D2. Socialism

Nobody thinks they’re doing the popular front

Here’s the problem with arguing against the popular front inside DSA: Nobody in this organization thinks they’re doing it. That’s not a rhetorical observation. It’s the actual difficulty. Nobody wakes up and says, “I think we should subordinate working-class politics to bourgeois democratic forces.” That’s not how popular frontism arrives. It doesn’t announce itself. It accumulates through a hundred individual decisions, each looking reasonable until, at some point, the organization’s political orientation has shifted into something that would have been recognizable as wrong if proposed directly.

This document is not an accusation. Calling something popular frontism in DSA’s context isn’t a charge of bad faith; it’s a structural observation about what happens to socialist organizations under conditions of intense conjunctural pressure. And the pressure right now is real. Trump’s second term has produced a genuine emergency for millions of people. Immigrants are being deported. Civil liberties are being dismantled. Democratic institutions are being hollowed out or captured outright. People responding to this with urgency are not wrong about the urgency.

Popular frontism doesn’t announce itself. It accumulates through a hundred individual decisions, each looking reasonable until, at some point, the organization’s political orientation has shifted into something that would have been recognizable as wrong if proposed directly.

The question is not whether to respond. The question is how, and specifically on what political basis. That question has a strategic answer and getting it wrong doesn’t just produce ineffective politics. It reproduces the conditions that got us here.

What the popular front actually is

Before making the argument, we need precision about the target. The popular front gets used loosely, and that looseness lets people slide past the critique.

The popular front is not coalition work. Socialists do coalition work all the time and should. It’s not working alongside people we disagree with, and it’s not even working in formations dominated by non-socialist forces. The popular front is specifically the subordination of working-class political independence to a cross-class coalition organized around bourgeois political goals. The test isn’t whether DSA maintains formal independence—whether we keep our name and publish our newsletter. The test is whether the political content of our work is determined by the coalition’s framework or by an independent working-class program.

The popular front is specifically the subordination of working-class political independence to a cross-class coalition organized around bourgeois political goals.

Leon Trotsky’s Struggle Against Fascism in Germany makes this case: In the 1930s, the popular front meant communist parties entering electoral alliances with “progressive” bourgeois parties, adopting their demands, deferring to their leadership, and bracketing socialist politics as divisive. The theory was that fascism posed such an extreme threat that the immediate task was to defend bourgeois democracy, with socialist demands to follow once the emergency had passed.1The standard account of the 1930s debates remains Leon Trotsky, The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1971), which collects the key documents from popular front. For the consequences of the Popular Front turn, see Felix Morrow, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain (New York: Pioneer Publishers, 1938).

The emergency never passed. Socialist demands never came back. The organizations that had disciplined themselves into becoming coalition partners emerged without the political independence they’d begun with, in cases where they emerged at all.

What is being proposed and, in some cases, practiced within DSA today has the same structural features, even if it goes by different names. Coalition partners are the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, liberal NGOs, and civil society organizations. The bracketed demands are socialist ones. The logic is identical: The emergency–framed as either authoritarianism or fascism–is too severe for the luxury of political independence.

How you get there without deciding to

Coalition gravity is real. It’s not a character flaw–it’s a structural problem that operates on organizations, not just individuals.

The Democratic-Party-aligned liberal-left is large, active, and well-resourced. When a crisis hits, that infrastructure mobilizes first and fastest. The coalitions form around it. The demands, the slogans, the framing, and the action calendar are set before socialist organizations have finished their internal discussions.

For example, a DSA member shows up at an immigrant defense meeting. The meeting is mostly liberals, a few DSA members, and some NGO staff. The immediate task of supporting people facing deportation is urgent and correct. Nobody is going to walk out because politics aren’t pure enough. That would be sectarian and wrong. So, you participate. You agree with the common statement. The common statement is framed around “defending American values” and “the rule of law”—not around class power, not around the system that produces both Trump and the deportation regime he’s intensifying. You table that argument because the meeting isn’t the time. Next meeting, same dynamic.

Over months of such activity, DSA’s public face becomes indistinguishable from that of the progressive liberal opposition. The people being recruited come in through that political framework. New members’ understanding of what this organization is gets shaped by what it visibly does, which is to background the socialist politics of working class power from below.

There is nothing explicitly stated requiring anyone to abandon socialist politics. The abandonment happens through accumulation, through the logic of each individual situation. This is what conjunctural pressure does to small organizations without a consciously held, collectively maintained, regularly reasserted strategic orientation.

The antidote isn’t sectarian abstention. It’s deliberate political clarity about what we’re doing and why it’s maintained actively, not assumed.

The fascism question is doing all the work

The strategic argument for popular front practice in the current moment always rests, explicitly or implicitly, on a characterization of Trump as fascist. That characterization is doing more work than it should be trusted to do.

In contrast to the popular front, Trotsky developed the united front strategy, which is often invoked imprecisely to justify current coalition practices, particularly in response to fascism. His argument was that fascism threatened to physically destroy working-class organizations, which required those organizations to act in common, despite political differences, to survive. Even then, he insisted on a united front among labor organizations, not a cross-class coalition with bourgeois democratic forces.2Trotsky, “For a Workers’ United Front Against Fascism” (1931) and “What Next? Vital Questions for the German Proletariat” (1932), both in The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany. The key formulation: the united front is “a practical agreement for struggle” between organizations “that base themselves on the working class”—not with bourgeois parties.

If Trump’s second term represents a Bonapartist conjuncture rather than a fascist one, the entire strategic logic should shift. Bonapartism, in the classical Marxist sense, describes a regime in which the state achieves relative autonomy because the ruling class is politically paralyzed—no fraction can establish stable hegemony—while the working class lacks independent political expression to fill the vacuum. The executive floats above class conflict, presenting itself as a national solution to a political impasse. This describes the current situation with considerable precision.3The Bonapartism framework originates in Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852). For its theoretical elaboration and relation to fascism, see Nicos Poulantzas, Fascism and Dictatorship (London: New Left Books, 1974) and State, Power, Socialism (London: New Left Books, 1978). Poulantzas’s critique of instrumentalist accounts of the state is particularly relevant to the question of regime characterization.

The distinction matters because Bonapartism and fascism call for different strategic responses. Fascism requires defensive mobilization to protect existing working-class organizational infrastructure from physical destruction. Bonapartism requires something harder: building independent working-class political capacity to fill the vacuum currently occupied by the Bonapartist solution.

The “no kings” framing … is the ideological form of the popular front.

The popular front’s response to Bonapartism doesn’t just fail strategically. It actively worsens the underlying condition. Bonapartism arises from two simultaneous problems: bourgeois political fragmentation and working-class political subordination to bourgeois politics. The popular front deepens the second problem by re-subordinating working-class politics to bourgeois democratic forces. You defeat this Bonaparte—if you defeat him—only to have reproduced exactly the conditions that made him possible.

The “no kings” framing that dominates current opposition politics is not accidental. It is the ideological form of the popular front: The enemy is personal despotism, the solution is constitutional democracy, and the agent of change is a broad cross-class coalition of people who love freedom. Working-class power doesn’t appear in this picture as a distinct force with distinct interests. It appears as part of the democratic people, whose political expression is progressive liberalism. Socialists who adopt this framing aren’t just making a rhetorical concession. They’re accepting a framework that makes independent working-class politics invisible by definition.

Trotsky against the Trotskyists

It’s worth being direct about the theoretical tradition being invoked to justify current practice because the invocation is wrong, and demonstrating that it’s wrong matters for the internal argument.

When comrades say, “united front, not popular front,” they’re invoking a real and important distinction from Trotsky’s work in the early 1930s. The problem is that what’s being practiced in many cases is the popular front, not the united front—and the distinction between them is precisely what Trotsky spent years insisting on.

Trotsky’s united front was between working-class organizations: German socialist and communist formations, acting in common against the Nazi threat, maintaining their distinct political programs and organizational independence, and striking together on specific, defined objectives. Political independence wasn’t incidental to the strategy—it was the whole point. A united front dissolves the moment participating organizations can no longer advance their own politics within it.4Trotsky, “The United Front for Defense” (1933), in The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany. The “march separately, strike together” formulation appears in several documents from this period. Its precondition—that independent organizations capable of marching separately actually exist—is rarely emphasized in contemporary invocations.

“March separately, strike together” is frequently quoted. What’s less frequently noted is that marching separately requires that you be marching and that there be an independent working-class political formation capable of entering a united front as a distinct pole. DSA joining a Democratic Party-led coalition isn’t a united front. There is no independent march. There is a large march that has absorbed us.

The Comintern’s move to the popular front in 1935 was not an abandonment of the united front in favor of something obviously different. It was a collapse of the united front into a cross-class coalition, dressed in the language of anti-fascist necessity. Dimitrov’s Congress speeches don’t read like a capitulation—they read like a strategic adaptation to overwhelming circumstances.5Georgi Dimitrov, “The Fascist Offensive and the Tasks of the Communist International,” report to the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International (1935), in The United Front: The Struggle Against Fascism and War (New York: International Publishers, 1938). The rhetorical sophistication of the popular front turn is worth attending to: it was presented as a creative application of united front principles, not an abandonment of them.

The people who built the popular front thought they were being realistic, flexible, and responsive to conditions. They were wrong. The popular front delivered the Spanish Republic to Franco and the French Left to paralysis. The lesson isn’t that unity is bad. It’s that unity organized on bourgeois-democratic terms—with socialist politics bracketed as divisive, and its socialist demands deferred as premature—produces defeat even when it yields votes.

What independent politics actually looks like

The case against popular frontism is not a case for abstention, and saying so directly matters because the charge of sectarianism is always the first response.

DSA members should be in immigrant defense work. We should be in the streets around May Day and every moment of mass mobilization. We should be in coalition with whoever is organizing working-class people. None of that is in question. What’s in question is the political basis on which we’re there and the organizational form we maintain within it.

Independent politics in practice means several difficult things. It means being visibly, publicly socialist in coalition spaces, not as a condition of participation but as a contribution to it. The people being radicalized at this moment need to find a distinct pole. If DSA’s presence is indistinguishable from progressive liberalism, we’re not offering them an alternative; we’re delivering them to the Democratic Party’s orbit.

It means framing every attack as class politics, not democratic politics. Deportations are not an assault on American values. They are an assault on working people by a capitalist state that serves ruling-class interests—interests that the Democratic Party also represents, differently but genuinely. The distinction matters because it points toward a different solution. “Restore democracy” points toward the Democratic Party. “Build working-class power” points to something that doesn’t yet exist at the required scale, which means the task is to build it.

Independent politics … means treating the conjuncture as a radicalization opportunity, which requires having a distinct socialist pole for people to find.

It means doing genuine united-front work where it is actually possible, with DSA’s left currents, with socialist labor militants, with other genuine working-class formations, on terms that maintain political independence rather than dissolving into the lowest common denominator of anti-authoritarianism.

And it means treating the conjuncture as a radicalization opportunity, which requires having a distinct socialist pole for people to find. People are moving right now. The question is where they move to. If socialist organizations are invisible as a distinct political force, if our public presence is liberal coalition work, then the people being radicalized by Trump’s attacks get absorbed into the Democratic Party opposition. That is a long-term failure with consequences that will outlast the current crisis.

The organizational honesty problem

One more thing deserves to be said, even though it’s uncomfortable.

Organizations under pressure tend toward popular frontism in part because it solves an immediate organizational problem: isolation. Coalition work provides activity, visibility, a sense of mass connection, and recruiting opportunities that independent socialist politics can’t provide. This is a real organizational need being met in a politically costly way. Naming it isn’t an accusation of bad faith. It’s an attempt at honesty about the pressures that drive political drift.

The solution is not to pretend that the isolation problem doesn’t exist; it does, and it’s serious. The solution is to refuse to solve it through absorption into formations whose political gravity we need to escape. That means accepting that independent politics is harder, slower, and less immediately satisfying than coalition work. It has always been true. The organizations that maintained independence through the 1930s conjuncture were the ones that came out the other side with something to offer. The ones that dissolved into the popular front came out as smaller versions of the liberal parties, they’d subordinated themselves to—in the cases where they came out at all.

Conclusion: We’ve been here before

The argument of this document is not that DSA should disengage from the current moment of political crisis. It is precisely the crisis’s intensity that makes it necessary to be as clear as possible about our political orientation, not the reason to defer clarity until conditions are easier.

Bonapartism won’t fall to the Left that currently exists in the United States. The socialist movement is too small, too organizationally fragmented, and too politically subordinated to bourgeois parties for that. The question the conjuncture poses is not whether we can defeat Trump’s regime directly. It is whether we can use this moment to build the organizational and political infrastructure that might, eventually, constitute a genuine working-class political force, or whether we will spend it as the left wing of a liberal coalition that will absorb our energy, recruit our cadre into its own formations, and leave us smaller and less politically distinct than we started.

The popular front has always promised the second option while selling the first. We have enough history now to know how that story ends. The question is whether we’ve learned from it.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: OsannaChil; modified by Tempest.

The post The coalition that swallows you appeared first on Tempest.

Transformasi Pengalaman Bermain Kasino Online

Sebelum teknologi live dealer berkembang pesat, mayoritas permainan kasino online mengandalkan sistem otomatis berbasis RNG. Meskipun sistem tersebut tetap populer, banyak pemain merasa pengalaman bermain masih terasa kurang hidup dan minim interaksi sosial.

Kini, teknologi live streaming HD mengubah pola tersebut secara signifikan. Kamera resolusi tinggi, pencahayaan profesional, hingga koneksi streaming stabil memungkinkan pemain menyaksikan jalannya permainan secara real time tanpa gangguan visual yang berarti.

Dealer profesional juga menjadi bagian penting dalam menciptakan atmosfer yang lebih autentik. Mereka memandu permainan, berinteraksi dengan pemain, serta menjaga ritme permainan tetap nyaman dan dinamis.

Teknologi HD Membawa Detail Lebih Nyata

Kualitas gambar menjadi salah satu elemen utama dalam permainan live casino modern. Teknologi High Definition memungkinkan detail kartu, roda roulette, maupun meja permainan terlihat lebih jelas dan tajam.

Banyak penyedia platform kini bahkan menggunakan teknologi multi-camera angle untuk memberikan sudut pandang berbeda selama permainan berlangsung. Inovasi ini membuat pemain dapat melihat proses permainan dari berbagai sisi, sehingga tingkat transparansi terasa lebih tinggi.

Selain itu, dukungan audio yang semakin jernih juga meningkatkan kenyamanan bermain. Suara dealer, putaran roda roulette, hingga suasana studio dapat terdengar lebih natural sehingga pengalaman bermain terasa semakin imersif.

Interaksi Real Time Jadi Daya Tarik Utama

Salah satu alasan utama popularitas live dealer terus meningkat adalah adanya komunikasi langsung antara pemain dan dealer. Fitur live chat memungkinkan pemain memberikan respons secara cepat selama permainan berlangsung.

Interaksi tersebut menciptakan nuansa sosial yang sebelumnya sulit ditemukan dalam permainan kasino digital biasa. Banyak pemain merasa lebih nyaman karena permainan tidak lagi terasa monoton atau terlalu mekanis.

Beberapa platform bahkan mulai menghadirkan dealer dengan kemampuan multibahasa agar pemain dari berbagai negara dapat menikmati komunikasi yang lebih lancar dan personal.

Dukungan Infrastruktur Internet Semakin Memadai

Kemajuan teknologi internet turut mendorong perkembangan live casino berkualitas HD. Jaringan yang lebih stabil membuat streaming video berjalan lebih lancar dengan tingkat latency rendah.

Kondisi ini sangat penting karena permainan live dealer membutuhkan sinkronisasi cepat antara server, dealer, dan pemain. Ketika koneksi berjalan optimal, pemain dapat menikmati permainan tanpa delay berlebihan yang dapat mengganggu konsentrasi.

Selain itu, perangkat mobile modern juga semakin mendukung kualitas streaming tinggi. Pemain kini bisa menikmati pengalaman live casino melalui smartphone maupun tablet tanpa kehilangan kualitas visual secara signifikan.

Keamanan dan Transparansi Menjadi Prioritas

Platform live casino modern tidak hanya fokus pada kualitas visual, tetapi juga meningkatkan sistem keamanan permainan. Banyak penyedia menggunakan teknologi enkripsi data untuk menjaga privasi dan transaksi pemain tetap aman.

Di sisi lain, penggunaan kamera langsung memberikan tingkat transparansi yang lebih baik dibanding sistem otomatis biasa. Pemain dapat melihat langsung proses pengocokan kartu maupun jalannya permainan secara real time, sehingga kepercayaan terhadap platform meningkat.

Langkah ini menjadi bagian penting dalam membangun reputasi industri kasino online yang lebih profesional dan terpercaya.

Masa Depan Live Casino Diprediksi Semakin Canggih

Melihat perkembangan teknologi saat ini, banyak pengamat industri memperkirakan live casino akan terus mengalami peningkatan kualitas dalam beberapa tahun ke depan. Teknologi seperti virtual reality dan augmented reality mulai dilirik untuk menciptakan pengalaman bermain yang lebih mendalam.

Jika inovasi tersebut diterapkan secara maksimal, pemain kemungkinan dapat merasakan sensasi berada di kasino fisik secara virtual hanya melalui perangkat digital dari rumah.

Perubahan ini menunjukkan bahwa industri live casino tidak lagi sekadar menghadirkan permainan online biasa, melainkan mulai mengarah pada pengalaman hiburan interaktif yang lebih realistis, modern, dan personal.

Apa Itu Slot Volatilitas Tinggi?

Secara sederhana, volatilitas dalam slot menggambarkan seberapa sering dan seberapa besar kemenangan yang bisa muncul. Slot volatilitas tinggi biasanya memiliki ciri khas kemenangan yang tidak terlalu sering keluar, tetapi sekali muncul nilainya bisa jauh lebih besar.

Karena itulah, pemain sering menyebut jenis slot ini sebagai permainan “sabar tapi menguntungkan”. Dibutuhkan modal yang cukup stabil dan mental yang siap menghadapi putaran panjang sebelum mendapatkan hasil besar.

Berbeda dengan slot volatilitas rendah yang cenderung sering memberi kemenangan kecil, slot volatilitas tinggi lebih fokus pada potensi payout besar dalam waktu tertentu.

Sensasi Tegang Jadi Daya Tarik Utama

Salah satu alasan kenapa banyak pemain menyukai slot volatilitas tinggi adalah sensasi yang dihadirkan selama permainan berlangsung. Setiap spin terasa lebih mendebarkan karena pemain tahu ada kemungkinan hadiah besar muncul kapan saja.

Banyak pemain mengaku justru menikmati momen menunggu tersebut. Ketika simbol bonus akhirnya muncul atau fitur free spin aktif, rasa puas yang didapat terasa lebih besar dibanding kemenangan kecil yang sering muncul di slot biasa.

Bagi sebagian orang, pengalaman ini mirip seperti menonton pertandingan olahraga yang penuh kejutan. Ada rasa penasaran, harapan, dan antusiasme yang membuat permainan terasa lebih hidup.

Potensi Kemenangan Besar Jadi Magnet

Tidak bisa dipungkiri, potensi kemenangan besar menjadi alasan utama slot volatilitas tinggi semakin populer. Banyak provider game modern kini menghadirkan slot dengan multiplier besar, fitur bonus berlapis, hingga jackpot progresif yang membuat pemain semakin tertarik mencoba.

Apalagi di era media sosial seperti sekarang, cerita kemenangan besar dari pemain lain sering cepat viral. Hal ini secara tidak langsung membentuk rasa penasaran pemain baru untuk ikut merasakan pengalaman serupa.

Meski begitu, pemain berpengalaman biasanya memahami bahwa peluang besar tetap datang bersama risiko yang tinggi. Karena itu, pengelolaan modal menjadi hal penting sebelum mencoba slot jenis ini.

Cocok untuk Pemain yang Suka Tantangan

Slot volatilitas tinggi umumnya lebih disukai pemain yang menyukai tantangan dan strategi bermain jangka panjang. Mereka tidak hanya mengejar kemenangan cepat, tetapi juga menikmati proses permainan secara keseluruhan.

Pemain tipe ini biasanya lebih sabar dalam mengatur ritme bermain. Mereka memahami kapan harus berhenti, kapan menambah spin, dan bagaimana menjaga saldo agar tetap aman selama permainan berlangsung.

Di sisi lain, slot volatilitas tinggi juga dianggap lebih menarik karena tidak mudah ditebak. Hal tersebut membuat permainan terasa lebih dinamis dan tidak monoton.

Popularitas Slot Volatilitas Tinggi Terus Naik

Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, provider game terus berlomba menghadirkan slot dengan fitur yang lebih agresif dan inovatif. Mulai dari efek visual sinematik, sistem multiplier unik, hingga mode bonus interaktif yang membuat pengalaman bermain semakin modern.

Perkembangan ini membuat slot volatilitas tinggi semakin diminati, terutama oleh generasi pemain muda yang mencari hiburan digital dengan sensasi lebih intens.

Selain itu, banyak streamer dan kreator konten game juga sering memainkan slot jenis ini karena dinilai lebih seru untuk ditonton. Momen kemenangan besar yang muncul tiba-tiba menjadi hiburan tersendiri bagi penonton.

Kesimpulan

Slot volatilitas tinggi berhasil menarik perhatian banyak pemain karena menawarkan kombinasi antara tantangan, sensasi menegangkan, dan peluang kemenangan besar. Meski risikonya lebih tinggi dibanding slot biasa, banyak pemain justru menikmati dinamika permainan yang tidak mudah ditebak.

Namun, seperti bentuk hiburan digital lainnya, permainan ini tetap perlu dinikmati secara bijak. Memahami cara kerja volatilitas, mengatur modal, dan bermain dengan batas yang jelas menjadi langkah penting agar pengalaman bermain tetap terasa menyenangkan dan terkendali.

Namun di balik keseruannya, tidak sedikit pemain yang justru mengalami kekalahan besar karena kurang memahami cara mengelola permainan dengan bijak.

Banyak pemain pemula sering terbawa suasana ketika sedang bermain. Mereka terus menekan tombol spin tanpa memperhatikan modal yang tersisa. Akibatnya, permainan yang awalnya hanya untuk hiburan berubah menjadi pengalaman yang melelahkan secara finansial maupun emosional. Karena itu, memahami cara menghindari kekalahan besar menjadi hal penting sebelum memulai permainan slot.

Jangan Bermain Dengan Emosi

Salah satu kesalahan paling umum saat bermain slot adalah mengambil keputusan berdasarkan emosi. Ketika mengalami kekalahan beruntun, sebagian pemain justru meningkatkan taruhan dengan harapan bisa mengembalikan modal dalam waktu cepat. Padahal langkah seperti ini sering membuat kerugian semakin besar.

Pemain yang lebih berpengalaman biasanya memilih berhenti sejenak ketika emosi mulai tidak stabil. Mereka memahami bahwa permainan slot tetap mengandalkan sistem acak, sehingga tidak ada jaminan kemenangan akan datang hanya karena taruhan dinaikkan. Mengendalikan emosi menjadi langkah awal agar permainan tetap terasa nyaman dan tidak berlebihan.

Tentukan Batas Modal Sejak Awal

Sebelum mulai bermain, tentukan terlebih dahulu jumlah modal yang memang siap digunakan untuk hiburan. Cara ini terlihat sederhana, tetapi sangat membantu menjaga kondisi keuangan tetap aman. Banyak pemain disiplin yang selalu memisahkan dana bermain dengan kebutuhan sehari-hari.

Misalnya, jika seseorang sudah menetapkan batas modal Rp100 ribu dalam satu sesi permainan, maka ia harus berhenti ketika nominal tersebut habis. Kebiasaan disiplin seperti ini membantu pemain menghindari keputusan impulsif yang sering muncul saat mengalami kekalahan.

Hindari Bermain Terlalu Lama

Durasi bermain juga memengaruhi pola keputusan pemain. Semakin lama seseorang bermain tanpa jeda, fokus dan konsentrasi biasanya mulai menurun. Dalam kondisi lelah, pemain lebih mudah mengambil keputusan terburu-buru.

Karena itu, banyak pemain berpengalaman memilih bermain dalam waktu singkat namun teratur. Mereka menikmati permainan secukupnya tanpa memaksakan diri untuk terus mengejar kemenangan. Cara ini membuat permainan terasa lebih santai dan tidak menimbulkan tekanan berlebihan.

Pahami Pola Permainan dan RTP

Memahami informasi dasar seperti RTP (Return to Player) juga penting sebelum memilih permainan slot. RTP merupakan persentase teoretis pengembalian dana kepada pemain dalam jangka panjang. Meski tidak menjamin kemenangan instan, game dengan RTP lebih tinggi sering dianggap memiliki peluang yang lebih stabil dibandingkan permainan dengan RTP rendah.

Selain RTP, pemain juga perlu memahami volatilitas permainan. Slot dengan volatilitas tinggi memang menawarkan kemenangan besar, tetapi risikonya juga lebih tinggi. Sebaliknya, slot volatilitas rendah cenderung memberikan kemenangan kecil namun lebih sering. Menyesuaikan jenis permainan dengan kondisi modal dapat membantu mengurangi risiko kekalahan besar.

Jangan Mudah Percaya “Pola Pasti Menang”

Di berbagai media sosial, banyak beredar informasi mengenai pola slot yang disebut-sebut bisa memberikan kemenangan pasti. Faktanya, permainan slot modern menggunakan sistem RNG (Random Number Generator) yang membuat hasil setiap putaran bersifat acak.

Karena itu, pemain sebaiknya lebih berhati-hati terhadap klaim yang terlalu berlebihan. Bermain dengan pemahaman realistis jauh lebih aman dibandingkan mengejar janji kemenangan instan yang belum tentu benar. Sikap kritis seperti ini penting agar pemain tidak mudah terbawa ekspektasi yang tidak masuk akal.

Jadikan Slot Sebagai Hiburan

Hal terpenting yang sering dilupakan pemain adalah memahami tujuan awal bermain slot, yaitu sebagai hiburan. Ketika permainan dijadikan sarana mencari keuntungan utama, tekanan mental biasanya akan meningkat. Pemain menjadi lebih mudah kecewa saat kalah dan sulit berhenti ketika sedang mengejar kemenangan.

Pemain yang menikmati slot sebagai hiburan umumnya memiliki kontrol bermain yang lebih baik. Mereka tahu kapan harus berhenti, kapan menikmati kemenangan kecil, dan kapan menghindari risiko berlebihan. Sikap seperti inilah yang membantu banyak pemain tetap nyaman menikmati permainan tanpa mengalami kerugian besar.

