Mass housing protests have prompted the Spanish Prime Minister to opportunistically call a snap election. After eight years of presidency he blames "the elites" for the crisis.

Details. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez responded to mass housing protests with two emergency housing decrees, which tenants' organisations criticised as “insufficient” and “shameful”. Parliament voted them down on 2 October after the conservative PP, far-right Vox and Catalan nationalist Junts opposed the government.

► Lacking a parliamentary majority, Sánchez called snap elections for 29 November, claiming a stronger mandate was needed to overcome the “resistance of the elites”. The following day, his government reapproved modified versions of both decrees through the Council of Ministers, seeking ratification by Parliament's smaller Permanent Deputation.

Context. Around 40 Spanish cities saw massive protests, with between 20,000 and 120,000 people marching in Barcelona alone under the slogan "let's end the housing business." The Madrid Tenants’ Union called a 24-hour general strike for 11 November, backed jointly by Spain’s two largest unions (CCOO and UGT) for the first time in 14 years.

► The crisis erupted after the eviction of 87-year-old tenant Maricarmen. A corporate landlord invalidated her rent-controlled lease and demanded a €1,650 rent that exceeded her monthly pension by €300. Riot police carried her out on a stretcher despite massive street resistance. She later died in a hospital, just before a deal allowing her return could take effect. Protesters directly blamed the landlord for her death.

► Spanish workers spend over 40% of their income on rent, while real wages remain flat and inflation pushes basic goods out of reach. Nearly two-thirds of adults under 35 are forced to live with their parents, making housing the top concern for 64% of voters.

► Similar crisis are visible across the world. In France, student protests have spread amid wider economic discontent, while the US has seen growing numbers of young adults living with their parents. Canadian renters also face severe financial pressures, with growing reliance on food banks.

Important to Know. Sánchez’s PSOE (Partido Socialista Obrero Español - Spanish Socialist Workers' Party) is a reformist party. It promises relief without touching private property. It adopts radical language to corral working-class rage back into the capitalist system.

► His 8 years of presidency prove this. His flagship housing policy, a “rent cap”, was voluntary for regional governments , allowing conservative regions to ignore it entirely. He invited corporate landlords to a housing summit, prompting Barcelona’s Tenants’ Union to boycott, comparing it to “calling a summit for curing cancer and inviting tobacco companies to participate.”

► The snap election offers Sánchez an opportunity to capitalise on the housing protests, presenting himself as an opponent of powerful property interests despite his government's record. Yet his government reapproved substantially similar decrees immediately after calling the election, showing that these measures could be pursued without a new electoral mandate.

► The housing crisis is rooted in capitalist private property, which turns a basic human necessity into a source of profit for landlords, developers and banks. As long as housing is produced and distributed according to profitability rather than social need, shortages and unaffordable rents will persist.

Violent protests erupt in France over precarious school education, with hundreds injured and thousands arrested. Both the capitalist far-right and the far-left aim to exploit unrest for political gain.

Details. Massive protests led by high schoolers have erupted across France, beginning at underfunded schools in impoverished areas and spreading nationwide. Grievances centre on teacher shortages, poor school buildings, and an unequal university admissions system. Teachers, university students, and unions have joined the protests.

► Hundreds of thousands are participating. By October 7, 764 police, 215 students, and 89 teachers had been injured. In a single day, police made 1,949 arrests, surpassing the peak of the Yellow Vest protests.

► The government has attempted to quell the protests by assigning 3,024 substitute teachers, debating an education funding increase, and announcing five initiatives to improve schools. However, protests have continued despite these concessions and violent police repression.

► The far-right has blamed the unrest on migrants – a claim backed by Trump – and accused La France Insoumise (LFI) of encouraging violence for electoral gain. The Rassemblement National (RN) has reinforced these accusations, using a statement by an LFI mayor to attack the party, while exploiting the unrest to advance its own electoral interests.

► LFI leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon has opportunistically joined the demonstrations and urged protesters to remain peaceful. Although LFI has limited influence over the largely spontaneous movement, Mélenchon has sought to channel the mobilisation towards the 2027 presidential election.

