Trumpism
Boris Kagarlitsky (Rabkor) 10 April 2025
The term “Trumpism” has firmly entered the lexicon of journalists and political scientists since last fall. But we still need to understand what we mean when we use this word, what lies behind this concept.
In general, the use of personalized terms to describe a political phenomenon may not be entirely correct. For example, when Western leftists or Soviet intellectuals in the 1960s spoke of Stalinism, this often concealed an unwillingness to analyze in full the socio-political contradictions and logic of the development of Soviet society in the 1930s–50s. But at the same time, we must not forget that any political phenomena are created by people who leave their own personal stamp on them.
As I have already written, we are talking about a fundamental break with the traditions of the American political system, and indeed democracy in general as it functioned in the United States throughout the 20th century. Neither previously accepted commitments, nor the continuity or consensus that previously existed in the system have any meaning for Trumpist politics.
The formation of a political course can begin from scratch; all previous commitments are annulled. Such freedom of action is usually inherent in revolutionary regimes, but there is nothing revolutionary in the Trumpists' approach. They sincerely adhere to conservative views, and this is the first thing that unites them.
Alexey Sakhnin describes Trump's project as an attempt at a radical redistribution of resources (and power) not only between countries (at the expense of Europe and China in favor of the United States), but also between industries (in favor of the tech oligarchs from the president's entourage) and, of course, between classes.
I generally agree with Sakhnin's thoughts, with the only difference being that it seems that we are not dealing with a conscious and thoughtful strategy, but rather an instinctive and impulsive movement in a certain direction. But the direction of the process is obvious.
In essence, we are talking about revising the rules of the game that have been established within the framework of bourgeois democracy and the countries that formed the core of the world system since the time of the Great French Revolution. It must be acknowledged that over the past decades the system has become increasingly complex and confusing, and neoliberalism has given rise to multi-level socio-cultural fragmentation, when, for example, reactionary social policy could be carried out together with progressive cultural policy and under its cover.
The Trumpist response to the crisis of the system presupposes its radical simplification, and at the same time the unification and consolidation of all reactionary forces
It is curious that the admiration for technology is combined here with mistrust and even hostility towards science. Which, however, is natural. Technology presupposes practical opportunities for making a profit, waging war or simply satisfying the desires of those who control it. This is freedom for the Master and the customer. On the contrary, science inevitably requires the development of useless knowledge (its practical benefit may be discovered in a hundred years, or it may never be discovered, if by benefit we mean only direct profit).
Once again, we have to recall the famous formula of Rosa Luxemburg: “socialism or barbarism.” In the conditions of the almost universal failure of left forces, the crisis processes in the capitalist system not only did not slow down, but, on the contrary, acquired an unprecedented scale. Only the alternative generated by such a crisis was not progressive transformations, but the barbarity of right-wing radical populism.
https://rabkor.ru/.../editorial-columns/2025/03/07/trumpism/
Back
Boris Kagarlitsky: Historian, sociologist. Former director of the Institute of Globalization and Social Movements (IGSM).
|
|
Links Search |
