(This article was originally published at the end of November 2024, in issue 10 of Socialist World, ISA’s international political journal. Contact Socialist Alternative to order a copy of the journal)
Over a century ago, V.I. Lenin summarized the experience of capitalist and imperialist rule for the workers and oppressed of the world quite succinctly: “horror without end.” Millions of words could be written about the endless catalog of shameful episodes that proved him right in the century that followed. But the pinnacle of this system’s horrors is the horror of war. Indeed, when Lenin wrote these words, the First World War was raging, which saw the needless slaughter of over 20 million working class and poor people in a dispute between rival gangs of imperialist oppressors, looters, and murderers.
Far from being the “war to end all wars” — a term that was in vogue among the naive intelligentsia of the triumphant allied powers at the time — it happened again, only this time it was much worse. A much higher death toll resulted from WWII, when the same central protagonist powers, with some variations (in particular the leading role of the USSR as a degenerated workers’ state on the winning side), sent the working class into war again. With this new war came a grotesque “innovation” which added a whole new dimension to the insanely destructive power of the imperialist war machine, when two atomic bombs were dropped on civilian populations in Japan by the only state yet to do so — the United States of America.
War has remained a constant feature of capitalism since then, even at the most, generally speaking, “peaceful” of conjunctures. However, following WWII, international capitalism’s prolonged “Cold War” with Stalinism framed an epoch dominated by a geopolitical power struggle of an entirely different type. Ultimately, the different character of this conflict was crucial in avoiding a third world war.
The world wars had been the culmination of conflicts between bloodthirsty imperialist powers, driven to implement great brutality by the inexorable and anarchic thirst for profit and plunder. In the USSR however, imperialism faced a foe with altogether different priorities. Far from fighting for world domination, the Soviet rulers were focused on maintaining their power and privilege within their respective states and bloc, which did not rest on capitalist economic foundations. They were therefore not driven towards global expansion in the same way as the imperialist economies but instead sought “peaceful coexistence” with the capitalist West. Indeed, the Stalinist leaders based themselves on the defeat of the 1917 Russian Revolution’s perspective of world revolution.
While the Cold War saw huge proxy wars — especially in Vietnam and Korea — and moments of great peril such as the Cuban missile crisis which provoked widespread fear of nuclear war, the Soviet Union’s ruling bureaucracy largely held the conflict back from the brink.
Its collapse then played a decisive role in accelerating the era of neoliberal globalization — which in geopolitical terms was that of unchallenged U.S. domination — in which the common wisdom asserted that a World War could never be repeated.
But fast forward 40 years to the 2020s, and the question is reasserting itself. Capitalism is in a profound crisis, and a key expression of this is a new inter-imperialist conflict that is raging between two blocs, led by the U.S. and China respectively. A devastating proxy war between these blocs is escalating in Ukraine, and a genocidal bloodbath in Gaza is fast spilling over into a regional war in the Middle East with the U.S.-backed Israeli state launching a powerful offensive against forces grouped around the Iranian regime, which is part of the rival imperialist bloc. A new arms race is gaining speed as is a deafening avalanche of nationalist, militarist propaganda from politicians and the media establishment around the world.
It is therefore inevitable that questions arise in the minds of engaged workers and young people internationally: how bad will this get? How far can they go? Even… could it (World War) happen again? The rest of this article will aim to dig a bit deeper.
Capitalism and Imperialism Mean War
The great bloody global conflagrations of the 20th century did not fall like bolts of lightning from a clear blue sky but were prepared and driven forward by the fundamental contradictions of the capitalist system. While the capitalist economy is international, capitalist classes are national, and the nation-state is just as fundamental to the system as private property and profit — though this was partly obscured in the era of neoliberal globalization, with greater mobility of capital and seemingly untrammeled corporate domination.
As capitalism developed in the nineteenth century, the concentration of wealth in the strongest national economies, the increasing tendency towards monopolization, and the emergence of finance capital led to the advent of imperialism. Described by Lenin as the “highest stage of capitalism” in a crucial book first published in 1917, imperialism saw national capitalist classes reach beyond their borders for markets and profits. This inevitably led to competition, and conflict between rival imperialist powers as they fought to dominate (and subjugate) the world. This has been the fundamental reason behind every major war since.