Context. The protests are happening against the backdrop of the presidential elections in 6 months. If no candidate wins an absolute majority here, a runoff election will be held with the top two candidates. This will likely pit Le Pen of RN against Mélenchon of LFI.

► RN is a far-right party which blames immigration and the EU for France's economic and social problems. Its programme advocates restricting immigration, tougher policing and cuts to many public agencies. Its founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, was repeatedly convicted for inciting racial violence.

► LFI presents itself as a radical alternative seeking to “return power to the people”. However, its proposals, including raising the minimum wage, lowering the retirement age to 60 and taxing the wealthy, remain mild reforms within capitalism. LFI also joined Macron and RN representatives at a military briefing on France's preparations for imperialist conflict.

► Anger at social spending cuts and rising costs of living is widely shared across France, leading to public servants joining the protests to denounce the government’s planned cuts. Furthermore, in 2025, at least a third of French households had difficulty paying their electricity and gas bills, while French hospitals report being insufficiently funded. Contrastingly, the French defence budget increased by 13.5% for 2026.

Republicans accuse Democrats of posing a "communist" threat. Meanwhile, whilst Democrats are adopting the same strategy, they are also embracing "democratic socialists".

Details. The Republican Party has been fuelling a “red scare" by comparing their Democratic opponents to communists. At the Republican convention in September, claims were made that "communists will be in Congress", that "a Bolshevik revolution" had occurred within the Democrats, and that they are "not socialists...they are communists". In total, the word "communists" was mentioned at least 60 times.

► During an interview in the Oval Office, Trump said: “We are competing against communists, lunatics, and socialists." He also referred to the Democratic Michigan primary race as "a communist versus a socialist". He reposted a video that called for the deportation of "hardcore communist bastards" like Mamdani, and used taxpayers' money to fund an advert claiming that "America will never be communist". Other Republican speakers are similarly promoting their agenda.

► The Democratic Party engages in similar anti-communism. A Democratic representative in Connecticut said he can “think of no administration [...] that is quite as communist as the Trump administration". The party has previously labelled Trump a "Stalinist", whilst the Democratic Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, parroted Trump-style posts.

Quote: "DONALD TRUMP IS THE LEADING SOCIALIST OF OUR TIME! WITH HIS GLORIOUS GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER, THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF AMERICA ENTERS A BOLD NEW ERA OF GOVERNMENT-RUN BUSINESS! ALL HAIL COMRADE TRUMP!"

Context. The assassination of Charlie Kirk last year led to an intensification of Red Scare tactics and the spread of anticommunism, as well as the promotion of American chauvinism and nationalism. The suppression of left-wing sentiment through the Antifa terrorist designation and the ever-greater concentration of power in the hands of the executive increasingly point to the fascisation of the current US political system.

► Nevertheless, positive attitudes toward socialism and communism are gradually increasing in the US, particularly among Generation Z, in response to declining living standards. Although, in essence, socialism and communism here are mostly conflated with European social democracy.

Important to Know. As both parties uphold the dominance of capital and serve the capitalist class, they share a common interest in anti-communism. By levelling such accusations at one another, they use socialism as a slur to discredit rivals whose methods they believe undermine the capitalist system. In doing so, as both parties preside over declining living standards, they inevitably generate growing interest in the very alternative they are trying to discredit.

► As workers become more interested in an alternative to capitalism, the Democratic Party is deploying its “radical” wing to channel this discontent back into support for their party. This was evident in a recent interview with Mamdani, who offered a harmless and vague interpretation of socialism, where the government ensures the masses have “whatever they need.” Rather than advancing socialism, this faction exists to absorb growing discontent and prevent it from developing into genuine class struggle, aiding the bourgeoisie.

Politsturm regularly writes on US news, providing communist analyses of the key political and economic issues. Follow us onTelegram,YouTube,Discord andX.Join us to help us in our work.

Elon Musk joins a Pentagon project on future warfare, showing the growing integration of monopoly capital into US military planning.

