_

Ongoing debates about whether capitalism is in terminal decline—including alternatives to global collapse and disorder—and about rising inter-imperialist rivalry—particularly the United States (US) vs. China—illustrate that capitalism itself is far from receding. Rather, it is expanding through increasingly violent and predatory mechanisms.

The genocide in Gaza, perpetrated by the State of Israel, is the most brutal expression of this chilling logic: the use of AI to operate lethal drones playing a major role in human and material [1][1] An investigation by +972 Magazine, in collaboration with Local Call, revealed how the Israeli army has classified tens of thousands of Gazans as targets for assassination, using an arbitrary and illegal system of target selection based on artificial intelligence with little human oversight and a policy of causing as many casualties as possible. The Israeli army uses a combination of several AI systems to identify military targets in Gaza. On the one hand, Habsora AI identifies buildings that are believed to house members of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In parallel, Lavender AI identifies individuals from both organisations. The system is completed by a third AI called Where’s Daddy?, which tracks individuals selected as military targets once they have been located, prioritising the bombing of their homes. See Abraham, Yuval (2023). “A mass assassination factory”: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza, +972 Magazine, 30 November 2023. devastation; the exploitation of occupied territories by companies such as Airbnb, Booking.com, TripAdvisor, or eDreams; and the misappropriation of energy resources in Palestinian maritime zones, along with new concessions for fossil gas exploration [2][2] Government of Israel (2023, 29 October). The Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure Announces Results for Two Zones in the 4th Offshore Bid Round. Full press release available here: https://www.gov.il/en/pages/news-291023 under extermination plans, all demonstrate that capitalism is not weakening but mutating.

Historically, capitalism has externalised the costs of its development: first onto bodies, particularly those of women, as Silvia Federici explores in her seminal work Caliban and the Witch [3],[3] FEDERICI, Silvia (2010). Calibán y la bruja: Mujeres, cuerpo y acumulación originaria. [Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation] Madrid: Traficantes de Sueños. then onto the colonised territories now referred to as the Global South. Capitalism is intrinsically linked to the “imperial mode of living” [4]:[4] BRAND, U. y WISSEN, M. (2017). The Imperial Mode of Living: Everyday Life and the Ecological Crisis of Capitalism. Munich: Verso Books. a Global-North-driven production and consumption model that relies heavily on cheap labour and raw materials from the South, as well as on the takeover, exploitation, and destruction of nature and its ecosystemic functions. Imperial war, colonialism, slavery, religion, trade, (neo)extractivism, and accumulation by dispossession—of raw materials and land—are all just some of its preferred methods. For a considerable period, the ruling classes responded to the very social and ecological crises they generated by displacing them in space and time: to peripheries, colonies, and so/called sacrificial zones [5];[5] According to Esperanza Martínez, a biologist, lawyer, and activist with Acción Ecológica and Oilwatch, sacrifice zones are among the most perverse actions of modern capitalism, as they are based on the consideration of certain territories as inevitable targets for exploitation, thereby sacrificing both nature and the people who live there. The quote is taken from Martínez, E.’s presentation at the International Forum: Challenges of Sustainability organised by the University of Cuenca on 5 and 6 October 2023. Quoted by Astudillo Banegas, J. E. (2024) The Waorani struggle to protect the forest and humanity. In Ecosocial Dossiers Challenges of Sustainability. Strategies for facing the future. Fuhem, Madrid. See also Bravo, Elizabeth (2021) Sacrifice Zones in Latin America. Violation of Human Rights and Nature. Acción Ecológica, Ecuador. to unpaid reproductive labour; or to future generations. With the onset of the climate emergency, this externalisation is finally reaching its own limits.

Some 3.6 billion people [8][8] World Health Organisation (2021). Health effects of climate change. Facts and figures. 30 October 2021. Available here: https://www.who.int/es/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health now live in areas gravely exposed to climate change, which is expected to cause around 250,000 additional deaths annually between 2030 and 2050 from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea, and heat stress alone. Crucially, over 90% of deaths caused by environmental pollution—closely linked to global warming—presently occur in countries that were historically plundered and have contributed very little to the climate crisis.

