With the fall of the Berlin Wall, the great clash between the Western and Eastern blocs seemed to be over. Like every clash, it had a winner and a loser. The West, through liberal democracy, or better said, constitutional republics, dominated with a brilliant supremacy over the communist East, from the Baltics to China.

And of course the two “titans of the battle” were also the leading countries of their respective camps, the United States of America on one side and the Soviet Union on the other. The arms race was the final contest that determined the winners and losers in this 45-year-old trench.

But in essence, Western humanism, which centered its interest on the individual with his or her political and economic freedoms and rights, won out over totalitarianism, which, in the "name of the people," impoverished half the globe and caused about 150 million victims, according to the "Black Book of Communism," written by a group of authors 3 decades ago.

This victory, which came as a result of perhaps the greatest political clash humanity has ever seen, was followed by a strange period where the only clashes were regional or internal ones of an ethnic or religious nature, mainly in Africa or the Middle East.

Local conflicts that were not part of any larger global conjuncture like during the Cold War. Behind the antagonists stood no one except local interests, even with a historical background. Even the US clashes with Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be considered anything other than bilateral conflicts.

But unlike other similar cases, after September 11 that woke the US from the "intoxication of permanent peace" of the post-Cold War, these two clashes gave the first signals of a storm that was coming 2 decades later. Right now in the last 4 years with the start of conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, culminating in the war with hops between the US and Israel on one side and Iran and its proxies on the other. But is this a conflict only with a religious and regional basis? At first glance, yes. But if we calmly analyze the external and internal context of the US and Europe, of course not.

Since this strong agitation has also spread within Western societies, especially in Europe, where there are more supporters of Radical Islam in many left-wing parties than in the ISIS camps in Syria and Iraq. It is precisely the post-communist European left, and perhaps even its segments in the US, that have clearly aligned themselves with Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and at best remain silent about the violence of radical terrorist groups in Africa. To be fair with the statistics, there are about 100 victims of the Christian faith in countries mainly in Central Africa, where Nigeria leads.

But the question that naturally arises is: what connects the left in Western countries with Islamic radicalism? The answer is both difficult and simple to find. Today's left is a successor to the left that lost the battle with the right in 1990, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. For this historical reason, the old dialectic fell. And in order to reinvent a new one and itself, they invented a new dialectic in Western societies and also on a global level. The "new class war", between the oppressor class and the oppressed.

And this time it is not the capitalists and the working class in the social conflict as an ideological basis to give life to themselves, but a conflict designed with the objective of protecting and promoting religious, ethnic minorities and, most desperately, those of different sexual orientations. In short, after giving up the fight for economic and social equality under the leadership of Marxist utopia, they have now invented a new nonsense. That of ethnic, racial, religious and sexual identity equality. Because apparently a class conflict is always needed. Otherwise they will remain unemployed!

But they were not satisfied with that. Through neo-Marxism, they began to articulate the same thesis in international relations in the early 2000s. The legitimization of the rebellion of former colonies against imperialist powers such as America and some former European colonial countries. This also explains the support for Iran's levers in the Middle East, while many of them have been declared terrorist organizations by Western governments and beyond. Meanwhile, the greatest damage has been done through globalization. Or rather, the effort after the '90s to shift investments in the manufacturing industry and the supply chain towards oriental countries, especially China. Not that this wave of capital spread in a communist country today came only as a result of this change, which aimed at equality between nations.

Because mixed with the free market principle that "the more welfare increases, the more inequality decreases," the left's agenda now further advanced the goal of equality even among nations.

But while China benefited from these investments, it also took the opportunity to strengthen itself politically and militarily, seeking to change the unilateral American, or rather, Western, order. And BRICS is the clearest example of a new world order, where China seeks to take the role of leader in this competitive relationship.

And while China represents an autocracy of state capitalism that subsidizes certain economic sectors that unfairly compete with Western industries, the left in Europe and some Democrats in the US pretend not to understand that this is economically damaging their countries. Apparently, this ideological agenda of the Marxist tradition transcends the interests of their countries with the sole purpose of satisfying the dogmatic hunger that they have carried and fueled for two centuries without remembering the great historical failure of 1990. The well-known expression that "when a communist is 20 years old, you are an idealist, while at 30 you are an idiot" is more relevant than ever!

Fortunately, there is another left that is critical of this mainstream, represented by the former social democrats, who split with Marx in the First Communist International. They seek to reform the capitalist system, as their predecessors did with the "welfare state", but not to overthrow it. Just as they see the left's minority politics as absurd. Whether they will be able to win the battle within the left with the radicals who have been leading it for years remains to be seen.

The only solution so far has been the rise of the conservative right. And the case of England, where Farage defeated the two traditional parties, is the freshest and most optimistic example. So calling today's left liberal or globalist may seem correct at first glance. Meanwhile, the goals and methods at their foundation are simply communist. So we must try not to return to the nightmares of the past.