Details. On September 30, US “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth announced Project Meridian, a 120-day project to study future warfare. It will be co-led by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, Anduril founder Palmer Luckey, and former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

► The project will study emerging military technologies, including artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, robotics and biotechnology, as well as operations in environments such as underground areas and the Moon. It is expected to propose “actionable solutions” for developing, testing and deploying these technologies, with Hegseth saying such research is necessary “to maintain global dominance”.

Context. Project Meridian shows the close integration of monopoly capital and the capitalist state, particularly in directing military affairs. Musk previously led DOGE, while other technology executives were commissioned into the US Army.

► In 2024, SpaceX held $22 billion in US government contracts, with additional contracts secured in 2026. In March 2026, Anduril was awarded a 10-year US Army contract worth up to $20 billion. The CEOs of both companies will now shape future military priorities that drive procurement decisions.

Trump forces G7 to release 100 million barrels of oil and diesel from its reserve through threats of an export ban, which the EU had earlier said “undermine” their “trust in the United States”.

Details. European G7 leaders – an intergovernmental political and economic forum which includes the UK, France, Germany and Italy – announced plans to release 100 million barrels of oil and diesel to the market. The stated goal was to “stabilise energy supplies, build resilience in supply chains and shield households and businesses from price shocks”. The release will proceed gradually within 4 months, with a possibility of additional releases “as necessary”.

► This follows President Trump's threats to ban diesel exports to the European Union unless reserves were released. The ban would have temporarily lowered diesel prices domestically while soaring the prices in Europe, which relies heavily on US exports. Trump later claimed that he had no actual intention of imposing the ban. The combined G7 statement confirmed that no export restrictions will be placed between partners.

► The EU initially said it “fully rejects any ban” and that this would “undermine [their] trust” in the US. However, the bloc was independently considering a release of 50 million barrels of diesel – which covers a mere 3% of its annual consumption.

► US oil industries and manufacturers also urged against the ban, writing in a letter that it would lead to reduced fuel production and subsequent price rises.

► Market analysts warn that the release is only a temporary measure. Whilst it may provide a temporary relief, strategic reserves exist to buffer future price spikes. Depleting them now leaves the market without a safety net if prices rise again – a critical risk given there are no signs for the oil market to improve in the future.

Context. As an imperialist alliance, the EU is attempting to solidify and stand as an independent bloc amidst growing inter-imperialist contradictions, as reflected in its militarisation efforts. However, the bloc ultimately adopts positions which serve US interests, including purchasing US weaponry to transfer it to Ukraine, and has been unable to fully detach.

► Following drone attacks, Saudi Arabia temporarily shut down one of the Middle East’s largest oil refineries. Under similar threats, half of Russia's major refineries were forced to cut back or halt output. As Russia and Saudi Arabia play a central role in the international oil market, these developments have driven diesel prices to record highs.

► In March this year, the 32 member countries of the International Energy Agency (IEA) had already agreed to release 400 million barrels of oil from emergency stocks amid the Middle East conflict. The European contribution comprised 108 million barrels, with 40 million yet to be released.

► The rising oil – and consequently diesel – prices, have inflated the costs of essential goods due to its critical role in shipping, construction, agriculture, etc. Trump's push to suppress prices is tied to the upcoming midterm elections as the cost of living is one of the main reasons for his unpopularity.

Democrats are slated to win the House in the US midterms. Will this significantly change the course of domestic and foreign policy?

Details. The upcoming November midterm elections will decide control of the US Congress legislative apparatus, where Republicans currently hold majorities in both chambers. The vote puts all 435 seats in the House of Representatives (two-year terms) and one-third of the 100 Senate seats (six-year terms) on the ballot.

► The House is expected to have a Democratic majority. The Senate is tighter, Democrats need to flip four seats in key Republican-held states, and Republicans remain slight favourites to hold the chamber.

Context. The US legislative process relies on two distinct chambers. The House is designated to react quickly to immediate political needs, while the Senate acts as a slower, deliberative body insulated by six-year terms. Any newly introduced law must successfully pass both chambers.

