PUTIN'S BRAIN

The Russian Wolf Speaks: Alexander Dugin

and the Fourth Political Theory

by Bruce Lerro / December 13th, 2025

LONG READ

Rise of the populist right
In two previous articles I pointed out that the 18th century political spectrum makes no sense in the world today and it hasn’t made sense for at least the past 10 years. Today the leading forces against global monopoly and finance capital in the West are coming from the right wing of the political spectrum, not the left. Those who stand against the Anglo-American imperialism:

• defend the sovereignty of the nation-state;
• are not hostile to BRICS and the multipolar world and
• defend national borders against immigration and refugees implying opposition to global capitalism market for cheap labor.

Alain de Benoist, one of the heads of the European new right, writes that the periphery against the center is a better distinction than left vs right.

Amazon’s censorship of Dugin’s books courtesy of the CIA
Two and a half years ago I read an article by Max Parry in the Greanville Post called Alexander Dugin and the Origins of the ‘Red-Brown Alliance’ Myth. In it, Parry defended Dugin, professor of sociology and geopolitics at Lermontov University in Moscow against charges of being a fascist.  Parry says that Amazon, with a 600-million-dollar contract with the CIA, has refused to sell any of his works while giving free reign to his critics. Two months ago, I tried ordering Dugin’s books through Amazon and sure enough I could not find any of his books. Fortunately, I was able to find three of them on Alibris Books. When we published Parry’s article on our website, Socialist Planning Beyond Capitalism we were met with responses which consisted of dire warning by leftists that Dugin was a fascist. The intention of this article is to describe how Dugin is far from being a fascist. There are important differences between a traditional conservative (Dugin) and fascism.

Motives and  Qualifications.
My interest in Dugin lies in his desire for at some kind of left right alliance. As you will see in my article Dugin is an anti-capitalist conservative, nothing like the libertarian right in the United States. Also, it is important to develop theories of what a multipolar political world will look like. BRICS has an economicpractice but to my knowledge there is no self-conscious political counterpart. Dugin’s work with its cultural relativism, might be a contribution to a multipolar political theory from the Russian side. By way of qualification this article is only a review of The Fourth Political Theory. I have not read any of his other works.

The Triumph of Liberalism
Dugin claims that “traditions” including religion, hierarchy, family and its values were overthrown at the dawn of modernity. What Dugin says we have left are:

• the death of god (Nietzsche)—replaced by man;
• disenchantment of the world (Weber) – philosophy and science replaced religion, and
• end of the sacred and the place of revelation as it is overtaken by the liberal rationalization of religion.

Dugin begins by contending that by the end of the 20^th century liberalism’s opponents –  conservativism, monarchism, traditionalism, fascism, socialism and communism – had all been defeated. Fascism emerged later than the other major political theories and vanished before them. Socialism and fascism positioned themselves as contenders for the soul of modernity and failed. Liberalism is the main enemy of the Fourth political theory. Dugan claims it is the forces of “freedom”, the forces of the market which have lead humanity along the path of degeneration. He wants to pull the roots of liberal evil out of the structure of the modern world.

Overview of the Fourth Political Theory and Multipolarity
In his book, the Fourth Political Theory Dugin defends traditional conservativism against three political theories he opposes liberalism (capitalism),  communism, and fascism.

Ideology	What is Included	Major Unit of Analysis
Liberalism	Both left liberalism and neoliberalism	Individual
Communism	Marxism (Leninism) social democracy	Social class
Fascism	Nazis (Germany)	Race
	Mussolini (Italy)	The state

Dugin is no ordinary conservative and makes significant distinction between liberal pro-capitalist conservatives of the West and his own. While critical of communism, his brand of conservatism is nothing like the liberal anti-communism of the West. Dugin says we need to unite the value center of the right and the labor-centered left to fortify the resistance against the Western Empire. In the process he wants to unite National Bolshevism  and Eurasianism which came close to his 4th political theory. The National Bolshevik Party emerged in Russia in 1992 shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Dugin led it. He soon left the party to start his own, National Bolshevik Front. The original NBP has been banned by the Russian government. Does this sound like a fascist to you? What fascist author would use Situationist Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle as a reference?

The Fourth Political Theory and Resistance to the Status Quo of Liberalism includes the following:

•          Against globalism
•          Against post modernity
•         Against end of history
•          Against neoclassical “laws” of economics
•         Against the universal morality of “human rights”
•         Against  postindustrial society and its abandonment of industrial production

Dugin defends a Eurasian multipolar world against the Atlanticist West. He says the Russian population had almost entirely rejected the liberal ideology of the 1990s. How is Eurasian multipolar world to be achieved? By preserving the geopolitical sovereignty of the powers of the Eurasian continent Russia, China, Iran and India who he says safeguard the freedoms of other peoples on the planet. The inertia of liberal politics is such that a change of course is impossible to save the West. The Fourth Political Theory insists upon a multipolar world instead of universalism.

What is Liberalism?
Freedom from
For liberals all forms of collective identity – ethnic, national, religious, caste or class impede the individual’s awareness of individuality. John Stuart Mill was interested in “freedom from”, not “freedom for”. “Freedom from” includes:

• government and its control over the economy, politics and civil society;
• churches and their dogma;
• stratification systems;
• responsibility for the economy;
• any attempts to redistribute whether it be government or social institutions the results of material or non-material labor. For example, “social justice” is deeply immoral
• ethnic attachments and
• any collective identity whatsoever – even the family. The family is a contractual agreement

For liberals Freedom is synonymous with liberty. As for “freedom to”, here liberals have nothing to say. This is a question of private choice which is not discussed and has no political or ideological value. Locke is the most important philosopher of liberalism.

Ontological and epistemological foundations of liberalism
Besides freedom from, liberalism in the West is constituted by the following qualities:

• the understanding of the individualism as the measure of all things;
• belief in the sacred character of private property;
• equality of opportunity as the moral law of society;
• belief in the contractual basis of all sociopolitical institutions including government;
• the abolition of any governmental, religious and social authorities who lay claim to a common truth;
• the separation of powers and the making of social systems of control over any governmental institution whatsoever;
• the creation of a civil society without races, peoples or religion in places of traditional governments;
• the dominance of the market relations over other forms of economics;
• certainty that the historical path as progress as a  universal model of development
• linear sense of time. the present better than the past; the future better than the present and
• the nation-state, founded on the basis of an imaginary contractual agreement as the only recognized political unit (as opposed to kingdoms, providences, principalities or city-states) These European nations kicked religion, ethnic identity or classes to the curb believing them to be remnants of the dark ages.

The question of how to relate to socialists and leftists reached its more difficult moments for liberals in the 1920s and 1930s. Left liberals like FDR wanted more state intervention to keep the capitalist economy from crises. Unlike left-liberals, right-wing liberals like Von Hayek and von Mises said liberalism is not a transition from feudalism to socialism but rather an ideology that is complete in itself, holding an exclusive monopoly over the heritage of The Enlightenment. Right-wing liberals saw Marxism as a regressive return of the feudal epoch of eschatological uprisings.

Dugin points out that liberalism is hardly a visionary ideology. In fact, it never gets beyond Darwinism. Liberal ideology is a complete animal discourse. Instead of moving beyond survival of the fittest, it allows increasingly varieties of opportunities for the strong to assert their power so that capitalists are no more than king of beasts. Globalization is the new battlefield for the struggle for survival

Criticism of Liberal Progress as Irreversibility is a Monstrous Process
One of the greatest weaknesses of liberals is in what Dugin calls its “monotonic” processes. Monotonic processes are the ideal of constant growth, accumulation which proceed in one direction without cyclic fluctuations or oscillations. Gregory Bateson points this problem out in his book, Mind In Nature. Bateson says the characteristics of monotonic ideology of the West do not apply in biology, mechanical systems or in society. In biology such a process destroys species, produces deviants, giants or dwarfs and cannot produce offspring. In mechanical systems Bateson says it causes systems to explode. He points out:

The most important problem in developing the steam engine is the centrifugal governor. When the steam engine reaches cruising speed, it is necessary to regulate the intake of fuel. Otherwise, everything begins to resonate and the speed of the engine will cause it to explode. This was the major problem in the earliest stages of industrialization.

Within society Marcel Mauss in 1872 criticized the monotonic process as well.
In the book he co-authored, Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function and in The Gift, he described how traditional societies paid great attention to the ritual destruction or sacrifice of surplus goods. The surplus was seen as excessive usury and the essence of  evil. Surplus crops were seen as disastrous. The community either organized a feast or gave it to the gods as a form of sacrifice or to the needy.

Russian historian Lev Gumilev had a cyclical theory of history which he explained with his famous theory of passionarity. He acknowledged there was development, but there is also decline. Gumilev saw passionarity as the level of vitality within a given ethnic group or civilization, a type of energy that would gradually increase, reaching a peak in which the group would reach its greatest achievements followed by a slow ebb. The Fourth Political Theory argues that history can be reversed. Socialism could turn into capitalism, into feudalism, into slave societies and back into primitive communism. Yet the Fourth Political Theory is not an invitation to a return of traditional society. It is not conservativism in a traditional sense.

Marxism’s criticism of liberals:

• denied the identification of the individual from collective and class nature;
• recognition of the unjust system of appropriation of surplus value by capitalists in the process of a market economy;
• recognition that freedom from of bourgeois society is a veiled form of class supremacy, masking under new clothes the mechanisms of exploitation, alienation and oppression;
• called for a proletarian revolution and the abolition of the market and private property
• aimed at the social collectivization of property;
• freedom to is creative labor as the social freedom of communist future and
• criticized bourgeois nationalism as a form of collective violence over the poorest layers of society and an instrument of international aggression in the name of the egoistic interests of the national bourgeoise.

What is Fascism?
In fascism everything is based on the right-wing version of Hegel since Hegel himself considered the Prussian state to be peak of historical development. Giovanni Gentile was an Italian philosopher and a proponent of Hegelianism applied this concept of “actual idealism” to fascist Italy. He developed what he called “actual idealism”. Here individual life only gains meaning in relation to the state. He was a staunch fascist from 1922 until his death at the hands of antifascists. He was regarded the official philosopher of Italian fascism. In German National Socialism, the historical subject is the Aryan race which according to racists and carries out the eternal struggle against the subhuman races.

