Tuesday, April 07, 2026

A Socialist Teacher Is Running for Kentucky State House

Source: Jacobin

Socialists’ highest-profile victories in the recent election cycle were scored in blue coastal cities in blue states: Zohran Mamdani’s and Katie Wilson’s campaigns for mayor of New York City and Seattle, respectively. But candidates backed by Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) made inroads across the country last November, including in the South and the Midwest.

The socialist left looks to be keeping up its momentum. Francesca Hong, a Wisconsin state representative and the DSA-endorsed candidate for governor, has a real shot at winning the Democratic primary for the position. In New York State, socialists are hoping to send former United Auto Workers (UAW) organizer Claire Valdez to Congress and grow its already sizable bench in the state legislature. And DSA is backing a number of other races at the state and municipal levels across the United States.

That includes the campaign of Robert LeVertis Bell, a longtime socialist organizer and public school teacher who is running to represent Louisville’s 43rd District in the Kentucky House of Representatives. Jacobin spoke to Bell about his election, how growing up in Louisville shaped his politics, and how he thinks of his potential role as a socialist legislator in a red state.


Tyler Love Rooney

Can you tell me about the neighborhood where you grew up, and how your upbringing shaped your politics?

Robert LeVertis Bell

I grew up in Louisville, Kentucky — West Louisville specifically. I grew up in two neighborhoods; one is called Shawnee, and the other is called Parkland. Growing up in West Louisville in the 1990s, especially in the way that I grew up, shaped everything.

My dad’s neighborhood, the neighborhood that I feel like I grew up in the most, is deep West Louisville. At least back then, it was quite economically diverse. It was a black neighborhood, but it was a very diverse black neighborhood in a way that we don’t really have as much anymore in this city. There were people like my dad — lawyers and doctors and police officers and so on. But then there’d also be people who were scraping to get by, or people who were living nearby who were drug dealers, et cetera.

It was in the ’90s — the murder rate was high. So even though life at home was quite comfortable for me, life outside the doors of my house was sometimes quite perilous. I got robbed multiple times. People I was close to, friends that I knew, would get robbed. Some people I knew or went to school with, kids from the neighborhood, were even killed.

So you saw this wide swath of black life there. I think it shaped me to feel like my community was a rich one — culturally rich, socially rich. But I saw, more so than a lot of people, exactly what the consequences are of our society’s disinvestment from communities.

On top of that, the other house that I grew up in was in Shawnee. That’s my grandmother’s neighborhood and I’ve talked about her a lot; her name is Mattie Jones. She is a big civil rights activist in the city of Louisville. She’s very venerated here as one of the leaders of the civil rights struggle. Growing up in her house, which was the big central family home in Shawnee . . . Christmas and Thanksgiving holidays would have over a hundred people, because she had a huge extended family of people who love her and adore her. This house was a hub of activity. And social justice, or “the struggle,” as we called it in the household, was just part of the air we breathed.

Jesse Jackson’s 1988 campaign for president was one of the earlier memories I had of my grandmother’s activism. A woman named Anne Braden, who was also a very venerated figure around here, was a regular at the house. I was around these people who were invested in the idea that making the world a better place was a personal responsibility and were driven to do so.

So between growing up in West Louisville in general and seeing everything that I saw but also specifically growing up with people like my grandmother or Reverend Louis Coleman, Anne Braden, and the movement from an early age — both gave me insight into some of the deficits our communities faced. But also, I was shaped by the privilege of being around these beautiful people who were invested in fixing that and felt like it was their responsibility.

Tyler Love Rooney

In a state dominated by the Right, what does it mean to operate openly as a socialist, and what obstacles might that create for your work?

Robert LeVertis Bell

That is a big question. First, while the state is dominated by the Right, it is important to note that Louisville is a blue city in a red state. I do not generally live in fear of right-wing vigilante violence or anything like that against socialists. And in my neighborhood, I would say that being a socialist is the modal position. I would say, if people were asked, more would say they are socialist than would describe themselves as liberal, and certainly more than conservative. I have a socialist who represents me on city council, J. P. Lyninger, so I want to be clear about that.

