Deniz Adalı
September 2025 – Kaldıraç Issue 290
We are going through such a period that the first thoughts that come to mind to understand and explain developments are spreading rapidly, even uncontrollably in some cases. And this is such a state that sufficient evidence can be found for every opinion. By highlighting a particular development, it becomes possible to approach events from a completely different angle. Moreover, the bourgeois press, which is a machine for spreading false news and obscuring the truth, is extremely influential, as it controls all media, in line with its monopolistic character. This situation increases the darkness.
Light and enlightenment require a firm perspective.
In periods when the flow of history accelerates, one must have a solid perspective to understand events. For those who view the processes from the standpoint of the working class, it is not enough to highlight only one aspect of the truth. Therefore, in these times of rapid developments, it is necessary not to abandon the scientific perspective in order to comprehend events correctly. In doing so, it is essential to reconsider and reiterate certain concepts.
Capitalism or imperialism cannot really be explained by focusing on a single country; doing so would be incomplete. Perhaps a single country can be considered as a model (for example, capitalist development in country X during a certain period), but ultimately, the global capitalist system and imperialist domination must be analyzed as a whole. Moreover, any country under consideration should be understood as part of that system.
Capitalism is a world system.
The socio-economic structures that preceded it were also world systems. Feudalism was a world system, and so was slavery. But the “world capitalist system” is, of course, a world system that is far more developed than the class societies that came before it, both in depth and in scope. So much so that it would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that the previous systems were not truly “world systems.” Capitalism is a system in which commodity production has become universal, and this production of commodities can extend its influence into every sphere of life. The system can spread even to the most remote, isolated corners, while also creating a profound impact in the countries where it dominates. The exploitation of humans by other humans is both far more widespread and far more deeply developed. Commodity relations have penetrated and can penetrate even the most intimate areas of human life.
Thus, the “world capitalist economy” or the “world capitalist system” are crucial concepts for us.
Capitalist-imperialism emerged in the late 1800s, when capitalism began transforming into a world system. It was very different from the feudal empires and the states of that era.
This stage was also the beginning of the age of monopolies. Pointing to the 1870s would not be far off the mark. If we look at the world not merely in terms of “events” but as processes, we can see that the monopolistic character that emerged in the 1870s had both a prehistory and an aftermath. For this reason, assigning dates by numbers alone is not so decisive.
During this period, countries like Britain, France, the United States, Germany, Japan, and Italy took over and divided the colonies of some of the old world empires. While there were still territories to be seized, wars among these powers were relatively limited. Of course, the acquisition of colonies from Portugal, the Netherlands and Spain involved warfare. But by the early 1900s and indeed, by the end of the 1800s, the world had already been divided both territorially and as a market. For this reason, the redistribution of the world carried the potential to escalate into a world war. And that is exactly what happened.
British imperialism was the hegemonic power of the system. This definitely does not mean that the others had no influence or power. But for example, the British currency functioned as an international currency for the entire system. This was due to Britain being the “empire on which the sun never set.” At the beginning of the 1900s central banks had either not yet been established or were just beginning to be established. Bank failures created the necessity of establishing a central bank to protect capital. The 1901 crisis of the capitalist system, marked by bank collapses, was the birthplace of the central bank concept as a safeguard.
For the ordinary person, a central bank seems like a sacred institution. Yet in the United States, the central bank was established directly through the initiatives of the Rockefeller and Rothschild families. To the average person, a bank appears to be a highly “reliable” institution. But for someone who has experienced bank failures, it is far from that. Banks are companies, and in fact, they have more opportunities for trickery and manipulation than most other companies and they do so.
Towards the end of the century often called “the century of Britain,” they conceived establishing an international monetary system tied to gold but then World War I intervened. A gold-backed currency system was important for international trade: after all, how would one exchange Swiss francs for British pounds? If each country began issuing representative banknotes linked to the amount of gold it held and the system could be monitored, the problem would be solved. Of course, to the benefit of the most powerful.
The reason we go this far back is to explain the existence of what is called the “world capitalist economy.” When capitalism first emerged in Great Britain, it was not yet a world system. It was born within the feudal system and the world had not yet become capitalist. Moreover, individual countries would not follow the same path toward capitalism. While one became imperialist, another was being colonized.