In addition, extreme weather events have increasingly devastating impacts, with crop and infrastructure failure causing not only unimaginable human suffering but also an enormous economic bruden [9].[9] According to the European Environment Agency, extreme weather and climate events caused estimated economic losses of €738 billion between 1980 and 2023 in the European Union, with more than €162 billion (22%) between 2021 and 2023. Full study available here: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/economic-losses-from-climate-related?activeAccordion=ecdb3bcf-bbe9-4978-b5cf-0b136399d9f8 Between 1993 and 2022, Spain ranked as the eighth country most affected by such events [10][10] Climática. (2025). The Climate Risk Index 2025: The countries most affected by climate change. Climática. Available here: https://climatica.coop/indice-de-riesgo-climatico-2025/ in terms of human casualties and overall damage, with 27,000 dead—mainly due to heatwaves, floods, and fires. These extreme weather events accounted for economic losses estimated at 25 billion USD—adjusted for inflation—, according to the 2025 Climate Risk Index compiled by the German NGO Germanwatch, which places the global death toll from these phenomena at over 765,000 during that period [11].[11] Germanwatch. (2025). Climate Risk Index 2025: Executive Summary [PDF]. Available here: https://www.germanwatch.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/Climate Risk Index 2025 Summary ES.pdf

1. As the Don’t Buy into Occupation coalition report highlights, at least 822 European financial institutions—including banks such as BBVA, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, HSBC and Santander, as well as asset managers, insurance companies and pension funds—profit from financial relationships with 58 companies—such as Aviv/Yad2 [12],[12] In 2019, the American pro-Israel venture capital fund Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR) became the largest shareholder in the German media group Axel Springer, paying 2.9 billion euros for a 43.54% stake. In 2025, the Axel Springer Group separated its online classified ads business from its media business, which includes Bild, Die Welt, Business Insider, Politico, Morning Brew and Upday, and which will once again be under the control of the family. Most of the much more profitable classified ad businesses, such as job portals (Stepstone) and real estate (Aviv, the group that includes Israel’s Yad2), are now owned by KKR and the Canadian pension fund CPP Investments. See Law for Palestine, 27 November 2024. Available here: https://law4palestine.org/legal-complaint-filed-against-axel-springer-over-yad2s-promotion-of-illegal-land-grabs-in-palestine/ Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles [13],[13] El Salto (2023, 12 December). Four Spanish companies are building the apartheid tramway in Israeli-occupied territory. Available here: https://www.elsaltodiario.com/ocupacion-israeli/cuatro-empresas-espanolas-construyen-tranvia-del-apartheid-territorio-ocupado-israel Carrefour, Elbit Systems, Siemens, Vinci / SEMI/ACS [14],[14] La Marea. (2021, 2 November). ACS’s business in the occupied territories of Palestine. Available here: https://www.lamarea.com/2021/11/02/el-negocio-de-acs-en-los-territorios-ocupados-de-palestina/ or Volvo—that conduct business in the illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs) [15],[15] Don’t Buy Into Occupation (2024, November). 2024 DBIO report: Fuelling the oppression. How companies profit from Israel’s occupation of Palestine. Available here: https://dontbuyintooccupation.org/reports/dont-buy-into-occupation-report-2024/ despite Israel having perpetrated the crime of apartheid [16][16] Amnesty International (2025). The State of the World’s Human Rights 2025. London: Amnesty International Ltd. Available here: https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/middle-east/israel-and-the-occupied-palestinian-territory/report-israel-and-the-occupied-palestinian-territory/ for decades, notably through the forced transfer and displacement of Palestinian civilans.

