American voters have dealt President Donald Trump a political blow. In the November 3 midterm elections, Democrats won control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, ending the Republicans’ hold on Congress.
The result reflects growing public frustration. The rising cost of living, corruption allegations, and the war with Iran have all contributed to dissatisfaction with the administration. For many Americans, the question is no longer simply who controls Washington. It is whether the government is addressing the problems that ordinary people face every day.
The election does not mean Americans have suddenly embraced socialism. Nor can the Republican defeat be explained by opposition to the war alone. But it does tell us something important: foreign policy is not separate from people’s everyday economic concerns. Wars have costs. Those costs eventually reach households through fuel prices, inflation, government spending and economic uncertainty.
And that brings us to a much bigger question.
Why does the world seem to move from one economic crisis to another? Why are wars, political instability and competition among powerful nations becoming such defining features of our time? And what does all this say about the economic system that shapes our lives?
For Marxists, these developments cannot be understood separately. They are connected to the contradictions of capitalism itself, particularly the concentration of economic power, private ownership of the means of production and the continuing drive to accumulate profit.
This does not mean every war is simply a business venture or that every political conflict can be reduced to economics. History is more complicated than that. But economic interests, control over resources and competition for strategic advantage are often part of the picture.
The wars involving Iran and Ukraine offer two important examples.
Their origins are different, and the responsibility for each conflict must be examined on its own terms. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a violation of the sovereignty of an independent nation. The conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran has a different history, involving Iran’s nuclear program, regional security, economic sanctions and military intervention.
Yet both conflicts have consequences far beyond their immediate battlefields. They affect energy supplies, trade routes, military alliances, government budgets and the strategic calculations of major powers.
In other words, regional wars rarely remain purely regional.
Capitalism and its recurring contradictions
Capitalism has survived a great deal. It has weathered economic depressions, financial collapses, recessions, world wars and major political upheavals. Governments have intervened when markets failed. Industries have been reorganized. Social reforms have helped ease some of the damage.
So, declaring that capitalism is about to collapse simply because the world is experiencing another period of instability would be premature.
But survival should not be confused with resolution.
The fundamental contradictions of capitalism remain.
An economy can grow while millions remain poor. Corporate profits can rise even as workers struggle to pay their bills. Technology can make production faster and cheaper without necessarily improving the lives of the people who produce the goods or provide the services.
We see this contradiction almost everywhere.
The economy may be doing well on paper, but what does that mean to a family whose income cannot keep pace with food, electricity, transportation and housing costs?
This is where Marxist political economy begins asking some uncomfortable questions: Who produces society’s wealth? Who owns the means of production? And who ultimately controls and benefits from the wealth created by human labor?
These are not merely questions about inequality. They are questions about power.
Who decides what gets produced? Where does investment go? Who determines wages and working conditions? And whose interests receive priority when governments respond to an economic crisis?
The growing concentration of capital makes these questions even more relevant. A relatively small number of corporations and financial institutions exercise enormous influence over investment, technology, energy, communications and international trade. Their decisions can affect employment, prices and even the economic direction of entire countries.
Karl Marx examined how capital accumulates and becomes concentrated in fewer hands. Later, Vladimir Lenin developed an analysis of imperialism, arguing that the growth of monopolies, the merging of banking and industrial capital, and the export of capital had transformed capitalism into a system increasingly dominated by powerful financial and corporate interests.
Lenin wrote Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism in the early twentieth century. The world has changed considerably since then. Its economic structures are more complex, and his analysis cannot simply be transferred wholesale to the present.
Still, the central questions remain useful.
Look at today’s competition over semiconductors, artificial intelligence, rare earth minerals, energy, shipping routes, digital infrastructure and financial systems. These are not just commercial concerns. Control over them can translate into enormous economic and geopolitical power.
Iran and Ukraine: Two wars, wider consequences
The conflict involving Iran brings the relationship between military power and the global economy into sharp focus.
Consider the Strait of Hormuz. This narrow passage is one of the world’s most important energy shipping routes. Any serious disruption can affect oil and gas supplies, increase shipping and insurance costs, and send fuel prices higher across international markets.
The consequences do not stop at the Middle East.
Countries that depend heavily on imported fuel are particularly vulnerable. Higher oil prices can push up electricity costs, transportation fares, food production expenses and the prices of basic goods. For poorer economies, even a relatively short disruption can create serious financial pressure.
The Philippines, for example, cannot simply insulate itself from a prolonged increase in international oil prices.
The conflict has also become part of a wider strategic contest involving the United States, Israel, Iran, Russia, China and the Gulf states. Each has its own interests, security calculations and regional ambitions.
