It is interesting that this article situates the recent social revolts in the same vein as the Yellow Vests. But the criticism that these movements are "inter-classist" seems problematic. Every movement is to some extent "inter-classist," including the Russian Revolution itself. What then is the bone that is being picked? The fact that the working class is not leading the movement as a class? This is true, but it is hardly surprising given the global balance of class forces in this period in history. It is still not easy to tell whether movements such as these are moments of "decomposition" as the article implies, or are expressions of a fraught recovery in class resistance struggling to emerge. In any event, there does seem to be a change in the ICC's approach from the movements of 2013-2014 (Turkish protests, Brazil tranist mobilizations at the time of the Confederations Cup) in which these movements were generally lauded as moments of recovery, if imperfect in their interclasicism. Now, interclassicim seems to be unacceptable in toto, leading to a denucniation of the movements we have seen since the Yellow Vests. What has changed? Is it the emergence of populism? Still, it is not quite clear what the metric is that leads to the divergent judgements. Is it the increased violence? The "no future" perspective? Is it then a matter of content rather than form: The Yellow Vests' supposed "racism," the expressions of "nihilism"?
Also, perhaps this article was written before the movement in Bolivia. But here you can see a popular movement against a corrupt, anti-democratic Morales leading to a right-wing take-over of the state. This is being denouced by leftists as a "racist" coup and any idea that there may have been some kind of popular movement preceding the change in government is ignored by the very same people who laud similar movements elsewhere. How much does the eventual outcome of the movement weigh in judging the nature of the movement itself?