Between January 2021 and August 2024, the financial entities investigated provided $211 billion in loans and guarantees—alongside holding $182 billion in shares and bonds—in these companies, which are involved in one or more of the “listed activities of particular concern due to their human rights implications” according to the United Nations (UN) [17],[17] United Nations (2023, June). Update of the database of business enterprises in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. UN-OHCHR. Available here: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-briefing-notes/2023/06/update-database-business-enterprises-relation-occupied-palestinian and in violation of the ruling by the International Court of Justice calling for “an end to Israel’s presence” in the OPTs [18].[18] United Nations Regional Information Centre (2024). The International Court of Justice and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Available here: https://unric.org/es/corte-internacional-de-justicia-y-los-territorios-palestinos-ocupados/

This practice exposes the way in which the European Union’s (EU) economic, trade and military relations with Israel contribute to crimes against the Palestinian population. On the one hand, EU member states engage in arms trade with Israel. According to data from the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), between 2010 and 2020, EU member states authorised arms exports to Israel worth over €3.2 billion, including electronics, optics, components, and ammunition. During the same period, EU countries imported more than €4.5 billion worth of Israeli arms—mainly drones, missiles and surveillance technology.

Simultaneously, European companies profit from trade in goods and services, as well as from Israeli public contracts. As a result of this privileged relationship [19],[19] The history of trade liberalisation between Israel and the EU dates back to 1975, when an agreement was signed to create an industrial goods trading area by 1989 and grant preferences to Israeli agricultural exports. In 1995, the so-called Association Agreement was signed, which entered into force in 2000 and expanded these agreements. Another qualitative change came in 2004 with the creation of the European Neighbourhood Policy and the introduction of an individualised association, which boosted Israel’s economic development and the profits of capital owners on both sides. For further information, see Tovias, A. (2021). EU Foreign Policy on the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict: A Reevaluation. Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, 15(2), 201–216. Available here: https://doi.org/10.1080/23739770.2021.1964900 the EU is Israel’s largest trading partner [20].[20] In 2022, 28.8% of Israel’s trade in goods was with the EU. 31.9% of Israel’s imports come from the EU, and 25.6% of the country’s exports go to the EU. 31.9% of Israel’s imports come from the EU, and 25.6% of the country’s exports go to the EU, according to data from the European Commission. In 2024, total trade in goods between the EU and Israel is estimated to have reached roughly $48 billion.

2. Human rights groups such as Mining Affected Communities United in Action [21][21] Al Jazeera English (2023, 28 November). Blame game on Stilfontein situation. Video available here: https://x.com/macua–sa/status/1879255399351656801 condemned the South African government for the “massacre” at the Buffelsfontein mine [22],[22] Al Jazeera English. (2023, 16 October). MACAU describes Stilfontein situation as a ‘massacre’. YouTube. Video available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U483MfjuW3s after the South African Police Service (SAPS) cut off food, water, and other essential supplies to clandestine workers trapped underground in an decommissioned gold mine [23][23] Bolo News (2024, December). The violent underworld of Stilfontein’s zama zamas. Video available here: https://bolo.co.za/2024/12/the-violent-underworld-of-stilfonteins-zama-zamas/?utm–source=chatgpt.com in November 2024, delaying the rescue operation by three months. Finally, on 16 January 2025, 246 miners were rescued in Stilfontein [24],[24] Al Jazeera (2025, 16 January). Did South Africa starve dozens of trapped miners to death? Available here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/16/did-south-africa-starve-dozens-of-trapped-miners-to-death with 87 bodies recovered from the mine [25].[25] Such actions contravene the Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement (TDCA) and the Economic Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Southern African Development Community (SADC), which includes South Africa, as well as other relevant legal frameworks. The gold extracted from such mines is sold to local intermediaries, who often mix it with “legal gold” in order to funnel it into the formal market—through instances like Rand Refinery, one of the world’s largest integrated precious metal refining and smelting centres—from where it jumps into various international ones. Countries such as Switzerland, Italy, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia are common destinations. There, this gold is refined, certified, sold—some of it even through precious metal exchanges—or used in jewellery, electronics manufacturing, or as financial investment.

Albeit with varying degrees of severity, the tragedy faced by the Yanomami is mirrored across all of Latin America as the Amazon continues to be plundered. Although some improvements have been observed under the government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva since 2023, Brazil’s most iconic biome has suffered its worst drought in a century—a crisis both provoked and exacerbated by accumulated deforestation, environmental degradation, and rising global temperatures. In other ecosystems across the region, such as the Cerrado, Pantanal, the Pampa, the Atlantic Forest and the Gran Chaco, land grabbing has also intensified, with ecocide in the Cerrado emerging as the most alarming [26].[26] The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT), an international opinion tribunal based in Rome, condemned the Brazilian State and agribusiness companies, based on a complaint filed by the Campaign in Defence of the Cerrado regarding the ongoing ecocide in the Cerrado, resulting from the intense expansion of the agricultural frontier over the last half-century in a region covering around one-third of Brazil’s territory.

