Trumpism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism?
Photograph Source: The White House – Public Domain
Trump’s tariffs and war on free trade signal the end of an experiment in globalism that began in the 1990s with NAFTA and the breakup of the Soviet Union. Yet the question is whether this is a new stage for capitalism, or a futile or reactionary effort to turn back the clock on the global economy?
Over time, Marxists have preoccupied themselves with the problem of historical stages. When Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, he envisioned capitalism teetering on the brink of collapse. The revolution, he believed, was imminent. Yet, capitalism persisted—evolving, adapting, and resisting its demise.
By the late 19th century, figures like Edward Bernstein and Rosa Luxemburg reignited the debate. Was capitalism nearing its end, or did it possess an infinite capacity to manage and survive the crisis? Their arguments revolved around the same fundamental question: What stage of capitalism were we in?
Then, in 1917, Vladimir Lenin authored Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. He contended that capitalism had entered a new phase—one no longer centered on industrial production but dominated by finance capital. This stage saw banks take center stage, colonial empires expand, and great powers battle for global influence and economic gain at the expense of others.
Lenin’s work is over a century old. Have we since moved beyond imperialism? The answer is, arguably, yes. By the 1990s, the global economy had shifted once again—from imperialism to globalism.
This new globalism retained the centrality of finance capital but reshaped its landscape. As New York Times writer Thomas Friedman described it, the world had become “flat.” National boundaries were eroded, and economies increasingly integrated across borders. It was a post-national, hyper-connected global system.
However, globalism faced shocks. The 2008 financial crisis, the Syrian refugee crisis that began in 2011, and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019 exposed its vulnerabilities. These events prompted calls to slow financial mobility and reassert national boundaries. Globalism did not die, but it restructured.
Now, with the emergence of artificial intelligence, globalism—or post-globalism—stands on the cusp of another transformation. Technological change threatens to redefine borders, labor, and capital in unprecedented ways. Yet into this moment steps Donald Trump.
Trump, in many ways, seeks to turn back the clock. He rejects the globalism of the last thirty years and promotes a nationalist economic vision. His agenda revives great power politics, the assertion of economic spheres of influence, and the use of American financial power to advance domestic interests.
This vision mirrors, in part, the imperialism Lenin described. Trumpism aims to dismantle elements of globalism and restore earlier capitalist logics with the US at the center of international capitalism. But can one truly undo the structures of global integration? Moreover, can the US remain a dominant economic force if it retreats away from the global economy?
Does Trumpism represent yet another stage of capitalism? Is this a new effort being undertaken to restructure the global economy from a nationalist perspective in a world where physical borders are being erased and replaced by digital ones? Or is this simply a simplistic revanchism to return the US to a global economic position that simply does not exist anymore?
To End Trumpism: A Tale of Three Reactions
magine you are about to crack open a new book and begin reading. The opening sentence goes like this: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”
You might think “worst” refers to the now on-going Trumpian fascistic makeover of government, economy, culture, health, education, and indeed all of U.S. society and beyond. Goodbye empathy. And you might think “best” refers to students, workers, moms, dads, daughters, and sons assembling to instead win a fundamentally better future. Hello solidarity. But Charles Dickens actually wrote the quoted sentence nearly 170 years ago to begin his “A Tale of Two Cities.” Please forgive that I have shamelessly adapted Dickens’ title to become “Trumpism: A Tale of Three Reactions.”
Consider reaction one, passive accommodation. Many millions of people who Trump disturbs, worries, sickens, or even enrages nonetheless remain quiescent. They ignore unravelling social ties. They deny impending social suicide. They accommodate. Why?
I would wager that two long-nurtured beliefs fuel people’s resignation. One: you can’t fight city hall and win. Two: even if you do fight and win, what you implement will lead right back to the vile conditions you sought to overthrow. Yes, fear undoubtedly also propels people to accommodate. We bow to avoid Trump’s cruel wrath. And yes, exhaustion or even eyes on only self likely play a part. We must go where it is quiet. But despite these latter possibilities, I think accommodation isn’t mostly people being scared, lazy, or uncaring. I think accommodationists mostly feel that to fight Trump is a fool’s errand. They believe we will lose big time, and more, if we did win our victory would just reinstall yesterday’s horrors. Accommodationists feel “doom is our destiny.”
When the dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of lawyers in a big firm including the young ones who still have social ties and progressive feelings are told by their groveling “partner” bosses to obey cuts and restraints and acquiesce to Trumpian dictates, and they say, okay, yes boss, and lawyer on, what is that? It is passive accommodation. It is individuals seeking individual survival without even contemplating another path. We can understand, but why don’t they resist? Does it even occur to accommodationists to try?
The same holds for universities. When groveling Trustees tell faculty and students they must surrender to Trump and in response most faculty and some students say, okay, yes boss, and return to class, what is that? It is again passive accommodation. It is individuals seeking individual survival. It is individuals not even noticing their potential collective power. This too is understandable, but why don’t they resist?
What leads to accommodation? Protect myself, my future, my job, and my family? Okay, I can do that. Fight against Trump and my own immediate groveling boss, fight against just my own circumstances, much less fight to achieve a better world? No way. I can’t do that. I surrender.