Penutup

Bermain slot memang bisa memberikan sensasi hiburan yang menyenangkan, terutama setelah menjalani aktivitas harian yang melelahkan. Namun tanpa kontrol yang baik, permainan ini juga bisa membawa kerugian besar dalam waktu singkat. Mengatur modal, mengendalikan emosi, memahami pola permainan, dan bermain secara bijak menjadi langkah penting agar pengalaman bermain tetap aman dan menyenangkan.

Pada akhirnya, pemain yang mampu menjaga kendali diri biasanya justru lebih menikmati permainan dalam jangka panjang. Bukan semata soal menang atau kalah, tetapi tentang bagaimana seseorang tetap bisa bermain dengan nyaman tanpa kehilangan kendali atas keputusan yang diambil.

We are disabled, crip, mad, debilitated, and disability activists, advocates, scholars, workers, and home care recipients.

We proclaim our full support for the struggle of the home care workers of New York City who are currently engaged in the “No More 24” campaign. We specifically support their immediate demand for enactment of the No More 24 bill (City Council bill, Intro. 303), and we support the broader struggle of the Ain’t I A Woman?! coalition against the hyper-exploitation of home care workers.

Presently, tens of thousands of New York City home care workers are compelled to labor for 24-hour shifts at only 13-hours pay. These workers are predominantly immigrant women of color, subjected to systematic precarity, vulnerability, under-valuation, overwork, debility, and disablement. They have been unfairly made to shoulder the failings of medical insurance, corporate home care, and municipal and state political systems.

Home care workers deserve far better than the intolerable status quo. So, too, do disabled people and other recipients of home care. Disabled people in New York City and nationwide face disproportionately high rates of poverty, houselessness, unemployment, violence, neglect, discrimination, incarceration, and institutionalization. All disabled people deserve to live dignified, autonomous, well-resourced lives as full members of society in their own homes and communities.

While sympathetic to the concerns expressed by some disabled people about the No More 24 bill, we think it is horribly mistaken that some leaders of disability NGOs and legacy advocacy organizations have publicly framed the No More 24 workers’ struggle as counterposed to the interests of the “disability community.” We know well that disabled people have much to lose (and potentially gain) in the outcome of this fight. But we know, too, that the battle lines in this fight are not primarily between disabled people and the home care workers.

We are further disappointed that some supposed allies of disabled people – including the officialdoms of certain unions, and the Democratic Party state governor and city mayor, Kathy Hochul and Zohran Mamdani – have lent their efforts to stymieing or otherwise slow-walking the No More 24 campaign, citing in part their “concern” for the disabled. We reject this as a hollow alibi for refusal to act on the just demands of the home care workers.

In sum, we endorse the home care workers’ demand for an immediate end to 24-hour shifts at 13-hours pay. We further emphasize what to us is an inextricably linked demand, namely, that disabled people should continue to have the option of receiving care in their own homes and communities, with no reduction in the number of care hours received. We view the home care corporations, “managed care” insurers, and city and state government officials – that is, the most powerful entities in this many-sided relationship – as being squarely responsible for effecting this latter demand by way of their access to ample funding sources (this is, after all, the richest city in the richest country in the history of the world).

This is a crisis of the ruling class’s making. It is the fault of neither the exploited home care workers nor the predominantly poor recipients of home care. Consequently, we believe that the joining of the struggles and demands for both workers’ justice and disability justice will strengthen each in a powerful mutualistic coalition. Thus, we appeal to the home care workers, the No More 24 campaign, and the Ain’t I A Woman?! coalition, as well as to all disability advocacy organizations, to explicitly advance our respective interests in tandem. We say: “No More 24!”, “Put People First!”, and “Universal Home Care Access is a Right!”

Add your signature.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Ain’t I A Woman Campaign; modified by Tempest.

The post No more 24! appeared first on Tempest.

“The lust and the avarice
The bottomless, the cavernous
greed”
– Natalie Merchant (‘Motherland’).

“One thing about us wise guys, the hustle never ends.” – Tony Soprano. 

Overview

This article takes as its starting point the U.S. attacks on Venezuela and Iran in early 2026. Both attacks, it is argued, demonstrated distinguishing characteristics of the Trump administration: greed, short-termism, incompetence, and an obsession with violent, egotistical gestures rather than strategic calculation. Trump does not pursue any version of the U.S. national interest. Nor does he consistently pursue the long-term interests of the U.S. ruling class and its empire, though the regime is backed by members of the ruling class who share its penchants for short-term gain and narcissistic gratification. The upshot is a decline in U.S. hegemony in the world and a boost to the ambitions of China and other powers.

Introduction

The U.S. government launched two unprovoked acts of military aggression in early 2026. The first, in January, saw U.S. forces violently kidnap Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and first lady Celia Flores and bring them to the U.S. to face spurious charges of drug trafficking; the new head of state (the former vice-president) accepted the Trump administration’s demands to open Venezuela up to U.S. capital, assume liability for past corporate claims made against the state, and bow to U.S. oversight of how the country’s oil revenues would be managed. The action was protested worldwide but sparked no serious retaliation from other governments. On its own terms, this seemed a clear victory for the U.S. empire.

The second act of aggression, begun in February, saw the U.S. and Israel launch a massive military campaign against Iran, a war that quickly escalated into a colossally expensive catastrophe in human, environmental and financial terms. Despite the current impasse in negotiations following a ceasefire, it is hard to dispute Owen Jones’ verdict when he describes Trump’s “excursion” as “the biggest strategic defeat suffered by the U.S. since its emergence as a superpower”. This assessment is widely held. Ryan Cooper calls it “an immense strategic defeat – and one that knocks the legs out from under the entire American system of power projection and global predominance”. Iran proved its ability to wreak military and economic havoc on the U.S. and its allies.

Current fragile ceasefire negotiations are based on U.S. willingness to at least discuss Iranian proposals: these include the removal of U.S. military bases from the Middle East and continued Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz, possibly including tolls continuing to be imposed on ships transiting through the marine passageway. The very fact that such issues are even on the table – they would not have been up for discussion before the war – represents a decisive advance for Iran and a huge blow to the U.S. Veteran US diplomat Richard Haass concedes that in strategic terms the US is losing the war,

This article will argue that, despite their seemingly different outcomes, the two aggressions shared certain characteristics associated with the Trump presidency: greed, narcissism, short-termism, limited ambition (in terms of regime change or even resource access), incompetence and incoherence. Not all of these characteristics are unique to this presidency but the salience and intensity of the regime’s avarice and egomania – its hustle and hubris – distinguish it from past U.S. regimes while undermining long-term U.S. imperial ambitions.

Few dispute that the attack on Iran starkly illustrated the limits of the U.S. empire (at least in its current Trumpian incarnation) but so also, in a different way, did the attack on Venezuela. Because Venezuela is more likely to be seen as a relative success for U.S. imperialism, greater space is devoted here to that intervention to argue that, contrary to initial appearances, this was a strictly limited and globally insignificant “triumph”. This is followed with a discussion of the broader pattern of greed and ego now undermining U.S. empire and of how that has worked to the benefit of China in particular. But we begin with an outline of why both mainstream and left-wing commentators typically misunderstand the nature of Trump’s presidency.

Category errors and kleptocracy The Trumpian state

Explanations for why the U.S. administration chose to wage its war on Iran include: a strategic desire to eliminate or weaken the main supposed rival to U.S. control of the Middle East and its oil, and to control or limit the supply of that oil to China especially; deference to Israel’s quest for total domination of the region (a quest that is continuing as Israel seeks to sabotage the ceasefire and continues aggressions in Palestine and Lebanon); and Trump’s wish to distract from the Epstein files and the cost of living crisis in the U.S. (though of course the war worsened that crisis).

All these factors may have played some role. However, writing in the U.S. establishment insider journal Foreign Affairs before this latest assault on Iran, a distinctive, simple and useful frame for viewing the actions of the Trump regime is proposed by Alexander Cooley and Daniel Nixon:

“Trump has… wielded U.S. foreign policy principally to increase his own wealth, bolster his status, and personally benefit a small circle of his family members, friends, and loyalists. U.S. foreign policy is now largely subordinate to the private interests of the president and his retainers.”

Cooley and Nixon criticize other scholars for committing a “category error” (assigning to something a quality it does not possess) and continuing to believe that Trump 2.0 is pursuing (even if poorly) anything resembling the U.S. national interest or that his regime is adopting a classically realist approach to foreign affairs to which his blatant corruption is merely a sideshow.

On the contrary, they argue, in a kleptocratic system like that of Trump, “corruption is the end; the point of holding and keeping office is to enrich a ruler and his inner circle. Regulation, law enforcement, public procurement, and even diplomacy all become means of self-dealing – of extracting resources, controlling streams of income, and diverting wealth to family, friends, and allies”. Cooley and Nixon urge their fellow academics to “stop obfuscating the reality of Trump’s foreign policy by calling it realism… [or] great-power competition.”

Paul Heideman makes a similar case from a different political perspective, one that is not nostalgic for prior periods of U.S. foreign policy (he references the “bloodbaths in Vietnam and Iraq”) but that also recognizes the distinctiveness of Trump’s regime. Heideman locates Trump within the longstanding trend of the Republican Party (and perhaps U.S. party politics more broadly) becoming “unmoored from the control of America’s capitalist class as a whole”. While individual capitalists and sectors exert influence, there is no longer “the kind of class-wide oversight that the foreign policy planning network was designed to provide” – to both Republican and Democrat administrations.

Dismantling the foreign policy network

This planning network, Heideman outlines, operated through corporate-sponsored think tanks that produced advisory reports for U.S. governments and supplied many of the personnel who staffed those governments’ foreign policy departments. The classic example is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR, which publishes Foreign Affairs): for example, Condoleezza Rice, George W Bush’s national security advisor, was a CFR fellow while Anthony Blinken, Secretary of State under Biden, was a CFR member; there are myriad other examples. Crucially, the boards of such think tanks bring together representatives of different corporations from different economic sectors, thereby facilitating, in theory at least, the forging of a shared ruling class perspective that has been operationalized through the deployment of think tank personnel within successive administrations. The think tanks thus constitute what Alex Callinicos defines as fora in which “collective [class] actors constitute themselves and articulate their claims”.

Some such personnel (albeit fewer than under previous administrations) continued to occupy key positions under Trump 1.0, but Trump 2.0 has changed that radically: there has been, in Susan Watkins’ words, a “gutting [of] the senior levels of the National Security Council and State Department”, with critical foreign policy roles now more likely to be occupied by people drawn from the worlds of TV and real estate. A military studies professor visiting Washington in March 2026 and nostalgic for the old order has written despairingly:

“It is hard to convey the gloom that has overtaken Washington. All the structures that are vital to crisis management [read: war planning] have either been attenuated or disbanded. There is hardly anyone left on the National Security Council staff. A friend described an empty State Department where you could hear your own footsteps.”

Those foreign policy think tanks that are now influential, unlike the CFR, tend to be aggressively focused ones of recent creation, such as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, an Israeli lobbying body with which Secretary of State Marco Rubio is particularly associated, and the equally pro-Israeli Vandenberg Coalition that lobbied hard for attacking Iran. Much has been made of the radical conservative Heritage Foundation’s influence on Trump through its Project 2025 agenda for his presidency. That influence is indeed evident in a number of policy areas, including: centralizing power within the Executive; working against Trans rights, ‘gender ideology’, and ‘wokeness’ more generally; attacking public service media, university and judicial independence; oppression and deportation of anyone deemed undesirable; the attempted limitation of citizenship and voting rights; and shredding the civil service, especially as regards corporate regulation and workers’ rights. But its influence over foreign policy is open to debate.

Heritage did support the weeding out of the network of foreign policy “professionals” that had previously dominated in this area (a former Obama speechwriter called them the “blob”). High-ranking military officers are also being purged, with nine 4- and 5-star military personnel fired during Trump 2.0 – compared to eleven over the entire previous 160 years. Those fired include: the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Staff of the Navy, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Secretary of the Navy, and the leaders of intelligence agencies. One result is that decisions now get made by, as Heideman contends, a “staggeringly incompetent policy team”, with the particular ignorance and ineptitude of Trump golf buddy and ubiquitous special representative Steve Witkoff singled out by some. Witkoff has been central to deliberations concerning Israel/Palestine, Ukraine, Iran and elsewhere.

Incompetence is certainly evident in the ongoing debacle of the U.S. assault on Iran, characterized as it is by: unclear and shifting goals; failure to rally, or even prepare to rally, external support; insufficient stockpiles of military assets and of the raw materials necessary to replace them; and the prior decommissioning of minesweepers. The Trump regime’s underestimation of the strength of Iranian resistance is an acute symptom of this incompetence – especially Iran’s willingness and capacity to attack Gulf states (and U.S. bases therein, as well as data centers) and to close the Strait of Hormuz, throwing the global economy into chaos and peril, not just through pushing up oil and gas prices but also through wider commodity price shocks and impacts on global supply chains. Within the region itself, thirty to forty percent of Gulf refining capacity has been damaged or destroyed and it may take up to three years to fully restore it. Experienced military leaders’ words of caution on some or all of these matters continue to be ignored or overridden.

Left misconceptions The ruling class and the state

The category error identified by Cooley and Nixon, and implied by Heideman, can also apply to left-wing writers, who tend to look to Trump as espousing, not the interests of the U.S. as a whole, but the interests of the U.S. ruling class and US imperialism. A common variant is to see Trump as a representative of an aspirant unilateral, muscular new order (in line with Heritage’s Project 2025 agenda), shedding the constraints of the old, multilateral, rules-based system (I’ve gone some way down that road myself in the past). The military assault on Venezuela and the kidnapping of its president and first lady, together with the transformation of the rump Venezuelan regime into a U.S. vassal state, might seem, at first glance, a good example of this unilateral approach in successful action but, as will be shown, this is not really the case.

What I term left-wing category errors, with particular but not exclusive reference to Venezuela, include the following:

• Brian O’Boyle stating that “Trump’s MAGA project is designed to reassert the power of a declining hegemon… to make the world “great again” for the U.S. ruling class”. Vis-à-vis the attack on Venezuela, the U.S. ruling class, O’Boyle writes, has made a “calculation that the U.S. can reassert control over an important continent [South America], capture some much needed resources and weaken the role of China in the region.” O’Boyle concludes that Trump’s programme “represents a brutal ruling class turning to ever more brutal tactics to secure their own interests.”
• Referring to continental policy more generally, Susan Watkins concurring: “In Latin America [Trump] is defending and extending the capitalist system against hold-out leftist regimes, and so advancing American economic, political and ideological interests.“
• William Camarco and Frederick Mills crediting the Trump regime with “a strategic project whose assault on Venezuela has broader geopolitical implications”.
• Logan McMillen going so far as to attribute to Trump “a coherent project of global enclosure” in relation to both Venezuela and Iran.
• Charlie Lywood attributing Trump’s (now perhaps paused) drive to take over Greenland to the U.S.’s desire, in the context of imperial rivalry with China in particular, to access rare earths (minerals vital for large swatches of industry, discussed further below) and to assure domination of new navigation routes opened up by shrinking Arctic ice.
• Guy Laron interpreting Trump’s attacks on Venezuela and Iran as strategic responses to China’s near-monopoly of rare earths, creating countervailing leverage over China by controlling its access to the discounted, sanctions-busting oil previously supplied to China by both Venezuela and Iran (though he concedes that, taken together, the two countries only accounted for 17-18 per cent of Chinese oil imports in 2025).

These claims rest on two assumptions: first, that there is a cohesive U.S. ruling capitalist class capable of making such calculations and agreeing on such tactics and, second, that the U.S. state serves as the agent of that class. Both assumptions are questionable.

On the issue of class cohesion, Doug Henwood (writing in 2021) has documented the growing fractures and frictions within U.S. capital, leading to what Salar Mohandesi describes as a lack of a “coherent global vision” on the part of the ruling class. In his book Rogue Elephant, Heideman documents how the U.S. ruling class only adopted a substantively common policy in the 1970s and 1980s when the labor movement was winning concessions from capital amidst falling rates of profit and a concerted fightback was seen as essential, the fightback becoming the global turn to neoliberalism. Once neoliberalism had done its job of disciplining labor and restoring or extending capital’s privileges, Heideman argues, U.S. corporations regressed to individual and sectoral lobbying.

The kleptocratic state

On the issue of who the state serves, Trump, to a greater extent than any U.S. president in the modern era, clearly pursues policies (and Cooley and Nixon are right about this) that are of direct, personal benefit to himself – primarily materially, but also in the sense of feeding a narcissistic ego (Melvin Goodman refers to his “extreme obsession with power, wealth, and self-importance”). This applies most recently to the war on Iran: there is strong circumstantial evidence that regime insiders were making stock and commodity market killings, as well as profiteering through event prediction platforms, by virtue of advance access to Trump’s market-shifting statements on the war. For example, a suspicious number of one-way bets on falling oil prices were made just before Trump claimed negotiations to end the war had been initiated, while large bets on a ceasefire were being made just before Trump announced it on April 7, 2026.

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy (himself a blowhard warmonger) decries this as “mind-blowing corruption”, while economist Paul Krugman baldly states that people “close to Trump are trading based on national secrets” and that this amounts to treason. Trump is not alone in this: the Financial Times reports that a financial broker for Secretary of War Pete Hegseth sought to buy shares worth millions of dollars in armaments companies before the war commenced. The war may not have been started to facilitate such shenanigans but it was gleefully exploited for those ends. (Oil companies also made windfall gains from higher prices, a topic we will return to).

David Kirkpatrick estimates that this presidency has already been leveraged to ensure that Trump and his family have grossed over $4 billion. (There is an irony in the fact that a man whose business acumen was always a myth has finally found a sure-fire way of making vast amounts of money). That he does not always achieve his more ego-based goals (even when he thinks he has, as has proven the case in Iran) is not the point, which is that neither he nor the regime he dominates is a reliable representative of any fraction of U.S. capital beyond his own business interests and, to an extent, those of the “patronage system of oligarchs” (John Feffer’s phrase) assembled for the purposes of tribute extraction in return for governmental favors (such as rolling back regulation of AI and crypto).

One can interpret the resistance on the part of the US Supreme Court to Trump’s attacks on the independence of the Federal Reserve as an attempt to re-impose some unified ruling class interests on the presidency – a central bank that is independent of democratic oversight but attentive to the needs of neoliberal financial capital serves the needs of the overall capitalist order, not just particular electoral ambitions or regime cronies at a point in time. Trump’s hostility to that independence reflects his lack of concern for the welfare and stability of the system as a whole when it conflicts with his personal agenda

Of course the actions of previous U.S. regimes were also partly driven by the corrupt motivations of key actors (Cooley and Nixon elide this history). To take just one example, Vice-President Dick Cheney, serving under President George W. Bush, spearheaded the 2003 invasion of Iraq and saw a firm in which he had substantial interests – Halliburton – profit enormously, as Jeffrey St. Clair has documented, from no-bid, billion-dollar government contracts (rife with fraud and overcharging) for the supposed reconstruction of Iraq.

But Cheney’s greed and graft can be argued to have largely overlapped with the objectives of U.S. imperialism in controlling Middle East oil and the region more generally – U.S. and other Western oil companies previously shut out of the Iraqi market were able to re-enter (they are still there, albeit non-US companies now dominate), launch major new fields and reap massive profits. This happened at a time before the U.S. itself was transformed, through the exploitation of shale oil and liquefied natural gas, into a much more significant oil and gas producer.. This does not mean the Iraq war was a simple “war for oil” – Matt Huber highlights other factors, especially the perceived and straightforward need to demonstrate US capacity for hard power projection after 9/11 – but the initiation of new oil projects was, at the very least, a bonus.

No such convergence of interests can be assumed in the case of Trump and Venezuela. This argument may seem counterintuitive: does not Trump’s seizure of Venezuela’s president and its oil mark a logical and successful (for now) strengthening of U.S. corporate profits and imperial power? It can even be seen as a counter-example to the Iran war debacle. The issue is given added force by the claim that Venezuela possesses the world’s largest untapped oil reserves, potentially making it even more strategically significant than Iraq.

It is true that there is far more continuity in U.S. foreign policy than is sometimes acknowledged (again, the insistence of Cooley and Nixon on Trump’s claimed uniqueness in this regard is misplaced), especially when it comes to brutal military interventions abroad. But whether the control of Venezuelan oil is or was of particular value to U.S. capital, even to U.S. oil companies, is moot – it is certainly of limited value in the United States’ imperial rivalry with China or anyone else.

Venezuela and limited U.S. ambitions in Latin America The Venezuela heist

Venezuela presents an important test case for the argument that Trump does not seriously promote the interests of U.S. capital and empire. The intervention there is so commonly seen as advancing precisely those interests, whereas the aggression on Iran is already widely seen (including by many Foreign Affairs contributors) to have been a stupid and counterproductive failure, as well as a human and environmental catastrophe. In fact, far from demonstrating a rational, clear-eyed and successful resolve on the part of the U.S. ruling class and the U.S. state to shed multilateral constraints and directly achieve their core objectives, Venezuela reveals a pattern (equally evident vis-à-vis Iran) of short-term thinking, exaggerated claims, kleptocracy and the prioritization of violent photo-opportunities over substance.

In the first place John Ganz argues that Trump’s demands for U.S. companies to invest in Venezuela are unlikely to yield much return:

“Most oil companies today are not inclined toward large-scale production investments; they prefer to hoard cash and limit exposure. There are also internal tensions within the industry: the United States is now a major oil producer, and domestic producers have little incentive to finance projects that would undercut their own prices. Asking US oil interests to invest capital in Venezuela in order to depress global prices is, from their perspective, an irrational proposition.”

High oil and gas prices are good for fossil fuel companies, as was seen in 2022 as the outbreak of the war in Ukraine constricted supplies and the companies’ profits rose substantially. They also made windfall profits from the price rises engendered by the war on Iran. Why then did the share prices of those firms rise after the assault on Venezuela, the exploitation of whose largely untapped reserves might have been expected to depress prices? Most likely, Matt Huber suggests, because there was an expectation that a new (or newly disciplined) Venezuelan government would finally deliver to the companies compensation for property and investments expropriated or stymied due to past nationalizations and state restrictions.

There is certainly money to be made here, largely because the system of investor-state dispute settlement courts privileges corporate claims against governments. To take just one of many examples, oil company ConocoPhillips won nearly $9 billion in a World Bank arbitration court ruling against the Venezuelan government in 2019 (the company claims to be owed a total of $12 billion) with Trump reportedly promising that they would get much (if perhaps not all) of “their” money back.

These are non-trivial sums (and it would be surprising if Trump was not seeking a cut from any such payouts), but they do not presage large-scale investment in, and rehabilitation of, the Venezuelan oil industry. Low investment over past decades and associated infrastructural decay, partly the result of U.S. sanctions (these extend well beyond the oil sector alone), has left the industry in a sorry state. Bringing production back up to historical highs, even if it suited U.S. companies to do so, would demand at least a decade of large and steady investment, as well as overcoming the constraints posed by a shortage of essential dilutants. (If the ruinous environmental cost of all this was to be properly priced in then the bill would be even higher, but we can assume the oil industry is unconcerned with that).

Chris Morlock forecasts that:

“What’s actually lined up for Venezuela is not extraction, but asset stripping.  The firms positioned to “re-enter”Venezuela are overwhelmingly financial, not productive. Asset managers like BlackRock are positioned to absorb distressed sovereign and PDVSA [Venezuelan state oil company]-linked debt, restructure it, and turn future production into collateral streams rather than national revenue. U.S. and European oil majors are waiting not to build capacity but for production-sharing agreements, arbitration rulings, and debt-for-equity swaps that cap output and guarantee rents.”

An output cap would avert the threat of lowered prices reducing the profitability of existing production, especially in the U.S. Trump may, as Brian O’Boyle argues, want “cheap energy to bring down the costs for ordinary Americans” (though his Iran war did the opposite), but it is not what the oil industry wants and it is likely not what consumers are going to get. And it is not as if Trump cares that much for U.S. consumers: his tariffs cost the average household $1,000 last year. This is all, of course, an outrageous rip-off of Venezuelans: the US has stolen stocks of Venezuelan oil, is selling it and placing the returns in Qatari bank accounts, while telling Venezuela what it can and cannot do with its share.

But this thievery does not equate to the transformational investment and output surge Trump has bloviated about, and, from the point of view of geopolitical rivalry, it does not give the U.S. any substantial new leverage over China, which has limited dependence on Venezuelan oil – just 4 per cent of Chinese oil imports last year came from Venezuela (albeit that was 61 per cent of all Venezuelan oil). Likewise Trump’s claim that India will substitute Venezuelan for Russian energy is probably hype.

Shields, caveats and cinematic action

Cuba is severely threatened by the U.S. blocking its access to existing Venezuelan production, and by fresh US sanctions, and this constitutes another crime, but it is, sadly, of limited geopolitical significance (despite the potential political win it offers to the anti-Cuba zealots within the U.S. administration). If, as Susan Watkins suggests, “Cuba is the prize” then that only betrays the U.S. regime’s limited geopolitical ambitions. Trump’s new Shield of the Americas grouping of right-wing Latin American and Caribbean leaders, seemingly an indication of wider ambitions, got off to an inauspicious start at the inaugural summit in March 2026 when Trump told the leaders that he did not have time to learn their “damn language” while Secretary of War Hegseth proclaimed that he only spoke “American”. These leaders can swallow the insults and have no problem backing regime change in Caracas and Havana, and facilitating the gung-ho U.S. mass murder of people on fishing boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific by claiming they were targeting narco cartels, especially when they serve to bolster the authoritarian reach of regimes like that of Ecuador. But that is as far as it goes.

Limited measures like forcing a Chinese port company out of the Panama Canal and restrictions on Chinese firms operating in Venezuela itself notwithstanding, the odds are long that most Latin American countries will significantly limit Chinese influence in their countries when Chinese trade and investment is crucial for even the hard right governments of Argentina and El Salvador. The so-called ‘Donroe Doctrine’, a supposed update of the Monroe Doctrine that sought to block rival powers to the U.S. from enjoying influence in the Western hemisphere, is accurately described by Jared O Bell as “foreign policy as performance, driven by spectacle and attention rather than strategy or governance”. It is not, in other words, a serious imperialist project.