At the same time, yeah, Kentucky is a red state. There is an 80-20 Republican majority in the state house, which is what I am running for. What that means is that socialists in some environments who are running for state office are running as — I do not want to say they are running as adjuncts to the Democratic Party — but their connection to the Democrats is tenuous at times. If they must, if there’s Democratic majority, they sometimes are engaged in work that is about winning majorities in the Democratic caucus so they can possibly pass transformative legislation that is socialist-written.

That is not something that is immediately on the horizon for Kentucky. I think about my friends and comrades in New York City and New York State — about them having to play ball or build these coalitions with capital-D Democrats, because they have a real possibility of getting things passed that can help the working class in those states. In Kentucky, getting that sort of legislation — public renewables, things like that — are more on the long-term horizon.

So, as a socialist in government in Kentucky, my job would primarily be to run defense. I will do this defense in coalition with Democrats and other progressives running defense to stop bad laws, to stand up for working people, to fight where we can. But also, primarily my responsibility is to set a long-term agenda for actually reshaping politics in the state.

I would say, in the state of Kentucky, or anywhere for that matter, the Democratic Party has not been a party that represents working-class interests. As a person going into the state house who is explicitly, exclusively looking to build political power for the working class, I am thinking long-term about base building, setting an agenda that people can rally around, finding other candidates around the state who can come along with that agenda over the next several cycles.

Before we can really talk about, say, passing transformative legislation, before we can think about winning majorities, etc., we must base-build, fight like hell against bad bills, and produce a real agenda to be a rallying point for leftist progressives in the state.

Organized Labor in Kentucky

Tyler Love Rooney

How do you understand the relationship between Kentucky’s state government and organized labor?

Robert LeVertis Bell

Organized labor and Kentucky are at a pivotal moment, I think. There are people, especially in the industrial unions, which are more excited than ever about the idea of expressing political independence from the Democratic Party’s establishment.

That does not necessarily mean that they are Republicans or want to be Republicans. They do sometimes endorse Republicans in some races, but by and large they endorse Democrats, and they have always endorsed Democrats. The Democratic establishment has, at times, had more of a hold on labor politically, because it was often the only hope that labor had for getting things like right-to-work laws repealed, or keeping them from passing in the first place.

Things like bringing back prevailing wage laws are what the labor movement is obviously concerned about, and wanting to have conditions in which working people can organize freely — things like being able to get dues deductions from paychecks. These are things that labor has fought for, and will continue to fight for in the state of Kentucky. And Democrats, at least a few of them, have been the only consistent allies that labor has had on that front in this red state.

That said, I think more people in the world of labor — especially those who are involved in politics — are realizing that some concessions have to be extracted from Democrats if they are going to get any more of the loyalty and endorsements and so on that labor has offered them, having gotten so little in return. We still have right-to-work. We still do not have prevailing wage. And a lot of the Democrats in office don’t seem inclined to fight for these things.

At present, I’m really encouraged by the movement, especially among some members and leadership of the industrial unions in the state, to orient a little more militantly toward working-class organization and being less willing to take a back seat to the Democratic Party leadership when asked to. The Kentucky state AFL-CIO [American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations] has really taken the lead lately and has aggressively supported labor-focused candidates this cycle. I’m proud to have its endorsement in particular.

Funding Public Education

Tyler Love Rooney

As a public school teacher, what do you think fully funded education requires? And where do you believe that funding should come from?

Robert LeVertis Bell

We should stop under taxing wealth and industry. That is where the funds should come from.

When it comes to fully funding public education, you are talking about having adequate funds to have well-trained, well-compensated teachers in every classroom. You also have well-trained and compensated support staff. You have buildings that meet the needs of the students who are in those buildings. We would have a diverse and rich curriculum that is building-decided and teacher-decided, and the resources to see that curriculum to fruition. If you are talking about music instruction, art, instruction, and, so on, fully funded means making sure those things are maintained, and supplied, etc.

It means having adequate resources for our multilingual students. Right now, I teach at a nearly majority-multilingual school and have classes composed mostly of multilingual students. But it only has a handful of support staff that are multilingual and equipped to help multilingual students. We have very few translators and things like that.

With fully funded education, there would be adequate, paid opportunities for teachers to get quality professional development and professional education so that they can refine and expand on their skill sets. It also means high-quality education from pre-K to postsecondary, with fully funded, well-paid, well-compensated teachers and well-trained teachers and administrators and support staff — where teachers have a lot of autonomy and the resources to conduct their education as trained.

