Living Conditions

By Sanjaya Jayasekera. 

We publish here Part 3 of a series examining the global wave of Gen Z protests, the deepening crisis of revolutionary leadership, and the necessity of fighting for the program of socialist internationalism on the basis of Leon Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution. Part 1 was published on November 6, 2025 here. Part 2 was published on November 14, 2025 here. 

The Lineage of Gen-Z Revolts: Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street and the Yellow Vests — Politics, Tactics, Programme and the Lessons for the Working Class

The Arab Spring — Historical Precursor and Political Object Lesson

The Arab Spring of 2010–2011 in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) constitutes the decisive historical precursor to the successive waves of extra-parliamentary revolt examined here and its political lessons penetrate the entire subsequent history. It was not a single homogeneous movement but a global eruption of mass social unrest driven by the structural crisis of world capitalism—rising inequality, mass unemployment, and collapsing living standards—whose politics were shaped by the collision of profoundly antagonistic class forces: a radicalising working class and poor, large layers of youth and petty-bourgeois activists, sections of the middle class seeking political space and a greater share of the spoils, and competing fractions of the national ruling classes including military cliques and Islamist parties. What began as mass popular uprisings against dictatorial regimes rapidly became a battlefield where different class forces and bourgeois factions contended to shape outcomes in their own interests.

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and the military-backed Tamarod campaign each sought to channel mass anger into their respective bourgeois projects rather than into an independent working-class overthrow of the capitalist state. As the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) analysis of the Egyptian experience established, the so-called liberal and pseudo-left organisations played a decisive counterrevolutionary role, with Tamarod leaders standing at the side of coup commander General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as he announced the military takeover—an outcome those organisations had materially prepared.[1] The political demands advanced spontaneously in the streets—bread, jobs, dignity, an end to corruption, democratic rights—expressed genuine and profound social need, but social and democratic demands do not automatically constitute a socialist programme. Where organised revolutionary working-class leadership was absent, liberal, Islamist, and petty-bourgeois currents filled the vacuum, offering alternative programmes that in every instance preserved capitalist property relations and imperialist domination.

A central feature of the Arab Spring was its spontaneity: sudden mass mobilisations, general strikes, and occupations that burst through the limits of existing organisations and terrified ruling classes globally. This spontaneity was simultaneously a strength—demonstrating the capacity of the masses to act independently and with enormous force—and a structural limitation that proved fatal to the revolutionary potential of the uprisings. Without a revolutionary working-class party and without organs of working-class power—factory committees, rank-and-file unions, neighbourhood councils—spontaneous movements remain vulnerable to appropriation by better-organised bourgeois factions or to demobilisation through absorption, exhaustion and repression. As Nick Beams argued in his contemporaneous analysis of the Egyptian upheaval in February 2011, the army and bourgeois forces were able to reassert control precisely where the working class lacked a political and organisational leadership capable of transforming mass revolutionary energy into state power.[2] Egypt possessed, in the strike waves that brought down Mubarak, the objective social power to make a socialist revolution; what it lacked was the subjective instrument—the revolutionary party anchored in the masses and fighting for the perspective of international socialism—without which that power could not be directed to its necessary conclusion. The result, confirmed by a decade of subsequent experience, was a military dictatorship under el-Sisi more brutal than the one the revolution had overthrown.

The Arab Spring exerted a direct ideological and tactical influence on Occupy Wall Street (2011), while simultaneously exposing the political pitfalls that Occupy would reproduce in the specific conditions of the imperialist center. The vivid demonstration that mass occupations of public space and horizontal assemblies could galvanise broad popular sympathy gave Occupy its tactical model and its initial political confidence. But the Arab Spring also disclosed, for those with eyes to see, the precise vulnerability that “leaderless” spontaneous movements carry within themselves: without a socialist programme and independent working-class organisation, mass insurgency is systematically channelled back into bourgeois institutions or reformist dead-ends. 

The WSWS identified this danger at the outset of Occupy’s emergence, documenting the efforts of ex-left figures and Democratic Party operatives to absorb the movement into the 2012 Obama electoral campaign—precisely the mechanism of bourgeois reabsorption that had disfigured the Arab Spring’s political outcomes in country after country.[3] The strategic question the Arab Spring posed, and which Occupy failed to resolve, was the same question that confronts the Gen-Z movements from 2022: whether mass protests aim at symbolic disruption and awareness-raising within the framework of bourgeois politics, or whether they are directed toward building independent working-class organisation—general strikes, rank-and-file committees, industrial coordination—capable of fighting the economic power of capital and posing the question of state power. From a revolutionary internationalist standpoint, only transforming spontaneous mass energy into a socialist political programme and durable proletarian (industrial) organisation—linking democratic struggles to the working class’s capacity to seize power—can convert the recurring insurgency of the oppressed into a force capable of overthrowing capitalist rule.

