by RASTI DELIZO & FEDERICO FUENTES

In the second of a three-part series, Delizo talks to Federico Fuentes from LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal about the impacts of US-China tensions on Philippine politics and the left. Part I, which looks at the factors underpinning US-China tensions and the dangers posed for the Asia-Pacific region can be read here.

How do you explain current dynamics within global capitalism?

There is a distinct but related set of dynamics that generates global capitalism’s endless conflicts. The imperialist world system does not just produce full-scale wars of aggression by traditional imperialist powers. It also induces sub-imperialist powers in the semi-periphery of world capitalism to launch regional wars for capital accumulation. This is another material factor expressing capitalism’s utterly decomposing nature. These complexities deepen the international order’s structurally exploitative, oppressive, and repressive circumstances.

Here, I would clarify that the Russian Federation is an imperialist great power rather than a sub-imperialist state (as I explained in a prior LINKS interview). Russia is a close strategic ally of China and belongs to the same imperialist bloc. The China-Russia bloc is a fraction of the imperialist core. As a direct consequence, this duo is caught in a competition with its rival imperialist bloc, led by the US and allied imperialist states of the G7.

These two groups compete to win predominance over the imperialist world system. These disparate blocs — representing diametrically opposed pro-capitalist camps — chase superprofits for the ruling-class elites of their respective capitalist states. They use capitalist mechanisms of exploitation, via their extensive territorial spheres of influence reinforced by military force, to guarantee greater capital accumulation.

Returning to your first question: a complex reality of varied but constantly moving parts moulds and propels the international system of monopoly-finance capital. The imperialist world system’s evolving globalised structures and processes are critically driven by paradoxes creating worldwide tensions and hostilities.

These global antagonisms are primarily caused by the uneven and combined development throughout the world. These unequal features, when combined with asymmetrical material realities (imperialist powers, sub-imperialist states, subjugated countries), causes international conflicts among diverse state actors operating within the capitalist system. It is this universal setting that causes non-imperialist great powers to also wield military power beyond their borders to secure capitalist profits from their immediate spheres of influence.

As a result, there are a cluster of sub-imperialist nation-states operating throughout various regions. Some rose from imperialism’s post-1945 phase of development , while others appeared after the end of the Cold War. These sub-imperialist countries play a specifically combined economic, political and military role within global capitalism.

Today even smaller nations such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, among others, exert military power beyond their borders, either directly or through proxies. Is that what you mean by sub-imperialist?

As a part of the structures underpinning the international division (and redivision) of labour — mainly along particular zones of capitalist production-distribution-consumption — sub-imperialist states are located within the semi-periphery.

Links for more

by M. A. HOSSAIN

The deeper story here is not about tariffs or China. It is about an insecure America that has lost its way

For decades, the relationship between the United States and Canada belonged to the category of geopolitical facts so stable they barely required analysis.

A shared border without fortifications. Deeply integrated supply chains. Energy interdependence so extensive it blurred the distinction between domestic and foreign trade.

If alliances were marriages, this one looked less like a romance than a long, practical partnership—occasionally dull, rarely dramatic and almost never existential. That assumption has now been punctured – and loudly so.

Donald Trump’s threat to impose a 100% tariff on Canadian goods is not merely another episode in his familiar trade brinkmanship. It marks a deeper shift: the weaponization of economic power against a close ally for exercising sovereign choice.

Not over war. Not over security. But over trade policy—specifically, Canada’s decision to strike a limited, pragmatic arrangement with China.

The question raised is not whether tariffs “work” in some abstract economic sense. History has already delivered its verdict on that front. The more unsettling question is political: Can the US, under Trump’s vision, tolerate even mild strategic autonomy among its allies? Or does loyalty now require submission?

From strategic partnership to conditional sovereignty

Trump’s argument, stripped of its rhetoric, is straightforward. If Canada becomes a conduit for Chinese goods entering the US market, punishment will follow. The premise rests on the idea that Canada’s trade decisions are legitimate only insofar as they align with Washington’s preferences. Sovereignty, in this view, is conditional.