90% of deforestation is driven by industrial agricultural expansion, primarily pasture for beef production and monocultures of maize, sugarcane, tobacco, and cotton. Major corporations—JBS, Bunge, Cargill, Archer-Daniels Midland (ADM), Louis Dreyfus, Cofco, Marfrig, Ambev, Raízen Energy, Copersucar, BRF, Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods, Minerva, among others—profit from land tenure conflicts and the systematic violation of the human rights of Indigenous, traditional and peasant communities. These multinationals go so far as to weaponise fires—deliberately started by agribusiness—to deforest, grab land, and forcibly remove communities. They also benefit from forced displacement and violence, as well as from encroaching food crises. While agribusiness and agricultural exports continue to grow, so too does hunger in Brazil. The production of staple foods such as rice, wheat and beans accounts for just 8% of the national grain output, while soy and maize—destined primarily for export—make up 88%.

4. Indonesia has long undergone the deforestation of the largest remaining stretches of virgin rainforest in Asia [27].[27] Earthsight. (2025, March). Indonesia for sale: Secret deal to destroy paradise. Available here: https://www.earthsight.org.uk/news/investigations/indonesia-for-sale-secret-deal-to-destroy-paradise This is closely linked to extractivist projects for palm oil production, as well as the plundering of gold, nickel, oil and gas—operations backed by major corporations as much as facilitated by state action [28].[28] In 2025, the environmental group Walhi filed a lawsuit with the Attorney General’s Office, accusing 47 companies of environmental destruction and corruption. See Mongabay (March 2025). Indonesian watchdog demands prosecution for environmental crime cartels. Available here: https://news.mongabay.com/2025/03/indonesian-watchdog-demands-prosecution-for-environmental-crime-cartels/ These activities have led to an environmental catastrophe and the displacement of Indigenous and traditional communities [29],[29] TAPOL (2020, December). New report details numerous violations by PT Freeport Indonesia in West Papua. Available here: https://tapol.org/publications/new-report-details-numerous-violations-pt-freeport-indonesia-west-papua with the situation in Papua being particularly grave. The Indonesian military has intensified its offensive there since 2023 [30],[30] World Council of Churches (2023, April). Human rights groups see extreme increase in military deployments and operations in Papua. Available here: https://www.oikoumene.org/es/news/human-rights-groups-see-extreme-increase-in-military-deployments-and-operations-in-papua?utm–source=chatgpt.com carrying out bombings, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions and acts of torture [31].[31] Human Rights Monitor (2025, April). Aerial bombardments in Intan Jaya result in destruction of civilian homes and massive displacement. Available here: https://humanrightsmonitor.org/news/aerial-bombardments-in-intan-jaya-result-in-destruction-of-civilan-homes-and-massive-displacement/ Denounced as crimes against humanity [32],[32] Human Rights Monitor (2024). Scorched earth: Special report 2024. Available here: https://humanrightsmonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/HRM–Scorched–Earth–Special–Report–2024.pdf these atrocities have triggered a severe humanitarian crisis. The entire raw materials supply chain—ultimately feeding into the ports, factories and shops of China, the EU and the US—is heavily militarised, with millions of hectares of forest undergoing destruction [33][33] Mighty Earth (2024, octubre). World’s largest deforestation project threatens Indonesia’s progress. Available here: https://mightyearth.org/article/worlds-largest-deforestation-project-threatens-indonesias-progress/ and tens of thousands now internally displaced [34].[34] Human Rights Monitor (2025, March). IDP update March 25: Increasing military presence triggers new displacements and fear among returning IDPs. Available here: https://humanrightsmonitor.org/news/idp-update-march25-increasing-military-presence-triggers-new-displacements-and-fear-among-returning-idps/

These four cases illustrate the absence of binding mechanisms and effective oversight bodies capable of holding states and transnational corporations accountable to international human rights law.