Common Roots: The Crisis of Capitalism and the Crisis of Political Legitimacy

Occupy Wall Street, the Yellow Vest movement (Gilets Jaunes, 2018–2020), and the Gen-Z uprisings constitute three successive and qualitatively escalating waves of mass extra-parliamentary revolt. To treat them as unrelated or merely sequential phenomena is to miss the most important truth they disclose in common: all three are expressions of the same underlying and deepening contradiction of world capitalism—the contradiction between social production organized on an ever more integrated and global scale, and its subordination to private ownership and profit that concentrates wealth in ever fewer hands while condemning the vast majority to insecurity, impoverishment, and precarity.

Each wave erupted from a specific conjuncture of that general crisis. Occupy responded to the 2007–2009 financial crash and the naked reassertion of Wall Street power through the Obama administration’s bank bailout program, which transferred trillions in public funds to the architects of financial ruin while working-class families lost their homes, their jobs, and their savings. The WSWS observed at the time that the Occupy movement expressed “the class struggle reemerging as the basic historical force,” and that it “foreshadows an explosive eruption of class struggle in the United States, the center of world capitalism.”[4]

The Yellow Vests erupted in November 2018 when Emmanuel Macron’s fuel tax—a levy deliberately designed to shift the costs of the energy transition (away from fossil fuels) from corporations onto workers and the provincial poor—rendered unmistakable the class character of the “En Marche” (the centrist, liberal party of Macron) project presented to the electorate as post-ideological (that the era of class politics and ideological conflict was over) technocratic modernization.

The Gen-Z wave erupted when the accumulated wreckage of forty years of neoliberal restructuring, the devastation of COVID-19, the economic warfare of the US-NATO proxy conflict in Ukraine, the IMF’s debt-peonage regime across the backward countries, and the accelerating climate crisis made survival itself a political question for tens of millions of young people across multiple continents simultaneously.

Their common political character follows directly from these shared material roots. All three registered a profound mass rupture with parliamentary politics, with the established parties of both nominal “left” and right perceived as equally complicit in exploitation, and with the trade union bureaucracies and institutional mediators that had long managed and dampened class struggle. The “We are the 99 percent” of Occupy, the Yellow Vests’ visceral contempt for the “Parisian elites” in their media chambers, the Gen-Z movements’ blanket dismissal of all established political formations as corrupt beyond reform—these slogans express not political immaturity but a genuine and deepening crisis of bourgeois political legitimacy that no cosmetic reform or change of government personnel can address.

Politics: Anti-Establishmentism, “No Politics,” and the Populist Trap

Despite their common anti-establishment character, the three waves exhibit significant differences in political composition that must be analyzed with precision rather than collapsed into an undifferentiated “new social movements” category.

1. Occupy Wall Street: The Middle-Class Rehearsal

Occupy was dominated from its inception by a predominantly middle-class social milieu concentrated in metropolitan centers—New York’s Zuccotti Park, Oakland, Boston, and their counterparts in London and other imperialist cities. The Occupy movement explicitly drew inspiration from the Arab Spring, with organizers from Canadian magazine Adbusters declaring: “Like our brothers and sisters in Egypt, Greece, Spain, and Iceland, we plan to use the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic of mass occupation to restore democracy in America.”[ABC News] The movement’s imagery—the occupation of Zuccotti Park echoing Cairo’s Tahrir Square—and its timing, coming months after the Egyptian Revolution’s triumph, established a direct lineage. As the WSWS observed at the time, “From the revolutionary upheavals in Egypt, to mass demonstrations in Israel and social eruptions in Europe, the class struggle has reemerged as the basic historical force.”[5]

The movement emerged from anarchist organizations, in particular the Adbusters, which explicitly invoked “the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic” as its organizational model while stripping that model of its class content. The “99 percent” slogan, however appealing as an expression of popular anti-oligarchic sentiment, was politically designed to obscure rather than sharpen the fundamental class division between the working class and the affluent upper-middle strata from which Occupy’s leadership was drawn.[6]

The political consequences of this class foundation became visible in the role played by pseudo-left organizations, above all the International Socialist Organization (ISO). Despite its nominally socialist rhetoric, the ISO worked systematically to subordinate Occupy to the AFL-CIO trade union apparatus and channel its energy toward Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. As the WSWS documented in contemporaneous coverage, the ISO “is attempting to stifle the protest movement by helping to bring it under the control of the AFL-CIO and the rest of the trade union apparatus,” praising corrupt union officials—among them AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and CWA’s Bob Master, both fresh from betraying the Verizon strike—while concealing their role in imposing concessions on workers.[7]