The Field of the Contemporary Socialists
Dugin states that the break-up of the Soviet Union combined with the inability of European Marxism to produce any heads of state or even meaningful political parties were nails in the coffin for this communist ideology. However, there are aspects of communism that are worth preserving. Leftist political philosophy was a fundamental, general and systematic criticism of liberal capitalism. They provided critical observations concerning the capitalist system, its reification and exploitation. It has moral views and shows solidarity with the unfortunate along with deep criticism of liberalism, as we saw above. These views can arouse definite interest and sympathy. However, after Stalin, in the middle of the 20th century there arose a  systematic critique of Leninism: from the Right the work of Von Hayek and the Austrian School of economics; from Cold War liberals Karl Popper in England and Raymond Aron in France. From the left Leninism was criticized by the social democratic Frankfort School which attempted to mix Marx and Freud.

Dugin names three varieties of socialist Ideology:

• The Old Left  (French)
• Left nationalists (National Communists, National Bolsheviks)
• New Left – appeared in the 1950s and 1960s
• Postmodernists –1990s

The Old Left is now divided into at least four orientations:

• Orthodox Marxists (Leninists)
• Social Democrats (originating with Kautsky)
• Third way of Anthony Giddens which combines liberalism and social democracy
• European orthodox Marxists

They are often all embodied in the Communist Party which in some cases is capable of functioning as an umbrella organization.

European Social Democracy (Kautsky) is usually for a progressive income tax or flat tax, the nationalization of large monopolies, the broadening of government responsibilities in the social sector, free medicine, education, generous and guaranteed pension plans and the development and promotion of unions. The socialists of the third way are much closer to the Democratic Socialists of America. They seek to form alliances with liberal parties and they are sympathetic to Yankeedom and side with the Atlanticists internationally, passively or by actively supporting imperialism.

National Communists begin With What Marx Got Wrong:

• Socialist movements did not begin in advanced capitalist societies. They were agrarian.
• These socialist societies did not grow out of capitalist relations. They grew out of bureaucratic and tributary economic relations.
• These societies had very few urban proletarians. The population was mostly composed of peasants.
• These societies had little industrialization in the way of factories, railroads or mass communications systems.
• Contrary to the Marxist expectation that premodern spiritual conditions would wither as part of the socialist revolution, magical beliefs, peasant folklore continued.
• Racial and ethnic identities did not die out with improvement of class conditions.

With the exception of Peter the Great, Russia has never been at home with modernity. National communists wanted to preserve mythologies and use them to build socialism. They wanted history understood in the spirit of archaic eschatological expectations, deep national mythologies connected to the expectations of end times and a return to the golden age. Dugin claims it was national communism that has ruled in the USSR and in other parts of the world, not international socialism. It applies to communist China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and many communist movements in the Third World – Mexican Chiapas, the Peruvian Golden Path; the Kurdish Workers Party and in Islamic socialism. National Communists are a broad formation – social, psychological and political. In Russia they are the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the second largest party in Russia.

On the other hand, Soviet Marxist dissidents like Zinoviev, Shchedrovitsky and Medvedev are known but they were unable to start any sort of ideological school. There are  liberals in Russia but no liberalism. The sole meaning of liberalism in contemporary Russia in the 1990s was freedom from Russian, Soviet political and economic traditions and an uncritical, ignorant and parodic imitation of the west. Liberalism as a political ideology interested no one. Its supporters engaged in politics. No one in Russia ever chose “freedom from”. Liberalism is the repudiation of God, tradition, community, ethnicity and empires.

The New Left
Dugin labels the philosophers of the New Left the “Philosophers of suspicion” who drew not only from Marx, but also Freud, Nietzsche and Sartre. The anarchists drew from the importance of economic reciprocity and referred to Mauss’ book The Gift for inspiration. Unlike the old leftists, the new leftists doubt what they felt was modernity’s glorification of reason and they denounced science as mystification and authoritarianism. They also supported relativist philosophers of science like Paul Feyerabend and Thomas Kuhn.

After reviewing all three political theories, Dugin identifies the bad tendencies that should be discarded from each theory and along with the good qualities that the Fourth Political Theory can learn from. He says nothing should stop us from rethinking the very fact of the failure of communism and fascism recasting their vices as virtues. By losing, Dugin says communism and fascism proved they did not belong to the spirit of modernity. He says each stood on the side of tradition in different ways. We must understand our new situation in a postmodern world no less profoundly than Marx understood the structure of industrial capitalism.

Ideology	Discarded	Kept
Fascism	All forms of racism Biological racism and Hitler’s antisemitism vs Slavs	Ethnos as a cultural phenomenon (a self is more than an isolated monad)
	Cultural Racism such as high and low cultures Those cultures that are “civilized “and those that aren’t
Marxism	Historical materialism Unidirectional progress Violates an appreciation of the ancestors Destruction of religious heritage Contempt for the culture’s past Exclusive focus on economic factors Class as the only historical subject Sides with bourgeoise against ancient identities such as feudal, reactionary or nationalism Marxism rejects conservativism in all its forms	How it describes liberalism as exploitative Identifies the contradictions of capitalism Description of primitive communism—original paradise Labor as the great dream of the common good Myth of eschatological consciousness Identification of reification and mysticism Good at describing the enemy, the bourgeoise
Liberalism	Attack individualism and abolish it Freedom is microscopic
	Modernization

All three accept the irreversibility of history.

Liberalism and Postmodern Times
In the heyday of modernity, liberalism always co-existed with non-liberalism which means it was an object of choice. The choices included conservativism and the various forms of socialism. After defeating its rivals, liberalism brought back a monopoly on ideological thinking the way the Catholic Church once ruled Europe. Liberalism went from being one of many political theories to become the sole ideology. In postmodern times liberalism became a way of life. It became unconscious, and automatic.

Postmodernism
Triumphant liberalism mutated into a lifestyle consumerism, solipsistic individualism and a postmodern manifestation. Post modernists of the 1990s contained the following values:

• rejection of reason and call for the conscious adoption of schizophrenia  – Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari;
• the renunciation of man as the measure of all things ;
• the death of man (Levi) death of the author (Barthes);
• the overcoming of sexual taboos;
• legalization of all kinds of narcotics;
• new forms of spontaneous and sporadic being;
• the measure of the individual is not the individual but the post individual, accidently placed ironic parts of people—clones, cyborgs and mutants;
• private property is idolized and transformed from what a man owns to what owns the man;
• belief in the contractual relations of all political and social institutions grows into the equalization of the real and the virtual;
• all forms of non-individual authorities disappear. Anyone is free to think about the world in any way they wish;
• the principle of the separation of powers transforms into a constant electronic referendum in which each internet user votes by giving an opinion of many forums -examples include Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, Telegraph and
• civil society completely displaces government and converts into a global cosmopolitan melting pot.

Dugin says that so much of the political vision of postmodernism is contained in the book Empire by Negri and Hardt. This book, according to Dugin can be read as a political manifesto of the tendencies above. While postmodernists fancy themselves as radicals, their ontology and epistemology is that of relativistic liberals.

Conservativism as a Model
Traditional conservativism
In traditionalism we have a full-blown and mostly complete complex of the conservative relationship to history, society and the world. The traditionalists – Rene Guenon and Jules Evola – rejected the Enlightenment and defended tradition while foretelling the end of the world through the victory of the fourth caste. Dugin says traditional conservatives want to return to the past, but they don’t go far back enough. They go back to ancient times, patriarchal times where monotheism began. They want to return to a condition when man exhibited the first symptoms of the illness. Rather, a better starting point to a time in tribal societies which, Dugin claims, were matriarchal.

Traditional Conservativism With the Following Characteristics:

• one who opposes time and irreversible history;
• sees progress as an illusion;
• technological development is not a saving grace;
• Descartes division of subject and object is crippling;
• Newton’s mechanical watchmaker (mechanism vs organicism) deadens the world;
• science reduces quality to quantity and
• education that is built on science rather than the arts and humanities.

Guenon and Evola acidically gave an exhaustive description of the most fundamental conservative position. They describe traditional society as super-temporal ideal and modernity is a product of a fall, a degeneration, degradation, a blending of castes, the decomposition of hierarchy and the shift away from the spiritual to material, from heaven to earth and from the eternal to the ephemeral.

Liberal conservativism (neoconservatives)
Dugin does not support the liberal conservatives of the United States because they do not condemn liberalism across the board. Rather, they say yes and no to liberal proposals. Liberal because when it says yes it merely attempts to step on the brakes; “let’s go slower”, “ let’s not do that now” it says. They agree with the general trends in modernity especially around capitalism and individualism. Edmund Burke is a good example. He first sympathized with the Enlightenment but pushed it away after the French Revolution. He defended:

• bourgeois freedom;
• independence of man;
• equality;
• rights;
• progress and
• evolution rather than revolution

William Kristol was one of the founders of neo-conservativism. The Project for New American Century includes projects of the Greater Middle East, Greater Central Asia where the goal is to uproot inertia, national, political, social, religious and cultural models and their replacement by the operating principles of American economic liberalism. For neocons liberalism must penetrate the depths of all societies. Contemporary neoconservatives call for a global liberal revolution rejecting all isolationism. They do not like leftists and continue to fear communism. Neither do they like right-wingers like Evola and Guenon who we will discuss next.

The conservative revolution in Europe
Left-wing historians like Karl Mannheim dismissed conservativism as an ideology of politics that was out of date. This may have seemed the case in Mannheim’s time, but it is not true today. There have been many conservatives in European history. Among the theorists was Arthur Moeller, van den Bruck, Ernst and Friedrich Junger, Carl Schmitt, Oswald Spengler, Werner Sombart, Othmar Spann, Fredrich Hielscher many other German authors. Dugin says we must look for alternatives to liberalism in non-liberal versions of conservativism. Liberalism’s linear sense of time (present better than the past, future better than present) Dugin says it is an insult to the honor and dignity of our ancestors because in many cultures the dead play an important sociological role. They are considered alive in a certain sense. After all, Chinese civilization is built itself on reverence of the ancestors.

The Conservative Revolution is a term first coined by Hugo von Hofmannsthal which has come to designate a loose confederation of anti-liberal German thinkers who wrote during the Weimer Republic. They are opposed to capitalism and communism in favor of a synthesis of aristocratic traditions and spiritual values with socialism. Benoist is one of the pioneers of the European New Right and is an organist and a holist like any real conservative. There is a new gallery of thinkers who begin to defend the conservative position. Dugin writes that they do so with uncompromising consistency and persistence and not with the thoughts of the 18th and 19th centuries. They include Titus Burckhardt Leopold Ziegler.