Within this world capitalist system, the imperialist powers occupy the center of the system. Each has its colonies and each strives to acquire more. Naturally, rules are established to govern this. To an outsider, these rules may appear as if they were decrees from the gods. In a sense, if one regards the international monopolies and imperialist powers as gods, that would not be entirely wrong.
The world capitalist economic system, which according to many indicators is still in place but in decline (in reality this is an objective process; it is the revolutionary working class that can overthrow capitalism and if it does not exist, capitalism continues to persist), was essentially established after World War II. The position lost by Britain was taken over by the United States but with a major and fundamental difference. In the midst of World War I, the October Revolution broke one link in the chain of the capitalist world system. Those who went to war to redistribute the world lost a portion of the “cake” they were fighting over.
World War II was, on the one hand, a struggle between imperialist powers pursuing the “common” goal of strangling the USSR, and at the same time, a struggle to redivide the world. It was after this war that a new system was established under US hegemony.
First, in 1946, the US dollar was made into an international currency. Naturally, it was the United States that made this possible. Such a step could not have been taken by a weaker power. Germany, Japan, and Italy had been defeated in the war and Britain was far weaker compared to the US All currencies were indexed to the dollar, and the dollar was indexed to gold. Fewer than 50 countries signed this agreement at the time. Socialist countries could not have been expected to sign it and in the world of that period, the 46 countries that did sign already represented the overwhelming weight of the capitalist world economy.
Today we know that US currency, the dollar, is issued without being backed by gold. In a sense, one could call it a kind of “counterfeit” printing. If you were to print US dollars, you would be a criminal but when the US Federal Reserve prints unbacked dollars, it is not considered a “crime.” Since it is the US itself that issues the currency, it is not counterfeit in that sense. But the link between gold reserves and the dollar was severed by the US itself. The Vietnam War was an important turning point in this regard. To finance the war, the US printed unbacked money. By the 1970s, Germany, France, Britain and Italy were aware of this. And whenever the USSR tried to present a video exposing this issue, the US dismissed it calling “communist propaganda.”
The international system established after World War II was not limited to the dominance of the dollar. From an economic and financial perspective, international institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank were organized in order to control the colonies. These and some similar institutions can be regarded as the second pillar. This stands for organizations that aim to steer the world capitalist economy on behalf of imperialist powers and international monopolies.
Similarly, meetings such as Bilderberg, forums, etc. are also part of this. For example, “import-based industrialization” or “export-based industrialization” has actually been systematized at these meetings. Neoliberalism, too, emerged in this manner. In other words, there was a system that fostered common trends and decisions in line with the interests of all international monopolies and it still exists, albeit with diminished influence. Instead of Bilderberg, the World Economic Forum, G7, etc. seem to be more influential. Their influence has been declining over the past 10 years.
The system established after World War II was essentially an organization against communism. For this purpose, a military pact called NATO was established. NATO is the joint war machine of the capitalist-imperialist system led by the United States. It represents both an internal war organization within NATO member countries (which we refer to as the Monopoly Police State, a state organization that internalizes fascism by concealing its mechanisms) and an organization for the war against communism.
Others could be included, but these three points are critical to the functioning of the global capitalist system. And all of this has been done under US hegemony. The hegemonic power of the system is the US. The beginning of US hegemony can be traced back to the end of World War I. Yet it would be more accurate to describe that period as the dissolution of British hegemony. Since we will consider the objective processes happening outside of ourselves as processes rather than events, it is appropriate to take into account both what is declining and what is rising. US hegemony, on the other hand, was essentially shaped after the Second World War.
The concepts used in bourgeois economics “underdeveloped countries,” “developing countries,” and “developed countries” are entirely aimed at concealing the structure of the world capitalist system, which is organized around imperialist powers and their colonies. According to this framework, there is no distinction between imperialist and colonial countries. All countries are seen as somewhat interconnected. Of course, all countries are connected to each other. But what is the nature of this connection? Imperialist countries occupy the center of the world capitalist system, while the others are their colonies. The relationship between Britain and France, for example, is not the same as that between France and Algeria. There is a relationship between slaveholders and slaves, but it is not the same as the relationship among the slaveholders themselves. Therefore to say “everyone in society is connected to one another” is in fact to say nothing at all and moreover, it is an attempt to conceal slavery. When capital invests, it purchases labor power alongside machines. And sooner or later, the capitalist, the owner of capital tells the worker, whom they have hired in exchange for wages, “I am giving you bread.” In reality, however, the capitalist owes their profit to the worker, to the worker’s labor.