That logic would have been foreign to earlier American statecraft. During the Cold War,the US tolerated—sometimes grudgingly—independent economic relations among allies, from West Germany’s trade with the Soviet bloc to Japan’s mercantilist policies that hollowed out American manufacturing towns.

Washington complained. It pressured. But it rarely threatened economic annihilation of its closest partners. Trump has crossed that line repeatedly. Canada is not an outlier; it is a test case.

Asia Times for more

by NADEEM F. PARACHA

The concept of ‘post-ideology’ often causes profound unease, as it suggests that the era of sweeping political narratives and dogmas is giving way to a more pragmatic, technocratic approach to governance. For many, this transition is a deeply troubling thought that feels like a betrayal of the very soul of politics. 

Critics frequently ask how systems can function without a moral compass. For instance, the American scholar Francis Fukuyama noted that humans possess an innate desire for ‘thymos’ or the recognition of their dignity, which is often tied to the grand visions and ideological frameworks that post-ideology seeks to discard.

While it is true that pragmatism and realism are themselves forms of ideological thought, they differ fundamentally from ‘hard’ ideologies such as socialism, fascism, liberalism, nationalism etc. Unlike these boxed frameworks, realism/pragmatism is a fluid, outcome-oriented approach that prioritises the survival and prosperity of society over the preservation of abstract theory. 

To paraphrase the American philosopher John Dewey, “An idea is true only insofar as it works.” Pragmatism, therefore, is a concept of tangible results rather than a set of moral commands. The German-American political scientist Hans Morgenthau argued that political realism is governed by objective laws of interest rather than moralistic or ideological preferences.

As political narratives lose their grip, governance across the world is increasingly being shaped by pragmatism, data and outcomes rather than dogma

A shift towards post-ideology governance is accelerating, representing a significant global phenomenon. Narratives once defined by the existential struggles between hard ideologies are increasingly being replaced by models that prioritise state efficiency, economic results and social stability. This transition is recognised by political scientists as a ‘managerial’ turn in global politics, a concept first pioneered by the American political theorist James Burnham. 

One can understand why this shift is problematic for some. In the contemporary digital space, for example, social media has provided a convenient mechanism for individuals to construct and broadcast their ‘ideological’ personas. Users present themselves as democrats, socialists, religious nationalists or even neo-fascists. This phenomenon is exacerbated by the fact that these declarations have been monetised. Social media creates a commercial incentive to cling to dogmas or move from one ideological cliché to the next.

Dawn for more

by B. R. GOWANI

many people I come across complain about

• wars
• hatred
• poverty
• phobias
• violence
• inflation
• misogyny
• inequality
• intolerance
• anti–LGBTIQ
• communalism
• …

then they all ask:

will things change:

I have to say “yes, thing will change”

because that’s what they want to hear

but then I can’t delude them

I clarify:

“the way events are happening in the Trumpverse

“things will change for the worse”

their hopes are dashed

but at least they know the reality

how each will cope, I don’t know

B. R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com

by SAGOR HASNATH

I am a student of business, trained to see the world through the discipline’s analytic frame. From that vantage point, politics can resemble commerce. It can be seen as an exercise in offering services to prospective clients and persuading an audience.

With that perspective in mind, I set out to approach this election as a business case study. My intention is to examine the promotional strategies, competitive advantages and structural shortcomings of the BNP and Jamaat, and to draw lessons that may be useful to business owners and brand practitioners. 

Because this is an academic exercise, readers will inevitably find points open to debate. I would encourage, however, that it be read as analysis rather than advocacy. 

Though written primarily for fellow business observers, it may also offer political practitioners insights as they refine their future strategies.

What stood out most on the campaign trail was the stark disparity in brand visibility between the BNP and the Jamaat alliance. By my estimation, the difference was considerable—perhaps as wide as a ratio of 10 to 2. 

The BNP appeared dominant across nearly every physical touchpoint. Booths, banners, posters and manpower.

In modern markets, a superior product alone rarely guarantees success. Visibility and availability play decisive roles in consumer choice. 

Large corporations understand this well. They invest heavily to secure prominent shelf space, position products at eye level and ensure their presence in high-traffic retail environments. 

These decisions are rooted in careful calculations about human behavior.