The Ruling Class Has No Solutions

Most of today’s international conflicts and tensions have an environmental dimension. They are increasingly shaped and aggravated by the ecological crisis, the beginning of the end of fossil fuels, and the growing scarcity and depletion of several natural resources, especially minerals.

On the other hand, the prospect of a radical socio-ecological transformation is being increasingly sidelined from mainstream political agendas due to the impact of war, inflation, and the rising cost of living, while authoritarian right-wing policies continue to gain popularity. The rise of reactionary authoritarianism and the growing political involvement of the financial oligarchy signal the return of fossil capitalism and a impeachment of “green capitalism”.

Moreover, there is also a crisis of social reproduction, and thus a crisis pertaining the reproduction of the very labour force capitalism depends on. Numerous studies have come to suggest that the institutional and legitimising potential of liberal democracy has been exhausted. This presents serious challenges for what has historically been the political form most compatible with capitalism and most instrumental to its endurance—from conservative and Christian democratic parties to “extreme centre” market-supporting social democrats, as well as communist and green parties.

In this context of global disorder, the ruling class is resorting to entirely inadequate means and methods, which only serve to deepen the aforementioned “polycrisis”. Economic and political elites are not seeking to address the structural causes, but merely to contain the symptoms. Institutional responses such as “ecological modernisation”, “decarbonisation”, and the “energy transition”—all embedded in the paradigm of economic growth—have proven counterproductive. Capitalism continues to prioritise profit over life and nature.

It is crucial to stress that this failure to respond is not confined to the political right. In many cases, the parliamentary left is failing to offer any real alternative to the model of unlimited growth. Without a radical questioning of the system, any halfway measure will prove entirely futile.

What now emerges is a “post-liberal capitalism” of sorts, both at the global level—with China now positioned as the final advocate of the Washington Consensus—and domestically, where capitalism is becoming increasingly authoritarian. It is worth remembering that capitalism has coexisted with both liberal and authoritarian forms of state, including fascist regimes, and that we are now witnessing a slide towards an even more authoritarian one. Since the Cold War, Western elites have often invoked the “democracy vs. autocracy” dichotomy—a narrative that now falls apart, with the rise of autocrats like Trump, Milei, and Orbán.

Green (Neo)Colonialism: The Struggle for a New World Order Is a Vast Material Struggle

Although the ruling class constantly speaks of sustainability and circular economies, the fact of the matter is that the bulk of global material consumption, the biophysical basis of production and consumption [35][35] Wiedenhofer, D., Streeck, J., Wieland, H., Grammer, B., Baumgart, A., Plank, B., Helbig, C., Pauliuk, S., Haberl, H., & Krausmann, F. (2024). From extraction to end-uses and waste management: Modelling economy-wide material cycles and stock dynamics around the world. In Journal of Industrial Ecology, 28, 1464–1480. Available here: https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13575 is directed toward roads, buildings and civil infrastructure—bridges, ports, airports,—employing non-renewable materials such as non-metallic minerals—gravel, asphalt, cement, brick—and, to a lesser extent, metals. The other main share is used to manufacture machinery, equipment, and transport vehicles, including, increasingly, military vehicles.

The policy responses of both Western governments and BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa)—such as digitalisation or large-scale renewable energy projects—are little more than band-aids that serve only to entrench this (neo)colonial plight. It is a trap: the financialisation of nature reduces air, forests, water and biodiversity to commodities. Policies such as the misnamed biofuels, the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), and biodiversity offsetting do not reduce pollution or protect ecosystems; rather, they accelerate ecological demise and the dispossession of communities in the Global South. The same is true for carbon capture, storage, and hydrogen: the European Court of Auditors has criticised the European Commission’s hydrogen strategy—involving €18.8 billion in public funding—stating that the production and import targets set for 2030 are unrealistic.