Thus, the terms “developed countries,” “underdeveloped countries,” “developing countries,” and “backward countries” are in fact concepts handed to us by imperialist ideologues and none of them are accurate. When an international capital group invests in a colonial country (which is, of course, kept backward and exploited of its resources), they claim, “we are developing you,” “we are bringing you civilization.” Yet all imperialist countries owe their wealth to what they have plundered from their colonies. The debts of all so-called “backward countries” are in reality the result of colonialism, and if an honest debtor-creditor account were to be kept, these countries would actually be creditors of the imperialist powers. This is such a state of affairs that, for example, all imperialist metropolises are filled with historical artifacts stolen from the colonies. The matter of debt is the same. The one who steals, plunders and exploits declares the exploited to be the debtor.
This system, established under US hegemony for the global capitalist system, began to reveal its internal contradictions after the dissolution of the USSR. Against US hegemony, other imperialist “allies” primarily England, Germany, Japan and France, began to take a stance against the continuous issuing of dollars. Each acted in its own economic interests. US hegemony began to be eroded primarily economically, not ideologically, politically or militarily.
The US, however, has made a more advanced move. The US began arguing that the entire world should come under US hegemony, using names such as the new Roman Empire and a unipolar world. Some “intellectuals,” including some who were thought to have been part of the left wing in the past, claimed that if a single empire were formed, peace would be achieved in the world. As if peace will come if everyone complies. As if security will be ensured within the country if everyone remains silent. Whereas this is a failure to understand what is called class struggle, or, if our discussion is about the global capitalist economy, a failure to understand imperialism and colonialism.
After World War II, imperialist aggression tried to conceal its anti-communist offensives under the banner of “democracy.” In a world without the USSR, the United States once again set out to bring the world into line under the tale of “the whole world belongs to us” and slogans like “bringing democracy” and “carrying civilization” were once more brought to the forefront.
The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the intervention in Libya, were in fact carried out for this very purpose. The United States began to use its military superiority recklessly to suppress potential rivals, giving rise to regional wars. Until the war in Syria. In Syria, Russia intervened. At the same time, starting from the early 2000s, China entered the global market as an influential power with its own brands in the economic sphere. By the time the 2008 crisis erupted, China’s economic influence had already reached a point of no return.
Today, the system established by the global capitalist economy after World War II is being shaken.
This disruption does not primarily concern the imperialist powers and colonies. That part of the system remains intact.
So, what is it that is actually being shaken?
First, the influence of the US dollar is diminishing. This is still in its early stages. In one of our studies, we mentioned a simulation exercise held in the US in 2009, to which economists were also invited. We know that in this simulation, they discussed scenarios such as what stance China would take if Russia took action against the dollar’s dominance. Today, we are in 2025. That means 16 years have passed since 2009. Today, Brazil is declaring the need for an international currency other than the dollar. BRICS is expanding and has reached a size that economically surpasses the G7.
But the dollar remains the dominant force in the global capitalist economy. Trump has stated that if a currency other than the dollar is developed, he will impose 100% tariffs on all BRICS countries. Which means the possibility of another currency replacing the dollar is frightening.
Following this, two developments have occurred. First, Trump announced new tax rates even before a new currency was announced. Neoliberal policies are somewhat taking on a new form. There is no such thing as zero tariffs. Moreover, these new taxes also extend to countries such as Japan, South Korea, and Germany, which are not members of BRICS and have no chance of joining. Second, almost none of the BRICS countries took any significant steps back in the face of these threats.
Institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF are no longer as effective as they once were. This influence is fading. Of course, it has not been completely eliminated. However, the US itself is showing a tendency to withdraw from some institutions within the existing international system.
This part is actually not particularly important. But the IMF and the World Bank were important tools for keeping many colonial countries in a state of exploitation. The attitude of “not killing the goose that lays the golden eggs,” often used by bourgeois economists in relation to colonial or indebted countries, was being carried out more quietly through institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank.