Ethnos has no home in liberalism, communism or fascism
Ethnicity was not a focal point in either national socialism or fascism. For them race or the state was its center. Marxist ideology did not pay much attention to the ethnos either, believing that the ethnos would be overcome by the classless society where no trace of it will remain. Liberal globalization is equating the concrete ethnic, sociopolitical or religious pattern by a universal standard, the very important process of transcending ethnos itself, transforming its natural, organic and most often unconsciously imparted tradition into the rank of a man-made conscious, rational system. The common logic of social evolution from savagery to civilization was the distinctive feature of 19th century anthropology. The term “civilization” that we are using is saturated with the spirit of the Enlightenment, progressivism and historicism.

German and Russian Ethnosociology
Ethnos has found deep resonance in the conservative revolution. The German school of ethnic sociology included Wilhelm Muhlmann, Richard Thurnwald and Lev Gumilev. Thurnwald was an Austrian ethnologist who is credited with founding the school of ethnosociology. Lev Gumilev was a Soviet anthropologist who attempted to explain ethnic differences through geological factors. His book was Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere. Spengler, in his Decline of the West  contrasted civilization and culture, considering culture the organic vital spirit of man. Civilization was a product of a cooling off of that spirit in mechanical and purely technical boundaries. The conservative ethnos is roughly equivalent to culture.

Dugin Ethnos: Cultural Primordialism
Enemies of Russia, whether they are liberals or many socialists of the West never tire of accusing Dugin of being a fascist, a racist and biological determinist. Dugin shows none these characteristics in his book The Fourth Political Theory. In that book, he argues that fascism is one of the first three political theories he rejects. He explicitly argues against the fascism of Giovanni Gentile and Mussolini in their champion of the state. He also spends pages rejecting the racism of the Nazis and the superiority of the white race. It is true that in terms of ethnos he does not share the liberal notion of the human individual as being a blank slate. He advocates what he calls a “cultural primordialism” ethnicity, but this ethnicity has nothing to do with any biological determinism or racial determinism. From his book Ethnosociology, the structure of the basic ethnosociological terms and concepts include:

• Ethnos
• Narod –German folk
• Nation
• Civil society
• Global society

Each has its own defined meaning and sense which does not overlap with any of the others. The general movement goes from simple societies to complex societies. At the same time, Dugin says we can describe these levels as a vector directed from the organic and integral to the mechanical, combined and complex

The inner structures of the ethnos: family, lineage, clan
A family can only be formed on the basis of two unrelated lineages. The structure of the family in all societies without exception is based on an exogamous principle to protect against incest. In order to get one family, it is necessary to have two lineages and exogamous rules of marriages. It is for this reason that the family is not considered the primary cell of society. In addition, it is customary in ethnosociology and anthropology to call a union of lineages a clan. For Dugin ethnicity contains the following 5 characteristics:

• speak the same language;
• belief in a common origin;
• possess a complex of customs, beliefs, rituals, myths and art forms;
• have a specific geographical location and
• are different from other ethnos.

The narod
The narod is different from ethnos. The narod is the social organization of society, qualitatively more complex than an ethnos. In the formation of a narod there are necessarily a few ethnos. Narods usually are in form in chiefdoms or agricultural states. Here there is a hierarchy between chiefs or kings at the top and commoners and peasants at the bottom. Other extreme archetypes are heroes and servants and masters and slaves. The state and polytheistic religions are other characteristics of narod. The table below adds some other differences.

Ethnos	Category of Comparison	Narod
Less complex	Level of complexity	More complex
Static	Dynamics	More mobile
Natural		Artificial, goal oriented
Survival and reproduction	Purpose	Oriented to a historical or military goal
Egalitarian	Political form	Stratified professional
Eternal return, cycle supported by myth	Place of history	Historical—linear time
Myths	Myths vs epics	Epics
There is none	individuality	Individuality is exclusive to heroes and chiefs
Two lineages	Social structure	The state, religion, civilization

The nation
For most of human history societies consisted of ethnos and narods. In Europe beginning in either the High Middle Ages (England) or in early modern Europe a new political formation emerged, a new kind of political identity based on citizenship with the individual as its foundation. The political concept of the nation did everything possible to suppress the older allegiances of region, city, kingdom provinces, ethnos and narod but never quite successfully. Merchants were the new power and they were located in cities and towns .

Civil society and global society
In the 20th century thanks to the spread of capitalism around the globe, the nation-state became relativized and capitalist relations mostly ignored the political boundaries of nations unless nationalism could be used to seize resources of other countries.

The World Bank and the IMF helped grease the wheels of global economic relations. In a global society individual citizenship took a back seat to global human rights and rules of civil society. Again, all configurations aim to suppress the earlier ethnos and narod.

Dugin argues against seeing these levels as indicating any progress or irreversibly. Civil society can return to the nation level as is happening in some of the BRICS countries today. Another example is the fact that the Hungarian Prime Minister Orban does not support the regional European Union. Furthermore, some nations can disintegrate back into narods or ethnos. Dugin stands for an archaic and holistic sociology with ethnicity as its core.

Eurasian Multipolarism

Some countries that are more or less successful as nation-states do not want to lose their independence to a supernational external authority like the United States but they try not to directly oppose it. These countries include China, Russia, Iran and India. Other states try to oppose Mordor directly, rejecting Western values, unipolarity and US Western hegemony. They include Iran (Islamism), China, Venezuela and North Korea embodying socialism. But before BRICS all these groups lacked an alternative global strategy that could be symmetrically comparable to the West.

There is also the Eurasian approach: the Multipolarity, Great Spaces or Great Powers movement. Twelve years after this book was written no doubt BRICS would be part of this. The one tendency in conservatism that is not acceptable to Eurasians is the liberal conservatism of the West. For Eurasianists, modernity is a phenomenon peculiar only to the West. Other cultures must divest the pretentions to the universality of Western civilization and build their societies on the internal values they already possess. For Eurasianists there is an epistemology for Russian civilization an epistemology for the Chinese Islamic epistemology and one for India. It is not accidental that among Russian authors the first to refer to Guenon’s book East and West was the Eurasianist, N.N. Alekseev.

Towards a 4

Dugin claims to share the part of the vision of Rene Guenon and Julius Evola who considered modernity – individualism, liberal democracy, capitalism, consumerism – to be the cause of the future catastrophe of humanity. He wants there to be political alliances between Muslims and Christians, Russians and Chinese, between leftists and rightists, Hindus and Jews. There was a positive side of communism, anti-capitalist, anti-liberal, anti-cosmopolitan and anti-individualist. Communism’s social solidarity, social justice, socialism and general holistic attitude are good. Dugin wants to get rid of the materialist and modernist aspects of communism. He arrives at national Bolshevism which presents socialism without materialism, atheism, progressivism and modernism. He supports Eurasianism. The differences in the ethnicities should be accepted and affirmed without any biological, racist  or evolutionary sentiments. Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish or Hindu – premodern sources are a very important development in the national Bolshevik synthesis. He wants to put aside anti-communist prejudices. He says we should strongly oppose any kind of confrontation between the various religious beliefs:

Muslim vs Christian

Jews vs Muslims

Muslims vs Hindus

Conclusion
In terms of opposition to Western global capitalism, the resistance has come from BRICS internationally but also from conservative populism at a national level. Given the bankruptcy of the 18th century political spectrum I explored the work of Alexander Dugin’s book, The Fourth Political Theory. In it he claims to be for a unity between a value centered right-wing of the political spectrum and a labor-centered left. Most of the book is taken up with his criticism of liberalism which seems inseparable from capitalism. He spends little time on fascism other than to condemn both between the state centered fascism of Italy and the race-centered Nazis in Germany. His criticism of the left has much complexity and he claims to be allied with National Bolshevism which supports most of Marx’s ideas minus the atheism, materialism and internationalism.

In the last third of my article I explore what Dugin calls the fourth political theory, his brand of conservativism. Dugin quickly points out that his conservativism is not that of the old monarchist or aristocratic tendencies in Europe. But neither does the fourth political  theory have anything to do with the liberal conservativism of the United States with its pro-capitalism, pro-imperialist. anti-communism beliefs. Dugin aligns his brand of conservativism of the New Right Alain de Benoist who advocates that the major division on the political spectrum should be core vs periphery, not right vs left. Dugin considers himself a cultural primordialist with ethnos as its deepest level. This ethnos has nothing to do with racism or biology or social Darwinism. Dugin considers himself a multipolarist but does not spend much time developing it in this book.

Criticism of Dugin’s book The Fourth Political Theory:

What kind of sacred is he advocating?

Dugin says The Fourth Political Theory is free to ignore those theological and dogmatic elements in monotheistic societies that were influenced by rationalism. But does this advocate theology without rationalism? He says he wants to take aboard those irrational aspects of cults, rites and legends that have perplexed theologians in the earliest ages. He says the more ancient the better. Does this mean animism, polytheism or some kind of primitive monotheism?

What kind of economic system is he advocating?

Liberalism is inseparable from capitalism, but it is not clear what kind of economic system Dugin is advocating. After all, in the history of economic relations, in pre-state societies Marshall Sahlins writes that there are three kinds of systems-generalized reciprocity –  balanced reciprocity and negative reciprocity. With the rise of the state, Karl Polyani has identified the relationship between the state and its population as “redistribution systems”. Lastly there is state socialism systems. If Dugin is against capitalism as it exists under liberalism, what kind of economic system is he advocating?

Politics: no mention of anarchism

Surprisingly, in his description the various kinds of leftist groups he ignores anarchism. This is hard to understand because some of the great anarchists of the 19th century were Russian, namely Bakunin and Kropotkin. He says nothing about the revolutionaries in Russia prior to the Bolsheviks and all the men and women who built the radical opposition to the Czar. Anarchism was not just an intellectual movement. It was followed and fought for between 1905 and 1917. Further, many working class people in factories and in the countryside, led by Nestor Makhno fought for an anti-capitalist world during the Russian Civil War between 1917-1921.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Bruce Lerro has taught for 25 years as an adjunct college professor of psychology at Golden Gate University, Dominican University and Diablo Valley College in the San Francisco Bay Area. He has applied a Vygotskian socio-historical perspective to his three books found on Amazon. He is a co-founder, organizer and writer for Socialist Planning Beyond Capitalism. Read other articles by Bruce, or visit Bruce's website.

Ford workers told their CEO ‘none of the young people want to work here.’ So Jim Farley took a page out of the founder’s playbook

Sasha Rogelberg
Fri, November 28, 2025


How serious is the skilled trades worker shortage?