The New Imperialist Bloc Conflict
The truth is that global capitalism avoided more world wars after WWII, not because it became somehow more peaceful or learned lessons from history, but because the war’s outcome led to a prolonged regime of domination by a single imperialist power — the U.S. — which was largely unchallenged from within the capitalist world.
Following the collapse of Stalinist regimes in Russia and Eastern Europe, and capitalist restoration carried out “from above” by the misnamed “Communist” regime in China, the world changed quite fundamentally. Initially, this triumph of global capitalism lent the system a new lease of life, and led to a new zenith of globalization in the era of neoliberalism, under the dominion of U.S. imperialism.
But as the 21st century dawned, important shifts in the tectonic plates of global geopolitics began to take place. Accelerated by the devastating economic crisis of 2008, which had its epicenter in the U.S. and wider West, U.S. imperialism entered a phase of decline, and Chinese imperialism emerged as a powerful challenge to its place at the helm of world capitalism.
This objective tension spilled over into outright hostility in the 2010s, with the first episodes of trade, tech, and resource wars between the competing powers. New shocks to the system, in particular the Covid-19 pandemic and war in Ukraine, turbocharged this conflict further.
This led inevitably to the consolidation of competing U.S. and Chinese-led geopolitical blocs. The U.S. bloc is based fundamentally on continuing (if reduced) economic and financial dominance, its inheritance from the post-Cold War era, its “leadership” of NATO, its strongholds in the Middle East, and the continued might of the dollar, as well as the alliance with China’s regional adversaries like Japan and South Korea. The (blood-drenched and hypocritical) banner of its bloc, with which it seeks to cover up its ugly interests, is the struggle of democracy against autocracy, and the familiar “fight for freedom from tyranny.”
On the other hand, China has inevitably rallied behind its regimes that have clashed with U.S. imperialism such as Russia, Iran, and North Korea. On top of this, its imperialist expansion strengthened its hand in the “Global South” building new relationships of exploitation and dependence in Africa and Latin America through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and “debt diplomacy.“ It addresses the world as a supposedly benevolent counter-weight to U.S. imperialism, hiding its reactionary imperialist agenda behind an equally hypocritical banner of “anti-hegemony” and support of a “multi-polar world.”
The U.S. and China have obviously not yet gone to war, but at the same time, their conflict is decidedly not a “cold” one. The proxy war in Ukraine is approaching its third anniversary and has reportedly already led to over a million casualties (dead and wounded). Israeli capitalism, one of the key forces in the U.S.-led bloc, is currently plowing full steam ahead toward war with Iran, which is an increasingly important ally of Russia and China. Equally if not more bloody wars — as in Sudan and Congo — are taking place in Africa, with the fingerprints of the competing blocs all over them.
Three Key Theaters
There are currently three main theaters of concentrated conflict between the blocs: Ukraine, the Middle East, and the Western Pacific. As mentioned already, two of these have already exploded into bloody conflict. The third, in some respects the most decisive, is full of combustible material and is where the arms race and military build-up between the camps is the most extreme.
At the time of writing, the attention of the world is most firmly focused on the unfolding catastrophe which is spreading like a stain throughout the Middle East, on the first anniversary of the Israeli state’s genocidal war on Gaza.
Middle East — a War to “Change the Balance of Power”
ISA, in particular through our comrades in the region, has underlined the decisive nature of this war. It is not just another “round” of perpetual conflict, but a status quo-changing war which makes any return to a stable equilibrium in the region’s manifold tensions impossible. It is also firmly ensconced in the global inter-imperialist bloc conflict and threatens to have a deeply escalatory effect upon it.
The prospect of an all-out regional war, encompassing the territory, armies, and/or militias of Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, and potentially even further afield, is the stuff of nightmares for the masses of the Middle East and North Africa, and the world. However, for the bloodthirsty Israeli government, this path, which outside of the twisted logic of the ruling class resembles utter madness, appears to be a wonderful idea. Emboldened by the effectiveness of the blows struck to Hezbollah by assassinations and air strikes this autumn, and crucially by the unconditional backing of U.S. imperialism, a section of the Israeli ruling class wants to go “all in” to, in the words of the butcher Netanyahu, “change the balance of power in the region.”