Furthermore, digitalisation—the “internet of things”,—electric mobility, and so-called “green” energy require massive mineral extraction, including iron, bauxite, lithium, cobalt, copper, and rare earth elements, most of which are mined in the Global South. This not only has triggered new forms of extractivism, but also militarisation and repression. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), in a report on the status and future availability of critical minerals for high-tech renewable energy transitions [36],[36] IEA (2024), Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2024. Paris, May 2024. Available here: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-critical-minerals-outlook-2024 the US, the EU, and China hold relatively few reserves on their respective territories, yet control a significant share of global supply. China, in particular, holds a hegemonic position when it comes to refining capacity and technological control over all critical minerals. Energy megaprojects marketed as “sustainable” instead transfer violence and destruction to communities that are already vulnerable—mining is also increasingly constrained by environmental limits, such as water availability, which is already impacting significant swaths of global copper and lithium extraction efforts. Between 2012 and 2022, more than 2.000 human rights, land, and environmental defenders were killed while resisting extractivist projects worldwide [37][37] Global Witness (2023). Almost 2,000 land and environmental defenders were killed between 2012 and 2022 for protecting the planet. Full press release available here: https://globalwitness.org/es/press-releases/almost-2000-land-and-environmental-defenders-killed-between-2012-and-2022-protecting-planet-es/—401 only in 2022 and 324 in 2023 [38].[38] Front Line Defenders (2023, April). Human rights defenders show remarkable courage in the face of attacks and killings. Available here: https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/es/statement-report/human-rights-defenders-show-remarkable-courage-face-attacks-and-killings

In this same context, another major deception to consider is the alleged reduced depenndency on fossil fuels. The truth is that the EU has responded to the energy crisis by investing in fossil energy infrastructure—such as the Nord Stream gas pipelines (destroyed in 2022), the Southern Gas Corridor, liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, the H2Med pipeline, and the SoutH2 Corridor—thus worsening climate change while enriching the energy oligopoly made up of BP, Enagas, ENI, Repsol, Shell, TotalEnergies, and Uniper. All while citizens are left to shoulder exorbitant utility bills. Thanks to a deafening lack of political will to regulate capital flows and combat financial speculation, the net revenues of the largest commodity traders—Vitol, Trafigura, Mercuria, and Gunvor [39][39] Vitol: net profit of $13 billion in 2023. Trafigura: net profit of $7.4 billion. Mercuria: net profit of $2.7 billion. Gunvor: net profit of $1.252 billion, all in 2023.—have surged: they doubled in 2021 and more than quadrupled in 2022, compared to pre-crisis levels. The concentration in trading markets and the lack of strict regulation of derivatives markets—for instance, the algorithmic trading of gas—have aggravated price volatility and energy inflation for much of the global population. A handful of companies have seen massive profit increases, while energy poverty has worsened worldwide.

In 2023, EU member states invested over $30 billion in oil and gas infrastructure, including nearly $7 billion specifically for LNG projects. 43% of the EU’s LNG imports came from the United States [40].[40] Among the biggest beneficiaries of the commitment to import fossil gas from the US are: Cheniere Energy (which manages approximately 50% of US LNG shipments to Europe and has long-term contracts with Naturgy, Poland’s PGNiG and Germany’s EnBW), ExxonMobil and Chevron, Cheurón, Venture Global LNG, Sempra Infrastructure, Freeport LNG, Shell, BP, Trafigura and Gunvor. Total payments for imported fossil fuels—coal, gas, and oil—by EU member states amounted to €390 billion. During the same period, approximately $110 billion was invested in industrial renewable energy generation, with a combination of both private and public funding. The controversial Draghi Plan [41][41] The Draghi Plan, formally known as the report on European competitiveness, refers to a set of economic reforms and measures proposed under the leadership of Mario Draghi, former president of the European Central Bank (ECB) — when he said, ‘I will do whatever it takes to preserve the euro’ (2012) — and former prime minister of Italy. The report has faced significant criticism for its corporate bias, lack of transparency and potential negative impacts on public services and social and labour protections. Of the 236 contributions to the Draghi Report, 157 (approximately 65%) came from corporate entities, including large firms such as Amazon and lobby groups such as BusinessEurope. This imbalance suggests a disproportionate influence of corporate interests in shaping the report’s recommendations. proposed annual investments of €450 billion for the green transition, the majority of which would go towards energy infrastructure, including electrical grids and fossil gas plants, many of which may become obsolete within a decade.