What were the outcomes of Ford's 2023 strike?

What inspired Ford's recent employment policy changes?

Why are young Ford workers taking Amazon shifts?

Ford CEO Jim Farley learned from older employees that some young workers at the carmaker were taking shifts at Amazon to make ends meet, he said at the Aspen Ideas Festival. Farley said he drew on founder Henry Ford’s decision to raise factory wages to $5 a day in 1914 to make temporary workers into full-time employees. Young people have previously eschewed manufacturing jobs due to low wages.

Some economists credit carmaker Henry Ford for jump-starting the American middle class in the 20th century when, in January 1914, he hiked factory wages to $5, more than double the average wage for an eight-hour work day.

More than 100 years later, facing the reality of many employees “barely getting by,” Ford CEO Jim Farley said he took a page out of the founder’s playbook.

The carmaker’s chief executive recognized the need to make a change in his workplace when he spoke to veteran employees during union contract negotiations and learned young Ford employees were working multiple jobs and getting inadequate sleep due to low wages, Farley said in an interview with journalist and biographer Walter Isaacson at the Aspen Ideas Festival earlier this year.

“The older workers who’d been at the company said, ‘None of the young people want to work here. Jim, you pay $17 an hour, and they are so stressed,’” Farley said.

Farley learned some workers also held jobs at Amazon, where they worked for eight hours before clocking in to a seven-hour shift at Ford, sleeping for only three or four hours. At a Ford Pro Accelerate event in September, the CEO said entry-level factory workers told him they were working up to three jobs.

As a result, the company made temporary workers into full-time employees, making them eligible for higher wages, profit-sharing checks, and better health care coverage. The transition was outlined in 2019 contract negotiations with the United Auto Workers (UAW), with temporary workers able to become full-time after two years of continuous employment at Ford.

“It wasn’t easy to do,” Farley said. “It was expensive. But I think that’s the kind of changes we need to make in our country.”

Ford’s own decision to double factory wages in 1914 was not altruistic, but rather a strategy to attract a stable workforce, as well as provide a stimulus for his own workers to be able to afford Ford products.

“He said, ‘I’m doing this because I want my factory worker to buy my cars. If they make enough money, they’ll buy my own product,’” Farley said. “It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, in a way.”
Trouble attracting Gen Z trade workers

Farley, a proponent of growing U.S. manufacturing productivity to support the essential economy, has advocated for young workers to have strong trade experiences. Earlier this month, he sounded the alarm on the shortage of manual labor jobs, saying in an episode of the Office Hours: Business Edition podcast that Ford had 5,000 open mechanic positions that have remain unfilled, despite an up-to $120,000 salary for the role.

“Our governments have to get really serious about investing in trade schools and skilled trades,” he said at the Aspen Ideas Festival. “You go to Germany, every one of our factory workers has an apprentice starting in junior high school. Every one of those jobs has a person behind it for eight years that is trained.”

Despite the U.S. seeing 3.8 million new manufacturing jobs by 2033, according to Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute, the younger generation of workers has largely turned away from the career path. As as some ditch college degrees, Gen Z enrollment in trade schools is on the rise, but the newest generation entering the workforce is largely eschewing factory jobs, citing low wages, according to a 2023 Soter Analytics study. U.S. manufacturing jobs in the U.S. have an average $25-per-hour wage—about $51,890 per year—falling short of the average American salary of $66,600.

American carmakers like Ford may be trying to make it appealing for young workers to embark on manufacturing careers, but they are still not immune to workers’ grievances over wages. In 2023, thousands of UAW members, including 16,600 Ford employees, went on strike before reaching a contract deal in October of that year, which, beyond increasing wages, also further decreased the period of time necessary for a temp worker to become full-time.

Farley called the strike “completely unnecessary” from management’s perspective and maintained the onus of improving trade workers’ wages isn’t just on Ford.

“We’re not just going to hope it gets better,” he said. “We have the resources, and we have the know-how, after 120 years, to solve these problems, but we need more help from others.”

A version of this story originally published on Fortune.com on June 30, 2025.

More on Gen Z work trends:

Gen Z college graduates are entering the toughest job market in years—here’s how they can stand out

‘The kids aren’t alright,’ warns top economist, as unemployed, pessimistic Gen Z living with parents blow a $12 billion hole in consumption


With entry-level hiring shrinking, Gen Z turns to double majoring for protection from AI

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Guy Who Makes His Living Selling Jeeps And Rams Says We Can't Get Rid Of ICE Cars

Matthew DeBord
Fri, November 28, 2025
 Jalopnik.


Stellantis Chairman John Elkann seen at an F1 race in 2024 - Kym Illman/Getty Images

The slowdown in EV sales has created some real headaches for automakers, but in Europe the difficulties are especially acute. And now Stellantis Chairman John Elkann is insisting that the industry needs more time to get its act together when it comes to the region's carbon-reduction goals.

"There is another way to cut emissions in Europe in a constructive and agreed way, restoring the growth we have lost and meeting people's needs," Elkann said during an event on Nov. 25 to mark the start of production of the new hybrid version of the Fiat 500 battery-electric car. The auto industry's proposals include allowing plug-in hybrids, extended-range EVs and alternative fuels to be sold beyond 2035 when a planned zero emissions mandate will ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars across the EU.

Elkann also dispensed some ominous warnings about what could happen if the EU doesn't go along with his recommendations, insisting that staying the course could lead to "irreversible decline." Yikes!

Europe problems and Stellantis problems

Fiat 500 vehicles seen at a factory in Italy - Stefano Guidi/Getty Images

As Reuters pointed out, current projections for 2024 vehicle registrations in Europe are running about three million below where they were in 2019. The overall market is sluggish, and yet it's supposed to be in a process of transformation, moving away from combustion technologies and toward electrification. The arrival of cheap EVs from China is complicating the situation.

Stellantis itself is also in a state of corporate struggle. Former CEO Carlos Tavares departed last year, and his replacement, Antonio Filosa, is still finding his footing. This has placed Elkann in the awkward position of assuming a higher profile than perhaps he thinks is ideal. He has to fix the family car business, which was formed through mergers of Fiat and Chrysler, then a combination of the resulting FCA conglomerate with the PSA Group. In this role, he now has to also serve as a sort of industrial statesman, dealing with the EU and the governments of Italy and France, as well as contending with the U.S., where Stellantis relies on big pickups and SUVs to drive sales and profits.
Elkann isn't alone

BMW workers assemble a vehicle at a factory in Germany - Leonhard Simon/Getty Images

EVs were supposed to help Europe move away from diesels, in the aftermath of Volkswagen's dieselgate scandal. The EU has tariffed Chinese EV imports to protect the continent's carmakers, but China has engaged a multifaceted strategy, exporting combustion vehicles to markets such as Italy and Spain, where the Middle Kingdom thinks it can take market share against weaker competition. In this context, Stellantis risks being unable to challenge the Chinese on ICE vehicles if the European automaking giant doesn't continue to invest in combustion platforms because it has to drop them to meet EV mandates. Elkann is of course far from alone: every European carmaker is up against the same dilemma. The transition was always going to be precarious, and that's why European regulators thought the 2035 deadline would give automakers enough time to prepare for a massive shift away from burning petrol.

But projections for EV sales turned out to be overly optimistic, and now the European auto industry is dealing with the fact that it was never structured for such an aggressive timeline. The implications are alarming, especially on the economic side. As Wired reported earlier this year, the industry "employs 13.8 million people across Europe and represents around 7 percent of the continent's GDP." Everything is now pushing up against a December review of emissions goals, so it's hardly surprising the Elkann has taken the opportunity to use some strong language to beg for breathing room.

 

Out in the Open

— Remarks on the Trump Election —

 

Powerful though they may be, irrational popular tendencies are not irresistible forces. They contain their own contradictions. Clinging to some absolute authority is not necessarily a sign of faith in authority; it may be a desperate attempt to overcome one’s increasing doubts (the convulsive tightening of a slipping grip). People who join gangs or reactionary groups, or who get caught up in religious cults or patriotic hysteria, are also seeking a sense of liberation, connection, purpose, participation, empowerment. As Wilhelm Reich showed, fascism gives a particularly vigorous and dramatic expression to these basic aspirations, which is why it often has a deeper appeal than the vacillations, compromises, and hypocrisies of liberalism and leftism. In the long run the only way to defeat reaction is to present more forthright expressions of these aspirations, and more authentic opportunities to fulfill them. When basic issues are forced into the open, irrationalities that flourished under the cover of psychological repression tend to be weakened, like disease germs exposed to sunlight and fresh air. 

 

(The Joy of Revolution)

 

The Donald Trump campaign has exposed some very ugly aspects of American society. They’re not pretty to look at, but it’s probably better that they’re out there in the open where we can all see them and no one can deny them. It has also revealed some genuine grievances that had been ignored, and it’s good that those too are now out in the open.

The downsides of Trump’s victory are numerous and all too obvious. But I’d like to point out a few possible upsides.

In Beyond Voting I noted that the Trump campaign was accelerating the self-destruction of the Republican Party. I was assuming that he would probably lose and that there would then be a bitter civil war over who was to blame, making it difficult for them to regroup and write it off as a one-time fluke. But I think his victory will be even worse for the Republicans.

This may seem like an odd thing to say, considering that the Republicans now have the Presidency as well as both houses of Congress. But I think it’s going to be like the proverbial dog chasing a car: what happens if the dog actually catches the car?

As long as power was split between a Democratic Presidency and a Republican Congress, each side could blame the other for the lack of positive accomplishments. But now that the Republicans have got a monopoly, there will be no more excuses.

Imagine that you’re a Republican politician. You’ve been reelected — so far, so good. But the people who voted for you and your colleagues and your new Leader did so under the impression that you were going to bring about some dramatic improvements in their lives. What happens when you actually have to deliver some of the things you promised?

During the last six years you’ve staged dozens of meaningless votes to repeal Obamacare, saying that you wanted to replace it with some superior Republican plan. Now is the moment of truth. If you don’t repeal it, you’ll have millions of people screaming at your betrayal. If you do repeal it, where is that wonderful plan that you somehow were never able to come up with? That plan is of course nonexistent, nothing but the usual simple-minded rhetoric about free markets leading to lower prices. Do you think that the 22 million newly insured people, many of whom voted for you, will be pleased to be deprived of their Obamacare insurance and to find themselves back in their previous situation? It is very unpopular (as well as very complicated) to undo benefits that people are already used to possessing.