What is meant by this is the qualitative intensification of national oppression of Palestinians, but also a decisive weakening of Iranian power. While Iran, for its part, has thus far acted with greater restraint, the aggressiveness of Israeli capitalism’s offensive against its interests is locking it into a retaliatory spiral, as seen by the unprecedented ballistic missile attack which partially pierced the IDF’s Iron Dome in October. The IDF’s retaliation in the form of strikes against military targets inside Iran was on a somewhat smaller scale than that feared by many, avoiding rumored attacks on energy or even nuclear facilities. However, at the time of writing, initial reports suggest that it was still significant enough to provoke further retaliation from Tehran.
U.S. and Western imperialism’s crocodile tears over civilian deaths in the slaughter in Gaza and mealy-mouthed appeals for restraint “from all sides” have at every stage given way to full-throated backing for Israel when push comes to shove.
However, its blood-soaked alliance with the Israeli state is also a source of deep crisis for the U.S.-led bloc. From Washington to London and beyond, Western governments’ backing for Israel’s genocidal onslaught has provoked political crises for governments and establishment parties. A massive protest movement has continued internationally, with ebbs and flows, and produced the biggest demonstrations in a decade in many countries.
Within the Israeli state itself, the war has sharpened and intensified internal and class contradictions, including among the Jewish population. Society was already in turmoil before the war began, with a historic mass movement against the government’s authoritarian “judicial reform.” Far from papering over this discontent, the government’s disastrous prosecution of the war on Gaza, and failure to return the hostages, led to further mass opposition, culminating in the historic general strike on September 2.
While Netanyahu’s latest regional escalations have temporarily boosted his popularity again, this powerful mass movement, and new explosions of mass working-class struggle throughout the region, point to the alternative that is so urgently needed amid this increasingly bleak scenario. In particular, the labor movement in the region and internationally must take the leadership of the movement, and move beyond mass protest to mass working class action to shut down the war machine.
Ukraine
In contrast to the Israeli state’s bloody onslaught in the Middle East which has deeply tarnished whatever credibility U.S.-led imperialism had globally, the war in Ukraine initially provided this bloc with an opportunity to posture as “the good guys.” This bloody conflict is still consistently presented in the Western media as a “just war” against Russian imperialism. Indeed the brutal February 2022 invasion galvanized most ordinary Ukrainians and the Ukrainian war effort was met with huge sympathy from ordinary people, especially in the West. But pretty quickly it became clear to many that, as Marxists pointed out from the beginning, this bloody conflict had very little to do with winning real national or social liberation for the Ukrainian people.
Over the course of the 2010s, the pro-EU part of the Ukrainian ruling class, increasingly tied to the aims of Western imperialism, had gained the upper hand in the country and overseen a massive U.S.-backed beefing up of its military. In turn, especially after the Russian invasion, the U.S. saw this conflict as a golden opportunity to forge a closer alliance of NATO countries in its sharpening conflict with Chinese imperialism and its allies, first and foremost Russia. When the war broke out, their strategists convinced themselves that they would be able to use their Ukrainian proxy to “degrade” the Russian military without having to commit their own troops. They saw no downside from their standpoint.
Two and a half years later, Ukrainian police “hunt” for men evading draft notices to force them into the military. People increasingly do not want to enlist because of the horrific level of casualties on both sides in an endless war of attrition.
In the spring of 2023, expectations were raised by NATO and the Western media about a Ukrainian counteroffensive after Russian forces suffered reverses the previous fall. The counteroffensive failed spectacularly, however, in no small measure due to greatly improved Russian defenses and better use of tactics and technology. The Ukrainian military is now increasingly in retreat despite tens of billions of dollars in NATO military aid. While the Russian military was derided in the Western media, the truth is that it has become more effective, with the advantages of a 24/7 war economy and a population over three times the size of Ukraine’s which facilitates the meat-grinder tactics of the Putin regime.
In recent months, the Russian military has seized a series of towns in the Donbass including strategically important settlements like Avdiivka and Vuhledar, and is closing in on even more important centers in Pokrovsk and Chasiv Yar. The capture of these could open the way for taking control of the remaining parts of the Donbas region (Donetsk and Luhansk provinces), most of which Russia occupies already. As the imperialist mouthpiece, the New York Times (9/23/24), now admits, since the failure of the 2023 counteroffensive, “European officials have spoken increasingly in private about Ukraine’s slim chances of recovering much lost land.”