Moreover, the ideological influence of effective organizations such as the World Economic Forum is being shaken by organizations such as the Petersburg Forum.
On the other hand, contrary to the tendencies in those two areas, NATO has been expanding further. Macron’s statement that “NATO is brain-dead” was in fact a declaration directed against the United States. The brain of NATO is the US. Conversely, with Biden, the US had “returned” and was welcomed by all of Europe, including Macron, with a “welcome back America.” Now, however, the “America First” trend is once again at play.
The world’s imperialist powers, acting in concert under US pressure, have declared Russia and China enemies and escalated the war to a new level in order to turn these two countries into colonies. This is what is happening in Ukraine.
Thus, unlike in other areas, there is no sign of retreat in NATO which is the war machine of imperialism.
This means that what Putin calls a “multipolar world” shaped today under the leadership of Russia and China, is in fact not a finished or completed process. And it is clear that its formation will depend on the outcomes of the wars in which NATO is involved.
Today, the world capitalist economy is becoming militarized to a large extent, even if not in every sector. The military industry is being promoted. Germany’s automotive giant Volkswagen, for instance, is now producing armored vehicles instead of cars. Had it not shifted to armored vehicle production, it would have had to lay off 34,000 workers.
These days, the US is promoting the slogan “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) through Trump to try to improve its economic situation. It seems like Europe is at least as “eager” for MAGA as the US. The latest economic agreement includes additional tariffs on European goods, investments in the US, and purchases of US oil and all these measures are detrimental to Europe. France has voiced strong opposition to the agreement. Yet these protests, it seems, come after coke parties and lack real seriousness. They are essentially just words. Even though it is clear that the agreement works against Europe, it has nonetheless been signed.
Similarly, the United States is signing a series of economic agreements and raising tax rates. And it appears that the MAGA slogan is more influential not in the US itself, but in places such as Europe, Japan and South Korea. Through sheer economic pressure, the US is seeking to rescue its own economy. We know that the political consequences of this have not yet emerged. But it is also clear that this cannot be sustained.
On the other hand, while Trump declares he came for peace, he is taking effective steps to escalate the conflict. The attack on Iran is a mission that has been planned since the Biden era (and actually includes the first Trump term) and was initiated during the Trump administration. It is possible to foresee that this process will continue.
Regarding Ukraine, Russia was first given 50 days, then 10 days to respond. Pressuring everyone, including China and India, to halt Russian oil sales is on the agenda. It is not yet clear how each of them will react.
On the other hand, England is talking about carrying out arson operations against tankers carrying Russian oil. Ukraine will not hesitate to engage in this. All of Europe is preparing for war. And frankly, this situation is reassuring for the US. Meanwhile, it is also clear that the US is preparing for war against China.
All of this indicates that a war, which will likely be referred to as the Third World War, is unfolding. Indeed, until the war machine known as NATO disintegrates, the opposite scenario is inconceivable. Therefore, while US hegemony is unraveling, this unraveling is inconclusive until the war machine known as NATO is destroyed or a major war erupts.
Now, all this may imply some changes in the functioning of the global capitalist economy. However, there is no process underway that would alter the fundamental nature of the global capitalist economy, namely the relationship between imperialist powers and colonies.
After all, the alteration of the relationship between imperialist countries and their colonies means, in reality, the elimination of imperialism. No other way is possible. This, therefore, is only possible through the destruction of the capitalist system.
The collapse of capitalism, as we know, is only possible through the worldwide struggle of the working class. There is no other way. The destruction of the world capitalist system can only be achieved through socialist revolutions. Without keeping this in mind, it is impossible to wage a consistent struggle against imperialism. Of course, this process of disintegration increases the possibilities for socialist revolutions for the world working class and the revolutionary movement. Yet we know that if the working class is unorganized, it is nothing. If the working class is not revolutionary, it is nothing.
Of course, for instance, the dissolution of NATO would mean the emergence of significant opportunities for revolution in many countries, including ours. But these would be objective opportunities. If there is no organized force, if the working class is not revolutionary, no objective opportunity can be turned into an actual one. Objectivity is, of course, important. But without a subjective force, without the development of the revolutionary organization of the working class, capitalism cannot be overthrown. The history of the world working class struggle clearly proves this.