As of November 9, the conflict remains unresolved. Washington has announced a blockade affecting Iran’s supply routes, while diplomatic discussions continue over Iran’s nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz. Further military escalation remains a possibility. Trump has also indicated plans to discuss the conflict with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Ukraine presents another dimension of the same troubled international environment.
Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022 violated Ukraine’s sovereignty and unleashed a devastating war. Thousands of civilians have been killed or injured, communities have been destroyed, and the country’s infrastructure and economy have suffered enormous damage.
The consequences have also extended across Europe. NATO has strengthened its military posture, defense spending has increased, and European governments have reconsidered their security and energy policies.
There are broader historical and geopolitical questions surrounding the conflict, including NATO expansion and competing security claims. These deserve serious examination. But they do not erase Russia’s responsibility for launching the invasion or Ukraine’s right to defend itself.
Nor should the war be reduced to a contest for corporate profits. The interests of national governments, security concerns, territorial ambitions and the decisions of political leaders all matter.
At the same time, the economic dimensions cannot be ignored.
Military assistance, weapons production, economic sanctions, energy markets and the eventual reconstruction of Ukraine have created enormous financial and industrial consequences. Defense companies have received new orders. Governments have committed substantial public resources. International discussions are already taking place over who will finance reconstruction and who will benefit from it.
The wars in Iran and Ukraine are not identical. Their causes, histories and responsibilities are different. But both demonstrate how military conflicts can reshape international economic relationships and intensify competition among powerful nations.
War, corporate profits and the price paid by ordinary people
There is another development that deserves attention: the continuing rise in military expenditure.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that global military spending reached $2.887 trillion in 2025, an increase of 2.9 percent in real terms. It was the 11th consecutive year of growth. The United States, China, Russia, Germany and India accounted for 58 percent of the total.
Think about that amount.
Governments around the world are spending trillions of dollars to strengthen their military capabilities. Some of these expenditures are understandable. Countries have legitimate security concerns, and Ukraine, for instance, faces an immediate threat to its existence as an independent state.
But the scale of global military spending raises a question that governments cannot avoid: What else could this money accomplish?
Imagine the resources that could be directed toward public hospitals, schools, affordable housing, food security, public transportation and climate adaptation.
Of course, defense budgets cannot simply be transferred wholesale to social programs. Governments have security obligations, and national circumstances differ. But military spending always involves choices about the use of public resources. Those choices matter, particularly in countries where basic services remain inadequate.
There is also a commercial dimension to warfare.
Companies producing weapons, ammunition, military aircraft, surveillance equipment and other defense technologies stand to benefit from government contracts and increased military demand. Reconstruction after war can generate substantial business for construction, engineering, energy and infrastructure companies.
There is nothing inherently unusual about businesses earning money from government contracts. The deeper issue is what happens when commercial interests become closely tied to military expansion and prolonged international tensions.
From a Marxist perspective, the question is not simply whether defense companies make money. It is how economic interests interact with state power, national security and international competition.
And who pays the price?
Ordinary people, especially those with the least economic security, often carry a disproportionate share of the burden. They face higher prices, reduced public services, displacement, unemployment and the human consequences of armed conflict.
Imperialism in a changing world
The international balance of power is shifting.
The United States remains the world’s leading military and financial power, but China’s economic and technological influence has grown considerably. Russia continues to pursue its own strategic ambitions, while India and other regional powers are seeking greater influence in international affairs.
This has encouraged discussions about the emergence of a multipolar world.
But here is something worth remembering: having more powerful countries does not automatically produce a more equal world.
A shift from one dominant power to several competing powers may change diplomatic relationships and international alliances. It does not necessarily change the economic arrangements that keep weaker countries dependent on foreign capital, technology, markets and financing.
A developing country may reduce its dependence on Washington only to become more dependent on Beijing, Moscow or another economic power. It may gain additional diplomatic options without gaining greater control over its own industries and natural resources.
This is where Lenin’s analysis of imperialism remains relevant.
Imperialism is not simply about occupying another country or sending troops across its borders. Economic dominance can operate through investment, lending, trade agreements, technology transfers, debt and control over strategic resources.
It can be less visible than military occupation, but its consequences can be just as significant.
For many countries in the Global South, political independence did not automatically bring economic independence.
They continue to export raw materials and agricultural products while importing expensive manufactured goods, machinery and technology. Some rely heavily on foreign borrowing and investment. Debt servicing consumes public resources that could otherwise support education, health care, infrastructure and local industries.
The result is an international economic system in which countries participate in global trade but do not enjoy equal power to shape its rules.
That is one of the central problems of unequal development.
What does this mean for the Philippines?