Protecting Immigrants and Trans People

Tyler Love Rooney

Would you support legislation limiting local law enforcement’s collaboration with federal entities such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE]? And what are your plans to protect immigrants and trans people from state-level discrimination?

Robert LeVertis Bell

I can’t unilaterally do any of those things, but absolutely, I would support prohibiting state and local law enforcement from collaborating with ICE and to really put limits on these 287(g) agreements to generally stop folks, say, in local law enforcement from collaborating with ICE.

ICE as an institution has proven itself to not be worthy of any collaboration with the sensibly legitimate aspects of our government. It is an internal enemy to things that we ostensibly hold dear in our society: civil liberties, including the right to due process for our immigrants but also for lots of people.

As for trans people, in Kentucky, SB150 passed in 2023 severely limiting LGBTQ rights in schools and targeting trans youth specifically by banning any gender-affirming care for minors and allowing teachers to misgender students. It’s going to be a priority for me to work to overturn that law and to continue the fight for a statewide Fairness Law that establishes the protections statewide that were won in Louisville in 1999.

Lessons From 2022

Tyler Love Rooney

You have run unsuccessfully for this office before. What was the biggest obstacle for you then, and how are things different this time?

Robert LeVertis Bell

There were two big obstacles. The first time I ran for this office in 2022, I was running against the incumbent, Democrat Pamela Stevenson, who was very much supported by the political establishment. She still is, but she will no longer be in the seat. She’s running for US Senate now. Notwithstanding her incumbency status and strong institutional support, we came within 375 votes of beating her.

A major reason that we could not come closer or even defeat her is that two weeks before the election in 2022, my mother went into hospice, and we had to take the foot off the gas a little bit while I tended to and spent more time with my mother. I have no regrets whatsoever about that, but if things were different in that respect, I would have had more time to finish stronger with our closing message.

The two things that are different this time are, first, that it is now an open seat — I’m no longer running against an incumbent. My opponent this time absolutely has a ton of institutional support, but she does not have the name recognition of my opponent in 2022. Second, we’ve learned a lot in the past four years from our electoral project in Louisville DSA. We have refined some things about the work we do. Also, I lost my mother five days after that election. Barring personal tragedy of that magnitude, I don’t see anything stopping me from closing out the message more strongly than in 2022.

The Fight Ahead

Tyler Love Rooney

When you think about the political terrain in Kentucky over the next decade, what do you think the Left needs to do to gain ground? And how do you see your own work fitting into that larger fight?

Robert LeVertis Bell

We’re not an island. The prospects of the Left in Kentucky are quite tied to the prospects of the Left in the rest of the country. We all have a responsibility to continue to build this work, refine this work, refine our organizations, and to advance both our electoral project and our labor work to build working-class political independence and militancy.

Kentucky is an island, specifically though, to the degree to which it is a unique place. In this respect, I feel like my responsibility as one of the representatives of our movement here would be to be a clarion or tribune — to build the work across the state. It must exist outside of our cities in Kentucky. We must continue to build throughout the state, especially in Appalachia. And I think winning this election will be a watershed moment for really reorienting the political left in the state around the interests of the working class.Email

Robert LeVertis Bell is a teacher, organizer, and candidate for the Kentucky House of Representatives in Louisville’s 43rd District.


The End of Communist Cuba?

Source: Foreign Policy in Focus

President Donald Trump said a few days ago, “Cuba is next.” By which he meant: next after Venezuela and Iran. He also recently mused,

I do believe I’ll be having the honor ​of taking Cuba. That’s a big honor. Taking Cuba in some form. I ​mean, whether I free it, take it. [I] think I can do anything I want with it, [if] you want to know the truth.

The Cuban government, established by the revolution of 1959 and Communist since the early 1960s, seems destined to disappear within a few months and certain to be overturned one way or another by the end of the year.

At the moment, this seems to be true. The Cuban economy has collapsed, and none of its former allies has come to the country’s aid. The government has lost popular support. As in Venezuela and Iran, Trump is prepared to use military force to accomplish his aims. There seems to be nothing at present to stop Trump from terminating the Cuban Communist government.