For activists to ask working people to push endlessly on what they quite reasonably see as a revolving door will move few if any working people to resist. To go back to Bidenism will not inspire workers’ involvement. In contrast, to communicate positive intent and long-term strategy can inspire involvement. This is simple. For people who rightly mistrust institutions to decide to sustainably resist Trump, they need reasoned hope. They need positive achievable aims. It follows that if are to overcome accommodation, we need to address peoples’ hesitancy. We need to offer more than defensiveness.
But what about reaction two, active collaboration? What constitutes collaboration and what does overcoming collaboration require from us? To be collaborationist is to knowingly support Trump. Active collaboration doesn’t merely advocate confused choices that impose unanticipated collateral damage. Active collaboration sees fascism around the corner and celebrates its presence or at least knowingly enables it. Active collaboration is Trump’s billionaires. It is not head in the sand denial. It is eyes wide open support. So watch the list of collaborationist college Trustees grow well beyond Columbia University. Watch the list of collaborationist law Partners encompass nearly all the biggest firms. Watch cowering politicians genuflect. Watch some union presidents reject strikes. Collaboration is vile, but it is not one size fits all.
Some collaborators are deeply racist, misogynist, nationalist, and/or corporatist. They are personally Trump-like. Some collaborators are personally less or barely even at all that. But despite their differences, do collaborators have commonalities other than moral decrepitude? I think maybe they do. Collaborators lack empathy. Collaborators may not overtly rush to sadistically crush everyone who Trump targets, but collaborators do seem to have near zero sincere fellow-feeling for the targeted. Indeed, collaborators appear to have near zero empathy for anyone other than themselves and in some cases their families, or perhaps even a small circle of friends. They have zero sense of hypocrisy even as they rail at characteristics that they themselves exhibit in the extreme. Collaborators want all for one where the one is themselves.
Do collaborators bow to Trump out of devotion or do they bow out of abject fear? When a college’s Trustees or a law firm’s Partners or your state’s politicians hear Trump’s orders and comply while they know the horrific implications for others, they help Trump. Whether they are a profile in cowardice or a profile in greed, either way, they collaborate. To then obey their choice is to accommodate.
To be principled, doesn’t our resistance need to address active collaboration quite differently than we address confused or denialist hopelessness? While we energetically reach out to listen to and talk with the currently accommodationist population, and even with the horribly misinformed disoriented and highly hostile population, we need to unstintingly militantly oppose knowing collaborationists.
So what about reaction three, resistance? What is it? How does it win? Resistance doesn’t gleefully, cowardly, or knowingly aid Trump, nor does resistance merely privately dislike or even hate Trump. Resistance doesn’t delude itself that Trump isn’t utterly horrendous and socially suicidal. Resistance doesn’t deny the excruciating pain the recently born and the as yet unborn may suffer if sacrificed to Trumpism. Resistance knows that Trump’s full success would herald a blindingly dark and infinitely dystopian future. So resistance actively fights Trump. Resistance enlists others to actively fight Trump. Resistance includes anything anyone can do that will help stop Trump.
But here is the main thing about resistance. It has to win. Resistance is not mainly about feeling good or looking good, though it helps if one does feel fine and feeling good may even be necessary for sustainability. Resistance is not mainly about being brave and steadfast, though that too helps and courage may even be necessary for effectivity. Resistance is also not mainly about seeking and finding truths, though again that helps and is, indeed, honest accuracy is necessary for worthiness. Most difficult to manifest, resistance is not only about narrowly aiding self but is also about collectively aiding others. Our battle is zero sum. It will take time. But if in the end we don’t win, Trump wins. If in the end we don’t win we lose and that is unacceptable. But how do we win?
Before trying to answer, I should admit that I feel this message echos commentary that appears all over alternative and even to an extent mainstream media. This message is redundant of my own and other’s past formulations and yet it simultaneously seems to me that the points need repetition. I know you have often heard messages like this, as have I, but I also know that to stay on course I need to keep hearing/reading the call to resist. How about you?
It is excellent that sensible stuff is said and written, heard and read. And that is certainly happening. It is another thing for the sensible stuff to percolate far into our brains and emotions to thereafter guide our choices. We have to deeply register and not deny the sensible stuff. We have to deeply remember and not forget the sensible stuff. The real bottom line is that Trumpian darkness could last lifetimes unless we bring on a new dawn. This is not false news. It isn’t even exaggeration. But still, these worst of times can become the best of times. What kind and what scope of resistance can make that happen?
Resistance will grow if it reaches out to successfully overcome feelings of hopelessness and despair, feelings of impossibility, and feelings of futility. To do that, resistance must envision positive gains as well as ward off horrible ills. It must chart paths to success.
Growing resistance will in turn win if it raises sufficient costs to elites that they have to give up their agendas to avoid losing more than they would gain by continuing to pursue their agendas. Trump and Co. are amoral. They can’t even comprehend appeals to care for others. Trump and Co. understand only power and wealth. To grow and inspire enough commitment to win, resistance must make demands and use words and deeds that awaken desires for much more than survival. It must conceive, communicate, and seek positive program. To beat Trump and Co. it must threaten their power and wealth. Trump and Co. will comprehend that.