Therefore, in this chaos, in this period when history is moving rapidly, we cannot proceed by focusing solely on the wars of the great powers. The working class can be liberated only through its own revolutionary action. The capitalist-imperialist system, which has long outlived its time, will be overthrown by a revolution. Such a revolution is far more possible today than it was in the past. For this reason, amid all this dust and turmoil, we must fix our eyes on the resistances emerging across the world and on the development of the workers’ movement.
Development is combined but uneven. Different forms of development will emerge in different regions of the world. The struggle of the working class does not, and will not, proceed in the same manner everywhere in the world. Today, in some parts of the world, revolutionary developments constitute a much greater possibility. And of course, a socialist revolution that begins in one region will have far greater potential to spread rapidly than before. Amidst all this chaos, the main task of revolutionaries in every region is to move forward with determination, to organize, to struggle, to build the line of resistance, without losing sight of the horizon.
————
I wrote the article above at a time when the Trump-Putin meeting was not yet on the agenda. In the first week of August, the Trump-Putin meeting debate came to the fore. Trump’s special representative met with Putin in Moscow, and then, on August 15, the meeting took place. Then, just as Trump was about to meet with Zelensky, EU and UK officials rushed to the White House as if there were a cocaine party going on. I think it is appropriate to add a few notes here regarding these meetings. Although they are not the subject of this article and may seem out of place, I think they will be useful from a current affairs perspective.
1
The interview took place in Alaska. Every follower has learned that Alaska used to belong to the Russian Empire and was sold to the United States in 1867. And every follower has also learned that Russia and the United States, which seemed to be at opposite ends of the world, are actually neighbors when viewed through the lens of Alaska.
The US and Western media have engaged in considerable debate over why the meeting took place in Alaska. The meeting was held on US soil. And if holding it in Russia or a third country was never in question, then the debate can be interpreted as asking why it was not held in Washington. That, indeed, seems to be the underlying purpose of these questions. At the beginning of the same week, prior to the meeting, states of emergency were declared in several US cities. Trump explained this by citing a rise in crime rates. The accuracy of this claim is doubtful; agencies such as the FBI and the police should suffice for such matters. There must be a connection between the declaration of a state of emergency and the choice of Alaska as the meeting location. Perhaps, at the same time, it was also chosen as a meaningful and secure location for the meeting itself.
2
The request for the meeting came from Trump. It is known that Russia had previously stated that a process was necessary for the two leaders to meet. In other words, if the two leaders could reach an agreement, this meeting could be meaningful. So, it seems that signs of this have been received. The results Russia has achieved from the meeting confirm this, even if an agreement has not yet been reached.
A vast majority of the US press, along with nearly all of Europe’s three imperialist powers, attempted to prevent this meeting. Both in the US and in Europe, those who wanted to prevent this meeting carried considerable weight. But despite this, the meeting took place.
The US.media did not request a joint press statement to be issued following the meeting. The main reason for this was to prevent the process from being disclosed to the public. The opposite happened, however, a joint press statement was made. In fact, some newspapers and TV channels made rather racist and anxious remarks, describing it as “a Russian press statement on American soil.” This shows that there are also opponents of the meeting within the United States itself.
3
No agreement has yet emerged from the meeting. Trump announced that he would consult his allies, including Zelensky and the NATO countries. EU leaders cited the lack of an agreement as evidence of a “failed and insignificant meeting.” They are anxious and trying to convince themselves.
However, both sides, Trump and Putin, described the meeting as having gone positively.
The meeting focused not on a ceasefire, but on a comprehensive agreement. In reality, this means that Russia’s demands have been taken seriously. The urgent ceasefire calls from the EU and Zelensky have faded, and the idea of a comprehensive agreement has come to the forefront. Whether or not it will materialize is another matter.
It can already be said that Russia has emerged from the meeting in a position of advantage.
