in Roger Silverman’s paper are extremely ambiguous and problematic. They leave the reader with the impression that they reiterate the apocalyptic arguments and predictions of the neo-liberals in their entirety, in other words, that they constitute a defense of the old “laissez faire, laisser passer” order. What does this mean? That if a government corresponding to our ideas came to power, it would not oppose offshoring? That it wouldn’t defend “short circuits” in the economy and accept the continued transport of strawberries across the planet on cargo ships using fuel oil? That he would accept the signing of the free-trade agreement currently under discussion between the European Union and Mercosur? And with it the demise of French agriculture? The end of food self-sufficiency in our countries?
Let’s be quite clear. On this point too, as long as the currents emerging from the labour and socialist movements continue to behave like the left wing of neoliberalism, the working class will increasingly turn to the far right. It’s as simple as that.
Action is necessary, and Comrade Silverman is absolutely right to maintain that the solution ultimately lies in the strength of the proletariat. But we still need a lucid vision of the balance of power between classes. Otherwise, we run the risk of having to confine ourselves to abstract incantations, such as those which conclude the text and have no programmatic translation. It is also unreasonable to compare the workers’ and communist revolutions that took place after the First World War with those which, according to Roger, are “shaking every continent” today. Which revolutions? Which continents? In reality, we’ve seen nothing of the kind, let alone comparable to what happened after the First World War. We have seen democratic revolts against authoritarian or dictatorial regimes, instrumentalised either by neoliberalism or by obscurantist and reactionary forces. We have seen “orange revolutions” leading to the expansion of NATO and the European Union. We have seen and continue to see bloody civil wars and countries torn apart by imperialism. We have seen, and continue to see, imperialisms clash militarily by proxy. We are watching a horrific massacre with genocidal impulses unfold before our eyes in Gaza, with no international solidarity movement without class content capable of opposing it.
Authoritarian temptations are everywhere, from Tunisia to Turkey. They also exist in Western Europe, and everyone can see how European liberals and social liberals are tempted by censorship and judicial manoeuvres to try and prevent their opponents from expressing themselves or even competing in elections. In this sense, the fight to defend democratic freedoms should be a priority for revolutionaries. Such an initiative could also be combined with the main task of the moment, which is to oppose the war. For the main threat facing the world is that of militaristic escalation, on the one hand between the USA and China, and on the other between the European imperialist bloc (embodied by Starmer, Merz and Macron) and Russia. Defending class independence and opposing war should be two essential programmatic anchors in the period ahead.
AND A REPLY FROM ROGER SILVERMAN…….
Thanks to Raymond for his comments. It is only by such comradely exchanges of opinion that we can collectively sharpen our ideas and deepen our common understanding of the current change in world relations.
For my part, I don’t consider “excessive” the description of the new historical period as “a new era in world history”. What we are witnessing is not just the end of globalisation (though that alone would already constitute a major turning point), but the definitive end of the entire postwar era: the collapse of an 80-year strategic order; a situation in which Europe finds itself suddenly cut loose from the “Western alliance” with the USA and the world’s superpowers are making open preparations for a third world war.
We are in agreement that Trump is not a fascist. But Raymond asks: “why devote so much space to this development?” Why? Because the idea that Trump is installing a variant of fascism in the USA is not, as he argues, just ”the arguments of decomposed groups”, but a common misconception widely shared throughout society, especially within the labour movement.
Trumpism is not fascism. At the same time, it does keep in reserve the emergency deployment of reserve fascist gangs, as was shown on 6th January 2021. And the ruling class worldwide are sponsoring the growth of far-right authoritarian and racist parties; in many countries these are already in government. Their leaders privately harbour fascist aspirations, and many of them have a personal background in fascist politics. So far they have neither the sufficient mass base nor the necessary political compulsion to attempt to launch an outright programme of fascist répression, but the implicit threat should not be lightly dismissed.
Despite his guarded qualifications that my article could “leave the reader with the impression that…”, Raymond implies that it does in fact constitute “a defence of the old laissez-faire laisser-passer order”. That would be an extraordinary interpretation. It should not be necessary here to spell out that none of us defend “the shipping of strawberries across the planet using fuel oil”, nor “the demise of French agriculture”, nor “the end of food self-sufficiency”. Far from even remotely implying any such endorsement of neoliberalism – a bizarre and entirely unwarranted suggestion – the article is simply a commentary on the actual change in the world order.
Finally, Raymond reminds us that it would be “unreasonable to compare the workers’ and communist revolutions that took place after the First World War with those that are shaking every continent today”. Once again, there is no need here to knock down straw scarecrows. Obviously it would be ridiculous to equate the current wave of protests with the revolutionary tide that overthrew the dynasties of Europe and brought the working class to power in Russia. Nowhere does the article in question even remotely imply otherwise. Without the development of mass revolutionary parties that can win the masses to socialist conclusions, these protests can only end in defeat; many of them have already. Nevertheless, what kind of revolutionaries could we call ourselves if we were to overlook the current worldwide eruption of simultaneous mass protests (including the worldwide manifestations of solidarity with the Palestinian victims of genocide), raging today to a degree not previously seen for decades, and for the first time ever on a truly global scale? We are still only at the beginning and not the end of this global phenomenon, which is spreading and deepening and has every prospect of reaching revolutionary conclusions. This is the beginning, not the end, of a new era of open class struggle.