Is geopolitical significance rescued by the fact that seizing Venezuelan oil ensures its sale (in whatever quantities) will be denominated in dollars? Since 2018 Venezuela had been selling oil to China denominated in renminbi, thus arguably threatening the dollar’s seigniorage position in the global economy, which obliges other countries to fund the U.S. trade deficits and debt by acquiring dollars. The attack on Venezuela might be seen as an attempt to nip such threats in the bud. But, again, this makes little sense as an erratic and aggressive U.S. is only encouraging countries, including those in the EU, to hedge against the dollar and transact more business in other currencies, as well as to hold a greater proportion of their reserves in non-dollar form. Ironically, Trump’s own promotion of crypto currencies potentially further erodes dollar hegemony

The dollar, as Costas Lapavitsas shows, remains the dominant world currency but the assault on Venezuela did that dominance no favors. The war on Iran has done it even fewer favors – as Iran accepted payment in renminbi/yuan for passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, the Bloomberg financial news agency first posited the rise of the petroyuan as a serious alternative to the petrodollar, while later concluding even more dramatically that “The Iran war just broke the petrodollar”.

Caveats with regard to Venezuela are, to be fair, in order. One is that critical raw materials other than oil (including rare earths, 17 metallic elements that are deployed in everything from smartphones and wind turbines to military hardware) that lie underneath Venezuelan soil are of interest to the U.S., though access to these could easily have been negotiated with the Venezuelan government without the need for military intervention.

A second caveat is that Chevron, of all the oil majors, might well boost its production and launch new ventures in Venezuela because it is the one U.S. company that still has significant capital and infrastructure already embedded in the country.

A third caveat is that the industry players may be protesting too much, exaggerating the difficulty of operating in Venezuela in order to build a stronger case for government support. The U.S. Export-Import Bank (EXIM) is in the process of being tapped for such support in the form of export credit guarantees that would minimize the risk for oil companies entering or re-entering Venezuela. The risk, as per the neoliberal playbook, would be transferred to the U.S. taxpayer. Still, even extensive state incentives are unlikely to prompt the companies to produce in such quantities as to undercut their prices and profit margins.

It is, in summary, difficult to see the assault on Venezuela as a truly serious attempt to open up new investment opportunities and substantively combat rivals such as China. What then did drive Trump’s actions? Greed, as Cooley and Nixon would predict, surely plays a key role. Some of the proceeds of Venezuelan oil sales will doubtless flow into Trump Inc’s pockets (funneling the revenues through Qatar hardly instils hope of transparency), and so, in all probability, will pay-offs from those corporations that succeed in collecting arbitration judgements against the Venezuelan state. Even if it were fully feasible, the development of Venezuela’s massive oil reserves is a long-term project that would be of little interest to a president obsessed with quick, large paybacks and immediate, lavish praise.

As Robert Kuttner observes, “Trump’s trademark is abrupt violent action that plays well on TV” (he probably thought that would also apply when attacking Iran). Or, in the words of John Ganz again:

“Ultimately, I think it’s worth looking at the whole episode from a propaganda standpoint. As Trump himself would likely put it, the invasion of Venezuela looked cinematic: clean, tactically impressive, and visually compelling. This is the model they seem intent on repeating – producing discrete tactical vignettes that look powerful and decisive to their audience. This is precisely what many American reactionaries fantasize about.”

Is it what members of the U.S. ruling class (however unified or fractured) fantasize about? At a personal level doubtless some of them do, but is this type of regime behavior in their interests as a class? What Trump has done in Venezuela certainly does not run contrary to their short-term interests – some (financial vulture funds, the oil majors at the margin) will make money, others (like the powerful tech barons) will be more or less unaffected. But it hardly represents a serious class project i.e., part of a concerted attempt to advance the long-term interests of U.S. capital over and against rival powers and interests. Cooley and Nixon are right to characterise Trump’s regime as kleptocratic, not strategic.

What Trump has done in Venezuela certainly does not run contrary to their short-term interests…But it hardly represents a serious class project i.e., part of a concerted attempt to advance the long-term interests of U.S. capital over and against rival powers and interests. Greed, grievance and perversity Loot and narcissism

The reality of Trump 2.0 is that, in all probability and for the most part, there is no strategy – at least not a national one, and not a coherent class one either. Rather, there is just a scatter-gun set of actions, many reversed or abandoned, designed to immediately gratify, materially and psychologically. What we have, in the words of Farrel Corcoran, is “a massive agglomeration of rackets and scams led by a racketeer-in-chief”, who also wildly pursues ego-boosting adventures. One glaring example of the rackets in action is Trump’s decision to allow Japanese Nippon Steel take over U.S. Steel, in exchange for Trump being granted a so-called golden share, allowing him veto power over investment plans and other board decisions; to be clear, this share went to Trump personally, not to the US government.

Of course within the administration there are factions pursuing different agendas – from a return to “sensible” liberal imperialism, to a sustained focus on combatting China (see below), to full-blown fascism (which some in the leadership lean towards but hopefully lack the coherence and ambition to thoroughly implement). But the overarching theme and the bottom line are best characterized as corruption and egomania.

Trump prizes loot, fawning tributes (witness the way in which cabinet members and visiting foreign leaders have to feed what Goodman terms his “pathological narcissism” by lavishing praise upon him, his obsession with the Nobel Peace Prize, and his placing his own image and signature on newly issued currency), and the settling of personal grudges. From the point of view of the empire, the approach is almost certainly perverse; Ryan Cooper goes so far as to christen Trump the “wrecker of American empire”. Or, as Rafael Behr puts it, “Making Trump feel great is the undoing of American greatness” (though greatness is not really the right word).

Trump has unnecessarily alienated Western allies (even some on the far right, who have noted how Trump’s endorsement did Orban no favors in the Hungarian election ), themselves hypocrites who drew the line at threats to Greenland but backed the genocide in Gaza. They were still mostly prepared, initially at least, to back the U.S. attack on Iran before retreating when their help was demanded reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Trump’s push to acquire Greenland may have itself been driven by greed – long-time crony Ronald Lauder has extensive business interests there, with Bezos and Zuckerberg amongst the many others with eyes on what wealth can be extracted from the territory, as well as dreams of establishing libertarian techno-cities.

As mentioned earlier, left-wing writers tend to attribute the Greenland gambit to an imperial desire to access rare earths and other critical minerals, and to take advantage of navigation routes newly developed by diminishing Arctic ice. These are understandable goals from the point of view of U.S. imperialism, and a global race for critical raw materials is certainly ongoing, but was Trump’s petulant demand for ownership a rational means of pursuing those goals? The resources and the routes could have been secured through negotiations that would not have so alienated hitherto staunch allies, indeed in a way that could have wrung concessions from them. The negotiated option may now have been turned to, but the damage is done.

If Greenland (on top of already chaotic and unpredictable trade tariff attacks) represented an alarm bell for Western elites, as (belatedly at least) did the destabilization of the global economy brought about by the war on Iran, for many ordinary people across the world the slaughter in Gaza has become the red line issue of our age, albeit a slaughter backed by U.S. policy that Trump inherited rather than initiated. In 2023, the Financial Times quoted a senior G7 diplomat regarding Gaza: “We have definitely lost the battle in the Global South … Forget about rules, forget about world order. They won’t ever listen to us again.” Trump’s innovation has been to turn the criminal tragedy into a grisly real estate opportunity, with the very real prospect of billions of “reconstruction” dollars being siphoned off to he and his cronies, exemplifying again his malignant penchant for graft and self-aggrandizement.

Unhinged elites

It is quite possible that Trump’s mindset is shared by some members of the ruling class itself who can no longer think beyond violent short–term gratification: to quote Doug Henwood again, much of this class seems consumed by “wanton money lust” at the expense of strategic consideration of their longer-term interests. Salar Mohandesi suggests that in previous eras, “The fractions that made up the U.S. ruling bloc did not simply wish to enrich themselves” – that they probably, on average, thought about more than immediate gratification. Paul Heideman makes the point that the briefly cohesive U.S. ruling class of the 1970s and 1980s was willing to absorb some pain (such as higher interest rates) in order to achieve their longer-term goals of rolling back gains made by workers.

Where a longer-term perspective does now exist it is one, in some important cases, in which outright lunacy has been embraced and ignorance celebrated. Peter Thiel – Silicon Valley multi-billionaire; head of military-technology behemoth and genocide-enabler Palantir (whose software was responsible for the bombing of a school in the first day of the war on Iran, causing the death of over 175 people, most of them young girls); close friend of Jeffrey Epstein; mentor to JD Vance – raves about Armageddon and the Antichrist, whom he thinks might be Greta Thunberg. Thiel protégés are running Trump’s policy towards AI, which amounts to the abolition of regulation and ethical oversight. (Thiel himself is determined to live forever and finances research into anti-ageing medicines, including the potential of transfusing young people’s blood into his veins.)

Where a longer-term perspective does now exist it is one, in some important cases, in which outright lunacy has been embraced and ignorance celebrated.

White supremacist Elon Musk, after a stint wreaking havoc upon the U.S. public service, posits madcap plans to establish colonies on Mars and the moon. At a more mundane, but still startlingly ignorant, level Marc Andreessen, venture capitalist billionaire and Trump advisor, prattles idiotically about how introspection (seemingly invented by Freud) is the enemy of progress – Musk thinks empathy plays that role. Matt McManus asks: “How did people so deeply unethical, so opposed to basic human ideas that they view empathy as a social evil and introspection as a waste of time, come to wield power and influence over American society?”

That they wield such power is indeed alarming, but it is not necessarily in the best interests of empire – even imperialists can benefit from occasional empathy and introspection, at least in the sense of working out what others might be thinking and pausing for thought before taking action.

Trump is driving established guardians and defenders of empire (Foreign Affairs is their house journal) to the edge of reason with his rapacity, fecklessness and petulance. Robert Kagan, a neoconservative who has a long record of supporting US militarism, laments that “Washington’s conduct in the Iran war is accelerating global chaos and deepening America’s dangerous isolation”. Israel, however, is pleased that its reckless and genocidal drive for land-grabbing and regional hegemony is supported (spurred on by an influential Christian Zionist lobby, some of whose dingbats see Middle East war as a means of hastening the “end times” and the return of Christ). This is so long as Trump can share the credit for vicious stunts, however ill thought-through, like attacking Iran – a short bombing campaign in 2025 and the large-scale disaster of 2026.

There is, however, a potentially sharp tension here between Trump’s preening and pillaging proclivities: Trump wants to continue leeching money and toys for himself off the Gulf monarchies. But they are, with the exception of the seemingly more belligerent Saudi Arabia, unhappy with how his ego-slaking antics vis-à-vis Iran endangered their security and prosperity together with their images as safe sites for investment and tourism.They are also displeased with their past mediation efforts (in the case of Qatar and Oman) having been duplicitously used as cover for U.S. and Israeli war plans. They may have been accepting of attacks on Iran once the die was cast, but this war has been a catastrophe for them, with potentially serious long-term implications for their relationships not only with Trump but with the U.S. as a whole. They may not be the only countries that end up wondering whether hosting U.S. bases is, as advertised, a security guarantee or, rather, a dangerous liability.

Previous presidents have been stupid and suffused with greed, have even suffered mental instability or cognitive decline (Reagan springs to mind), but, to take the most recent example, Biden’s senility probably mattered little because his regime was staffed with long-term and loyal servants of empire drawn from what Heideman calls “the corporate foreign policy planning network”. Trump, who is himself showing signs of derangement (St. Clair diagnoses “hubristic madness” in reference to the Iran aggression), is surrounded by a plethora of grifters, lackeys, frat boys, religious wackos who wish to construct a theocratic state, delusional ethno-nationalists and obvious idiots. (Some of these chancers were reportedly keeping him ‘informed’ about the war on Iran through 2-minute daily videos of US strikes, omitting any mention of Iranian responses). Such people have always sought to influence governments but their path is significantly smoothed when the heart of the government itself is concerned only with greed and ego i.e., when there is little or no coherent project to advance the greater good of the ruling class.

The turn to China and the fate of empire Stable partners

Confronted with Trump’s unpredictable and erratic shakedowns and smash-and-grabs, countries increasingly look more favorably on powers that are more capable of strategic thought and action, China especially, because they are seen as more stable and reliable partners. To give just one example, China appears to have played a behind-the-scenes role in negotiating the U.S.-Iran ceasefire. There is the added bonus that China is unlikely to come out with bizarre accusations of white genocide in South Africa, the description of other countries as ‘shit holes’, and the like – trivial issues in their own right but indicative of the contrast between the U.S. and China when it comes to sensible diplomacy.

China’s emerging leadership in many areas of cutting edge technology and in the shift to renewable energy enhances its attractiveness to partner countries. For example, China makes 80 percent of the world’s solar panels and its offer to Cuba provides that country a possible lifeline in the face of the U.S. energy embargo. China has also taken a decisive lead in the electric vehicle market. In a period where the dangers of fossil fuel dependency have been starkly illustrated, the advantages of this model (and of working with it) are obvious. Chinese green technology manufacturing investments now span 54 countries and are growing exponentially. (Unfortunately, a short-term consequence of the war on Iran has been a resurgence of coal usage across Asia).

A poll, carried out by Politico in February 2026 of 2000 respondents in each of France, Germany, Canada and the UK, found majorities heavily favoring cooperation with China over the U.S. Any such poll in the Global South would undoubtedly find even larger majorities leaning towards China. An article in Foreign Affairs, written in a tone of now-typical melancholy for this pro-imperialist journal, is headlined “America Has Lost the Arab World: Wars in Gaza, Iran, and Elsewhere Have Sunk Washington’s Reputation – Maybe for Good”.

The claim by Ross Babbage that Trump is “displaying a surprisingly deep strategic logic… [by] working to isolate Beijing and Moscow from their international partners” is risible. John Feffer is much closer to the truth when he laments that “If the Chinese had managed to install a real Manchurian Candidate [a brainwashed stooge secretly serving Chinese interests] in the White House, it couldn’t have done a better job than Donald Trump”. (supporters of Ukraine commonly prefer to depict Trump as a stooge of Russia). A disconsolate (is there any other sort now?) A CFR researcher writes that “Chinese President Xi Jinping is getting the United States he always wanted”.

The truth is that Trump seeks to serve no interests but his own… But it is also true that he is less consistently bellicose towards China than many U.S. anti-China elements would like…

The truth is that Trump seeks to serve no interests but his own, closely following Tony Soprano’s dictum on the endless hustle, though with even less of a long-term vision than a typical mafia boss. But it is also true that he is less consistently bellicose towards China than many U.S. anti-China elements would like, not least the notoriously hawkish Heritage Foundation, which illustrates the limits of that body’s over-hyped influence when it comes to foreign policy. Trump’s massively increased U.S. military budget does not address the structural weaknesses of that bloated military (a military that started running out of missiles after a few days bombing Iran).

The U.S. military’s reliance on Chinese rare earth minerals is strategically crucial. Building an F35 fighter jet demands some 400 kilograms of rare earths, a nuclear submarine 4,200 kilograms; rare earths are vital also for the manufacture of Tomahawk missiles (of the sort deployed against Iranian schoolgirls) and various other military assets.  China accounts for an estimated 60 percent of all the world’s rare earth deposits and for 90 percent of the separation and refining capacity necessary to transform them into usable product. Western companies lag far behind in this regard. While there is a concerted U.S. drive to secure access to non-Chinese rare earths and other critical raw materials—an unusually long-term project inherited and sustained by the Trump administration—the challenge of closing the gap is substantial.

Imperial rivalry?

The latest U.S. National Security Strategy (correctly described by Juan Cole as exhibiting “crackpot logic” on issues like the claimed “civilizational erasure” of Europe) does not depict China as a military rival at all, and the same is true for Russia, which welcomed the new U.S. strategy. Russia also welcomed the potential diversion of U.S. military resources from Ukraine to Iran as well as the extra $10 billion per month it (Russia) earned courtesy of oil prices jacked up by the Iran war as the U.S. lifted its sanctions on those Russian exports. The war also saw the U.S. drawing some military resources away from eastern Asia, thereby weakening the U.S.military’s stance towards China at the same time as China’s own military power is growing apace.

China is certainly seen as a rival in many respects, as the feverish chase for critical minerals and other resources demonstrates. However, even on the economic front, Trump has typically backed down on tariffs and other issues, such as allowing the sale of advanced AI components to China, in response to Chinese pushback, including China’s blocking the supply of those rare earths. China, in short, does not lend itself to the bullying, blackmail and photo-op aggression Trump has sought to wield against other countries, and a cautiously cooperative modus vivendi may now be emerging.

History cannot be reduced to the strengths and weaknesses of individual leaders, but conjunctural factors…matter within the context of underlying, structural forces and trends. That the U.S. has a fractured and partially unhinged ruling class matters.

History cannot be reduced to the strengths and weaknesses of individual leaders, but conjunctural factors (such as the state of a country’s ruling class, and the nature of its leadership) matter within the context of underlying, structural forces and trends. That the U.S. has a fractured and partially unhinged ruling class matters. Trump also matters: that is bad news for people living in the U.S. and those at the receiving end of bombs and missiles in Iran, Lebanon and elsewhere, as well as for the 45 million extra people around the world that the World Food Programme estimated were being driven into acute hunger as a result of rising energy and fertilizer costs caused by the war on Iran (and subsequent blockades).

But it is not as if Trump has taken over and transformed a hitherto peaceful and benign U.S. state apparatus, and it is likely that an alternative U.S. government (had Kamala Harris won the 2024 election, for example) would be pursuing a more consistently hostile and confrontational approach towards Russia and China. What Cooley and Nixon fear most is that the best interests of the U.S. empire are not being well served by the current kleptocracy, indeed that they are being actively undermined, not least by that relative lack of belligerence towards what they see as the main enemies based in Moscow and Beijing. That the U.S. empire is being weakened by a profoundly corrupt and narcissistic regime, and that the world is (for now at least) being spared a concerted U.S. drive to war with Russia and/or China, are sources of consolation in otherwise bleak times. The chaos, crudity and violence of the empire under Trump 2.0 has significantly contributed to the erosion of U.S. hegemony in the world and it will be difficult for subsequent administrations to reverse that.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Trump White House; modified by Tempest.

The post Hustle and hubris appeared first on Tempest.

nama Pragmatic Play menjadi salah satu yang paling sering dibicarakan oleh pemain maupun pengamat industri game digital.

Provider ini berhasil membangun reputasi kuat lewat kombinasi teknologi modern, kualitas visual, serta sistem permainan yang dinilai mampu memenuhi selera pasar global. Tidak heran jika banyak platform game online menjadikan koleksi slot mereka sebagai daya tarik utama.

Konsisten Menghadirkan Game Berkualitas

Salah satu alasan utama dominasi Pragmatic Play terletak pada konsistensi produksi game. Provider ini rutin merilis slot baru dengan tema yang beragam, mulai dari mitologi, petualangan, budaya Asia, hingga konsep futuristik.

Setiap permainan dirancang dengan detail visual yang rapi dan audio yang mendukung atmosfer permainan. Pendekatan ini membuat pemain tidak cepat bosan karena selalu ada pengalaman baru di setiap rilisan.

Beberapa judul populer seperti Gates of Olympus, Sweet Bonanza, dan Starlight Princess bahkan berhasil menciptakan komunitas pemain sendiri di berbagai negara. Popularitas game tersebut juga diperkuat oleh banyaknya konten streamer dan kreator digital yang membahas pola permainan maupun fitur bonusnya.

Teknologi yang Mendukung Pengalaman Bermain

Pragmatic Play tidak hanya fokus pada tampilan game. Mereka juga memperhatikan stabilitas sistem dan kenyamanan pengguna di berbagai perangkat.

Mayoritas slot dari provider ini sudah mendukung teknologi sehingga dapat dimainkan dengan lancar di desktop maupun smartphone. Faktor ini menjadi penting karena tren pemain mobile terus meningkat setiap tahun.

Selain itu, proses loading yang cepat dan antarmuka yang sederhana membuat pemain baru lebih mudah memahami mekanisme permainan. Pengalaman pengguna yang praktis menjadi nilai tambah besar di tengah persaingan industri game online yang sangat kompetitif.

Fitur Bonus yang Menarik Perhatian Pemain

Faktor lain yang membuat Pragmatic Play mendominasi pasar adalah keberanian mereka menghadirkan fitur bonus yang agresif namun tetap seimbang. Banyak slot mereka dikenal memiliki:

• Free spins dengan multiplier tinggi
• Fitur tumble atau cascading reels
• Buy feature untuk langsung masuk bonus round
• Jackpot dan pengganda kemenangan besar

Sistem tersebut menciptakan sensasi permainan yang lebih dinamis. Pemain merasa memiliki peluang besar untuk mendapatkan kombinasi menarik dalam waktu singkat.

Meski demikian, pemain tetap perlu memahami bahwa slot online bekerja menggunakan sistem RNG (Random Number Generator). Artinya, hasil permainan tetap bergantung pada keberuntungan dan tidak ada pola pasti yang menjamin kemenangan.

Strategi Branding yang Kuat

Dalam dunia digital, kualitas produk saja tidak cukup. Pragmatic Play memahami pentingnya membangun identitas merek yang kuat.

Mereka aktif bekerja sama dengan berbagai platform hiburan online internasional dan rutin tampil dalam pameran industri game global. Strategi pemasaran ini membuat nama Pragmatic Play semakin dikenal luas, bahkan oleh pemain yang baru mengenal slot online.

Selain itu, desain logo, tampilan promosi, hingga karakter dalam game dibuat konsisten sehingga mudah dikenali. Pendekatan branding semacam ini membantu memperkuat loyalitas pemain.

Didukung Lisensi dan Standar Keamanan

Kepercayaan menjadi faktor penting dalam industri game online. Pragmatic Play berhasil menjaga reputasi karena beroperasi di bawah pengawasan sejumlah regulator internasional.

Sistem keamanan serta audit permainan menjadi bagian penting untuk memastikan transparansi. Banyak pemain memilih provider yang memiliki rekam jejak jelas dibanding sekadar menawarkan hadiah besar.

Dengan dukungan lisensi resmi dan pengawasan sistem RNG, pemain merasa lebih nyaman saat mencoba berbagai permainan yang tersedia.

Dominasi yang Belum Terlihat Melambat

Melihat perkembangan industri saat ini, dominasi Pragmatic Play tampaknya masih akan terus berlanjut. Provider ini mampu membaca tren pasar dengan cepat dan memahami apa yang dicari pemain modern: permainan cepat, visual menarik, fitur inovatif, serta kompatibilitas mobile yang stabil.

Di tengah munculnya provider-provider baru, Pragmatic Play tetap berada di posisi kuat karena berhasil menjaga keseimbangan antara inovasi, kualitas, dan pengalaman pengguna.

Bagi banyak pemain slot online, nama Pragmatic Play kini bukan sekadar provider biasa, melainkan simbol hiburan digital yang identik dengan permainan modern dan penuh variasi.

Tema Mesir selalu berhasil mencuri perhatian karena memiliki identitas visual yang sangat kuat. Elemen seperti piramida, Sphinx, Firaun, hingga hieroglif menciptakan atmosfer misterius yang mudah dikenali.

Pengembang game memanfaatkan kekayaan visual ini untuk membangun pengalaman bermain yang imersif. Mereka menghadirkan animasi yang detail, latar musik bernuansa eksotis, serta simbol-simbol khas yang membuat pemain merasa seolah memasuki dunia sejarah kuno.

Unsur Misteri yang Meningkatkan Rasa Penasaran

Salah satu kekuatan utama tema Mesir adalah unsur misteri yang melekat pada sejarahnya. Banyak cerita tentang harta karun tersembunyi, makam kuno, dan legenda Firaun yang belum sepenuhnya terungkap.

Dalam industri hiburan digital, elemen misteri ini dimanfaatkan untuk menciptakan pengalaman bermain yang penuh kejutan. Pemain cenderung lebih tertarik pada game yang menawarkan sensasi eksplorasi dan penemuan, bukan sekadar mekanisme permainan biasa.

Kombinasi Budaya dan Mitologi yang Kaya

Peradaban Mesir Kuno memiliki mitologi yang sangat kaya, seperti kisah Dewa Ra, Anubis, dan Osiris. Pengembang game sering mengadaptasi cerita-cerita ini menjadi fitur dalam permainan, seperti simbol khusus atau bonus interaktif.

Kombinasi antara budaya dan mitologi ini menciptakan kedalaman narasi yang membuat permainan terasa lebih hidup. Hal ini meningkatkan keterlibatan pemain karena mereka tidak hanya bermain, tetapi juga “menjelajahi cerita”.

Desain Gameplay yang Variatif dan Adaptif

Selain aspek visual dan cerita, pengembang juga terus meningkatkan kualitas gameplay. Game bertema Mesir biasanya memiliki fitur-fitur seperti free spin, multiplier, hingga mini-game berbasis petualangan.

Inovasi ini membuat permainan tidak terasa monoton. Pemain mendapatkan pengalaman yang dinamis karena setiap putaran dapat memberikan hasil dan kejutan yang berbeda.

Faktor Psikologis dalam Daya Tarik Tema

Dari sudut pandang psikologi pengguna, tema Mesir memicu rasa penasaran dan ekspektasi akan “keberuntungan besar” yang tersembunyi. Simbol harta karun dan artefak kuno secara tidak langsung menciptakan persepsi peluang besar di benak pemain.

Selain itu, warna emas dan desain visual megah sering diasosiasikan dengan kemewahan dan kemenangan, sehingga memperkuat daya tarik emosional.

Perspektif dalam Industri Game Digital

game bertema Mesir menunjukkan bagaimana industri hiburan digital menggabungkan:

• menghadirkan gameplay imersif yang kaya visual
• pengembangan desain game berbasis riset budaya dan psikologi pemain
• ema Mesir sudah menjadi standar populer di industri slot global
• penyedia game besar terus menjaga kualitas dan konsistensi produk

Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa popularitas tema Mesir bukan hanya tren sementara, melainkan hasil dari strategi industri yang matang.

Kesimpulan

Game slot bertema Mesir tetap menarik bagi pemain karena mampu menggabungkan visual yang kuat, cerita mitologi yang kaya, serta pengalaman bermain yang imersif. Industri hiburan digital terus memanfaatkan tema ini karena terbukti efektif dalam meningkatkan keterlibatan pengguna.

Dengan inovasi yang terus berkembang, tema Mesir diprediksi akan tetap menjadi salah satu ikon utama dalam dunia permainan online di masa mendatang.