The Trump administration was, in fact, pursuing the goal of covering up the defeat in Ukraine. The aim was to soften the defeat suffered on the battlefield through negotiations at the table. Meanwhile, the United States sought to redeploy its forces across all fronts in preparation for further conflict. It appears, however, that softening a battlefield defeat through diplomacy will not be so easy. Already, the campaign to demonize and isolate Russia has collapsed diplomatically. The red-carpet reception and the joint press statement are evidence of this.
The Russian side, on the other hand, did not treat the United States as the defeated party. This seems to be a positive aspect for the US side.
4
The most significant move of the meeting was the sweatshirt Lavrov wore when he landed in Alaska. This garment, bearing the letters “USSR”, carries significance in and of itself. Symbols matter. During World War II, the USSR had allies who fought alongside it against fascism all over the world. Today, however, Russia does not have such a socialist ideology and is, in that sense, almost alone against NATO in terms of actual battlefield engagement, setting aside the China-Russia alliance, of course. From this perspective, the USSR sweatshirt is meaningful. At the very least, it is pleasant.
5
It is being said that the meeting was held to “end the war.” In this case, those who constantly speak of the Ukraine-Russia war can see that while Russia is on one side, the other side consists of the US, the EU, and all of NATO. Ukraine itself is not negotiating; it is Russia and the United States that are engaging in the talks.
The front opposing Russia, let’s call it NATO for short, rushed to Washington in an unplanned manner after the Trump-Putin meeting, in order not to leave Zelensky alone.
This situation can be described as Germany, France, and England, along with the rest of the EU, behaving like small lapdogs clinging to Trump’s heels. In fact, it represents both the humiliation of Germany, France, and England and evidence of their diminished “roles on the historical stage.” When a French commentator said, “Macron is pushing France out of history,” it almost seems as if this was expressed precisely.
Yes, in a sense, because there was no agreement, no clear outcome emerged. This may be important for those with high expectations. But Putin’s reception on US soil is an outcome, and it not only demonstrates the failure of isolation efforts, but also signals defeat in Ukraine.
Another outcome is the formal acknowledgment that, despite all their warmongering, England, Germany, and France have, in fact, lost their will. This too is a result. In many ways, England, Germany and France are falling outside the equations.
The United States, despite being on the side that has suffered defeat, seems poised to make England and the EU bear the cost of that defeat. And frankly, it seems they have no choice but to snort more cocaine to cope with the situation.
6
There is no agreement yet. But no matter how aggressive Zelensky’s stance may be, no matter how much he commits to the mission of “killing Russians for the US and NATO,” he has no future.
Even now, despite wearing a black suit, he reveals how deep in the mire he is when answering questions like “Will you vote?” Trump himself states that Zelensky’s approval rating is just 4 percent, despite or rather because, he has turned his country’s territory into a battlefield on behalf of the US, NATO and Western imperialism. In this context, the protest demonstrations that have begun in Ukraine are also significant.
7
So, will this situation generally bring an end to the war? While the formation of a solution in Ukraine may be difficult, it seems possible. The situation within the United States creates a potential opportunity in this regard. However, there is no reason to think that the war has generally come to an end. The imperialist West is likely to skillfully open one or two new fronts each time a current front closes in order to fuel the conflict.
Thus, in the broadest sense, it can be said that the war will continue.
So, will this situation generally bring an end to the war? While the formation of a solution in Ukraine may be difficult, it seems possible. The situation within the United States creates a potential opportunity in this regard. However, there is no reason to think that the war has generally come to an end. The imperialist West is likely to skillfully open one or two new fronts each time a current front closes in order to fuel the conflict.
Thus, in the broadest sense, it can be said that the war will continue.
8
The Trump-Putin meeting actually represents the gradual acknowledgment that the “unipolar world”, which was declared by the US as the main feature of the post-USSR era, is coming to an end. This does not mean that the “multipolar” world, as advocated by Russia and China, will be immediately recognized. On the contrary, the major imperialist powers, namely the US, Germany, Japan, England, France and Italy, are far from accepting it. Therefore, it is not possible to say that the policies of war have come to an end.
From this perspective, it would not be correct to draw conclusions based on the first images that have reached us. The period we are going through is one in which, for any viewpoint, data can easily be presented as “evidence.” For this reason, it is necessary to look at the whole picture. And, of course, it must be kept in mind that the real power capable of ending the war is the working class, the world proletariat.