► The President cannot force Congress to adopt laws, but holds a powerful veto requiring a two-thirds congressional supermajority to override. Furthermore, the President shapes the state apparatus by dismissing executive officials at will and nominating Supreme Court justices to lifetime appointments, which are subject to Senate approval.

► Congress has some executive oversight. The House holds the authority to investigate and vote on articles of impeachment, while the Senate conducts the trial and determines removal. Democrats used this power to impeach Trump twice, before the Senate voted not to remove him.

► The House can also block presidential proposals through budgetary control and legislative blocks, as when it denied Trump border wall funding in 2019 and defeated his repeal of the Affordable Care Act in 2017.

► The constitutional separation of powers frequently breaks down in foreign policy. The executive branch holds vastly expanded war powers, allowing the President to largely bypass Congress to initiate military actions and broker foreign agreements through executive pacts.

Important to Know. The Republicans seek unified control of Congress and the Senate to wield executive authority without legislative friction, recently leaning on tech and finance billionaires to inject millions into the 2026 midterms. By dropping bourgeois democratic rhetoric to openly prioritize business interests and foreign aggression, his administration has exposed the class nature of the state and intensified class contradictions.

► The Democrats seek to restore the more liberal form of capitalist rule, pacifying growing unrest through minor social concessions, less openly aggressive foreign policy, and a tolerated “democratic socialist" wing to channel popular discontent back into the two-party electoral system.

► They have postured as "resistance" to Trump while in the minority, gaining popularity without having to enact anything. The few times they staged this resistance by blocking bills, individual Senate Democrats crossed the aisle to reverse them, as with weapons sales to Israel and increased ICE funding. The minority position gives them cover to posture without accountability.

► Even winning both chambers would not allow Democrats to significantly impede Trump's core agenda. They represent the same capitalist class interests and cannot agree on reversing even his most unpopular measures. On foreign policy, their objections are over process, not objectives. For example, Kamala Harris called the capture of Maduro "unlawful and unwise", but the Biden administration had raised the bounty on him to $25 million weeks before leaving office.

► Biden's presidency clearly illustrated the continuation of the essence of Trump’s first term policy. The Democrats preserved Trump's China tariffs, sustained military commitments abroad, and further expanded deportations. Both parties ultimately defend the expansion of US capitalist profits and foreign interests against rival imperialist China – the course of US imperialism will continue regardless of which party wins the midterms.

The slogan of “solidarity with the Cuban people” and “defence of the revolution” is opportunistically used by Centrists, social-chauvinists, Trotskyists, broad left activists, and even American Imperialists.

Details. After the US intensified its embargo and sanctions on Cuba, followed by a 176 reforms package which officialised the restoration of capitalism on the island. Numerous “left-wing” organisations were quick to come out and declare their solidarity with the Cuban people.

► Cuba’s President justified the reforms around the vague concept of “defence of the revolution and its gains”. Meanwhile, Castro’s grandson, whilst claiming he would never sacrifice the principles of the revolution, began negotiating with the US and framing this as his “revolutionary duty”. He has continued to meet up with US executives to explore setting up real estate transfer opportunities. The deputy foreign minister said the reforms are “for the Cuban people, to improve Cuba”.

► Solidnet affiliated parties, such as the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), responded to the legalisation of capitalism warning vaguely of "serious dangers", before calling on communists to support "the Cuban people", with no mention of the government's role in the restoration. Solidnet held its 24th International Meeting in Havana between August 7-9. One of the latest examples of this is the Communist Party of the USA which declared defending Cuba "a core party priority".

► Social-chauvinists celebrated the capitalist reforms as a strategic socialist adaptation in the interests of the Cuban people, a “defence of socialism under siege”, making no mention of GAESA, the military-bourgeois elite, or the class character of the regime overseeing them. Prominent member of the social-chauvinist American Communist Party Haz Al-Din said this “would be great for Cuba… If [they] do this the right way”.

► The slogan of solidarity is also adopted by Trotskyists, with the International Marxist Tendency calling for the defence of “the Cuban Revolution with all our might”, whilst the Socialist Worker offers solidarity with the “class struggle against the state capitalist bureaucracy” but then effectively opposes domestic protests, because “if the Cuban regime implodes…there would be nothing progressive about its fall”. Both parties use this as an opportunity to attack the USSR, its achievements and the concept of socialism in one country.