Provider ini dikenal konsisten menghadirkan slot dengan tema menarik, fitur inovatif, dan peluang kemenangan besar yang membuat pemain tertantang untuk terus mencoba.

Bukan tanpa alasan slot Pragmatic dengan volatilitas tinggi banyak dicari. Sensasi permainan yang tidak mudah ditebak justru memberikan pengalaman berbeda dibanding slot biasa. Banyak pemain menganggap tipe permainan ini lebih seru karena mampu menghadirkan kemenangan besar dalam satu putaran yang tepat.

Apa Itu Slot Volatilitas Tinggi?

Dalam dunia slot online, volatilitas adalah tingkat risiko sekaligus potensi hadiah dalam sebuah permainan. Slot volatilitas tinggi biasanya memiliki frekuensi kemenangan yang lebih jarang, tetapi nilai hadiahnya bisa jauh lebih besar.

Artinya, pemain mungkin harus melewati beberapa putaran tanpa hasil signifikan sebelum akhirnya mendapatkan kombinasi besar. Faktor inilah yang membuat slot jenis ini terasa menegangkan sekaligus memacu adrenalin.

Beberapa pemain berpengalaman justru lebih menyukai karakter permainan seperti ini karena dianggap lebih menantang dan tidak monoton. Selain itu, peluang mendapatkan multiplier besar atau fitur bonus premium juga lebih sering ditemukan pada slot dengan volatilitas tinggi.

Kenapa Slot Pragmatic Volatilitas Tinggi Banyak Dicari?

Popularitas slot Pragmatic bukan hanya karena nama besarnya. Ada beberapa alasan mengapa game dengan volatilitas tinggi dari provider ini terus menjadi favorit komunitas pemain.

1. Potensi Maxwin yang Menggiurkan

Salah satu daya tarik utama slot Pragmatic adalah potensi kemenangan besar atau yang sering disebut maxwin. Banyak game mereka dirancang dengan fitur multiplier tinggi yang bisa memberikan hasil fantastis dalam satu sesi permainan.

Tidak sedikit pemain yang membagikan pengalaman mendapatkan kemenangan besar setelah memanfaatkan fitur free spin atau kombinasi simbol premium. Hal seperti ini membuat game Pragmatic cepat viral di berbagai komunitas slot online.

2. Tema Permainan Lebih Variatif

Pragmatic Play dikenal kreatif dalam menghadirkan tema slot. Mulai dari nuansa Mesir kuno, petualangan, mitologi, hingga tema buah klasik modern tersedia dalam kualitas visual yang menarik.

Kombinasi desain grafis tajam dan animasi dinamis membuat pengalaman bermain terasa lebih hidup. Faktor visual ini menjadi nilai tambah yang membuat pemain betah berlama-lama menikmati permainan.

3. Fitur Bonus yang Lebih Agresif

Slot volatilitas tinggi biasanya hadir dengan fitur bonus yang lebih “liar”. Misalnya:

• Multiplier x100 hingga x500
• Free spin tanpa batas tertentu
• Simbol wild berkembang
• Buy feature
• Jackpot acak

Fitur-fitur tersebut membuat setiap spin terasa memiliki peluang besar, walaupun risikonya juga lebih tinggi dibanding slot volatilitas rendah.

Daftar Slot Pragmatic Volatilitas Tinggi Favorit Pemain

Beberapa judul slot Pragmatic berikut sering masuk daftar game paling banyak dimainkan karena terkenal memiliki volatilitas tinggi dan peluang kemenangan besar:

Gates of Olympus

Game bertema dewa Yunani ini menjadi salah satu slot paling populer dalam beberapa tahun terakhir. Fitur multiplier acak yang bisa muncul berturut-turut membuat banyak pemain tertarik mencoba keberuntungan mereka.

Sweet Bonanza

Walau tampil dengan tema permen yang santai, slot ini terkenal memiliki potensi pembayaran besar melalui sistem tumble dan multiplier tinggi saat free spin aktif.

Starlight Princess

Slot bergaya anime fantasy ini memiliki pola permainan mirip Gates of Olympus, tetapi dengan visual yang lebih modern dan efek animasi yang memikat.

Aztec Gems Deluxe

Game ini dikenal sederhana, tetapi memiliki kombinasi simbol bernilai tinggi yang sering dicari pemain pemburu maxwin.

Strategi Bermain Slot Volatilitas Tinggi

Meski menawarkan potensi kemenangan besar, slot volatilitas tinggi tetap membutuhkan strategi bermain yang bijak. Banyak pemain berpengalaman menyarankan beberapa hal berikut:

• Gunakan modal khusus agar permainan lebih terkontrol
• Hindari bermain terlalu emosional
• Pahami pola fitur bonus setiap game
• Manfaatkan mode demo sebelum bermain penuh
• Tentukan target menang dan batas kekalahan

Strategi sederhana tersebut membantu pemain menikmati permainan dengan lebih nyaman tanpa terburu-buru mengejar hasil instan.

Slot Pragmatic dan Tren Hiburan Digital Masa Kini

Fenomena meningkatnya pencarian slot Pragmatic volatilitas tinggi menunjukkan bahwa pemain modern kini lebih menyukai hiburan yang memberikan tantangan sekaligus sensasi. Tidak hanya sekadar bermain, banyak pemain juga menikmati proses menganalisis pola permainan, fitur bonus, hingga potensi kombinasi kemenangan.

Di era digital saat ini, slot online bukan lagi dipandang sebagai permainan biasa. Industri ini telah berkembang menjadi bagian dari hiburan interaktif yang terus berinovasi mengikuti tren teknologi dan preferensi pengguna.

Dengan kombinasi visual menarik, fitur agresif, dan peluang kemenangan besar, tidak heran jika slot Pragmatic volatilitas tinggi masih menjadi salah satu kategori permainan yang paling banyak dicari hingga sekarang.

Ucapan itu bukan sekadar candaan. Dunia judi online memang berkembang sangat cepat, terutama sejak teknologi Artificial Intelligence (AI) mulai masuk ke dalam sistem permainan digital. Perubahan tersebut bukan hanya terlihat dari tampilan visual yang makin realistis, tetapi juga dari cara platform memahami perilaku pemain secara detail.

Teknologi AI Mulai Mengubah Cara Permainan Berjalan

Beberapa tahun terakhir, teknologi AI menjadi salah satu fondasi penting dalam industri hiburan digital. Banyak platform game online mulai menggunakan sistem otomatis yang mampu mempelajari pola permainan pengguna. Teknologi ini bekerja diam-diam di balik layar, namun dampaknya terasa nyata.

AI digunakan untuk menganalisis data pemain, mulai dari waktu bermain, jenis permainan favorit, hingga kebiasaan melakukan taruhan. Dari situ, sistem akan memberikan rekomendasi permainan yang dianggap paling sesuai dengan karakter pengguna.

Bagi sebagian pemain, fitur ini terasa membantu. Mereka lebih mudah menemukan game yang cocok tanpa harus mencoba satu per satu. Tetapi di sisi lain, ada juga yang merasa sistem tersebut membuat permainan menjadi semakin intens dan sulit dilepaskan.

Rian pernah mengalami momen itu. Awalnya ia hanya mencoba satu permainan slot karena rekomendasi muncul di halaman utama. Namun beberapa menit kemudian, muncul lagi rekomendasi lain dengan tema yang mirip dan bonus yang terlihat lebih menarik.

“Kayak aplikasi streaming film,” ujarnya. “Semakin sering dimainkan, semakin ngerti apa yang kita suka.”

Pengalaman Bermain yang Kini Terasa Lebih Personal

Salah satu alasan mengapa AI berkembang pesat di industri game online adalah kemampuannya menciptakan pengalaman yang terasa personal. Teknologi ini mampu membuat pemain merasa diperhatikan oleh sistem.

Jika dulu permainan online terlihat monoton, sekarang tampilannya jauh lebih interaktif. Ada animasi dinamis, efek suara yang menyesuaikan situasi permainan, hingga fitur live chat otomatis yang mampu menjawab pertanyaan pemain dalam hitungan detik.

Bahkan beberapa platform sudah memakai AI untuk mendeteksi emosi pemain melalui pola aktivitas mereka. Ketika sistem melihat pengguna mulai pasif atau kehilangan minat, permainan akan memunculkan promosi tertentu agar pemain kembali aktif.

Di sinilah teknologi menjadi pedang bermata dua.

Di satu sisi, inovasi tersebut menunjukkan kemajuan luar biasa dalam dunia digital. Pengalaman bermain menjadi lebih nyaman, cepat, dan modern. Namun di sisi lain, muncul pertanyaan besar tentang batas antara hiburan dan manipulasi perilaku.

Industri Judi Online Semakin Kompetitif

Perkembangan AI juga membuat persaingan antar platform judi online semakin ketat. Banyak penyedia layanan berlomba menghadirkan teknologi terbaru agar pengguna betah lebih lama di platform mereka.

Mulai dari sistem keamanan berbasis AI, deteksi aktivitas mencurigakan, hingga fitur anti-kecurangan kini menjadi bagian penting dalam operasional situs modern. Teknologi ini membantu menjaga stabilitas permainan sekaligus meningkatkan kepercayaan pengguna.

Beberapa pengamat industri digital menilai bahwa AI sebenarnya tidak selalu membawa dampak negatif. Jika digunakan secara tepat, teknologi ini bisa membantu menciptakan sistem permainan yang lebih aman dan transparan.

Contohnya adalah fitur responsible gaming yang mulai diterapkan beberapa platform besar. Sistem AI dapat mendeteksi pola bermain berlebihan dan memberikan peringatan otomatis kepada pengguna agar beristirahat.

Walau belum diterapkan secara merata, langkah tersebut menunjukkan bahwa teknologi juga bisa diarahkan untuk melindungi pemain, bukan sekadar meningkatkan keuntungan perusahaan.

Ketika Teknologi dan Emosi Manusia Bertemu

Yang menarik dari perkembangan ini bukan hanya soal mesin atau algoritma, melainkan bagaimana manusia meresponsnya secara emosional.

Banyak pemain merasa permainan digital sekarang lebih “hidup”. Mereka tidak lagi sekadar menekan tombol taruhan, tetapi seperti masuk ke dalam dunia virtual yang penuh interaksi.

Ada suara dealer langsung, tampilan grafis ultra-realistis, hingga sistem AI yang membuat permainan terasa responsif terhadap tindakan pemain. Semua itu menciptakan sensasi yang jauh berbeda dibanding era awal judi online beberapa tahun lalu.

Namun di balik kecanggihan tersebut, ada satu hal yang tetap tidak berubah: manusia tetap menjadi pusat dari semua keputusan.

Teknologi bisa membantu membaca pola, memprediksi kebiasaan, bahkan menciptakan pengalaman yang terasa personal. Tetapi kendali tetap berada di tangan pemain itu sendiri.

Rian akhirnya menyadari hal tersebut setelah beberapa kali terlalu larut dalam permainan. Ia mulai membatasi waktu bermain dan melihat judi online sebagai hiburan digital, bukan jalan instan untuk mendapatkan keuntungan besar.

“Teknologinya makin pintar,” katanya pelan. “Makanya pemain juga harus lebih pintar.”

Masa Depan Judi Online dan AI Masih Akan Terus Berkembang

Melihat perkembangan saat ini, banyak pihak percaya bahwa hubungan antara AI dan industri judi online akan semakin erat di masa depan. Kemungkinan besar, teknologi akan menghadirkan pengalaman bermain yang lebih realistis melalui virtual reality, analisis data real-time, hingga sistem interaksi yang semakin menyerupai manusia.

Bagi industri digital, AI adalah alat untuk menciptakan efisiensi dan pengalaman pengguna yang lebih baik. Tetapi bagi pemain, pemahaman dan kontrol diri tetap menjadi hal terpenting.

Karena pada akhirnya, secanggih apa pun teknologi berkembang, keputusan manusia tetap menjadi faktor utama yang menentukan arah permainan.

We have entered a new epoch of global capitalism. It is characterized by crisis, imperial rivalry, authoritarian nationalism, and episodic, explosive resistance from below. The Trump administration’s brief year of misrule has brought all these to a head, particularly with its war on Iran. That war has put a definitive end to Washington’s imperial order of free trade globalization that it constructed within its bloc after World War II and expanded globally after the Cold War. Now the U.S. is a predatory imperialist state out for its own interests against nominal allies, rivals, regional powers, and subject nations.

Trump’s rise to power, like that of other authoritarian nationalists, did not come out of the blue. The electoral successes of the Right are the product of capitalism’s multiple crises and the establishment parties’ inability to overcome them. Their failure has triggered political polarization to the right and left. Given the revolutionary Left’s decline and reformist parties’ incapacity to deliver when in power, the new Right, in the form of authoritarian nationalism, has been the principal beneficiary. But their program of austerity, bigotry, and scapegoating has also failed to address capitalism’s systemic crises, undercutting their ability to secure hegemony and impose stable rule. As a result, political instability is the order of the day throughout the world.

These conditions have triggered wave after wave of resistance from below. But so far this resistance has been episodic and unable to win, largely because of the decomposition of class, social, and political organizations to sustain struggle and pose an alternative to the establishment parties and the Right. Nonetheless, these struggles open opportunities to rebuild the infrastructure of resistance, cohere a militant minority, and reconstruct a revolutionary Left for the 21st century.

Capitalism’s global slump

Capitalism is beset by multiple systemic crises from climate change to mass migration and pandemics like COVID. The other two, which are the most important ones for shaping our new epoch, are the global economic slump and the return of inter-imperial rivalry. The 2008 economic crisis triggered the Great Recession, which brought an end to the long neoliberal boom that began in the 1980s.

While capitalism survived, its recovery has been characterized by low profitability and slow growth, punctuated by recessions and weak recoveries. The heartlands of the system, from the U.S. to Europe and Japan, are either growing at a modest rate or are stagnant. As far as the U.S. is concerned, only the high-tech companies’ massive investment in AI data centers and the accompanying stock market bubble have kept the economy growing. But that is now in jeopardy as a result of the war with Iran. Even China, which was key to the global recovery after the Great Recession, has seen its growth drop from 10 percent a year in the 2000s to under 5 percent today.

As far as the U.S. is concerned, only the high-tech companies’ massive investment in AI data centers and the accompanying stock market bubble have kept the economy growing. But that is now in jeopardy as a result of the war with  Iran.

Inflation in the wake of the COVID recession has forced the U.S. and Europe to maintain relatively high interest rates, hampering investment and growth. On the other hand, overinvestment, cutthroat competition, and low profitability have fueled deflation in China, forcing its corporations to seek out profitable sites for investment internationally through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), while exporting their surplus products and in the process undercutting their competition everywhere.

The combination of U.S. high interest rates and Chinese dumping has triggered a double crisis in the Global South. First, high interest rates have hammered indebted countries, which are now facing the prospect of another debt crisis like the one they suffered in the 1980s. Already, creditors are demanding austerity measures from governments in the Global South. Second, Beijing’s exports have undermined the Global South’s domestic manufacturing base, reducing it to exporting raw materials to China for China’s ongoing expansion.

Thus, we are in a global slump. It will continue until a deeper crisis clears out all the uncompetitive capital in the world economy. Up to today, the main capitalist states have stopped this from happening. They have bailed out corporations they consider too big to fail, fearing mass bankruptcies and a 1930s-style depression. That has propped up the so-called zombie corporations. These are so unprofitable that they are forced to take out ever more loans to repay interest on their existing loans. As a result, the system limps along.

By contrast, ruling classes have imposed austerity measures on their workers, cutting social welfare spending and attacking wages and benefits. As a result, class inequality has deepened throughout the world. At the same time, states have turned to protectionism and other beggar-thy-neighbor policies to protect their capitals against other states and their capitals.

The return of inter-imperial rivalry

Thus, the global slump is intensifying the second key crisis—inter-imperial rivalry, especially between the two biggest economies in the world, the U.S. and China. Washington no longer oversees the unipolar world order as it did after the Cold War. The long neoliberal boom produced new centers of capital accumulation from China to Russia and a host of regional powers.

Washington no longer oversees the unipolar world order as it did after the Cold War. The long neoliberal boom produced new centers of capital accumulation from China to Russia and a host of regional powers.

The U.S. attempt to defend its increasingly challenged hegemony through wars in Afghanistan and Iraq backfired, leading to disastrous defeats. On top of that, the Great Recession hammered the U.S., Europe, and Japan, in contrast to China, which used massive state investment to keep its economy booming, and with that, all its tributary economies expanding from Russia to Australia and Brazil.

These developments led to the relative decline of the U.S. against its rivals, especially China, ushering in today’s asymmetric multipolar world order. The U.S. remains the largest economy with the biggest military and greatest geopolitical influence. Its dollar remains the world’s reserve currency, it oversees an empire of 800 military overseas bases, and uses that power to bully allies, rivals, and so-called rogue states.

But it is no longer unrivaled. China is now a potential peer competitor, while Russia, with its vast nuclear stockpile and fossil capitalist economy, is an outsized regional power with global pretensions. In this context, regional powers exploit conflicts between the great powers to pursue their own interests. Iran, for instance, oversaw the so-called Axis of Resistance, which it used to build regional imperial influence against the U.S., the Arab states, and Israel.

Faced with this new order, successive U.S. administrations have abandoned Washington’s post-Cold War strategy of superintending capitalism by incorporating all states into a neoliberal world order of free trade globalization. Obama initiated a shift toward great power competition with China through his Pivot to Asia.

In his first term, Trump enshrined great power rivalry as Washington’s new grand strategy, naming specifically China and Russia. His America First foreign policy put what he perceived to be U.S. interests over and above those of both friends and foes. He began to abandon free trade for protectionism, particularly by raising tariffs on China. But his administration’s internal divisions, hostility to traditional allies, propensity to make transactional deals with rivals, and general incompetence prevented its coherent implementation.

The Biden administration retained Trump’s focus on great power but abandoned his unilateralism. Instead, it tried to rebuild Washington’s alliance structure, especially NATO, and unite its vassals against China and Russia in defense of the so-called rules-based international order. It paired that with strategic protectionism against Beijing and an industrial policy to ensure U.S. dominance in high-tech industries, especially microchips, which it wanted to onshore from Taiwan.

Biden capitalized on Russia’s imperialist war on Ukraine to rally NATO behind Kyiv’s national liberation struggle. His aim was not to defend Ukraine’s right to self-determination but to weaken Russia. However, his administration fatally discredited its claims to support international law, human rights, and oppressed nations by championing, bankrolling, and arming Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza.

Waves of resistance

The global slump, growing inter-imperial rivalries, and capitalism’s other systemic crises have combined to destabilize societies around the world. These conditions have set off waves of resistance from below by various classes, from the petty bourgeoisie to the working class and peasantry. The movements have been politically heterogeneous, spanning the gamut from right-wing small business revolts to uprisings of workers and the oppressed.

Most important for the Left have been the progressive class and social struggles throughout the world from the Arab Spring revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa to the Red State Teachers Revolt, Black Lives Matter, and Palestine solidarity in the U.S. These movements have been the largest since the 1960s and have a class content more like that of the 1930s, expressing rage against the deep economic and social inequalities of our epoch.

But they all have been hampered by the weaknesses inherited from the previous period of defeat and retreat. These include everything from the collapse of the revolutionary Left to the dramatic drop in trade union density and retreat of social movements from membership-based groups to grant-funded NGOs with all their golden chains.

As a result, workers and the oppressed have gone into struggle bereft of class, social, and political infrastructures of dissent. That has impacted the character of movements today. They tend to seemingly come out of nowhere and explode in size, challenging capital and the state. Their demands are usually negative in character, like the slogan of the Arab Spring, which was “the people want the fall of the regime,” and lack a positive alternative. In the words of one analyst, they are revolutions without revolutionaries.

That makes them vulnerable in all sorts of ways. The states and capitals can crush them with brute force as the regimes succeeded in doing throughout the Middle East and North Africa. They can also co-opt them as the Ford Foundation did with key leaders of Black Lives Matter. Reformist parties can also channel uprisings into the dead-end of electoral attempts to use the capitalist state to overcome systemic crises and inequalities. The movements can also dissipate in demoralization over the difficulties of winning victories faced with the intransigence of the state and capital.

That said, more and more activists have drawn lessons from these experiences that it’s necessary to build more serious class, social, and political organizations capable of sustaining struggles for positive demands and reforms on the way to systemic change.

Political polarization to the right and left

Global capitalism’s crises and the waves of resistance have intensified political polarization to the right and to the left. The various regimes and parties of the capitalist classes offer no solutions either to the system’s intractable problems or popular grievances. Undemocratic regimes have turned to increasing authoritarianism to enforce their rule in countries like China and Russia. In bourgeois democracies, angry electorates have voted out capital’s traditional parties, searching for alternatives on the right and the left.

The chief beneficiary of this polarization has been the Right for obvious reasons. The revolutionary Left is far too weak to offer an alternative. The reformist Left has ridden the resistance to win elected office in various countries, but constrained by capitalism’s crisis and the intransigence of the capitalist class, their electoral strategy has been unable to deliver reforms to improve people’s lives. They have, at best, administered neoliberal capitalism with a human face or, worse, broken their promises and turned on their working-class base. The examples of this are legion, from Syriza’s betrayal of Greek workers to the collapse of the Pink Tide in Latin America.

The authoritarian nationalist politicians have reaped the rewards of disappointment with establishment and reformist parties. The Right’s parties represent at best a minority of capital but are mainly an expression of petty bourgeois radicalization. They have found a base in the atomized, defeated, and demoralized sections of the working class. As a result, authoritarian nationalist regimes have multiplied throughout the world, from Putin in Russia to Modi in India, Orban in Hungary, Kast in Chile, Milei in Argentina, and, of course, Trump in the United States.

But their “solutions” of class war, bigotry, and scapegoating, especially of migrants, have also failed to solve the system’s crises and address mass popular grievances from their own petty bourgeois base to the much larger popular classes. So, they too have not been able to establish stable regimes and have even been driven out of power. For instance, Hungarian voters recently voted Orban out of office. Authoritarian states also have faced resistance from below as well as other forces. President Xi Jinping faced a mass uprising against his brutal Zero-COVID policy, and Vladimir Putin faced a coup attempt by the Wagner Group.

In bourgeois democracies, when the new Right has faced governmental crises, some have been tempted to turn to authoritarian rule, like Brazil’s Bolsonaro, who tried to organize a coup after he lost the election to stay in power. He failed. In reality, few democracies have yet fallen to such seizures of power. Instead, the old capitalist parties have exploited the failure of the reformists and the Right to return to power, often by adopting elements of the authoritarian nationalists’ program, especially its attacks on migrants.

But such triangulation only confirms the arguments of the Right, giving them a new lease on life. With bourgeois rule unstable, states across the board are becoming more authoritarian, enforcing rule through coercion, not consent. At the same time, they are becoming more aggressive internationally, the great imperial powers in particular.

With bourgeois rule unstable, states across the board are becoming more authoritarian, enforcing rule through coercion, not consent. At the same time, they are becoming more aggressive internationally, the great imperial powers in particular. Trump’s authoritarian nationalism

The Trump administration is part of this global pattern of the rise of a new Right. Trump’s victory in the 2024 election was entirely the fault of the Democratic Party and its commitment to capitalism and imperialism. The Biden administration failed to address the system’s crises, oversaw the immiseration of workers through inflation, and carried out mass deportations. Abroad, it ramped up inter-imperial conflict and backed Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza.

Trump exploited disappointment with the Democrats, but still only managed to squeak out a narrow victory over Harris, winning around half of those who bothered to vote, only about 33 percent of the overall electorate. Like other authoritarian nationalists, he does not represent a capitalist consensus, but a rogue clique of billionaires and the radicalized petty bourgeoisie. And, at best, he won a weak mandate in the 2024 election.

But that does not make his administration any less vicious. Unlike his first term, Trump now has a coherent program in Project 2025 and a unified cabinet of sycophants that, despite their differences, support their leader, including his wildest impulses and without question. They are aggressively implementing their authoritarian nationalist project.

In the U.S., they have launched a class war, cutting taxes on the rich, firing government workers, stripping the rest of union rights, gutting social welfare, and deregulating the economy. They are carrying this out through classic divide-and-rule tactics, blaming the oppressed and scapegoating them, especially immigrants, for the system’s failures. He has poured $85 billion into ICE’s budget over the next four years to hire and unleash thousands of new agents to occupy cities and arrest hundreds of thousands of migrants, detain them in new concentration camps, and deport them back to their countries of origin

In a fit of irrationalism, Trump is also carrying out revenge on the deep state, slashing entire parts of the government bureaucracy essential for reproducing U.S. capitalism, like the National Institute of Health, and managing U.S. imperialism like the State Department. In place of professional managers, he is appointing right-wing hacks, ideologues,  and lackeys.

He’s extended this assault into the private sphere as well, targeting, for example, elite higher education, which trains future CEOs, scientists, professionals, and state managers, all personnel essential for U.S. capitalism and its state. He really seems to want to Make America Stupid Again.

Ripping up the imperial order

Abroad, largely in defiance of the capitalist class and state managers, Trump has ripped up the entire order that the U.S. built after World War II and expanded globally after the Cold War. His administration’s project is not isolationist, but one of predatory dominance in pursuit of its conception of U.S. interests against both allies and rivals. Trump’s representatives laid out this in their National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, and a series of speeches by JD Vance and Marco Rubio.

Their stated goal is to Make America Great Again by putting America First, definitively abandoning all their predecessors’ project of superintending global capitalism. In geopolitics, they are withdrawing from multilateral bodies like the UN and World Health Organization that the U.S. set up to oversee the world. Trump has even gutted funding for humanitarian aid programs like USAID that used to garner support from countries in the Global South. He dismissed those as corrupt welfare schemes, essentially abandoning any use of soft power.

In economics, he has abandoned free trade globalization, establishing a protectionist trade regime against both allies and rivals. But he has run into international and domestic opposition. China, unlike most other states, stood toe to toe with his administration, imposed crippling restrictions on its exports of processed rare earths, and left Trump no choice but to lower his tariffs.

In the U.S., the capitalist class and Trump’s own petty bourgeois base of farmers forced him to grant them carve-outs. And the Supreme Court ruled against his use of the International Emergency Powers Act to impose his tariffs, forcing the administration back to the drawing board to use other powers to maintain the new protectionism.