This dynamic often reinforces itself. Smaller brands, constrained by limited resources, struggle to invest in visibility. Without visibility, they fail to grow. And without growth, they remain unable to invest. 

It is a self-perpetuating cycle familiar to anyone who studies market competition. This election, in many ways, illustrated that same principle.

The lesson is not abstract for me. At Beefwala—the restaurant brand that I run—we long took a casual approach to visibility, preferring the romance of being a “hidden gem.” 

We assumed that a strong product would draw customers on its own merit. As a result, we neglected even the basics: clear road signage and a visible presence. This election has forced me to reconsider. Quality alone is not sufficient. 

Visibility, too, requires deliberate investment.

Online vs real life

The contrast between online and offline strategy was equally striking. 

Jamaat demonstrated formidable strength in the digital arena. Its supporters produced a steady stream of short-form videos, coordinated social media activity and memorable campaign songs. Online, their presence was unmistakable.

Yet on the ground, the balance shifted. The BNP relied on scale and physical engagement. Its workers canvassed neighborhoods, staffed booths and maintained a visible, continuous presence. 

The party’s offline infrastructure appeared broader and more persistent.

This divergence suggests a miscalculation common in both politics and business: overestimating the reach of digital engagement while underestimating the enduring importance of physical presence. 

The result was not merely a difference in tactics, but in perception. Where one side dominated screens, the other dominated streets. 

And in markets, as in elections, presence often shapes outcome.

There is, however, a warning here for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Its victory was more fragile than it appeared. The reason the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami was able to challenge it at all was the BNP’s anemic digital presence. 

Politics, like business, punishes those who misread the direction of momentum. If the BNP learns to capture public sentiment online with the same discipline it demonstrated offline, its dominance could harden into something far more durable.

The larger lesson is unmistakable though. Online activism alone is insufficient. Offline machinery alone is insufficient. Power now belongs to those who integrate both. 

Businesses that rely exclusively on digital channels expose themselves to sudden disruption. Those that remain stubbornly analog surrender vast, expanding markets. 

The same is true in politics. Hybrid strength is no longer optional. It is the price of relevance.

Bangla Outlook for more

by BRIAN BASSANIO

Despite demographic marginalisation and cultural retreat, Hindu sacred music continues to live in Pakistan.

In Pakistan, the Hindu minority lives largely in Sindh and southern Punjab, with smaller pockets in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. There are estimated to be over five million Hindus (including both Jati and Scheduled Caste communities), making them the largest non-Muslim minority in the country.

Jati groups such as Brahmins, Rajputs, Thakurs, Lohanas, and Maheshwaris tend to be more urban and influential, often active in business, medicine, or law. Scheduled Castes, legally designated in the mid-twentieth century, include Meghwar, Kolhi, Bheel, Oad, Bagri, Balmiki, and others.

They are the majority of Pakistan’s Hindus, yet they face layered disadvantage: religion places them at the margins of the national majority, and caste places them at the margins of Hindu society itself. Seats reserved for Hindus in government rarely reflect this lower-caste majority, and literacy among Scheduled Caste women remains among the lowest in South Asia.

Among the cultural traditions affected by these social and political pressures is Hindu sacred music. It has deep roots in the Indus region. The ancient concept of nada brahma, the idea that creation itself is sonic, still informs devotional practice.

The foundations of Hindu music lie in Vedic literature, where syllabic chanting, melody, and movement coalesced into sangeeta. Over time, the Bhakti movement widened participation to all communities through vernacular song, and its poetic aesthetics, described through raas theory, shaped emotional and spiritual expression.

Before 1947, the region experienced centuries of mutual cultural influence among Hindus and Muslims, producing a shared artistic environment sometimes described as Ganga Jamuna Tehzeeb. In this setting, musical identities were porous and devotional repertoires travelled across communities.

Partition disrupted that world. State policies after independence, combined with broader social prejudice, pushed overtly Hindu cultural forms out of mainstream public life. These dynamics did not erase sacred music but changed how it lived.

The Express Tribune for more

by ELISA CHIA

SINGAPORE – Oxford University Press has declared “rage bait” as its 2025 Word of the Year, while Dictionary.com cast its vote for “6 7” and Collin’s Dictionary chose “vibe coding”.