How did the two countries arrive at this current impasse? What will happen to the Cuban people? What can be done to help them?

And in particular what has been and what is the role of the U.S. left?

Cuba an American Colony

At the end of the nineteenth century, U.S. businesspeople invested heavily in Cuba: sugar, utilities, railroads. At the same time, Cubans began to fight for their independence from the Spanish empire. The United States intervened in the war, supposedly to help the Cuban people, but at the end of the Spanish-American

War the United States took the Philippines and Puerto Rico as colonies. With the Platt Amendment that gave the United States the right to intervene militarily in Cuba, Cuba became a virtual colony. In 1934 Platt ended in exchange for U.S. control of the Guantanamo Naval Base.

Still the U.S. government protected the interests of American companies and their investments in Cuba in utilities, railroads, about half of the island’s sugar production, as well as the hotels, gambling casinos, and brothels run by the Mafia, that made Havana a center of international tourism. Fulgencio Batista played a central role in Cuban politics since he took power in a 1933 coup. The Batista regime abolished all civil rights and workers’ rights, and killed hundreds and perhaps thousands of students and other protestors.

In 1959, Fidel Castro and his guerrilla army carried out a revolution that overthrew Batista and within a couple of years won independence from the political and economic control of the United States. Many Americans admired Castro and looked forward to a new democratic government in Cuba, as I did. But the Cuban-U.S. honeymoon was short-lived.

Cuba’s serious problems with the U.S. government began on May 17, 1959 with the agrarian reform law that seized mostly large, foreign, corporate landholdings, many belonging to U.S. companies. That year, the Eisenhower administration began to contemplate the overthrow of the new revolutionary Cuban government. The United States under John F. Kennedy carried out the Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 to overthrow the new Cuban government, but the plan failed disastrously.

On December 2, 1961, Castro declared, “I am a Marxist-Leninist, and I shall be a Marxist-Leninist to the end of my life,” sealing his alliance with the Soviet Union.

Cuba Becomes Communist

Cuba began to assimilate politically and structurally to the Soviet Union and the states of the Communist Bloc, a process completed by 1970. Cuba became a one-party state where the ruling Communist Party now owned and controlled the economy, which had been entirely nationalized from the largest businesses to the smallest farms and shops.

In the new Communist Cuba, there were no legitimate elections where people might choose between parties with different programs. The Communist state-party controlled the official labor unions, and no other unions were permitted to compete with them, nor could the unions strike. Similarly, the Communist state-party controlled all social organizations in the country: women’s groups, student organizations, sports leagues. Democratic civil liberties—freedom of association, the right to assemble and protest, the right to independent newspapers or independent radio and TV broadcasting—were all abolished. The Soviet KGB helped Cuba create an intelligence service and its own secret police. In addition, Cuba’s machista culture created new forms of oppression as homosexuality, a “bourgeois perversion,” was made illegal until 1979 and gay Cubans found themselves harassed, arrested, and condemned to forced labor in concentration camps.

From 1959 until today, virtually every group on the left—from the Communist Party USA, to the Trotskyists, and more recently the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)—supported what they called “socialist” Cuba, though some left groups had reservations and critique. When Cubans engaged in large scale social protest against food shortages and the lack of democracy in 1994, 2021, and repeatedly from 2024 to today, virtually no group on the left gave full-throated support to the Cuban people.

And few criticized the Cuban Communist state for its repression. Very seldom did leftists declare that they supported the Cuban people, the poor and working-class Cubans protesting in the streets, against the Communist government. And few were prepared to discuss the developing economic, social, and political crisis.

Toward the Cuban Crisis

From 1970 until the twenty-first century, Cuba remained relatively stable. The U.S. trade embargo, which began in 1962 and was strengthened by the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, was designed to strangle the Cuban government. Soviet trade and aid thus became absolutely critical to the survival and function of the Cuban economy, accounting for up to 70 percent of its trade and subsidizing over 20 percent of its GNP in the 1980s. The Soviets provided nearly all of Cuba’s oil, grain, and machinery, while purchasing its sugar at inflated prices. At the same time, Cuba’s government, modeling its programs on those of the Nordic countries, created excellent health and education systems, with low infant mortality, high life expectancy, and universal literacy. Cuba’s health system’s results were comparable to those of Sweden.