For Filipinos, these developments are not distant geopolitical concerns. They have immediate economic consequences.
When conflict disrupts oil supplies in the Middle East, the effects eventually reach Philippine households. Fuel prices rise. Transportation becomes more expensive. Electricity generation costs may increase. Farmers pay more for fuel and fertilizer, while businesses face higher operating expenses.
Strait of Hormuz Ship Traffic
Average daily commercial vessel crossings
Decline in average daily ship traffic
Source: UNCTAD and Kpler, as reported by Anadolu Agency, June 7, 2026. Pre-war average: 129 vessels daily (February 1–27, 2026). Wartime average: 9.88 vessels daily (988 crossings over the first 100 days of war). Percentage decline calculated from these figures.
The burden is not shared equally.
A wealthy household may absorb higher prices without making major adjustments. A minimum-wage worker, small farmer or fisherfolk family has much less room to maneuver.
This is why the country’s economic vulnerability deserves closer attention.
The Philippines needs to strengthen its capacity to produce, not merely consume. Food security, industrial development, energy independence and decent employment should be central concerns of economic policy.
Take agriculture, for example. Farmers need more than occasional financial assistance or emergency distributions. They need access to land, affordable farm inputs, irrigation, appropriate technology, financing, storage facilities and dependable markets.
Workers need living wages, secure employment and the freedom to organize. Public hospitals and schools need sustained investment. Energy policy must consider affordability and long-term security, rather than leaving the country’s future entirely exposed to fluctuations in international markets.
These are not separate concerns. They are connected to a larger question of economic sovereignty.
How much freedom does a country really have to determine its own development when it depends heavily on imported fuel, foreign technology, external financing and markets controlled by much larger economies?
Economic growth figures alone cannot answer that question.
We also need to examine who owns the country’s major industries, where corporate profits go, whether wages are keeping up with living costs, and whether public spending is creating productive capacity that benefits the wider population.
The challenge is not to withdraw from the global economy. That would be neither practical nor desirable. The challenge is to participate in it from a position of greater economic strength.
A country needs the capacity to feed its people, develop its industries, protect its natural resources and provide decent livelihoods. Without these foundations, political independence remains incomplete.
The working class is changing, but the struggle remains
When Karl Marx wrote about the working class, industrial workers in factories occupied a central place in his analysis.
Today’s working class is much broader.
It includes agricultural workers, construction workers, teachers, nurses, transport workers, call-center employees, delivery riders, warehouse personnel and millions of people earning a living through digital platforms.
Their workplaces may be different. Their economic problems often look remarkably familiar.
Low wages. Unstable employment. Limited bargaining power. Rising living costs. And, increasingly, the pressure to remain productive in a workplace where technology is changing faster than labor protections.
Artificial intelligence and automation have added another dimension to this debate.
THE CHANGING FACE OF THE WORKING CLASS
From factory floors to the digital economy
flowchart TB
A["THE WORKING CLASS
THEN AND NOW"]
A --> B["MARX'S INDUSTRIAL ERA"]
A --> C["TODAY'S WORKING CLASS"]
B --> D["Factory and industrial workers"]
C --> E["Agriculture and construction"]
C --> F["Education and healthcare"]
C --> G["Transport and logistics"]
C --> H["Call centers and digital platforms"]
C --> I["Warehousing and delivery"]
D --> J["SHARED CLASS CONDITIONS"]
E --> J
F --> J
G --> J
H --> J
I --> J
J --> K["Low wages"]
J --> L["Job insecurity"]
J --> M["Limited bargaining power"]
J --> N["Rising cost of living"]
K --> O["TECHNOLOGICAL TRANSFORMATION"]
L --> O
M --> O
N --> O
O --> P["Artificial intelligence"]
O --> Q["Automation"]
O --> R["Digital labor platforms"]
P --> S["THE CENTRAL QUESTION"]
Q --> S
R --> S
S --> T["Who owns the technology
and who benefits from
higher productivity?"]
classDef historical fill:#315477,color:#fff,stroke:#24415e,stroke-width:2px
classDef modern fill:#287d77,color:#fff,stroke:#175e59,stroke-width:2px
classDef common fill:#a34b35,color:#fff,stroke:#793222,stroke-width:2px
classDef technology fill:#8056a1,color:#fff,stroke:#593776,stroke-width:2px
classDef question fill:#8d192b,color:#fff,stroke:#64101e,stroke-width:2px
class B,D historical
class C,E,F,G,H,I modern
class J,K,L,M,N common
class O,P,Q,R technology
class S,T question
Source: Conceptual illustration based on Marxist political economy. This diagram is explanatory, not a statistical representation.
