The US bourgeoisie is losing control of its political apparatus

ICC Introduction

We are publishing two contributions from participants in our 5 April 2025 international online public meeting of the ICC, and on the April 26 meeting in London on the same question, on tensions within the American bourgeoisie, both of which aim to continue and deepen the debate initiated at the meetings.

The contribution of MH shows that he agrees with the ICC on a number of points: the different manifestations of decomposition, such as the progressive disintegration of capitalist society, the development of political populism, the erosion of the ability of the bourgeoisie to control the political and social situation, the  re-election of Trump as a powerful factor in the acceleration of capitalism’s trajectory towards full barbarism, and the false bourgeois alternatives of anti-populism, anti-fascism and the defence of democracy.

The comrade has the merit of rightly criticising the formulation “crushing defeat for the American bourgeoisie” in the article “Neither populism nor bourgeois democracy ... The only real alternative is the worldwide development of class struggle against all factions of the bourgeoisie”.  This prompted the ICC to change the phrase to “resounding failure for the more 'responsible' faction of the US bourgeoisie".

This said, in his contribution the comrade emphasises in particular “the effects of the capitalist counter-offensive launched at the start of the 1980s” or that “the American bourgeoisie under Trump has launched a wave of attacks on working class conditions”. What does the comrade want to demonstrate with this? That the bourgeoisie is still firmly in the saddle and that the populist policy does not substantially affect its capacity to maintain power as a ruling class? Or that the proletarian struggle, despite signs of recovery, is still very weak?

Baboon criticises the contribution of MH at the meeting for tending “to underestimate the threat of populism, the tendency to the loss of control of the political apparatus” in the US. And Baboon is right, because the essential question in the life of the US bourgeoisie is indeed the loss of control over its political game, expressed in a revolt against the political elite, in populism more and more dominating and even winning national elections, in a general tendency to look for scapegoats, in the demand for the legalisation of violence against certain minorities, etc.

MH also says that he is not in agreement with the ICC, which tends “to overemphasise the weakness of the bourgeoisie vis-à-vis the working class today”. He writes that in order to make a correct analysis of the strength or weakness of the bourgeoisie we should start from “the key question for marxists [which] is:  how weak or strong is the bourgeoisie relative to the proletariat, ie. what is the balance of power between the classes?”

But the comrade is mistaken here, because when the ICC speaks about a weakening of the bourgeoisie it doesn’t say that its dominance as a ruling class is at stake. When the ICC says that there is a weakening of the bourgeoisie it doesn’t mean a weakness in relation to the proletariat but a weakness in its ability to respond to the needs for the management of its own political system, linked to the rotting of capitalism. In this case the argument does not hold, for even if the working class is weak, this does not exclude the bourgeoisie facing major difficulties in the control of its political apparatus. Moreover, historical experience has shown that even when weakened, the ruling class can effectively gang up against the proletarian struggle, as we saw, for example, during the repression of the Paris Commune in 1871. Thus, a weakness of the bourgeoisie does not necessarily or automatically imply a strengthening of the proletariat.

The conception of the balance of power between the classes is not the same question as the impact of the period of decomposition on the phenomenon of the loss of control by the bourgeoisie, and in this case it leads the comrade to the wrong conclusion that the latter is still strong enough to play out its Machiavellian skills and to “make use of the Trump faction to advance its interests”.  

In his reply Baboon shows why this is not the case, by giving examples of the existing disarray in the ruling class in the US, which does certainly not point to a “use of the Trump fraction to advance its interests”. The possibility of the US bourgeoisie to make use of Trump’s policy is very limited and certainly secondary to the dominant general erosion of its means to exercise its power. As Baboon puts it, “The bewilderment and confusion of the ruling class has been all the more profound” in the US bourgeoisie.

On the international level the US leadership has been in decline for years, not able to counter the growing chaos in the world. This is precisely the reason why Trump has decided to drastically change the US foreign policy, in order to “Make America Great Again”. But Trump will certainly not be able to redress the authority of the US in the world, on the contrary.

On the national level the Trump administration is heading towards a conflict with more and more parts of the state institutions (the educational world, some governors, universities, trade unions, jurisdiction, etc.) while “uncertainty over Trump's tariffs paralyzes U.S. businesses” (New York Times), and twelve U.S. states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade, seeking to stop Trump’s tariffs.

All in all, despite some points of agreement with the ICC’s position, MH still underestimates the degree of irrationality that has taken hold of the US bourgeoisie and which is expressed by various measures taken by Donald Trump. Whether in domestic or foreign policy, his approach lacks any consistency and is completely unpredictable, which only increases uncertainty and instability.

The ICC

 

Contribution by MH

A response to disagreements at recent ICC meetings

At recent ICC online meetings some disagreements have been expressed about the extent to which Trump‘s re-election represents a ‘defeat’ for the American bourgeoisie, and what this tells us about the balance of power between the classes today.