Yes, the rich and powerful profiteers and supremacists will manipulate, deceive, bait and switch, overload, and repress even more than they have done so far. That is their societal role. But if we are intent and strategic that won’t stop us. The bigger obstacle to beating Trump and then advancing toward fundamental change resides within ourselves. It is self denigrating baggage that we carry. It is crippling doubts that we harbor. It is tendencies to nitpick, undermine, and even assault one another. It is an inclination to go it alone for self rather than to u work together for all. Society’s pliers bend our minds and wills. But we can bend back. The truth is that these times are even worse than they appear. Yet these times are also better than the best we intuit. We just have to seize them.
When teachers seek not only better pay and conditions for themselves but also better education and inspiring care for the children and communities they serve, that is part of a winning path. When nurses seek not only better pay and conditions for themselves but also better and free health care and healthier conditions for all, that is part of a winning path. When workers in any industry seek better pay and conditions for themselves but also unite with other workers and surrounding communities to aid them too, that is part of a winning path. When students seek protections and improvements on campus but also to defend targeted communities off campus, that is part of a winning path. When women seek control of their own bodies and lives but also support others who seek health, dignity, and well being, that is part of a winning path. When minorities seek room to breathe and equity for themselves but also for all others who are disenfranchised and denied, that is part of a winning path. And yes when all too few politicians seek to name Trump what he is and to rail at him but also to build sustainable organization and positive program, that too is part of a winning path. Health care for all. Excellent free education for all. A higher minimum wage and shorter work week without loss of income for all. A more progressive income tax for all. A wealth tax for the exploiters. A rebuilt industrial base with dignified work to sustainably provide needed products and living incomes for all. Internationalist solidarity for all. And finally, of course, a massive program to save the planet from ecological nightmares for all. And yes, Doge-like thinking could have one legitimate target. The military.
You get the idea. To beat Trump and to reach a better America and world we need to have projects, organizations, and selves that empathize with and work to assist every person who suffers injustice. We need to collectively seek positive program that inspires and empowers. But what does “seek” mean? How do we “seek” successfully?
Partly we evidence and inspire growing numbers by displaying mass turnouts at marches, rallies, and town halls too. Partly we evidence growing militance and commitment by proliferating and escalating civil disobedience via encampments, blockades, sanctuaries, occupations, and, perhaps most critically, strikes. Imagine employees of gutted government departments and firms not rushing out the door to seek private income elsewhere but binding themselves to their desks to collectively overcome injustice right where they are. Imagine teachers at every level teaching truths as they know them, openly, in every classroom and even in the evenings to community residents. Imagine mutual aid, collective defense, and especially widespread collective disobedience all demanding positive gains. Imagine all that…it’s easy if you try.
Yes, lawsuits can help resistance but lawsuits alone will not win. Entreaties to obey law quite like entreaties to be moral are an activist currency that Trump and his collaborators literally cannot comprehend. If teachers, nurses, workers in factories and warehouses, workers driving trucks and producing them, students, women, and oppressed cultural communities wait on the generosity of elites to abide law, much less to display morality, we won’t win. Resistance must force compliance by raising threats to power and to wealth that elites fear. That can inspire. That can win. We can’t do it overnight. It takes organizing. But we can do it, if we try.
Can I please add a last point? One of the deadly obstacles to our success is for us to feel we can’t keep up with all Trump’s horrible announcements. We are buried in bad news. We can’t have sound opinions about all of it. We manage to get a tentative grip on one issue and suddenly that issue disappears. Something else demands attention. It is too damn much. We can’t keep up. We are shocked and awed. Where is my pillow to rest my aching head?
I think there is a cure for shock and awe that is meant to bulldoze us into passivity. We don’t each need to become expert on each and every idiotic Trumpian policy threat. On that front, we only each need to oppose Trumpist fascism in all its manifestations. Put differently, for every new manifestation that Trump launches there is one key recognition. What Trump unleashes is never an attempt to solve a problem on behalf of a suffering constituency. It is always instead part of Trump’s plan to remold society in his own image. The economy is indeed sick but Trump’s bullying tariffs aren’t a solution. Immigration indeed has real flaws, but Trump’s disgusting deportations are not a solution. Government agencies are often very far from wonderful but Trump’s gutting them to then privatize them is not a solution. Education and health care are very often utterly misdirected but for Trump to orient them further toward stifling students and profiting off illness is no solution. Trump’s policies don’t aim to solve problems but only to serve wealth and power in all its varied forms. We don’t have to become expert in every last idiotic, insane, cruel, Trump-serving, elite-serving, billionaire-serving nuance of each day’s new Trumpist Tweets. We instead need to understand our overarching situation which is actually sadly quite simple. We must understand that Trump’s agenda augurs hell. And then, ideally, also, the place where we really ought to stretch our minds, is that we should imagine, refine, and pursue that which we together collectively positively seek. A truly better world.