These technologies can increase productivity and make certain kinds of work easier. They can also displace workers, eliminate jobs and concentrate economic gains in the hands of companies that own and control the technology.
The question is not whether technological progress should be stopped. It is who benefits from it.
If automation allows a company to produce more with fewer workers, should the gains go entirely to shareholders and investors? What happens to the workers whose jobs disappear? Should higher productivity translate into better wages, shorter working hours and improved living conditions?
These are questions of ownership and distribution.
Technology itself is not the enemy. The problem arises when the benefits of technological progress are concentrated while its costs are passed on to workers and their families.
The working class may have changed in composition, but the struggle over wages, working conditions, ownership and economic power has not disappeared.
Does a capitalist crisis lead to socialist revolution?
This is perhaps the most important question in the entire debate.
If capitalism has recurring crises, does that mean socialism will eventually replace it?
Not necessarily.
History offers plenty of evidence that economic hardship does not automatically produce revolutionary change.
The Great Depression of the 1930s, for instance, produced different political outcomes. In some countries, it encouraged social reforms, stronger labor movements and greater government intervention in the economy. In others, it helped create conditions for authoritarianism and fascism.
The 2008 global financial crisis exposed serious weaknesses in the international financial system. Governments spent enormous amounts of public money rescuing financial institutions and preventing a wider economic collapse.
Yet capitalism survived.
In many countries, corporate concentration and economic inequality continued to grow.
The lesson is straightforward: a crisis can weaken confidence in an economic system, but it does not determine what will replace it.
People need more than anger and frustration. They need organization, political education, leadership and a clear understanding of what they want to change.
Most importantly, they need a credible alternative.
A socialist program cannot simply promise to distribute wealth more fairly. It must address the underlying structures of economic power: who owns productive resources, who makes investment decisions and whose interests determine economic priorities.
It should put workers’ rights, public services, food and energy security, industrial development and democratic control of essential resources at the center of economic planning.
Some of these policies, such as progressive taxation, universal social protection, labor rights and public investment, can also exist within capitalist economies. Their presence alone does not make a country socialist.
The distinction lies in whether these reforms are part of a broader effort to transform ownership and economic power, rather than simply managing the inequalities produced by the existing system.
There is another important consideration.
Public ownership does not automatically guarantee social justice. State-controlled enterprises can also become inefficient, unaccountable and vulnerable to political abuse. Without transparency, democratic participation and public oversight, economic power may simply move from private corporations to an unresponsive state bureaucracy.
A genuine socialist alternative must therefore be both economically workable and democratic.
It should be judged by what it delivers: better living conditions, greater economic security, meaningful political participation and a more equal distribution of society’s wealth and opportunities.
The goal should not be to replace one small group of powerful decision-makers with another.
The question before us
The American midterm elections, the war involving Iran and the continuing conflict in Ukraine may appear to be separate developments. But together, they reveal something about the pressures shaping today’s world.
The American election demonstrates that public dissatisfaction with economic conditions and foreign policy can change the political balance, even in a country with enormous military and economic power.
The wars demonstrate how competition among powerful nations can disrupt international markets, redirect public resources and deepen the insecurity experienced by ordinary people.
None of this, however, proves that capitalism is on the verge of collapse. Nor does the emergence of a multipolar world guarantee a transition to socialism.
Capitalism has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to adapt. It can introduce reforms, reorganize industries, make compromises with labor and use government intervention to stabilize the system when necessary.
But it can also shift the costs of economic crises onto workers, consumers and poorer countries. And when competition among powerful states intensifies, those costs can become even greater.
What happens next depends, in large part, on how people respond.
Will economic hardship strengthen movements demanding social and economic justice? Will it lead to meaningful reforms that address inequality and insecurity? Or will public frustration be exploited by authoritarian leaders, extreme nationalism and political movements that turn ordinary people against one another?
There is no automatic answer.
A crisis of capitalism does not, by itself, produce a socialist revolution. Economic contradictions may create the conditions for change, but people must organize, understand those contradictions and build the political strength to pursue an alternative.
History does not move forward simply because an economic system has failed to solve its problems. Nor does change happen just because people are angry.
It takes collective action, political organization and a clear vision of what should come next.
And perhaps that is the most important question of our time.
Not simply whether capitalism is in crisis, but whether people can organize themselves to build an economy that serves human needs rather than placing private profit and the geopolitical ambitions of powerful nations above everything else.
About The Author
Socialist States and Active Socialist Movements — 2026
Explore the map
Click any country to view its classification and notes.
Country boundaries: GeoJSON country dataset. Map tiles: OpenStreetMap contributors.