Finally, on the military front, the administration has doubled down on hard power, jacking up the Pentagon’s budget to over $1 trillion. And now Trump is proposing to raise it to $1.5 trillion. At the same time, his regime has retreated from enforcing global order. It is demanding that its nominal allies in Europe and Asia shoulder the burden of their own security so that the U.S. can focus on carving out a sphere of influence in Latin America through crude gunboat diplomacy for naked economic gain.

The goal of its new “Donroe Doctrine” is to lock the region under its dominion, crushing opponents, and pushing out China. Already, Trump bullied Panama into withdrawing from China’s BRI, carried out a coup in Venezuela to seize control of its oil, threatened to take over Greenland to establish bases and stake claim to the Arctic’s resources, and has imposed a brutal blockade on Cuba, threatening it with regime change to open it up for U.S. real estate capital.

While that sphere of influence is Trump’s top priority, he has three others—Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. In Europe, he is supporting the far Right to restore “white civilization” and imperialist pride, pressuring the EU to deregulate, and bullying NATO to increase its military spending and manage its own security, including against Russia. He has all but sold Ukraine down the river, conceding to Moscow its old sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.

In Asia, he has stated that he intends to maintain the status quo standoff with China, but he’s also hinted that he might cut a deal with Beijing to concede it a sphere of influence. And in the Middle East, he backs Israel to finish off Hamas in Gaza, impose a predatory “peace” there, and dismantle the rest of the so-called Axis of Resistance, including its headquarters in Iran. After that, Trump wants to expand the so-called Abraham Accords to normalize relations between Israel and the region’s regimes, all under the thumb of the U.S., not China and Russia.

Survival of the most vicious

With this project, the Trump administration has put the world on notice that it has abandoned the so-called rules-based order to advance its narrow economic interests without disguise. It is establishing a new world disorder where might makes right, the great powers struggle for dominance, and the weak, in the words of Thucydides, “suffer what they must.”

While other powers like the EU may pine for the rules-based order, they have no choice but to adapt to the pressure from the U.S. and other great powers to abide by their dog-eat-dog rules. In a stunning speech at the World Economic Forum, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney laid out the new global disorder in stark terms. He eulogized the old rules-based order. While he recognized that it was always a sham, he argued that at least there were some political and economic restraints on great powers.

But Trump, he noted, has laid waste to it and so-called middle powers like Canada must recognize that fact and respond accordingly, otherwise they “won’t be at the table but on the menu.” Whether he liked it or not, Carney argued, Canada has to put its imperial interests first. Already, he is advancing that project, increasing his state’s military budget, staking claims to the Arctic, and cutting economic deals with U.S. rivals like China. Other U.S. allies are doing the same. In a shocking example, Denmark actually made plans to deploy its troops to Greenland and blow up its airport runways to stop a U.S. invasion.

All states are adapting to Trump’s contest for the survival of the most vicious. The EU, NATO, and individual states, especially France and Germany, do not trust the U.S. and recognize that they have no choice but to stake out their own path. The European powers are cutting trade deals with China and Latin America in defiance of the U.S., jacking up their military budgets, and imposing austerity on workers with cuts to social welfare spending, wages, and benefits. Russia has already established a war economy to fuel its imperialist invasion of Ukraine. In Asia, Japan is doing the same. So is China, Washington’s key rival. We are thus in the midst of a new global arms race.

Iran—A turning point in world history

The so-called rules-based order was already in tatters in the wake of Russia’s imperialist war in Ukraine and the U.S. and Israel’s genocide in Gaza. And now with his war on Iran, Trump destroyed what remained of it. Flush with success after kidnapping Maduro in Venezuela and turning the remnants of his regime into a servant of U.S. imperialism, Trump thought he and Israel could do the same in Iran. Instead, it has blown up in his face with Tehran launching a regional war in response.

While the U.S. and Israel started this war together, they have different war aims. Trump had sought a Venezuela-style solution; he wanted to find a figure in the regime that would play the role Delcy Rodriguez did in Caracas and cut a deal to survive on the condition of obeying U.S. dictates. He hoped a reconfigured Iranian regime would then join the Abraham Accords along with the Arab states and normalize relations with Israel.

By contrast, Netanyahu intends to destroy the entire regime, balkanize the country, and wipe out its allies to ensure that none can pose any challenge to Israel’s regional hegemony. Thus, as Trump admitted, Israel undermined Washington’s goal by killing the Iranian leaders Washington hoped to cut a deal with. Unsurprisingly, Israel has paired its blitzkrieg in Iran with a new offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon to go with its ongoing genocide in Gaza and settlement expansion in the West Bank. It aims to carve out its own mini-empire—Greater Israel.

Of course, Israel pressured Trump to launch the war, but it did not sucker him into doing it. The tail does not wag the dog. Even Netanyahu ridiculed that idea in an interview with Sean Hannity. When Hannity said, “There are people that say, ‘Wow, the prime minister of Israel dragged him into it,” Netanyahu laughed. “That’s ridiculous,” he said. “Donald Trump is the strongest leader in the world. He does what he thinks is right for America.”

Thus, Trump launched the war for his own stupid reasons. He is no puppet of Israel. But he catastrophically miscalculated. Iran is not Venezuela; it is a battle-tested, theocratic regime with a loyal base in a minority of the population. It has carried out a regional war and repeatedly crushed every democratic uprising of its workers and the oppressed peoples. And it had been elaborately prepared not only to survive a U.S. and Israeli war but also to launch a devastating counter-attack.

Catastrophic consequences

So, when Trump started this war, Iran withstood the assault and responded by firing missiles and drones at Israel, all the Arab states, and even NATO powers. It attacked Turkey and  British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia. And they shut down the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off shipment of oil and natural gas to the world. That sent fossil fuel prices spiraling upwards, threatening global economic growth and setting off inflation—the capitalist nightmare of stagflation.

And the danger to the world economy could get far worse if the conflict escalates. Already, when Israel struck Iran’s natural gas field, Tehran responded by attacking Qatar’s liquid natural gas (LNG)  processing plant in Ras Laffan, which supplies Asia with much of its LNG. That provoked Trump to tell Israel to refrain from further strikes. But the damage may have already been done. Qatar reports that it will take 3 to 5 years to repair its massive plant. One analyst said this will lead to the Armageddon scenario—the biggest oil and natural gas shock in history.

But the impact of the war will be even greater than that. Contrary to stereotypes, the importance of the region’s economy to the world extends far beyond fossil fuels. The Gulf states have transformed themselves into centers of industry, international travel, commercial shipping, and finance capital. The disruption of all this will be devastating for the system and, more importantly, for the working class and peasants of the world.

The war and the closure of the Strait are blocking the export of the region’s fertilizer industry. That will lead to shortages and drive up prices of fertilizer right as planting season starts over the next few months across the world. Farmers in the Global North may be able to stomach the costs and gobble up the bulk of the supply, but farmers in the Global South will be priced out of the market, suffer shortages, and produce lower crop yields. The combination of increased fertilizer and fuel costs will trigger a spike in food prices in the Global North and famine in the Global South.

The war is also blocking the region’s export of all sorts of fossil fuel byproducts that are essential for the global economy. For example, its plants produce naphtha, one of the key components for the global manufacturing of plastic, which corporations use for almost everything from packaging to cars and fighter jets. Another example is helium. It is essential for the manufacture of microchips, without which today’s high-tech economy can’t function.

Moreover, the region’s ports and airports are essential hubs for both international travel and commercial transit. Their disruption is causing all sorts of problems in the world economy. Even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens along with the airports, corporations will now distrust them as reliable hubs for transport and commerce, throwing into question their vast investments, infrastructure, and trade and travel routes.

Finally, the Gulf states like the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have turned themselves into major centers of international finance capital. They have used their funds to invest in all sorts of things, but especially AI data centers, not only in their region, but also in the United States. Now, companies will doubt the security of data centers in the Gulf states. And the Gulf states will have to pull back from their international investment and use their capital to rebuild their own infrastructure. Such a drawback will undercut the U.S. data center boom and could pop the high-tech bubble, the main prop for U.S. capitalism’s growth. Thus, the war is disrupting the whole system.

The logic of escalation

Trump has thereby stumbled into the biggest imperialist crisis since Iraq and potentially a far worse one. The U.S., Israel, and Iran, up until the ceasefire, were locked in a logic of escalation with no clear end in sight. The Iranian regime faced an existential threat and will fight to its death. It therefore expanded the war to force states throughout the region and world to compel the U.S. and Israel to stop it and prevent another one. No doubt they will be determined to build nuclear weapons after the war to deter any future attack.

Trump has thereby stumbled into the biggest imperialist crisis since Iraq and potentially a far worse one.

Iran’s counterattacks forced the U.S. and Israel to respond, prolonging what Trump had hoped would be a quick victory. Thus, like the sorcerer’s apprentice, Trump lost control of a spiraling war. And his decision to stage his own blockade of the Strait of Hormuz to cut off Iranian exports has intensified the conflict’s damage to the world economy.

Faced with this crisis, Trump relented, agreeing to a ceasefire with none of his goals achieved. Iran’s regime remains in power, it still has nuclear stockpiles, it retains significant missile and drone capacity to threaten attacks on the region, and it has promised to continue support for its regional allies in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen.

At this point, the Strait of Hormuz remains blocked, the talks are at stand still, and the world economy stands at the precipice of an even greater crisis. The Iranian regime clearly believes it can weather the standoff longer than the U.S.. While Trump clearly wants to cut a deal, he cannot accept one that further humiliates the U.S. Meanwhile, Israel is braying for more war in Iran and Lebanon.

Regardless of what happens, the U.S. is in the midst of a metastasizing economic, geopolitical, and military crisis. The world economy has been hammered. No one in the region can now trust the United States. All its military bases and defense systems have not protected its vassals like Saudi Arabia but have made them targets for attack. And no regime will risk normalizing relations with Israel against the wishes of the masses of the population in the region, who are now furious with the U.S. and Israel. That puts Trump’s Abraham Accords in jeopardy.

Trump has thoroughly alienated all of Washington’s allies, whom he kept in the dark about his plans to launch the war. Now, with the U.S. in crisis, none of them has agreed to bail Trump out. They all have refused to join his war and send ships to open the Strait of Hormuz. At this point, they want to keep out of it and have become increasingly critical of it. The German chancellor’s remark that Iran had humiliated the U.S. drove Trump in a fit of rage to threaten to withdraw all of Washington’s troops from Europe, threatening the entire NATO alliance.

Even worse for the U.S., Trump’s war has benefited Washington’s main rivals, Russia and China. In a desperate attempt to lower fossil fuel prices, Trump lowered sanctions on Russia’s oil exports. Putin has thus scored a victory, securing desperately needed funds to aid his ailing economy. That will enable him to escalate his imperialist war on Ukraine. Trump lowered sanctions on Russia even though it is aiding Iran by giving it military intelligence. Sensing his advantage, Putin even offered to suspend its intelligence sharing if the U.S. stops doing the same for Ukraine.

China is happy to see the U.S. bogged down in yet another catastrophic war. While it has lost oil and natural gas from Iran, it can, for now, draw on its huge fossil fuel reserves and can expand contracts for more supplies from Russia, further consolidating their “friendship without limits.” But China is not immune to the war’s consequences. It will find difficulties securing key materials for its manufacturing, the global slump will weaken its export markets that are its main engine of continued growth, and countries in its debt will find it ever more difficult to repay their loans, putting Chinese financial capital in jeopardy.

Trump’s intensifying domestic crisis

Trump’s war will intensify his domestic political crisis. Already deeply unpopular, he now faces splits in his MAGA leadership with figures like Tucker Carlson opposing the war. He has also alienated sections of his base that voted for him, believing naively that Trump would keep the U.S. out of “forever wars.” With no end in sight, this war dooms the Republican Party to defeat in the upcoming midterm elections, if they are free and fair. The Democrats will take the House, possibly the Senate, tie Congress up in hearings, block all legislation, and try to impeach Trump and members of his cabinet.

Trump knows that. So, he is turning to more and more authoritarian means to maintain power. He is trying to rig the election through gerrymandering and voter suppression, most recently with the Save America Act, which would effectively disenfranchise millions. The Supreme Court also helped Trump in its recent ruling that overturned Louisiana’s congressional map that afforded Black voters a majority in two districts. Their decision effectively guts the Voting Rights Act, risking a return to electoral white supremacy not seen since the Jim Crow era. Already, in a dangerous precedent, Louisiana has suspended the primary election to enable redistricting to the advantage of the GOP.

In an even more ominous sign, some on the right, like Bannon, have argued for Trump to deploy ICE at polling locations. Trump has already tested the water by deploying ICE to the airports across the country. Thus, U.S. norms of bourgeois democracy hang in the balance. Lest anyone think this to be an exaggeration, three new studies found that the U.S. is slipping toward an autocracy at astonishing speed.

Faced with this spiraling crisis, the Democratic Party spent the last year practically in hiding. They adopted James Carville’s “possum strategy”—literally playing dead when faced with a predator. While outliers like Bernie Sanders and AOC agitated for action against the billionaire class, the establishment Democrats bided their time, hoping Trump would punch himself out and discredit the GOP so that they could sweep the midterms. Then they could find some new corporate standard bearer like Gavin Newsom or JB Pritzker or even worse turn back to genocidaire, Kamala Harris, to win back the White House in 2028 and restore the status quo ante.

Truth be told, the Democratic Party did next to nothing to resist Trump until the Minneapolis mass strike against ICE. Only then did they challenge the funding of ICE and Homeland Security. But just like they have done with police, their demand was not for the abolition of ICE’s racist goon squad, but that its agents wear body cameras, get more training, and stop wearing masks. With those “reforms,” they have promised to grant ICE more funding! That should surprise no one since the Democrats have bankrolled DHS and ICE with billions since their creation in 2003. And, under Obama and Biden, they used ICE and Border Patrol to deport millions of people.

Their supposed opposition to Trump’s catastrophic war on Iran has been even more pathetic. Why? Because they share with the GOP U.S. imperialism’s determination since Iran’s 1979 revolution to topple the Islamic Republic. So, their initial objections were procedural—that Trump had not made the case for war, had not secured support from Congress under the War Powers Act, and had no plan or clearly stated goals. And their main concern is that Trump’s idiotic war has weakened U.S. imperialism and its capacity to fight China and Russia.

While some reformists in the party have denounced the war, they remain trapped in an imperialist party, which is both reactionary and incapacitated in a moment of emergency. As a result, despite the fact that the Democrats are likely to win the midterms, if the elections happen in any normal fashion, they remain deeply unpopular and offer no solutions to the system’s crises and popular grievances.

In resistance, there is hope

Unlike the Democratic Party, workers and the oppressed have risen up against Trump, producing a mass heterogeneous resistance. Some of its currents predate Trump’s presidency, like the Palestine solidarity movement, which persists despite state repression and hostility from liberal and Zionist forces. Most other currents have been galvanized by Trump’s unrelenting class and social attacks, particularly on ICE’s war on immigrants. All these converged in Minneapolis, culminating in a mass strike and protest that forced Trump to retreat, fire his commander of the Border Patrol, Greg Bovino, demote Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, and withdraw hundreds of ICE and Border Patrol agents.

That uprising against ICE was based on a developed infrastructure of resistance forged over the last couple of decades. That included the George Floyd uprising against police brutality, union organizing and strikes, immigrant rights struggles, and indigenous-led climate justice campaigns. But most parts of the country lack this infrastructure of resistance. And even there, the militant minority and revolutionary Left remain small as elsewhere. These hamper the organization and politics of the resistance.

Nevertheless, the struggle is forging new organizations and a new Left. The two main organized currents of the national resistance are Indivisible and May Day Strong. Indivisible was formed by two Democratic Party organizers who explicitly conceived the project as a means to galvanize its base in struggle and then turn it to elections to defeat Trump and Republicans. It is thus a popular front formation, wedding workers and the oppressed to a capitalist party in the hopes of securing liberal reforms.

It has staged three massive No Kings rallies. But, because of its ties to the Democratic Party, it has tended to exclude Palestine solidarity activists and has proved reluctant to even include opposition to the war on Iran. Its strategy is to turn the millions on its demonstrations into campaigners for the Democrats in the midterms and 2028 presidential elections. But, as we know from bitter experience, the Democrats are no alternative for the vast majority. Nevertheless, the people at those demonstrations are open to much more radical ideas and strategies.

The other formation, May Day Strong, was spearheaded by the Chicago Teachers Union. It has brought together unions, immigrant rights groups, other social movement organizations, and NGOs in a potential united front of working-class forces. It does include Indivisible and another liberal formation, 5051, and it is limited by the horizons of the left union bureaucracy. Nevertheless, it has put May Day back on the map, encouraged solidarity schools to prepare unions to stage political strikes against Trump, and pushed the slogan, “no work, no school, no shopping,” for this year’s May Day.

May Day Strong offers the Left a national vehicle to advance the argument for a general strike to challenge Trump’s increasingly authoritarian regime. Its explicit model is the South Korean strike that blocked a coup and toppled the government. That said, it does not exist in all cities and towns. It is also not immune from co-optation by the Democrats through the trade union officialdom’s alliance with the party’s reformist wing. And it is an ominous sign that Indivisible plays such a prominent role in its midst. Nonetheless, May Day Strong is an important strategic orientation for the revolutionary left in building the resistance. Our challenge is how to forge similar local formations aligned with the national coalition. It is our best shot to agitate for mass, independent working-class action to topple the Trump regime.

Rebirth of the revolutionary Left

This new epoch of crisis, imperialist rivalry, authoritarianism, and resistance is opening up space for the construction of a new socialist Left. Indeed, all political organizations are now growing from reformism to neo-Stalinism and revolutionary socialism. The struggle is on to shape a new generation’s politics, strategies, and tactics for an epoch of crisis and class struggle.

Tempest argues that the tradition of socialism from below offers the best way to fight here and now on the road to international socialism. We aim to embody these politics in an organization with branches that avoid the traps of the micro party that has paralyzed our forebears—ideological uniformity, sectarianism, ultraleftism, and organization building in isolation from the living struggle. Join us to build a socialist organization, forge new infrastructures of resistance, cohere a militant minority, and eventually found a revolutionary party. These are tall tasks, but necessary ones in our apocalyptic times.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”

The post Faultlines in a new epoch of crisis appeared first on Tempest.

Iran is passing through a phase of exceptional violence and intensity. In the wake of the genocide in Palestine and the large-scale destruction inflicted on Lebanon, the United States and Israel are also participating in the devastation of lives, bodies, territories, and vital infrastructures in Iran.There they have been targeting not only refineries and fuel depots, but also health facilities, water resources, energy systems, oil installations, schools, and other civilian spaces. In Minab, a girls’ school was obliterated and more than 168 were killed, among them Baloch children. This war has disrupted the very conditions of social reproduction, further deepened the vulnerability of the working classes. It has undermined the material basis of social autonomy, pushing struggles from below several steps backward, and reinforcing forms of state or social-driven ethno-nationalism. The rapid shift, within the space of a month, from Trump’s promise to “make Iran great again” to the threat of reducing the country to the “stone age” dispelled any remaining ambiguity about the imperial logic at work—a formula that unmistakably recalls the language of the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq.

This imperialist “external” violence, however, cannot be understood apart from the internal crisis through which the Islamic Republic has been attempting to reconstitute its authority. Since the 2022 uprising, following the police murder of the young Kurdish woman Jina Mahsa Amini, the Islamic Republic has continuously sought, in every war and geopolitical crisis, ways to restore some of the authority and respectability it has lost.

The paradox of imperialist assault and regime legitimacy

The war waged by the genocidal Israeli colonial power against the Palestinians after October 7, 2023, followed by the first Israeli-U.S. attack on Iran in June 2025, offered the Islamic Republic an initial framework for rehabilitation. However, the January 2026 massacre, during which thousands of Iranian demonstrators were killed in just two days by the forces of the theocratic state, simply for protesting against the economic crisis and political dictatorship, reopened an acute crisis of legitimacy, domestically and internationally, for Tehran.

When Iranians were still in mourning, and while many families had not even been able to recover the bodies of their loved ones killed in January, the United States and Israel launched a new imperialist invasion on February 28, 2026, one even more violent than previous assaults. Paradoxically, the attacks have so far helped the Islamic Republic regain some of the credibility it had lost through the bloody repression of the previous month.

These two events, massacre and war, do not constitute either separate sequences or two opposing forms of violence—one repressive and the other supposedly liberatory—but rather successive, even asymmetric, moments of an interconnected counter-revolutionary process. The “external” war prolongs and deepens the internal counter-revolution, enabling the Iranian state to tighten internal cohesion and, once again, stifle popular dissent.

Recognizing this in no way minimizes the fact that Iran has been, and remains, the target of imperialist and colonial aggression carried out with impunity. On the contrary, it requires us to read this assault in terms of its deeper political function: first, as a murderous enterprise of destruction targeting civilian lives, bodies, infrastructure, and territories, carried out under false pretexts and extending the genocidal enterprise pursued in Gaza, as well as in the West bank and Lebanon; and, second, as the provision of new resources to the Islamic Republic for its own reconstitution.

What is campism?

Israeli-U.S. aggression is reinforcing Iran’s militarization, repression, and the crushing of uprisings from below. It is also intensifying a deadly political polarization. On one side, part of the opposition, especially monarchists, welcomed the imperialist bombings in the name of their hostility to the theocratic state. On the other side, other political forces have fallen back into the orbit of the Islamic Republic in the name of anti-imperialism and opposition to war. While the reactionary nature of the first current—pro-Israel, pro-U.S., and pro-genocide—has been readily opposed based on a relative consensus among the progressive and leftist forces, the second current has unfortunately captured parts of the Left and  is every bit as significant.

It is within this impasse that the question of campism re-emerges with particular urgency. By campism I mean a range of positions and tendencies that support any force or state  based on its opposition to Western imperialism regardless of its reactionary or progressive nature.

A legacy of the Cold War, campism, as articulated by self-proclaimed anti-imperialists and supporters of the so-called resistance camp, often reduces the world based on a binary logic of two “camps”: imperialism (the United States, NATO, Israel, and their allies) versus “the resistance” (Iran, Russia, China, Assad’s Syria, and so on). The democratic and subversive uprisings against the latter states, such as Rojava, are thereby dismissed as inherently suspect or as a”” Trojan Horse” of the enemy. Any criticism of dictators is immediately disqualified as “complicity with imperialism”.

Popular mobilizations are reduced to mere “Western relays”, or else instrumentalized whenever they can serve one camp. The logic of “the enemy of my enemy” becomes an alibi: it becomes an excuse for overlooking internal repression and the protests that follow,  as nothing more than parts of a larger geopolitical conflict.

The result is that internationalist, mutual solidarity based on the shared experiences and destinities of the oppressed classes becomes paralyzed, incapable of holding anti-authoritarianism and anti-imperialism together. Under the pretext of preventing any “imperialist exploitation” of revolutions, campists tend to privilege a structurally marginalized, “prudent” Left, at times condemned to perpetual defeat.

This “identity-based anti-imperialism” privileges loyalty to “anti-Western” states over an analysis of global capitalism. In so doing, it justifies repression, patriarchy, homophobia, and internal colonialism in the name of “resistance.” Absolute priority is given to the struggle against Western imperialism, and victims of these “anti-imperialist” states become “collateral damage.” .

The Irish essayist Fred Halliday described this type of thinking as “the anti-imperialism of fools.” In the name of hostility to the United States, this posture violently reinforces, in practice, a theocratic state that represses the Left, national minorities, feminists, and popular councils. The concept was later taken up by the Syrian activist Leila Al-Shami in her book Burning Country to designate supporters of Bashar al-Assad during the Arab revolution of the 2010s. From the Soviet crushing of the Hungarian uprising in Budapest in 1956 to the present, this anti-imperialism of fools has masked state violence and the crushing of revolts.

Such a tendency can be observed within certain segments of the white Western left, but also within decolonial modes of thinking. It belongs to what one might call “anti-imperialism-washing,” the strategic use of anti-imperialist rhetoric to conceal, justify, or minimize forms of authoritarianism and fascistic violence exercised within national borders, especially when these states are presented as adversaries of Western hegemonic power. While these figures denounce the colonialism of Western powers, they remain largely blind, and even complicit, when it comes to “internal colonialism,” that is, the way minoritized peoples, such as the Kurds and Baluchs, describe their relationship to Iranian state power.

This practice is also often accompanied by a form of racial gaslighting. “Gaslighting” originally referred to the manipulation of women by systematically casting doubt on their word and mental state. Having become a key term in psychology and later a critical tool of feminism, it now encompasses a form of deceitful, violent, even denialist political language more broadly. Communities that have historically been subjected both to imperial domination and to internal repression are “taught,” from positions of relative privilege, the “correct” interpretation of imperialism and resistance. This condescending posture does not merely reinscribe colonial hierarchies of knowledge; it delegitimizes the ideas and lived experiences—the very agency— of those subjected to entangled systems of violence.

The consequences are all too tangible. The Islamic Republic of Iran instrumentalizes this decolonial discourse to label demonstrators as “terrorists” and harden its coercive apparatus. This logic also helps justify the discriminatory policies directed against Afghan migrants in Iran: by portraying them as an internal threat, the state shifts onto them responsibility for difficulties that in fact stem from its own political, social, and economic regime.

No struggle should be consigned to the “waiting-room of history” in the name of a linear conception of liberation, or sacrificed to a hierarchy of supposedly more urgent causes. The counterrevolutionary logic of campism

After the genocide in Gaza and the war waged by Israel and the United States against Iran in June 2025, campism has once again  come to dominate part of the global radical Left in the West, as well as in Latin America, Africa, and the Arab world. It reduces Iranian politics to a duel between “Iran” and the “U.S.-Israeli axis.” Popular uprisings, repressed in blood since 2017, are either passed over in silence or recast through the state’s official discourse: “Mossad infiltration,” “color revolution,” “Western plot,” and so on. This framework turns social movements into a security threat and legitimizes repression—from street violence to executions—under the pretext of a “state of emergency” or an “untimely moment”. By treating insurgent people as the principal enemy, it is, in fact, profoundly counterrevolutionary.

Under the expanding regime of permanent war, people in  struggle are repeatedly told to stand down, to defer themselves for the sake of a higher urgency. Even those who recognize the repressive nature of these forces often set aside emancipatory struggles in the name of strategy. This is what Morteza Samanpour and Amir Kianpour have called “strategic campism.” Feminist struggles have long been trapped in precisely this logic: they are always asked to wait, first for class, now for anti-imperialism. But feminist politics has named the truth of this postponement with clarity: later too often means never. No struggle should be consigned to the “waiting-room of history” in the name of a linear conception of liberation, or sacrificed to a hierarchy of supposedly more urgent causes.