With the fall of Soviet Communism, Russia suffered its own economic and social crisis and was no longer able to subsidize Cuba. Russian trade and aid—which had provided most of the country’s economic resources—virtually vanished. Fidel Castro, still the ruler of the country, named the new economic era that began in 1990 the “Special Period in Time of Peace.” Cuba’s GDP shrunk by 35 percent, agricultural production fell by 47 percent, construction by 75 percent, and manufacturing by 90 percent.

To survive, the Cuban government took several steps that changed the nature of the economy but not its top-down administration. The country had to carry out dramatic cuts in the national budget, though it protected and maintained the education and health budgets. Cuba found itself unable to import enough goods to feed the population, resulting in widespread hunger. The citizens’ caloric intake declined by 27 percent, with people eating about 1,000 fewer calories per day. With a new emphasis on food production, the government created limited free markets for food and some other products. Without fuel, Cubans rode imported Chinese bicycles, and vehicles were pulled by horses, mules, or oxen.

The government now encouraged investment from Western capitalist countries. Canada invested in the nickel industry; Canada and France invested in petroleum; Spain became the principal investor in building hotels for the tourism industry. By the late 1990s, international tourism replaced sugar as the country’s principal source of revenue, growing from 340,000 to over one million tourists per year.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, lack of oil was one of the biggest economic problems of Cuba. Then in 1999, Hugo Chavez, an admirer of Castro and the Cuban Revolution, became the president of Venezuela. In 2000, Chavez began to send about 100,000 barrels of oil per day to Cuba, about half of the country’s requirements, in exchange for Cuban doctors, teachers, sports coaches, and military and security officers. And Mexico continued to provide subsidized petroleum to Cuba. Those two nations made it possible for Cuba to continue to provide energy to homes and industry.

In 2008, Fidel Castro, in failing health, retired and was succeeded by his brother Raul. His succession insured the continuity of the leadership and the perpetuity of the system.

Trump, COVID-19, and the Crisis

When President Barack Obama eased restrictions on Cuba, the tourist sector boomed. In 2017, the best year for Cuban tourism, hard currency revenues reached $2.3 billion. But when Donald Trump was elected president in 2017, he reimposed economic restrictions, resulting in fewer American tourists, and with that Cuba’s tourist business and revenues began to decline.

Raul Castro, gave up the presidency in April 2018 and retired as first secretary of the Communist Party in April 2021. Miguel Díaz-Canel, chosen for his reliability, replaced him in both of those roles. For the first time in many decades, the Castros no longer ruled Cuba.

Then came COVID-19, and Cuba closed its borders to tourists from March to November 2021. Tourism, the country’s leading industry, practically disappeared, and the country entered a major economic crisis with power outages, food shortages, and a huge exodus of people. Over the last four years, one million of Cuba’s 11 million people have left the island nation.

Today, because of Trump, Cuba no longer receives oil from Mexico and Venezuela. Acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez agreed to work with Trump, and the United States largely took over the Venezuelan oil industry. Under enormous pressure from Trump, who has threatened higher tariffs, trade sanctions, and even the invasion of Mexico to crush its cartels, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has stopped shipping oil. Without fuel, Cuba’s powerplants can no longer provide electricity, and the country has often gone dark. The economy has ground to a halt. Without hard currency, Cuba has experienced critical shortages of food, medicine and had to turn to other countries for humanitarian aid. There is real suffering in Cuba today.

It’s difficult to accurately assess Cuba’s economic situation, in part because of the opaque military entity Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A. (GAESA) run by the Cuban military, which plays a huge role in the national economy. The Cuban public knows little about GAESA and neither did anyone else until a leak published in El Nuevo HeraldAn article in the Columbia Law Journal analyzed the data:

The GAESA conglomerate dominates the country’s most strategic and profitable economic sectors. Through its affiliate Gaviota (Grupo de Turismo Gaviota S.A.), it controls a large share of tourism; through affiliates CIMEX and TRD Caribe, retail and wholesale trade, respectively; and through RAFIN S.A. and the Banco Financiero Internacional (BFI), the Cuban financial system.

It also manages remittance businesses, logistics, and storage—including the Port of Mariel—while participating in construction, transportation, and foreign trade. In practice, it administers the country’s main foreign-currency flows, making it the most influential economic actor in Cuba.