Topping all this up, the ecological transition being promoted by the EU via policies like the Critical Raw Materials Act is arguably just colonialism in a new disguise. In theory, the EU Commission’s priority is to “secure access” for European transnational companies to the raw materials and technologies deemed essential for industrialisation, as well as to ensure the energy security of the EU-27 and the operability of their supply chains. In practice, this means guaranteeing European access to Global South resources through both soft power and military and paramilitary violence. This is where the concept of “sacrificial zones” becomes central: Indigenous and peasant communities are displaced to make way for energy or agribusiness megaprojects, trade and transport infrastructure, or open-pit mines.

This is, fundamentally, a geopolitical struggle, in which the EU’s regulatory offensive—concerning trade, raw materials, borders, and more—continues to deepen the extractivist and imperialist rationales driving global crises. Trade treaties, or so-called “Association Agreements,” with countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, such as the EU-Mercosur deal, as well as infrastructure programs like the Global Gateway or memoranda of understanding [43],[43] The EU’s strategic partnerships in the field of critical raw materials serve as a legal infrastructure for putting pressure on countries rich in materials such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Namibia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Zambia. are but legal instruments advancing neocolonialism and the plunder of nature and peoples in the Global South.

Photo_ Cleber Wendder Nascimento_ Pexels

Photo_ William Andrus_ CC BY 2.0

In fact, the war in Ukraine may become—or is already becoming—a catalyst for a new world order. As numerous authors have noted, we are living through a historic global transition, in which the West’s domination of the world, after more than 500 years of colonialism, imperialism, slavery, plunder and genocide, is collapsing—albeit not overnight.

Against this backdrop, factors like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU’s increasingly belligerent stance and its confrontation with the Kremlin, the “Rearm Europe” initiative, the push to raise European military spending and expand military capacities—or even extraordinary events such as the destruction of the Nord Stream I and II gas pipelines—becomes impossible to understand without accounting for the US vs China confrontation and the former’s desperate attempt to preserve economic, military and geopolitical supremacy at all costs. This is but one of the defining global dynamics of the 21st century, and it will shape much of the emerging landscape of international relations.

Although the European Green Deal is effectively dead and has been replaced by the Clean Industrial Deal—crafted in the interests of capital—the political, territorial, environmental, and socio-cultural colonisation of the Global South has been devastating. The way Europe is managing the energy and climate crisis must never involve offloading the costs of these economic and socio-environmental transitions onto other territories, as is currently the case. If in the past we were mobilised against “green capitalism”, today we must continue to do so against “green extractivism”. We must break with the relations of domination underpinning this system, perpetuated by rationales of competition, growth, and expansion.

The EU as the Arm of Transnational Capital: Von der Leyen’s “Prosperity Plan”

Under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission has transformed the demands of major corporations into official policy. The “New European Prosperity Plan” [46][46] The 2024 Antwerp Declaration, which prioritises the interests of the petrochemical (BASF and Bayer), automotive, metalworking, arms and other climate-criminal industries, is identical to the EU’s Clean Industrial Deal. is based on:

1. Mass Deregulation: Reducing the legal obligations of large corporations under labour, environmental and human rights protections [47][47] Corporate Europe Observatory. (n.d.). Deregulation Watch. Database available here: https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch—essentially creating new legislative frameworks to shield the interests of capital [48].[48] The Clean Industrial Pact, ReArm Europe and the Industrial Decarbonisation Acceleration Act converge with the initiatives approved in the previous legislative term, which respond to the demands of big business, including the European Next Generation funds, the Green Deal Industrial Plan, the Net Zero Industry Act and the European Critical Raw Materials Act. The EU has pushed for deregulation—now rebranded as “simplification”—to undermine worker protections, environmental standards, and social policies. Initiatives such as “reality checks” and “implementation dialogues” are considered potential avenues to expand corporate lobbying at the expense of the public interest. The European Commission’s application of Single Market rules is increasingly shaped by corporate interests, with companies and industrial lobby groups using these mechanisms to challenge national and local policies aimed at social-environmental progress, branding them as “trade barriers”. Major corporate lobby groups are calling on the Commission to “radically redesign EU policymaking to strengthen the Single Market”. This redesign includes pro-business impact assessments “at all stages of EU decision-making”, “greater authority for the Regulatory Scrutiny Board”, increased “stakeholder participation in the preparatory stages of lawmaking”, and a “sandbox” approach to regulation—testing new rules before full implementation.