These selections offer a compelling snapshot of prevailing cultural and social trends, particularly among the young digital-native generation, over the past year.

You may have overheard your children saying these very words, perhaps leaving you with a momentary sense of frustration as you struggled to follow their conversation.

Navigating the rapidly evolving vocabulary of youth can feel like deciphering an entirely new language.

But do not worry, the following chat has been decoded to help you “gain aura” (slang for boost one’s cool factor) with your children.

Lucas: Bruh, Jennie just posted that “I study only two hours a day” video again.

Zoey: That’s 100 per cent rage bait.
(Rage bait: Posting online content just to make people mad and argue in the comments, thereby driving up engagement and traffic.)

Lucas: Exactly. She’s just trying to aura farm at this point.
(Aura farm: Act confident or mysterious online to gain clout or admiration.)

Zoey: But it’s working for her. She is just vibe coding chill energy while everyone in the comments is like “teach me your ways”.
(Vibe coding: Creating an app or website using artificial intelligence. But among teens, it can mean doing something to evoke a certain mood.)

Lucas: Facts. Meanwhile, I post one chill pic and get two likes – one’s you and one’s mum.

Zoey: No cap, that’s a flop era moment right there.
(No cap: For real, not lying. Flop era: A phase when you are not doing well or not getting attention.)

Lucas: 6 7
(6 7: Pronounced “six sevennn”, not sixty-seven. Largely a playful sign-off or an acknowledgement without a concrete meaning, while some say it means “so-so”.)

Straits Times for more

EDITORS, THE BLACK AGENDA REVIEW

“The Poor People’s Campaign is the greatest single challenge ever unleashed upon our colonial system.”

Revisiting the Reverend Jesse L. Jackson’s essay “Resurrection City: The Dream… the Accomplishments” in the hours after his death is to encounter a morose nostalgia – and, quickly following, an acute rage. “Resurrection City” was published in Ebony magazine in October 1968. In the essay, Reverend Jackson recounts the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., before his April 4, 1968 assassination, for a political program focussing on poverty, economic injustice, and the profound and violent class differences — the brutal divisions between rich and poor — cutting across racial lines in the United States. King’s vision resulted in the Poor People’s Campaign. 

Under the leadership of Reverend Ralph Abernathy and other leaders of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), the Poor People’s Campaign joined with a cross-racial alliance of advocates for the poor and working class organizations to carry out Dr. King’s vision of an occupation of the US Capitol’s National Mall to make visible the plight of the poor to the US government. Groups organized caravans from all over the US to travel to Washington DC. They began arriving in Washington on May 5th. On May 13th at an opening ceremony, Dr. Abernathy dedicated the site as “Resurrection City, U.S.A.” and construction of the wood dwellings began. The encampment had about 3000 dwellings and more than 50,000 people lived on the site – in the heart of the US government.

Resurrection City is probably better remembered for its quick death than for its short life. It lasted but forty-two days. Media coverage focussed on its internal political difficulties, the apparent failure of its progressive vision for economic reform, and the near-Biblical storms that turned it into a city of mud and wood and frustrated dreams.

Yet in his Ebony essay, Reverend Jackson, dismisses the easy criticisms, along with the one-dimensional and slanted media coverage. He instead pointed to Resurrection City’s accomplishments: its gathering of disparate racial groups of poor people and its attempts to center economics and class as the unifying force of US politics over narrow sectional and racial interests.

It is striking to read the Reverend Jackson of 1968. His personality and politics have been flattened and caricatured in the intervening years: after his two candidacies of the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party (1984 and 1988), with the control of the party by the right-wing Democratic Leadership Council and the rise of Bill Clinton, and, especially as Obama engulfed Black politics. Yet, of course, Reverend Jackson was also both the product of a movement and a bellwether of the times. To read in Ebony magazine of all places his progressive demands for jobs and economic justice, his attacks on militarism, imperialism, and oligarchy, and his advocacy of inter-racial alliance suggests something of a long-lost era in US politics. Hence the nostalgia, but also the anger: what has happened to US politics, to Black politics, in the intervening decades has been nothing short of disastrous.

Jackson’s “Resurrection City” is a document of a lost politics — a politics that needs to rise from the dead. We reprint it below.