This has made the Ukrainian leadership willing to take bigger risks like direct incursions into the Kursk region inside Russia and the campaign by Ukrainian officials to get U.S. and NATO support to use long-range Western rockets from within Russia to reach even further targets. Reckless moves like this have the potential to lead to a dangerous escalation of the war.
On the other side of the conflict, Putin has increasingly benefited from the support of allies in the Chinese-led bloc. While Iranian drones have reportedly been used on a large scale throughout the conflict, more recently the North Korean regime has stepped in to play a major role. Up to half of the artillery shells being fired by Russian troops in Ukraine are now supplied by Pyongyang. Moreover, in October, things went a step further with reports of over 10,000 North Korean troops being deployed to fight. While a relatively small number in comparison to the troops available to Putin at home, the direct involvement of a third country in the fighting is a chilling new red line crossed in this dangerous conflict.
Changing the dynamic of the war in Ukraine’s favor in a fundamental way would likely require sending NATO troops and aircraft in large numbers. This would be a massive escalation which would mean that the war was no longer a “proxy” conflict but a direct war between the China/Russia bloc and the U.S.-led bloc. While previously unthinkable red lines have been crossed already, this is an extremely unlikely step at this stage given the clear overextension of U.S. imperialism which is now engaged on three fronts, with the Middle East seemingly on the brink of all-out war. Even earlier this year there were problems supplying both the Ukrainian and Israeli armies with sufficient military supplies including artillery shells. This has also made U.S. allies in Asia nervous. And this is ultimately the key area of conflict.
Compounding this is the declining popular enthusiasm for the war in the West, including in Eastern Europe where support at the start was strongest. Many in NATO openly fret about prospects for continuing the commitment to Ukraine at the current level.
All of this makes the possibility of Ukraine and the U.S. seeking a negotiated solution more likely. However, it remains to be seen whether an emboldened Putin regime would be prepared to settle for a freeze in the conflict if it feels that more can be won on the battlefield in the coming months. Any deal reached would only be a temporary pause in a war which would almost certainly resume at a later stage. On the other hand, a failure to agree to a truce could catapult the war toward even more catastrophic escalation.
All in all, things do not look good for Ukraine and NATO in the current phase of this war. However, a temporary setback to U.S. imperialism’s ambitions in the Ukraine conflict will in no way change the direction of the wider conflict of which it is part.
Western Pacific
The Western Pacific is the key “theater” in the developing conflict between the two blocs, even if it is not the focus of global attention at the moment. It is situated at the heart of the “Pacific Rim”, now called the “Indo-Pacific” by U.S. imperialism’s representatives as a way to include India. This is the central region of the world economy today, just as the Atlantic Rim was the center up until the late 20th century. The Indo-Pacific based on this definition accounts for more than half the world’s population, 60% of global GDP, half of world trade, and two-thirds of global economic growth (U.S. State Department).
The struggle for control of the Western Pacific — especially the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait — will most likely be the decisive issue that determines the outcome of the contest between the two global hegemons. Around $5 trillion or about one third of global commerce passes each year through the South China Sea while Taiwan is the center of global high-end microprocessor production, which is vital to the world economy. Taiwan is “China’s Taiwan” according to the Chinese dictatorship and is viewed as increasingly crucial to its hopes for long-term survival. But the majority of Taiwan’s 23 million population strongly oppose any idea of rule from Beijing. This is where either side could deliver a crippling blow to the other.
There has been a steady ratcheting up of tensions over several years. Incidents such as the aggressive moves by the Chinese coast guard against Philippine fishing vessels could quickly get out of control. Meanwhile, the U.S. is steadily fortifying a chain of allies and bases to help “contain” (in reality encircle) China including in the Philippines, South Korea, Japan, and Australia. India is also a key part of the equation. It is not a signed-up member of the U.S. bloc and would rather maintain a degree of independence. However, it is more hostile to China and has been heavily courted by U.S. imperialism.
A great deal of speculation focuses on whether and when the CCP regime would try to invade Taiwan to “reunify” China. In reality, invading and conquering Taiwan would be very challenging militarily. However, if China were to succeed it would represent a catastrophic blow to U.S. imperialism’s position in the region, indeed a major blow to its global position. Conversely, were China to lose out in a confrontation over Taiwan, it would be catastrophic to the prestige and military position of the regime, internally and externally. While military buildup on both sides continues, a direct military conflict is unlikely in the short term.
