The far right’s real project is a new caste system

The election in Brazil, in which President Lula won another term, defeating Flávio Bolsonaro in an Oct. 25, 2026 runoff, and the victory of the Democratic Party in the United States midterm elections have given defenders of democracy and human rights a boost and renewed hope for the future.

However, these victories must not lead us to forget that the far right remains very strong in the West.

Without going into a more detailed discussion of these two elections, I believe that the economy — especially the cost of living, which was central to the U.S. election — and the defense of democracy — which in Brazil united the left, center-left, center and even sectors of the right against the threat of dictatorship — are major challenges in this struggle against the far right.

Clearly, a victory or defeat in elections such as these cannot be explained by a single factor. In confronting the neoliberal-neofascist economic and political project, we need to address several issues simultaneously:

(a) the economy — class issues, deep social inequality and the social division of labor, which is global;
(b) democracy and human rights (civil, social and political);
(c) the environmental crisis; and
(d) questions of identity.

Without this theoretical and practical integration, we will face considerable difficulties in confronting:

(a) the neoliberal logic, which exploits workers and the environment without limit in pursuit of the “unlimited” accumulation of capital;
(b) the rebellion of those who deny the fundamental equality of all human beings; and
(c) the limitless will to power of multibillionaires and politicians such as Trump, who aspire to become emperors and dictators of the world.

Why Class Theory and Identity Theory don’t easily combine

One difficulty in bringing together the perspectives of class struggle and identity is that modern social theories of class, whether from a Marxist or functionalist perspective, do not discuss the issue of identity, or do so only to a very limited extent.

This is partly because modern theories of social class presuppose the Enlightenment thesis that all human beings are equal. Thus, these theorists study the different functions and interests, whether conflicting or not, within the system of the social division of labor.

Given the assumption of the fundamental equality of all human beings, the focus is on the functionality or transformation of the social system.

As a result, they fail to seriously discuss the possibility that, even in the modern world, there are social relationships in which groups of people or entire peoples are treated as inferior or less than human.

To address this shortcoming, we have critical theories, such as feminist, postcolonial and decolonial theories, which examine questions of identity and relations of coloniality — structures of domination, hierarchy and power established during the colonial period (such as territorial exploitation and slavery) that have persisted after political and legal independence.

These theories debate and challenge social relationships and processes in which groups or peoples are treated as inferior.

This means that these struggles and theories seek to make real the fundamental equality of all human beings, which was defended by the Enlightenment but has not been socially recognized.

For example, European white men are considered superior to nonwhite Europeans, a supposed superiority that grants them privileges and rights over those deemed inferior.

The same applies to situations in which women or non-heterosexual people are treated as inferior. However, these theories give secondary importance to economic issues, such as class struggle and the fetishism of commodities and capital within the capitalist system.

Neoliberalism’s Denial of Equality

Beginning in the 1980s, with the hegemony of neoliberalism, which replaced the liberal project in the West, what we have seen is an explicit denial of the notion that all human beings possess fundamental equality and dignity.

Along with its criticism of the welfare state, neoliberalism has radically criticized the very notion of universal human rights, especially social rights — the rights to education, health care, housing and so on — as well as modern democracy as an ultimate social value.

For neoliberalism, democracy must be subordinated to the laws and interests of the free market. In other words, when necessary, democracy must be suspended to “save” the ultimate principle of private property and market laws. This is why an alliance with the far right or neofascists is necessary.

With the denial of the fundamental dignity and equality of all human beings, we need to revisit the issue of “caste,” that is, the “essential” differences among human individuals, in addition to questions concerning their social roles and functions.

What is at stake, then, is a war between two projects of civilization: one that defends the fundamental equality and dignity of all human beings and, consequently, a democratic political system that places social, civil and political rights above the laws of the market and the rule of the strongest; and another that defends fundamental inequality, the supremacy of one group over another, and the principle of the rule of the strongest.

Isabel Wilkerson’s Three Caste Systems

In this debate, it is worth discussing a thesis by Isabel Wilkerson — the Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist and author.

In studying the problem of racism in the United States, she writes: “Like other old houses, America has an invisible skeleton, a caste system that is as central to its functioning as the beams and joists we cannot see in the physical buildings we call home. Caste is the infrastructure of our divisions” (Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, 2020). She points out that, throughout history, three caste systems have stood out.

The oldest is the caste system of India, which has endured for millennia. The second on the list is that of Nazi Germany, officially defeated but one that neofascists want to revive.

The third, according to the author, is the race-based caste pyramid in the United States — and, I would add, in other parts of the world marked by racism, such as Latin America.

What we see throughout human history are different systems for stigmatizing individuals deemed inferior in order to justify the dehumanization necessary to keep people in lower classes at the bottom of society and rationalize the protocols used to enforce this hierarchy, which are often justified as the will of God or as natural laws.

Ambedkar: caste as more than a division of labor

From this perspective, the Indian thinker Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (1891–1956) — a Dalit (formerly known by the pejorative term “untouchable”) who had the opportunity to study economics at Columbia University in New York (earning a doctorate in 1927) and at the London School of Economics (earning a master’s degree in 1921 and a doctorate of science in 1923 —made a statement about the relationship between the modern economy and caste that is worth revisiting. In his book Annihilation of Caste (1936), he writes:

“[…] the caste system is not merely a division of labor. It is also a division of laborers. Civilized society undoubtedly needs a division of labor. But in no civilized society is the division of labor accompanied by this unnatural division of workers into watertight compartments. The caste system is not merely a division of laborers — which is quite different from the division of labor — it is a hierarchy in which the divisions of laborers are ranked one above another.”

Clearly, this connection between the social division of labor and the division of workers (caste) was questioned and denied — or, rather, suppressed — in the modern world in the name of universal values.

However, this suppression did not eliminate the existence of this unconscious desire among significant sectors of society. This desire for supremacy has returned, found political expression and gained religious justification. Nationalist Christianity is one example.

In the struggle against the caste system, Ambedkar made an important point that is relevant to our reflection and helps us better understand the importance of the relationship between religion and politics today as well:

“Caste among non-Hindus has no religious sanction; but among Hindus, there can be no doubt that it does. Among non-Hindus, caste is merely a practice, not a sacred institution. […] For them, it is merely a mechanism of survival. They do not regard caste as a religious dogma. Religion compels Hindus to regard the isolation and segregation of castes as a virtue.”

I do not want to discuss here the relationship between religious groups and the far right. I simply want to emphasize three points:
(a) all supremacist or caste systems have and require a religious foundation for their legitimacy, whether a traditional religion or a modern invention (for example, capitalism as a religion);
(b) it is important to distinguish between social groups that follow the rules of a caste system out of a need to survive and those who believe that segregation is the will of God and, therefore, a moral and religious virtue; and
(c) we cannot fight these caste or supremacist systems, or the far right, without debating the religious or spiritual choices that underpin the fundamental equality of all human beings.

This is a translated and edited version of the column that first appeared on Instituto Humanitas Unisinos and is republished with permission. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and does not necessarily reflect the official editorial position of Global Catholic.