GAESA’s gross profits on sales represent close to 37 percent of Cuba’s GDP, which means that more than one-third of the country’s total value added is generated within the military conglomerate.

GAESA, which functions practically as a state within the state, is run by Cuba’s top military leaders who are all Communists, and the public has never had any control over or even a voice in its affairs.

What Will Happen to Cuba?

If the current crisis continues or worsens, it could lead to more social protests or to increased crime and violence. Such a scenario would not be to the benefit of either the current Cuban rulers, the United States, or anyone else.

Given Cuba’s collapse, the Trump administration and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, son of Cuban immigrants, will see no need to militarily conquer the island. The prospect of the Cuban Communist state-party organizing a military resistance to U.S. conquest is unlikely given the economic collapse and recent anti-government protests. So, the future of Cuba revolves around what sort of negotiations and can and will be made.

Donald Trump has frequently said that the U.S. capture of Maduro and his replacement by the more amenable Delcy Rodríguez was a model operation. He erroneously thought he might do something similar when he launched his war on Iran. But such a scenario might well be possible in Cuba.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has talked about something similar:

Cuba needs to change. It needs to change. And it doesn’t have to change all at once. It doesn’t have to change from one day to the next. Everyone is mature and realistic here. And they need to make dramatic reforms. And if they want to make those dramatic reforms that open the space for both economic and eventually political freedom for the people of Cuba, obviously the United States would love to see that.

Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, grandson of former Cuban President Raúl Castro, appears to be Rubio’s current interlocutor in discussions about the island’s future. Known as Raulito, Little Raul, he has been seen lately in the company of Cuban President Díaz-Canel and is rumored to have been talking with Rubio. Raul Rodríguez Castro has both a military education and degrees in finance and accounting from the University of Havana. He rose through the army to the rank of colonel and became the head of the service that protects Cuba’s leaders. He does not have an important position in either the party or the government, though his father, General Luis Alberto Rodríguez López-Calleja, was the head of GAESA. The younger Castro, with his name, background, and connections, might be exactly the person that Rubio would want to head Cuba’s government during a transition to a capitalist state aligned with the United States.

Within the year, Cuba will likely have a new ruling group, perhaps evolving out of the current Communist leadership and perhaps including Cuban Americans from Miami. The transition to capitalism at the highest level would be relatively easy given that foreign capitalists already control much of the commanding heights of Cuban industry: the Spanish in hotels and tourism and the Canadians and French in minerals and petroleum. As in Soviet transition, the Communists in Cuba, such as those who run GAESA, could end up taking over state enterprises for themselves.

The Cuban economy will revive only slowly given its current state, and the country will for some time be dependent on foreign aid. Cubans will likely return to their country, but at what rate remains to be seen.

The United States, and the new Cuban government it creates, will at first dominate the political sphere. The Trump administration no doubt prefers to see Cuba run by a conservative, capitalist party. But history suggests that the Communist Party might survive and a democratic socialist labor party develop. Workers will fight to create independent labor unions with the right to strike and to negotiate contracts.

The Role of the Left Today

Neither American capitalism nor the U.S. government can offer Cubans what they need. An American capitalist system that exploits workers at home cannot liberate workers in Cuba. And the U.S. government, with its racist attitudes and its reactionary social policies, cannot lift up the Cuban people.

What about the U.S. left? The U.S. left never got the Cuban issue right. Understandably thrilled by the revolution and captivated by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, most leftists gave up their critical faculties and quickly became uncritical supporters of the Cuban Communist state. For more than 60 years, the left supported a state where the people had no democratic rights and workers had no right to unions of their own choosing.

It is time for the left to start anew by supporting the Cuban people and the Cuban working class in whatever new order develops. The left can start by opposing U.S. domination of Cuba, defending the Cuban peoples’ right to self-determination, and backing Cuban workers’ demands for economic security, democracy, civil rights, and labor rights. The left should side with a democratic Cuba and those within it who fight for democratic socialism.

Dan La Botz was a founding member of Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU). He is the author of Rank-and-File Rebellion: Teamsters for a Democratic Union (1991). He is also a co-editor of New Politics and editor of Mexican Labor News and Analysis.