The ISO’s promotion of “no politics” and “no leadership” served to create precisely the political vacuum the Democratic Party rushed to fill. The WSWS warned with prophetic accuracy: “Many of the groups involved in Wall Street demonstrations have echoed the position of the indignados in Spain and Greece that there should be ‘no politics’ and no leadership. The call for ‘no politics’ amounts to a rejection of a principled and coherent political alternative to bourgeois politics and the capitalist two-party system—that is, to socialist politics. It plays directly into the hands of the Democratic Party, which will move to fill the political vacuum.”[8] This is precisely what occurred. The coordinated federal-local police crackdown that destroyed Occupy’s encampments in November 2011—documented by the WSWS as a nationally organized operation involving the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and local police forces across multiple cities[9]—revealed the ruling class’s settled determination to tolerate no sustained challenge to capitalist order, however embryonic. The ISO’s subsequent dissolution and absorption of its dominant faction into the Democratic Socialists of America merely formalized the political trajectory it had pursued within Occupy from the outset.

2. The Yellow Vests: Broader Social Base, Sharper Edge, Same Political Ceiling

The Yellow Vest movement expressed a sharper social radicalism and a considerably broader working-class social base than Occupy. Its geographical and social centre of gravity lay in provincial France—among commuters, pensioners, small proprietors, precarious workers, and the rural and peri-urban poor hit by transport costs, the decline of local public services, and the accelerating erosion of wages under neoliberal restructuring. This diffuse, provincial social composition—rooted in layers of the working class and lower middle strata most directly exposed to the costs of the “modernization” celebrated by Macron’s metropolitan enthusiasts—gave the Yellow Vests a broader geographic reach and a more direct material confrontation with capitalist rule than Occupy’s metropolitan concentration had permitted.

Its tactics were correspondingly more disruptive. Weekly nationwide actions, roundabout and toll-road blockades, the occupation of commercial arteries, and confrontations with riot police in Paris and provincial cities created real costs for capitalist circulation and subjected the French ruling class to sustained political pressure of a kind Occupy’s symbolic square occupations had not achieved. At certain moments, the Yellow Vest movement intersected with strike waves—teachers, health workers, transport workers—creating the real possibility, if never the organizational reality, of a fusion between mass street protest and organized industrial action.

This possibility was systematically blocked. The French trade union confederations worked methodically to prevent any convergence between the Yellow Vests and the organized labor movement.[10] Left-populist tendencies within and around the movement framed demands in the idiom of “the people versus the elites”—calls for referenda, wealth redistribution, and stronger national welfare provisions—that avoided identifying the systemic enemy: the capitalist class and its state, not merely its more visibly corrupt or arrogant individual representatives.[11] Macron’s government survived. The Yellow Vests dissipated. The underlying social crisis intensified.

3. The Gen-Z Wave: Global Scale, Revolutionary Intensity, Identical Political Deficit

The Gen-Z uprisings represent a qualitative escalation in both geographic scope and revolutionary intensity. Occurring simultaneously across multiple countries of the former colonial world, they combined militant student and youth vanguards with genuine proletarian intervention through strikes and industrial action. Sri Lanka’s two general strikes of April 28 and May 6, 2022, in which millions participated across ethnic lines, demonstrated the decisive power of the working class when it acts as an independent force.[12] Kenya witnessed successive waves of strikes by teachers, healthcare workers, civil servants, and transport workers erupting in the wake of the initial Gen-Z protests.[13] The scale of political disruption—heads of state driven from office, parliaments stormed, governments collapsed—surpassed anything Occupy or the Yellow Vests had produced.

Yet the political framework within which these movements operated reproduced in these countries of belated capitalist development the identical dynamics that had contained and betrayed Occupy and the Yellow Vests in the imperialist centers. Kenya’s Revolutionary Socialist League, justifying the absence of leadership on the grounds that “the government is actively looking for leaders,” created a political vacuum filled by Raila Odinga and the trade union bureaucracy.[14]  The Communist Party Marxist-Kenya promoted defense of the 2010 Constitution—drafted by the ruling class with British and US funding—thereby channeling mass anger into bourgeois-democratic illusions. BAYAN and Akbayan in the Philippines aligned with bourgeois anti-China factions, subordinating working-class politics to the strategic imperatives of US imperialism’s Indo-Pacific confrontation.[15]

The pseudo-left’s international character was not incidental: these organizations participate in the same international political current—representing affluent middle-class layers whose material interests require the preservation of capitalism while managing working-class discontent—that the ISO embodied in the United States. They celebrate spontaneity to avoid building revolutionary parties. They promote “people power” and “anti-corruption” to obscure class divisions. They align with bourgeois opposition forces presented as “progressive” alternatives. As the WSWS has consistently warned, these tendencies serve objectively as a reservoir for capitalist ideology within the “left.”[16]

To be continued….