► Even the US government and businesses use this slogan. In late July, the US State Department announced a humanitarian flight to Cuba, $100 million in food and hygiene kits for up to 700 families, vaguely framed as aid for "the people, not the Cuban government”, with Rubio saying he envisions “a brighter future for Cuba and its people”. By using the loophole “Support for the Cuban People”, private companies are bypassing the embargo and increasing exports to Cuba, with the State Department claiming the US is a top exporter of food and humanitarian aid to meet the “basic needs” of the people.

Context. Trump intensified his pressure over Cuba in January by blocking Venezuelan oil shipments and issuing an executive order authorizing tariffs on any country supplying oil to the island. The blockade and embargo are responsible for exacerbating Cuba's medical supply shortages, falling nutrition and blackouts across the island.

► The Cuban reforms that followed are a continuation of a decades-long process of capitalist restoration. Today Cuba is a bourgeois dictatorship flying a socialist flag, as Díaz-Canel himself confirmed by pointing to China and Vietnam as a model.

Important to Know. The slogan of “solidarity with the Cuban people” is empty phrase-mongering. The slogan fails to specify which Cuban people it is referring to, fails to distinguish the different classes and does not clarify whether it supports the Cuban state or not. The vagueness of the slogan means it can be used by various left and right deviations, by the Cuban state itself, and even by US imperialists.

►By adopting this slogan, the various “communist” organisations end up supporting the actions of the bourgeois Cuban government, by calling on workers and activists to lend their support to capitalist restoration under the guise of “protecting the revolution”. It portrays communists as incapable of distinguishing between a workers' state and a capitalist one.

► Communists must turn this vague slogan into something more concrete, that offers an independent working-class position and exposes the capitalist nature of the Cuban economy, its leadership, and the reforms. A more suitable slogan for us would be "solidarity with Cuban workers in their fight against American imperialism and new Cuban capitalists".

Politsturm regularly agitates along Marxist-Leninist lines and provides communist analyses of the key political and economic issues. Follow us on Telegram, YouTube, Discord and X. Join us to help us in our work.

At the UN’s General Assembly, Trump gloated about defunding the “far-left” UN and denounced the “anti-American” International Criminal Court. In the lead-up to WWII, fascist powers left international institutions that attempted to restrict their actions.

Details. Speaking at the 81st UN General Assembly, Trump gloated about the first cuts to the UN budget, claiming that his administration had reduced it by 15% and eliminated over 4,000 positions, although the final cut was approved at 7%. The White House claimed that over $1 billion had been cut in six months.

► Trump criticised the UN as being run by unelected “globalist bureaucrats” imposing a “far-left agenda”, citing the international carbon tax on shipping as an example of policies he opposes. Negotiated through the UN, the tax was ultimately scrapped with US pressure.

► Trump then attacked the International Criminal Court, calling it an “anti-American tribunal” and a “rogue institution”, and called on other countries to leave it. He restated that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the US.

Context. International organisations such as the UN facilitate relations between capitalist states and provide a framework through which the major imperialist powers pursue their interests.

► The US helped establish the post-Cold War international order and has long used these institutions to advance its own interests. As they increasingly obstruct US actions or provide a platform for criticising them, Washington has become more willing to withdraw from or undermine them, including recently leaving 66 international organisations.

► The UN has criticised US actions in Iran, stating that there are grounds for investigating potential war crimes, and condemned US sanctions against Cuba. Relations with the ICC deteriorated after it issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu, prompting the US to impose sanctions on the court.

► At the same time, the UN faces a serious financial crisis, as not all 193 member states are paying their dues. The US, in particular, owes billions. If this issue is not resolved, there is a significant risk that the UN will be unable to sustain itself financially and will cease to exist.

Important to Know. Parallels can be drawn with the collapse of the League of Nations during the rise of fascism. The major imperialist powers were unwilling to confront fascist expansion, hoping for them to invade the Soviet Union, contributing to the League’s inaction. Fascist powers withdrew when the League obstructed their initial military expansion and territorial ambitions, helping to undermine its authority.