At the January meeting, while agreeing with the overall perspectives, I criticised an ICC article that described Trump’s re-election as a “crushing defeat for the American bourgeoisie.” An ICC sympathiser, ‘Baboon’, disagreed, insisting that Trump’s re-election was indeed a “crushing defeat”, and expanded on this view in comments after the March meeting:

“There’s no Machiavellianism here, no strategy or plan from the bourgeoisie as has been suggested in previous meetings and particularly by MH. Machiavelli is out of the window and instead of the strengthening of the state (state capitalism is the direct descendent of Machiavelli), we see the disembowelment of the most powerful state, its pillaging, as the mighty USA and its upper elements resemble a rogue state with elements of a regime like North Korea…”.

Just to be clear, I have never argued that Trump’s re-election was all the result of a Machiavellian plot by the American bourgeoisie, and I don’t think anyone else has either. I stated my own position quite clearly at the January meeting:

“The election of Trump is above all a step in capitalism’s regression into barbarism and it will be used by the American bourgeoisie as part of its continued and increasingly desperate attempt to brutally reassert its global hegemony.

“The growth of political populism today is a proof of the fact that the bourgeoisie has no more realistic options to manage the worsening crisis of its system (…) Populism is an expression of the decomposition of the bourgeois democratic process and of the mystifications around it. Fundamentally this is because, in the absence of a successful proletarian revolution, capitalism’s descent or epoch of decadence has now lasted for more than more than 100 years, and its open crisis for more than 50 years.

“More specifically it is an expression of the destruction of social cohesion, which was deliberately used by the bourgeoisie as a weapon against the working class as part of its counter-offensive from the 1980s (…) Today we are seeing the progressive disintegration of capitalist society, with the growth of authoritarian and even proto-fascist tendencies in the advanced capitalist countries.”

The ability of the bourgeoisie to control the political and social situation is eroding in front of our eyes – even in the most advanced centres of the system; the basic point I was trying to make in my interventions was that the bourgeoisie is still the ruling class, and as such still holds the initiative, which is why Trump’s re-election cannot be described as a “crushing defeat for the American bourgeoisie.”

Perhaps we need to remind ourselves what it means to say the bourgeoisie is a Machiavellian class? Above it is pragmatic; faced with a problem or threat, it will do what it has always done; adapt and manoeuvre, and attempt to direct and control change in such a way as to preserve its hegemony. Today, unable to prevent the rise of political populism due to the decay of its own system, the US bourgeoisie is forced to make use of the Trump faction to advance its interests, while attempting to put into place longer-term political options.

Baboon criticises me for underestimating the political weakness of the bourgeoisie (although he admits this weakness cannot be exploited by the proletariat). This seems a rather odd accusation to make; surely the worst mistake we can make today is to underestimate the strength of the bourgeoisie or the lengths it is prepared to go to preserve its power and privileges? The key question for marxists is: how weak or strong is the bourgeoisie relative to the proletariat; ie. what is the balance of power between the classes? And, as the ICC itself stated at its 23rd Congress, “in the balance of forces between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, it is always the ruling class that is on the offensive, except in a revolutionary situation”.

In this context, we need to highlight the fact that the American bourgeoisie under Trump has launched a wave of attacks on working class conditions, including the mass firing of federal workers, giving more powers to employers and tightening labour discipline; nor should we ignore the effects of the deliberately provoked climate of fear and repression aimed particularly at immigrant workers (which makes little sense from a capitalist perspective); the promotion and strengthening of racist and far right tendencies and ideologies, and the scapegoating of minorities, which can only make it harder for the proletariat to develop its class solidarity and fight back, while at the same time the bourgeoisie actively peddles its false alternatives of anti-populism, anti-fascism and the defence of democracy…

So where does Baboon’s emphasis on the political weakness of the bourgeoisie today come from? The ICC defends the position that political populism is a product of what it calls ‘decomposition’, which is based on the idea that a “stalemate between the classes” has existed since 1989. Is there something about the logic of this position that apparently leads its defenders to overemphasise the weakness of the bourgeoisie vis-à-vis the working class today? The problem for me is that the ICC’s analysis of a ‘stalemate’ either does not recognise, or underestimates the effects of, the capitalist counter-offensive launched at the start of the 1980s and the serious defeat experienced by the working class as a direct result; and the role of the breakdown of attempts at national autarky in creating a temporary breathing space for the capitalist system from the 1990s.

The ICC does appear to recognise there are issues here, because after my criticism at the March meeting it amended the article in question to read that Trump’s re-election represents a "resounding failure for the more 'responsible' faction of the US bourgeoisie". And in its own introduction to Baboon’s comments, while “fully agreeing” with the comrade’s contribution (!), it does at least warn that “the American bourgeoisie is not merely a victim of decomposition.”   

Today, despite signs of a recovery of class struggle, the proletariat remains in a very difficult and dangerous situation – I think we’re all agreed on that. Due to the weight of the bourgeoisie in the world’s most powerful capitalist state, Trump’s re-election is a powerful factor in the acceleration of capitalism’s trajectory towards full barbarism, which only underlines the fact that time is not on the side of the proletariat. The disagreement here is about the balance of power between the classes in this period – and the method we use to assess it. This discussion should continue, on the basis of views actually expressed.

