Trumpism, Mamdani and the revolutionary party we need

By Paul Le Blanc

Published 13 June, 2026

Anthony Teso has written a critique of my recent text on the situation in the United States. I will restrict my response to a few points.

Teso notes there is much common ground on how we view Donald Trump and Trumpism. There are also, of course, salient differences:

• My focus was on providing a quick descriptive sketch (initially for a non-US audience) — which Teso largely accepts — discussing Trump and Trumpism, and outlining aspects of popular resistance to both.
• Teso focused on presenting a specific theoretical perspective on the “state form” of Trumpism (something he tags as “patrimonial Bonapartism”), which he feels provides a more adequate position on the resistance to Trumpism than the one I provide. In particular, he seems dissatisfied with (1) my “inventory of protests” (which fails to pose “the organization problem … concretely”), and (2) my positive evaluation of the meaning of the Zohran Mamdani campaign in New York City (an evaluation he critically characterises as “celebrating Mamdani”).

Teso concludes: “Socialist analysis must identify both the structure it faces and the organization capable of acting on that knowledge...”

Limits of my presentation

The purpose of my presentation to German audiences (which the editors of LINKS and Communis titled “Defining Trumpism, defeating Trump”) was far more limited than Teso assumes. It was certainly meant to be more descriptive than theoretical. I am gratified that my critic finds little fault with the description, which he tells us provides useful raw material for his own theorising.

My presentation was meant to be part of a collective process (which includes Teso, myself and many others) of trying to make sense of “what is.” There are various questions I do not pretend to answer — including what should be the finished theoretical characterisation of Trumpism.

‘State form’ structure

In contrast, Teso seems satisfied he can provide such a characterisation, drawing from Karl Marx, Nicos Poulantzas and Max Weber. The result is the conceptualisation of “a patrimonial Bonapartism regime.” I find this theoretical venture quite interesting, but I am not confident I fully understand its meaning.

In particular, it is not clear to me that this conceptual contribution actually transforms my descriptive “inventory” into “a coherent explanation.” Nor am I convinced that it actually provides the strategic, tactical and organisational clarity Teso seeks. This is not meant to dismiss his theorising, but rather to view his theorising as part of a collective process yet to run its course.

Revolutionary party

Teso refers to “the organization capable of acting” on theoretical clarifications, which, of course, is the revolutionary party. Teso would surely agree, however, that we are far from such a party. While he offers nothing that would somehow bring this necessary entity into being, he criticises my presentation for offering nothing but, at best, vague generalities on this vital question.

The fact that this question is central to my thinking (and in my presentation should be understood as being assumed) finds corroboration in much that I have written over the years — including this year, for example, in “Lenin and Today’s Socialist Struggle in the United States.”

Pointing to the Communist International in Vladimir Lenin’s time, I noted that revolutionary activists were animated by aspirations relevant to our own time:

1. The deepening of democracy and the expansion of socialist consciousness;

2. The realisation of working-class capacities for mass action and united fronts;

3. The combined advance of winning life-giving reforms and of revolutionary liberation.

This led to the next point:

It makes sense for revolutionary socialists in the United States … to be actively engaged … in efforts to build class-conscious struggles of the actual, diverse working class in the United States — through mass movements and united front coalitions — geared to win victories beneficial to the working class and all oppressed people. … This should involve a blend of mass actions, socialist agitation and education, and socialist electoral work that will guide the efforts of an evolving network of revolutionary collectives stretching throughout our country.

On Mamdani

This ties in with Teso’s objections to my comments on Mamdani. These comments are grounded in the perspectives of a revolutionary socialist organisation to which Teso and I belong, Solidarity. Specifically, there is the October 2 statement, “The Zohran Mamdani Campaign: Solidarity with the Movement & Critical Notes on the Future”, and the December 2 statement, “The Struggle Continues…”.

The December 2 statement asserts:

A definite high point has been Zohran Mamdani’s victorious mayoral campaign in New York City, with a program that begins to speak to the needs of the great majority of people in a city they helped build but that has become increasingly unaffordable for them…

Revolutionary socialists — including members and supporters of Solidarity, as well as currents we are close to — should wholeheartedly support this victory and join with like-minded activists in and around DSA [Democratic Socialists of America], whose continued organizing will be absolutely essential to advancing the progressive and affordability agenda embodied in Mamdani’s electoral campaign.

Such activism — with positive and negative lessons learned — provides the basis for a mass socialist consciousness and movement, a precondition for the crystallisation of the revolutionary party we need. Or so it seems to me.