Recent geopolitical developments have given campists even greater room for maneuver. During Israel’s war against Iran in June 2025, often referred to as the “Twelve-Day War,” the concrete experience of destruction strengthened anti-war tendencies inside Iran. However, after the bloody massacre perpetrated by the state in January 2026, part of society, exhausted and confronted with a dead end, came to falsely view foreign intervention as a means of overthrowing the government, other internal avenues having been tried unsuccessfully and with the state not yielding to pressure. A prominent doctor reported that “at least a thousand” patients (protesters) with severe eye injuries had presented at a single hospital in Tehran following the January protests, all requiring urgent treatment in an attempt to save their eyesight.

It is precisely here that campism collapses. To condemn external war while remaining silent about internal state violence is not a principled anti-war position, but a form of relativism that effaces crucial differences between regimes and modalities of violence. This is not a claim of Iranian exceptionalism invoked to legitimize military attack, as some Trumpist and monarchist currents have done. It is, rather, the insistence that a theocratic dictatorship, in which an unelected leader exercises extralegal power over ninety million people through social terror, executions, torture, political imprisonment, digital isolation, misogynistic religious rule, and racist-colonial policies toward national minorities and Afghan migrants, cannot be treated as equivalent to states where civil and legal freedoms, however limited, still exist, and where violence operates at a structurally different scale and form. .

To condemn the external war or imperialist intervention without explicitly denouncing this internal violences, the massacre of its own population, as campists do, is both a complete political misreading of dynamics in Iran, and means siding with the state against the people it is killing. States rule by dividing people and crushing uprisings. Campists do not resist this logic; they follow it. By taking states and their geopolitical alignments as their primary point of reference, they reproduce and legitimize the divisions imposed from above, substituting allegiance to state camps for solidarities forged from below among people in struggle.

By taking states and their geopolitical alignments as their primary point of reference, they reproduce and legitimize the divisions imposed from above, substituting allegiance to state camps for solidarities forged from below among people in struggle. A betrayal of the memories of the Global South

Since the Islamic counterrevolution against the genuine 1979 revolution, part of the national and international left has subordinated class and gender analysis to its one-sided interpretation of anti-imperialism. Women’s protests against compulsory veiling, for example, were marginalized, inadvertently contributing to the consolidation of the religious and patriarchal order, and came to be presented as a guarantee of “cultural authenticity,” a sign of distinction from the West, and a marker of national independence. A dominant narrative thus took shape, one that views the Iranian Revolution exclusively through the prism of anti-Westernism and, in so doing, erases secular, feminist, queer, Kurdish, socialist, and other progressist forces. This ideology is structurally incapable of recognizing the legitimacy of internal struggles within anti-Western states. Non-Western peoples are recognized only as objects of Western imperialism, the lived experiences, collective memories, and political subjectivities of subaltern groups—women/queer communities, ethnic minorities, and the popular classes—are systematically dismissed as insignificant distractions or as being inventions of the West.

After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, this orientation persisted in the form of statist Third Worldism: the loyalty of populations was transferred to “anti-American” states, and the rights of women, queer people, and minorities were subordinated to “anti-imperialist unity.” This approach, at once Eurocentric and Orientalist, ignores the subjectivity of non-Western peoples. It treats violence as serious only when it emanates from the U.S. camp and refuses to acknowledge that populations of the Global South may genuinely struggle for democratic rights and freedoms.

“Anti-colonial unity” is thus transformed into nationalist authoritarianism. And it accepts the logic of a seemingly permanent “state of emergency”: priority is given to state power, security, and geopolitical leverage (for example: “We fight in Syria so that we do not have to fight in Tehran”).

Campism turns anti-colonial memory into an instrument for legitimizing authoritarian postcolonial states. It makes the state the agent of resistance and strips peoples of both their legitimacy and their political subjectivity. In doing so, it betrays subaltern memories that were often constituted against the state itself. Paradoxically, states such as Iran are presented as “independent from global capitalism,” even as they remain machines of internal exploitation and militarism, concerned precisely with integrating themselves into and competing with other states on the stage of global capitalism.

It is precisely in its relation to Iran’s colonized margins that this logic most clearly reveals its violence. Campism does not only erase the plurality of Iranian opposition forces. Rooted in a quasi-colonial and securitized conception of sovereignty and borders, it also reproduces internal hierarchies by relegating Kurdish and other non-Persian ethnic struggles to the background, or even disqualifying them. In this respect, from the 1980 jihad against Kurdistan to 100+ recent attacks on exiled Iranian Kurdish parties in Iraqi Kurdistan during the war, campists have often shown themselves even more hostile to the Kurds than the Iranian government, minimizing or marginalizing the legitimacy of their resistance.

These violences form part of a longer history, aggravated by the active support—or the silence—of some actors in the Arab world and of certain segments of the Left. The Al-Anfal genocide carried out by Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, costing the lives of around 180,000 Kurds simply because of their identity, illustrates this dynamic. The trauma of the murderous repression was compounded by the support of part of the Arab world and the denial of the genocide on the part of intellectuals.

More recently, in 2018, the occupation of Afrin in Rojava by the Turkish army brought systematic violence, displacement, and destruction. In response, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, stated, “ victory in Afrin is a symbol of Turkey[’s] will. If God wills, we will submit great epics to help our people,” before praising the leadership of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his party, the Justice and Development Party, which has been in power for more than twenty years.

These events have unfortunately produced a lasting rupture in the ties between Kurdish struggles and those of the Arab or Persian worlds, as well as with certain parts of the self-proclaimed anti-imperialist left, which have too often failed to recognize and support the Kurdish struggle.

State instrumentalization of Western sanctions

The recent war against Iran did not emerge suddenly; it was long in the making through a sanctions regime that operates as an imperial technology for producing social vulnerability, as Iraq had already shown. Sanctions have not merely impoverished the population, fueled inflation, eroded healthcare and employment, and weakened collective capacities for resistance; they have also helped generate the very conditions for military escalation. By locking the country into a protracted siege economy, they have normalized the state of exception, consolidated the state’s rentier and security apparatuses, and displaced the costs of the crisis onto the popular classes. In doing so, they have prepared both the material and ideological terrain of war: a society exhausted, fragmented, and reduced to the struggle for survival becomes more exposed to external projects of militarization. Sanctions thus appear for what they are: not an alternative to war, but one of its preparatory forms.

Yet while sanctions are real and devastating, they do not alone account for the conditions of undignified life in a resource-rich country like Iran. Against campist readings that reduce all forms of social inequality in Iran to Western sanctions, analysis must also confront Iran’s own political economy: a capitalist order marked by harsh privatization, widespread labor precarity—with more than 90 percent of contracts reportedly temporary—and an internally organized regime of domination and deprivation, sustained in part through the extreme exploitation and expropriation of racialised and undocumented workers, especially Afghanis and Baluches. For campists, popular protests in Iran are interpreted as economic discontent, caused entirely by sanctions, thereby obscuring the central role of the state’s own policies. One implication of this campist logic is that, by minimizing the actual dynamics of the domestic opposition to Islamic Republic, it draws a false equivalence based on the mistaken notion that such “economic discontent” is consonant with the reactionary Pahlavist project of regime change from above. Contrary to the campist claims, opposing imperialist regime change does not require dismissing or delegitimizing domestic revolt against the Islamic Republic.

Widespread poverty in Iran is not attributable to sanctions alone; it is also rooted in a rentier political economy and in the monopolization of imports, both of which the Islamic Republic has instrumentalized. Its security and regional policies are not simply reactions to outside pressure. Rather, these policies are integral to the state’s logic of survival, channeling resources toward coercive institutions and ideological-military projects, while the population is left exhausted and impoverished. As Kayhan Valadbaigi argues, sanctions help intensify the concentration of wealth within the oligarchy while consolidating structures of power. They shift the costs onto the most vulnerable, justify repression, and further enrich the oligarchy. Economic shock policies—fluctuations in the dollar, the removal of the preferential exchange rate—appear as calculated measures of “survival” in a context of vulnerability.

In addition, campists erase the Islamic Republic’s violence against the people. Murders, torture, executions, the shooting of wounded people in hospitals, and attacks on mourning ceremonies are ignored or denied, and thus legitimized. This support for an authoritarian and anti-imperialist theocracy empties the language of emancipation of any real content.

Stop judging a cause by the way it is coopted

The spread of authoritarian campism takes place largely through social media. There, the legitimization of authoritarian states intertwines with a reductive anti-Westernism and, in some cases, with antisemitism and conspiratorial patterns of thought.

Despite the objective asymmetries between Israel (backed by the West) and the Islamic Republic (under Western sanctions), similar political and symbolic mechanisms are at work: U.S. and Israeli flags at certain “pro-Iran” rallies; Iranian state flags (or the Islamic Republic flags) and portraits of Ali Khamenei at certain pro-Palestinian mobilizations. These are all gestures liable to turn legitimate struggles into justifications for violence, while at the same time discrediting both the Iranian and Palestinian resistance. The same logic applies to the now-famous slogan “Woman, Life, Freedom” (Jin, Jiyan, Azadî). Appropriated by the Western far right, the Iranian far right in the diaspora, and pro-genocide currents, it has been instrumentalized in support of militarized violence.

This logic is not specific to Iran. As David Brophy has argued  in relation to Xinjiang, parts of the international Left have treated the repression of Uyghurs and other Muslim peoples less as a question of national rights and state violence than as a problem of Western propaganda, funding, or geopolitical manipulation; in the case of Vijay Prashad and Tings Chak, this apologetic posture has even relied on fabricated, apparently AI-generated sources. But the cynical instrumentalization of human rights by Western states does not make the suffering to which that language refers any less real.

We know all too well how progressive and radical movements from the Global South often end up being appropriated by the right once they are relayed in the West. But this process cannot lead us to abandon the duty of solidarity. The case of the queer movement illustrates this well: pinkwashing by states such as Israel cancels neither the emancipatory force of queerness nor the necessity of solidarity with queers who face repression in any context. The legitimacy of a resistance depends only on its emancipatory content and on its rootedness among the oppressed, never on its appropriation.

Campism contributes in very concrete ways to the perpetuation of historical and contemporary injustices. It creates a political vacuum through dispersal and fragmentation, a vacuum gradually filled by the right and the far right, both in the region and across the world. The Iranian far right in the diaspora occupies this vacuum by simplifying the revolution and demonizing “anti-imperialism.” It can thereby present itself as the only force for change. By artificially homogenizing entire populations (“All Ukrainians resisting Russia are Nazis.” “All Syrian revolutionaries are jihadists.” “All Iranians in revolt support Israel or the monarchists.”), campism becomes an accomplice in the rise of imperialist and reactionary forces.

By artificially homogenizing entire populations (“All Ukrainians resisting Russia are Nazis.” “All Syrian revolutionaries are jihadists.” “All Iranians in revolt support Israel or the monarchists.”), campism becomes an accomplice in the rise of imperialist and reactionary forces. The far right is the far right everywhere

In Europe, no consistent Left would accept rallying under the flags of the far right on the grounds that an enemy power was attacking the country. Yet when it comes to Iran, some consider it acceptable to demand that Iranians efface themselves and rally behind reactionary, nationalist, fanatical, even fascistic forces. Such an asymmetry implies, in effect, that the peoples of the Global South should be satisfied with a choice between imperial domination and internal barbarism. And yet the Islamic Republic is precisely a state that must be named for what it is: a fascistic formation, a non-Western far right, especially when it comes to ethnic-national minorities and Afghan immigrants.

The recent “anti-war” statement on Iran exposes the political impasse of campism: an anti-war discourse that enables certain segments of the Left to converge with fascist, antisemitic, neo-Nazi, and conspiracist milieus. The statement brought together signatories from  seemingly opposed political milieus: on the one hand, decolonial-campist anti-war figures such as Vijay Prashad, Sandew Hira, Ramón Grosfoguel, Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Munyaradzi Mushonga, Ajamu Baraka, Nordine Saïdi and Paulina Aroch Fugellie; and, on the other, a range of figures—including Dieudonné, Alain de Benoist, Thomas Werlet, Jean-Michel Vernochet, Christian Bouchet, Marion Sigaut, Jacob Cohen, Pierre-Antoine Plaquevent, and Arnaud Develay—as well as organisations such as the RN, Égalité & Réconciliation, L’Œuvre française, and the Mouvement France Résistance, all associated with conservative , far-right, nationalist, or fascist currents. This juxtaposition illustrates how a purely geopolitical form of anti-imperialism can become compatible with far-right politics. Within this framework, the Iranian regime and its criminal Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, are recast as “a voice against arrogance and terrorism” while a deeply troubling tolerance toward the violence of post-colonial states against their own populations is being normalized under the banner of anti-war politics.

Political consistency requires refusing, for Iranians as for any other people, any injunction to accommodate fascism in the name of a geopolitical “lesser evil.” We should not ask Iranians to accept politically any reality that the Left would refuse to accept for themselves elsewhere. We neither march with fascists nor under their banners: we fight them, including when they appropriate the lexicon of freedom in order to invert its meaning.

Much like Stalinism, which did so much to discredit socialism, campism in Iran weakens the Left and strengthens the far right. At the same time, it deepens the North-South divide and legitimizes the repression of anti-tyrannical movements in the South. The result is the isolation of emancipatory forces, the distrust of exiles toward the Left in the North (including decolonial currents), and the collapse of international solidarity.

We should not ask Iranians to accept politically any reality that the Left would refuse to accept for themselves elsewhere. We neither march with fascists nor under their banners: we fight them, including when they appropriate the lexicon of freedom in order to invert its meaning.

While Kurdish feminist prisoners sentenced to death in Evin prison are capable of expressing their solidarity with the Palestinian resistance—even at the risk of losing part of their support in Iran—authoritarian and identity-based anti-imperialists, speaking from the comfort of the West or elsewhere, prove incapable of showing comparable solidarity with popular struggles in Iran. At times, and even more gravely, the full extent of those sufferings is denied or called into question.

It is urgent to move beyond campism. Otherwise, will not succeed in rebuilding a genuinely emancipatory left or in revitalizing a truly popular internationalism that networks such as “Peoples Want” attempt to do. Anti-imperialism is authentic only if it fights all forms of domination, everywhere and for everyone.

Parts of this text was originally published in French  -Eds.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”

Featured Image credit: C.Suthorn; modified by Tempest.

The post For an end to campism, the Iran war, and the anti-imperialist washing of the Islamic Republic appeared first on Tempest.

Banyak pemain awalnya mengira popularitas PGSOFT cuma tren sesaat. Namun faktanya, popularitas mereka justru terus naik dan berhasil bersaing dengan provider besar yang lebih dulu menguasai pasar slot digital global.

Lalu apa sebenarnya yang membuat PGSOFT begitu cepat melejit?

Visual Game yang Beda dari Provider Lain

Salah satu alasan paling jelas ada pada kualitas visual yang mereka tampilkan. Saat banyak provider slot masih memakai desain klasik dan monoton, PGSOFT datang membawa konsep yang terasa lebih modern dan mirip game mobile premium.

Pengguna yang pertama kali mencoba game mereka biasanya langsung menyadari detail animasi yang lebih hidup. Mulai dari efek kemenangan, desain karakter, hingga transisi permainan dibuat sangat halus. Bahkan beberapa pemain menyebut pengalaman bermain slot PGSOFT terasa seperti memainkan game RPG ringan di smartphone.

Fenomena ini cukup menarik karena mayoritas pemain slot online saat ini berasal dari generasi pengguna mobile. Mereka tidak hanya mencari peluang menang, tetapi juga pengalaman visual yang nyaman dilihat dalam waktu lama.

Beberapa judul seperti Mahjong Ways, Lucky Neko, dan Treasures of Aztec bahkan sempat viral di media sosial karena tampilannya yang dianggap “lebih niat” dibanding game slot biasa.

Adaptasi Mobile yang Sangat Stabil

Faktor lain yang membuat PGSOFT cepat diterima pasar adalah optimalisasi mobile yang sangat baik. Banyak provider lama awalnya fokus pada desktop, sementara PGSOFT sejak awal sudah bermain di jalur pengguna smartphone.

Hal ini terasa penting karena tren konsumsi hiburan digital sekarang memang bergeser ke perangkat mobile. Berdasarkan pengamatan komunitas pemain slot online di Asia Tenggara, mayoritas pemain mengakses permainan langsung dari ponsel mereka, bukan komputer.

PGSOFT memanfaatkan perubahan perilaku itu dengan sangat efektif. Loading game relatif cepat, navigasi sederhana, dan ukuran tampilan otomatis menyesuaikan layar. Bahkan pada koneksi internet standar sekalipun, game mereka masih bisa berjalan cukup mulus.

Bagi pemain kasual, kenyamanan seperti ini sering kali jadi alasan utama untuk kembali bermain.

Sistem Permainan yang Mudah Dipahami

Tidak semua pemain slot menyukai mekanisme permainan yang rumit. PGSOFT tampaknya memahami hal tersebut. Mereka menghadirkan pola permainan yang sederhana tetapi tetap terasa menantang.

Banyak game mereka memakai konsep multiplier, free spin, dan combo win yang mudah dimengerti pemain baru. Namun di saat yang sama, sistem itu tetap memberikan sensasi yang menarik bagi pemain lama.

Menurut beberapa content creator game digital, salah satu kekuatan PGSOFT adalah kemampuan mereka membuat permainan terasa cepat dipahami tanpa kehilangan unsur hiburan.

“Pemain sekarang ingin game yang langsung bisa dinikmati tanpa harus membaca aturan panjang,” ujar salah satu streamer slot Asia yang cukup aktif membahas provider game digital di platform live streaming.

Komentar seperti ini cukup sering muncul karena tren hiburan modern memang bergerak ke arah instan dan praktis.

Viral karena Media Sosial dan Live Streaming

Tidak bisa dipungkiri, media sosial punya pengaruh besar terhadap naiknya popularitas PGSOFT. Potongan video kemenangan besar dari game mereka sangat mudah ditemukan di TikTok, Facebook, hingga YouTube Shorts.

Format permainan PGSOFT memang cocok untuk konten pendek. Efek animasi kemenangan yang besar, suara dramatis, dan tampilan warna mencolok membuat video gameplay terlihat menarik saat muncul di timeline pengguna.

Fenomena ini kemudian menciptakan efek viral berantai.

Semakin banyak orang melihat konten kemenangan, semakin tinggi rasa penasaran mereka untuk mencoba permainan yang sama. Strategi ini secara tidak langsung membuat nama PGSOFT terus muncul di berbagai platform digital tanpa perlu promosi berlebihan.

Bahkan beberapa analis industri game digital menyebut keberhasilan PGSOFT bukan hanya soal kualitas game, tetapi juga kemampuan mereka membaca pola distribusi konten era media sosial.

Tema Game Dekat dengan Pasar Asia

Hal lain yang sering dianggap sepele tetapi sebenarnya sangat penting adalah pemilihan tema permainan. PGSOFT cukup cerdas menghadirkan tema yang dekat dengan budaya Asia, terutama pasar Asia Tenggara.

Tema seperti keberuntungan, naga, kucing hoki, mahjong, hingga nuansa festival oriental terasa lebih familiar bagi pemain regional. Kedekatan emosional ini membuat game mereka lebih mudah diterima dibanding provider yang memakai tema terlalu western.

Selain itu, desain karakter mereka juga dibuat lebih ringan dan tidak terlalu serius. Ada sentuhan fun yang membuat pemain merasa lebih santai saat bermain.

Strategi lokal seperti ini terbukti efektif. Banyak pemain merasa game PGSOFT “lebih relate” dibanding slot klasik dengan desain lama yang terasa kaku.

RTP dan Volatilitas Jadi Perbincangan

Di komunitas pemain slot online, pembahasan soal RTP dan pola permainan hampir selalu muncul. PGSOFT termasuk provider yang cukup sering dibahas karena dianggap punya ritme permainan yang menarik.

Sebagian pemain menyukai volatilitas game mereka yang dinilai seimbang. Tidak terlalu lambat, tetapi juga tidak terlalu ekstrem. Kombinasi ini membuat pemain tetap merasa punya peluang mendapatkan kemenangan tanpa harus bermain terlalu lama.

Walaupun setiap hasil permainan tetap berbasis sistem acak, faktor psikologis pemain tetap berpengaruh besar. Ketika sebuah game dianggap “sering kasih kejutan”, popularitasnya biasanya meningkat sangat cepat di komunitas.

Inilah yang terjadi pada beberapa game PGSOFT yang mendadak viral hanya karena sering muncul dalam konten kemenangan pemain.

Dukungan Teknologi dan Update Konsisten

Salah satu indikator penting dalam industri game digital adalah konsistensi update. PGSOFT termasuk provider yang aktif merilis game baru secara rutin.

Mereka tidak hanya mengandalkan satu judul viral, tetapi terus menghadirkan variasi permainan dengan konsep berbeda. Strategi ini menjaga pemain agar tidak cepat bosan.

Selain itu, pembaruan fitur dan perbaikan bug juga tergolong cepat dibanding beberapa provider lain. Dari sisi teknis, hal ini menunjukkan bahwa mereka serius membangun reputasi jangka panjang, bukan sekadar mengejar hype sesaat.

Beberapa pengamat industri bahkan melihat PGSOFT sebagai contoh provider yang berhasil menggabungkan kualitas visual, kenyamanan pengguna, dan strategi pemasaran digital dalam satu paket lengkap.

Popularitas yang Kemungkinan Masih Akan Naik

Melihat tren saat ini, popularitas PGSOFT tampaknya belum akan berhenti dalam waktu dekat. Kombinasi desain modern, adaptasi mobile, gameplay ringan, dan efek viral media sosial membuat mereka punya posisi kuat di pasar slot online global.

Di tengah persaingan industri hiburan digital yang semakin ketat, PGSOFT berhasil memahami satu hal penting: pemain modern tidak hanya mencari permainan, tetapi juga pengalaman hiburan yang cepat, visual menarik, dan mudah dibagikan di media sosial.

Karena alasan itulah, nama PGSOFT kini bukan lagi sekadar provider biasa, melainkan sudah menjadi bagian dari tren besar dunia slot online modern.

Permainan slot online sering dianggap sepenuhnya bergantung pada keberuntungan. Namun, pemain berpengalaman memahami bahwa ada beberapa indikator penting yang dapat dianalisis untuk membaca ritme permainan secara lebih efektif. Istilah seperti RTP, volatilitas, hit frequency, hingga pola bonus sebenarnya bukan mitos semata, melainkan bagian dari sistem matematis yang membentuk perilaku sebuah game slot.

Meski demikian, penting untuk memahami satu hal sejak awal: slot online modern bekerja sehingga tidak ada pola pasti yang dapat menjamin kemenangan. Yang bisa dilakukan pemain adalah membaca karakteristik permainan untuk meningkatkan efisiensi bermain dan mengelola risiko dengan lebih cerdas.

Apa yang Dimaksud dengan “Pola Slot”?

Dalam praktik komunitas pemain, “pola slot” biasanya mengacu pada:

• Frekuensi munculnya scatter
• Jarak antar bonus
• Perubahan ritme kemenangan kecil
• Pola taruhan tertentu
• Perilaku volatilitas game

Secara teknis, pola ini bukan rumus pasti, melainkan observasi statistik terhadap perilaku game dalam periode tertentu.

Pemain profesional umumnya tidak percaya pada “kode rahasia slot”, tetapi lebih fokus membaca:

• jenis volatilitas,
• distribusi pembayaran,
• RTP,
• dan momentum permainan.

Faktor Penting untuk Membaca Pola Slot 1. RTP (Return to Player)

RTP adalah persentase teoritis pengembalian dana kepada pemain dalam jangka panjang.

Contoh sederhana:

RTP=96%=96100RTP = 96\% = \frac{96}{100}RTP=96%=10096​

Artinya, dari total taruhan 100 unit, game secara teori mengembalikan 96 unit kepada pemain dalam jutaan putaran. Namun RTP bukan jaminan hasil sesi pribadi.

Cara Menggunakan RTP untuk Membaca Pola

• RTP tinggi (>96%) biasanya lebih stabil
• RTP rendah cenderung lebih agresif terhadap bankroll
• RTP tinggi cocok untuk permainan jangka panjang

Pemain berpengalaman sering memilih game dengan RTP tinggi untuk mengurangi risiko kehilangan modal terlalu cepat.

2. Volatilitas Slot

Volatilitas menentukan bagaimana slot membayar kemenangan.

Volatilitas Rendah

• Menang lebih sering
• Nilai kemenangan kecil
• Cocok untuk modal kecil

Volatilitas Tinggi

• Kemenangan lebih jarang
• Potensi jackpot besar
• Membutuhkan modal lebih kuat

Hubungan RTP dan volatilitas sering disalahpahami. Dua slot bisa memiliki RTP sama tetapi pengalaman bermain sangat berbeda.

Analogi Praktis

Bayangkan dua game memiliki RTP 96%:

• Slot A memberi kemenangan kecil setiap beberapa spin
• Slot B jarang menang tetapi sekali menang nilainya besar

Inilah mengapa pemain perlu membaca “karakter game”, bukan hanya angka RTP.

Cara Membaca Momentum Slot Secara Praktis 1. Perhatikan Hit Frequency

Hit frequency adalah seberapa sering kemenangan muncul.

Ciri slot dengan hit frequency tinggi:

• Banyak kemenangan kecil
• Balance lebih stabil
• Bonus muncul lebih konsisten

Sedangkan hit frequency rendah biasanya:

• Banyak spin kosong
• Bonus sulit muncul
• Potensi payout besar saat menang

Pemain berpengalaman biasanya melakukan 20–50 spin awal untuk membaca ritme game sebelum meningkatkan taruhan.

2. Analisis Pola Scatter dan Bonus

Scatter menjadi indikator penting dalam observasi pola slot.

Beberapa tanda yang sering diperhatikan:

• Scatter muncul berulang di reel tertentu
• Bonus hampir aktif beberapa kali
• Free spin mulai lebih sering muncul

Meskipun tetap acak, banyak pemain menggunakan observasi ini untuk menentukan:

• lanjut bermain,
• pindah game,
• atau menurunkan taruhan.

Membaca Slot Volatilitas Tinggi

Misalkan seorang pemain mencoba game dengan:

• RTP 96,5%
• volatilitas tinggi,
• max win besar.