It’s Going to Get a Lot Worse…

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

Last August, in a piece published on ZNet, I argued that Trump is a fascist, but more specifically, borrowing from the language of Sheldon Wolin, he is an “inverted fascist.” Inverted fascism, like the fascist regimes in Italy and Germany, is animated by a totalitarian drive, but puts corporate interests above those of the nation state. The Trump administration’s war on Iran is the most extreme manifestation of inverted fascism that we have seen yet.

Inverted fascism is more than simply a collection of policies that are repressive and in the interest of billionaires. It could be understood as a condition in which popular input, at every level, has been usurped by corporate power. This condition is marked by media concentration in the hands of a tiny group of conglomerates facilitated by FCC-authorized mergers; social media owned by right-wing billionaires; lobbyists, campaign donors, and corporate-backed think tanks determining policy; and underfunded schools, mass deportations, and militarized police.

But inverted fascism is also a global condition. In their report on 2025, the first year of Trump’s second term, Oxfam found that billionaire wealth around the world grew by more than 16%, reaching a record $18.3 trillion. This while right-wing governments around the world have taken up different versions of inverted fascism. Benjamin Netanyahu engages in brazen genocide in Gaza and land grabs in the West Bank and Lebanon while hollowing out Israel’s own social services. Narendra Modi oversees unprecedented inequality while forwarding his own Hindu nationalism.

This order, however, is fundamentally unstable as made evident by the inability of the Trump administration to pry open the Strait of Hormuz, the reverberating economic consequences of the war, Iran’s remarkable success in its assault on US and Israeli targets in the region, and the reluctance of US allies toward participating. This war marks a major step in the decline of US hegemony. As that decline unfolds, the brazenness of the violence of capitalism becomes increasingly evident. The assault began with the bombing of a girls’ school that killed over 150, the vast majority of whom were between the ages of eight and twelve.

Decline has been a reality for US global hegemony since it reached its peak following WWII. In 1949, the Chinese Revolution succeeded despite billions in US aid to the Kuomintang nationalists and tens of thousands of marines working alongside Japanese imperialists endeavoring to defeat the Red Army. One letter from US ambassador to China, John Leighton Stuart, to the secretary of state relayed, “Killing, assaulting of peaceful Chinese civilians and raping of Chinese women and robbing of Chinese shops by American forces in China. One United States Marine in Tientsin had thrown 9 year old Chinese girl into river [sic].”

This was referred to by critics of the Truman administration as the “loss of China.” Over the course of the twentieth century, the US would “lose” Korea north of the 38th parallel despite 350,000 tons of US bombs; Vietnam, despite a war that killed four million people across three countries; and Cuba, responded to with vicious US-sponsored terrorism and a blockade that continues to suffocate the Cuban economy. In fact, Trump said recently, “Cuba’s a mess, it’s a failing country, and they’re going to be next.”

Notably, the US “lost” Iran in 1979, when the deeply repressive Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, was overthrown. He had been installed following a 1953 coup, organized with millions of dollars by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of Teddy Roosevelt. The coup overthrew the democratically-elected prime minister Mohammad Mosadegh, who in 1951, had nationalized Iranian oil. In 1954, Pahlavi signed the Consortium Agreement, turning over Iran’s oil industry to US, British, and French oil companies. The Shah, with hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment and services from the US military and CIA, ruled brutally. According to one testimony recorded by Amnesty International, summing up the experience of prisoners at the hands of the Shah’s secret police,

First he is beaten by several torturers at once, with sticks and clubs. If he doesn’t confess, he is hanged upside down and beaten; if this doesn’t work, he is (homosexually) raped; if he still shows signs of resistance, he is given electric shock which turns him into a howling dog; if he is still obstinate, his nails and sometimes all his teeth are pulled out.

Early on, the Trump administration signaled that this war would be in line with the legacy of US foreign policy, floating that Pahlavi’s son should be installed to lead an interim government. This expansive policy, flying in the face of his own “America First” rhetoric, is firmly in line with neoconservatism, which long identified Iran as part of an “Axis of Evil.” When Marco Rubio, for example, was running for president in 2016, he took on the campaign slogan “A New American Century,” borrowed from the neoconservative think tank the Project for a New American Century, founded in 1997 by Robert Kagan and William Kristol. As Kagan and Kristol wrote, “American hegemony is the only reliable defense against a breakdown of peace and international order. The appropriate goal of American foreign policy, therefore, is to preserve that hegemony as far into the future as possible.”