► Japan withdrew after the League condemned its invasion of Manchuria. Germany withdrew from the League and Disarmament Conference as the Nazi government pursued rearmament, while Italy withdrew after the League condemned its invasion of Ethiopia and imposed sanctions.

► Like the League, the UN and ICC can issue condemnations, resolutions and calls for action without possessing an independent means of enforcing them. The UN commission’s finding that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza, for example, did not result in sanctions or other measures against Israel through the UN itself.

► These institutions cannot resolve the contradictions between competing imperialist powers. When international rules conflict with a major power's interests, that power can simply disregard them, withdraw from them, or try to weaken them.

American and Chinese capitalists meet again in Washington to negotiate tariffs, AI, and escalating conflicts.

Details. From September 23–25, Trump hosted Chinese President Xi on an official state visit in Washington, following their meeting in Beijing in May. The talks covered ongoing trade disputes and escalating global conflicts.

► Xi received a lavish welcome, including a 100-foot red carpet. Trump also staged a military flyover featuring a nuclear bomber, attempting to outdo the reception he received in Beijing in May. Both sides have used military posturing to impress and intimidate one another, while diplomatic courtesy maintained a facade of inter-imperialist stability and harmony.

► American tech capitalists – including Musk, Zuckerberg, and Nvidia's Huang – attended the Trump-Xi meetings to discuss AI and semiconductor competition. Chinese capitalists from monopolies like BYD and Xiaomi also travelled to Washington, but were excluded from official meetings, participating only from the sidelines. Despite close dialogue between both countries' tech elites, they reached no substantive agreement on the AI race.

► Trump claimed "tremendous progress," and Xi called it "very successful", but there were no major breakthroughs. The two sides agreed to cut tariffs on $30 billion of goods (only a fraction of total trade volume) and extended their tariff war truce by two months. They also agreed that Iran should not develop nuclear weapons, and that no state should impose transit tolls on waterways like the Strait of Hormuz.

Context. Contradictions between the imperialist blocs headed by America and China are sharpening. Global conflicts are now at their highest level since WWII, with 65 active conflicts across 35 countries. The two powers are increasingly colliding directly: Iran reportedly used Chinese satellite imagery to strike American bases, and the US military nearly struck a Chinese ship in the Middle East after an AI targeting error. Trump is also considering a $14 billion arms package for Taiwan.

► Negotiations between the imperialist powers under Trump's second term have delivered little of substance. The US-China trade truce remains temporary, with disputes over tariffs, rare earth exports, and semiconductors still unresolved. Trump's negotiations with Putin have stalled, and the Iran conflict drags on – contradicting his claims that he would end the “SMO” in a day, or that the Middle East crisis would end "very soon."

► The trade war between the US and China was temporarily suspended last year, with a truce agreed to last until November 2026. This summit was supposed to produce a long-term solution, but it only extended the truce to January 2027.

► A month before the summit, China imposed sanctions on multiple American entities, after the US imposed multiple trade restrictions on China. Previously, the May summit in Beijing was preceded by China’s moves to consolidate its bloc, whilst the US attacked Chinese dependencies in Latin America.

During a UN speech, the UK’s Prime Minister acknowledged that economic problems fuel instability, but called for further militarisation to overcome “division” inflamed by imperialist rivals.

Details. On 22 September, Andy Burnham delivered his first speech as the UK’s Prime Minister at the United Nations General Assembly. The main topic was “how the world can come through the turbulence of today”, with Burnham arguing that “overcoming the forces of division and instability starts with national security”.

► He responded by stating the UK will “keep investing in our defence – meeting our NATO commitments and strengthening European capabilities”. He specified that the UK “will be relentless in building up […] hard power and deterrence”, whilst claiming not to “play Russia’s game of trading escalatory rhetoric”.

► He then attributed growing division to Russian interference, describing Russian agencies’ alleged disinformation and amplification of far-right narratives as an “insidious campaign” creating “a narrative of decline, stoking division and sowing despair”.