Moreover, note that Obamacare is essentially a Republican plan (“Romneycare”), slightly tweaked by Obama — a feeble patchwork attempt to respond to America’s severe healthcare crisis. Such a clumsy program is understandably not very popular. But Social Security and Medicare (which Paul Ryan now wants to dismantle) are by far the most popular social programs in America, and have been for decades. As Eisenhower famously noted, “Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.” Apparently their number is no longer negligible in your party. Are you ready to go over the cliff with them?

Some of your base are still vehemently anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage — but most of the country isn’t. Are you going to try to undo reproductive rights or marriage equality nationwide? If not, are you going to go back to the chaos of “leaving it to the states”?

Speaking of logistical nightmares, what about your famous Mexican wall? Are you really going to commit to such a silly project, which would accomplish nothing and cost hundreds of billions of dollars? And incidentally, after you’ve given the rich a lot more tax breaks and funneled much of the rest of the budget into the already bloated Pentagon, where is the funding for such projects going to come from?

The same goes for the major infrastructure improvements Trump has promised. This is one of his few sensible proposals – it would rev up the economy and create millions of jobs, which would in turn generate lots more tax revenue down the line. But getting it kickstarted will require deficit financing, which goes totally against the austerity policies that have been preached as gospel by your party for decades. Revived economy or party orthodoxy — which will it be?

Racism has been one of the key foundations of your party ever since Nixon inaugurated the “Southern strategy” fifty years ago, but it’s usually been discreet and deniable. Now that connection is out in the open. Many of Trump’s most fervent supporters are already celebrating his victory by harassing people of color in his name. How are you going to dissociate yourselves from that?

Your party was already heading toward a civil war between its mutually contradictory components (financial elite, Tea Party, neocons, libertarians, religious reactionaries, and the few remaining moderates). To those general divisions are now added the antagonisms between the new Leader and those who oppose him. Bush at least had sense enough to know that he was an incompetent figurehead, and gladly let Cheney and Rove run things. Trump thinks he’s a genius, and anyone who doesn’t agree will be added to his already very large enemies list.

He’s also a very loose cannon, which is why the Republican establishment feared him in the first place. He has proposed things like Congressional term limits which Republican politicians emphatically do not want, while on the other hand he is now reportedly considering not repealing Obamacare, perhaps because he has become aware of how complex and risky such an action might be. Who knows what other things he’ll come up with or backtrack on?

And this whole show is so public. Obama’s smooth, genial persona enabled him to get away with war crimes, massive deportations, and all sorts of corporate compromises (not a single criminal banker prosecuted) with few people paying attention and fewer still protesting. This will not be the case with President Ubu and his Clown Car administration. The whole world will be watching, and every detail will be scrutinized and debated. It’s going to look as ugly as it is in reality, and you’re going to be forever tarred by the association. You’re no longer in the Republican Party, you’re in the Trump Party. You bought it, you own it.

If I’m that imagined Republican politician, I don’t think I feel very confident about the future of my party.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is facing its own reckoning.

Democratic apologists are trying to focus the blame on one or another particular factor: the electoral college, voter suppression, third-party campaigns, the Comey announcement, etc. But this election shouldn’t have been close enough for any of those things to matter. The Democrats were running against the most glaringly unqualified candidate in American history. It should have been a landslide.

With Bernie Sanders it probably would have been. (A post-election national poll shows him beating Trump 56-44.) He was by far the most popular candidate in the country, while Hillary Clinton’s approval rating was almost as negative as Trump’s. Polls consistently showed Bernie beating Trump and all the other Republican candidates by wide margins, while Hillary was struggling against them all and even losing to some of them. Moreover, Bernie’s popularity cut across party lines, appealing not just to Democrats but to independents and even large numbers of Republicans. While Hillary was courting Wall Street and celebrity donors, he was attracting crowds that were ten times as large as any she ever managed, including thousands of the kind of enthusiastic young people who would have traveled across the country to work their hearts out for him (as they did to a lesser extent for Obama in 2008). While Hillary was constantly on the defensive, Bernie would have taken the offensive and turned the momentum in a progressive direction all over the country. He would easily have won the three Rust Belt states that cost Hillary the election, he probably would also have won some of the other swing states she lost, and his coattails would have flipped enough additional down-ballot races to regain the Senate and perhaps even put the House into play.

But the Democratic Party establishment preferred to risk losing with a loyal machine candidate rather than to risk winning with an independent radical whose movement might have challenged their cushy positions. Despite the fact that Hillary had a ton of baggage (some actually bad and much that could easily be made to look bad) and that she was a perfect embodiment of the glib, self-satisfied insider-elite and a longtime advocate of the neoliberal policies that had ravaged the country (especially in the Rust Belt), they pulled out all the stops to impose her as “inevitable,” while smugly dismissing Sanders as “unrealistic.”

In reality, the supposedly unrealistic solutions that Sanders called for were supported by large majorities of the population. Under pressure, Hillary belatedly adopted watered-down versions of some of those solutions, but few people believed she was sincere enough to really fight for them like Sanders would have. Her campaign mostly amounted to business as usual: “Defend the status quo! You have to vote for me because my opponent is even worse!”

It didn’t work. Interviews with Trump voters reveal that although many of them were indeed racist, many others were not (a large portion of them had previously voted for Obama). But they were enraged at the national political establishment that had abandoned them and they wanted somebody to “shake it up” and “clean it out.” Bernie spoke to those feelings, Hillary did not. Since Bernie wasn’t on the ballot, they decided to send a big “fuck you” message by voting for the other supposed “outsider,” who had at least claimed that he would do just that. Many others did not go that far, but they sent a similar message by staying home. Many others, of course, did vote for Hillary, including most of the Bernie supporters; but the enthusiasm was not there.

The Democratic Party establishment bears the ultimate blame for this miserable outcome. Millions of people know this and they are now trying to figure out what to do about it: how to break up the party machine, how to wean the party from its corporate dependence and transform it so that it can help address the challenges we face. I wish them well, but it won’t be easy to get rid of such an entrenched and corrupt bureaucracy — particularly since many elements of that bureaucracy will now be posing as heroes resisting the Trump administration. It will be difficult for this party to retain any credibility if it does not at least rally to a Sanders-type progressive program. That kind of program is far from a sufficient solution to the global crises we face, but it could at least claim to be a step in the right direction. Anything less will be a farce.

Meanwhile, with the Republicans’ monopoly control over the government, even those who normally focus on electoral politics must realize that for some time to come the main struggle will be outside the parties and outside the government. It will be grassroots participatory actions or nothing.

New movements of protest and resistance will develop during the coming weeks and months, responding to this bizarre and still very unpredictable new situation. At this point it’s hard to say what forms such movements will take, except to note that just about everyone seems to recognize that our number-one priority will be defending blacks, Latinos, Muslims, LGBTQs, and others most directly threatened by the new regime.

But we will also need to defend ourselves. The first step in resisting this regime is to avoid getting too caught up with it — obsessively following the latest news about it and impulsively reacting to each new outrage. That kind of compulsive media consumption was part of what led to this situation in the first place. Let’s treat this clown show with the contempt it deserves and not forget the fundamental things that still apply — picking our battles, but also continuing to nourish the personal relations and creative activities that make life worthwhile in the first place. Otherwise, what will we be defending?

Ultimately, as soon as we can recover our bearings, we’ll have to go back on the offensive. We were already going to have to face severe global crises during the coming decades. Maybe this disaster will shock us into coming together and addressing those crises sooner and more wholeheartedly than we would have otherwise, with fewer illusions about the capacity of the existing system to save us.

BUREAU OF PUBLIC SECRETS
November 16, 2016

French translation of this text
Spanish translation of this text
Portuguese translation of this text

 

---

 

Trump’s Spectacular Comeback

The second Trump election was surprisingly similar to the first one. When I look through the above piece that I wrote eight years ago, it seems to me that virtually everything I said there still applies.

The Democratic Party did not seem to learn anything from their first loss to Trump. They managed to narrowly defeat him in 2020 (not too hard a task, considering that the country was in economic chaos and hundreds of thousands of people had needlessly died due to Trump’s clueless nonresponse to the Covid crisis) and we heard a lot about how Biden was “the most progressive president since FDR.” But the Biden programs that were held up for praise were a hodgepodge of patchwork tweaks that few voters were even aware of.

One thing that would have caught everyone’s attention would have been a long-overdue hefty minimum-wage increase. Such an increase is supported by large majorities everywhere in the country, including in red states. But the Democrats not only failed to pass such a raise, they never even brought it to a vote (which would have forced the Republican politicians to face the anger of their constituents if they were on record as voting against it). Such a simple and obvious action would have displeased the Democrats’ wealthy donors, so it was considered “unrealistic” and taken off the table on day one of Biden’s administration.

That’s just one example. Similar things could be said about many other issues the Democrats failed to deal with, or dealt with ineptly. As Bernie Sanders put it:

It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. . . . Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign? Will they understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing? Do they have any ideas as to how we can take on the increasingly powerful Oligarchy, which has so much economic power? Probably not.

The one significant new factor, the ongoing genocide in Gaza, may or may not have had a decisive effect on the election results, but it definitely had a dampening effect on the morale of the campaign. It’s hard to be wholeheartedly enthusiastic when your own party fails to so much as call for a ceasefire, let alone when it continues to actively funnel billions of dollars of additional armaments to a government that is cold-bloodedly murdering tens of thousands of civilians and destroying the homes and infrastructure of two million more.

Many other factors have been evoked to account for the loss — the widespread misogyny that makes it more difficult for people to imagine a woman president (especially a black woman); the fact that due to post-Covid inflation it was a very anti-incumbent year in elections all over the world; the fact that Biden’s pathetic Attorney General, Merrick Garland, waited nearly two years before appointing a special council to investigate Trump’s complicity in the January 6 assault on the Capitol; the fact that the world’s richest man spent $44 billion to buy the world’s most extensive political discussion platform and remodeled it to favor Trump; the fact that many people seem to be psychologically predisposed to rally to authoritarian leaders  (the phenomenon that Wilhelm Reich examined in The Mass Psychology of Fascism). Others have noted various flaws in the Democratic campaign, and there certainly were many. Without going into detail, it can be said that Kamala Harris’s campaign, like Hillary Clinton’s, mostly amounted to business as usual: “Defend the status quo! You have to vote for me because my opponent is even worse!”