Resurrection City: The Dream…The Accomplishments

by JESSE JACKSON

From May to July the Poor People’s Campaign converged on Washington, D.C., to challenge the nation’s economic structure to address the problems of poverty in America. Much has been written and filmed about the campaign, but now I want to submit my reflections on this phase of the struggle for human rights.

From its inception in the mind of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to the forceful closing of Resurrection City, the Poor People’s Campaign had an awesome task: to help the nation determine its priorities. In Birmingham, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference challenged America’s priorities in relationship to its social structure. In Selma, that challenge was extended to the political structure. Finally, the time came to raise the economic issues to the conscience of the nation.

America had been alerted that 40 million people, a full one-fifth of the world’s richest nation, were living below the poverty level.

Buried midst the tons of information was the fact that 30,000 jobs were being lost to the labor market each week by technological advances. In order to meet the growing anxiety of the American people, the Poor People’s Campaign took up the burden of raising the issue of poverty to the surface of our national conscience and to expose its devastation in the lives of millions of poor people.

Someone had to cry out for justice in a land that has placed priority on profits rather than persons.

Someone had to ring out with clear moral authority that 10 million people went to bed each night suffering physical destruction from malnutrition to acute starvation.

Someone had to say that not only do we need jobs but that we also need a redefinition of work.

Someone had to plead for a quality in life that offered wages, but more importantly, fulfillment.

Someone had to demand that involuntary starvation should be a punishable crime in a land of surplus and waste.

But so often only the incidentals of the Campaign were communicated to the nation. Such incidents included the record downpour of rain and the resulting mud in Resurrection City. The care of the mule train, the mire and the inherent confusion in a massive task of building a city of many ethnic groups were amplified or printed out of proportion by the news media. Thus the general level of the nation’s insensitivity and unawareness was in part attributable to a press that deals often in sensationalism, personalities and in protecting big business. And the press preferred to print apparent feelings about the death of Dr. King and Senator Robert Kennedy rather than focus upon the issues damning the poor to hungering insignificance. Thus a nation largely uninformed was challenged to judge the personal behavior of poor people rather than the collective behavior of the Congress.

Given the press preferences for problems of process rather than the purpose of the Poor People’s Campaign, the adversaries of the poor exploded those problems out of proportion in order to avoid the issues of inequity in our economic structure. From mud to personality differences in Resurrection City occupied their time rather than the cries for food, jobs and opportunity that brought Resurrection City into being. But a new idea was moving from the excitement of conception to the fermentation and growth to the laboring pains of anguish when moments of history yield forth new life.

GATHERING THE POOR

What was the difficulty? The pain involved pulling together all of America’s poor: the Indians, the Puerto Ricans, the Mexican-Americans, the poor whites, the poor [B]lacks — each of whom had been taught that the others were enemies. Historical circumstances forced each group apart and structured in each disrespect for the other. We had been so obsessed with competing with one another for the few jobs and privileges at the bottom of the economy that we dared not threaten our status with too much public or political identification. We thought competition was our most effective tool, when cooperation is our real challenge. Many of us had analyzed our problem to be simply race, when, in reality, race is only a part of the problem. Class is another part of the problem. There is an inherent contempt that the economic system holds for the suppressed at the bottom of the economy. Yet the economy of the nation rests upon the shoulders of the oppressed.

The first meetings of these different ethnic groups were exciting but tense. The groups were full of fear and mistrust of one another. Each group felt that it had a monopoly on pain and suffering. So meetings were long as we bore with one another’s sermons on the effects of particular aches and pains. This was a period of anxiety when each group began learning to appreciate the other, to gather information about the other.

With our [B]lack-white analysis few of us realized that there are more poor whites in numbers than poor [B]lacks. But in percentages, more [B]lacks are poor than whites. Few of us really understood the insignificant role relegated to the poor white class by the rich white class. We realized that [B]lacks are a despised caste within the poor class. But at least we were a caste which the system calculated to make us suffer but allow us to live. While [B]lacks were slated to be ground up by the economic system based upon slavery, and eliminated as the technological development of the system rendered them unnecessary, the ultimate destiny of [B]lacks was genocide spread from generation to generation. Seldom do we realize that [B]lack capitulation to the tyranny of the slave system provided us the means to struggle for our survival midst our suffering and our destiny to die. White people concluded that “a good nigger was an obedient nigger,” and they taught us that obedience was better than sacrifice. Thus, we developed survival techniques that included acting docile and meek even though we always felt differently. Uncle Tomism because for us an involuntary state of existence developed for survival.