The December after 9/11, Dick Cheney claimed there were “forty or fifty countries” that potentially needed “military disciplining.” This would ultimately mark the beginning of the end for US hegemony. As journalist Eric Margolis has noted, Osama bin Laden “repeatedly asserted that the only way to drive the US from the Muslim world and defeat its satraps was by drawing Americans into a series of small but expensive wars that would ultimately bankrupt them.” Costs of War would report that twenty years of the War on Terror wrought a price tag of $8 trillion.

At the same time, the US had already begun to switch from, in the words of historian Charles Maier, an “empire of production” to an “empire of consumption,” visible in the way in which by the end of the twentieth century, the US had “the lowest household savings rates of any advanced economy; it ran a persistent federal budget deficit, except for the late 1990s,” the US deficit making up “nearly 6 percent of GDP and 15 percent of total foreign trade” by 2004. In this time, free trade agreements had gutted US manufacturing, transforming the Steel Belt into the Rust Belt and plummeting union membership. In the process, large tax cuts were passed for the rich while the social safety net was gutted and the externalities of this arrangement were responded to by fierce state repression like the War on Drugs, the militarization of the southern border, and the crack downs on civil liberties.

Inverted fascism has only accelerated this decline, doing so with little regard for democratic norms. The assault on Iran began with hardly any public relations, virtually no coalition building, and without congressional approval as is required by the constitution. While polling done at the times of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan showed majoritarian support, inverted fascism clearly lacks a popular mandate. One Reuters/Ipsos poll found only one in four Americans approved of US strikes on Iran. While Rubio has articulated the war in moral terms, saying, “Imagine an Iran that, instead of spending their wealth, billions of dollars, supporting terrorists or weapons, had spent that money helping the people of Iran,” almost immediately after, Trump revealed the inverted fascist agenda: “We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of daycare.”

We are witnessing the pushing of the limits of inverted fascism, operating outside of any sense of international or domestic law or mandate, serving the interests of a collection of oil magnates, multinational corporations, and the military industrial complex. The privations of permanent war are meant as a condition of the Trump administration’s inverted fascist project, unfolding while the US spends over one billion dollars a day on the war machine. Massive state power and resources will be used to benefit billionaires and corporations while a harsh late capitalist reality exists for those in the US whose standard of living has been declining for decades.

This is an order Rubio has long endorsed. During Trump’s first term, over 100,000 people were killed by gun violence, an increasing number of them in mass shootings like the one in 2018 that killed fourteen students and three staff members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. After the shooting, CNN held a townhall with several politicians, including Rubio, then a senator from Florida. When asked if he planned on continuing to take money from the NRA, Rubio responded “The influence of these groups comes not from money. The influence comes from the millions of people that agree with the agenda.” Even so, in 2013, 2015, and 2016, Rubio opposed efforts to strengthen background checks. But, according to a poll done by Public Policy Polling, 70% of registered voters in Florida either believed Rubio supported background checks or weren’t sure what his position was. So, who’s really in the drivers’ seat for policy?

Chris Hedges has identified that the fact that the democratic process is in the hands of an economic elite and the public has virtually no influence over its own lives, means that our society is lacking “one of the primary social bonds in a democratic state…the vital shared belief that citizens have the power to govern themselves, that government exists to promote and protect their rights and interests.” Without bonds like these, societies are prone to “anomie,” a word Hedges borrows from sociologist Emile Durkheim, defined as a state of hopelessness and despair.

Resulting from this anomie, is a sort of nihilism that explains rising suicide rates, the opioid epidemic, and mass shootings. This is the sort of deterioration of late-stage capitalism that the Trump administration is accelerating. The fall of US hegemony, the devastation wrought in Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza, and the perpetual economic crisis of living in the empire of consumption point toward a harsh reality of deterioration. Inverted fascism will only accelerate this decline. Its going to get a lot worse.Email

Ethan Bochicchio is an activist in Los Angeles, with nearly a decade of experience volunteering in refugee camps in Europe and the Middle East, protesting, documenting, and partaking in mutual aid. His video series Countdown to Catastrophe can be found on YouTube.