But over and beyond all that, there has been an understandable astonishment that so many people could even dream of voting for such a repugnant and despicable person, regardless of how disappointed they may have been with the Democrats.

It seems to me that the main reason is pretty simple and obvious. Fox News and several other billionaire-financed mass media operations have been churning out reactionary propaganda 24/7 for decades with scarcely any meaningful competition. It’s hardly surprising that millions of people have been conditioned to hate liberals and liberal ideas, let alone radical ones. As the Nazis found, if you keep repeating the same lies over and over again, pounding the same messages into people’s heads day after day, a significant portion of them will end up believing them — especially if those messages cater to their frustrations and resentments, such as that some selected scapegoat is the cause of all their problems and that some magnificent leader will take care of everything for them.

More precisely, it’s not so much that they necessarily believe all those lies as that the constant repetition ends up obliterating any critical sense whatsoever, any sense of objective reality that might contradict their conditioned mindset. It doesn’t even have to always be the same lies; it may be more effective to saturate the public with ever-shifting lies. The point is to stir up constant turbulence, anxiety, fear, outrage, with no fixed ideology or program, so that the Leader becomes the only “reliable” reference point for his followers. Trump is such a pathological liar that he often lies even when there’s no reason to. He was on record for more than 30,000 documented lies during his first administration, and he hasn’t slowed down since then. Yet when his lies are pointed out, most of his supporters simply ignore them or shrug them off as “fake news.” Attempting to respond rationally to this kind of mass irrationality is itself irrational. Trump is not very bright, but he’s managed to learn one key lesson from one of his main models: “It matters little if our opponents mock us or insult us, if they represent us as clowns or criminals; the essential thing is that they talk about us, preoccupy themselves with us” (Hitler).

This crude, old-fashioned style of propagandistic bombardment still works, but it’s now something of an exception. As modern society has become increasingly “spectacularized,” the forms of conditioning have become more complex, more subtle, and more all-pervading:

Spectacular domination has succeeded in raising an entire generation molded to its laws. . . . The spectacle makes sure that people are unaware of what is happening, or at least that they quickly forget whatever they may have become aware of. . . . The flow of images carries everything before it, and it is always someone else who controls this simplified digest of the perceptible world, who decides where the flow will lead, who programs the rhythm of what is shown into an endless series of arbitrary surprises that leaves no time for reflection, isolating whatever is presented from its context, its past, its intentions, and its consequences. (Guy Debord, Comments on the Society of the Spectacle)

In the digital era this development has become increasingly evident, but it is usually understood only superficially — as if for some obscure reason people had simply become increasingly addicted to media. The “spectacle” as Debord uses the term is not just a matter of images on television or computers; it’s a way of understanding the social system in which we find ourselves:

The spectacle is not a collection of images; it is a social relation between people that is mediated by images. . . . The spectacle presents itself as a vast inaccessible reality that can never be questioned. The passive acceptance it demands is already effectively imposed by its monopoly of appearances, its manner of appearing without allowing any reply. . . . The spectacle is able to subject human beings to itself because the economy has already totally subjugated them. It is nothing other than the economy developing for itself. . . . The spectacle is the stage at which the commodity has succeeded in totally occupying social life. Commodification is not only visible, we no longer see anything else; the world we see is the world of the commodity. (The Society of the Spectacle)

It’s not just the Trump voters; we’re all living in this same commodified and spectacularized world. A world in which everything has been reduced to dollars and cents; in which we are alienated from our activities, from our environment, and from each other; in which real life is replaced by mass-produced fantasies and illusions; in which phony divisions are publicized and real divisions are disguised.

As the Occupy movement famously noted, the real division in this society is not between Democrats and Republicans, or liberals and conservatives, but between the 1% who actually own and control virtually everything and the other 99% of the population. (That’s just a handy slogan: the actual figures are more like 0.01% and 99.99%. There are an additional two or three percent who have considerable wealth and manage to live in pseudo-luxury, but they are far from exerting any serious power over the system as a whole.) Such a tiny minority would be immediately overwhelmed if they had not managed to bamboozle a large portion of the population into identifying with them, or at least into taking their system for granted; and especially into being manipulated into blaming their problems on each other instead of looking at the system as a whole. In the United States, this tiny minority owns both major political parties and most of the media and is thus able to determine which political options are presented to the masses and which are not. There is of course some wiggle room. People are allowed to put forward alternative ideas, but those ideas are branded as “unrealistic” and largely ignored. The two parties may present significantly different policies, but never anything that would challenge the basic setup. The bottom line is to preserve the existing economic system, in which the vast majority of people are caught in an unending rat race, working to pay for the commodities they need or have been conditioned to desire, while retaining the illusion that their manipulated votes for a few selected representatives every few years amount to “democracy.”

The latest result of this pseudo-democratic spectacle is that after more than a year of nonstop campaign blather, costing billions of dollars and monopolizing people’s attention all over the world, 77 million people in a supposedly modern and literate country have chosen to reelect a sick and desperate little man who has already been convicted of multiple felonies and indicted for many more (including for treason); a vicious man who has openly threatened to take vengeance on virtually anyone who isn’t totally in his camp; a vain man who has surrounded himself by fawning toadies even less likely to restrain him than the ones in his previous administration; a man with such delusions of grandeur that he never admits a mistake — with one notable exception: he has said that during his first term he made the mistake of being too nice.

As I said eight years ago (addressing an imagined Republican politician):

Your party was already heading toward a civil war between its mutually contradictory components (financial elite, tea party, neocons, libertarians, religious reactionaries, and the few remaining moderates). To those general divisions are now added the antagonisms between the new Leader and those who oppose him. Bush at least had sense enough to know that he was an incompetent figurehead, and gladly let Cheney and Rove run things. Trump thinks he’s a genius, and anyone who doesn’t agree will be added to his already very large enemies list. . . . And this whole show is so public. Obama’s smooth, genial persona enabled him to get away with war crimes, massive deportations, and all sorts of corporate compromises (not a single criminal banker prosecuted) with few people paying attention and fewer still protesting. This will not be the case with President Ubu and his Clown Car administration. The whole world will be watching, and every detail will be scrutinized and debated. It’s going to look as ugly as it is in reality, and you’re going to be forever tarred by the association. You’re no longer in the Republican Party, you’re in the Trump Party. You bought it, you own it.

We should not forget how inept and full of contradictions this whole farce is. Scarcely three weeks after the election, some of the billionaires who financed Trump have already expressed strong objections to his erratic policies that might rock the boat economically, and his proposed cabinet appointments are so laughably idiotic that even some Republican congressmen have been taken aback. It’s going to be increasingly difficult to distinguish the latest news from Saturday Night Live.

At the same time, we should bear in mind that some of this clowning may be intentional. His most outrageous nominations may function as lightning rods channeling anger and attention, making the replacement nominees seem more normal and acceptable.

If there’s one consoling thing in this situation, it’s realizing how many of us are together in this. Despite that huge swatch of red on the national election map, the total vote was virtually a tie; it’s only the electoral college and the overconcentration of liberal votes in big cities that makes the geographical result seem so overwhelming. 49%-48% is not a “landslide” or a “mandate”; it’s not even a majority. More of the country is against him than with him, even if many of them didn’t vote (or were prevented from voting, or voted but didn’t have their vote counted). And even those who voted for him don’t all agree with all his policies (several red states simultaneously passed minimum-wage increases and abortion-access laws).

Some of the blue states are already attempting to “Trump-proof” themselves, implementing legal measures to protect immigrants, abortion access, environmental policies, etc. Sooner or later they will come into legal conflict with the federal government. The Democratic politicians will naturally tend to shy away from any overt illegality, but they may be forced into it by popular pressure. We already have sanctuary cities; will we have sanctuary states? California, New York, and the other blue states amount to more than half the nation’s economy, and their taxes have long been effectively subsidizing the red states in the rest of the country. It will be interesting to see how such a political-economic power struggle might play out if it comes to that. More likely, the politicians will waffle and people will take on projects that the state governments won’t — perhaps setting up “underground railroad” type networks to protect immigrants, for example.

There are so many possibilities that I have no idea where this situation will lead, and I doubt if anyone else does. Millions of people have been sharing all sorts of responses to the shock, discussing what went wrong and offering suggestions as to how best to respond, politically or personally. I’ve been impressed and encouraged by how thoughtful and pertinent many of them are. Some may be rather naïve, some may contradict each other, but I’m not too concerned about that. There’s room for all sorts of projects, big or small, and all sorts of tactics, moderate or radical. People will sort out which things work and which don’t.

I think my last three paragraphs remain pertinent:

        New movements of protest and resistance will develop during the coming weeks and months, responding to this bizarre and still very unpredictable new situation. At this point it’s hard to say what forms such movements will take, except to note that just about everyone seems to recognize that our number-one priority will be defending blacks, Latinos, Muslims, LGBTQs, and others most directly threatened by the new regime.
        But we will also need to defend ourselves. The first step in resisting this regime is to avoid getting too caught up with it — obsessively following the latest news about it and impulsively reacting to each new outrage. That kind of compulsive media consumption was part of what led to this situation in the first place. Let’s treat this clown show with the contempt it deserves and not forget the fundamental things that still apply — picking our battles, but also continuing to nourish the personal relations and creative activities that make life worthwhile in the first place. Otherwise, what will we be defending?
        Ultimately, as soon as we can recover our bearings, we’ll have to go back on the offensive. We were already going to have to face severe global crises during the coming decades. Maybe this disaster will shock us into coming together and addressing those crises sooner and more wholeheartedly than we would have otherwise, with fewer illusions about the capacity of the existing system to save us.

The big difference is that it’s now eight years later. Humanity is running out of time, and the genius in charge for the next four years thinks that climate change is a hoax. As Greta Thunberg puts it, “Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue making enormous amounts of money.” But how are we going to stop them if we continue to accept the inevitability of an economic system that has made possible such an insane power imbalance in the first place?

KEN KNABB
November 26, 2024

French translation of this text
Spanish translation of this text

 

---

Hive Mind Strikes Back

— Collaborative Resistance to Trumpian Fascism —

 

At the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, I noted:

This is the first time in history that such a momentous event has taken place with virtually everyone on earth aware of it at the same time. And it is playing out while much of humanity is obliged to stay at home, where they can hardly avoid reflecting on the situation and sharing their reflections with others. . . . Millions of people are using this pause to investigate and critique the system’s fiascos, and they are doing this at a time when practically everyone else in the world is obsessively focused on the same issues. I think this first ever global discussion about our society is potentially more important than the particular crisis that happened to trigger it. . . . We need to be aware that this is happening, aware that what is going on within us and among us is potentially more promising than all the farcical political dramas we are watching so intently. [Pregnant Pause: Remarks on the Corona Crisis]

Five years later we find ourselves in the middle of another crisis which has impacted us even more dramatically than that earlier one. This new crisis has also provoked widespread debate about our society, but there are two key differences: rather than being a unexpected natural disaster affecting the whole world, it is an intentionally provoked political crisis in a single country (with the rest of the world looking on in puzzlement and horror); and the popular response has been much more active and participatory.