At the moment the direct conflict between the U.S. and China focuses on a sharpening trade rivalry, with the Biden administration and its allies ramping up protectionist measures against China’s alleged “overproduction” and “dumping” of goods. At a later stage, the conflict could move from protectionism and build up of military forces to attempts to blockade key goods or resources by both sides or to break through a blockade.
This is part of why the U.S. seeks to maintain its dominant position in the Middle East. Military dominance in the Middle East among other things means the ability to shut off China’s main source of oil. Any attempted or threatened blockades require massive naval power which China has been working very hard to develop. It now has a greater number of naval vessels than the U.S. and is rapidly building aircraft carriers but its navy still has only half the tonnage of the U.S. As well as this, China seeks to develop other sources for key resources that use overland routes in Asia as part of avoiding a future naval blockade. This is part of the reason that its alliance with Russia is so important. But in reality, China is still far from achieving military parity with the U.S.
From Postwar to Prewar
Like Lenin and Trotsky before us, the ISA sees the periodic struggles for global hegemony as an inherent feature of imperialism which in the last resort lead to war. World War I represented the end of the domination of British imperialism, enforced through the control of global markets, the gold standard, and militarily through the British navy. The Russian Revolution, which ultimately ended the war, opened up a more fundamental challenge to capitalism, whose reverberations continued through the 20th century.
The situation today in some ways resembles the period before World War I as Britain faced the growing challenge of Germany and the U.S. as rising powers. In between the two world wars, there was no clear dominant capitalist power, an inherently unstable situation. World War II marked the beginning of the 80-year American domination of the capitalist world. This has now definitively ended.
Similarly to today, World War II was also preceded by conflicts in the 1930s in several separate “theaters” between different imperialist powers. This included the offensive campaign in East Asia by a rising Japanese imperialism, the assertion of Italian imperialism in the Mediterranean and Africa, and an increasingly assertive Nazi Germany in Europe. These theaters then merged into one global conflict.
All historical analogies have limitations. However, the preparation for future blockades by China and the U.S. and the role of naval power show that war today is not as different as some have previously envisioned. The brutal war in the Pacific from 1941 and 1945 which was a key theater of World War II began with an effective blockade by the U.S. against Japan particularly of oil supplies. The famous Japanese attack on the U.S. Navy’s key base at Pearl Harbor was in reality part of their attempt to break that blockade. The war in Ukraine with its emphasis on trench warfare and massive levels of casualties is also reminiscent of the 20th century.
Nuclear Deterrent?
But the existence of nuclear arsenals also makes today’s wars by the main powers and future global conflict different in very important respects. The “nuclear powers” include the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, and China; but also include North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel. They will very possibly soon include Iran and potentially several other countries.
After World War II, many believed that nuclear weapons and the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) would ensure that a global war involving the key powers would not happen again. However, the current war in Ukraine and the buildup in the Western Pacific, show that this is not now the view of the imperialists themselves.
They tend to see their nuclear arsenals as “insurance policies” that prevent a major direct invasion of their homelands. Clearly, imperialist strategists are now anticipating extensive “conventional” wars between the key imperialist blocs, as we already see in Ukraine.
Regimes can develop illusions in their ability to limit the scope of wars through shrewd tactics, gambling on their ability to force the other side back. The term “escalate to de-escalate” has begun to do the rounds once more. But even conceiving of going further down this path is in itself an expression of the madness of decaying capitalism. Despite the best-laid plans of governments and ruling classes, there are extreme risks of such a war leading to the use of nuclear weapons.
U.S. Military Preparing for War
Several recent documents issued by sections of the U.S. state show how far they will be prepared to go in the coming period down the road to war with its key adversaries. At the same, they also indicate that a full-scale global conflict is not imminent in the short term. While it can move quickly, ultimately the process is only beginning.
The recent report of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, appointed by the U.S. Congress, starkly poses that the emergence of the bloc opposing the U.S. including China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran “creates a real risk, if not likelihood, that conflict anywhere could become a multitheater or global war.” Obviously, they do not accept that U.S. imperialism has had any role in creating the basis for this conflict. They also nauseatingly frame their preparation for a global conflict as a necessary part of “deterrence”; i.e. preparation for war to prevent it.