References:

[1] World Socialist Web Site, ‘Revolution and counterrevolution in Egypt: The political lessons’ (7 September 2013) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/09/07/egyr-s07.html> 

[2] World Socialist Web Site (Nick Beams), ‘Notes on the Egyptian Revolution’ (25 February 2011) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/02/nbre-f25.html>  World Socialist Web Site, ‘Third National Congress of the SEP (Sri Lanka): Greetings from the French and German sections of the world Trotskyist movement’ (19 June 2022) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/06/20/bnmf-j20.html> 

[3] World Socialist Web Site (Bill Van Auken), ‘Ex-SDS leader seeks to herd Wall Street protest behind Obama’ (12 October 2011) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/10/gitl-o12.html> 

[4] World Socialist Web Site, ‘The way forward in the fight against Wall Street’ (15 October 2011) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/10/pers-o15.html> 

[5] World Socialist Web Site, ‘Occupy Wall Street movement at a crossroads’ (26 October 2011) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/10/pers-o26.html> 

[6] The WSWS analysis identified this with precision: “The social and political outlook of those at the core of the protests—including anarchist organizations around the Canadian magazine Adbusters, which initiated the call to occupy Wall Street—was fundamentally hostile to the working class. Contained in the ‘99 percent’ slogan itself was an effort to obscure the deep social divide between the working class and the more privileged sections of the upper-middle class, for which these groups spoke.”

World Socialist Web Site, ‘The 2011 Occupy Wall Street Protests’ (editorial overview) <https://www.wsws.org/en/topics/socialIssuesCategory/wallst> , drawing on ‘The way forward in the fight against Wall Street’ (15 October 2011) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/10/pers-o15.html>

[7] World Socialist Web Site, ‘The Nation, ISO seek to channel Wall Street protests back to the Democratic Party’ (7 October 2011) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/10/nati-o07.html> 

World Socialist Web Site, ‘The Occupy movement, identity politics and the International Socialist Organization’ (11 November 2011) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/11/iden-n11.html>

[8] World Socialist Web Site, ‘How to fight Wall Street’ (4 October 2011) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/10/pers-o04.html> 

[9] World Socialist Web Site, ‘The shutdown of Occupy Wall Street’ (17 November 2011) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/11/pers-n17.html> ; see also ‘Mayors conspired to close Occupy Wall Street encampments’ (17 November 2011) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/11/occu-n17.html> and ‘Police repression escalates against Occupy protests’ (19 November 2011) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/11/occu-n19.html> 

[10] World Socialist Web Site, ‘Oppose French unions’ attempts to strangle the “yellow vest” protests!’ (26 January 2019) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/01/26/yell-j26.html> 

[11] World Socialist Web Site, ‘France’s “yellow vest” protests and the resurgence of the international class struggle’ (3 July 2019) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/03/yell-j03.html> 

World Socialist Web Site, ‘Recording reveals pseudo-left La France Insoumise collusion with Macron in 2016’ (14 December 2019) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/14/ruff-d14.html> 

[12] Socialist Equality Party (Sri Lanka), ‘For a Democratic and Socialist Congress of Workers and Rural Masses!’ (20 July 2022) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/07/21/pers-j21.html > 

[13] World Socialist Web Site, ‘Kenya’s Gen Z insurgency, the strike wave and the struggle for Permanent Revolution-Part 1’ (3 October 2024) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/10/03/rhnr-o03.html> 

[14] World Socialist Web Site, ‘Kenya’s Gen Z insurgency, the strike wave and the struggle for Permanent Revolution — Part 3’ (6 October 2024) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/10/06/xrfc-o06.html> ; see also ‘One year since the Gen-Z Uprising in Kenya: The need for a socialist and internationalist strategy’ (24 June 2025) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/06/24/yvsc-j24.html> 

[15] World Socialist Web Site, ‘Washington’s war drive against China fuels political conflict in the Philippines’ (8 November 2023) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/11/08/xjyz-n08.html> ; see also ‘Philippine Maoists support US war drive against China’ (5 June 2015) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/06/05/phil-j05.html> 

[16] World Socialist Web Site, ‘The resurgence of the class struggle and the tasks of the Socialist Equality Party (UK)’ (5 December 2018) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/12/05/con3-d05.html>