At the same time, America’s Indians were destined to instant genocide, tribe by tribe, day by day. The Indians, with their strong sense of identity and pride, were confronted by the forces of tyranny invading their lands and homes. They remained anti-colonialist and contended that their land had been taken, and for this they were driven from their homes to reservations in the desert regions to die rather than in ghettos or colonies to work. So anti-colonial were their actions that white people concluded that “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.”

Another technique used upon [B]lacks, but not upon other poor minorities, was social integration. We integrated from pain and brutality and humiliation, not toward joy and fulfillment. Blacks have never been covetous of the talents or souls of white folks. Only whites’ privileged status and social protection appealed to [B]lacks. Our total uprooting and separation from our tribes, languages, culture and land is the fundamental reason for our actions. As [B]lacks we were taken from our land and brought here. We experienced the whites as rapists of our dignity. On the other hand, the Indians’ sense of nationhood, or peoplehood, is responsible for their collective behavior for freedom or death. The Indians and the Mexican-Americans experienced the Europeans as rapists of their land.

In Resurrection City the poor whites began to see how they had been used as tools of the economic system to keep other minority groups in check. Perhaps the poor whites were the most tricked of all the poor in that they are in the same economy class as the others. Their problems are basically the same, in fact as ours: a need for food, jobs, medicine and schools. However, they were given police rights over “niggers,” a plan which satisfies their sick egos but does not deal with any of their basic problems.

It was in our wallowing together in the mud of Resurrection City that we were allowed to hear, to feel and to see each other for the first time in our American experience. This vast task of acculturation, of pulling the poor together as a way of amassing economic, political and labor power, was the great vision of Dr. King.

Black Agenda Report for more

by FARID PANJWANI

“he top 10% own three-quarters of global wealth, while the bottom half holds only 2%.” So states the World Inequality Report 2026. Can democracy survive when capitalism concentrates wealth so drastically?

The belief that democracy and capitalism are natural allies is as widespread as it is inaccurate. To see this, one has only to observe capitalist accumulation under authoritarian political arrangements. The UAE is just one such example. Why then does this belief persist?

Democracy and capitalism often journey together — until they don’t. To a point, they do support each other. This is why it is not easy to find democracies without capitalism. Think of a society, poor and authoritarian, that then undergoes a revolutionary change that makes it both democratic and capitalist. For a while, the two wo­­uld go together. Democracy would bring freedom and political equality; capitalism would bring resources.

Even Marx acknowledged that capitalism creates ‘colossal productive forces’. The growing middle class would demand greater freedoms and consumption, thereby strengthening both democracy and capitalism. For some time, prosperity and empowerment would rise together.

But this harmonious co-existence would soon wear off. Democracy is about political equality. Capitalism, by design, needs economic inequality. The two would eventually collide. In time, the wealth generated by capitalism starts to pool in fewer and fewer pockets. Growth continues, distribution falters. Tensions begin to appear.

Democracy is about political equality. Capitalism, by design, needs economic inequality.

This concentration is not just financial. Being rich doesn’t just mean plush houses or private jets. It means connections and information, as the wealthy form exclusive social ties, venture together, share insights and tastes, thus increasing their collective purse. French sociologist Bourdieu has called this social capital, “aggregate of actual or potential resources” that bring tangible benefits. High-profile events such as the Ambani wedding illustrate how this transformation happens. But the process does not stop here.

Social capital soon becomes political capital, with the wealthy getting access to the political class, who make laws. The role of the corporate lobby and campaign funding is well documented. These are some of the ways in which wealth buys political influence. Elon Musk’s access to and authority in the White House was an example of the political power wealth can bring. Consequently, economic values of capitalism start to prevail over the political ideals of democracy, human rights and political equality, as the market dictates the state.

Dawn for more