Three weeks after Trump’s second election, I wrote:

The latest result of this pseudo-democratic spectacle is that after more than a year of nonstop campaign blather, costing billions of dollars and monopolizing people’s attention all over the world, 77 million people in a supposedly modern and literate country have chosen to reelect a sick and desperate little man who has already been convicted of multiple felonies and indicted for many more (including for treason); a vicious man who has openly threatened to take vengeance on virtually anyone who isn’t totally in his camp; a vain man who has surrounded himself by fawning toadies even less likely to restrain him than the ones in his previous administration; a man with such delusions of grandeur that he never admits a mistake — with one notable exception: he has said that during his first term he made the mistake of being too nice. [Trump’s Spectacular Comeback]

After some speculations about what might be ahead, I concluded:

There are so many possibilities that I have no idea where this situation will lead, and I doubt if anyone else does. Millions of people have been sharing all sorts of responses to the shock, discussing what went wrong and offering suggestions as to how best to respond, politically or personally. I’ve been impressed and encouraged by how thoughtful and pertinent many of them are. Some may be rather naïve, some may contradict each other, but I’m not too concerned about that. There’s room for all sorts of projects, big or small, and all sorts of tactics, moderate or radical. People will sort out which things work and which don’t.

And so they have been doing.

During the first few weeks I, like just about everyone else, was surprised by how quickly and brazenly the new regime proceeded with illegal, maniacal, and even fascistic actions. Each day we were presented with new outrages and insanities, all happening so fast that it was hard to keep up. But almost immediately there were lots of popular responses, ranging from huge national demonstrations to smaller and more focused actions on all sorts of terrains.

As I followed the events, wondering if I might write something further, I found that virtually every fact I thought about calling attention to had already become common knowledge, and virtually every idea I came up with had already been articulated by others.

But looking at the overall process, I was struck by how these actions were being publicized and discussed in real time by the people taking part in them; and how many of those people were carrying out those actions with little or no outside leadership; and how the multitude of different ideas were being spontaneously sifted and sorted into coherent tactics and projects. As in other social crises, many people’s first impulse was to find public figures who might explain to them what was going on and tell them what needed to be done about it. And they did indeed find and share various sources of ideas and information that they found credible and useful. But as the communications went to and fro, many of them began to take a more active part, coming up with their own ideas and in some cases implementing them. And amid this flux of ideas and actions and interactions, there was a sort of survival of the fittest: certain ideas and tactics emerged that were so clearly appropriate that they were almost immediately recognized and acted on by thousands or even millions of people. Not in lockstep like soldiers, but as flexible groupings of people maintaining their own diverse views and styles while cooperating in joint or parallel projects.

This started me thinking about the notion of “hive mind.” That term was of course originally coined to describe the instinctive collective sense that social insects such as bees and ants seem to have; but by extension it has also come to refer to human networks where people seem to manifest some sort of collective intelligence arising out of shared networks of information and ideas.

Wikipedia (itself a splendid example of shared intelligence) notes that hive mind has several rather different connotations. What I’m talking about here is definitely not “groupmind,” where people are programmed into all thinking alike. It roughly corresponds what Wikipedia calls collaborative intelligence. In contrast to “collective intelligence,” where there is generally a central coordinator, collaborative intelligence is decentralized. Although the process may be rough and seemingly chaotic, the net result of countless individual experiences, interactions, and debates sometimes enables masses of people to arrive at practical conclusions (this works, that doesn’t) without any formal decision-making procedures or top-down directives.

During the last three decades such networks have been enormously extended and speeded up by the development of the Internet and the various forms of social media, where ideas and information can be shared almost instantaneously to millions of people around the world. Among other things, they have facilitated radical social movements such as the Arab Spring and Occupy.

It seems to me that we’ve seen a lot of collaborative intelligence in the various anti-Trump actions during the last twelve months. Below I’ve mentioned just a few examples. Note that in most of these cases the spontaneous self-organization of masses of people has been more important than the coordinating role of national organizations. There are virtually no significant leaders. There may indeed be a few politicians and celebrities who get in the news for speaking out, or a few prominent experts or analysts who people resort to for information or suggestions, but they’re not really leading anyone. People compare and contrast them, choosing those they find the most useful and reliable and ignoring the others. The actual “movers” of most of the actions usually turn out to be loose volunteer groupings of ordinary people serving as little more than contact persons. If you go to their websites, they typically encourage you to seek out other people or groups in your local communities and to take part in those projects that appeal to you. Except for the virtually unanimous agreement to maintain nonviolence, there are no rules and everyone is welcome regardless of their views as long as they’re opposed to the Trump regime (or even merely to some aspects of that regime).

The “No Kings” protests. Drawing 5 million people (June 14) and then 7 million (October 18) in more than 2000 towns and cities around the country, these were the largest mass demonstrations in American history. They were initiated or supported by a coalition of more than two hundred national organizations, but the actual gatherings have mostly been organized locally and autonomously. While many other protests have focused on particular issues, these huge rallies have functioned as big-tent gatherings — terrains where diverse people, groups, issues, and perspectives can all jostle together, debate, and share experiences. They also serve to counteract the feelings of isolation and helplessness the regime tries to foster, and the safety in numbers reassures people that they can take part without too much risk. (Hive mind is virtually impossible to surveil or control or co-opt.)

Immigrant support and anti-ICE actions. This issue has involved tense confrontations on many fronts. At the national level, legal actions have challenged the kidnapping and deportation of immigrants (documented or not), including to the torture prison in El Salvador. Despite the conservative leanings of many federal judges (many of whom were appointed by Bush or Trump), they have almost invariably ruled against the Trump regime’s actions, often adding scathing rebukes of the bad faith of the regime’s legal arguments and of its repeated failures to implement court orders. Meanwhile, Democratic state and local governments and various social justice organizations have responded with legal and logistical support; local communities have reached out with all sorts of improvised actions to help and reassure their immigrant friends and neighbors in whatever modest ways they can; and last but not least, thousands of individuals have courageously monitored ICE actions, organized ways to warn people of ICE presence, and even maneuvered to block or slow down ICE vehicles, risking arrest for their supposedly illegal actions (as if kidnapping wasn’t a far more serious crime). See, for example, these two articles: Immigration crackdown inspires uniquely Chicago pushback that’s now a model for other cities and Another Undaunted City: Charlotte defends democracy and decency.

The Gaza protests. The continuing mass murders in Gaza during the last two years have shocked millions of people and shifted a majority of the US population from its previous automatic support of Israel to widespread outrage against it. But note that although large American majorities (including a majority of Jewish Americans and the great majority of Democratic voters) are now opposed to the Gaza genocide, most Democratic politicians have remained subservient to AIPAC (the powerful pro-Israel lobby) — a glaring example of the disconnect between the masses of people and the political establishments that pretend to represent them.

The “Tesla Takedown” protests. These took advantage of the fact that one particular series of outrages — the accessing of public records and trashing of public services by the unelected and unaccountable “Department of Government Efficiency” — could be personalized, since it happened to be led by the richest person in the world. The boycotts and demonstrations at Tesla dealerships in the US and around the world crashed Tesla sales and stock valuation, leading to Elon Musk’s withdrawal from Washington and to his (temporary) split with Trump. Even though Musk is so rich that none of that mattered much to him financially, it felt like the protesters won that battle: It is very unusual to see one’s actions directly impact a billionaire corporation.

The Jimmy Kimmel boycotts. Most boycotts never get off the ground, and when they do it’s usually the result of months of planning and publicity, trying to convince masses of people that, among so many issues clamoring for attention, the particular issue merits their support. But when the Trump regime pressured Disney+/Hulu to drop Jimmy Kimmel’s popular television program, a lot of people were so infuriated that they independently and immediately canceled their subscriptions and let everyone else know about it — which inspired thousands of others to do the same, and so on. In less than a week more than 3 million customers canceled their subscriptions to Disney+/Hulu, those two companies caved, and Kimmel was back on the air with higher ratings than ever. See the Wikipedia article Suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live!

The Epstein Files. This particular issue has upset even many of the MAGAs, since part of the propaganda they have been fed for years was that Democratic politicians were listed in the Epstein Files and supposedly Trump was going to expose them once he got back into office. When the new Trump administration refused to release those files (because Trump himself was intimately associated with Epstein) the MAGAs had a lot of trouble processing it. Noticing this weak spot, anti-Trump people publicized and satirized the issue on every occasion. In mid-November this issue finally broke through the Republican congressional obstruction, and it seems to be dramatically accelerating the collapse of the MAGA coalition.

Nonviolence. Except for a few isolated incidents of vandalism (if you call that violence), all of these movements have been totally nonviolent. In the present context violent actions are so obviously counterproductive that they are almost universally recognized as the work of provocateurs (or possibly of a few thoughtless radicals who have not considered the actual effects of their actions).

Humor. Protests have always included satirical signs and slogans, but rarely to such a degree as now. The guy in Portland who thought of showing up in a frog costume inspired countless others around the country to do likewise — an amusing and effective way to undermine the regime’s claim that anti-Trump protesters are dangerous and violent criminals and that major cities are being destroyed by chaotic insurrections. It must be admitted, however, that Trump’s rants and self-glorifications are so delirious that it’s hard for any satire to keep up. In fact, it’s often difficult to tell which is satire and which is reality.

Self-care. A simple but valuable counsel was widely shared from the very beginning: Pace yourself. Don’t guilt-trip yourself and overdo it and get so OD’d that you end up dropping out. Pick a few doable projects that particularly appeal to you, while continuing to do what you need to do to take care of yourself and your loved ones and to carry on as human a life as possible under the circumstances.