Dalam 100 spin pertama:

• 70 spin kosong
• 20 kemenangan kecil
• 8 kemenangan sedang
• 2 bonus free spin

Bagi pemain baru, pola ini terlihat buruk. Namun bagi pemain berpengalaman, ini normal untuk slot volatilitas tinggi.

Game jenis ini sering:

• menyimpan payout besar,
• memiliki fase “kering”,
• lalu memberikan lonjakan kemenangan besar.

Karena itu, pemain profesional biasanya:

• menyiapkan bankroll lebih panjang,
• menggunakan taruhan stabil,
• dan tidak langsung mengejar kekalahan.

Mengikuti Pola Tanpa Memahami Volatilitas

Banyak pemain mengikuti “pola gacor” tanpa memahami tipe game.

Padahal:

• pola taruhan cocok di slot rendah volatilitas belum tentu efektif di slot tinggi volatilitas,
• setiap provider memiliki algoritma distribusi berbeda.

Bermain Emosional

Ketika kalah beruntun, banyak pemain:

• menaikkan taruhan,
• mengejar kekalahan,
• kehilangan kontrol bankroll.

Dalam analisis profesional, pengelolaan modal justru lebih penting dibanding mencari pola.

Strategi Membaca Pola Secara Efektif Gunakan Pendekatan Statistik

Fokus pada:

• RTP,
• volatilitas,
• hit frequency,
• dan distribusi bonus.

Jangan terpaku pada mitos komunitas semata.

Catat Performa Game

Pemain serius sering membuat catatan:

• jumlah spin,
• frekuensi scatter,
• waktu bonus muncul,
• pola kemenangan besar.

Data sederhana ini membantu memahami karakter masing-masing game.

Tetapkan Batas Bermain

Strategi terbaik tetap berasal dari kontrol diri:

• tentukan target kemenangan,
• tentukan batas kekalahan,
• berhenti saat target tercapai.

Mengapa Pola Slot Tetap Menarik Dipelajari?

Walaupun slot berbasis, pola perilaku matematis tetap bisa dianalisis secara statistik. Inilah alasan mengapa:

• streamer slot,
• analis kasino,
• hingga komunitas pemain profesional
  sering membahas RTP, volatilitas, dan momentum permainan.

Namun para ahli juga sepakat bahwa:

• tidak ada sistem pasti untuk menang,
• tidak ada jam gacor universal,
• dan tidak ada pola yang bisa mengalahkan RNG secara konsisten.

Kesimpulan

Membaca pola slot online secara efektif bukan berarti mencari trik rahasia untuk menang terus-menerus. Pendekatan yang benar adalah memahami cara kerja game melalui:

• RTP,
• volatilitas,
• hit frequency,
• serta perilaku bonus.

Pemain yang cerdas tidak hanya mengandalkan insting, tetapi juga menggunakan observasi, manajemen modal, dan pemahaman statistik sederhana untuk mengambil keputusan bermain yang lebih rasional.

Pada akhirnya, slot online tetap merupakan permainan berbasis probabilitas. Semakin baik pemain memahami struktur matematis di balik permainan, semakin kecil kemungkinan terjebak dalam keputusan emosional dan mitos yang menyesatkan.

In February, the Department of Homeland Security purchased an idle 250,000 square foot warehouse.

Romulus, Michigan is a city of 25,000 people 23 miles outside of Detroit and home to the Detroit Metropolitan Airport. In February,  the Department of Homeland Security purchased an idle 250,000 square foot warehouse in Romulus for $34.7 million. City leaders and the community were kept in the dark as rumors circulated about the sale, including that it was sold at 56 percent more than the previous purchase price. After initial reporting on this sale, 300 Romulus High School students walked out and a thousand people gathered outside Romulus City Hall in late February when the reports were confirmed. On No Kings Day, March 28, another 350 to 400 people gathered for the Romulus No Kings at the warehouse. On Saturday, April 25, hundreds more gathered there for the Communities Not Cages National Day of Action.

A Coalition to Shut the Camps has developed out of weekly pickets at the planned detention center location. This coalition has produced a regulatory punch list and a package of letters sent to various state and local agencies demanding full transparency on all proposals and the opportunity for public meetings. The coalition has been leafleting homes and schools in the area, encouraging people to join weekly meetings and protests. Thirty-three organizations have signed onto the letters, and some are becoming partners in “Solidarity Saturdays,” collaborative events co-hosted by coalition members and other community organizations.

The National Day of Action on April 25 was called by the national coalition Detention Watch Network and involved the participation of other national organizations like Indivisible, Workers Circle, Public Citizen, MoveOn and many others. More than 200 events around the nation transpired as a result. The core campaign demands are to cancel the warehouse detention plan and stop conversions immediately; reject all public funding, approvals, and local resources for detention expansion; and require transparency and community consent before any federal detention action. In Romulus, the Metro Detroit Democratic Socialists of America, No Detention Centers in Michigan (NDCM), the People’s Assembly of Detroit, Southfield Neighborhood Action Committee (SNAC), and Community Aid for Empowerment (CAFE) from Pontiac came together with the Coalition to Shut the Camps to center the experiences of those at risk of being detained and those detained or recently released from detention.

The day of action in Romulus coincided with a hunger strike and work stoppage that began April 20 at the GEO Group owned-and-operated North Lake Processing Facility in the Village of Baldwin, Michigan (population < 1,000). The hunger strike and work stoppage were responses to the intensification of abuse in ICE detention, reflected by deaths in ICE detention entering a record high, and a continuation of unrest at the isolated Northern Michigan facility. From 2019-2022, there were multiple deaths and six separate hunger strikes at this immigrant-only federal prison.

Built in 1999 as the Michigan Youth Correctional Facility, North Lake has closed and reopened four times. Since reopening in June 2025 as the largest ICE detention center in the Midwest, North Lake has consistently imprisoned over a thousand people, many found by federal judges to be unlawfully detained. In recent months, a combination of reports of an increasingly unsafe environment, medical issues going unaddressed, and a steep decline in judicial approval of bonds has brought the North Lake detention center into the international spotlight. Following the death last December of Nenko Gantchev, an immigrant from Bulgaria who lived in the US for over 30 years, and the sharp increase in incidents requiring an EMS response, immigrants detained in Baldwin are demanding better medical care, adequate food, and their constitutional right to timely due process. They are also demanding conditions that allow for adequate sleep and an end to arbitrary rules.

No Detention Centers in Michigan (NDCM) has recently organized multiple protests and is calling for additional actions outside the Baldwin facility in solidarity with those incarcerated, such as blasting song requests from detainees with a loudspeaker to the inside. The strike has spurred calls from the ACLU of Michigan and Michigan Immigrant Rights Center for Congress to conduct formal independent investigations into neglectful and abusive conditions at North Lake.

The strike had been renewed as of April 27, despite claims by ICE denying any such assertion of the rights and dignity of those confined. A statement from a recently released immigrant affirming the courageous act of collective resistance by hundreds of immigrant men across multiple units in North Lake was read at the action in Romulus on April 25. A statement was also read there from Women’s Collective Civil Action, a group of women from another unit at North Lake who filed a joint habeas corpus petition earlier in the month. Many attendees of the Romulus demonstration made the 3.5 hour trek across the state to Baldwin the following day to express solidarity with those kidnapped from the broader region and subjected to the brutality of the state.

As Ale Rojas of NDCM put it, “This courageous collective action is a response to the dehumanization and abuse that are endemic to ICE detention, where immigrants are used as scapegoats so corporations like the GEO Group may continue to build their profits unchecked. Centering our humanity and the humanity of every person who has been kidnapped by ICE is the only way forward.”

Worsening conditions of confinement around the country and the expansion of ICE presence in Michigan with the purchase of the warehouse in Romulus has given rise to a deepened sense of alarm and more community opposition. The Ban Warehouse Detention Act would prohibit DHS from establishing, operating, expanding, converting, or renovating any warehouse or similar building for the purpose of detaining people. Congressmember Rashida Tlaib’s announcement of the bill on April 23 was a direct response to ICE’s expansion in Romulus and Southfield. She herself attended the Romulus No Kings demonstration organized by the Coalition to Shut the Camps on March 28 as well as demonstrations in Southfield opposing the leasing of office space to ICE. Her bill also addresses ICE’s plans to convert 23 such warehouses nationwide into new immigration detention and processing facilities, a plan that would expand the federal agency’s detention capacity significantly.

This legislation was drafted in partnership with Detention Watch Network and cites the likelihood that confining large amounts of people to spaces not meant for human habitation will increase the spread of illness and put people’s health at risk, increasing the chance for abuse and death in ICE custody. The group also suggests that such expansion normalizes mass confinement and will result in an increase in unlawful arrests, violations of due process rights and widespread family separation.

On April 25 in Romulus, the tenth demonstration since the end of February occurred in the city against the purchase of the warehouse by the federal government. The City of Romulus unanimously passed a resolution opposing the sale, citing proximity to nearby elementary and middle schools; negative impacts on the health, safety and welfare of Romulus residents; and negative impacts on economic development. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has also joined with the City of Romulus in a lawsuit against DHS and ICE, alleging the federal agency failed to complete necessary environmental reviews and to consider alternatives.

The Communities Not Cages demonstration featured a teach-in with speakers from No Detention Centers in Michigan, the Coalition to Shut the Camps, Detroit DSA, People’s Assembly, CAFE, and SNAC. Organizers discussed the work they have been doing to address ICE activity in Michigan, the needs for future work, how to keep building out the organizing, and how different organizations can work together effectively.

Another demonstration and march occurred earlier in the day organized by local Indivisible groups. Between the two events, roughly 500 people demonstrated throughout the day against the plans for a detention warehouse in metro Detroit.

As in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis, the potential for social upheaval has led to action, in this case Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s suit against the DHS. The lesson taken from experiences around the country has been that local officials respond to organized mass pressure from below. With May Day following the day of action against warehouse detention, there was an opportunity to deepen the involvement of organized workers. The Metro Detroit AFL-CIO recognized International Workers’ Day for the first time in decade. Members organized a post-rally march to the Detroit ICE office, with a contingent for immigrants’ rights and against wars abroad.

Union support against immigrant detentions is crucial. For example, in the nearby city of Wayne, the No Kings Day event was held at UAW Local 900, a major Ford production complex not far from the Romulus detention center project. That No Kings Day was largely focused on the movement against ICE. At a March 16 demonstration outside the Romulus warehouse, a member of UAW Local 900 expressed opposition to the warehouse detention plans. Ron Lare, a retired Ford worker and member of UAW Local 600 at the Ford Rouge plant, held a sign that read, “UAW members and leaders –– join the resistance in the streets!” Lare urged UAW members and leaders to come out to the protests at the detention center project in Romulus. “The union is supposed to stand for the principle that ‘An injury to one is an injury to all.’ It is inevitable that if this detention center opens, some UAW members will be detained inside.”

Ron Lare, a retired Ford worker and member of UAW Local 600 at the Ford Rouge plant, held this sign at the March 16 demonstration.

Against the violence and brutality of the state, there is space for exposing connections to attacks by the ruling class on people throughout the world. It is possible to deepen bonds of international solidarity that pose an alternative to the reactionary ethno-nationalism of the ruling class. The emergence of a detention state with a renewed focus on borders and exclusion is the latest phase of a long history of racialized criminalization essential to stratifying and regulating the labor-market that produces the wealth of capitalist society. Immigration enforcement is a tool of capitalist exploitation that creates a tiered labor market, providing employers with a pool of cheap, exploitable labor and exerting a downward pressure on wages and working conditions, limiting the bargaining power of the working class.

The creation of ICE in 2003, following the post-9/11 reorganization of immigration services, consolidated and militarized longstanding practices rooted in history. The struggle for immigrants’ rights must be rooted in multiracial solidarity that shatters the myth of American exceptionalism and exposes the violent foundations of capitalism and US imperial dominance. Only a united working class has the power to reorganize society on the basis of real democratic control and defend against the inevitable disappointment entailed by elite cooptation.

We must reject any hollow attempt to paint over the historical existence of racial capitalism and recognize it as the key task for socialists to actively strengthen and learn from the struggle for abolition. We must understand, as CLR James did, that those most oppressed in the class struggle “carry the hatred of bourgeois society and the readiness to destroy it” to a greater degree than other sections of the population. It is an essential question of strategy and power to center and uplift such voices in a bottom-up struggle that targets the foundations of capitalism.

The struggle against oppression is the prerequisite for organizing a democratic mass movement capable of confronting the ruling class. A socialist vision for immigration recognizes freedom of movement as a fundamental human right. Only such a vision can address global inequities that drive migration and fuel the fight to extend full labor rights to all workers, removing the incentive for employers to exploit undocumented labor. A genuinely internationalist solidarity can unite workers across borders and advance the global struggle against exploitation.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Ben Solis/Michigan Advance; modified by Tempest.

The post Communities not cages appeared first on Tempest.

Ardi masih ingat momen ketika simbol-simbol berkilau itu berhenti berputar dan layar menampilkan tulisan “Congratulations! You’ve Won Free Spins.” Ada rasa penasaran bercampur antusias. Tanpa benar-benar memahami cara kerjanya, ia menekan tombol mulai—dan di situlah perjalanan eksplorasinya dimulai.

Dari Coba-Coba Jadi Paham Pola

Pada putaran pertama free spin, Ardi tidak mengeluarkan saldo sedikit pun. Itu yang membuatnya terkejut. “Ini seperti bermain tanpa risiko,” pikirnya. Namun, setelah beberapa kali mencoba, ia mulai memahami bahwa free spin bukan sekadar hadiah acak. Ada mekanisme yang dirancang dengan sistematis.

Dalam slot online modern, free spin biasanya dipicu oleh kombinasi simbol tertentu—sering disebut sebagai scatter. Ketika simbol ini muncul dalam jumlah yang cukup, sistem otomatis memberikan sejumlah putaran gratis. Ardi mulai memperhatikan pola ini, mencatat kapan fitur tersebut muncul, dan bagaimana hasilnya berbeda dari putaran biasa.

Memahami Sistem di Balik Layar

Seiring waktu, Ardi tidak lagi sekadar bermain. Ia belajar. Ia membaca panduan permainan, menonton ulasan dari pemain lain, bahkan mencoba berbagai jenis slot untuk membandingkan fitur free spin.

Ia menemukan bahwa:

• Beberapa slot menawarkan multiplier saat free spin aktif.
• Ada juga yang memberikan expanding wilds atau simbol khusus yang meningkatkan peluang menang.
• Bahkan, beberapa game menghadirkan sistem retrigger, di mana pemain bisa mendapatkan tambahan free spin selama fitur berlangsung.

Dari sini, Ardi memahami bahwa free spin dirancang untuk meningkatkan pengalaman bermain sekaligus memberi peluang menang tanpa menambah taruhan.

Bagaimana Sistem Ini Dirancang

Dalam industri game online modern, pengembang perangkat lunak merancang fitur free spin menggunakan algoritma. Sistem ini memastikan bahwa setiap putaran bersifat acak dan adil.

Namun, free spin tetap memiliki konfigurasi khusus:

• Volatilitas: Menentukan seberapa sering kemenangan muncul.
• RTP (Return to Player): Persentase teoretis pengembalian kepada pemain.
• Fitur tambahan: Seperti bonus mini-game atau pengganda kemenangan.

Dengan kata lain, meskipun terlihat seperti keberuntungan semata, ada struktur matematis yang mengatur semuanya.

Antara Harapan dan Kendali Diri

Di balik semua keseruan itu, Ardi juga belajar satu hal penting: kendali diri. Ia menyadari bahwa free spin memang memberikan peluang ekstra, tetapi bukan jaminan kemenangan besar.

Ia mulai menetapkan batas waktu bermain, mengelola saldo dengan lebih bijak, dan melihat game ini sebagai hiburan, bukan sumber penghasilan utama. Pengalaman ini membuatnya lebih dewasa dalam mengambil keputusan.

Sebuah Perjalanan, Bukan Sekadar Permainan

Malam semakin larut, dan hujan pun berhenti. Ardi menutup laptopnya dengan perasaan berbeda. Ia tidak lagi melihat slot online sebagai permainan acak tanpa makna. Baginya, free spin adalah pintu masuk untuk memahami sistem, strategi, dan batasan dalam dunia digital yang terus berkembang.

3 Cards. Game berbasis kartu ini menghadirkan konsep sederhana namun tetap menantang, sehingga mampu menarik pemain dari berbagai kalangan, mulai dari pemula hingga pemain berpengalaman.

Pengalaman Bermain yang Cepat dan Interaktif

Permainan 3 Cards menawarkan pengalaman bermain yang cepat dan tidak bertele-tele. Pemain hanya perlu memahami aturan dasar yang relatif sederhana, lalu langsung terjun ke dalam permainan. Setiap ronde berlangsung singkat, tetapi tetap memacu adrenalin karena hasilnya ditentukan dalam hitungan detik.

Banyak pemain mengaku tertarik karena ritme permainan yang dinamis. Tidak seperti permainan kartu tradisional yang membutuhkan waktu lama, 3 Cards justru memberikan sensasi instan yang sesuai dengan gaya hidup digital masa kini.

Sederhana Tapi Strategis

Meski terlihat mudah, 3 Cards tetap mengandung unsur strategi. Beberapa pengamat industri game digital menilai bahwa permainan ini menggabungkan keberuntungan dengan pengambilan keputusan yang cepat. Pemain dituntut untuk membaca pola permainan serta mengatur langkah secara tepat.

Selain itu, algoritma yang digunakan dalam sistem permainan kini semakin canggih. Platform casino online modern telah mengadopsi teknologi untuk memastikan setiap hasil permainan berlangsung adil dan transparan.

Teknologi dan Keamanan Jadi Prioritas

Platform penyedia 3 Cards saat ini tidak hanya fokus pada hiburan, tetapi juga memperkuat sistem keamanan. Banyak situs telah menggunakan enkripsi data tingkat tinggi untuk melindungi informasi pengguna dari potensi kebocoran.

Teknologi berbasis autentikasi berlapis menjadi standar baru dalam industri ini. Langkah ini menunjukkan bahwa penyedia layanan semakin serius dalam menjaga kepercayaan pemain, terutama di tengah meningkatnya aktivitas digital global.

Perubahan Kebiasaan di Era Digital

Seiring berkembangnya teknologi, kebiasaan pemain juga mengalami perubahan signifikan. Kini, pengguna lebih memilih platform yang menawarkan akses cepat, tampilan mobile-friendly, serta sistem transaksi yang praktis dan aman.

3 Cards menjadi salah satu pilihan favorit karena dapat dimainkan kapan saja dan di mana saja melalui perangkat mobile. Fleksibilitas ini membuat permainan semakin relevan dengan gaya hidup modern yang serba cepat.

Selain itu, transparansi sistem dan reputasi platform menjadi faktor utama dalam membangun kepercayaan. Pemain cenderung memilih layanan yang memiliki ulasan positif serta rekam jejak yang jelas di industri.

Integrasi Teknologi yang Semakin Canggih

Ke depan, permainan seperti 3 Cards diprediksi akan semakin berkembang dengan integrasi teknologi dan pengalaman berbasis live streaming. Inovasi ini berpotensi menghadirkan interaksi yang lebih realistis dan personal bagi setiap pemain.

Dengan kombinasi antara kesederhanaan permainan, dukungan teknologi modern, serta sistem keamanan yang kuat, 3 Cards tidak hanya menjadi hiburan semata, tetapi juga simbol evolusi industri casino online di era digital.

Kesimpulan

3 Cards berhasil menciptakan sensasi permainan kartu yang ringan, cepat, dan menarik. Didukung oleh teknologi canggih serta sistem keamanan yang semakin baik, game ini menjadi salah satu pilihan utama di dunia casino online saat ini. Perubahan perilaku pengguna digital turut memperkuat posisi permainan ini sebagai hiburan yang relevan dan terus berkembang.

Platform ini sering disebut sebagai “jalan menuju profit” bagi para penggemar taruhan olahraga online.

Namun, benarkah demikian? Artikel ini mengulas CMD Sport secara objektif, mendalam, dan transparan, berdasarkan pengalaman penggunaan, analisis ahli, serta perbandingan dengan standar industri.

Apa Itu CMD Sport?

CMD Sport dikenal sebagai platform yang membantu pengguna mengakses berbagai layanan sportsbook dalam satu ekosistem. Fokus utamanya adalah memberikan kemudahan dalam:

• Membandingkan odds (nilai taruhan)
• Menilai kualitas platform sportsbook
• Menyediakan informasi bonus dan promosi
• Mempermudah akses ke pasar taruhan olahraga

Dengan kata lain, CMD Sport bukan hanya tempat bermain, tetapi juga alat bantu pengambilan keputusan.

Pengalaman Penggunaan CMD Sport Kelebihan

Dari sisi pengguna, CMD Sport menawarkan beberapa hal menarik:

• Navigasi sederhana dan cepat
  Pengguna dapat langsung menemukan pertandingan dan opsi taruhan tanpa proses rumit.
• Informasi ringkas dan relevan
  Data seperti odds, jenis taruhan, dan event olahraga disajikan secara jelas.
• Cocok untuk pemula
  Interface yang tidak kompleks memudahkan pengguna baru memahami sistem.

Kekurangan

Namun, ada beberapa catatan penting:

• Tidak sepenuhnya mandiri
  CMD Sport bergantung pada platform pihak ketiga.
• Minim analisis mendalam
  Kurang cocok untuk pengguna profesional yang membutuhkan data statistik lengkap.
• Potensi bias afiliasi
  Rekomendasi platform bisa saja dipengaruhi kerja sama tertentu.

Apakah CMD Sport Bisa Menghasilkan Profit?

Banyak pengguna tergoda dengan klaim profit dari platform seperti CMD Sport. Namun secara realistis:

Tidak ada platform taruhan yang bisa menjamin keuntungan.

CMD Sport hanya membantu dalam:

• Menemukan odds yang lebih kompetitif
• Menghindari situs yang tidak terpercaya
• Memberikan gambaran dasar pasar taruhan

Profit tetap bergantung pada:

• Strategi taruhan
• Manajemen modal
• Analisis pertandingan yang akurat

Perbandingan dengan Standar Industri

Jika dibandingkan dengan platform sejenis, CMD Sport memiliki posisi sebagai berikut:

Setara Dalam:

• Kemudahan penggunaan
• Informasi dasar taruhan
• Akses ke berbagai event olahraga

Masih Tertinggal Dalam:

• Kedalaman data statistik
• Fitur komunitas dan diskusi
• Transparansi sistem rekomendasi

Artinya, CMD Sport lebih unggul sebagai alat praktis, bukan sebagai pusat analisis profesional.

Risiko yang Perlu Diperhatikan

Dalam dunia olahraga digital, risiko tetap menjadi faktor utama. Beberapa hal yang perlu diperhatikan:

• Ketergantungan pada pihak ketiga (agent/broker)
• Perbedaan pengalaman antar pengguna
• Risiko kerugian finansial jika tanpa strategi

Pengguna disarankan untuk tetap bermain secara bijak dan terkontrol.

Layak atau Tidak? Layak Digunakan Jika:

Ingin membandingkan sportsbook dengan cepat
Mencari platform yang lebih aman
Baru memulai di dunia taruhan olahraga

Kurang Cocok Jika:

Mencari profit instan
Membutuhkan analisis data mendalam
Mengandalkan sistem otomatis

Verdict Akhir

CMD Sport bukan mesin uang, tetapi bisa menjadi:

Alat bantu yang efektif untuk meningkatkan kualitas keputusan dalam taruhan olahraga digital.

Dengan pendekatan yang tepat, platform ini dapat membantu pengguna lebih terarah. Namun, hasil akhir tetap bergantung pada strategi dan disiplin masing-masing.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani campaigned on an ambitious agenda that won him the enthusiastic support of a broad coalition of voters. His charisma and boundless energy has helped to raise the hopes and expectations of many. The agenda itself should be applauded, and the emergence of this coalition, with its hopes and expectations, is a positive development that has helped create a growing audience for socialist politics.

Yet winning Mamdani’s agenda requires more than the election of a progressive politician—in this case a democratic socialist—to executive office. Arrayed against it are New York’s capitalist class, which includes the powerful real estate and financial interests based in New York City and the politicians who represent them. Without a countervailing force in the form of an organized popular movement capable of defending its own underlying class interests, and which is able, when necessary, to engage in targeted, disruptive action, strong and sustainable  progressive reform is not possible.

After almost four months in office, both Mamdani’s governing style and strategy and political events beyond his control—including the outcome of the budget battle currently being waged in Albany—have revealed how unlikely it is that his agenda will be realized. In fact, some of it has already been abandoned. And Mamdani’s responses have illustrated that while he wants to establish his bona fides as a trusted and efficient manager of New York City, there is much less evidence that he has any interest in building a movement to defend the interest of New York City’s diverse working class.

The means to, and meaning of, “Tax the Rich”

Mamdani’s “affordability agenda”—universal free childcare, free buses, a rent freeze for stabilized apartments, and an explosive growth in the number of affordable housing units—has mass support but carries with it a hefty price tag. New York City is legally unable to raise its own taxes without approval from the state. Candidate Mamdani’s explicit call to raise income taxes on the wealthy and on corporations in order to fund this agenda was (and remains) extremely popular, and was of course intended to put pressure on the New York State legislature and more particularly the governor. Without a revenue increase of many billions, achieving this agenda will be impossible.

Whether increased taxes on the wealthy can actually be won by the usual political means is now playing out in Albany. On April 22 the state legislature passed its sixth “budget extender” of the season after negotiations to resolve the state’s budget blew past the April 1 deadline. It’s not unusual for the budget to be late—last year it took until May 9—but this year negotiators have not yet gotten beyond bitter struggles over implementing climate goals and reforming auto insurance laws to more fiscally significant issues. Prominent among these are (separate) proposals by the state senate and state assembly to raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul has been adamant in her opposition to such tax increases.

Every year, New York State’s governor and each of the two houses of its legislature devise separate budget proposals. The three proposals are a basis for the negotiations among the leaders of the two houses and the governor (a process formerly gendered as “three men in a room”—this year the only man among them is Assembly Speaker Democrat Carl Heastie). In recent years, it has become common for the legislature’s “one house budgets” to include a proposal to raise taxes on high earners, and some form of such increases has occasionally passed. This year, though, those proposals have taken on increased significance.