They conclude that the U.S. and its allies are not prepared for this conflict. In particular, they state that “… the U.S. defense industrial base (DIB) is unable to meet the equipment, technology, and munitions needs of the United States and its allies and partners. A protracted conflict, especially in multiple theaters, would require much greater capacity to produce, maintain, and replenish weapons and munitions. Addressing the shortfall will require increased investment, additional manufacturing and development capacity, joint and coproduction with allies, and additional flexibility in acquisition systems.”
Predictably this analysis, which is aimed at convincing the political establishment to make a massive shift towards preparation for war, exaggerates the advantages that China has gained. However, the intention to transform the U.S. economy towards war readiness is very real. This type of argument is also being deployed in a number of Western European countries, including Germany, with constant propaganda about preparing for a likely war with Russia in the coming years. This is an incredible change in a country whose ruling class favored maintaining close economic relationships with Russia and China until very recently. This propaganda is also part of preparing public opinion for the hardship, including austerity measures, that militarisation will bring as the working class is called on to foot the bill.
Besides a massive commitment of resources, which means abandoning any serious effort to mitigate climate change as well as cutting social services, healthcare, and education, the pre-war phase also involves a relentless ideological campaign to prepare the ground for the conflicts to come and attacks on strikes and social movements. One form this has taken is the relentless “anti-antisemitism” campaign in the West, including increasing repression directed in a number of countries against the movement in solidarity with the people of Palestine. In the U.S., in the wake of last spring’s campus occupations by students which faced significant repression, a much tighter regime of control of any form of dissenting political expression on college campuses has been introduced.
The Role of Mass Revolutionary Struggle in the Fight to End War
The history of the past century shows that the warmongers and imperialists do not always get things their own way but that it takes mass struggle and ultimately social revolutions to end wars.
Revolutionary Russia left World War I which Lenin described as “an imperialist, capitalist war, a predatory war, a war for the oppression of small and foreign nations, a war for the sake of the profits of the capitalists.” even though it had to pay a heavy price in the treaty of Brest Litovsk in 1918.
In the bloody war by imperialism against the Vietnamese revolution first by Japanese, then French, and finally U.S. imperialism, the heroic struggle of the Vietnamese people was combined with increased resistance within U.S. society. This included within the working class, on college campuses, and within the military itself. All of these combined to deal imperialism a massive blow in 1975.
Sections of U.S. imperialism wanted to intervene directly into Southern Africa, including in Angola, on the side of the apartheid regime seen as “fighting communism” in the late 1970s but concluded that it was politically infeasible. This was also in the wake of the revolutionary movement by the Portuguese working class leading to Portugal exiting militarily its colonial “possessions” in the region.
Today ISA today calls for internationalist working class mass struggle against imperialism and the drift towards war. The only way to permanently end the insane fight by imperialist countries for global hegemony is to end the diseased social system on which it is based.
Marxists must warn of the grave political dangers for any on the left who would oppose only one of the imperialist camps. Today, this usually takes the form of supporting China and its allies as a relatively “progressive” force against U.S. hegemony or denying China or Russia’s imperialist character.
But there have also been those on the left who have effectively supported U.S. imperialism in Ukraine in the name of taking the side of oppressed countries. As in World War I, anti-imperialism must mean opposition to all the imperialist alliances, not supporting one as allegedly more progressive than the other. It means opposing the whole system of imperialism.
We also oppose those who say that different political forces on the left and the right should unite on the basis of their “opposition to war.” This has, for example, been part of the basis of Sara Wagengnecht’s politics as leader of a new left populist party in Germany which has steadily moved to the right. First of all, such opposition to war from the right usually is only “tactical” rather than an issue of principle. It means opposition to a particular war — often because they have other wars they want to fight — not opposition to imperialism or the capitalist system as a whole. They only prefer another way to increase power and profits.
While fighting to build support for a revolutionary socialist internationalist program, we strive for unity in action with other forces in the labor movement, Left and social movements, against imperialism, militarization, and wars.
In all protests and all movements, we consistently advocate the only way to end the drive to war: international socialist revolution. Those who suffer from historical short-sightedness may dismiss this as fanciful, but Marxists understand that the intractable poly crises of capitalism and the immense power of the working class — the only truly internationalist social force on the planet — lay the basis to make this perspective a reality.