MH, April 2025

 

Contribution by Baboon

ICC Meeting April 26: Response to the positions of MH on Trump and decomposition

I’d like to make some points around the Trump presidency and the question of decomposition from the positions of a comrade, MH, expressed at the above-mentioned meeting.

Is Trump being used by the bourgeoisie or is his election an expression of the latter’s loss of control?

For the second time in a couple of months comrade MH publicly welcomed what he called the ICC’s modification of its position on the consequences of the Trump presidency. Fundamentally, the ICC sees the latter as an expression of the rise of populism, the loss of control of the bourgeoisie and, because of the central position of US imperialism, a major blow to the global economic, military and social order of capitalism; i.e. a further dramatic twist in its decomposition. I think that MH agrees with the concept of capitalism’s final stage of decomposition but his understanding of the ICC’s position leaves some confusion. For MH the American ruling class, through its innate Machiavellianism, is using the Trump faction in order to reinforce its own position. This immediately tends to underestimate the threat of populism, the tendency to the loss of control of the political apparatus, the weakening of the US state and the further overturning and shattering of the world order therefrom. According to MH the idea of the ICC that Trump’s election was a disaster for the ruling class and capitalist order, has been “modified later to a blow to the intelligent faction”[1]. I don’t really see how this helps MH’s argument but the clear point here is that the ICC has not modified or altered its position one iota. Rather than expressing the “continuity” of Trump with the policies of the ruling class, as some elements of the Communist Left suggest, the ICC insists on the break with “order” that is even more significant and from the same dynamics – capitalist decomposition – that brought down the Eastern Bloc in 1989/90. The greater significance here lies in the weight of the global consequences from the undermining of US imperialism.

Generally speaking the ruling class underestimated Trump and did not believe that his second term would see him pursue his programme which was clearly laid-out in his adoption of the Heritage Foundation’s populist “Project 2025”[2] I clearly remember the disorientation and denial of the ruling class in reaction to the implosion of Russian imperialism in 1989 (until it manoeuvred to turn this into a major weapon against the working class with its campaign around the “death of communism”). Commensurate with the greater consequences to world order from the Trump election, the bewilderment and confusion of the ruling class has been all the more profound.  Typical of this is the Left political commentator Ian Dunt (“I” newspaper, 29.4.25) who initially thought Trump 2 would be just like his first term of office, but is now labelling him a “fascist”  and “imperialist” after initially describing him as an “isolationist”. And like his cohort and the rest of the left, Dunt campaigns for the need to “stand by democracy” in order to thwart Trumpism and the threat of fascism.

“Project 2025”, a programme of economic and political libertarian lunacy, was initially championed by British Prime Minister Liz Truss in her 44-day tenure in September/October 2022. It took dramatic action from the World Bank, the IMF, the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the US State Department – what the populists call “the deep state” - to unceremoniously oust her and her clique from power. But Trump is not Truss and although these august organisations have tried to rein in Trump through various mechanisms – and have had some success – Trump controls the State Department and these organs[3] that have served capitalism throughout decadence well have undoubtedly been weakened along with many other institutions for the management of capitalism’s decline.

Trump and his programme does not represent a coherent political response by the bourgeoisie and the latter is not using Trump as his deranged policies have overturned the world order and significantly deepened political and economic chaos at the global level. The (ICC) meeting pointed to the analysis of the Wall Street Journal and its criticism of the Trump regime and we can add other criticisms from respected economists. We haven’t heard much from the intelligence services and we won’t, but these various services must be tearing their hair out. These organs are not just spies but the absolute guardians of national defence, national integrity and national interest. They need solid agreements, protocols and pacts which are clear frameworks to work in including for the sharing of sensitive information. But, like the weakening, undermining and dismantling of the economic structures and bodies built up over decadence in order to cope with the permanent crisis of capitalism, the weakening of the frameworks for the intelligence services represents further problems for the bourgeoisie. These factors also express how the decomposition of capitalism affects and weighs on the structures of state capitalism.

Trump’s continual processes with the US courts, win or lose, will also feed and maintain the “anti-Trump”, “anti-Fascist” movement globally, which is trying to con the working class with their support for nationalism (Canada for example) and democracy supported by the left-wing of capitalism[4].

 

Baboon. 30.4.25

 

ICC footnotes:

[1] The sentence concerned was in fact changed into: "resounding failure for the more 'responsible' faction of the US bourgeoisie". This and the following footnotes have been added by the ICC.

[2] Project 2025 (also known as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project) is a political initiative to reshape the federal government of the United States and consolidate executive power in favor of right-wing policies.  It was published in April 2023 by The Heritage Foundation, an American conservative thinktank. But Trump has openly distanced himself from it

[3]  “These organs” means in particular the economic institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF, the Federal Reserve, etc.

[4] We have not included here the last section of Baboon’s contribution on “The attack by Tibor on the ICC’s thesis on decomposition is also an attack on the marxist method used for its production”.