The revenue the city would receive under both senate and assembly tax proposals is somewhat less than under Mamdani’s own, but those amounts are nevertheless enough to have heartened his supporters. Governor Hochul, though, has not hesitated to repeat her strong opposition, and it’s hard to see where pressure sufficient to move her can come from. She dismisses passionate chants from crowds demanding these tax increases, unconcerned about any potential electoral weakness coming from their opposition, and is likely to remain firm as the budget negotiations drag on. (The pied-à-terre tax on luxury second homes that Hochul finally announced—and Mamdani applauded—on April 15 would only raise $500 million annually, while the legislature’s proposals would raise $3 billion in city income taxes and an additional $1-2 billion in direct state funding for the city. By contrast, in a document labeled “How to Pay for the Mamdani Agenda,” the mayor-to-be offered a plan to raise $10 billion.

It was never likely that a robust form of “tax the rich” would get over the hurdles that the State’s power structure imposes. Mirroring the U.S. constitutional order as a whole, the structure of New York government is notorious for serving to insulate the powerful from democratic control. The “three men in a room” is but one problem. The business lobby has made sure to fund lavishly the re-election campaigns of Hochul and others, and has made its objections to taxation publicly known. According to Crain’s, even the proposed pied-à-terre tax on second homes in New York City, “is certain to prompt a massive fight in Albany from the real estate industry in particular and delay the already delayed state budget much further”. Like the governor herself, business leaders are predicting that businesses would leave New York if their taxes are raised. Predictably, in an April 6 letter to shareholders, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon argued that cities and businesses needed to “compete,” and blamed high local taxes for his own corporation’s shifting of some jobs to Texas.

Although it is technically possible that the legislature could pass tax legislation outside of the context of the budget process, the access of New York’s capitalist class to the halls of power, and the usual nervousness of legislators looking over their shoulders in an election year, prevent any serious consideration of such legislation which would in any case require veto-proof majorities.

The Mamdani administration has no real strategy to try to overcome these obstacles. The option of cohering a sustainable mass movement to disrupt business as usual, and grow popular participation and organization, has not been on the table. To be sure, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and its sister organization, the nonprofit Our Time, have been consistent in their organizing efforts on the issue, but the tactics they have used—door-knocking and phone-banking—have done nothing to move New Yorkers beyond the atomization of individual voters calling legislators. Tactics that worked, in a particular moment, to get a democratic socialist elected are not sufficient to win a serious reform agenda.

Tactics that worked, in a particular moment, to get a democratic socialist elected are not sufficient to win a serious reform agenda.

The limitations of DSA’s strategy are apparent in the diminishing returns of its tactics. Well-planned phone-banking efforts failed to get more than about 1,700 people to ride buses to “take over” Albany on February 25, far short of what was hoped for (this at a time when millions can be mobilized to demonstrate against Trump). And having won his election, Mamdani has proven ambivalent in his support of his DSA allies’ tactics. By mid-February, the mayor made it clear that he himself would not be taking part in such “tax the rich” events. Thus, he avoided attending the Albany “takeover” and the March 29 tax-the-rich rally in the Bronx headlined by Bernie Sanders.

The mayor’s February 5 endorsement of Hochul for re-election—and the resultant demise of the campaign of her primary challenger, Lieutenant Governor Antonio Delgado—removed a significant source of leverage over the governor and signaled still further Mamdani’s intention to collaborate as much as possible with the powerful as an elected executive, rather than attempt to lead a popular movement against the state’s rulers and its Democratic Party machine.  NYC-DSA, for its part, distanced itself from Mamdani while indicating in a statement that the governor was not worthy of the endorsement.

Mamdani’s efforts to distance himself from his DSA allies have become apparent within the tax-the-rich movement. Winning the “affordability agenda”—or at least part of it—has remained DSA’s goal. In its messages asking members and supporters to urge their legislators to support taxing the rich, the appeal was always in the name of achieving parts of the agenda—usually, free child care. The organization pointed out, correctly, that the January agreement between Hochul and Mamdani on universal childcare was limited to funding pilot programs and the early stages of a phase-in of the program.

But Mamdani has had to retreat to using whatever new revenue he can get from the state to fill a $5.4 billion gap in the city’s budget, which he is legally required to balance. His appeal to the legislature on “Tin Cup Day”—the day in February each year on which officials from around the state make their case for state assistance—included a request for a 2 percent tax increase on high earners, but in his testimony he mentioned no other goal than that of achieving a balanced budget.

Mamdani’s strategy in action

In order to pressure Hochul to support the 2 percent increase, it may have been possible for the mayor to encourage the organization of activities beyond phone calls to legislators. He might have attempted, for example, to bring together unions, nonprofit advocacy groups, and other organizations to mobilize their members and engage in activities such as protests at her New York offices or holding marches in each of the city’s boroughs. Even at the level of electoral politics, he might have sought leverage by offering more support for insurgent democratic socialist candidates.

Instead Mamdani resorted to a threat to raise property taxes (which the city can do without state approval), seeking to pressure the governor into an income tax hike as a lesser evil. This was a serious miscalculation. Not only did it “greatly anger” Hochul, who viewed it as a breach of his promise to tone down his tax-the-rich rhetoric, but it backfired in the eyes of many whom the mayor should have seen as allies. The city’s property taxes are notoriously regressive, and this move left middle class homeowners—overwhelmingly in favor of taxes on the rich—feeling unsupported by the mayor. Black homeowners in Queens publicly protested and spoke to their city council representative on the matter, and this seems to have been enough for Mamdani to back off of this property tax hike proposal.

These miscues—angering a powerful Democrat he hoped to keep as an ally (despite their differences on his signature campaign promise), and alienating an important electoral constituency—can be viewed as understandable errors of an inexperienced executive. But perhaps it is more instructive to consider them as natural consequences of his strategy: From early in his candidacy Mamdani has tried to combine a style of friendly negotiations between himself and powerful players with an attempt to represent the interests of working people.

Mamdani is not responsible for the city’s fiscal woes. His predecessor Eric Adams had been overestimating revenues and resorting to accounting tricks to balance the budget. Nonetheless he clearly needed a “Plan B” (perhaps better thought of as “Plan A”) and for that he first turned to the all-too-familiar playbook of seeking systematic cuts. Even before his trip to Albany he issued an executive order mandating that every city agency appoint a chief savings officer, tasked with proposing ways to slash hundreds of millions from the budget. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that under these circumstances reforms like a robust free child care program and free buses are fast receding from what is likely.

More recently, Mamdani has found himself in a battle with the city council over his proposed budget. He has resorted to the highly unusual tactic of tapping the city’s reserve fund to avoid a deficit. Council Speaker Julie Menin, a “moderate” Democrat, defended the council’s own proposal, which includes a supposed $6 billion in savings, and argued that dipping into the reserve fund will damage the city’s credit rating and spike its borrowing costs. Each side has attacked the other’s proposal as requiring cuts in essential services.

Charm the Rich

Mamdani’s strategic approach started becoming clear after he won the election primary last year. In June of 2025, he met with business leaders from the Partnership for New York City and the Association for a Better New York, assuaging their fears about “socialism” and assuring them that his administration will behave as a partner in pursuing their shared goals of a prosperous and affordable city. He also promised to consider retaining Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch (a billionaire from the business class herself), a move which he eventually made despite his stated opposition to Tisch’s collaboration with former Mayor Adams and Governor Hochul in rolling back progressive criminal justice reforms.

Mamdani’s positioning himself as a “reasonable” politician, willing to learn from experts rather than following a particular ideological program, has also extended to the electoral arena. His endorsement of Hochul followed their joint announcement of the free child care program. The governor had made it clear that affordable child care was a goal of hers as well, and many of the state’s business leaders (with an interest in having their employees able to come to work rather than attend to the kids) backed her on this, as long as state treasuries could fund it without a tax increase. Rather than emphasize the inadequacy of the partial and temporary funding Hochul was able to come up with, Mamdani chose to cheerlead alongside her. His endorsement of her re-election was an indication of his approach and desire not to have the kind of contentious relationship with the governor that former mayor Bill DeBlasio had with Andrew Cuomo.

Mamdani [has] position[ed] himself as a “reasonable” politician, willing to learn from experts rather than following a particular ideological program…

The other leaders of New York’s Democratic Party establishment—U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—were much sharper than Hochul in their opposition to Mamdani during the election. Nonetheless, Mamdani urged his fellow DSA members not to endorse one of their own—city council member Chi Ossé—to challenge Jeffries in the 2026 primary. In a close vote, the organization denied Ossé their endorsement.

Given this background, it’s not surprising that Mamdani relied on his ability to appear reasonable and friendly, and to use a strong dose of flattery, during his infamous November Oval Office visit with Donald Trump. In October, he had similarly flattered the members of the Association for a Better New York as “some of the most forward-thinking leaders within our city.” Despite his inexperience, Mamdani is a very skilled tactical politician and careful student of recent political relationships. New York City’s mayors have always had to rely on a positive relationship with Washington (as they have with Albany), and Mamdani had clearly observed Trump well enough to know that if any money was to flow from D.C. to New York, that relationship had to be nurtured early on.

If Mamdani’s intent has been to establish a good working relationship with the business community, he has probably succeeded. Crain’s New York Business issued a scorecard on the Mayor’s first one hundred days, rating him on several metrics. On business confidence in the new administration, he was given a mixed review, applauding his responsiveness and attempts to be engaging. On the other side of their ledger, the piece mentioned aspects such as the “one-sidedness” of his approach to “bad” landlords. But whether his friendliness to business leaders will enable him to implement his costly agenda is another matter.

The police and community safety

Mamdani has also been careful to ensure a positive relationship with the NYPD. Eric Adams, of course, began his career as a police officer, but before him Bill DeBlasio was famously despised by the cops for his support for reform measures meant to minimize killings by police. To avoid such a chilly relationship, Mamdani re-framed the purpose of his proposed Department of Community Safety as premised on removing burdens on the police in responding to emergencies involving mentally ill people, i.e., by having social workers among those responding. Police would thus be allowed to do “their actual jobs” while professionals trained to work with the mentally ill would have a different role to play.

But the new mayor was apparently overeager in this regard. In late January, the mother of a  22-year old mentally ill Queens man, Jabez Chakraborty, called 911 requesting an ambulance when her son, who lived with her, experienced a rageful crisis. Only the police responded, without an ambulance, and when the young man brandished a kitchen knife the cops shot him four times. Mamdani’s first public statement on the matter (which he later retracted) was that he was “grateful to the first responders who put themselves on the line each day to keep our communities safe.”

Chakraborty himself wound up in the hospital, in critical condition, handcuffed and shackled. The group Desis Rising Up and Moving (DRUM), which advocates for South Asian immigrant workers and which had provided important support for Mamdani during the election campaign, published a statement by the family strongly critical of the NYPD and the mayor’s praise of them.

This case offered the purest possible example of a mental health emergency requiring a non-police response. Chakraborty’s mother did not report being in danger, and the entire incident took place inside their home. It potentially offered a perfect illustration of how Mamdani’s promise to adopt a “public health approach to safety” made sense. Instead it was perhaps the first indication that his plan for a Department of Community Safety was in trouble.

The proposed new department was meant to address crises involving mental health, domestic violence, the threat of gun violence, hate crimes, and outreach to the unhoused by relying on trained professionals to diffuse the crisis, rather than just summoning the police. Creating the department would have required City Council approval, and its billion dollar budget made that unlikely, more so as the city’s deficit became clearer. The mayor wound up retreating in mid-March by creating a scaled-down Office of Community Safety (not a deparment), which he can do by executive order.

A recent article in Gothamist detailed additional ways Mamdani has pulled back on some of his public safety initiatives. Although he remains on record as wanting to disband the NYPD’s Strategic Response Group (SRG—known for its violence against peaceful protesters) and end its gang database, both moves are strongly opposed by Commissioner Tisch. In an April 8 New York Times interview, the mayor said that in cases of disagreement between him and the Commissioner, final decisions would be his. But according to Gothamist, he has recently “tempered his rhetoric” on the SRG and failed to speak up when Tisch defended the gang database. While some have defended the mayor’s approach as necessary to “build trust” with the police, long-standing activists have demanded a different approach. They rightly argue that the mayor should take his lead from those “directly impacted by the city’s failed police-based mental health response and the organizations led by and accountable to them.”

Whether these retreats are consequences of Mamdani’s retention of Tisch in particular, or simply of his concern that he avoid the kind of conflict with the NYPD that DeBlasio experienced, is not particularly important. More significant is what they reveal about a politician attempting to undertake radical changes by relying on a passive electorate. Power must be confronted in order to make these changes, and to do so requires a self-conscious movement with clear objectives, democratic mechanisms to determine strategy and tactics, and a focus on broadening its reach and increasing its popular strength. Mere political maneuvering within an undemocratic political system, established to insulate the powerful, will inevitably fall short in winning meaningful reforms, let alone the more fundamental change sought by socialists of all stripes.

Affordable housing

Mamdani entered office having made the fight for affordable housing a central policy promise. And it’s likely Mamdani will achieve one of his goals: a rent freeze for the approximately one-third of New Yorkers living in apartments covered by the city’s rent stabilization laws. He has been able to appoint members to the Rent Guidelines Board—the agency which each year determines a maximum percentage by which rents in stabilized units may legally rise—who are sympathetic to the concerns of tenants squeezed between small wage increases and more rapid inflation. Mamdani was able to overcome the plans of outgoing Mayor Adams who almost succeeded, on his way out of office, in appointing enough landlord-friendly members to ensure landlord concerns would prevail on the board for the next several years.

But the rent freeze was hardly the only proposal in Mamdani’s platform intended to increase housing affordability. The platform promised to use city funds for the construction of 200,000 new units over ten years. “[F]or decades,” it read, “New York City has relied almost entirely on changing the zoning code to entice private development—with results that can fall short of the big promises.” Most of his plan’s funding—$70 billion out of $100 billion—was to be raised by a proposed sale of municipal bonds.

Mamdani’s ultimate support of ballot measures fast-tracking and otherwise smoothing the path for developers relies on the same market-based methods of constructing for-profit housing that have failed, over those same decades, to produce very many units of housing that most New Yorkers—certainly the vast majority of working-class New Yorkers can actually afford. (Ben Rosenfield and Holden Taylor, in an article in the Marxist journal Spectre and summarized in a Tempest interview, dig into this dynamic, and its recent history, in great detail.)

The ballot measures were backed by a coalition including developers and real estate firms, who funneled millions of dollars into the campaigns. Of course, and as Rosenfield and Taylor note, whatever housing goals Mamdani may personally favor, he “will have to navigate the limitations and contradictions of the capitalist city and state.”

Another early sign of his apparent change in approach on housing came during Mamdani’s October speech to the Association for a Better New York (co-founded in 1970 by leading real estate investor and developer Lewis Rudin). Mamdani stated that business leaders had approached him with concerns about the “affordability crisis” and their inability to employ people in an “expensive New York.” “As rents soar,” Mamdani continued, “it becomes almost impossible to attract the very kind of top talent that we need to see in this city.” One can imagine that the “top talent” people that these business leaders look to attract have a very different limit on the rent they can pay from that of the median working class New Yorker.

As for the project to build a deck over the Sunnyside rail yards which Mamdani theatrically pitched to the Developer-in-Chief in another Oval Office meeting (in February 2026), even if Trump comes through with the promised $21 billion in federal funds, the 12,000 homes it would eventually support would only become a reality several decades into the future. The housing construction itself would be separately funded.

Samuel Stein of the Community Service Society of New York, writing in Jewish Currents, runs through some of the financial limitations that a strong public housing program would face: Raising large sums on the bond market strains the city’s budget as debt comes due, and a downgrade by credit rating agencies may well increase interest payments on that debt. Paying union-scale wages on city construction projects while keeping rents low and maintaining buildings well adds further strain.

The city’s deficit—now a top concern for Mamdani—adds a new dimension to these limitations. The mayor recently broke a promise to implement a measure passed by the city council in 2023 that would expand CityFHEPS, a program providing housing vouchers intended to move homeless people from shelters into permanent housing. Eric Adams challenged the measure, and Mamdani is now continuing that challenge, saying that the city cannot afford it and battling the council—and advocates for the homeless—in court. The issue has attracted quite a bit of public attention: A recent article in Gothamist profiled several individuals fearing that they will wind up in the revolving door between homeless shelters and the streets.

Conclusions

In one sense, Mamdani himself is not to blame for the failure of his agenda. The obstacles to achieving it are not of his making. The Mayor could be criticized, though, for not pointing out to his voters how formidable these obstacles are, and thereby raising the question of what it might actually take to win. Eric Blanc and Bhaskhar Sunkara—strong Mamdani supporters very wary of (even hostile to) left critiques—warned in a December article in Jacobin against overestimating the Left’s strength based just on an electoral victory. “To push Hochul and other establishment politicians to fund reforms,” they wrote, “New York’s Left will need more popular depth and breadth. Without such a working-class movement, there’s a real danger that Zohran’s agenda will get blocked.”

As a DSA member himself (like Blanc and Sunkara), Mamdani is surely aware of this argument. He could have spoken up himself on the need to build popular power in order to prevent his agenda being blocked. But it’s clear, after his absence from tax-the-rich rallies and other events challenging New York’s Democrats, that his choice not to alienate himself from them—and from the business class—has prevented a full-throated call for a movement opposing the powerful.

Blanc and others close to him are very troubled by what they see as merely empty criticisms with no proposed solutions—attacking Mamdani (and others) from the Left, without taking responsibility for building real, lasting coalitions. But rather than taking aim at leftist critics, the socialist movement needs an open and thoroughgoing debate about how we offer a strategic alternative to what Mamdani is offering.

It is certainly not too late—especially at a time of heightened activism—for numbers of people to begin building the kind of forceful pushback that can eventually make the Mamdani agenda a reality.

The New York Times, in its “first hundred days” piece on Mamdani, didn’t hesitate to point out that “he has quickly retreated from one campaign promise after another” and that he “has little actual power to impose that ideology [democratic socialism] on city government”. But while this article has criticized Mamdani in similar respects, more important than passing judgement on the man is to point out the reality of what it will take to build and maintain the kind of power that can win what Mamdani’s voters eagerly wished for.

In a matter of weeks, it will be clear how much revenue the city can expect from Albany this year. Under any likely scenario, a tax on the wealthy sufficient to plug the budget gap and also move the needle on meaningful reforms, e.g., free buses or significant numbers of truly affordable publicly-owned apartments, will not happen. Hochul’s wildly inadequate concession in the form of a pied-à-terre tax—especially after Mamdani essentially declared victory, saying “today we’re taxing the rich”—will almost certainly be as far as she is willing to go. But in itself, this won’t necessarily lead to discouragement and lowered expectations. The outcome will depend on what conclusions people draw. It is certainly not too late—especially at a time of heightened activism—for numbers of people to begin building the kind of forceful pushback that can eventually make the Mamdani agenda a reality.

The capitalist class is powerful—New York City’s real estate and financial interests particularly so—and its political reach extensive. Without strong and growing institutions of resistance that can fight for working people’s needs, gains promised by an individual maverick politician can’t be won against such power, except in muted form. Many DSA members, as well as others on the Left who watch events closely, may find ways to come together and help build those institutions. But a different strategic vision will be required. If this happens, the momentum triggered by Mamdani’s campaign and election, rather than dissipating, will build. Otherwise, we risk the type of disillusionment with “progressive” politics, the result of which we are all too familiar with in Trump’s “America.”

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Karamccurdy; modified by Tempest.

The post Mayor Mamdani’s program in peril?  appeared first on Tempest.

Anderson Bean: Could you start by introducing yourself and your role in the Guilford County Schools?

Carla Harris: I am a high school science educator. I have been teaching for the past 10 years, all in North Carolina. I am also a member of the North Carolina Association of Educators (NCAE), and I do a lot of organizing work with them.

AB: How would you describe the current state of public education in North Carolina for both teachers and students?

CH: One word that comes to mind is abysmal. The last study I saw ranked North Carolina 50th in public school funding out of all the states, so it’s pretty difficult right now. In 2008 North Carolina was 25th in teacher pay, today it is 43rd, $14,000 less than the national average. North Carolina is also currently the only state that has not passed a state budget.

You have a lot of people in this profession who really love what we do, but it’s getting really hard for people to stay. Within the past 20 years, the General Assembly has been chipping away at the public school system in many different ways. For example, they eliminated master’s pay starting in 2014, so educators with advanced degrees now earn the same as colleagues without them. For anyone entering the system after 2021, there are no longer state-provided health benefits in retirement, which discourages people from joining the profession. North Carolina has also eliminated traditional tenure and weakened due process protections for teachers. At the same time, the pay scale is structured so that salaries increase early on but then flatten out for much of a teacher’s career, with little to no meaningful raises between, roughly, years fifteen and twenty-four.

My own health insurance costs doubled this past year. Classified staff—bus drivers, custodians, and cafeteria workers—until recently weren’t even making $15 an hour. That leads to shortages, vacancies, and burnout across the board.

Conditions inside schools are also very difficult. Because of low state funding, maintenance is not always addressed in a timely way. In my school, there are several places where every time it rains, ceiling tiles have to be replaced within a couple of days. There are ongoing leaks. In a neighboring county, schools couldn’t open on time one year because of mold in multiple buildings after air conditioning was cut over the summer to save money.

Resources are scarce. Most teachers buy their own basic supplies, tissues, pencils, hand sanitizer, things that used to be provided by the school.

Health insurance has also worsened. Costs have gone up while coverage has gone down. Starting teacher salaries are so low that, when you factor in the hours worked, they fall below a living wage, which makes it even harder to bring new people into the profession.

Most schools only have a nurse one to two days a week, with nurses split across multiple buildings. That makes it difficult for them to really know students and their health needs. Mental health services are even harder to access.

These problems are tied to broader policy decisions. Legislators have chosen to maintain one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the country, with plans to reduce it to zero by 2030. At the same time, funding is being diverted away from public schools. Over the past few years, there has been a sharp increase in private school vouchers, also known as Opportunity Scholarships. This year alone, over $500 million in taxpayer dollars has gone to these vouchers, effectively siphoning money away from public schools. And the majority of recipients are already from wealthier families.

AB: What is NCAE organizing for May Day, and what are the main goals of the action?

CH: To coincide with the nationwide call to action on May Day this year, NCAE has organized a day of action under the slogan “Kids Over Corporations.” They are inviting all school employees, along with the broader community, to come to the Capitol in Raleigh. The goal is not only to stand in solidarity with one another, but also to get legislators’ attention and begin shifting policy back in our direction.

School employees are being asked to call out of work that day. The central demands are for increased funding for public education by redirecting money away from corporate tax cuts and private school vouchers.

It has been made clear that this is not a strike, but a one-day action that can serve as a step toward larger actions in the future. A longer-term goal of NCAE is to become a formalized union and win collective bargaining rights, and this action is part of building toward that.

To coincide with the nationwide call to action on May Day this year, NCAE has organized a day of action under the slogan “Kids Over Corporations.”…School employees are being asked to call out of work that day. The central demands are for increased funding for public education by redirecting money away from corporate tax cuts and private school vouchers.

So far, over fifteen school districts have been forced to close for the day. This happens when enough workers put in absences that there are not enough substitutes to cover positions, which forces districts to convert the day into an optional teacher workday. We expect that number to grow, and there are also educators participating from districts that have not officially closed.

These decisions are made at the county level. Some districts have made the day an optional teacher workday, while others have required employees to use annual leave. These kinds of responses reflect attempts to limit collective worker action.

AB: How does this year’s May Day action compare to the 2018 “Red for Ed” mobilizations in North Carolina? What feels continuous, what’s different, and how does this moment compare to being part of the broader national wave back then?

CH: North Carolina had similar actions in 2018 and 2019. In 2018, there was a national teacher strike wave across multiple states, including Arizona and West Virginia. That created a lot of momentum, and people here were ready to take action because they could see what was possible when educators organized collectively.

Now, we are building on the lessons learned from those experiences. In both moments, there has been a strong emphasis on grassroots organizing—attending local meetings, connecting with educators across districts, and collectively developing strategy. It’s often a year-long process to build toward actions like this.

This year, one of the key strategies has been organizing coordinated absences. In some districts, educators formally entered their absences into the system, while in others, workers signed commitment forms indicating they would do so if necessary. In my district alone, there were nearly 800 commitments, which was enough for the school board to act before everyone even formally submitted their absences. The collective action itself was enough to force a response.

While the numbers may be smaller so far than in 2018, we are seeing broader connections with other organizations this time. There has been collaboration with immigrant rights groups, voting rights groups, and other community organizations. There have been art builds to create banners and materials, as well as coordinated actions like banner drops and rallies. There is also a larger coalition coming together for events around May Day.

So while 2018 was defined by a powerful national wave of teacher strikes, this moment is characterized more by coalition-building and deeper connections across movements.

While [the 2018 “Red for Ed” mobilizations in North Carolina were] defined by a powerful national wave of teacher strikes, this moment is characterized more by coalition-building and deeper connections across movements.

AB: GCAE has also been active in the Triad labor movement, including solidarity with UAW struggles. Can you talk about the importance of cross-union solidarity in the region? [The Piedmont Triad is a metropolitan region in the north-central part of North Carolina that make up three cities: Greensboro, Winston Salem and High Point. – EDS]

CH: GCAE, as a local chapter of the statewide union, has supported UAW organizing efforts. That connection is very real, UAW workers manufacture our school buses, and their children attend our schools. It highlights how interconnected working-class struggles really are.

We’re all working under the same system, and we recognize that the system is not working for us. Organizing around public schools is a powerful way for people to connect because over 80 percent of working-class families send their children to public schools. Most people have some connection to a public school, which creates natural links between different struggles. Schools become a central place where broader working-class solidarity can grow.

AB: How are the struggles of other school workers, like bus drivers, cafeteria staff, and support personnel, intersecting with those of teachers right now?

CH: There’s a misconception that this action is just about teachers. NCAE represents all public school workers, so when we are asking for more funding, we are asking for better pay and improved conditions across the board.

When school funding increases, salaries can go up for everyone, and conditions improve for all school employees.

We’ve seen this in recent struggles. In Guilford County, school nutrition staff organized a two-day walkout in 2023 to demand higher wages. That action led to raises, though there were still concerns about how those increases were structured.

Even before that walkout, GCAE spent over two years organizing to raise classified staff wages to $15 an hour. That campaign shows how long it can take to win even modest gains. When we push for larger changes now, we understand that this is a long-term fight.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Anthony Crider; modified by Tempest.

The post Kids Over Corporations appeared first on Tempest.