So many other outrages and absurdities could be mentioned, any one of which in previous eras would have monopolized the headlines for weeks and resulted in shamefaced resignations by those responsible. Here, for example, is just the opening paragraph of one of Heather Cox Richardson’s informative daily newsletters:

House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) continues to try to pin the upcoming catastrophic lapse in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding on the Democrats. But with the U.S. Department of Agriculture sitting on $6 billion in funds Congress appropriated for just such an event, the Treasury finding $20 billion to prop up Trump ally Javier Milei in Argentina, Johnson refusing to bring the House into regular session to negotiate an end to the government shutdown, and President Donald J. Trump demanding $230 million in damages from the American taxpayer, bulldozing the East Wing of the White House to build a gold-plated ballroom that will dwarf the existing White House, and traveling to Asia, where South Korean leadership courted him by giving him a gold crown and serving him brownies topped with edible gold, blaming any funding shortfall on Democrats is a hard sell. [October 30, 2025]

It’s been hard to keep up. One of the main issues we face is the fact that we’re forced to face so many different issues. What we’re going through is so vast and confusing and rapidly changing that no one can pretend to grasp it all, let alone present a comprehensive account of it. I’m not proposing “hive mind” as some innovative theoretical concept that will explain everything. It’s simply a vivid and humorous image designed to call people’s attention to what they themselves are already doing.

Whatever you want to call it, the current anti-Trump movement has drawn in millions of people and spontaneously come up with all sorts of good projects and tactics. I don’t care whether they’re moderate or radical, so much as that people are getting involved and doing the best they can. Political awareness and political engagement are spreading to millions of people who used to be relatively unpolitical. It may seem pretty trivial to just sign a few petitions or attend a few rallies while others are getting arrested or deported, but that is more than most people used to do. And once they dip their toe in the water, they may decide to wade in further and start swimming.

One indication of this widespread awareness is that in writing this piece I don’t have to describe or explain very much. Most of the matters I’ve mentioned are already widely known, and in many cases pretty well understood. In fact, most of what I’m saying here is just paraphrasing points that countless others have already made, or at most suggesting a few broader contexts that may help them better understand what they are already doing. That’s what the situationists meant when they said: “Our ideas are in everybody’s mind.”

* * *

Although most people taking part in anti-Trump actions are quite aware of many of the flaws of the Democratic Party, I think it’s safe to say that virtually all of them believe that under the present circumstances it is imperative that the Democrats defeat the Republicans in the coming elections.

I happen to share that view. So do many (though not all) of my situationist, anarchist, and ultraleftist friends, who, like me, are normally very dubious about that party and about electoral politics in general.

I encourage everyone to continue to give the Democratic Party all the criticisms it so richly deserves. Nothing will be gained by whitewashing it. I’m not going to go into all its corruptions and complicities here, or all the sordid nuances of political maneuvering in Congress; they are already being observed and debated by far more people than used to pay attention to such matters. I will just note that while many Democratic Party pundits were cluelessly advocating “moving to the center,” Bernie Sanders and AOC’s “Fighting Oligarchy” tour was attended by huge audiences around the country (many of them in red states) and Zohran Mamdani, supported by more than 100,000 volunteers, was decisively elected as mayor of New York City despite tens of millions of dollars of attack ads by his opponents and the hostility of the Democratic establishment. Those kinds of programs and those kinds of campaigns are the future of the Democratic Party, if it has any future.

In any case, during the coming year millions of people will be fervently focused on (1) primarying some of the worst Democrats and then (2) getting the maximum number of Democrats elected in the fall elections. As those elections approach, there will be more widespread awareness of the Republicans’ ongoing vote-suppression efforts, which have up till now been overshadowed by all their other outrages. They may already have swung the 2024 election to Trump (see Greg Palast’s article Trump Lost, Vote Suppression Won). In any case, the Republicans have even more threatening measures in view, including eliminating mail-in voting and, most importantly, requiring voter IDs that would effectively prevent tens of millions of American citizens from voting. Trump has openly bragged that if the Republicans can pass these new measures, “we’ll never lose the midterms and we will never lose a general election again.”

But those elections are still a year away. Meanwhile, there are plenty of issues that need to be dealt with now, without relying on the politicians. If you want the Democrats to do well in the next elections, the best thing you can do is support popular movements that force them to try to keep up with you. If you focus mostly on candidates and your candidates win, they may or may not follow through with their campaign promises; if your candidates lose, most of your efforts are down the drain. If you focus mostly on raising awareness of issues, that increased awareness will tend to help your candidates, but it will still be there whether your candidates win or lose.

Mass movements that focus more actively on issues are sometimes called “social strikes.” Such movements may function somewhat like a labor strike, but without necessarily involving work stoppages. While workers have the powerful leverage of stopping work, other sectors of the population can also exert significant leverage by other means.

Jeremy Brecher has recently written several informative pieces on social strikes. In Social Strikes vs. MAGA Tyranny he outlines the nature of social strikes and how they might relate to our present situation. In Social Strike for Social Self-Defense he presents four cases where social strikes actually brought down dictatorial regimes. Two them (Philippines 1986 and Serbia 2000) were responses to dictators’ attempts to steal elections. A 2024 social strike in South Korea nixed an attempted presidential coup. A 2019 “people’s impeachment” movement in Puerto Rico forced the resignation of a corrupt governor.

Other such movements have raised more general social issues, including two notable ones in France: the anti-CPE movement (2006) and the Gilets Jaunes movement (Yellow Vests or Yellow Jackets) of 2018-2020. For an overview of tactics and strategies in these and other types of “radical situations,” see chapter 3 of The Joy of Revolution.

Boycotts are one of the basic tactics that spontaneously occur to masses of people in these situations. Sometimes they succeed dramatically, as in the Jimmy Kimmel affair, or at least have a significant impact, as in the Tesla boycott. But in most cases it’s very difficult to carry out large-scale boycotts. Most billionaires are more anonymous than Musk, and in any case their ownership is spread into so many mutually interlinked multinational corporations that we can’t even keep track of them all, let alone boycott them all.

In a world where a few billionaires own or control practically everything, it’s difficult to make any significant change without tackling everything at once.

The most direct way to do that is a general strike. During the October 18 “No Kings” day, Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson called for a national general strike against the Trump regime. That may seem like quite a stretch under the present circumstances, but it’s nice that the idea is being bandied about.

General strikes are rare, but they have happened, including in the United States. (See Jeremy Brecher’s book Strike!) The most significant one in modern times was the May 1968 wildcat general strike in France, when more than 11 million workers occupied most of the factories in the country, despite the opposition of all the political parties (left or right) and all the labor unions. If you are curious about how that happened and how it played out, see René Viénet’s profusely illustrated book Enragés and Situationists in the Occupation Movement: France, May ’68. For a brilliant in-depth analysis, see Guy Debord’s article The Beginning of an Era. To get a little taste of what it felt like, see May 1968 Graffiti.

In my previous piece on Trump I briefly cited Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle and Comments on the Society of the Spectacle. I’m not going to say any more about that connection here. Instead, I encourage you to read a series of short blog articles by Eric Fattor that explain, in much more detail than I did, how those two books illuminate the whole bizarre Trump experience. You can start here and work back, but you will probably find it clearer if you start here and work forward.

* * *

Almost more sickening than Trump’s actions is the fact that such a large percentage of the American population has gone along with them so gleefully. The question is often posed: Are these people evil or are they just stupid? Some of them seem to be both. But I’m inclined to give most of them the benefit of the doubt and see them as people who, due to circumstances beyond their control or understanding, have let themselves be swayed by a constant diet of media manipulation. Especially those living in regions where they’re rarely exposed to any other perspectives.

Unfortunately, whether they’re to blame or not, this type of manipulation can habituate people into becoming pretty nasty. They may start out as justifiably upset about undeniably real problems; but once they’ve been convinced to blame those problems on scapegoats, they may find it increasingly addictive to experience the thrill of vengeance against the imagined crimes of those scapegoats. And once they’ve gone there, it’s hard to turn them around. As Mark Twain is reputed to have said, “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.’’ If the MAGAs don’t have the courage to admit that they’ve been bamboozled, they may have a hard time repressing it after Trump is gone — like in Germany after World War II, when large segments of the population were going around pretending that they had always been opposed to Hitler.

As for the billionaires and their highly paid mouthpieces who are orchestrating all this: “I don’t know what word in the English language — I can’t find one that applies to people who are willing to sacrifice the literal existence of organized human life so they can put a few more dollars into their highly overstuffed pockets. The word ‘evil’ doesn’t begin to approach it.” (Noam Chomsky)

Fortunately, there’s a lot more resistance to Trump than there was to Hitler. Partly because Hitler moved more gradually — it was years before the Nazis dared to openly do the sorts of things the Trump regime is already doing. The Nazis took care to hide most of their crimes; Trump posts his and brags about them.

The main reason the Trump regime has gotten so extreme so fast is that they’re in a race against time. The longer they’re in power, the more opposition they arouse. Their only hope is to carry out such rapid multifront attacks that they can destroy things and consolidate their power before sufficient opposition arises to prevent them.

All governments lie a lot of the time, and they usually get away with it. But a point may arrive when the sheer quantity of lies becomes not just unbelievable, but unworkable, and the whole edifice of bullshit falls apart. That is already starting to happen and it’s unlikely that Trump or any of his cronies can stop it, though they can meanwhile continue to cause a terrible amount of damage and suffering.

Because Trump has built a personality cult, not a movement. His mental health has been deteriorating for years (very visibly in the last few months) and he also appears to be in very poor physical condition. Before his term is over, he is likely to become so glaringly incapacitated that even his supporters will be obliged to admit that it’s impossible for him to function. When that happens, the MAGA coalition will splinter into its mutually contradictory tendencies. None of those tendencies have much coherence, and many of the key figures and their agents and accomplices will be terrified about their risk of accountability for the crimes against humanity they have so brazenly perpetrated, and rush to throw each other under the bus. Most of Trump’s cronies have no qualifications beyond being skillful ass-kissers, and the few who do have none of his charisma. The only thing uniting them is their fealty to Trump.

There is one respect in which Trump’s delusions of grandeur may turn out to have a kernel of truth. He may go down in history as the person who brought into the open more glaringly than ever before the utter insanity of a social system in which such an ugly and idiotic farce could occur.

Meanwhile, all of you who have been working against him in such a wonderful variety of ways: Please keep doing what you’re doing!

But don’t stop there.

KEN KNABB
November 25, 2025

 

---

Ken Knabb’s “Out in the Open: Remarks on the Trump Election” (2016), “Trump’s Spectacular Comeback” (2024), and “Hive Mind Strikes Back: Collaborative Resistance to Trumpian Fascism” (2025).

No copyright.

 

More Public Secrets