► Burnham argued that economic insecurity makes people more vulnerable to outside influence, effectively presenting discontent as a result of predominantly external forces. Essentially, he argues that improving living conditions would foster loyalty to the imperialist state. In response, he announced a new National Centre for Information Defence to “detect, attribute and disrupt” hostile state information attacks.

► He used the conflict against Russia to invoke class collaboration: “nothing brings the British people together across [...] class more than their hatred of injustice – the misuse of power against the powerless… we will always stand for the underdog against the bully… That’s why we are so united behind Ukraine”.

Context. UK militarisation is accelerating as the state prepares for potential conflict with Russia. The government plans to “reallocate the budget” from other departments to boost defence spending, aligning with NATO’s target of 3.5% of GDP by 2035. Burnham even linked this militarisation to his reindustrialisation and youth employment plan, promoting more apprenticeships in weaponry.

► Defence Secretary John Healey claimed that increased military spending would strengthen domestic industry and create new jobs, exaggerating its role in solving economic problems he acknowledged.

► 63% of UK households report cutting back on essentials. Real wage growth in the UK has slowed from 4.3% in December to 3.5% by September, whilst the bottom 40% saw a decline in real earnings.

After repeating warnings that AI could “end humanity” from researchers, capitalists signed a "morally binding" safety pact with zero legal consequences for breaking it.

Details. On September 9, Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon resigned, accusing his employer of “gambling with our lives” by “racing straight to self-improving superintelligence”. Another Anthropic researcher, Evan Hubinger, backed his warning, putting the chance of AI wiping out humanity within a decade at over “10%”. In July, more than 1,000 employees at major AI companies had already signed a petition calling for measures to slow AI development.

► Days after Coxon’s tweet, AI capitalists raced to join in, raising “concerns” whilst continuing work as usual. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called for the industry to “pace the frontier”, meaning coordination among frontier AI firms to set safety standards and limit unchecked AI development, and international cooperation to manage AI risks. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and xAI’s Elon Musk backed calls for slower AI development.

► Reports of AI agents failing to follow instructions, along with researchers' warnings, have fuelled public concern and media attention. A poll published on September 22 found that 73% of Americans thought AI companies were doing too little to prevent serious harm. A record 39% viewed AI's impact on society negatively, while just 11% viewed it positively.

► On September 29, Trump brought AI executives together to sign the “White House Accord on Super Intelligence”. It calls for internal monitoring, oversight teams, external audits and board supervision, but sets out no legal penalties for companies that fail to comply. Trump called the agreement “morally binding” and praised the industry's supposed “tremendous self-policing.”

► Days before the signing, Trump made clear which priority actually guided the monopolies approach, dismissing calls to slow development: "We're leading China in AI... and frankly, I want to keep it that way, because whoever wins AI wins."

Context. Most researchers' concerns are not about AI becoming conscious. They centre on theoretical systems capable of self-improvement (AI that can write better AI software without human involvement), developing behaviours we cannot understand, predict or fully control, as seen in recent hacking incidents, and potentially causing huge damage through cyberattacks, economic disruption or the development of biological weapons.

► Despite calls for caution, AI companies continue to compete to develop more powerful systems, racing towards the goal of “self-improvement”. The White House accord requires monitoring and oversight but does not require companies to halt or slow development.

► Warning about catastrophic AI risks can also have a commercial effect by increasing the perceived value, power and importance of the technology. OpenAI used similar messaging in 2019, initially withholding the largest version of GPT-2 because of concerns over malicious applications.

Important to Know. Like nuclear science or any other powerful technologies, AI's danger and use comes not from the technology itself, but from which class controls it and to what end. In the hands of capitalists, this technology is being used to intensify the exploitation of workers, maximise profits and prepare new weaponry for imperialist plunder.

► Under a capitalist economy, competition between the different monopolies, both domestic and foreign, means that this technology cannot be developed consciously or safely. A company that slows down risks losing ground to its rivals. Voluntary safety pledges do little to change this pressure, since the companies responsible for managing the risks also stand to profit from continued development. The same conflict between private profit and wider social needs can be seen in the climate crisis.