6 min readNov 7, 2026 07:10 PM IST First published on: Nov 7, 2026 at 07:10 PM ISTIn The Great Transformation, Karl Polanyi presciently observed that to “allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment…would result in the demolition of society.” As political protests engulf France, Albania, Belgium, Germany and India, along with electoral upsets refining Brazilian and American politics, there is a tendency to give routine answers — the emergence of “disorder”, the revolt of a frustrated youth against corruption, Trump-fatigue, and so on. It is, however, imperative that we look beyond these microwaved explanations and see how these movements converge or diverge, and more importantly, their limits.Resolutely flying in the face of their own history since 1789, there was much pearl-clutching by France’s ruling crop when visuals of protestors breaking shop windows and burning cars emerged — accusations of sedition, foreign hand, and fears of unchecked immigration were propped up. Never mind that the protests started with resentment over conditions in French schools—no new teachers were being hired, there were no repairs, and classrooms were overheating as temperatures rose (so much for the climate crisis being far removed). However, as the protests expanded across Western Europe, they became a larger platform for deep-seated societal frustrations — each missed rent payment, the costly grocery item hesitantly put back on the shelf, and the ennui of an alienated life found their expression in a chaotic “F you” to the system. This disorder was, however, momentary — it found its ideological expression as unions began to organise the protests around the cost of living crisis. Critics argue that while the frustration is understandable, governments just don’t have the money. But more on that in just a bit.AdvertisementAlso Read | In France, student protest is symptom and warningIn Albania, what began as discontent against a seaside resort owned by Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner first morphed into a nationwide movement against privatisation of the nation’s coastlines by government-favoured oligopolies. The logic was quite simple — a beach is not a commodity. Here, too, it sparked a broader resentment over the cost of living and government corruption. But “corruption” and “cost of living” are disingenuous masks for hiding a larger structural failure. It is not as if the problem is a few corrupt men and temporary spikes of inflation — the people are simply tired of the commodification and marketisation of every aspect of their life. Want to walk on a beach? Rent a pricey resort. Want to live under a roof? Rent a dingy apartment (the speculators have bought all the apartments).A similar story played out across the Atlantic. While Lula’s victory against Bolsonaro is being credited to a last-minute social media push, what mattered more was a nationwide movement for the 40-hour work week spearheaded by Erika Hilton, a socialist politician from the trans community. Once again, it boiled down to the same thing — millions of working-class people are living miserable lives with no scope for improvement for them or their children. The hope once promised by neoliberalism — that they too will one day join the middle class — has vanished. Rather, the middle class itself has been cannibalised and pauperised by the market, leaving behind insecure generations.On the other side of the Americas, the shocking results of the United States’ midterm elections were a contrast to Lula’s paper-thin victory. They are being described as a political revolt against the Trump-led Republican Party and rising inflation. This is partially true — the Iran war and tariffs have pushed up the cost of living. But there is also a moral angle to the economic resentment — the loss of many AIPAC-sponsored candidates implies that voters simply don’t want their tax dollars to fund Israel’s genocide (as per UN commissions), or ICE’ barbarities against Hispanics.AdvertisementAlso Read | Retrieving common ground in the United StatesBefore one gets too optimistic, a few words of caution. The main challenge to the current winds of change in the United States will not come from the Republicans, but from the mainstream wing of the Democratic Party itself. Hours after the stunning electoral victories, the old guard (led by Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer) wasted no time in trying to “discipline” the movement, supported by vapid discourse in television news. While Jeffries categorically said that there was no question of impeaching the President, a CNN host tried to play off winning Democratic candidates against each other by asking the Texan James Talarico how he would stand up to the “far-left” Abdul el-Seyed. Equally telling is the fact that while Democrats gained substantially from college-educated youth, their inroads among the working class were modest. It was the latter who drove the chariot of Trump’s victory.you may likeWhat may make these contradictions more acute in the next couple of years is the increasing possibility of a financial crash. Given the massive overinvestments in Artificial Intelligence, a crash will have a ripple effect through the world, increasing economic precarity. This will increase both political unrest as well as attempts to quell it. As precarity grows, so will the demand on national governments to provide succour. However, as these governments themselves are hostage to the vagaries of international finance, they may find themselves with neither the capacity nor the will to tame the beast (remember Obama in 2008). Across the aisle, popular movements seeking purely national solutions to their problems will also face the same realisation — internationalise or perish.The writer is assistant professor, Department of International Relations, Ashoka University