2. Subsidies for Monopolies: The Draghi Plan, followed by its implementation via the “Competitiveness Compass”, proposes an annual productive investment of €750-€800 billion for the EU, primarily targeting energy and technological infrastructure—gas, telecommunications, automotive,—R&D investment, and military spending. It also advocates for more favourable regulation of large capital and further market consolidation, particularly in sectors such as Defence, Energy, and Telecommunications. So-called “state aid” will encourage private monopolies through the Clean Industrial Plan—damaging to working people, small businesses, and broader society—while prioritising shareholder interests over public wellbeing.

3. Militarisation and Extractivism: Europe’s “Green Transition” Is Fused with Militarism and Border Control, Europe’s current agenda can be summarised in three core pillars: militarisation, migration control, and extractivism. The EU is drastically increasing arms production and Defence spending—its so-called “war economy”—while presenting migrants as enemies at its fortified borders. Member states are promoting permanent war as an ideology: as former European Council President Charles Michel quoted, “if we want peace, we must prepare for war” [49].[49] European Consilium (2024, 19 March. “If we want peace, we must prepare for war”. Press release on European defence. Available here: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/es/press/press-releases/2024/03/19/if-we-want-peace-we-must-prepare-for-war/ Meanwhile, EU foreign policy combines trade agreements and development aid with strict border control: Europe’s strategic partnership programmes in Africa, for example, merge economic cooperation with militarisation and the externalisation of migration control (through Frontex). Within “Fortress Europe”, capital and goods circulate freely, but people seeking refuge encounter lethal barriers.

Conclusion: Breaking with the Logic of Death

Capitalism is undergoing a phase of violent expansion, with war—military, economic and environmental—as its principal instrument. The push toward economic growth is the system’s fatal flaw: as long as we cling to the myth of unlimited growth, we will be unable to resolve this “polycrisis”.

In addition to civil society action, an urgent course correction is needed in the agendas of political parties and organised citizenry, as well as in transformative groupings within all professional, academic and administrative sectors—to make hegemonic the understanding that there are limits that must not be crossed. The imperial mode of living, which perpetuates structural injustices that reappear in every new crisis, must be buried once and for all. Put simply, we cannot continue to extract resources, bodies and territories to sustain a consumerist society.

In short, a radical and holistic transformation of global systems is essential. This is the spirit condensed in the idea of a “New Global Bauhaus”—which should be a naturally disruptive, transdisciplinary movement driven by social movements, not corporate interests. A concept that links environmental justice, social equity and peace, empowering communities, working classes, and local authorities. To imagine a “new Bauhaus” is to embark on a bold and participatory reinvention—one that enables us to work collectively to transform everyday life.

Such a process must go far beyond tinkering with the status quo. In practice, this means dismantling irresponsible corporate power: not merely taxing the digital economy, but creating public, non-profit platforms for social media and artificial intelligence; as well as deprivatising essential goods. It will also be indispensable to relocalise economies and ensure the full democratic participation of all sectors. Any alternative policy must rest, first, on social and environmental justice to eliminate the root causes of inequality; second, on addressing the inevitable consequences of the climate and environmental crisis—placing those most affected at the centre; and third, on the non-negotiable goal of ensuring a dignified and equitable life for all people on the planet.

These action lines—core elements of any left-wing politics—present immense challenges. Changing the metabolism and structure of the economic system also requires profound shifts in the political and cultural spheres. These are transformations that can only be realised through a long-term, historical perspective rooted in community organisation.

We must confront this “civilisational crisis” in solidarity, and that necessarily means radically transforming the system of production and consumption. The path toward that goal can only be internationalist, anti-racist, and feminist in nature.

·

SHARE THIS: